Camoron blows it - Hints no EU referendum

#6
Without a clear policy and a meaningful promies of a referendum I will not vote Conservative.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Clear policy or I vote elsewhere, how many million people in this country want that referendum Cameron? Do you want to loose their votes?
 
#7
flipflop said:
Can someone point out a real difference between New Labour and Blue Labour?
There is no difference, they do what the civil servents tell them
 
K

Kirkz

Guest
#8
flipflop said:
Can someone point out a real difference between New Labour and Blue Labour?
Broon won't be there to get his arrse fooked!!!!
Or just the colour of the rose perhaps :roll:
 
#9
Mate, I dislike the current 'administration' as much as the next man. Wild horses wouldn't get me into the voting booth next May to put an 'X' against their candidate. However, we really are fooling ourselves if we think for just one minute that the next lot are not going to irritate, self serve, nest feather etc etc.

I suppose there are degrees of incompetency and we must hope that whoever the great British public put into power next time at least pretend to make a better fist of it. Or stop robbing me blind.

Whatever happens, I believe there are enough marginal Tory voters around, unconvinced by call-me-Dave to give UKIP and one or two others a few seats.

Let's hope so!
 
#10
Has that penny only just dropped?

Why do you think that Sun didn't wait until the end of next week to back him? They know full well the his conference has the potential to turn into a car-crash when Ireland passes the treaty and he has to tell everyone he isn't going to give them a vote. Against that background the Sun could never back him. By turning on Brown today, they get to side with Cameron in general but get to fool their simple-minded readers into thinking that they didn't see this coming, and so tell its readers that Cameron has stabbed they in the back after they gave him support in good faith.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#11

Hold on:

"If this treaty is still alive, if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a No," he said.

So what he is saying is that if it is already a closed issue, he won't reopen it because it would presumably make no difference anyway? But if it is still open then there will be a referendum.
That is not anything new.
 
#12
He'll have to live with more than just the EU headache after he inherits Brown's mess. Labour know full well its pretty hard to 'unsign' documents. Can't blame the Tories on this occasion.
 
#13
Alsacien said:
So what he is saying is that if it is already a closed issue, he won't reopen it because it would presumably make no difference anyway? But if it is still open then there will be a referendum.
That is not anything new.
Spot on.
 
#14
Alsacien said:

Hold on:

"If this treaty is still alive, if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a No," he said.

So what he is saying is that if it is already a closed issue, he won't reopen it because it would presumably make no difference anyway? But if it is still open then there will be a referendum.
That is not anything new.
No, it isn't anything new at all, exactly what Cameron has said all along.
However it is still not an acceptable stance, the bloody feckless git should stand up and state a clear policy. This is the man who will more than likely be our next PM and he's not shoing any sign of being much better than the current moron.
Does he realise how many million votes he is going to loose without undertaking to give us a referendum? If he gauranteed that referendum he would take every vote UKIP currently gets. He evidently feels he doesn't need them?
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
Is he not just hedging his bets until the Poles either ratify or throw it out?

If they say no (assuming Ireland say yes) then there's a whole can of worms right there.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#16
jagman said:
Alsacien said:

Hold on:

"If this treaty is still alive, if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a No," he said.

So what he is saying is that if it is already a closed issue, he won't reopen it because it would presumably make no difference anyway? But if it is still open then there will be a referendum.
That is not anything new.
No, it isn't anything new at all, exactly what Cameron has said all along.
However it is still not an acceptable stance, the bloody feckless git should stand up and state a clear policy. This is the man who will more than likely be our next PM and he's not shoing any sign of being much better than the current moron.
Does he realise how many million votes he is going to loose without undertaking to give us a referendum? If he gauranteed that referendum he would take every vote UKIP currently gets. He evidently feels he doesn't need them?
Sounds like a pretty clear position to me.
Referendum on what? If all countries ratify the treaty is done and dusted - you cannot un-ratify it.
He could kick off a referendum on EU membership, but I doubt that is the most urgent thing in the inbox....
 
#17
TopBadger said:
He'll have to live with more than just the EU headache after he inherits Brown's mess. Labour know full well its pretty hard to 'unsign' documents. Can't blame the Tories on this occasion.
That sounds incredibly hopefully wonderfully naively partisan.

What this does mean is that by the time of the next election, DC will know whether it is still being discussed. He will be forced to go into the election of either a manifesto promise of a referendum (like PM TB did in 1997, from memory) OR go into the election saying there will definitely not be a referendum. The second of those two options will lose him an awful lot of votes at the ballot box, and he knows it.

Of course, because he makes a manifesto commitment doesn't mean it will be kept. So Call Me Dave must really be hoping that the Irish don't ratify it.

Oh, and it is well within the remit of any government to "un-sign" international treaties. We can simply walk away and start afresh. But I don't think that he would have the balls.
 
#18
Bazzinho1977 said:
Oh, and it is well within the remit of any government to "un-sign" international treaties. We can simply walk away and start afresh. But I don't think that he would have the balls.

True, it's not as if they can come in and invade us and make us stay in their club.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#19
Sixty said:
Is he not just hedging his bets until the Poles either ratify or throw it out?

If they say no (assuming Ireland say yes) then there's a whole can of worms right there.
Ireland and Germany will ratify it.
Poles and Czechs will be left in a very strong bargaining position then don't ya think? :wink:
This factor is politically resolvable - standing by for a Mr Wyzkowalski to be announced as next head of the ECB/Council/etc
 
#20
Alsacien said:
jagman said:
No, it isn't anything new at all, exactly what Cameron has said all along.
However it is still not an acceptable stance, the bloody feckless git should stand up and state a clear policy. This is the man who will more than likely be our next PM and he's not shoing any sign of being much better than the current moron.
Does he realise how many million votes he is going to loose without undertaking to give us a referendum? If he gauranteed that referendum he would take every vote UKIP currently gets. He evidently feels he doesn't need them?
Sounds like a pretty clear position to me.
Referendum on what? If all countries ratify the treaty is done and dusted - you cannot un-ratify it.
He could kick off a referendum on EU membership, but I doubt that is the most urgent thing in the inbox....
But it isn't clear though really. Yes I understand that if the treaty has been ratified it changes everything however simly saying that if it has "I'll not let the matter rest there" means nothing.
What the electorate want is a clear statement of intent, ie exactly what he intends to do if the treaty has been ratified.
It isn't to much to ask really is it, what Cameron will do about a ratified treaty if elected.
I also recognise that he will have to make a clear statement according to the circumstances come election time but people want to know what the options are now. Vague muttering about doing something-ish just don't cut it.
All he has to say is that if the treaty has been ratified by the time the election comes round I intend to do X, Y and Z. Its not that complex, if he intends to accept the Lisbon Treaty as it is if it has been ratified then he should say so. If not then he should give us his policy.

And yes, I fully accet that getting a meaningful policy out of a politician is virtually impossible but if he wants the votes he needs to allow us to decide on the merits of what he intends. All he has done so far id dodge the issue.
 

Similar threads

New Posts