TSR's Pro-Europe Society

I hadn't seen that poll. It's not surprising the political establishment won't risk a referendum.

If the EEA is more beneficial to states, then why do so many pursue EU membership? Allow me to answer: it's because they'd rather be part of a community that writes the rules rather than simply being subject to those rules.

And as for all those statistics out of context... well, yeah, consider the context.
Surveys on public opinion show as much ignorance as they do understanding. Just consider the recent Irish 'no' vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Fear based on misunderstanding will only take us back to isolation, and to believe that we can achieve economic betterment in that way is simply naive.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I know it will make no difference

Agreed. I think that is what makes this such an important issue, the British people should be allowed to have their say. Even IF there is no legal need to (which there is), the government should still ask the people becasue further European intergration is something that will have a dramtic impact on our rights and our lives.

Agreed. I think that is what makes this such an important issue, the British people should be allowed to have their say.

Even IF there is no legal need to (which there is)

further European intergration is something that will have a dramtic impact on our rights and our lives.

Kolobok - What context? British people should at least have the right to decide? Do you not agree?

We should have a referendum because the in the Labour party's manifesto they promised a referendum on an EU constitution, and it is widely argreed that the Lisbon treaty is basically EU constitution under another name.

Asked what should happen if Britain sought to negotiate a looser relationship but other nations blocked the move..."

Referendums blow goats.

I have no idea why someone decides that I'm not in favour of the "full and candid public debate approach". Of course I am!

I'm not a researcher who has been around Ireland to find out the exact reason the Irish voted 'no' on the Lisbon Treaty, but I've seen several brief interviews (and no, I'm not trying to support their reliability, I'm merely saying that this is the most insight I've had to that matter) where Irish citizens have openly declared that they did not have enough information on what the Treaty entailed and voted against it purely because they didn't want to risk losing any more sovereignty to the EU. Others were encouraged to vote against it because it "supported abortion" or some **** like that. Sorry I don't have any sources by the way, I guess I don't have time to look into it now, but I hope that at least gives me a right to have a say in this little discussion.

As for the context of that Eurosceptic campaign group's survey then...
Firstly, people are more than likely to opt for more autonomy regardless of the issues at stake, and especially if they don't fully understand the issues (I completely agree that the EU needs to be more in touch with the citizens. It seems to be developing in the right direction although much more does need to be done on this front).

Secondly, it's hard to have a completely open question of course, but look just how leading the options were.

1) about an ideal relationship with Europe:
- one based simply on trade and co-operation.
Perhaps the option wasn't quite worded in this way on the survey, but nevertheless the question is more "would you like to be in it for all the benefits of trade?" rather than "would you like to lose certain social, occupational, industrial and commercial benefits?"
- to stay a full EU member.
Whilst the survey implies a desperate need for improvement (hence the whole point of their campaign), the idea of remaining in the same situation doesn't have much appeal.
- to withdraw altogether.
The opposite of above.


This also manipulates the voter to feel cheated and to assume a much more aggressive front. I wonder how the votes would have looked if the question was instead "what should happen if Britain sought to negotiate a looser relationship but the houses of parliament later voted against pursuing that course?"

I know my obsession with semantics here makes me sound like I'm desperately trying to deny the importance of these results, but this is the true context you have to consider. And I was asked to expand on that, so there you go. Basically, people are unhappy with the EU, I understand that, but there's also a hell of a lot of ignorance and needless euroscepticism which thrives on it. The general British attitude should be more keen to make improvements rather than to be so easily influenced by distrust.

I have no idea why someone decides that I'm not in favour of the "full and candid public debate approach". Of course I am!

I'm not a researcher who has been around Ireland to find out the exact reason the Irish voted 'no' on the Lisbon Treaty, but I've seen several brief interviews (and no, I'm not trying to support their reliability, I'm merely saying that this is the most insight I've had to that matter) where Irish citizens have openly declared that they did not have enough information on what the Treaty entailed and voted against it purely because they didn't want to risk losing any more sovereignty to the EU.

Others were encouraged to vote against it because it "supported abortion" or some **** like that. Sorry I don't have any sources by the way, I guess I don't have time to look into it now, but I hope that at least gives me a right to have a say in this little discussion.

As for the context of that Eurosceptic campaign group's survey then...
Firstly, people are more than likely to opt for more autonomy regardless of the issues at stake, and especially if they don't fully understand the issues (I completely agree that the EU needs to be more in touch with the citizens. It seems to be developing in the right direction although much more does need to be done on this front).

Secondly, it's hard to have a completely open question of course, but look just how leading the options were.

1) about an ideal relationship with Europe:

- one based simply on trade and co-operation.
Perhaps the option wasn't quite worded in this way on the survey, but nevertheless the question is more "would you like to be in it for all the benefits of trade?" rather than "would you like to lose certain social, occupational, industrial and commercial benefits?"

Asked what should happen if Britain sought to negotiate a looser relationship but other nations blocked the move..."

This also manipulates the voter to feel cheated and to assume a much more aggressive front. I wonder how the votes would have looked if the question was instead "what should happen if Britain sought to negotiate a looser relationship but the houses of parliament later voted against pursuing that course?"

I know my obsession with semantics here makes me sound like I'm desperately trying to deny the importance of these results, but this is the true context you have to consider. And I was asked to expand on that, so there you go. Basically, people are unhappy with the EU, I understand that, but there's also a hell of a lot of ignorance and needless euroscepticism which thrives on it. The general British attitude should be more keen to make improvements rather than to be so easily influenced by distrust.

And presumably no other issue which has ever faced Britain has required such treatment because?

I strongly disagree. All the European integration in the world hasn't made a blind bit of difference to me, and the only way it can particularly impact my life in the foreseeable future is if I decide to go and work abroad.

Those who voted no because they did not have enough information on the Treaty did the right thing. Would you ever agree with a legal document if you didn't understand what it meant? However, the facts were simple enough to understand from the many analyses of the treaty, both pro and anti, that are available. Not least of which is the dozens of vetoes that are lost under its terms. Anyone would think the Irish were too stupid to understand these terms listening to some europhiles. And in no way am I trying to deny to you the right to have your say!


And people have been trying to improve the EU for literally DECADES and it hasn't worked.

Why when it has been rejected do the EU still want countries to continue ratifiying? It cannot come into law without Ireland accepting it. Ireland have spoken the EU should listen. I am so glad the Irish government actually held a referendum (the only EU country to do so). It seems they are the only country with any respect left for democracy!

It's reassuring that you seem to have at least some understanding EU, even if you've found no reason to show it all here. And I see now from what you say that it would be a pretty lame approach to use the ignorance claim to criticize the idea of public votes.

I'd like to add that I'm in no way an Europhile and am pretty naive; I would love to have a public referendum on membership. At the same time though, I think we should carefully consider the use of referenda. They are highly valued aspects of our democracy and we should all respect the Irish constitutional right to one. This also means being careful not to 'over-use' the option.

By this, I mean that if the government gave into pressure (which lets face it, does originate within a highly eurosceptical British press that fails to communicate important truths to the public, resulting in the lack of public understanding problem we're faced with) whenever there was demand for referenda, our democratic system would become totally inefficient.

Even the most naive pro-democracy person (me) would realise that. So I really think that the requirements for referenda should not be blurred to suit one side of a highly contentious issue, Rather, it should remain the same necessity it has ever been, to determine the adoption of a constitution for example, and nothing outside that.

Sorry to say I can't take you seriously enough on the other issues you raise to warrant a response, but regarding the ratification process: this is something of great significance, I agree.

Why?

Parliament can overturn a previous parliament's decisions. Not possible once the Lisbon Treaty comes into force.

What benefits of trade? EEA members have the same access to the Single Market that we do. You can ask the questions anyway you like, but the benefits you mention are not dependent upon EU membership. And it's not as misleading as telling the electorate that 3 million jobs depend on EU membership as the government would have us believe.

Because referendums undermine the British system of parliamentary democracy for the sake of populism. Referendums are counterproductive to democracy in a system such as ours.

This is an interesting point, but it fails to recognise that this isn't essentially true.

All treaties are binding in international law if ratified, and cannot be de-ratified without the consent of all parties. In essence, they are a contract and adhere to similar laws. One could argue therefore that any ratified treaty puts Britain in the same situation internationally.

However the presumption here is about the extent of EU law. I have no doubt that the ECJ would hold, as it has previously, the EU is a 'new legal order' not dependent on the treaty-enacting laws of the member-states, but I don't believe the British courts would hold that (just as, incidentally, the German constitutional court has not). If Britain wanted to unilaterally withdraw from the EU, I don't think anyone would actually stand against them, and the UK judicial system would uphold it as legal - even if it is rather inconsistent.

If you're going to be in the EEA, then there's absolutely no point in not being in the EU. You're going to have to adhere to the requirements of EU law anyway in order to remain in the EEA, without the benefit of being able to actually decide what these laws are.

You're comparing the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights to treaties the EU puts out? They're from different ages and cannot be compared.

I disagree with you about the Constitution/Reform/Lisbon Treaty. You are pro-EU and might see it as uncontroversial, but the dozens of vetoes being given up are amongst the many things which I think are controversial enough to be put to a public vote. It must be a matter of opinion.

(Someone mentioned Irish worries about abortion earlier. The European Commission regards abortion as much a 'service' as banking or retail and as such it can effectively overturn Irish abortion laws now if it chooses to.)

Well perhaps the government should have thought of that before it promised a referendum in its manifesto. The issue was taken out of the debate because all three main parties promised a referendum. Our democracy is being consigned to the dustbin.

It is definitely true. Parliament cannot bind its successors, but it will, very clearly, once the Lisbon Treaty comes into force.

Sorry, but that's rubbish. History is littered with broken treaties, and, if that's what the electorate wanted, there'd be no dishonour in breaking this one.

You think the ECJ and the other member states wouldn't against stand against a member state wishing to leave? You think! Well that's ok then, but it's a shame your thoughts aren't inscribed in law.

And yet some countries still choose the EEA over the EU. And no one said the EEA was the only option anyway. As one of the largest trading blocks in the world, we'd be in an excellent position to negotiate our own agreement.