It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Referendum on EU "Treaty"

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Just came across this site whilst browsing
proreferendumrally.co.uk...

It appears there is a lot of organised support for a referendum - which we were promised in the last election.

The pro europe at any cost groups will probably try to dismiss it, as usual, but surely it's our right to vote on something as important as this.

I still believe that this is the constitution in all but name, and that the arrogant politicians are trying to get it in through the back door.




posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
So, yet again, the europhiles on ATS are proved to be fudging the issue, just like their heroes, Brown and Blair


The original version of the constitutional treaty was also an “amending treaty”, in the sense that both the original and the new version take over the text of the existing treaties but add lots of new content as well. The substance has remained the same. It has just been made more difficult to understand.

As Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the leading author of the constitution, said: “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”

All the important changes in the constitution remain: the introduction of majority voting in many new areas and the reduction of member states’ ability to block legislation when majority votes are taken; the new powers of the Court of Justice in criminal justice and policing; and the new institutions such as the council president.

Only Britain is pretending that this new treaty is a different animal from the defeated constitution; and even here ministers have implicitly conceded, falling back on the argument that we have secured opt-outs and defended red lines.

source

Not to mention this
and this

It has come to something when members of your own party are pretty much calling you a liar, as has happened with "prudence"

The arrogance of "new" labour beggars belief, and I for one am fed up of it - even if the tories are not cohesive and viable as opposition, that's how I'll be voting in the next election - all assuming prudence has the nerve to call one.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Just because there is a variety of view on this new treaty it does not make the anti view correct.

This Gov has negotiated several opt outs and the so-called 'red lines', this is not the same as the old so-called 'Constitutional' treaty.

But personally I really hope the tory party go for it & do their usual anti-EU routine.

There's nothing surer to burst the tory's little fake bubble of credibility with the British public
(who remain - no matter what the anti-EU crowd claim - firmly bored to death by the anti-EU rhetoric).



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
In your view,
as the article states very clearly (written by a member of the labour party) it is the old constitution in all but name, with the UK the only country throughout the EU to pretend otherwise.
The "red lines" are a red herring, which has also been stated.

I'm not specifically anti EU, but I AM pro democracy, and that's not what we're seeing here with prudence.

UK/EU politics is getting as two faced and hypocritical as US politics.
Two thirds of the electorate want a referendum - are they all rabid anti EU? I don't think so.
This is about the hypocrisy of the current labour leaders and their contempt for the electorate, which we see more of every day.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
In your view


- It's not a 'view' it's a fact.

Just because there is a variety of opinion about this that does not make the anti view the correct one.


Originally posted by budski
as the article states very clearly (written by a member of the labour party)


- .....and if it's really news to you that there is a variety of opinion in the Labour party then I'm afraid you've been badly misinformed.

But again, just because there is a small minority of anti-Europe feeling in the Labour party and the Trades Unions it proves nothing
(don't you remember the early 1980's?).


Originally posted by budski
it is the old constitution in all but name, with the UK the only country throughout the EU to pretend otherwise.


- I think you'll find that the UK is the only country in Europe which has negotiated opt-outs and exemptions.

That's why it's just not the same & that's why there's no need for the disruption and expense of a referendum
(which would inevitably disolve into an 'in' or 'out' one...... which the anti crowd would lose, again).


Originally posted by budski
The "red lines" are a red herring, which has also been stated.


- No, someone has given their own (highly loaded) opinion about those red lines and exemptions.
That hardly makes it 'the truth' about them.


Originally posted by budski
I'm not specifically anti EU, but I AM pro democracy, and that's not what we're seeing here with prudence.


- Well the truth is that in our representitive democracy referendums are not "democracy".
Government by referendum (no matter what your personal opinions on any single subject) is not especially 'democratic'
(which is why dictators throughout history have always loved them).


Originally posted by budski
UK/EU politics is getting as two faced and hypocritical as US politics.


- In your view.



Originally posted by budski
Two thirds of the electorate want a referendum - are they all rabid anti EU? I don't think so.


- ......and if you honestly want to kid yourself that 2/3rds of the British public are seething & highly exorcised about this cos you saw a poll somewhere then you're just kidding yourself.

No matter what the anti-Europe element tries to pretend the British public are not manic about Europe and the EU and that's the end of it.


Originally posted by budski
This is about the hypocrisy of the current labour leaders and their contempt for the electorate, which we see more of every day.


- No.
Let's cut the BS & just own up to what this really is about.

The tory/anti-New Labour Labour-ites/anti-New Labour Trades Unionists/anti-EU elements think they can opportunistically coalesce around this and get a bit of a bandwagon going to pressurise the Gov.

There's nothing more to it than that.

Like I said I really hope the tory party go nuts about it (and it's been illuminating at just how reluctant they have been to say much about this), if the tory right get Cameron to run and run with this it's the end for Cameron.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

I can tell you're a supporter of new labour by the spin - not to mention that you deny, deny, deny.
This refusal to look at the facts, and try and spin it so it seems unimportant is standard prudence.
Really, can't you do any better than to repeat mandy's tactics?


But I have to say, if the tories do run with this, rather than the issues which most concern people they are going nowhere, so on that we agree.

The fact remains, whichever way you try and spin it, we were promised a referendum and you said the treaty was nothing like the constitution so a referendum was a moot point, now that we have seen that they're the same, I suppose you think we still don't need a referendum, despite the promise of one.

Ah well, just another broken promise - like 7 days to save the NHS.


[edit on 16/10/2007 by budski]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I'm wondering about the prospect of a labour rebellion, but then the lib dems may save Brown's arse at the last minute, but then they're on 11% in the polls and have killed their leader whom everyone liked (if did not follow), so they may not want to annoy the electorate any more. Curious, but until the politicians face the voters on Europe, the voters are right not to trust the politicians.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
And in todays news, guess what?
The new treaty is exposed as a sham and is the old constitution in all but name.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Is that a deafening silence I hear from the "Europe at any Cost" brigade?

Why yes it is.


So now Brown and Blair are shown once and for all as the liars they really are - but I already knew this - just a shame so many have been taken in.

So, sminkey - still trying to deny?

Some pro's and copns from both sides of the debate:
news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 30/10/2007 by budski]



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I just love the way suddenly the anti-EU brigade choose someone they have always despised and called anti British, anti French, a traitor, a liar etc etc as the font of all truth and accuracy when it suits them.

BTW that BBC pro and con link is excellent and makes many good points
(including pointing out the prefectly reasonable grounds the Gov has for saying this treaty is not identical to the original one)

[edit on 30-10-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by sminkeypinkey
 


I'm not anti EU - I'm just not "united europe at any cost" - and I do love to point out the hypocrisy of our present government and it's leaders (inc. Blair)

Glad you liked the bbc link - I thought a bit of balance was in order as I didn't want to appear to champion the anti EU point of view.

Still, it has to be said that prudence AND blair have lied their asses off, regardless of the source.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I'm not anti EU


- Actually I didn't mean that to sound as if I thought you were, I meant it in a more' generic' manner rather than specifically 'pointed' at you.


Originally posted by budski
I'm just not "united europe at any cost"


- ....and I can honestly say I have never seen or met anyone who is (alive at least, maybe Caesar, Napoleon or Hitler might fall into that category but I genuinely have real trouble thinking of a serious credible living example).

Come on, that's an absurd proposition.


Originally posted by budski
I do love to point out the hypocrisy of our present government


- Pointing out that politics is an almost impossible series of choosing between changing & competing priorities and commitments is hardly anything new.
You call it 'hypocrisy' (tho I really don't see it a fitting description here) others might just recognise it as the truth of adult reality.


Originally posted by budski
and it's leaders (inc. Blair)


- Did you miss the news that Tony Blair is no longer in the British Gov?


Originally posted by budski
Still, it has to be said that prudence AND blair have lied their asses off, regardless of the source.


- Looks like you're never going to accept the changes to the agreement are real, substantial and mean it is not 'just the same' as what went before.

Get over it, there will be no referendum.

.....and the crass tory opportunism & base hypocrisy is laid bare in this.
Cameron is refusing to agree to a referendum over this (if the tory party ever get back into power).
It will go before parliament, they will do their debating and amending and it will get Royal Assent.
That will be the end of the matter.

......until the next treaty comes along in which case the anti side will go through their 'sky falling in' routine', yet again.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Couple points - yes I do know blair isn't the PM anymore or even an MP - but he's so much a part of the lies that I had to include him.

Yes it will go through parliament, but denmark and maybe france (big if) could be a problem - will probably go through in the Irish referendum though - they've probably gained more from being in the EU than any other country.
Isn't the treaty also self amending? Does this mean that we will have no more treaties, just amendments to the existing one - in which case it becomes a multi-leader dictatorship.

I also know that lying politicians have been around for a long time - so has murder.
Just because it happens, doesn't mean we should all blindly accept it.

In a way, I hope the tories DO get in - at the very least it'd be a kick in the nuts for all the labourites who thought they were invincible.
And at least we might see an end to the top heavy hierarchies that labour introduced as a way of trying to rig future elections, particularly in the NHS.

[edit on 31/10/2007 by budski]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Couple points - yes I do know blair isn't the PM anymore or even an MP - but he's so much a part of the lies that I had to include him.


- What "lies"?

You're talking about a new EU treaty that wasn't even agreed by him, which will not be steered through Parliament by his Gov and will not happen under his 'watch'.

You want to watch getting hung up on yesterdays news.



Originally posted by budski
Isn't the treaty also self amending?


- No.

How could that possibly work?


Originally posted by budski
Does this mean that we will have no more treaties, just amendments to the existing one - in which case it becomes a multi-leader dictatorship.


- All major agreements made at the EU has to be passed into law by the national Parliaments.
The idea of "self amending" law in the manner you are implying is a nonsense.

What has been said though (and studiously ignored by the anti side in this) is that with this treaty being 'fit for purpose' to the now 27 member-strong EU there is no need for more of this kind of legislation.

Much as the anti's might want to pretend there is all sorts of dark intent and scary underhand dealings going on this treaty more than anything is simply about simplifying and enabling the old treaties (designed for the days of the old 7, 12, 15 etc etc membership community) to operate as they are (and were always) intended to.
It's mostly updating and modernising.


Originally posted by budski
I also know that lying politicians have been around for a long time - so has murder.
Just because it happens, doesn't mean we should all blindly accept it.


- Having worked in politics I can tell you that you could not be more wrong.
Oh I know it goes against the caricature but every one I ever met in politics was a genuine person doing an almost impossible job.

Even those I disagree with very strongly politically.

I couldn't abide some of their 'instincts' but they were not 'in it for themselves' (cos most of them were actually getting a hell of a lot less as politicians than they otherwise would in industry or law etc etc).

The majority IMO are nothing less than decent people trying to do the impossible.

Usually the 'they're all knaves!' comment is thrown about by those who make that kind of comment safe in the knowledge that besides a couple of quips they will never go further & put themselves up for election (or the terrifying legal scrutiny that goes with being an elected politician).

If you're really so convinced that 'it' and 'they' are all so rotten - and feel so strongly about it - then go & try & do something about it.


Originally posted by budski
In a way, I hope the tories DO get in - at the very least it'd be a kick in the nuts for all the labourites who thought they were invincible.


- Sounds like a massive chip on the shoulder there budski.

I've yet to meet the Labour politician who thought they were either "invincible" or in politics by some sort of 'God-given right'
(tho I did meet several - but not that many - tory MPs around the start & middle of Major's tenure who did think like that; they learnt soon enough).

Almost every politician I ever met was terrified of election time and finding that after 4 years they were out on their ear if the public weren't sufficiently impressed by them......or even worse those who had done an excellent job as a constituency MP but who get throw out with a sea-change in public mood.
I don't know of any other 'profession' with such an unescapable, brutal & regular 'judgement'.


Originally posted by budski
And at least we might see an end to the top heavy hierarchies that labour introduced as a way of trying to rig future elections, particularly in the NHS.


-


The NHS (like the education system) has been heavily invested in and developed by this Labour in response to the clear wishes of the British public.

If you're seriously trying to criticise being responsive to the public's demands as a means of "trying to rig elections" then I guess you really need to sit and reconsider what politics is all about.

I guess it is more accurate to say that political parties that prefer not to respond to the public's clear desires are "rigging" the election against themselves, eh?


[edit on 31-10-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Do I really have to post all the lies and scandals of Blairs leadership?
You know exactly what I mean.

As for the NHS, I have relatives and friends who are doctors and nurses - the money "invested" has been spent on managers to a large extent - and let's not forget the PC brigade and all the money wasted there.
Or the education system with the new labour inclusivity theory that is killing our country stone dead.

And honest politicians? Sure there are lots of honest ones - unfortunately they're not running the country.

Answer me this (without spin,if you can) how many more people are on the public payroll, and dependant on labour for their jobs since this government came to power.

So far, you've failed to answer one single question of substance.
Preferring instead to try and evade the questions by focussing elsewhere, you have not made a single substantive answer.
This may work for others, but I've been around too long and seen too much to fall for it.

So how about it - honest answers, with no spin - got the nuts for it?
Or are you typical PC new labour, condemning those who disagree by calling them racists, or little englanders,or living in the past - the arrogance of which is astounding, given just how out of touch with the electorate labour has become.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Do I really have to post all the lies and scandals of Blairs leadership?
You know exactly what I mean.


- Oh I do.

Smear and accusation with zero substance behind them is the usual truth of this kind of claim/tory tabloid-talk.


Originally posted by budski
As for the NHS, I have relatives and friends who are doctors and nurses - the money "invested" has been spent on managers to a large extent


- Oh budski, and there was you wanting to bash me for vague comments.

Talk about a fact-free generalisation.


Originally posted by budski
and let's not forget the PC brigade and all the money wasted there.


- Meaning what, exactly?

Which 'examples' of 'PC' are you referring to?

If you're going to take the usual smokescreen route out of the topic at least give the rest of us half a chance of knowing exactly what it is you are referring to.


Originally posted by budski

Or the education system with the new labour inclusivity theory that is killing our country stone dead.


- Ah yes, the present education system that has witnessed record results and the highest level of attainment this country has ever seen.

How terrible, the Gov that has presided over this improvement really ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Not.


Originally posted by budski
Answer me this (without spin,if you can) how many more people are on the public payroll, and dependant on labour for their jobs since this government came to power.


- Compared to how many (as a % of the working population) when the tory party were last in power?

Do we count agencies and the other statistical massaging measures the torys brought in?

Frankly thanks to things like the semi-autonomous agencies it is a difficult question to answer and depends on what actually still counts and what does not count as public sector employment.


Originally posted by budski
So far, you've failed to answer one single question of substance.


- Wow given this substance-free post that's some cheek you have got there.

Actually I've given several definitive answers, you'r problem is that you just don't like them.


Originally posted by budski
Preferring instead to try and evade the questions by focussing elsewhere, you have not made a single substantive answer.


- No, actually I've responded with several answers to the points you have put.

It is now in fact you that has raced off topic to begin a general political rant.


Originally posted by budski
This may work for others, but I've been around too long and seen too much to fall for it.


- Good for you. You must be so happy & proud.

Frankly I've been around too long to play this scattergun debate game, but there you go.


Originally posted by budski
Or are you typical PC new labour, condemning those who disagree by calling them racists, or little englanders,or living in the past


- Got a kitchen sink you need throwing in there too?

Not that you would ever dream of being so arrogant as to make wildly ludicrous generalisations and label all Labour party supporters as "'PC' condemning all those who disagree by calling etc etc", eh?



Originally posted by budski
the arrogance of which is astounding, given just how out of touch with the electorate labour has become.


- Well not so 'out of touch' as to be out of Gov during the last 10 years (and still be favourites for the next) tho huh?


......and btw you can dismiss comments that some are 'racist' or 'little englanders' or 'living in the past' etc every time they are made if you like but sometimes the truth is that those terms are just the most accurate and therefore to use them is not "arrogance" at all but mere accuracy.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sminkeypinkey
 


In reply to this extremely partisan stance, I'm going to post some facts about new labour, their election promises and whats been happening since they came to power.

Election Promise - No More Sleaze

April 2006 Cameron MacIntosh says he was offered Peerage for loan
April 2006 Peter Law’s 'peerage'
April 2006 Charles Clarke & the failed deportations
April 2006 John Prescott's Affair(s)
April 2006 Cherie Blair’s hairdressing bill
April 2006 - Jack McConnell under pressure over breaking the ministerial code of conduct by giving public backing to a luxury golf resort planned by Donald Trump which could prejudice the planning process for the development
April 2006 - Revealed that Jack McConnell met with furniture tycoon Robert Morris over compensation to relocate his factory on the route of the M74 extension. The £35million was more than double the original compensation offer


mod edit: cut down quoted material to the maximum permitted (three paragraphs or a month of data for this one), please don't just paste quoted material comment on what you've posted.




[edit on 5-11-2007 by UK Wizard]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
No More Sleaze, continued


The Rose Addis affair, big brave Labour party smear ninety something year old woman.

- Black Rod affair

- Labour's attempt to dig up some dirt on Paddington train crash victims who had criticised the govenments response.

- Kinnockios sacking of an EU whistle blower.
March 1998 - Scottish Parliament architect Enric Miralles short listed for Scottish Parliament contract despite being rejected by the project manager Bill Armstrong who eventually resigned over political interference in the project.

January 1999 - Bovis Lend Lease awarded contract to build Scottish Parliament despite initially eliminated from the tender process but mysteriously reinstated.


source

More to follow on other election promises

mod edit: cut down quoted material to the maximum permitted (three paragraphs), please don't just paste quoted material comment on what you've posted.

[edit on 5-11-2007 by UK Wizard]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime


JURIST] A recent UK Home Office [official website] report [text part 1, part 2, PDF] prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair [JURIST news archive] details the country's first increase in crime since the mid-1990s and predicts a massive 25% increase in its prison population over the next five years, according to the Sunday Times. The report also observes a growing gap between Britain's poorest and wealthiest residents and details a lack of cohesion among ethnic groups contributing to an upward crime trend. It makes suggestions for reducing crime including heroin vaccinations, a ban on alcohol advertising, chemical castration, ID chip implants, public shaming, parenting classes, and the use of bounty hunters. To increase cohesion in society, the report suggests a ban on face-obscuring veils [JURIST news archive] in schools.

The content of the leaked memo is embarrassing for Blair's Labour Party [party website], which claims to be tough on crime. It predicts "there is still little chance that a crime will be detected and result in a caution or conviction" and states that nine out of ten crimes were either not responded to or went unpunished. The Sunday Times has local coverage.

source

prison stats

crime stats

There's so much more of this - I can post it, but you get the general idea - another election promise broken.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Saving the NHS


Inadequate leadership and ineffective management are the causes of the worst deficits in the NHS, a watchdog says.

The Audit Commission said senior officials had taken their eye "off the ball", relying on short-term fixes to solve growing financial problems.

The watchdog made its conclusion after studying the 25 public interest reports it issued last year to highlight the NHS bodies with the worst problems.


source


The NHS is in the grip of a financial crisis.

The BBC News website examines why this is happening at a time when the health service is getting record amounts of money?

What is happening?

Nearly a third of NHS organisations failed to balance their books in 2005-6, leaving the NHS with a deficit of £512m.

It means the total has more than double in the last 12 months, with the worst problems concentrated in the south-east and east of England.

In recent months, thousands of job cuts have been announced as trusts try to stay in the black.


source


Many NHS managers have fiddled figures to make it look like they are meeting government targets, a BBC survey reveals.

Almost one in 10 managers say they have filed inaccurate reports on key issues like waiting lists and A&E waiting times.

Many of those questioned said they were under pressure from NHS executives and regional officials to pretend they were meeting targets.


source


The NHS has been accused of fiddling figures to suggest ambulances are meeting targets for responding to emergency calls.

Many ambulance trusts have dramatically improved their response rates over the past year.

However, Health Which? magazine said the figures may not be accurate and may have been manipulated to meet government targets.


source


The strained relationship between doctors and NHS managers is affecting patient outcomes, according to research.

The study, led by professor Ian Kirkpatrick of the Leeds University Business School, found that where doctors and managers get along, it led to a more efficient health service, and patient outcomes also improved.

The report of the National Inquiry into Management and Medicine urged NHS organisations to focus on patients and their treatment and care. It said the NHS should refocus its way of working and suggested that managers and doctors should be more aware of each other's role.


source


Three quarters of GPs who referred patients to hospital have had their decisions blocked, a poll for The Sunday Telegraph reveals.

Family doctors say that new "referral management" systems, set up to allow primary care trusts (PCTs) to overrule decisions taken in the surgery, are being used to delay and cancel hospital care, and to divert patients referred to a hospital consultant to cheaper clinics in the community.
Other schemes run by PCTs have offered GPs payments if they reduce the number of patients sent to hospital.

Of 750 doctors polled across Britain, 75 per cent said they had referred patients to hospital only to have their decision overruled, with 40 per cent saying that it happened regularly. Dr Laurence Buckman, the chairman of the British Medical Association's GP committee, himself a London family doctor, said such schemes were a short-sighted attempt to save money by delaying hospital care.


source

And that's before we even get to the dental care crisis, which is so bad, the only NHS dentist in my part of the country is 15 miles away and has a waiting list of over two hundred.

mod edit: cut down quoted material to the maximum permitted (three paragraphs), please don't just paste quoted material comment on what you've posted.

[edit on 5-11-2007 by UK Wizard]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
No New Taxes


July 1997
01 • Mortgage Interest Tax Relief At Source (MIRAS) reduced from 15% to 10%
02 • Dividend Tax Credits for pension schemes abolished
03 • Income tax relief on health insurance abolished
04 • Insurance Premium Tax extended to some health insurance
05 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increased to 6%
06 • Vehicle Excise Duty increased
07 • Tobacco duty escalator increased to 5%
08 • Stamp Duty raised to 2%
09 • Carry back of Corporation Tax losses limited to 1 year
10 • Windfall tax on utilities


mod edit: cut down quoted material to the maximum permitted (three paragraphs or July in this case), please don't just paste quoted material comment on what you've posted.

[edit on 5-11-2007 by UK Wizard]




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join