07-03-2008, 17:02
|
#62
|
Apprentice Geriatric
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Darwen, Lancashire
Posts: 3,706
Liked: 0 times
Rep Power: 89
|
Re: Referedum on EU Treaty
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker
At a basic and quite generic level, I maintain that doing what is best for the country comes above one's duty to keep election promises. I see election promises are somewhat relative (and let's face it - all election campaigns are are Americanised circus freak shows these days) and doing what benefits the people most, isn't.
This thread is going to go round in circles. Look; I think a referendum on this treaty is unnecessary because :
a) You can't have a national referendum on something that only the minority understand and therefore have a worthy vote on. Should people vote with little or no understanding of the subject then the results would be corrupt.
b) The public's views on whether Britain should be in the EU at all would also corrupt the results of any proposed referendum. The point of debate is not about that after all, is it.
The only referendum I would be in favour of would be a referendum on whether or not we should be in the EU at all. However of course Murdoch's media & the Daily Mail would turn that into a circus.
|
Who is to judge whether I or anyone else can understand the treaty?
You? The government?
Will I have to pass an exam to prove my eligibility to cast an opinion on the treaty?
In any case how many of the millions of voters actually read the various manifestos before deciding which candidate to vote for in the general election? Doesn’t that make this government corrupt also?
This government, in a manifesto, promised a referendum on the EU Constitution. When this constitution was rejected by a couple of countries it was effectively dead and buried so our excuse for a government declared, quite rightly, that there was no point in having a referendum as it was dead.
Then less than 5% of the constitution was re-written and given a new title and all of a sudden it is a totally different document. Even the co-author of the re-write says that it is the same document with only very minor differences. If anyone should know it would be him.
|
|
|