NationStates Jolt Archive

If there was a vote in the UK on the new EU treaty and it was given to the people what would u vote.

It's not a treaty - it's still a constitution, as defined by the fact that 1) it super-cedes the laws of the other countries and 2) it's like a law, only harder to change.

To call it anything else is to fool people.

Also, I am not going to vote in favor of anything that the EU itself can't inform people about.

I wouldn't be voting anyway without having some information.

Although I'm with Blair on this one, we have to have a unified Europe, is now the time to do it though?

Just to say i accidently voted yes i am actually against it sorry guys i fucked up

I agree about the unified Europe and all that.

But this is the sort of thing that requires a referendum (something I won't blame the EU for, but my local politicians).

It's also the sort of thing that requires the EU to actually explain what it is that they want us to vote on. They can't expect people to read all that legal gibberish and understand it.

I’m not against the idea of a more unified Europe per se, but I do object to much of the content of the current EU constitution/treaty/whatever; particularly the centralisation of power.

Erm, having not yet seen the text, along with about 99% of Britons, I'd have to say "I don't know".

Erm, having not yet seen the text, along with about 99% of Britons, I’d have to say “I don’t know”.
Too true.

And it’s not as if Gordo is going to let us have a referendum anyways.

i started this vote so i deserve a voice


The PM promotes britishness and all that when he is destroying the countrys identity. Basically can u really trust a PM who does not do wat the labour party where elected for, hence we voted for tony blair not fat man gorden brown, refering to the suposed deal. He ahs lost alot of votes in the polls over the EU and he says he is protecting the UK peoples intrests yeah right.

It's not a treaty - it's still a constitution, as defined by the fact that 1) it super-cedes the laws of the other countries and 2) it's like a law, only harder to change.

To call it anything else is to fool people.

Also, I am not going to vote in favor of anything that the EU itself can't inform people about.EU treaties have always superseded national law. There is nothing new or surprising about this. Ever since the formation of the EC governments have been signing treaties in the full knowledge that they will supersede national law. It is one of the many basic points on which the EC was founded. However, another key ideal of the EU is that it will never forbid succession from the Union. So if a member country does not like a certain treaty then it is fully within its rights to withdraw from the Union.

EU treaties have always superseded national law. There is nothing new or surprising about this. Ever since the formation of the EC governments have been signing treaties in the full knowledge that they will supersede national law. It is one of the many basic points on which the EC was founded. However, another key ideal of the EU is that it will never forbid succession from the Union. So if a member country does not like a certain treaty then it is fully within its rights to withdraw from the Union.

I understand and accept that the EU treaties do this. I agree that there is nothing new or surprising.

With the new treaty, however, secession may suddenly become nigh impossible, hence why I say it's a constitution. It limits your ability to change the laws.

In any case, I am in favor of the EU, but I am not going to vote in favor of something that I have not been properly informed about - quite the opposite. I will assume that something is wrong if they aren't willing to tell people what this newest treaty is all about.

EU treaties have always superseded national law. There is nothing new or surprising about this. Ever since the formation of the EC governments have been signing treaties in the full knowledge that they will supersede national law. It is one of the many basic points on which the EC was founded. However, another key ideal of the EU is that it will never forbid succession from the Union. So if a member country does not like a certain treaty then it is fully within its rights to withdraw from the Union.

I agree with what u have said that u can coem out of the union whcih would lead to good and bad results for the country which politicians belive, but you need to look at nations like switzerland and i think norway or sweeden who arnt in the union have done better off because they have not had to hand over any of there money, the only reason the UK went into the EU is becasuse of the Economic crisis of the Labour and conservitive govermetns at the time, Wilson which then lead to Ted Heath joining the UK to it but the economic increase later in thathcers goverment was when she secuerd money of the Union and freed up the market so , the growth is not down to Europe as some MPs say becasuse at that time Europe was in turm oil.

This si true look it up i did for once lol

I agree with what u have said that u can coem out of the union whcih would lead to good and bad results for the country which politicians belive, but you need to look at nations like switzerland and i think norway or sweeden who arnt in the union have done better off because they have not had to hand over any of there money, the only reason the UK went into the EU is becasuse of the Economic crisis of the Labour and conservitive govermetns at the time, Wilson which then lead to James Callaghan joining the UK to it but the economic increase later in thathcers goverment was when she secuerd money of the Union and freed up the market so , the growt is not down to Europe as some MPs say becasuse at that time Europe was in turm oil.

This si true look it up i did for once lol

I think it would be very wise of you to figure out who the current members of the EU are.

Also, Norway didn't want to lose their fish or their oil. Two very good reasons for staying out of the union.

Switzerland wanted full control of their banks and to continue charging toll. Another two sound reasons for staying out of the union.

If there was a vote in the UK on the new EU treaty and it was given to the people what would u vote.
I couldn't really decide until I'd been made aware of the facts (basically not reading a newspaper for six months) but my gut feeling is against. I'm supportive of a European Union with a full European Constitution, but what we have now seems a bit of a mess. I'd much rather see more fundemental reform than what the current treaty has to offer.

i'd like to know more about what i'd be voting for.

i would, however, lean towards voting 'yes' (pro EU Treaty/Consitution/whatever) in a referendum as i support an ever closer union, and when the Constitution was in play a couple of years back, the bits of that i'd understood were fine by me. if this new Treaty is basically the same, then that's fine too.

So although this thread is only 12 posts long, it seems that the majority of us are not against a unified Europe, and would love to study this treaty/constitution, before wanting a vote in a referendum?

Seems you really can't believe the news media huh!

So although this thread is only 12 posts long, it seems that the majority of us are not against a unified Europe, and would love to study this treaty/constitution, before wanting a vote in a referendum?

Seems you really can't believe the news media huh!
Unfortunately, I don't think the twelve of us constitute as being an adequate sample size of 60 million. I think there's probably quite a lot of people who swallow the crap the papers and the radio churn out every day.

Unfortunately, I don't think the twelve of us constitute as being an adequate sample size of 60 million. I think there's probably quite a lot of people who swallow the crap the papers and the radio churn out every day.

Dues to rise to 65 or perhaps 70 mil by 2012, so I understand.

Dues to rise to 65 or perhaps 70 mil by 2012, so I understand.
I read the Telegraph (it was the only newspaper at my Grandmas, that's my excuse) article on it. About one sentence on population rising to 75 million and rising birth rates. The rest of the page devoted entirely to "OMG EVIL IMMIGRANTS!!!!" and "OH NOES 25% OF US WILL BE DARKIES!!!" because it's not being sensationalist at all is, is it?

A referendum on the EU constitution is completely unnecessary in the UK, as Britain has chosen to opt out of the only particularly contentious sections of the treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the extended double majority voting. Other countries should have referendums, as these areas are likely to result in big changes to the way their systems of government work. In Britain, the treaty will have minimal effect - to call a referendum on such an issue is ridiculous. Indeed, most of the people who oppose the constitution have no idea what its about, other than what they are told by prominent Eurosceptics who hope to prevent the signing of the constitution in order to create disharmony within the EU.

Unfortunately, I don't think the twelve of us constitute as being an adequate sample size of 60 million. I think there's probably quite a lot of people who swallow the crap the papers and the radio churn out every day.

Hold a moment there. I know the thread is very UK-centric, but the politicians here in Denmark aren't all that different. They're trying to avoid a referendum too (some of them), because they know people won't vote yes on a treaty that no one has been informed about.

So you might just want to increase your sample size to include all of the EU ;)

I understand and accept that the EU treaties do this. I agree that there is nothing new or surprising.

With the new treaty, however, secession may suddenly become nigh impossible, hence why I say it's a constitution. It limits your ability to change the laws.No, secession would not be impossible. In fact the right succession was to enshrined in EU law. Any future changes would have to be ratified by all member states. Were one or two members to hold out then they would probably be asked to leave the Union.

In any case, I am in favor of the EU, but I am not going to vote in favor of something that I have not been properly informed about - quite the opposite. I will assume that something is wrong if they aren't willing to tell people what this newest treaty is all about.No one was properly informed about the treaty. The major problem with the treaty was that it attempted to consolidate existing treaties AND change the structural framework of the EU at the same time. Had they been done as two separate endeavours then perhaps it might not have fallen prey to the euroskeptics. The damn thing was 160,000 words long - 35 times the size of the US constitution.

No, secession would not be impossible. In fact the right succession was to enshrined in EU law. Any future changes would have to be ratified by all member states. Were one or two members to hold out then they would probably be asked to leave the Union.

Perhaps, but the fact remains that I have no means of receiving adequate information about the EU constitution. The EU, the media and my local politicians are all at fault for this.

For all I know, the right to secession might actually be struck down in the new treaty. In all honesty, I'd still vote yes for such a treaty, but I would like to know what I am voting for. And I would like to vote for it.

No one was properly informed about the treaty. The major problem with the treaty was that it attempted to consolidate existing treaties AND change the structural framework of the EU at the same time. Had they been done as two separate endeavours then perhaps it might not have fallen prey to the euroskeptics. The damn thing was 160,000 words long - 35 times the size of the US constitution.

Actually, despite the fact that I went to a European School and my dad works for the European commission, I found it nigh impossible to find any information concerning the treaty.

I think though, that you're trying to say that no one was informed? Which holds true to what I am claiming... right?