I think there are two seperate, but very important issues here.
Firstly we have the issue of continued UK membership of the EU.
Personally I have no desire for this country to continue with it's membership of such a corrupt, wasteful and dictatorial organisation that the EU
seems to be.
In addition it seems to be anti-UK in it's policies and in particular anti-England.
The people of the UK voted for membership of a Trade Organisation, not political union with european nations and a loss of sovereignty and say over
the running of our ow country.
Which brings us onto the next issue.
How we are governed and who makes such decisions.
Every Prime Minister since Heath and the Monarch have been guilty and a party to the treasonous transfer of sovereignty to foreign powers.
The British people have had no say on the matter.
Now we have a situation where a petition of 100,000 signatures has forced the government to try schedule a parliametary debate on whether we should
have a national referendum on continued membership of the EU.
However, the schedule is tight and they may not be able to fit it in before the Christmas recess.
And now we get to the crux of the matter; if there is a vote after the debate then Cameron will issue either a two or three line whip ensuring
adhesion to the party line.
And then, in the unlikely event that Cameron loses the vote and Parliament votes for a National Referendum he is not bound to hold a referendum.
And he won't because he believes it's wrong to do so and the British people don't want to leave the EU.
Well isn't that just a clear example of 'tranparent government' and listening to the people.
If he is so convinced that the British people wish to remain in the EU then give us the opportunity we have been denied for so long to vote on it.
The simple fact of the matter is that a petition with 10,000,000 signatures could be sent in to Downing Street and they would still ignore the will of
edit on 2/10/11 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)