bit off topic but it's the same "politicians" (i will let you decide how honorable or corrupt they are.) that are presenting the arguments for scotland staying part of the union. not seeing many arguments positive or otherwise in the Independence thread started by baldyboy. what should be read in to that.
It is not and has never been part of the constitution of the UK to have referendums. The very few referendums which have ever been held on any subject (almost at random and only in the last 50 years) have been ad hoc political stitch-ups, a device for papering over the cracks in one or another party. I have always supported the idea of a fundamental change to our constitutional structure, in the form of an Act providing for binding referendums to be held in well-defined circumstances and for prescribed types of high-priority matters. This would, of course, mean abolishing forever the supremacy of Parliament, since Parliament would be bound by the outcomes of referendums. Under this system, top of the list in importance would be matters such as how the head of state is elected, how both chambers of Parliament are elected, how the government is elected or appointed, how the judiciary are elected or appointed, how local government is organised, and how the UK as a whole is structured. Next down the list come proposed items of legislation, most importantly on taxation and public expenditure, but on other issues too. Down at the bottom of the list come the ratification or denouncing of international treaties, such as those committing the UK to the United Nations, the Commonwealth, NATO, the Council of Europe, and the European Union. If this were ever introduced, and I would be very pleased to see it, there would need to be a considerable number of referendums, probably several each year. It would certainly take several years to work down to the Treaty of Lisbon. However I fear that in practice there would be little support for this proposal in practice, since it is far too radical for almost everybody. In the meantime, the political system of the UK is what it is. And the proposal for a referendum about the EU is what it is, a tawdry devious political stitch-up.
I`m very pleased to read you are in favour of numerous referendums a year and I agree with much of your post. It is a shame though that you feel this would be too radical a proposal as while I cant say I have carried out a thorough survey, everyone I have told what Glid has relayed to us about the Swiss referendum system thinks it a great idea and would be delighted to have such a system here.
You wholly misrepresent my position. I would not be opposed to - in fact I would greatly favour - a system in which referendums were held regarding defined categories of important matters. It would be a drastic constitutional reform for the UK, obviously. What I am strongly opposed to is a system in which there is no general legal provision whatever for referendums, but the idea of a referendum is floated occasionally on an ad hoc basis whenever some group fails to achieve whatever it is they want via the ordinary political process, as a joker in the pack, a second bite of the cherry by the back door. Out of the myriad of issues and problems which continually face the body politic, is it OK for a pressure group to pluck just one issue and demand a referendum on their special obsession, disregarding everything else?
The Swiss system is unique in Europe, and very different from any other country. There are parallels though, for example some US states have provisions for "propositions" to be added to the ballots in elections, and the results affect states' laws and constitutions. Unfortunately it can go badly wrong, as (e.g.) in California where various voter-approved propositions oblige expenditure but restrict taxation and borrowing to such an extent that the state Governor has his hands tied; the state finances are in a total mess, which is inextricable because of irreconcilable but binding propositions. In several states voters have approved measures which blatantly violate the US constitution, and hence have been later overturned leaving further messes. The British way for centuries has been a gradual, organic development of institutions, not revolutionary shock like other nations. Could that change, I wonder? We have never had a defined, written constitution, just a collection of Acts, rules, precedents and customs. I would rather favour a written constitution, but there seems to be virtually no pressure at all for this from any quarter. Again, could that change?
Are you suggesting that the issue of quitting EU membership is a "special obsession" and by inference, a fringe issue? I am in favour of continued EU membership but I am in no way going to accuse its opponents of being "obsessed" - well, not unless they demonstrate obsessive tendencies. Then I shall be happy to use that term. Hypothetical question - if the majority of UK's population (counting only those eligible to vote) are against EU membership, and there was no legitimate political party willing to act on this desire, how would that make you feel? Oh wait, did I say "hypothetical"?
Do we have a popcorn smiley? C'mon @El Toro , you must know? Whilst I admit I'm lost with most of it , this thread is making great educational reading Do carry on
BBC news had a feature on illegal immigration today.I think there is alot more concern about this than eu immigration.Cant say I blame them coming from a war torn hell hole and risk life to get to a better place. I guess we cant let everyone in though and as said must be very difficult to tell the genuine stories from made up ones. BBC News - Migration surge hits EU as thousands flock to Italy
Pete is of course right that there is no written UK constitution, and so no obligation to have a referendum about anything. Were I to still have a vote in the UK, I would be fairly uncomfortable about some of the power of the country being transferred to Brussels. After all, in theory, you could say that ALL the UK Parliament's power could be transferred to Brussels, if the ruling party in the HoC (and HoL) voted for this to happen, and the UK people would just be left with some MEPs in a much larger Parliament. So it seems only reasonable that the British people have their say as to whether they are happy to be "disenfranchised" in this fashion. In somewhere like Switzerland, absolutely everything is written into the constitution, such that the government has to ask the people's permission to upgrade their fighter jets (at a cost of a few billion) to the Swedish Gripen. This they had to do a week ago and guess what, they didn't get the go-ahead: the people thought it was a waste of money.
On an individual level, immigration is quite sad. There must be those who don't like where they were living much, and are a lot happier living elsewhere (I'm one of them). But I suspect that most would prefer to stay where they are if only they had any opportunities to better their lot. After all, that is what they are used to, and that is where their friends and family are. But it is also quite obvious that it just isn't physically possible for all the people who'd like to come and live in the UK to live there. There isn't enough to do, or enough housing, transport etc. So even if the lengths to which many immigrants will go to get to the UK in terms of expense and hardship is admirable, it is just not possible to accommodate them. And if you tried to, that would just encourage more. It's a sad story with no real winners. It is also true that the UK is a very small collection of islands. If immigrants are real asylum seekers, then the general idea is that they just don't want to be shot at or tortured. In theory, there are an awful lot of countries that fit this criterion (certainly in Europe) yet somehow, Britain seems to be the destination of choice. So it's hard to separate economic considerations in the immigrant's mind from security ones, otherwise they might go to Rumania or Hungary or somewhere. Maybe some do (though Hungarian is probably not that easy to learn).
But you have mentioned only half of the issue. The UK has gained exactly as much power over all the other EU member states as other states have gained over the UK. The UK, through our elected MEPs, our Commissioners, and our ministers in the Council of Ministers, have gained wider influence to precisely the same extent as other members' MEPs, Commissioners and ministers have gained influence over the UK. It is not a question of "power being transferred to Brussels", it is a question of mutuality. It's a two way street, just as with the UN, NATO, etc. Just as the millions (literally) of Brits living and working in other member states are ignored, and only the millions of folk from other members living and working in the UK are noticed. Surely it is only saloon-bar Daily Mail-readers who assume everything goes one way. But you know better, don't you Glidd?
In case you have forgotten, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Labour Party had a strong Europhobe wing - and was soundly beaten in the polls again and again. Then there was a flip - the formerly Europhile Conservative party became Europhobe and was soundly beaten again and again by the turned-Europhile Labour party in the 1997 - 2001 -2005 period. Europe has been a big issue in every UK general election for the past 40 years, plenty of anti-Europe candidates have stood in every election in both large and small parties, and they have been comprehensively beaten every time. So yes indeed, your question is hypothetical as you rightly say. In 1974, the Labour party was so deeply split over Europe that the only way Harold Wilson could keep the party together was to kick the can down the road, i.e. promise a referendum (and deliver it, incidentally). Today it is the Conservatives who are split in much the same way, and David Cameron is utilising the same political fix - kick the can down the road by promising a referendum, as a desperate expedient for keeping his party and his coalition together (he won't have to deliver it because he'll be out of government). Pragmatic yes, principled no. Cameron's principles are rather like Wilson's - conspicuous by their absence.
see UKIP have been working with Asda on the World Cup support Asda defends ‘wearable England flag’ that 'looks like Ku Klux Klan outfit' | Metro News
OK, we will continue to ignore my question and concentrate instead on what you feel more comfortable discussing. I have no desire to make things difficult for you, after all. Do you have evidence to show that it was the Europe issue that was the cause of these parties' turnaround in fortunes? I was around in the 1970's, and the 1980's and blow me if I wasn't around in the 90's and 00's too. I seem to recall that what was bringing down governments and thrusting political rivals to power were issues like UK labour relations and UK economics. UK taxation policies. Inflation. Unemployment. Recession. Any of these ringing any bells with you? Certainly, the electorate didn't seem to take The Common Market terribly seriously in the 70's. I don't recall it being much of a talking point, against a backdrop of "three-day weeks", etc. It did feature in a lot in comedy sketches, though. Even in the 80's, far more attention was paid toward purely domestic issues - Personal Equity Plans, Personal Pensions, Endowment Mortgages and, dare I say it, "loadsamoney". And even in the 90's, Europe was still a side-show as far as the electorate were concerned, although its profile was rising. "New Labour" came to prominence - not because of its stance on Europe but because people were thoroughly sick of perceived Tory greed and were persuaded by Blair that he had all but broken the grip of the unions on the party (or at least, had control over it). Those were the political issues of the day, not Europe. I am not saying that the Europe issue was unimportant throughout this time frame - I am simply saying that it wasn't a deal-breaker against a landscape littered with broken trades unions, flittered-away North Sea Gas revenues, "New Labour", Thatcherism and all the other domestic policies and misadventures that occupied most people's attention, and kept people voting along their preferred party political lines. And why was a referendum demanded? Was it because referendums automatically unify warring political parties? Or was it perhaps so that politicians could, I don't know, find out what the voters actually desired? So that politicians could align themselves more closely to the will of the country and give themselves a better chance of getting re-elected? Thank you though for helping to reinforce my point. If you are asking me to defend Cameron's principles (or Wilson's) you're asking the wrong guy. I refuse to argue for something that clearly does not exist. Just because an unscrupulous political whore employs the promise of a referendum as a shabby means to delay dealing with a problem does not mean that the whole concept of referendums is sullied. Cameron is delaying the referendum because he simply does not want to deal with the coin-toss result. He wants sufficient time for people to lose interest in the whole EU thing. (Remind me to tell you the story of the King, The Magician and The Flying Horse sometime.) You have already conceded my point that membership within the EU is an issue that crosses traditional party divisions - so it really doesn't take a leap of logic to see that the question, "Stay or Go?" is best answered via a method that lends itself to avoiding the whole political party divide issue. People on both sides of the Left-Right divide have opinions on staying in Europe, and on leaving Europe. Enough Devil's Advocacy already, Pete!
Except it's not Asylum in the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you want to measure it in absolute terms Sweden and Germany take more asylum seekers than GB if you measure it in asylum seekers per head of population almost everyone takes more than us. Top of the table is Malta and don't try to tell me they have a bigger less crowded island than us
Interesting point about two way street and mutuality but the way you described it so succinctly to me just highlights some of the absurdity of the situation . Our culture here is so very different from say Cyprus for example , why on earth should we have any influence on their laws and practises ? I would be happier if we had no influence on Cypriot rules and regulations and they had none on ours. Nothing against Cyprus and Cypriots, they are both lovely but undoubtedly very different to us here. One size does not fit all.
