ChatterBank1 min ago
Pretending
To be Anti europe but Never intend to withdraw from Europe. The Tory Party. Agree ?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nope not pretending just split
one part is ideologically or emotionally opposed - one part is in favour for practical and strategic reasons
In some cases both in the same MP!!
There's been a multi-year truce where both sides of the party have ignored the "elephant in the room" but that looks like breaking up now and Cameron is desperately trying to keep everybody on board.
one part is ideologically or emotionally opposed - one part is in favour for practical and strategic reasons
In some cases both in the same MP!!
There's been a multi-year truce where both sides of the party have ignored the "elephant in the room" but that looks like breaking up now and Cameron is desperately trying to keep everybody on board.
That's true Geezer but the split in the Tory party is much more even.
The Labour dissenters tend to be the old left wing survivors who aren't so representative.
I do think the "Common marketeers" are either living in the past or desperately trying to pour imaginary oil on troubled waters.
The world has moved on - that's not on offer any more - It's a bit like a bunch of people trying to convince a music shop that they really ought to stock 8-track
The Labour dissenters tend to be the old left wing survivors who aren't so representative.
I do think the "Common marketeers" are either living in the past or desperately trying to pour imaginary oil on troubled waters.
The world has moved on - that's not on offer any more - It's a bit like a bunch of people trying to convince a music shop that they really ought to stock 8-track
-- answer removed --
If we withdrew from the EU (lets not mess with anaolgies)
There would be a major power block in Europe the US Russia and China and us sitting on the outside - our world influence would diminish like a rock down a well.
I work in the European headquarters of a major US company - they don't want a UK base - they want a European base.
The Americans don't think of Britain first - they think Europe
There would be a major power block in Europe the US Russia and China and us sitting on the outside - our world influence would diminish like a rock down a well.
I work in the European headquarters of a major US company - they don't want a UK base - they want a European base.
The Americans don't think of Britain first - they think Europe
I don't agree, we signed up for the Common Market, nothing wrong with trading agreements and cooperation. Aside from the vapourous, "it's moved on" and "we need the EU", from the EUphiles, none of them have ever told me why we have to surrender control of our nation in order to cooperate with a "common market", after all that's the last vote we had based on the lies of the treacherous Heath. This way we have the worst of both worlds, we could have all the benefits of autonomy and of copperation and I mean for all the EU countries not just us out and all the others in.
As blasphemous as it is to say it, the reason we appoint and pay MPs is because we want professional, clued-up politicians who will make sensible, informed decisions rather than automatically pandering to the populist sentiment of the day.
About two thirds of people want to bring back the death penalty, but no credible politician would go along with that because their job is to consider the wider implications rather than just tabloid editorials.
About two thirds of people want to bring back the death penalty, but no credible politician would go along with that because their job is to consider the wider implications rather than just tabloid editorials.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
>I don't agree, we signed up for the Common Market
Agreed, I did not sign up to pay child benefit for children living in Poland.
Particularly when the administration of the system is so bad they are propbably getting child benefit from Poland AS WELL, or the person does not even live in the UK any more, or even that the children do not exist in the first place.
What a ridiculous situation.
Agreed, I did not sign up to pay child benefit for children living in Poland.
Particularly when the administration of the system is so bad they are propbably getting child benefit from Poland AS WELL, or the person does not even live in the UK any more, or even that the children do not exist in the first place.
What a ridiculous situation.
Quinlad - “... we want professional, clued-up politicians...”
Actually, I don't want a “professional politician” to represent me. To me, the phrase “professional politician” suggests someone who has been in politics all their lives. A person who goes from University down a career path mostly unrelated to a normal world of work until they eventually end up as a candidate for a seat at a General Election.
I want my politicians to have had a wealth of experience working in the real world doing real jobs. Most of the newcomers to politics these days got into politics after having had a relatively short career; typically in law or, God forbid, Public Relations. Some have come to politics direct from University. I have no doubt that these individuals excel academically and on paper look suitably impressive.
I understand that politicians have a duty to, “... consider the wider implications rather than just tabloid editorials...” on various issues. But they are also their constituent's spokes person and as such, they have a duty to represent and address their constituent's views in Parliament.
Actually, I don't want a “professional politician” to represent me. To me, the phrase “professional politician” suggests someone who has been in politics all their lives. A person who goes from University down a career path mostly unrelated to a normal world of work until they eventually end up as a candidate for a seat at a General Election.
I want my politicians to have had a wealth of experience working in the real world doing real jobs. Most of the newcomers to politics these days got into politics after having had a relatively short career; typically in law or, God forbid, Public Relations. Some have come to politics direct from University. I have no doubt that these individuals excel academically and on paper look suitably impressive.
I understand that politicians have a duty to, “... consider the wider implications rather than just tabloid editorials...” on various issues. But they are also their constituent's spokes person and as such, they have a duty to represent and address their constituent's views in Parliament.
Continued...
The whole despicable Lisbon Treaty charade is a classic example of politicians not listening to the concerns of the public. The argument put forward by the Labour Party that this newly ratified treaty is completely different to the European Constitution and therefore the referendum that was promised is null and void is completely dishonest. Anyone who has looked at both these documents can see that they are the same thing with different wording.
If a referendum had been held in this country on whether to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, everyone knows the overwhelming majority would have said 'no'.
If the overwhelming majority of people in a country disagree with their Government on European integration (which, after all affects everything from taxes, immigration, legislation, the military, policing, etc.) don't you think that the politicians have a moral duty and a responsibility to let the public vote on this matter?
The whole despicable Lisbon Treaty charade is a classic example of politicians not listening to the concerns of the public. The argument put forward by the Labour Party that this newly ratified treaty is completely different to the European Constitution and therefore the referendum that was promised is null and void is completely dishonest. Anyone who has looked at both these documents can see that they are the same thing with different wording.
If a referendum had been held in this country on whether to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, everyone knows the overwhelming majority would have said 'no'.
If the overwhelming majority of people in a country disagree with their Government on European integration (which, after all affects everything from taxes, immigration, legislation, the military, policing, etc.) don't you think that the politicians have a moral duty and a responsibility to let the public vote on this matter?
And in answer to the original question, I agree.
The Tories are currently in opposition and they are doing what all opposition parties do – they check to see which way the public's view is pointing and suggest that, were they to get in power, they would listen to the people and do their bidding.
This is complete hogwash and everyone 'should' know it. But history has proven time and time again that the public (ie. the majority – not necessarily everyone) are gullible fools who believe everything they're told and stupidly labour under the delusion that promises from politicians who are seeking power will actually be honoured.
According to the BBC, Cameron has said that all future treaties would be put to a public vote. He's also promised a sovereignty bill if the Tories win the next election to "lock in" the supremacy of UK laws.
Total and utter rubbish. This will not happen. Not when he's got his feet well and truly under the table at Number 10. Once that happens (and I have no doubt that it will), it will be business as usual.
The Tories are currently in opposition and they are doing what all opposition parties do – they check to see which way the public's view is pointing and suggest that, were they to get in power, they would listen to the people and do their bidding.
This is complete hogwash and everyone 'should' know it. But history has proven time and time again that the public (ie. the majority – not necessarily everyone) are gullible fools who believe everything they're told and stupidly labour under the delusion that promises from politicians who are seeking power will actually be honoured.
According to the BBC, Cameron has said that all future treaties would be put to a public vote. He's also promised a sovereignty bill if the Tories win the next election to "lock in" the supremacy of UK laws.
Total and utter rubbish. This will not happen. Not when he's got his feet well and truly under the table at Number 10. Once that happens (and I have no doubt that it will), it will be business as usual.
There is very little difference between Labour and Conservative policy when it comes to the EU.
Which is unfortunate for Cameron, because the Tories core voters are very Euro skeptic.
So they both have the same policy, but they have very different audiences. Cameron needs to capture a large percentage of people who voted Labour last time, so he is pursing similar policies as Labour have done for the last 12 years. This is mostly fine, except on Europe where the party is evenly split pro and anti EU. It is a difficult tightrope act that he is attempting, and he might yet fall off.
Which is unfortunate for Cameron, because the Tories core voters are very Euro skeptic.
So they both have the same policy, but they have very different audiences. Cameron needs to capture a large percentage of people who voted Labour last time, so he is pursing similar policies as Labour have done for the last 12 years. This is mostly fine, except on Europe where the party is evenly split pro and anti EU. It is a difficult tightrope act that he is attempting, and he might yet fall off.
One part of your questio I agree with is that Cameron has never said that he has any intention to withdraw from Europe. No mainstream party does.
This is because doing so would be devastating for the country.
If you ran a country entirely on public opinion you might as well go and give Rupert Murdoch the keys to number 10
This is because doing so would be devastating for the country.
If you ran a country entirely on public opinion you might as well go and give Rupert Murdoch the keys to number 10
One good thing has come from the EU or Common Market , whatever you like to call it. Peace in Western Europe , but that was because trade was more profitable than war , not because of genuine unity . In the present financial climate most of the present members are putting their own country first and over the past 50 odd years when actual fighting was required who has done ( and is doing ) most of the fighting ? Some members fail to participate in so called united agreements, France refused to be a member of Nato , Germany says its constitution doesn't allow them to fight only in self defence, and so on . We only have one voice amonst 27 which is no better than we would have if we were outside the EU. All this talk from Cameron is already being debunked by our EU partners.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Offers & Competitions3 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Technology12 mins ago
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|