Euro Constitution Referrendum

M

Matt F

Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Messages
703
Reaction score
0
Location
Deva
This isn't about the question which is fairly clear or the result which most people reckon will be a resounding 'No'.

I read the referrendum is going to cost £80M. Given that, wouldn't it be a good idea to also canvas public opinion on other matters such as the single currency, immigration, law & order, fox hunting, Clause 28 etc. or would the Government be fearful of what that public opinion might be?

May I also add that what's really annoying is the way the "Yes" camp, with depressing New Labour unoriginality, dismiss anyone voting "No" as either "Little Englanders" or as simply not understanding the question - god forbid that anyone could possibly have weighed up all the evidence and decided "No"! There - that's that one off my chest.

Matt.
 
The UK is not Switzerland. Referenda are held very rarely and generally only on matters of great constitutional importance. I'm not going to get drawn into the politics of this question though - but anyone voting "No" is either a Little Englander or doesn't understand the issues :)

Michael.
 
hey, look at the mess we've made of the world under self rule - could brussels really be any worse......

*this comment is 85.2% tongue in cheek*

cheers


julian
 
michaelab said:
The UK is not Switzerland. Referenda are held very rarely and generally only on matters of great constitutional importance.
Click to expand...

Michael, I appreaciate what you say above and I'm not suggesting the answers given to my additional suggested above would become policy but I forever hear politicians saying public opinion is this or that - based on a poll of a couple of hundred people i.e. I don't think they necessarily know what public opinion is.

Of course you can't go asking the electorate for decisions on complicated financial matters for instance but if policitians knew that, say, 2/3rds of the public really don't give a damn either way about fox hunting then perhaps they need not have wasted so much parliamentary time on it.

MP's are supposed to go out and talk to their constituents, canvass their opinions and then represent them in parliament. This idea would give them the opinions of the whole public in one foul swoop.

We could have a situation where the government could actually represent the will of the people - isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be about?

Matt.
 
I would be surprised if the result was not very close. I personally have nothing against joining Europe and the Euro, and will happily vote yes, I suspect the result will be a yes otherwise the question wouldn't be asked.
Anyway I agree with Michael, anyone voting no is either a little englander, or doesn't understand the question!!
I suspect their will be quite a north south divide over this, a lot of the northern industrial cities will vote yes as they are fed up of the southocentric bias, and the fact that for something to be valued it has to come from London. I think there will be quite a backlash there. Manchester for instance is watching askance at the moment as London builds itself yet another cross city link, and we are told our metrolink is likely to be uneconomic, unintegrated, and that buses are the answer. A little less importance being attached to the south would be very much appreciated up here.
 
lordsummit said:
Anyway I agree with Michael, anyone voting no is either a little englander, or doesn't understand the question!!
Click to expand...
I also agree with this, but I don't think it'll be a close vote. I think most people will vote no unfortunately:(.
 
Matt F said:
We could have a situation where the government could actually represent the will of the people - isn't that what a democracy is supposed to be about?
Click to expand...
Perish the thought.

Freedom is essential and therefore we need some democracy. We certainly don't want too much of the stuff though, IMO. Trust the will of the people? You've got to be kidding.

And the vote itself ...

I will be voting against. Surprised? ;)
 
To me the whole idea of European integration is a good one, but the problem is in getting the implementation right and simple enough to be understandable and practical, rather than unwieldy and overly beaurocratic.

I also think that the way in which the whole process is being pushed forwards at a rate decided upon by the most enthusiastic, rather than a general broad consensus amongst the populations of the European countries involved, is not the best way for it to work.

My 2p :)
 
michaelab said:
The UK is not Switzerland. Referenda are held very rarely and generally only on matters of great constitutional importance. I'm not going to get drawn into the politics of this question though - but anyone voting "No" is either a Little Englander or doesn't understand the issues :)

Michael.
Click to expand...


It's Little Britan, Michael, Not Englander, Yeah But, No But, Yeah But.

Seriously though, I would like to know 10 things that the Euro Constitution has that would improve the UK as a whole & more importantly what it has it got that would benefit me Personally.

It always make me chuckle how people who live in Countries in Europe who Contribute LESS but Take MORE out, (Spain, Portugal, Greece to name a few), than the UK always seem to rattle on how good the European Union & the Euro is, has it got anything to do with all the hand outs they get? Which happens to be UK Taxpayers Money.

It's not a case of being a 'Little Englander'; It's more a case of being taken for a fool.

Like letting the Spanish Fish in OUR waters. What the F**** is that all about.

 
So when the rest of Europe sets up preferential trading amongst themselves. The Japanese technology and car companies find themselves unable to compete in the Euro, do you think they'll stay here?
How will our companies who manufacture survive, the pound will no doubt be kept high, so our citizens think we are rich when we go abroad, so no-one will be able to afford our goods. We'll find ourselves in splendid isolation with only America to run to, and we all know how much we all love Dubba, is the next one likely to be any better?
If you really think that staying out of Europe is a viable option, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Stop reading the News of the Screws, the express or the mail, and listen to what industry and the money men are saying. If we are to maintain our position as a wealthy country, as opposed to a small Island economy we have to join Europe.
It's all very well touting those tired arguments about all the money we spend on other countries, the reason we pay more is we have more. If we don't join in we won't have more. Our economic strength gives us power. If we turn down the opportunity now and have to go in a few years time with a begging bowl, do you really think we'll be in as good a position? I just don't understand why so many people want to play Brit's against the world
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Much of whatever 'economic strength' we have is as a consequence of not using the Euro. So why do you want to throw that away?

The new 'constitution' is a whole other matter. IMO it should be rejected out of hand. Explain to me why you want it. Have you read any of it? I could do better.

Pau
 
What do you find so objectionable about the constitution Paul? The right to have proper representation in the workplace or reasonable working weeks. What is wrong with a decision made somewhere other than London. To be quite honest I'd be glad of some decisions being made that didn't see London right first. I get sick of hearing how important a place it is. There's nothing that happens there that couldn't be done somewhere else.
Our economic strength as far as I can see it is built on other peoples money, we don't actually own anything anymore. You can blame Thatcher for that, so when we price ourselves out of the market, the money will leave.
 
This is essentially what the argument will be over. Read and enjoy!

Constitution/en 14
Fundamental rights
1. The Union shall recognise the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights which constitutes Part II.
2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's competences as defined in the
Constitution.
3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions
common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law.
ARTICLE I-10
Citizenship of the Union
1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union
shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it.
Constitution/en 15
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the
Constitution. They shall have:
(a) the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
(b) the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in
municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as
nationals of that State;
(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of which they
are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of
any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of that State;
(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to
address the institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Constitution's
languages and to obtain a reply in the same language.
These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the
Constitution and by the measures adopted thereunder.
Constitution/en 16
TITLE III
UNION COMPETENCES
ARTICLE I-11
Fundamental principles
1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of
Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences
conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the
Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the
Member States.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence,
the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently
achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather,
by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on
the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments shall
ensure compliance with that principle in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed
what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Constitution.
Constitution/en 17
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the
Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
ARTICLE I-12
Categories of competence
1. When the Constitution confers on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the
Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so
themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts.
2. When the Constitution confers on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a
specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that
area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not
exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence.
3. The Member States shall coordinate their economic and employment policies within
arrangements as determined by Part III, which the Union shall have competence to provide.
4. The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security
policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.
5. In certain areas and under the conditions laid down in the Constitution, the Union shall have
competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the
Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas.
Constitution/en 18
Legally binding acts of the Union adopted on the basis of the provisions in Part III relating to these
areas shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations.
6. The scope of and arrangements for exercising the Union's competences shall be determined
by the provisions relating to each area in Part III.
ARTICLE I-13
Areas of exclusive competence
1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.
2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international
agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to
enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect
common rules or alter their scope.
Constitution/en 19
ARTICLE I-14
Areas of shared competence
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Constitution confers on
it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles I-13 and I-17.
2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following
principal areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in Part III;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in Part III.
3. In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have
competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however, the
exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising
theirs.
Constitution/en 20
4. In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have
competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that
competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.
ARTICLE I-15
The coordination of economic and employment policies
1. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the Union. To this end,
the Council of Ministers shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies.
Specific provisions shall apply to those Member States whose currency is the euro.
2. The Union shall take measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the
Member States, in particular by defining guidelines for these policies.
3. The Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States' social policies.
ARTICLE I-16
The common foreign and security policy
1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all
areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive
framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
Constitution/en 21
2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and
security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action
in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its
effectiveness.
ARTICLE I-17
Areas of supporting, coordinating or complementary action
The Union shall have competence to carry out supporting, coordinating or complementary action.
The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:
(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism;
(e) education, youth, sport and vocational training;
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation.
ARTICLE I-18
Flexibility clause
1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in
Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not
provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from
the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt
the appropriate measures.
2. Using the procedure for monitoring the subsidiarity principle referred to in Article I-11(3), the
European Commission shall draw national Parliaments' attention to proposals based on this Article.
3. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or
regulations in cases where the Constitution excludes such harmonisation.
 
There are many things that I don't like about the EU, both practical and ethical. However, I'll just mention one issue which I believe is more than sufficient to damn the project, without even starting on the many other issues.

The EU has a vast, extremely expensive and very inefficient bureacracy. No governing institution with such a bureacracy can possibly do more good than harm.
 
lordsummit said:
Steve can you name a government or even local authority which doesn't use an extremely cumbersome, expensive and inefficient bureacracy?
Click to expand...
No I can't.

Therefore it's particularly damaging to add yet another cumbersome, expensive and inefficient layer of bureacracy.
 
Well I have read it and I cannot see anything that will benefit me.

So it's like most things that come from the EU Commisision - A Load Of Tosh.

Anotherthing I do not understand is - Why does the UK have to have to accept more Immigrants than all the other Countries in the EU. That stinks.

I still think we should become another State Of America & screw the EU.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top