European Constitution Referendum-will you say yes or no?

European Constitution what do you think

  • Yes, it could only be for the good

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No. on the basis of one of many reasons I could think of.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not sure...........

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
The Great Liar has stated time and again that he will hold a referendum on the UKs ratification/acceptance of the European Constitution. News reports now indicate that if France votes NO then we can say goodbye to voicing our opinion on the question of Sovereignty.

Now we have focused on the Great Liar for some time now but is his view of our future participation in Europe indicative of that of the Labour Party in general?

Whats your view? those of us born before joining the EEC as it was then can recognise how far it has truly changed its spots. Those of you born after may see it in a different light.

The arguement at its basest level come down to this Queen or a President from an Obscure Eastern European country? Europe as an entity in the World Cup.......after all we all belong in Europe and to define sport along National Boundaries would surely contradict the ethos of the constitution? Service in a European Army..............implementing European Foreign Policy, you may serve within the same National group taking orders from the same Officers; just that orders for your deployment would be isued from Brussels. Plenty more questions where those three came from.
 
#2
I voted no.

Not for the scaremongering ' What if's?" but for one simple reason.

Does anyone remember that the EC was the EEC? The European ECONOMIC community , not the 'European Community"

It's turning into Eurovision , how long before we invite Israel to join?

I am in favour of an economically united Europe , with no cross border tariffs and a free market. I am NOT in favour of the path that El Presidente is trying to drag us down.

And why have we slid down this route? Because the British public are so apathetic, they let this happen.
 
#3
Thank you PTP I had remembered that it was supposed to be a European Economic Community across which we would be able to trade freely and equally;Britain then was shamefully misinformed by Heath and it is now as a Federalist Super State championed in its Fedarilst form now by the Lib Dems :wink:
 
#4
Letterwritingman said:
Thank you PTP I had remembered that it was supposed to be a European Economic Community across which we would be able to trade freely and equally;Britain then was shamefully misinformed by Heath and it is now as a Federalist Super State championed in its Fedarilst form now by the Lib Dems :wink:
As I recall, when we joined, the EEC had moved from its original trade club to a farmers club. It has now moved on to a bureaucrats club. Hence the need for a constitution. Bureaucrats (aka lawyers, poli's) love rules.

I WILL vote NO simply because I think a yes vote will be seen by the powers that be in europe as 'we have a mandate for federalism'. It will also mean more and more politicians, administrators, and bureaucats that the rest of us will have to pay for in taxes.

When the European Constitution stands for less government it will get my vote. Until then - No, nein, non, and fcuk off
 
#5
IMHO: Europe as an economic trading bloc is a good idea, but once ‘economic’ is taken to read as single currency then that’s an entirely different matter. The imbalance of GDP across the countries of the EU; different social security / welfare / pension systems (do you want to pay for French OAPs? The French can’t afford to); taxation; public spending as a whole… Germany is a prime example of a country being crippled by European single policy bureaucracy.

As for political and cultural unification, I have grave doubts about this as history shows us that all European empires have been destroyed in time, with nations breaking out in the name of cultural identity. We have too many languages, too different political traditions, too many ingrained state / religion relationships, too different legal systems, too different cultural temperaments, too much history and too many tribal memories for this idea to flourish into reality. I am not xenophobic in the least, having friends of many nationalities and having lived happily for significant periods of time outside of the U.K., but we should, each country, preserve our uniqueness, relish our differences but continue through diplomacy and individual friendships to forge good tempered relationships across Europe.
 
#8
I think that Britain should be at the heart of Europe: just like Switzerland :twisted:, i.e. in the European Economic Area & European Free Trade Area (which is what we were told we'd effectively signed up to in the first place), NOT an EU supestate. Blair should hang for treason for signing his name on that damn "constitution".

Good old Boris talking some sense in the Torygraph today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...1902.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/19/ixop.html
By Boris Johnson
(Filed: 19/05/2005)

Let's face it, when you hear the kind of Frenchmen who are lining up to oppose the new European constitution, you can't help wondering whether it might be a good thing after all. The communists are against it. The trade unions are against it. Huge numbers of old Lefties are going to vote Non at the end of next week, and for the most peculiar reasons.

It is altogether choquant, they say, when they have finished reading it. It is nothing but neo-liberalisme and turbo-Thatcherisme. Voyez! they say, pointing with horror at article 1-3 paragraph 2. It is the law of the jungle, the free market red in tooth and claw. See where it is written that there shall be "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted". An internal market! Free competition! No distortions! Quel horreur, sacre bleu and bien je jamais, they say. The French electorate sway beneath the anti-capitalist rhetoric, and once again the Non campaign is in the ascendant. What is going on, mes amis?

Here we are in Britain, with well over half of us preparing to vote No, as soon as we are given a chance, because we think the European constitution means yet more interference and regulation from Brussels. There they are in France, in a state of gibbering paranoia, because they think the constitution is an "Anglo-Saxon plot" to export croissants from Tesco and populate the Trois Vallées with ski instructors from Surbiton.

The French seem to be against it for precisely the reasons - free trade and competition - that moderate Euro-sceptics should be broadly for it; and British Euro-sceptics are against it for precisely the reasons - more regulation and interference - that your average French Lefty should be in favour of it. We can't both be right. One of us must be mad, and the answer (I suppose I would say this, but it is true) is that the French Non campaign has seized the wrong end of the stick with awesome tenacity.

There is much that is new in this text, and much that is wrong, but whatever you think about the free-market stuff, it is certainly not the first time it has been enshrined in the basic treaties of the EU. In fact, the current hoo-ha in France is a testament to the ruthless way in which the French élite has traditionally withheld the details of EU agreements from the population. Their eyes bulge, these poor French trade unionists, as though it was the first time that anyone in Brussels had ever mentioned the concept of the single market. Well, here is article 3 c of the 1957 founding Treaty of Rome, which calls for "an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between member states, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital".

The 1957 treaty goes on to insist that there is a "system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted". Yes, the new EU constitution has plenty of pious words about ensuring that there should be no unfair state aids and other subsidies. But so did the Treaty of Rome, and the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice.

There is nothing new about any of this, and the amazement in France at this free-market language is like that of the fellow in Molière who finds that all his life he has been talking prose. The French debate is absurd, with everything about it topsy-turvy except the conclusion.

They certainly should vote Non, but not for the reasons they think; and so should we.

Since there is nothing new in the free-market stuff, we in Britain have nothing to gain from the constitution, and could manage perfectly well with the existing texts. What is new, and dangerous, and anti-democratic, is the extension of majority voting into yet more areas of government and human life; and for those unfamiliar with the ways of the EU, majority voting is the system by which the wishes of the British Government - and therefore of the British people - can be crushed round the table in Brussels. If you seek an example of this political self-castration, look at the 48-hour week, which the present Government is trying pathetically to oppose, when it can now be forced upon Britain by a majority vote, and all because Blair removed the protection of John Major's social chapter opt-out.

No, the European constitution does not mean more free-market stuff from Brussels; it means more irresistible and pernicious regulation, with more majority voting envisaged on questions of technology, education, social affairs and Giscard's pet plan to have a decent European space rocket. And THAT, of course, is why the French should vote against it, if they had any sense. They are being scarified by unscrupulous politicians with tales of a Tebbit-like constitution, full of free-market on-your-bikery, and they have been somehow brainwashed into believing that the problems of France are caused by rampant Anglo-Saxon capitalism. The exact opposite is the case.

The reason the French have massive and chronic unemployment is that they are governed by an élite still gripped by a demented belief in the Colbertian lump-of-labour fallacy. They have excessive taxation, regulation and bureaucracy, and the last thing the French (or anyone) need is more detailed prescriptions from Brussels about the labour market or anything else.

Insofar as the European constitution mentions the free market, it is simply banal and unoriginal.

Insofar as it extends majority voting, it is damaging and undemocratic.

Insofar as it tries to create a common foreign and security policy that all members are bound to support "in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity", it is just wacky, when you consider what happened in Iraq.

Insofar as it wants to put a Frenchman on the Moon, that might be a noble aim if his name were Giscard, but it is otherwise completely unnecessary to the building of a bigger, better, brighter, free-trading European Union, and my strong advice to those about to vote is, français, françaises, votez non! Votez souvent!

Boris Johnson is the MP for Henley and editor of The Spectator
 
#9
I vote non.

It means cosying up to the French. That says it all really.

BTW, if you are really against the EU (like me) then support Turkey's accession. It will make the whole project virtually meaningless, oh, and annoy the French too. We call this a "Win-Win."

V!
 
#10
Climbs onto soapbox...

It's the stated aim of many on the continent to create a country called Europe. The Europhiles here in Blighty won't dare mention it. I firmly believe we're better off running our own affairs, and that's not said because of blind patriotism. Logically, how can the same policies on tax etc be right for our economy and Poland's? We didn't become the fourth biggest economy in the world by harmonising with Europe, we did it by being British, and it's not insular or xenophobic to say so!

See the the www link below for info on the No Campaign, if you'd like to give the European Union (sounding like a nation state already) a bloody nose.

...Steps down from soapbox to give someone else a go.
 
#11
I will vote NO

Simply I want us the British people to decide our future and our governments, decide our foriegn policy, decide our defence policy (if we have one :roll: ) and control our own finances.

I am totally against Brussels in its current form; nepotistic, cronyism and full of corrupt second class politicians :evil:
 
#12
DozyBint said:
IMHO: Europe as an economic trading bloc is a good idea, but once ‘economic’ is taken to read as single currency then that’s an entirely different matter. The imbalance of GDP across the countries of the EU; different social security / welfare / pension systems (do you want to pay for French OAPs? The French can’t afford to); taxation; public spending as a whole… Germany is a prime example of a country being crippled by European single policy bureaucracy.

As for political and cultural unification, I have grave doubts about this as history shows us that all European empires have been destroyed in time, with nations breaking out in the name of cultural identity. We have too many languages, too different political traditions, too many ingrained state / religion relationships, too different legal systems, too different cultural temperaments, too much history and too many tribal memories for this idea to flourish into reality. I am not xenophobic in the least, having friends of many nationalities and having lived happily for significant periods of time outside of the U.K., but we should, each country, preserve our uniqueness, relish our differences but continue through diplomacy and individual friendships to forge good tempered relationships across Europe.
DB - I echo Awol's comment - this makes too much sense. The logical explanation is that you're sitting in Chijmes at this very moment in time with a wireless laptop and a chilled glass of wine... :wink:

lancslad
 
#13
I voted NO, Why do we need a Constitution? We as a nation have never had one. Don't worry it will go belly up as it only needs one nation to vote nien. That will come from poland, Norway or us.
 
#14
lancslad said:
DB - I echo Awol's comment - this makes too much sense. The logical explanation is that you're sitting in Chijmes at this very moment in time with a wireless laptop and a chilled glass of wine... :wink:
Oh dear, rumbled! :oops: :lol: That was in fact a compilation of the thoughts of random drinkers in Liberte! :wink:
 
#15
DozyBint said:
lancslad said:
DB - I echo Awol's comment - this makes too much sense. The logical explanation is that you're sitting in Chijmes at this very moment in time with a wireless laptop and a chilled glass of wine... :wink:
Oh dear, rumbled! :oops: :lol: That was in fact a compilation of the thoughts of random drinkers in Liberte! :wink:
In't that frog talk woman eh :evil:

something about Liberty, isn't that contrary to the United States of Europe ethos :wink:
 
#16
Letterwritingman said:
DozyBint said:
lancslad said:
DB - I echo Awol's comment - this makes too much sense. The logical explanation is that you're sitting in Chijmes at this very moment in time with a wireless laptop and a chilled glass of wine... :wink:
Oh dear, rumbled! :oops: :lol: That was in fact a compilation of the thoughts of random drinkers in Liberte! :wink:
In't that frog talk woman eh :evil:

something about Liberty, isn't that contrary to the United States of Europe ethos :wink:
Sorry LWM, but as lancslad will confirm, that is the name of the bar & I'm honestly not to blame! :? They do serve good voddy cocktails though! :D
 
#17
The script for this entire thing has already been written! I believe if you were to watch the Star Wars films, comparing the evil empire with Europe, that would cover this situation quite accurately:

Episode I British Ambassadors sent to quell Naboo (France - non combatant state) trade union disputes. The Republic (Europe) representative Senator Palpatine (Jacques Chirac) urges that the current Republic cannot function and needs new leadership (himself)...

Episode II A secret Clone Army (EU Army) has been raised to help fight the separitists (those who do not want a European superstate) as there are not enough Jedi (British Army) to protect the Republic. Palpatine (Chirac) is appointed Supreme Chancellor and given special powers to fight Republic (EU) fraud etc. The politicial idealist Count Dooku (Tony Blair; trust him to want a title..) is causing difficulties with no-one sure which side he is on. Count Dooku (Blair) defeats Anakin Skywalker (Gordon Brown) and the Republic (European conspiracy) secret is safe for now...

Episode III Count Dooku (Blair) is stirring up all sorts of trouble in the Republic (such as the Iraq conflict...) and Palpatine (Chirac) whispers powerful things into the ear of Anakin (Gordon Brown) and sets a showdown between him and Count Dooku (Blair) in which Dooku (Blair) is slain (toppled in a leadership issue/forced to step down). The Jedi (British Army) have been savagely cut down by Anakin's (Gordon Brown) lightsaber (budget cuts) and the defence of the Republic is left to the Clone Army (EU Army) who rally around the unmasked evil emperor Palpatine (Chirac) who seizes power and renames the Republic to the Galactic Empire (of which he is titular head having emasculated all other leaders). Yoda (Micheal Howard), the elderly advisor to the JEDI (British Army & British right) is forced into exile. Anakin's body (reputation) is damaged by all this and he is rebuilt (re-branded) as a worrying dictator with a fetish for leather and talking strangely.

I am a bit bored now, but you get the point. I hope we get the opportunity to rebuild the JEDI under one of the Rebel Alliance (Conservative) leaders...
 
#18
An analogy without peer..............and contemporaneous too!


Errrr.........did anyone else swallow a dictionary today 8O

Edited because I couldn't read the swallowed dictionary....smartarrse
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#20
I'm certainly in the 'No' camp, for the simple reason that I do not want to see power concentrated in the hands of an unelected bureaucratic elite, no matter how well intentioned they are. In reality, a significant factor in the rise of Nazism was the disinclination of the German 'Establishment' to cede power to the Reichstag, largely because they were unwilling to trust the Social Democrats - generally characterised as 'Marxist' - as full-blown partners in ruling coalitions. Popular frustration with virtually meaningless elections, combined with various external factors stemming from Germany losing the war and World economic conditions led German voters to turn to the fringes of politics, eventually giving the Nazis an unarguable claim to take some part in the Government. Even then, Hitler gained the Chancellorship in a behind closed doors stitch-up, and with the express condition that his government would rule by decree rather than parliamentary consent.

Sound familiar?
 

Latest Threads

New Posts