This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 1 - 7152/1 23 May 2023 [Exam chat]
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- 2023 Edexcel A level Politics Paper 2 Predictions?
- Edexcel IGCSE History | DEPTH STUDIES
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Messed up in terms of timing + info in A-Level History AQA, how will this affect me?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Uni Law Study
- What is the most boring law module?
- Hello all, i have a question for my assignment and i need help to figure it out.
- How to catch up on first year - Law LLB - please read post!
- Trinity College Dublin Dental Science
- Postgrad Master's Loan
- LPC Exams ULaw
- Mooting Problem
- University College Utrecht or Maastricht?
Referendum to be held on EU Constitutional Treaty
Scroll to see replies
Surely if the European Constitution was such a great thing the government might have a bit of a stab at explaining it the people. If it's so good sell it to us!
Exactly! We are not a nation of xenophobes, bigots or fools ( for the most part) but we are fiercely independant. A cursory glance at our national history should give some explanation why.
Another interesting point someone brought up earlier was getting closer to Europe and further from America. Anyone else see any possible future conflicts in this area? It wont be just the price of spuds we will argueing the toss over with our European brothers, what about terrorism,the Middle East and our long standing relationship with America?
Exactly! We are not a nation of xenophobes, bigots or fools ( for the most part) but we are fiercely independant. A cursory glance at our national history should give some explanation why.
Another interesting point someone brought up earlier was getting closer to Europe and further from America. Anyone else see any possible future conflicts in this area? It wont be just the price of spuds we will argueing the toss over with our European brothers, what about terrorism,the Middle East and our long standing relationship with America?
Please Sort Your Tags Out!
Well I obviously thought it was.
I personally do not support the EU constitution, in fact I'm opposed to the EU being anything other than purely economic. There was this article I read on the Sunday Express (March 28th 2004) which said that Britain would be basically trapped in the EU forever if it did sign up to the constitution, don't know if anyone else here read that article?
For those that didn't, I'll just quote a few lines from it to give you a general idea of what it was about.
'Under Article 1-59 Britain would have to give two years' notice before leaving the EU. During that time, Britain would be barred from participating in any decision or voting in any EU institutions, even if they directly concerened British interests'
'This would effectively hand over the governing of Britain to Brussels for two years, which would make it politically impossible for any British premier to agree to such terms.'
'European Commission president Romano Prodi has insisted that the concerns are "highly hypothetical" but , at the same time, warned that a member state which ignored the complex rules for withdrawal would be "in breach" of both EU and intl law.'
'Leading eurosceptics claim the so-called "Exit cuase" in the consitution is a trap preventing Britain - or any other member state- from leaving the EU within two years and handing over control to Brussels for that time. Those strict rules would mean no British PM would ever be able in practice to take Britain out fo the EU if national interests came under threat.'
Sunday Express, Page 2, March 28 2004
If this is true, then how come the public has not been told about this very strange exit clause? If I remember correctly, Blair promised to work out an exit clause with the committee. Interesting how he never went into details. Hmm, I wonder why?
I personally do not support the EU constitution, in fact I'm opposed to the EU being anything other than purely economic. There was this article I read on the Sunday Express (March 28th 2004) which said that Britain would be basically trapped in the EU forever if it did sign up to the constitution, don't know if anyone else here read that article?
For those that didn't, I'll just quote a few lines from it to give you a general idea of what it was about.
'Under Article 1-59 Britain would have to give two years' notice before leaving the EU. During that time, Britain would be barred from participating in any decision or voting in any EU institutions, even if they directly concerened British interests'
'This would effectively hand over the governing of Britain to Brussels for two years, which would make it politically impossible for any British premier to agree to such terms.'
'European Commission president Romano Prodi has insisted that the concerns are "highly hypothetical" but , at the same time, warned that a member state which ignored the complex rules for withdrawal would be "in breach" of both EU and intl law.'
'Leading eurosceptics claim the so-called "Exit cuase" in the consitution is a trap preventing Britain - or any other member state- from leaving the EU within two years and handing over control to Brussels for that time. Those strict rules would mean no British PM would ever be able in practice to take Britain out fo the EU if national interests came under threat.'
Sunday Express, Page 2, March 28 2004
If this is true, then how come the public has not been told about this very strange exit clause? If I remember correctly, Blair promised to work out an exit clause with the committee. Interesting how he never went into details. Hmm, I wonder why?
zizero
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3635943.stm
Apparently, Blair has made a fantastic U-turn and decided to after all call a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty.
What are your thoughts? Why did he suddenly change his mind? Is he right?
Will/would you vote in favour or against the Constitution?
Apparently, Blair has made a fantastic U-turn and decided to after all call a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty.
What are your thoughts? Why did he suddenly change his mind? Is he right?
Will/would you vote in favour or against the Constitution?
This constitution will affect british domestic and foreign politics for a long period of time (several generations) and so it is no more than fare that the public gets to decide.
koldtoast
Well I obviously thought it was.
I personally do not support the EU constitution, in fact I'm opposed to the EU being anything other than purely economic. There was this article I read on the Sunday Express (March 28th 2004) which said that Britain would be basically trapped in the EU forever if it did sign up to the constitution, don't know if anyone else here read that article?
For those that didn't, I'll just quote a few lines from it to give you a general idea of what it was about.
'Under Article 1-59 Britain would have to give two years' notice before leaving the EU. During that time, Britain would be barred from participating in any decision or voting in any EU institutions, even if they directly concerened British interests'
'This would effectively hand over the governing of Britain to Brussels for two years, which would make it politically impossible for any British premier to agree to such terms.'
'European Commission president Romano Prodi has insisted that the concerns are "highly hypothetical" but , at the same time, warned that a member state which ignored the complex rules for withdrawal would be "in breach" of both EU and intl law.'
'Leading eurosceptics claim the so-called "Exit cuase" in the consitution is a trap preventing Britain - or any other member state- from leaving the EU within two years and handing over control to Brussels for that time. Those strict rules would mean no British PM would ever be able in practice to take Britain out fo the EU if national interests came under threat.'
Sunday Express, Page 2, March 28 2004
If this is true, then how come the public has not been told about this very strange exit clause? If I remember correctly, Blair promised to work out an exit clause with the committee. Interesting how he never went into details. Hmm, I wonder why?
I personally do not support the EU constitution, in fact I'm opposed to the EU being anything other than purely economic. There was this article I read on the Sunday Express (March 28th 2004) which said that Britain would be basically trapped in the EU forever if it did sign up to the constitution, don't know if anyone else here read that article?
For those that didn't, I'll just quote a few lines from it to give you a general idea of what it was about.
'Under Article 1-59 Britain would have to give two years' notice before leaving the EU. During that time, Britain would be barred from participating in any decision or voting in any EU institutions, even if they directly concerened British interests'
'This would effectively hand over the governing of Britain to Brussels for two years, which would make it politically impossible for any British premier to agree to such terms.'
'European Commission president Romano Prodi has insisted that the concerns are "highly hypothetical" but , at the same time, warned that a member state which ignored the complex rules for withdrawal would be "in breach" of both EU and intl law.'
'Leading eurosceptics claim the so-called "Exit cuase" in the consitution is a trap preventing Britain - or any other member state- from leaving the EU within two years and handing over control to Brussels for that time. Those strict rules would mean no British PM would ever be able in practice to take Britain out fo the EU if national interests came under threat.'
Sunday Express, Page 2, March 28 2004
If this is true, then how come the public has not been told about this very strange exit clause? If I remember correctly, Blair promised to work out an exit clause with the committee. Interesting how he never went into details. Hmm, I wonder why?
Well this is the object of some debate actually.
The constitution would only become law once an Act of Parliament makes it law. Nothing can be done to stop Parliament repealing any Act. If this is so then Britain wouldn't be stuck in the EU forever and could in fact raise two fingers at Europe any time it wants to.
'European Commission president Romano Prodi has insisted that the concerns are "highly hypothetical" but , at the same time, warned that a member state which ignored the complex rules for withdrawal would be "in breach" of both EU and intl law.'
Do you really think Britain would be able to "raise two fingers are Europe any time" like you said? As Romano Prodi said, any state that ignored the exit clause rules would be "in breach of both EU and international law."
And even if Britain did just pull out without following the withdrawal rules, I bet Europe would do its best to severely penalise us for doing so (remember, with a Constitution in force, the entire EU would act as ONE) in a number of ways like banning British products from EU markets, monetary fines and so on.
Do you really think Britain would be able to "raise two fingers are Europe any time" like you said? As Romano Prodi said, any state that ignored the exit clause rules would be "in breach of both EU and international law."
And even if Britain did just pull out without following the withdrawal rules, I bet Europe would do its best to severely penalise us for doing so (remember, with a Constitution in force, the entire EU would act as ONE) in a number of ways like banning British products from EU markets, monetary fines and so on.
zizero
Which reminds of a Pakistani friend who told me that a few years ago there was a referendum about keeping the president in power and the question read something like this:
"Are you a devout Muslim and support President XY?"
"Are you a devout Muslim and support President XY?"
This makes me think about when a friend of mine explained teh pakistani electoral system. Basicly, first there is the elections, where each party get a certain number of members in the government. Once these members has been selected by the different parties, whichever partyleader has access to the most funds pay the other members of government to switch party until he has a single majority in the government.
Howard
Well this is the object of some debate actually.
The constitution would only become law once an Act of Parliament makes it law. Nothing can be done to stop Parliament repealing any Act. If this is so then Britain wouldn't be stuck in the EU forever and could in fact raise two fingers at Europe any time it wants to.
The constitution would only become law once an Act of Parliament makes it law. Nothing can be done to stop Parliament repealing any Act. If this is so then Britain wouldn't be stuck in the EU forever and could in fact raise two fingers at Europe any time it wants to.
Well, I dont think britain has a real problem here actually, because britain is such an important part of the European economy. Norway, on the other hand has the problem that although they are not members of the EU, they are more or less forced to implement all EU regulations, and dont get to take part in the decisions.
koldtoast
'European Commission president Romano Prodi has insisted that the concerns are "highly hypothetical" but , at the same time, warned that a member state which ignored the complex rules for withdrawal would be "in breach" of both EU and intl law.'
Do you really think Britain would be able to "raise two fingers are Europe any time" like you said? As Romano Prodi said, any state that ignored the exit clause rules would be "in breach of both EU and international law."
And even if Britain did just pull out without following the withdrawal rules, I bet Europe would do its best to severely penalise us for doing so (remember, with a Constitution in force, the entire EU would act as ONE) in a number of ways like banning British products from EU markets, monetary fines and so on.
Do you really think Britain would be able to "raise two fingers are Europe any time" like you said? As Romano Prodi said, any state that ignored the exit clause rules would be "in breach of both EU and international law."
And even if Britain did just pull out without following the withdrawal rules, I bet Europe would do its best to severely penalise us for doing so (remember, with a Constitution in force, the entire EU would act as ONE) in a number of ways like banning British products from EU markets, monetary fines and so on.
If some constitutional lawyers are correct Parliament remains our supreme legislative body, and not Europe.
Any directive or regulation emminating from Europe does not become law in the UK until it makes it's way through the legislation as an Act of Parliament.
This would also apply to the EU Constitution. Simply signing it will not make it law in this country. It must become law via an Act of Parliament.
Any Act of Parliament can be repealed. If this particular Act of Parliament was repealed the result would be the UK's exit from the fold of Europe. If the UK exits then it can't be subject to EU law can it? So Mr.Prodi is wrong.
Jonatan
Well, I dont think britain has a real problem here actually, because britain is such an important part of the European economy. Norway, on the other hand has the problem that although they are not members of the EU, they are more or less forced to implement all EU regulations, and dont get to take part in the decisions.
Britain is important because it's a net financial contributor to the the vanity of someone's vision of Europe and for no other reason.
So the proposed constitution has nothing mentioned in it about being more powerful than Parliament?
edited to add:
If the UK joins up to the constitution, it would be agreeing to its contents, which clearly defines the rules for leaving the EU.
If Britain leaves the EU without following the guidelines for exit, it would be violating the terms stated in the document - a document which it had agreed to.
Surely this would mean the EU would be allowed to penalise Britain for doing so? And I'm sure they would not treat such a thing lightly!
edited to add:
If the UK joins up to the constitution, it would be agreeing to its contents, which clearly defines the rules for leaving the EU.
If Britain leaves the EU without following the guidelines for exit, it would be violating the terms stated in the document - a document which it had agreed to.
Surely this would mean the EU would be allowed to penalise Britain for doing so? And I'm sure they would not treat such a thing lightly!
koldtoast
So the proposed constitution has nothing mentioned in it about being more powerful than Parliament?
edited to add:
If the UK joins up to the constitution, it would be agreeing to its contents, which clearly defines the rules for leaving the EU.
If Britain leaves the EU without following the guidelines for exit, it would be violating the terms stated in the document - a document which it had agreed to.
Surely this would mean the EU would be allowed to penalise Britain for doing so? And I'm sure they would not treat such a thing lightly!
edited to add:
If the UK joins up to the constitution, it would be agreeing to its contents, which clearly defines the rules for leaving the EU.
If Britain leaves the EU without following the guidelines for exit, it would be violating the terms stated in the document - a document which it had agreed to.
Surely this would mean the EU would be allowed to penalise Britain for doing so? And I'm sure they would not treat such a thing lightly!
But again, even if the EU constitution contains those words the constitution only becomes law via an Act of Parliament. Any Act can be repealed through a legal doctrine that says "Parliament cannot bind itself"
It's a very complex and circular argument to be honest! The effect, if any, on Parliamentary sovereingty, has not yet been decided even in theory, let alone practice, despite a lot of argument between some very clever constitutional lawyers and academics.
Of course another way of looking at it is this;
The opening lines of the EU constitution, in much the same way as the US constitution, suggest that the right to govern is subject to a willingness of the governed to be governed. Once that willingness erodes is there any validity to the constitution? We then go into a whole new area; a successionist argument.
I'd take what Mr.Prodi has said with a pinch of salt.
Having read most of this thread, I think that the argument in favour of the EU Constitution is still stronger and I will be voting "yes".. (first time I can legally vote!). I personally believe that Blair was heavily influenced by Brown on this one and that win or lose- the referendum will provide him with a perfect opportunity to make his exit.
zizero
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3635943.stm
Apparently, Blair has made a fantastic U-turn and decided to after all call a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty.
What are your thoughts? Why did he suddenly change his mind? Is he right?
Will/would you vote in favour or against the Constitution?
Apparently, Blair has made a fantastic U-turn and decided to after all call a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty.
What are your thoughts? Why did he suddenly change his mind? Is he right?
Will/would you vote in favour or against the Constitution?
I'm going to wait until the constitution is agreed before deciding finally which way i would vote, but although i am pro good relations with other countries, i believe that i will almost certainly vote no, unless britain hands over alot less control to europe, than what from i gather from the media, they will be doing currently.
Elle
Having read most of this thread, I think that the argument in favour of the EU Constitution is still stronger and I will be voting "yes".. (first time I can legally vote!). I personally believe that Blair was heavily influenced by Brown on this one and that win or lose- the referendum will provide him with a perfect opportunity to make his exit.
what argument?
Iluvatar
I'm going to wait until the constitution is agreed before deciding finally which way i would vote, but although i am pro good relations with other countries, i believe that i will almost certainly vote no, unless britain hands over alot less control to europe, than what from i gather from the media, they will be doing currently.
Blair said yesterday that the UK will still keep its sovereignty.
Related discussions
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 1 - 7152/1 23 May 2023 [Exam chat]
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 2 (9PL0 02) 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- 2023 Edexcel A level Politics Paper 2 Predictions?
- Edexcel IGCSE History | DEPTH STUDIES
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Messed up in terms of timing + info in A-Level History AQA, how will this affect me?
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Uni Law Study
- What is the most boring law module?
- Hello all, i have a question for my assignment and i need help to figure it out.
- How to catch up on first year - Law LLB - please read post!
- Trinity College Dublin Dental Science
- Postgrad Master's Loan
- LPC Exams ULaw
- Mooting Problem
- University College Utrecht or Maastricht?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
