[tehFrance]

(Original post by Morgsie)
You can go ahead and pursue your witch hunt against me, I have nothing to hide. You swore at a Colleague of mine earlier and now your victimizing me again.

I shall, you seem to know a lot about a few parties and I an curious as to how you come to all this knowledge. You have to be more specific to whom I swore... don't you mean victimising with an S!

[eff01]

(Original post by toronto353)
In TSR terms, two years will see a lot of change over so it's perfectly reasonable to hold a referendum again. Our position in Europe has changed given that free trade is now worldwide and that more powers will be repatriated within the coming days to this House. The deal with Europe has changed and so it is right that the people are given a say on the new deal which is different than the one offered two years ago.

Also, I'm Right Honourable.

Mr Speaker, I ask the Rt Honourable Gentlemen that if significant changes are made to our relationship with Europe, just months after a referendum which saw people vote yes to our membership, will he advocate holding a referendum on membership then because the referendum that was held a few months ago did not reflect this change in relationship (hypothetically speaking)?

[ukip72]

(Original post by tehFrance)
I shall, you seem to know a lot about a few parties and I an curious as to how you come to all this knowledge. You have to be more specific to whom I swore... don't you mean victimising with an S!

You've been victimising Morgsie? Keep up the good work

[TheCrackInTime]

Am I the only person who thinks that the wording of this motion is extremely vague?

(Original post by barnetlad)
x

What is it exactly that you're proposing a referendum on? Our membership of the European Union, scrapping VAT or ceasing payments to the EU?

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by eff01)
Mr Speaker, I ask the Rt Honourable Gentlemen that if significant changes are made to our relationship with Europe, just months after a referendum which saw people vote yes to our membership, will he advocate holding a referendum on membership then because the referendum that was held a few months ago did not reflect this change in relationship (hypothetically speaking)?

I would note that the previous EU referendum occured in the eleventh parliament, while the proposed referendum would take place in the sixteenth. Scaled up to RL terms that would be equivalent to holding a referendum now had the previous one been held in the final term of the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher. (1987-92)

[Mechie]

Hmm, very nearly.

Me

While I agree that abolishing VAT is a good thing, this really does question our membership of the EU, and quite frankly we should be kicked out of the MUN EU because of this. I suppose this is the government's round-a-bout way of managing to leave the EU without causing a fuss though, because you can now just say "we didn't leave, we were kicked out!".

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5#post38689205

[barnetlad]

(Original post by TheCrackInTime)
Am I the only person who thinks that the wording of this motion is extremely vague?



What is it exactly that you're proposing a referendum on? Our membership of the European Union, scrapping VAT or ceasing payments to the EU?

A referendum on EU membership- I don't think you should just cease payments first.

[Lipvig]

We need an EU referendum for the sake of democracy. It doesn't automatically mean anything will change, but if it does, then that's democracy. This referendum will decide the our relationship with the EU for a generation.

[toronto353]

(Original post by eff01)
Mr Speaker, I ask the Rt Honourable Gentlemen that if significant changes are made to our relationship with Europe, just months after a referendum which saw people vote yes to our membership, will he advocate holding a referendum on membership then because the referendum that was held a few months ago did not reflect this change in relationship (hypothetically speaking)?

That would be a difficult question to answer. It would depend on the scale of the change for one thing. Our relationship with the EU has changed beyond all measure from the last referendum and is due to do so even more.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by Morgsie)
You can go ahead and pursue your witch hunt against me, I have nothing to hide. You swore at a Colleague of mine earlier and now your victimizing me again, least I am not arrogant.

Labour tried to introduce one after the Monarchy one which was thrown out due to the 1 Referendum rule.

Labour tried to legislate a referendum regarding devolution, they have released nothing to do with Europe.

[tomcol23]

Aye

Unlike the RL coalition, this coalition is actually listening to british people's calls for an EU referendum

[Rakas21]

'A reluctant Aye'.

Mr Speaker, whilst it is true that we held an EU referendum in the 11th parliament the recent events have polarized feelings towards the EU in both camps and there is a general feeling from both sides that we should hold a referendum. For this reason Mr Speaker presuming that this motion passes then the government will be happy to draw up the relevant legislation with seconding from any interested parties.

Mr Speaker, with the above said i am slightly conflicted. Mr Speaker, as many of you are aware i lead a generally Euro-skeptic party in a generally Euro-skeptic government and because of this i have sat back and allowed repatriations both for the good will of my party (i am aware that i am out kilter regarding foreign policy) and the coalition however should a referendum occur then i will campaign virulently for continued membership of the EU for i believe that it could be so much more.

Finally Mr Speaker i say that if a referendum occurs then i would very much like to lead the campaign for continued membership. My party members will of course be allowed to take whichever side they wish.

*Note - The above only applies for an 'in'-'out' referendum, i will not vote for any referendum but that.

[tomcol23]

I will be supporting the out campaign

[toronto353]

(Original post by Rakas21)
'A reluctant Aye'.

Mr Speaker, whilst it is true that we held an EU referendum in the 11th parliament the recent events have polarized feelings towards the EU in both camps and there is a general feeling from both sides that we should hold a referendum. For this reason Mr Speaker presuming that this motion passes then the government will be happy to draw up the relevant legislation with seconding from any interested parties.

Mr Speaker, with the above said i am slightly conflicted. Mr Speaker, as many of you are aware i lead a generally Euro-skeptic party in a generally Euro-skeptic government and because of this i have sat back and allowed repatriations both for the good will of my party (i am aware that i am out kilter regarding foreign policy) and the coalition however should a referendum occur then i will campaign virulently for continued membership of the EU for i believe that it could be so much more.

Finally Mr Speaker i say that if a referendum occurs then i would very much like to lead the campaign for continued membership. My party members will of course be allowed to take whichever side they wish.

*Note - The above only applies for an 'in'-'out' referendum, i will not vote for any referendum but that.

Just to clarify, Nick has ruled before on Labour's idea of a second referendum that we can not legislate this term for a referendum next term. My aim this term will be to get the best deal that we can to put to the British people and that means a wealth of repatriations.

(Original post by tomcol23)
I will be supporting the out campaign

Excellent news!

[TheCrackInTime]

(Original post by barnetlad)
A referendum on EU membership- I don't think you should just cease payments first.

Thanks for clearing that up. It'll be an aye from me then.

[barnetlad]

(Original post by Lipvig)
We need an EU referendum for the sake of democracy. It doesn't automatically mean anything will change, but if it does, then that's democracy. This referendum will decide the our relationship with the EU for a generation.

I agree, and also if the TSR MHofC adopts the budget proposals, it should be with the knowledge of the TSR view of EU membership. Ending VAT if the TSR has voted to leave the EU is a very different thing from ending VAT if the TSR view is to remain in the EU.

[meenu89]

(Original post by tomcol23)
I will be supporting the out campaign

Same here.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by barnetlad)
I agree, and also if the TSR MHofC adopts the budget proposals, it should be with the knowledge of the TSR view of EU membership. Ending VAT if the TSR has voted to leave the EU is a very different thing from ending VAT if the TSR view is to remain in the EU.

Technically but surely a better way to go about it from that attitude is to have the MUN ratify the Canon amendment in the EU bloc granting special exception to the MHOC.

Right now i agree the referendum is a better option however what i proposed above should really have been done at the inception of the cannon amendment.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Technically but surely a better way to go about it from that attitude is to have the MUN ratify the Canon amendment in the EU bloc granting special exception to the MHOC.

Right now i agree the referendum is a better option however what i proposed above should really have been done at the inception of the cannon amendment.

Why should the EU ratify our canon amendment? Who are they to tell us what to do or to have anything to do with our Constitution? We are a sovereign state and can make our own decisions, we don't need to get the EU's permission for everything.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by barnetlad)
I agree, and also if the TSR MHofC adopts the budget proposals, it should be with the knowledge of the TSR view of EU membership. Ending VAT if the TSR has voted to leave the EU is a very different thing from ending VAT if the TSR view is to remain in the EU.

How?

We don't pay for the EU using any one single tax, but by paying a lump-sum out of general taxation, of about a net £8bn.