So, the Czech was not in the post

Frankly, nothing David Cameron does can replicate the duplicity of the newlabour manifesto pledge to hold a referendum.

Call an election.

Cameron - off the hook then.

Lets have a referendum on european membership, i'm pro-europe but i'm sick of the constant whining from the antis which just isn't going stop until the country has voted.

And if as a result we end up leaving the EU, well, in a democracy you get the country you deserve....

So this is your lead story.

The fact that the EU establishment has outmanoeuvred a possible future UK Government and preventing its population from exercising democratic rights?

An obvious case of BBC bias.

Seeing as, like it or not, we're all Europeans now, can we get rid of the superfluous waste of space that is the Westminster parliament?
No?
Didn't think so.

"He will reject the arguments of those saying he needs a referendum to give him the people's mandate to negotiate a new settlement with Europe by arguing that an election victory is mandate enough."

Hmm, I'm not sure that he needs a Referendum as a mandate to negotiate with Europe - as you (and he) rightly say, being elected as Prime Minister ought to be mandate enough, should it happen. (And at this stage, I'm guessing it probably will).

However, I DO think that he - and the country - needs a Referendum, regardless of the Lisbon Treaty or any other agreements, just so we can find out, once-and-for-all, how the British people truly feel about this whole EU concept.

So far, everything possible seems to have been done to deny us the chance to have our say. Always, this excuse and that excuse from the party in charge at the time as to why they shouldn't ask the British Public for their opinion. I guess it figures, 'cos it they actually knew what we thought, they might have to stop pretending that their ideological views on Europe are in-line with the majority of Europe.

But frankly, I don't care whether the Lisbon Treaty is now law. I want the chance to register my opinion on what may be one of the most significant changes to the governance of this country for hundreds of years, and to see what the rest of the country feels about it.

And if it turns out that the majority view is against our continued relationship with the EU, I expect whoever is elected to do whatever it takes to pull us out of it; Lisbon Treaty or no Lisbon Treaty. Likewise, if the majority view is that we should stay in Europe and sign up to a new Constitution, I don't expect a future Euro-sceptic government to put their ideology over the wishes of the people of this country.

all of the present members of government should be tried for crimes against the state.miliband and brown should be tried for treachery.

Silly me. I thought you might of made the subject of your blog the statement by our Home Secretary admitting mistakes have been made in our immigration policy.

Alan Johnson is obviously not sleeping well thinking about the UKs population in 20 years time. Soon Gordon Brown will be saying " I've never being completely happy about our open door policy"

At least in our homes and pubs we can now discuss this subject without being guilty of rascism

The one thing I felt I could guarantee was that Nick would happily report the latest news that potentially shows the tories in a bad light and yet continue to ignore issues that are going on in the Labour party.

I also notice nothing on Gordon Brown's interview with Piers, even though it portrayed him in a better light.

We know that David Cameron would if he could hold a referendum on Europe, but he is right, there is no point now.

Labour has already sold off our assets, our financial sector, our gold, our buildings, our monuments and our freedoms.

I can only hope that the tories once elected will work as hard as their Czech counterpart to try and recover some of our liberty.

3. At 10:23am on 03 Nov 2009, kcband8 wrote:
So this is your lead story.

The fact that the EU establishment has outmanoeuvred a possible future UK Government and preventing its population from exercising democratic rights?

An obvious case of BBC bias.

-----------

So you think the BBC shouldnt report the story at all?

Some times i honestly question if some contributors know what 'bias' is.

I'll give you a clue.

Just because the Beeb runs a story which reflects negatively on your favourite political party does not make it bias.

And in this case it doesn't even reflect negatively on Cameron & Co - Its just a statement of facts.

Nick why is this always the main story from the BBC on Europe? Why not the fact that both Labour and LibDems have reneged on an election promise and as a result in league with the EU establishment have yet again denied the British people the same rights as other europeans. I have yet to see you or any other of teh BBc's staff push Brown, Milliband or Blair on this issue.

Nick please let's have an analysis of the treachery of both Brown and the LibDems over this rather than trying to put Cameron in a bad light.

In fact, DC should go for a two-pronged attack:

1. Set out in his manifesto the basis of renogotiation with the EU and then proceed with renogotiations along those lines. If he succeeds - well good. If he fails, the EU will be shown up for what many of us feel it is heading towards - a bureaucratic dictatorship

2. DC can then go to the people with a referendum setting out the choice of rolling over and accepting that or taking the route to freedom.

Nick - the link to the Czech Court item at the top of your post is broken.

@ kcband8, post #7;

"Silly me. I thought you might of made the subject of your blog the statement by our Home Secretary admitting mistakes have been made in our immigration policy."

Yes, that's right - because if each and every single story, blog and opinion-piece on the BBC website isn't constantly running nothing but non-stop criticism of the current government, it's an "obvious case of BBC bias", right?

The Alan Johnson immigration comments were political-boilerplate stuff; 'Yes, we've done our best, but mistakes have been made, must try harder in future', etc. The sort of bland waffle produced in bucketloads by cabinet ministers and shadow-cabinet ministers on a daily basis. Quite why you think this should take precedence over an issue as important as the one we're currently discussing, I have no idea.

Far more significant would be Johnson's behaviour over the sacking of Dr Nutt recently; of course, that one has already been discussed at length on Mark Easton's blog, which doesn't really give you the chance to whine and make inane accusations of "bias" because Nick Robinson dared to produce a post that focused on David Cameron for a change, does it?

So no suprise, then, that you picked a non-issue to complain about instead.

An obvious case of random-blog-contributor bias.

#1 -- absolutely.
My take is that David C. should consider a much broader referendum and ask the British people a number questions concerning UKs future with Europe. For example;
Euro - Yes/No
Reduce Contribution to Euro funding - Yes/No
Trade Agreement only - Yes/No
Withdraw Completely - Yes/No
Let's face it, it is Blair and Brown that failed the UK people with a referendum on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Don't really feel that David Cameron should carry the can for Labour's incompetence and down right election bribes and lies.

Sorry to be so cynical, but if I was David Cameron I'd promise a referendum, win the election, then rat on the promise. And if people think that's outrageous, consider this: it's no more in terms of breaking promises on Europe than he's doing already. %3Ca%20href="https://www.caledonian-comment.com">Caledonian Comment

"..... He will promise a referendum for any future treaty change."

A pointless promise. The Lisbon Treaty is set up so that there will never, ever be a need to hold a referendum again. The only vote possible now is one for IN or OUT. Personally I'd like to see such a ballot.

BTW Nick, your blogs of late remind me of a saying by the late US politician Adlai Stevenson. "An editor is the person who sorts the wheat from the chaff. Then prints the chaff"

Another spiffingly good egg article by the BBC Political Editor.

Filled to the brim with everything one could possibly wish for: Why think about the Cameron Referendum conumdrum, the Lisbon treaty etc. when there's a bril explanation for all our troubls just infront of our noses.

Oh be still my beating....

Cue more "thats it I was going to vote Tory but now I'm going UKIP" rantings. When are the eurosceptics going to realise that this is exactly why Labour reneged, to set this trap for the Tories. Do you really want to dive into that trap head first?

The real issue here is that there WAS a referendum on joining Europe, where the people of the UK voted in favour of being a part of European common market.

The major difference here is that we did so in the knowledge that we were not surrendering our constitutional autonomy.

That has now been just handed over without even a 'what do you think?'

Two things highlighted in the last two weeks - Europe are leading on how the banks are broken up and Darling has to get approval from Neelie Kroes on the appropriate financial support for OUR banks to ensure fair play in Europe.

PLus the issue of the SFO having to seek permission from Europe before it can bring a prosecution in the UK against a UK business.

We are now the official chip eating surrender monkeys of Europe.

What would be the point of a referendum after we are already committed. We should have had one, as should any democratic country (and had ONE, not kept having them until politicians got the answer they wanted). But we did not.

Having a referendum after we are committed would be a complete waste of time and money and as such would probably suffer very poor turnout. It would not give a representative result as many people would have better things to do than travel to the polling station to register an opinion that will affect nothing.

Quite obscene that as a country which claims to be democratic we did not have a referendum as promised by Labour, but after the event is just a waste of limited time and limited money and would dive no answers.

I've got loads of things to say, but I'm afraid the mods will consider them off topic.

So, I'll wait till Nick thinks the coast is clear, possibly next week, and starts a thread NOT related to Europe.

Great opportunity to replace the UK parliament by an English one. But MPs will be too busy worrying about their expenses to take it, I fear.

10. At 10:36am on 03 Nov 2009, maidstonerichard wrote:
Nick why is this always the main story from the BBC on Europe? Why not the fact that both Labour and LibDems have reneged on an election promise and as a result in league with the EU establishment have yet again denied the British people the same rights as other europeans. I have yet to see you or any other of teh BBc's staff push Brown, Milliband or Blair on this issue.


-----

How have the LIb-dems ever reneged on anything?

They've never been in a position to fulfill their election promises, nevermind renege on them.

#1 Robin

Come on, Rock, it's all very good to sound off about the past but surely the existential issue is more important to the Conservatives?

It seems that William Hague is getting 'Baron' Michael Ashcroft 'of Chichester', the Tories main donor and big Eurosceptic, involved with foreign affairs even going as far as having him accompany him on his recent trip to the US.

Surely, it's obvious that Dave is in the pocket of the powerful Eurosceptic wing of the Tories besides it was only with them that he was able to become leader.

This all adds up to a real mess.... Dave has to decide, is he going to fight the party or is he going to fight Europe (and at the same time, the US as they want to deal with one Europe - not two)?

What a fine mess he's got himself into and on the subject of Michael (Lord) Ashcroft becoming a government minister, well, it sounds worse than New Labour (as Mike is embroiled in conflict with the government in his home of Belize).

It was as Boris says 'aspirational promise"
A promise is not a promise any more in politician speak, which should all know that by now. And this is not down to which party is supported, they are all turning to the same line as it works for one, works for all.

More to the point what will Cameron do? Seems to make promises so far..... see above.

Now here's a valid european question.

Since the EU is demanding the government reduce the size of its Uk banking business, and we seem to be doing that by giving the useless banks even more money, our money, and the share price is going down, which financial genius is driving this train, eh?

Where are the men who are doing the right thing here, and ensuring that our best interests are protected?

My 2 year old grandson could do better than this lot.

10 Maidstonerichard wrote:
"Nick why is this always the main story from the BBC on Europe?"

Well look at the top the web page. This is a news site. It therefore focuses on the most recent developments. Sorry to have to spell out the obvious.

Why do people keep accusing this Newslog of bias? If you stand far enough to the right, everything is on your left. That's pretty obvious too.

To round off this trio of obvious things: Cameron would rather, if elected, get on with his own agenda than waste time on a referendum just to pacify the anti-European cranks in his own party and beyond.

To the British political establishment that have lied, deceived and given away the freedoms and democracy of the British populace and electorate, two words:

Sieg Heil!

Shame on all you discredited and dishonourable MPs. I have nothing but contempt for these scum.

At the last election, all three parties promised a referendum on the Lisbon constitution/treaty BEFORE it was ratified. Labour and the Lib Dems reneged on that promise. The Tories (Dave's "cast iron guarantee") did not. With the Lisbon treaty all but ratified, the facts on the ground have now changed so a new policy on restraining Europe's influence on our sovereign British laws will have to be thought out.
The electorate will remember that it was Labour and the Lib Dems that sold them down the river and it was the Tories who stood up for them. Every manifesto promise made by Lab/Lib will mean nothing.

It was easy for Cameron to make a promise of a referendum in the full knowledge that the issue would be moot by the time he took office (if he does). Typical politician's deviousness; anyone who thinks life will be different under the Old Tories, rather then the New, is in for a big disappointment.

#9 goldCaesar

What news story? Are you now saying the latest opinion coming out of the BBC is a news story?

#Culverin

'Sound off about the past' ??? What can you mean? Do you mean that within six months there will be an election and you'd rather the tories didn't bother raking up the abysmal track record of failure, denial and disingenuous posturing form this government?

So they should say nothing about the promise of a refendum? Nothing about the ending of boom and bust? Nothing about the enobling of abnkers now bankrupting our country? Nothing about the increase in child poverty? Nothing about the higher level of unemployment than when newlabour came to office twelve years ago? Nothing about the highest natioanl debt since WWII? Nothing about the chronic uncerinvestment in infrastructure, our crumbling roads, railways and power stations? Nothing about the decimating of the pension system? Nothing about the criminally high level of benefit claimants? Nothing about unfettered immigration?

Are you one of those newlabour apologist living in complete denial about your track record hoping to fight the election on the basis of empty smears about troy donors, toffs and lack of policy?

Go for it. Best of luck.

Call an election.

Does anyone remember Tony Blair saying that he wanted us to leave the EU? Once our politicians get their noses in the troff of power and EU summits and all that, they soon sell their souls, or should I say, our Nation downt he river. Can you imagine whatthe lads in the Somme would make of all of this? Or Churchill? We seem to have a bunch of lilly livered politicians who are out for one thing, and the EU gives it to them - power and money!

We are the generation that finally saw Britannia conquered (no longer is she even on our money!) and the sad thing is, they didn't even fire a single shot!

We are the disgrace, not the politicians. After all, they do our bidding - if we make our voices heard enough!

I do not often agree with you Mr.Robinson, but on this occasion and on this point, I do. Those who are anti-EU., need to know where they stand. Cameron must come out and state what his intentions are as far as the whole ratification process is concerned.

Will we adopt the Euro? This and other matters ( Common Agricultural Policy included) must be openly resolved well before any general election.

I certainly do not wish to spoil my vote for our sitting MP; so Cameron is lucky that we have a good Tory MP who also appears Euro-sceptic. Otherwise I may well go for UKIP. This Country needs the help of the voters and we must grasp the nettle.

I think that most sensible people accept that there is little point having a referendum on a done deal. We are where we are. I recall that someone important once said that politics is the art of what is possible (or something like it). So long as David Cameron sets out a pragmatic policy statement then I think he will command the broad support of the British people. If he upsets a few dinosaurs in his party along the way so be it.

Ho hum.

Well, we didn't see this coming, did we?

You're right in one thing though Nicholas:

"but does not persuade Eurosceptics inside the Tory party and beyond it that Cameron and Hague have "sold out", and put their desire for power before their principles.

Watch this space."

Precisely what Blair, Brown and Mandy did at the birth of the New Labour project. This is going to be the Tories Clause 4 moment.

If Cam has indeed "sold out" for power over principle, then lets hope that the electorate are maybe, just maybe that little bit sharper (having had the wool pulled over their eyes successfully 3 times by Blair) to fall for it again.

He will deservedly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm beginning to think the tories actually want to lose the next election.... thank God I'm abroad.

31. At 11:35am on 03 Nov 2009, KennethM wrote:
#9 goldCaesar

What news story? Are you now saying the latest opinion coming out of the BBC is a news story?

-----------

are you suggesting that tory policy (especially given their rather difficult histor ywith the subject) in & towards Europe isn't news.

Camerons going to make a statement later today clarifying his position on Britains future in Europe.

Perhaps the BBC could check with you first to decide whether this is new worthy?

perhaps it depends on whether you like what mr cameron is saying.

perhaps mr cameron shoyuuld check with you too.

In fact i'd imagine its all about you.

David Cameron has proved that he is just like any other politician, wriggling and squirming, whilst desperately trying to figure out how he can renage on his promise. Not a very good start for a future prime minister!

38 "David Cameron has proved that he is just like any other politician, wriggling and squirming, whilst desperately trying to figure out how he can renage on his promise. Not a very good start for a future prime minister!"

On the contrary. Perfect preparation, I'd say.

"David Cameron says he'll tell us what his new position on Europe is later this week. It is the most important new policy announcement he may make before the next election."

Really, Nick? So what he might have to say about sorting out the shambles of the economy isn't of any note?

You political commentators really do live in an isolated little bubble, don't you.

I'm sure it's just me, Nick, but a lot of your blogs are focused on Cameron but hardly any focused on that other bloke. You know, what's his name, runs the country.

We never seem to read your critical analysis of HIS thoughts, of HIS problems, of the perils confronting HIM.

Can't think why that might be. Can you?

So the inevitable is about to happen ie., Czech ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Where does this leave Mr Cameron? Answer - exactly where he knew he would be. Surely nobody was really taken in by his *commitment" to the holding of a referendum. This policy was designed solely to enable Mr Cameron to present himself and most of his shadow cabinet as holding a genuinely democratic position on our future relationship within Europe, whilst knowing full well that they would never be called to account on this matter. Sheer political opportunism of the worse kind to pander to the backwoodsmen of the Conservative Party. If anybody seriously imagines that by voting for the Conservatives they will be getting honest political leaders - think again! There is nothing to prevent a referendum being held at any time, if renegotiation is required.

I like the fact that the bloggers who want a tory victory start accusing the BBC of bias. Makes me laugh a lot -I think you need to calm down there is a long way to go to the election and we don't want you to run out of hyperbole to soon we need these daily laugh out loud moments in these dark times.
Back to the topic -I think this is a seminal moment for Cameron the PR driven opposition leader. He needs to learn that the PR of the Blair years are over and it doesn't work any more. We've been there and destryoed the T shirt. He said in the Sun that this is a cast iron assurance in the article in 2007 even mentioning that unlike other politicians he can be trusted to keep his word. Hoisted by own pertard I think is the phrase we are looking for.
I think this is a very important story because the EU is so important for Britains economy and place in the global economy. I think Nick is right to raise this issue.
Unfortunately everytime DC says to GB at PMQ you can't be trusted this will come out of Gordons back pocket -it will really needle Cameron who seems to have a really thin skin. I hope DC is happy with the price Murdoch has extracted for his support. Unfortunatley it will destroy DC's premiership in the end. You do have to be careful with the friends you keep. Politics has suddenly got interesting again.
I predict that the next tory government will break over the anvil of Europe just like the last one -it's a shame really you would have thought they would have learnt that one by now.

@ boabycat, post #29;

"At the last election, all three parties promised a referendum on the Lisbon constitution/treaty BEFORE it was ratified. Labour and the Lib Dems reneged on that promise."

I must ask the same question as goldCaesar put to maidstonerichard in post #23; exactly how have the LibDems reneged on an election promise? Given that they've never actually been elected?

As far as I know, the LibDems have always been broadly pro-Europe, but have also wanted to have a simple "Yes/No" Referendum on whether we should be in the EU at all; the same thing that I've suggested we need in my post #5, actually. And as far as I know, this position hasn't changed.

If they get elected - although that seems unlikely at this stage - and then they fail to give us that referendum, then they'll have 'reneged' on their promise.

Until that point they're not in a position to renege on anything, any more than the Tories are. Only difference is, the Tories actually have now said that they won't hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after all, in light of the Czech vote (which is more a logical change of position rather than breaking a promise, as has been pointed out already) whereas, as far as I know, the LibDems still want to have the vote on whether we should be involved at all.

This is his clause 4 moment. Is he in hock to the extreme right wing of his party, or is he a centrist. If he says no to a referendum and yes to constructive engagement he will be a leader. Any hint of destructiveness dressed up as doing the best for the country will mark him as an opportunist.

Will the real Mr Cameron please stand up?

I don't think that we can turn this into a complain against David Cameroon, the problem is with the 'Democratically' Elected governments not being democratic and refusing the British Public the chance to have there say against the major changes in UK democratic policies that would occur from the shift of power to Brussels.

This is a major shift of power than the current policy and labour have done Uturns, conservatives will probable do a u turn, and once again the 'Democratic' European Union has gained the advantage without the true democratic process, Britain is not the only country not to hold a referundum.

36 Fubar

how annoying I didn't see your post - I am sorry for agreeing with you.

Oooh, looks like our lovely MP's are thinking of rejecting the expenses reforms.

Should this be referred to Europe?

I see that Brown is just like the rest of us - hasn't got much money. Our problem is he's been in charge of our finances, what's his?

Overall, I still don't see the problem with the treaty being ratified.

So if the Tories get in power (or indeed any other change of Government occurs in any other country) and say "sorry lads, don't want this treaty thing".

What are the other countries going to do? Invade? Risk the break up of the union?

The new Conservative policy could be good news for EU-sceptics, but a lot depends on the list of powers they seek to re-negotiate. If it is just the employment and social policy opt-outs from Maastricht that were given up Tony Blair in 1997, then it would be very bad news because that means accepting everything in Lisbon, and indeed everything in Nice and Amsterdam too. I have heard mention that Justice and Home Affairs might be included in the list, but this seems disingenuous as the UK has something very much like an opt-out in JHA already (an opt-in on a case-by-case basis). I do not want to see flotsam like that in the list.

There are plenty of things in Lisbon which i have not heard mentioned at all though and which is worrying, because they should be on the list. For example EU foreign policy, with Lisbon allowing foreign policy to be decided by unanimity, but its implementation to be decided based on proposals from the EU high rep for foreign affairs (possibly Miliband) that are decided by QMV and with this EU rep having an automatic right to speak on our behalf in the UN Security Council when there is an EU foreign policy. It would be a unacceptable for Hague and the Conservatives to accept such major increases in EU power by limiting their ambition for re-negotiation to restoring the social and employment opt-outs from the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. If they do not intend to re-negotiate EU foreign policy power then Cameron must state that they will block all EU foreign policy while they are in office, and this should also apply to EU defence and other areas where there is still a veto.

It is not yet necessary i think for the Conservatives to outline the means they will use to bring pressure to bear on recalcitrant partners, as it is not wise to reveal their negotiating hand so far in advance. What is necessary now though is an indication that they have the political will to enter negotiations in all seriousness, with the wording of the manifesto mandate leaving sufficient wiggle room that they can play hardball in the negotiations if it proves necessary (e.g. refusing to agree EU budget, signing further accession treaties for countries like Croatia, etc.) without spelling out the exact details.

I don't think Cameron has anything to ashamed about on this, unlike Labour he has kept to his pledge to hold a referendum. Now that the treaty has been rammed through by the Eurocrats and is ratified then what is the point of a post ratification referendum?

The people who should be felling ashamed are Labour who broke their manifesto commitment and even argued in Stuart Wheeler's court case that manifesto promises weren't legally binding (and then they wonder why so many people are dissillusioned with politics!). Labour are trying to big this issue up because, as the comment from the ludicrous Chris Bryant show, they are desperate for something that will blow the Tories off course. However, despite the isolated ranter like Bill Cash, the Tory rank and file will row in behind Cameron as they are determined to seize the chance for power.

@ AndyC555, post #41;

"We never seem to read your critical analysis of HIS thoughts, of HIS problems, of the perils confronting HIM."

Which is a very strange comment, given that - as any regular reader of these blogs will know - every time Mr Robinson starts a topic such as the one you're describing above, you yourself are usually one of the first to get your tuppence-worth in. (Usually complaining that this time Nick's being biased because he isn't making Brown look bad enough!)

Is this, then, a clandestine admission on your part that you don't actually bother to read the details of what any one blog's actually about before you jump in and start making insinuations of bias?

boabycat
'The electorate will remember that it was Labour and the Lib Dems that sold them down the river and it was the Tories who stood up for them.'
Yeah, ha ha ha! And I opposed the Norman invasion!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. %3Ca%20href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml" target="_blank">Explain.

If European law is extended to the UK does that mean we'll be able to get together with 20 of our mates on May Day, all pile on top of a donkey and goad it up to the top of a cliff with sharp sticks and then throw it off and have a firework display?

ps

I agree that Cameron was foolish to make that promise. However, to be scrupulously fair to him, he was expecting a general election to be held in time for this to be deliverable - after all, if we'd had an election even last month the Tories could have put in a manistesto commitment - there would have been time!

[not that that would have made me vote for them, but that's a different issue.]

#53 "We never seem to read your critical analysis of HIS thoughts, of HIS problems, of the perils confronting HIM."

Which is a very strange comment, given that - as any regular reader of these blogs will know - every time Mr Robinson starts a topic such as the one you're describing above.

"every time"?

None of the last 10 blogs have been about Brown, 4 of the last 10 have been about Cameron

Sorry just to clarify I think if he stops playing the sceptic card and takes the harder root of not appeasing the nutters in his party he will earn a lot more respect than if he carries on faffing about with the extremes of Europe.

He could say he has had a complete rethink of their strategy and now he wants to make 2 changes (both to come in from the extremes of Europe).

1 To move into the centre right coalition. ditching his current pals

2 To embrace Europe -

At the same time if he admitted that there is little that can be done now the treaty is ratified - he would relieve himself of the exhausting prospect of constantly fighting Europe if he is the prime minister.


New Labour did do some things like this and although the political classes would be bothered about it and the extremists, everybody else would say how sensible.

Oh and coming in from the extremes of Europe would also relieve us of the unedifying sight of Billie Hague rushing round Europe to prove that their coalition are not made up of parties that currently support the policies of the Third Reich.

I always prefer people who throughout their lives thought Hitler was a bad person.

It is unedifying to see the glee with which the "we did not let you have a referendum" brigade are trying to taunt Cameron about the Lisbon Treaty. Cameron only has a dilemma because - unlike them - he seems to have values and to value honesty. One suspects that Blair, Brown etc are shameless enough not to have worried about breaking their promise to hold a referendum, and the great British voting public will probably recognise that this was becasue they feared that the public would vote "no", which would have stopped the Treaty. Cameron wanted to give the voter a chance to approve or stop the Treaty, but if - to the joy of the "referndum deniers" - the Treaty becomes law, there is no point in continuing to flog a dead horse. Hopefully the voters will be given the chance to have their say on the precise nature of the UK's future relationship with Brussels. And no, withdrawal is not the only option, nor - one suspects - would most voters want that.

52. At 12:14pm on 03 Nov 2009, JPSLotus79 wrote:
I don't think Cameron has anything to ashamed about on this, unlike Labour he has kept to his pledge to hold a referendum. Now that the treaty has been rammed through by the Eurocrats and is ratified then what is the point of a post ratification referendum?

-------------

I'm with you, i think the worst that can be said about Cameron on this issue is that promising the referendum on Lisbon showed a little, naivity, perhaps ignorance of how far the ratification process had gone when he made the statement.

Whatever, its almost an internal matter for the consevative party as they try to find a way to make progress in europe whilst keeping the pros,skeptics and rabid-antis from each others throats.

I don't think announcements about tory policy in Europe will ever gain them significant numbers of new voters, but it might loose some of the existing ones.

56 AndyC555

So,as I'd suspected, Euro-scepticism is just thinly-veiled xenophobia. Funny foreigners and their funny customs. Let's keep them all at arm's length.

The rantings about democracy and sovereignty are just a smoke-screen.

The reality is: Both Tories and Labour are useless.

The Nation is fooling itself by maintaining its irrational belief in the saviour, David Cameron. The glaring contradictions in Tory policy may be OK in opposition, but not in government.

Both parties are a sick joke. They are made up of people who can't do anything, haven't done anything and don't know what it is to do anything - except politics - and that not very well.

They are unable to engage in, or understand, a logical argument and have no understanding of science, engineering, economics, medicine etc. etc. and reject all well analysis data driven and researched results and declare that prejudice is best!

In short, we are trapped in the thrall of a load of ignorant idiots. It is our fault too! We have let our education system progressively deteriorate over the last 30 years. We have fooled ourselves that everyone is getting brighter and better educated - but this is in stark contrast to the facts.

# 55

Come on Mods - the first part of what I wrote was factually accurate - check it on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. I responded to #17 by pointing out that the 1975 EU referendum was to stay in after renegotiation of terms, we entered in 1973 without a referendum.

The second part was responding to what others had been saying and was entirely OT.

What's to refer?

balancedthought 60

"I always prefer people who throughout their lives thought Hitler was a bad person."

Which is a thought that becomes distinctly unbalanced when you consider the plight of those who had greater reason to fear Stalin.

Balancedthought, as ever, you are using your nickname as a figleaf to cover trite, half thought out, party-specific propaganda.

#29 - boabycat

"At the last election, all three parties promised a referendum on the Lisbon constitution/treaty BEFORE it was ratified".

Here we go again.

They did no such thing. They promised a referendum on the draft constitution which was rejected by the French and the Dutch. I say again, you can argue until you are blue in the face about whether Gicard is right, that they are for all intents and purposes, the same thing, or Barosso who says they are completely different. You can call it a cop-out, a cosmetic exercise or a breach of faith if you like.

But please get your facts straight.

66 JRPerry

Good point, stop dissing Hitler all you lefties!

pdavies65 63

"So,as I'd suspected, Euro-scepticism is just thinly-veiled xenophobia. Funny foreigners and their funny customs. Let's keep them all at arm's length."

Andy's question could alternatively have been asked, "Are we going to see our age of consent reduced to 14, to match Austria, Germany, Hungary and Italy (to name just some of them)? Still just "funny foreigners and their funny customs?

60#

You are David Milliband in disguise and I hereby claim my five Euros.

68 pdavies65

Twit!

#63

Oh dear, as I suspected, humourless and grey in outlook. It was a 'joke'. Of course I realise that in certain quarters a 'joke' is almost implicit with proof of some sort of "phobia" or "ism" in the teller.

Frank Richards responded to George Orwell's criticism of comics that made foreigners look funny in a letter to him:

"...As for foreigners being funny, I must shock Mr. Orwell by telling him that foreigners ARE funny."

Did you know that foreigners tell jokes about the British? That would put you in an awkward position, wouldn't it? I expect you'd be too PC to criticise THEM for doing that. I can just imagine your chain of thought "Well, hang-on, that joke was at the expense of certain percieved traits of the British but on the other hand we were a beastly colonial power for centuries so, yes, I will laugh"

p.s.

Could you cut and paste my "rantings about democracy and sovereignty" as I haven't read them yet, mainly because I haven't written on either subject.

66 JRPerry

Just for the record if you look through my previous posts you will see I do indeed say on more than one occasion that ....

Stalin was the biggest butcher in history.

Personally I have never supported or had truck with Stalinists or fascists who have supported Hitler.

The problem the Tories have is that through political calculation this is where they find themselves.

I always know that if you are criticising me I must be saying something right. Bless you.

John_from_Hendon @64 has just about got it right but I think that he understates it a tad!

69 jrperry

It could have been asked in any number of ways. The revealing thing was the way he chose to ask it. That was my point.

And if you disapprove of, for example, a lower age of consent in some other European countries, the EU is the perfect forum for debating that, is it not? Without integration, there's no chance of influence.

Pdavies65 68

Just in case my 71 goes the way of all things intemperate, I thought your "Good point, stop dissing Hitler all you lefties!" was a classic effort to deflect from the ignorance of your original post and betrayed, as ever, your desire to try to make party capital out of a situation that is far, far more complicated than you seem to be able to express. But 71, if it stays, sums you up more succinctly.

#72

Sorry should have explained.

You'll have heard of George Orwell because he wrote stern polemic books, full of grit and grim. You may not have heard of Frank Richards as he wrote books with jokes in them.

Look forward to hearing from you about how we should respond in a politically correct way to jokes made at the expense of the British

I find it extremely tiresome of yourself and the BBC in general to continue attempting to bring Cameron and the conservatives into disrepute over the Lisbon treaty, which was signed in what can only be seen as an act of treason by Gordon Brown, albeit in secret and alone. Surely it is within the remit of the BBC to , for once reflect the will of the British people and assist the pursuance of this referendum , which was promised by the government. Sadly however the BBC and your good self seem to have an agenda totally at odds with this. The lame excuse that the treaty is not the same document as the original constitution document is at best a deliberate lie, and this fact is what the media should concentrate on , not on what an as yet unelected politician can do about it.

71 and 72

In consecutive posts I am insulted for making a joke and then derided for not 'getting' one.

eBullies.

Another double whammy!

76
I've been called worse.


77 AndyC555 wrote:
"Look forward to hearing from you about how we should respond in a politically correct way to jokes made at the expense of the British."

As with all jokes, it would depend if they are funny or not.

You shouldn't assume that if somebody doesn't get your joke, it's because they are too politically correct. It could be that your joke wasn't very good. Just a thought.

pdavies65 79

"eBullies"

When you say something stupid and get corrected for it, that is called criticism, not bullying.

OK...I'm not one to point out the obvious but......
- There was no way that the Czech Republic were ever going to reject the Lisbon Treaty.
- Neither political party ever wanted a referendum on the Treaty.
- The Lisbon Treaty now exists; live with it!
- Every political party will now tell you that they would have had a referendum....but it is too late now.
- The U.K. should have objected when it had the chance (like the Irish) but they would rather wait for other people to make the decision for them.
- Referenda are never binding on the British government, they are no more than an opinion poll.
The U.K. should have objected when it had the chance. The horse has now bolted!

"So, the Czech was not in the post"

Nick, if things don't go well for you under a new government you could always apply for a job at the Mirror - with a portfolio of headlines like this.
An upmarket Maguire?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. %3Ca%20href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml" target="_blank">Explain.

Be interesting to see if the Tories poll numbers go down as a result of Cameron dropping his referendum idea. I suspect, if the conversation among the 15 members at my OAP luncheon club today is any indication, that UKIP and the EDL became a bit more attractive.
Mind you, it was probably Labour's intent all along to force Cameron into this position, knowing that by making him take the line he has, it will cost the Tories votes.
A hung Parliament looms ever closer.

#82 Eurosider
What a stupid set of comments.

WE DID NOT GET A REFERENDUM, SO WE DID NOT GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT.

It ought to be clear that enough people in this country do not like the treaty, but that's as far as we have been able to go. Pity really.

1. At 10:15am on 03 Nov 2009, rockRobin7 wrote:
#Frankly, nothing David Cameron does can replicate the duplicity of the newlabour manifesto pledge to hold a referendum.

Well you would say that wouldn't you?.

What a typically meally mouthed post from one of the Tories sunshine boys on this blog.

The difference being my Tory friend is that Labour have never promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty as comfirmed by top tory Ken Clark and his good chum Gummer. On the otherhand your man David Cameron and his good Friend Hague have promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
Now we can watch with interest on how they try to wriggle out of their promise, that is the one that Labour have been slated over for a couple of years for the promise they never made.

81 jrperry

Golly, you don't appreciate a bit of gentle ribbing, do you? You get quite vitriolic.

My serious point was, and is, that a strongly anti-Europe stance often (not always) betrays a degree of xenophobia which keen-eyed readers will be able to detect in some of the posts on this newslog.

can you smell something?

86. At 1:32pm on 03 Nov 2009, U14147588 wrote:
#82 Eurosider
What a stupid set of comments.

WE DID NOT GET A REFERENDUM, SO WE DID NOT GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT.

It ought to be clear that enough people in this country do not like the treaty, but that's as far as we have been able to go. Pity really.

----------

The point about the status of the referendum in the british constitution is pretty valid. There's no existing mechanism for calling one, on anything.

I think any party calling one would certainly have to pass a law allowing the referendum to be held, posibly another one making it binding.

Which would have to significantly affect the time frame over which a referendum could take place.

Although as i said earlier we ne do need a UK referendum on EU membership.

Can someone please explain to me why Cameron is continually described as about to renege on his referendum promise? He can't hold a referendum while in opposition and, by the time he is PM, the new constitution will be ratified and adopted, making a referendum irrelevant. I'm very confused about this, unless its merely designed to deflect from the fact that Nulabour didn't hold the referendum they promised.

WHO CARES - Cameron will win the next election - thank God - at least someone will have the guts to try and return the UK to solvency at some time rather than printing billions / trillions and many future generations trying to repay the debt. This non story is typical Robinmson and BBC - look out for a new job Nick - u will need it when the Tories take an axe to your employers.

This is new for a politician. Cameron breaks is pledges even before the election campaign is properly up & running. With this track record (what other great pieces of judgement do we have from him), I suggest we forget about a Tory government right now. It's an utter shambles. His only excuse could be, I didn't think it would be ratified.

If that's his judgement, then I don't want him as my PM - sorry!

How many of the people anti-EU or anti-lisbon treaty have actually read the treaty?
Can you quote me the bit that you dislike the most?
Are you fully aware of the intended changes?
Do you understand the implications on UK law?
Do you understand the opt-out that the UK secured?
Do you know how it effect our daily lives?

Or are you just jumping on the anti-europe bandwagon and waving a union jack about?

There are people with genuine concerns about the treaty based on having a full knowledge of the effects and implications the treaty will have. The problem is they are getting drowned out by people with generic anti-EU attitudes that are 50 years out of date.

Personaly I think it's probably a good thing, but then I'll admit that I don't know the answers to the questions I've asked above. Thats the big problem, the average person on the street doesn't understand the treaty! All we know is what the press and politicians are telling us, which is mostly just comments saying its a good/bad idea.

The absurdity of the position Cameron is in is that he has been asked to take a position on this issue at all.

An unelected prime minster signed a treaty on which subject his predecessor had made a manifesto commitment. That commitment was dishonored; like many newlabour commitments.

A typical example of newlabour mangling and spin; offer one thing, do another and claim your opponenet is to blame for it all.

This 'government' needs to stand down and allow a fresh agenda to be set as it has no mandate to govern with public support regularly below 30% since Gordon Brown was placed in the leader's job.

Clinging onto power for the sake of wrecking the country in the vain hope that an ill wind will blow and take the tories with it is just another example of the extreme boorishness that has beset this adminstration. How many times have we heard those dreadful words 'the right thing to do'? By whose measures are these the 'right things to do'???

The banking bailout was 'the right thing to do' yet again this morning we are having to spend billions more to support government and ministerial vanity. The fiscal stimulus was 'the right thing to do' yet we entered recession earlier and are still in it after 225bn of quantitative easing. Where has this money gone? We have a 70bn fiscal contraction in the economy in six quarters after a 1.3trn pound bank bail out and 225bn of quantitive easing. Yet does anyone, ever, ask this government; why is this still 'the right thing to do' and where has the money gone???

The people of this country have been taken for utter fools. Even the ECB admits that the money multiplier has broken down and yet this government's only policy response is to push still harder on the monetary stimulus button. We are well beyond the point at which the patient's body has stopped reacting to the electric shock treatment; we are now beginning to damage the corpse.

Give up spending; give us our referendum and stand down.

Then, finally the country can have the election it so desperately deserves.

Hopefully this is the end of the 'Europe' debate. Cameron & Co can either put up, by pledging an IN/OUT referendum, or shut up.

I have asked this question on both teletext and ceefax but never have I had any response of any Party.
"How on earth can we have a constructive referendun if the members of the public are not given the oppertunity to read and understand what the treaty is all about."
As it stands at the moment the public can only make their vote according to either what paper they read or party they follow.

I have many friend living in Europe and each has been able to obtain a copy without any problems. Where can the public buy a copy in this country??

When is comes to the Conservative holding a referendum after the event is really a waste of time and money for it could also be said that should hold one for every Treaty sign over the past centry.

78 kaybraes

#which was signed in what can only be seen as an act of treason by Gordon Brown, albeit in secret and alone.

Strangely enough I saw Gordon Brown on TV appearing before a select committee for two hours, and a little later on after a trip to sign the Lisbon treaty I saw him quite clearly sit down and sign the treaty, I didn't see much secret about it,The man had the good grace to delay his signing for a couple of hours in order to carry out his prearranged meeting of the select committee and out of courtesy sent the foriegn minister to make his apologies, had he have not met the select committee at that time, you would have been slagging him off for that.
In secret Poppycock!!.

Just wondering how the EU will reward Brown's treachery. Or is that just too cynical?

Isn't this story rather pointless.

David has been outmanouvered by Europe, he's been pushed in to a corner and currently has no power to go against the tide that Gordon has created.

We were promised a referendum under Labour, they've had the power to give us what they said they would, they turned their backs on their promise and the democracy this country stands for.

All David can do is sit and watch as New Labour, by their undemocratic means, makes this part of the law of the country. There's not much he can do, what good is a vote on something that can't simply be reversed at the push of a button. We can't roll back time so we're stuck with it when it takes full effect, all David can do is limit the impact it has on this country as more of our country's decision making gets taken away.

It's bad enough having a government that doesn't want to listen to us and now they've decreed that the people of this country should be run from the centre of Europe.

This is a great travesty committed by New Labour and it will not be forgotten. Europe can cooperate and work together on issues without the need for a Constitution that forcefully ties us all together.

Europe has a history, we've gotten this far without a constitution, we don't need one now. I'm all for working together between European countries but there's such a thing as going too far and this is most definitely a step too far.

Bring on the election, New Labour, you've realised you're going to lose so now it's time for "Let's stitch up the next government so that we'll look pretty damn good when we're back in opposition and we can then blame everything on the Conservatives while we sit back and pretend that the past never actually happened". I detest New Labour with extreme passion.