ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

If The European Union and our government are so democratic why are they so scared of giving us a referendum? Surely it is The People of The U.K. who decide their future?

Angela Merkel leads The European People's Party who are strongly pro-federal Europe. Can we trust her?

Peter Gizzi Gillingham Kent UK

I certainly do think there should be a referendum. I cannot understand why Gordon Brown hesitates - if he asks the question 'Should we leave the EU,' he will split the Tories and get an overwhelming NO, because although a lot of people don't like what's happening here in the UK these days, they recognise that we are so far down the line there is no going back. Then Brown could hold an election - which he would win easily - and he can then be as dictatorial as his mendacious predecessor.

I never thought I would have to say "well done, Trade Unions". The issue of Europe has been fudged by politicians of all shades for far too long and could do with a serious public debate. It is a pity Her Majesty's loyal opposition could not get into the act.

Of course there should be a referendum! Estimates of how much of the rejected constitution remains in the draft treaty vary from 90% to 98%. Politicians who don't want a referendum have to resort to saying "It's not sensible to compare percentages". Well I think it is.

EUROPE: Yes, there should be a referendum. Even if we accept what we are told (that it's just a bit of tidying up, it's only a few extra powers here and there), what concerns me is the cumulative effect. It's all very well transferring a few powers here, and a giving up a few vetoes there, but this has been happening for decades now.

Where does it all end? At what point does someone say "not one single further power or area of policy will be transferred"? Being totally logical about it, since the power transfer is always a one-way street, if we carry on at this rate we will end up with a de facto federal superstate. In fact, in several policy areas, the individual states in the USA have more powers of self-determination than the nations of the EU.

I'm sure many people think a federal EU superstate is a good idea (although I'm not one of them) but if that's what lies ahead for us then we must be formally consulted and give our assent in a referendum before a single further power or veto is given up. The last such referendum was on a "common market", which is not where we are at now. In any event, I was 5 years old at the time so I think it's about time I had my say! This piecemeal transfer of sovereignty is ridiculous, and continually to dress it up as a "tidying up exercise" is an insult to our intelligence.

Let's have a referendum. Merkle is trying to do what the Kaiser and Adolf tried, but by the back door.
Of course the French are not know for being sympathetic to the UK either.
Let's get back to being what we once were, Great Britain.

How gratifying, someone has taken the trouble to explain to Bush what we have known for a long time.
Maybe it was just that someone turned his picture book the right way up, and explained what the big words meant.

Of course we do not need a referendum. Fewer than half of the population would vote; we live in a parliamentary democracy; A referendum would be costly; this is NOT a constitution but a treaty. The Tories and the Left are in an unholy alliance to waste money and energy.

The Tories are guilty of hypocrisy on this issue. They signed various treaties with much greater consequences without ever suggesting a referendum.
If Britain voted no on the basis of a well hyped media campaign we could find ourselves either expelled or at best shunted into a backwater while the rest of Europe moved on. The economic results would be dire.
The last time I checked the map Britain was still part of Europe - it had not drifted off to the Caribbean

I love Kirsty

Unions and EU: It is odd that unions are pressing for an referendum because it is thought that the result is likely to be negative. The EU has been responsible for protecting workers rights. One would have thought then that Unions would be in favour of the EU.

The trouble with the referendum is that lots of wealthy newspaper barons are against the EU and they use their power to put sheep-like British citizens off it, with great success.

The governments of Europe are largely better than that of our own. To take a long-standing example: look at the public transport in practically every European country compared to ours.
To take a recent example: look at the news that our cancer survival rates are lower than in almost every European country including Easter Europe.

Russia: it sounds bad but can the voices of the opposition parties, that might well be backed by the "Great Satan", be relied upon?

Vietnam: The Americans intervened to try to stop a communist takeover. The communist takeoever happened anyway. Then after about 10 years or so the communists gave up communism.

Iraq: The Americans intervened to take revenge for 9/11. But they like to pretend they are doing it to prevent the spread of Islamofascism (in their own words). What will happen is what would happen anyway , the "Islamofascists" (like in Iran) will take over - with or without American interference. Eventually it is likely that they will give up "Islamofascism" - once the Americans "butt out".

The Americans are wasting their time trying to Police the world. Worse, they are getting millions of innocent people killed in the process.

Of course there should be a referendum. It would at least, I hope, clarify the issues involved. .

As a career member of HM Diplomatic Service, I spent my life in international affairs, have given talks on EU structure, etc, but am baffled as to just how significant this new development is.

Not to have a referendum would be a sign that the Government is scared of what the people think.

this is not simply a 'referendum issue
It is about holding the labour party to it's promise
it is about the integrity of Gordon Brown-who pledged to 'Listen'
It is about the basic integrity of Labour who currently represent 'political' control
we have been lied to, misled, made subject of relentless spin.
We have a situation where we have to rely on other political representatives to reveal the true content of this Constitution -not least Angela Merkel!
Please join the march in london on 30 Sept 2007to claim the 'Referendum'

Great Britain is one of the founder democratic states. Wars have been fought and won in order to protect our democratic rights of free speech, habeus corpus & the right to elect those who govern us.

We, the British people are ENTITLED to a referendum on the EU Constitutional treaty (or whatever it is being called). LET US have our democratic right of a vote on this issue - I wish to be able to cast my vote on WHO will govern me - Westminster or Brussels.

Mr Brown - listen to the people.

Of course there should be a referendum on the new EU 'Treaty' aka Constitution. What is Gordon Brown thinking, and why in the world is he being so foolish and so stubborn? Well, the reason, I suspect, is that this is his latest effort to demonstrate that he is different from Tony Blair, who had promised the Referendum. If Brown's policy decisions on such important matters are going to be made on the silly and insecure basis of differentiating himself from Blair, then Brown will deservedly be destined not to be Prime Minister for very long. Tony Blair was for the most part a brilliantly successful Prime Minister who made ONE catastrophic mistake, one very bad policy decision - Iraq. Blair was reputedly much more pro-European than Brown, but Blair bowed to public opinion and before the 2005 election, he put the promise of the EU Constitution referendum into the Labour Manifesto. Brown needs to honour that promise, and further, he needs to stop his silly "I'm not Blair" posturing and start performing as wisely as PM as he did as Chancellor.

Re #14..... " Not to have a referendum would be a sign that the Government is scared of what the people think"

Strewth!

The Government IS scared of what people think. It knows only too well what people really think; and by 'people' we're talking about eighty percent-plus of the electorate from all colours of the political spectrum. Which is precisely why Europhiles keep ranting on with the play-on-words phrase 'no need' when in fact they should, but daren't, say 'no necessity' which is a different thing altogether.

The Nation deems it IS necessary to hold a referendum, irrespective of the treaty being a re-vamped edition of the Constitution, because it knows the Euromonster, bred decades ago by Monet and Salter, has arrived at where it is to-day by stealth and deception and we are now well and truly at crunch time in terms of continuing to govern ourselves!

When Blair kept everyone guessing about the date of his departure, anyone with barely an ounce of grey matter knew that the real reason was because he was hanging on, hell-bent on putting his signature to the draft 'Reform' treaty in June and thereby completing his ten-year-long sinister objective of handing Britain's head on a plate to the Euro Federalists.

For the past ten years and more Brown has been sickeningly complicit in the same agenda designed to deceive the Nation. His purported euroscepticism apropos his 'five tests', his meaningless 'red lines' etc are all part of that deception.

In any other age both men would have been indicted for treason. In fact it might not be too much to ask even now.

Re: Abstract Thinking

Why are we baying for a referendum?
We seem incapable of telling the difference between a Treaty and a Constitution - yet we are apparently well qualified to cast an informed vote upon the matter. Well done us! Big-up ourselves!

The issue of whether or not to hold a referendum is reflective of a crisis of confidence the British public has in their government. The labour government has jeopardized Britain's security with the Iraq war, compromised health with mismanagement of nhs resources, and hampered economic prosperity by pestering industry with red tape and punitive taxes. Bills have been passed through parliament under the auspices of terrorism prevention and climate change that have removed individual freedom and the right to take individual responsibility. They have become traitors to the voters, and people want to reclaim their democratic rights by holding a referendum on this European constitutional issue. If this issue was to be decided through parliament, the decision making process will be made by those best qualified to make the most appropriate choices for Britain. Decision making will be made by the house of commons as well as the house of lords, and as with other bills and legislation, many unsuitable suggestions get rejected. For example, having a strong local economy and responsible private sector meant that the European Monetary system was of less benefit to Britain than retaining the Pound. A federal Europe would provide those countries with poor measures of defence against crime and terrorism to benefit from the countries that do have a well established just public services. If the debate in the house of lords, being more politically protracted can therefore reach the most effective conclusions more effectively, than elected politicians, who have to satisfy the critics usually heavily influenced by the media influencing public perceprion. It should be seen that a European constitution would undermine British democracy, security, and policing, and its ability to protect itself, and then that should be the result. Having a referendum would give the ill-qualified public to make the important decisions that are best left to those best able to make the best choices and protect our interests, those being our representatives, the politicians. This is not the only issue where local interests are having their ability of independent decision making impaired. Local governments are now significantly less funded from central government, they have to adhere to legislation determined by centralised agencies and orgainsations. And the latest following conversion of many labour councils to unitary status is a proposed impairment of local democracy in rural, traditionally conservative, councils by establishing non-elected regional assemblies to dictate the laws of the land. A federal Europe would be a disater for UK interests, and deserves to receive to most rational and balanced judgement to be made by those best able to make the relevant decisions, those being the QC's in parliament who have the LLB's and skills able to decide Britains best interests. Britain should quite rightly be governed on such important national interests by professionals and experts, not charlatans or the public acting as amateur politicians who are easily duped into 'nice ideas' such as communism, that end up turning out to be the most unimaginable likeness to hell ever conceived by an atheist that has been able to dupe the gullible into avoiding the scenario prophesised by subliminal means by the media. If you trust your unqualified chav to give you heart surgery, so be it, however I leave such complicated issues to the surgeons with the skills able to do the operation.

No withdrawal from Iraq while I'm president? This has been Bush's policy since the strategy review by his father's more pragmatic man Baker. To talk to Iran and Syria and arrange a withdrawal would show the Iraq war to have been a foolish blunder. Staying in, Bush can portray the war as part of the war on terror and the opposition as 'surrender monkeys'. He's hoping either for the Republicans to just scrape a win in the next elections on the 'war on terror' ticket, or to hand the poison chalice to the democrats: either is better than a certain loss in the elections if an Iraq withdrawal show the whole thing was for nothing.

(This strategy for the slimmest of chances for election victory of course depends on the American public not noticing that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war, and that the invasion gave terrorists the chance to enter the country and attack US forces.)

I see the Iraq war as more analogous to the Russian war in Afghanistan. That war left Afghanistan as a base for terrorists, the very terrorists that moved into Iraq after Bush's invasion (the very terrorists that the American's funded in the first place, ironically.) Withdrawal or no withdrawal, terrorists can operate more freely in the area, and are likely to be able to so for many years, just as in Afghanistan- it's just a better election gambit to be there 'fighting terror'.

Iraq is on hold while Bush is president, but hasn't that been obvious for a long while?

Dear Newsnight

I was intrigued by the pairing of the 'beauty and the beast' to discuss the EU referendum last night.
that said I thought Bob Crow did well.

The rest was lost on me, is Europe protective of workers or not, what was all that about Mice DNA and fertilisation?

and did I glimpse some giant walking across the screen later behind one of your guests, or at least walking the second time, running the first.

Good to see Vladimir Bukovsky. I remember collecting signatures for his release when I was at Art school and can still remember the slight tinge of regret that he was released just before I had time to send the completed petition in,

but thats Youthful ldealism for you

best wishes
Bob

here's one for stephanie

The latest UK debt figures recorded that personal debt had reached GBP1.35trn which is more than the 100% of GDP which is likely to be around GBP1.33trn for 2007.

The fact that debt is now higher than GDP is an important warning sign for the UK economy with debt at record levels. Around 85% of the debt is in the form of secured mortgage debt.

In terms of household income, UK debt has now increased to around 162% of income compared with levels just below 100% 10 years ago as there has been a large and sustained increase in borrowing. The equivalent ratio is 142% in the US, 136% in Japan and 109% in Germany.

we might have a house buying economy but it might turn into a house of cards?

10. At 08:41 PM on 22 Aug 2007, campbell wrote:
"If Britain voted no on the basis of a well hyped media campaign we could find ourselves either expelled or at best shunted into a backwater while the rest of Europe moved on. The economic results would be dire."

Dire for whom? Dire for those who would not receive billions in net contributions the UK makes to other EU countries? Dire for 650,000 Poles and others who might have to pack up and leave unless they can show they are net contributors to British society? Dire for other EU countries who would have to negotiate and sign bilateral trade agreements with Britain? However did Britain manage to survive before the EU was created?

The EU seems to be like a bunch of drowning men hanging on to each other for dear life. Britain can swim on its own but is being dragged down by the others. France would like to learn how to swim if it doesn't require any sacrifice such as exerting an effort to strengthen its atrophied muscles. Many of the rest are simply floundering, especially the most recently joined members hoping for new benefactors to replace the USSR. Germany? Stuck in a two time warps, a social welfare state in the West and trying to turn a 50 year long Communist disaster in the East into something resembling a civilized society with productive youth instead of neo-Nazi skinheads. Yes dire.

By all means have a referendum, but at the same time Legislation should be passed making it compulsory for people to vote.