European Referendum

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15425256


Cameron has ordered a three line whip instructing Conservative MP's to vote against the proposal to hold a referendum on Britain's future in the EU. Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders have followed suit.

It would appear the issue is a dead duck before it starts, although a rebellion amongst Eurosceptic MP's in the Conservatives could be seen as a challenge to Cameron's authority.

Westminster last went to the people on this issue in 1975 and it resulted in a resounding vote to stay in the (then) Common Market (now the European Union).

Do you think it should go to a referendum..? What way would you vote...? What do you think the consequences would be of Britain leaving the EU...?


.

This bit I found interesting:

"I think this is the right time to sort out Europe's problems, sort out the eurozone problem, defend your national interest and look to the opportunities in the future to repatriate powers back to Britain."

He said the possibility of changes to the European Union's treaty had been discussed at the summit - and that could provide an opportunity for Britain to reclaim powers from Brussels.

Expecting MPs to resign if they vote against a successful no referendum vote?

As for holding a referendum, pass. It probably isn't the greatest time to result in a yes vote, as I doubt government have a plan for that outcome somehow.

Fair comment, Davii, and a good assessment, imo.

I think the talk of repatriating powers to Britain is the carrot being dangled to possible rebels. They may take the bait, but if it were attempted, it would take many years to achieve and Brussels would undoubtedly attempt to water down any proposals that were put to them. By the time they were passed (if, indeed, they ever were passed), then they would be unrecognisable from the original motion, methinks.

I don't think now is a good time for a referendum either. The Eurozone is in a mess and that should be the focus of attention right now. The focus of attention should be on getting the finances of the PIGS (an unfortunate acronym, but it seems to have stuck) nations sorted out... particularly Greece, which is on the brink of defaulting.

But do you think a referendum... in principle would be a good thing..?


,

A carrot, no less, that we're told shouldn't need to be dangled because this idea of giving up Westminster's powers is more media hype and scaremongering than truth.

What's more, look at what happens when individual member states do have referendums. Yes means yes...and so does no, apparently.

Cameron has suffered a massive rebellion and this test of his authority could come to haunt him in the future.

What was he thinking, when he made this a three line whip..? Conservative MP Adam Holloway summed up the feelings of all the rebels in the party (and probably a large number who toed the line but didn't like it) when he said that he simply had to vote for the referendum because THAT WAS WHAT HIS CONSTITUENTS WANTED..!!

This is democracy, Mr Prime Minister. MP's are there to represent their constituents and you cannot arm-twist MPs to go against them when there is support in a significant part of the country for a referendum.

It should have been an open vote. This is about the will of the people.

I am very pro-Europe and would like even stronger political ties to the continent than we already have, but I don't fear a referendum. Let the people have their say and I think that the outcome would be a vote in favour of remaining in the Union. A televised poll on the BBC yesterday said that 84% were in favour of remaining in the Union, 14% were against and the rest were undecided. When push comes to shove, it's extremely unlikely that we would vote to leave the EU.

So, why does the Conservative Party fear the referendum that they made an election pledge to give us..?

Cameron has made a rod for his own back here, and although he will attempt to play it down and hope it all withers on the vine very quickly, it's a broken promise that could come back to haunt him come the next election.

The press are having their say (natch)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15441363

.

No because there are too many Sun/DM readers who believe their bulls***.

No I don't think we should have a referendum. Personally I think certain aspects of the political system are too keen on referendums, we elect people to decide these things for us, not for them to decide whether we can decide or not.

MPs should have a straight vote on Britain's future in the EU and leave the public out of it.

Also, we should ban referendums and put it in our constitution.

Two points, Geoff.

Firstly, the referendum on Europe was a Conservative election pledge, which I am aware is about as safe a bet as a tenner on a home win in the Manchester derby, but there you have it. A promise is a promise.

Secondly...... er....... Britain doesn't have a constitution. We have a set of statutes which act as a constitution. A pedantic point to some, perhaps, but there is a difference.


Oh, and while I'm on pedantry.... is the plural of referendum referenda or referendums...? It seems to be a matter of personal choice.

The House did once put the question to the (then) Madam Speaker, Betty Boothroyd and the issue never was properly settled.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/news/105751.stm

I personally prefer to go with the Latin.


.

The Conservatives did not win a majority at the election and a referendum on Europe was not part of the coalition agreement.

Britain does have a constitution. It may not be a single document, and it may be made up from statutes and and treaties etc, but it is still a constitution.

I think we said pretty much the same thing, there. The Statutes act as a constitution, but aren't one in the precise sense of the word. The difference can be a fine legal point, but they do exist and I think they are important.

A Constitution is:
The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.


A Statute is:

1. A law enacted by a legislature.
2. A decree or edict, as of a ruler.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but an addition or amendment to a Constitution can only be carried out by a legal process. Whereas under a Statutory system, the monarch could (in theory at least, if not in actual practice as our monarchy is voluntarily non-political) issue or change laws by Royal Command. The point here being that, although it is unlikely to happen, it is an option we have available to us. One of those little checks and balances that, in theory, could stop Parliament getting too big for its boots.

The European Union has a constitution, and as pro-Europe as I am, I still wouldn't want there to be a fully Federal Europe. We can be a much closer part of Europe without being swallowed up by it.

So I can see where you're coming from, but the differences of our political system are one of the things that I like to keep in my mind when discussing such issues.

I think I spend far too much time around lawyers. LOL.


.