Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Documentation for New EU "Treaty" Released

CyberRose said:
What would you like in a European Constitution to make you vote "yes"?
Click to expand...

I'm not a laywer or a politician. I'm not here to dream up the constitution. I'm not paid to. However, what I do know, is that I would want it to have enough safeguards in it so that politicians can't run away with the power and always be accountable.

Now if Westminster is against the idea of presenting such a constitution to the people as a referendum, I know for a fact, that it wouldn't be good enough to wipe my arse with, let alone read.
 
YoursTruely said:
I'm not a laywer or a politician. I'm not here to dream up the constitution. I'm not paid to.
Click to expand...
Neither are the rest of the population, which is probably why deciding policy matters by referendums are not a good idea! :D ;)

Seriously tho, what safeguards would you like to see to make EU politicians more accountable?

And why do you think they are unaccountable today?
 
CyberRose said:
Neither are the rest of the population, which is probably why deciding policy matters by referendums are not a good idea! :D ;)
Click to expand...

Then why involve people in the democratic process at all?


Seriously tho, what safeguards would you like to see to make EU politicians more accountable?
Click to expand...

Well for starters it would be awfully nice if the voters directly elected the commissioners, no?

Oh and you said foreign policy is so important. Yet a man or woman who was not elected by a single fucking European citizen would be charged with co-ordinating all of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_R...Union_for_Foreign_Affairs_and_Security_Policy

You might argue that member states have their say on foreign policy, but at the end of the day an unelected executive will be the centre cog of it all and he or she will spin and play ball when it suits them.

And why do you think they are unaccountable today?
Click to expand...

See above. There's nothing that addresses the distance that the commision is between it and it's citizens that pay for it all.
 
YoursTruely said:
Then why involve people in the democratic process at all?
Click to expand...
Smilies are usually used to indicate that a joke was made (hence no smilies in this sentence)

Well for starters it would be awfully nice if the voters directly elected the commissioners, no?
Click to expand...
I agree that the Commission could be made more democratic. However, they are nominated by an elected national government, so there is an element of democratic accountability there. But perhaps the greatest democratic accountability is the directly elected Parliament's power to dissolve the Commission should they find their actions that bad (as they did a few years ago)

Oh and you said foreign policy is so important. Yet a man or woman who was not elected by a single fucking European citizen would be charged with co-ordinating all of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_R...Union_for_Foreign_Affairs_and_Security_Policy

You might argue that member states have their say on foreign policy, but at the end of the day an unelected executive will be the centre cog of it all and he or she will spin and play ball when it suits them.
Click to expand...
The High Representative represents the Council when they have agreed on a joint foreign policy. You're agument would be the same if you attacked the head civil servant of the Foreign Office for not being democratically elected. The Council comprise the (elected) national governments of each member state, and in the field of foreign, security and defence policy they have a veto. The High Representative cannot represent the Union on matters that have not been agreed by the Council (ie national governments) just as the head of the Foreign Office cannot represent the UK with the approval of the Foreign Minister or Prime Minister.



See above. There's nothing that addresses the distance that the commision is between it and it's citizens that pay for it all.
Click to expand...
But no Commission initiatives can pass into law without the approval of the Council (elected national governments) for all initiatives and the directly elected Parliament for the majority of initiatives...
 
I do wish you would drop the pretence of wanting to know what my opinion is, as a member of the public my opinion counts for nothing until there is a referendum.


At which time someone other than you can explain how the nuanced differences between the 1998 Human Rights Act (already on the statute book) and the proposed Charter of of Fundamental Rights
 
gosub said:
I do wish you would drop the pretence of wanting to know what my opinion is, as a member of the public my opinion counts for nothing until there is a referendum.


At which time someone other than you can explain how the nuanced differences between the 1998 Human Rights Act (already on the statute book) and the proposed Charter of of Fundamental Rights
Click to expand...
Oh I AM sorry for asking for your opinion on a subject we are discussing! What on EARTH was I thinking?!

I'm interested because I'd like to know whether you're arguing from a left-wing or right-wing perspective...
 
CyberRose said:
Do you honestly think the major concern of the British people when going to the polls is the European Union?! Come off it! Hardly anyone I know even knows what an MEP is, so how can you try and tell me that a great deal of the public actually care about the EU to the extent they know what it is? The only time people develop strong feelings about the EU is when there's an article in the Sun making some racist reference to World War II and how the EU is Hitler
Click to expand...


Careful what you wish for.


There was quite an Interesting section on 27/09/07 Question Time Timestream :11:35 - 25.00. Which raised a couple of points :

Firstly John Denham said the Dutch have ruled out a referendum (conclusion of meeting of link in post 99) The same thing happened fist time round in Holland, subsequently Dutch MP's voted for a referendum. As well as pointing out that matters in Holland are by no means certain, it also raises what should be an important question here in the UK - namely how much effort i.e. Whips are the British Government going to use in order to ram this through Parliament?

Secondly, I had been hoping that pro Intergrationalists would have aped Open Europe and put out a pdf which shows what new content (post Nice) there is in the treaty. (presumably taking their lead from a twice disgraced former Cabinet Minister, currently occupying an unelected; not individually accountable; and immune from prosecution role who says keep quiet) A lot of the treaty, as did the constitution goes over the same ground signed up to in previous treaties.....Is this to make it inpenetratable or was it originally designed to reach out for broader agreement to these treaties than those that had already agreed them? A third option of double checking the previously franchised seems nonsensical, at least to me.



Lastly, not relating to the current treaty but the previous attempt (if you take politicians at their word) you learn the following from the program:


"a good treaty for Britain, and we will put it the British people in a referendum, and campaign wholeheartedly for a yes vote" Labour Manifesto 2005

"The original constitution left open the slim possibility of our criminal law could be changed without either an elected British government or elected British parliament wanting to do it "Secretary of State for Innovation; Universities and Skills, John Denham

How can the possibility of criminal law being changed without government nor Parliament wanting it, be good for Britain?
 
1441642151_836b0bfadb_o.gif



I knew a bloke who used to moor at Victoria Park used to say that those animals were unique due to having a C**t on their back. Beach at Bournmouth during Labour conference.


Lifted the photo from order-order, though am quite upset at the stunt he pulled on the FCO blog most British troops are too far away and under resourced to make any comparison with Burma, on trying to deal with that issue I give the government credit.
 
The final, as agreed by lawyers treaty to be signed at IGC (Was available Friday, sorry been busy)


The European scrutiny committee at the Commons have clearly taken work home with them over the summer, here they do not appear to be too happy, with the way compleing the treaty was carried out, that the treaty bears significant difference to the previous constitution,nor about having Parliamentary oaths undermined.


Last week the ruling party in Denmark waded in with regards democracy idiotic not to to put it to a public poll


Rally organized for 27th October details here
Democracy Movement have put up a 7 page mini site here
 
Today's PMQ's


Amid the the talk of honesty and listening, the Prime Minister claimed that ".....the treaty is not fundamental change ......."


WERE THIS TREATY RATIFIED, WHAT MECHANISMS OF DEMOCRATIC SCRUTINY AND ACCOUNTABILTY WOULD BRITAIN HAVE ON FUTURE FUTURE MOVES TOWARDS EVER CLOSER UNION?

Treaties put forward by an organization the UK would not be able to leave on its own accord, (another part of this treaty) in dierct violation of "no parliament may bind its successors", as would be an honest answer to my shouty question.
 
CyberRose said:
Why would closer union be a bad thing?
Click to expand...


Well, we are already at the stage where the Prime Minister can stand up at Labour conference and outline strategic visions and goals apparently blissfully unaware that their incompatibility with EUropean commitments makes them unachieveable, or as with his praise of Hilary Benn and low energy light bulbs carry on oblivious to EUropean directives. I mention the light bulbs because it has indirectly really annoyed my Ops manager who had a tidy side line in antique barometers.

Carry on like this and they may as well stop anyone in political parties coming up with policies, as they are bound to be incompatible with EU rulings far too complicated for anybody to bother themselves with:rolleyes: and leave Peter Mandelson as the only Brit with the vision, competence and judgement to shape the lives of everybody on the continent.:eek: :mad:

The only thing transparent about this whole sham is the naked contempt of those in power have for the electorate.

76 percent of Germans, 75 percent of Britons, 72 percent of Italians, 65 percent of Spaniards and 63 percent of French want a referendum according to the latest polling by Harris for the FT
 
Ha! I doubt 75% of Britons give two shits either way about the EU!

But how about this for a compromise, seeing as you're so "concerned" about democracy...

I put it to you that to have a referendum on the Reform Treaty would be undemocratic as that would mean the media corporations would eb the ones to decide whether or not we have a Reform Treaty (notice how they managed to turn people against the "job destroying" Charter of Fundamental Rights which can only benefit the little man and be disadvantageous for the rich - such as, yep, rich media barons)...

...so...

How about a referendum combined with a test about the EU - if you fail the test on the EU then you have demonstrated you know nothing about the EU and your vote will be binned...

Sound like a good idea?

Or are you still clinging to the only means the right have to oppose the Reform Treaty - myths in the media designed to stifle any real debate over the advantages of the EU because the right know that in any open debate between pro- and anti- EU types the pros always shoot the antis out of the water...
 
So you like my idea that only people with knowledge about what they are voting for should have a say in the Reform Treaty then?
 
CyberRose said:
Ha! I doubt 75% of Britons give two shits either way about the EU!

But how about this for a compromise, seeing as you're so "concerned" about democracy...

I put it to you that to have a referendum on the Reform Treaty would be undemocratic as that would mean the media corporations would eb the ones to decide whether or not we have a Reform Treaty (notice how they managed to turn people against the "job destroying" Charter of Fundamental Rights which can only benefit the little man and be disadvantageous for the rich - such as, yep, rich media barons)...

...so...

How about a referendum combined with a test about the EU - if you fail the test on the EU then you have demonstrated you know nothing about the EU and your vote will be binned...

Sound like a good idea?

Or are you still clinging to the only means the right have to oppose the Reform Treaty - myths in the media designed to stifle any real debate over the advantages of the EU because the right know that in any open debate between pro- and anti- EU types the pros always shoot the antis out of the water...
Click to expand...


It will be, rightly, Parliament's decision as to whether a referendum occurs. Government has already retreated from Mr Martin's toes as to whom has responsibility for riding roughshod over the British Constitution, though as unprecedented second Labour speaker in succession presiding over the Commons with Labour in government, if the treatment the Private Member's bill seeking to amend the Freedom of Information Act is anything to go by I haven't got my hopes up. But then there is the actual passage through Parliament.

It would too much to expect that our elected representatives stand by the previous public consultations of the EUropean electorates and boot this reheated attempt to remove still more competences from where they are democratically accountable. It is not too much to ask that they stand by their manifesto commitments, and support an amendment calling for a plebiscite.


The one real regret I have in the 10 years since I stumbled into this narcoleptic debate, is that too much ground was given in the late '90's, namely that to be "pro EUropean" means supporting the EUro project. I do not think member states both existing or lining up to join should be compelled to move towards entry. Compelled is probably too strong a word given the references in the current text, but a snarl up at the IGC or in ratification would leave scope for further softening. If Brown had any intention of going down that route his claims of standing up for British national interest whilst shaping EUrope wouldn't seem so laughable. Uncle Gogi may be dead, but you don't have to be Sir L. Bob Rife of St. Gregory to see that Maltese(for example) financial institutions have long, proud and prestigious history and should hold back, if only for a short period from a policy which may only be rivaled by its flirtation with Napoleon in terms of masochism.


As far as I'm aware Blair and the head of the Civil service were the only two involved in the two week discussion with the most powerful East German since the days of the Stasi, they, not some media baron opted the UK out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


I believe a referendum would lead to creative ways forward as yet unvoiced as public attention would be drawn to the issue and drown the entrenched and increasing antogonistic views of those currently giving the matter their attention.
 
Looking at the comments section regarding the FCO a claim of bias does appear to have been levelled. Even though as it stands the "Independent article" reads like the whole debate centres around 'red line' issues and spurious claims relating to them. (You wish Gordon)


What was an untruth and an untruth perpetrated by a Government Minister and former Minister for Europe, Peter Hain, on the BBC's flag ship politics program Question Time last night.

Question Time website

The EUropean question didn't come up until the final ten minutes of the problem - state media can't make life too tough for the government, (Beeb's still reeling from a previous infraction that cost it a journo, an editor, a DG and a reduced license fee settlement) but as Gordon sipped champagne in Lisbon, the Beeb tried to honour it mission statement on nation speaking truth unto nation...

Peter Hain says from 55:16 "that Westminster will now have the chance to join other nation in vetoing proposals from the EUropean Commission."

That the EUropean Commission had to resort to the this chicanary to get the Constitution through is down to current system where any one member state can veto legislation, and the electorates of two already did.
 
I don't understand what you mean when you say "That the European Commission had to resort to the this chicanary to the the Constitution through" - what "chicanary"?

I didn't see that part of Question Time (switched it on, saw Melanie "Sand in her vagaina" Philips and turned off! Tho I expect you're quite a fan of hers?) but would Hain not have meant nations vetoing proposals from the Commission as in Directives, not Treaty proposals (who I don't think the Commission have any say in, just the Council - ie nation states)
 
gosub said:
Two clicks and a slide makes for a more informed debate.


Guardian got a statement out of the "Independent" editor
Click to expand...
I don't get your point?

(In fact, your posts have become more and more like the ramblings of a madman the longer this thread goes on, which is a trend I've noticed in a lot of rabid anti-EU types!)

Oh by the way, don't have a pop at the Independent for using the Foreign Office's info when you appear to get all your arguments from here.
 
:confused: @ Cyberrose or rather Cyberrose is:confused, as TAE demonstrates. I'll ignore the insults, and I'll have to take his word on is written in the Sun , its not a 'newspaper' I read.

Rory Bremner on Bremner, Bird and Fortune last night offered a piece of flawed inductive reasoning that HMG have yet to put forward, incredible as that sounds but they have yet to offer up "it can't be a constitution, because we are not having a referendum on it".


They have tried just about everything else from the early copying 96% isn't plagiarism; through its different because we have secured the same op outs as with the original attempt; to only if the five areas of interest to the government go against us, will we sign anyway then campaign for a "yes" vote in a referendum; or the current line of attack:

Gordon Brown, PMQ's 17 October 2007
I see that the right hon. Gentleman has given up on the health service now. Let us come to the European issue. In 1992, every member of that shadow Cabinet refused a referendum on a far more significant treaty. The Foreign Secretary voted against a referendum on Maastricht. Why is this treaty different? It is different because it is not a constitutional treaty; it is an amending treaty. Why is it different? It is different because we won a protocol in the charter of rights, we got an opt-in on justice and home affairs, we got an emergency brake on social security, and we have exempted the security issues. All those changes have been brought about in the past few months, and that is why not one Government in Europe—apart from the one in Ireland, which is bound constitutionally to have a referendum on anything—is proposing a referendum on this treaty. Just as those on the Conservative Front Bench voted against a referendum in 1992, they should have the honesty to vote against it now.
Click to expand...

While he is quite right that only a small handful of Conservative MP’s who defied a three line whip to vote for a referendum, (I actually helped secure the idea and part of the funding for RP actually endorsing these candidates) and that he voted for a referendum. But what he completely ignores is that he is signing up to change that treaty, not only that but if Mr Brown’s word is worth anything future attempts to tinker with this treaty will not happen for at least another 10 years. Odd that a man who bangs on about his convictions and defending British national interest, made no attempts to address the financial aspects of this treaty or take advantage of the natural opportunity it provided for his previously thwarted convictions.


In short: if this treaty was a different treaty then I would want a referendum, as it is this treaty changes a treaty that I want a referendum on in ways I'm not concerned about so I don’t want a referendum on it. Who needs satirists when the government is this much of a joke.
 
There should not be a referendum however similar the Treaty is to the Constitution and there should never have been a referendum promised for that.

If you're concerned about democracy and British tradition then you should oppose a referendum because to have a referendum on the Reform Treaty will not be a decision by the public it will be a decision by Rupert Murdoch and the other right-wing media barons.

You claim to support democracy so why do you think policy should be decided on by media barons and their millionaire allies like Paul Sykes?

You claim to support British tradition so why do you not think Parliament should decide, as they have done for 100s of years without holding referendums?

Do you think the electorate should have been given a referendum to ask them if they wanted to let women have a vote? Do you think the public should have been given a referendum to ask them whether they wanted the death penalty abolishing? Because I can tell you now in your ideal world women would not have the vote (ever) and the we'd still be hanging criminals like barbarians.

There should be no progress in society if we let referendums decide whether or not to introduce policy because it is just too easy to stifle debate, hide information and insure that everybody that votes will be voting for everything but the actual subject of the referendum.

If you want a debate about whether or not the Reform Treaty should be ratified then you can either post up your opinions on the CONTENT of the Treaty and how these reforms will be negative for the EU and the UK, or you can just crawl back to your right-wing mates and moan and cry about whether you want a referendum while hiding from entering into an actual relevant debate on the subject...
 
CyberRose said:
If you're concerned about democracy and British tradition then you should oppose a referendum because to have a referendum on the Reform Treaty will not be a decision by the public it will be a decision by Rupert Murdoch and the other right-wing media barons.
Click to expand...

Right wing media barons didn't do much to oppose past EU integration. The electorate barely understands what EU membership means because our politicians and the media chose to make sure of it. If the EU is so good for Britain, why do you think they did that? And please, let's not try to pretend it's because the people wouldn't understand it. And this still isn't a left/right wing issue, unless you think democracy itself is the preserve of the right?

You claim to support British tradition so why do you not think Parliament should decide, as they have done for 100s of years without holding referendums?
Click to expand...

Because parliament has been handing our right to democracy to the EU for over 30 years, and we have very little chance of getting it back. Parliament before that was subject to democratic controls; ie it did NOT bind its successors.

There should be no progress in society if we let referendums decide whether or not to introduce policy because it is just too easy to stifle debate, hide information and ensure that everybody that votes will be voting for everything but the actual subject of the referendum.
Click to expand...

And isn't that exactly what our senior politicians, assisted by the media, have been doing for decades ... stifling debate and hiding information? Major constitutional changes like this demand a referendum, especially when all mainstream political parties committed themselves to one.

David Cameron's trying to fudge the issue now with his six ifs - if the opponents of the treaty failed to defeat the Government in the Commons; if they failed in the Lords; if the Prime Minister did not change his mind; if there was not an early election; if every other country ratified the accord; and if no other EU state held a referendum on the issue - he might commit himself to post ratification referendum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
Kid_Eternity
Collective - new left wing party?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
153
Views
6K
redsquirrel
R
Kid_Eternity
New Labour government - legislative agenda
26 27 28 29 30
Replies
896
Views
30K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
editor
Cyber-flasher first to be jailed for new offence after WhatsApp pic
Replies
11
Views
689
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
cupid_stunt
New Year Honours 2023
Replies
25
Views
1K
quiet guy
Q
Back
Top Bottom