If you want a referendum on the EU "treaty" (aka constitution) SIGN UP HERE

[eleusis]

www.iwantareferendum.com/index.aspx

If Gordon signs this today, as expected, he's lost my vote for good.

Exactly freckle
.... thanks for the link eleusis.

I can't understand the logic of "if I draw these red lines then I don't have to give people a vote"

Eh? You pompous arse. Draw all the red lines you like, but that doesn't excuse you from calling the vote.

All in the name of a good cause, bossy.

Now, what I want to know is if Gordon goes and signs us up to the EU Constitution ( and he probably will), when Cameron is PM can he then undo it?

Appears we are not alone:
France, Spain,Italy, and Germany also want to vote

I wonder about the Netherlands, seeing how they gave it a big N O last time.

If I had any faith in democracy at all I would probably favour a referendum. Unfortunately people can't even be bothered to vote for who runs the country, they are unlikely to bother to vote on a complicated matter like the EU treaty.

I consider myself fairly well educated and engaged with politics but find the whole issue extremely complicated. It seems to be completely impossible to get an unbiased opinion on the matter. I would just end up voting against the flat earthers as I find them insulting.

So, who has signed? I have.

I don't want a referendum. The Treaty is a really complex business and the ramifications of not signing are serious for our future in Europe. Our future outside of europe is pretty bealk.

It sounds patronising but I would not trust the electorate with this. The majority of people are reactionary and hate change. They would not engage witht the details of the argument - just the headlines. The likes of Rupert Murdoch would have huge power to swing opinion and affect the future of a country he does not even live in.

It is also very naive to think Cameron would seek to withdraw from any Treaty if he got in after it was in place. He wouldn't touch it with a barge poll as it would risk splitting his party for good.

Not just patronising Artichokes, undemocratic too.

Not undemocratic. I believe whole heartedly in democracy. You get a vote in a general election when you choose the person you see most fit to represent your views for the next four or five years. That person is then a member of parliament and has a job to amend and pass laws on your behalf.

Referendums are about constantly second guessing the Government voted in at an election. You can be anti-referendums without being anti-democratic.

If you can not trust the electorate to vote than that is fundamentally undempcratic. That is exactly what is pulling Brown down -- he thinks the electorate is too stupid to be trusted with the vote. He thinks the British people are fools. Well, they will get to vote ... one day... and he will probably voted out if he doesn't change his tune. Sadly, that will be after he has signed us up to a constitution.

"...I would not trust the electorate with this..." is undemocratic.

Letting your elected representatives get on with the job you gave them is not undemocratic.

I have a Masters and I find some of the issues around the Treat too complicated to properly engage with. Therefore I think it is realistic, rather than patronising, to worry that people would struggle to fully comprehend the ramifications of their vote.

You would get the same result more cheaply if you let Murdoch decide directly.

How did Murdoch get involved? There are plenty of news sources around. I personally generally head to the BBC.

I don't think the issues are too complicated ofr people to have an opinion.

And I don't think Mr. Brown was elected.

Democracy would be setting out the key points of the Treaty so that thick people like myself could understand it and then decide. Saying it is just too complicated is a cop out. Plus if it is that complicated it is probably unworkable (just who is going to understand it? Politicians aren't particularly clever.) so should be thrown out. The American Constitution is often held up as an ideal, mainly because anyone can understand it.

I have wondered if the Eurocrats who wrote the Treaty deliberately made it as complicated as possible.

eurocrats didn't write the treaty - our elected reps sorted it out.

Can we stop referring to our PM as an elected rep because clearly he wasn't.

check out europa.eu/abc/treaties/index_en.htm

but he is???? he's a politician? plus the other mps are as well?

I don't believe the general public know enough to make an informed decision, they will just do whatever The Sun or The Daily Mail tell them to do.

I am with Artichoke 100% onthis one.

Why do we have a democratically elected government (the PM is another matter) and then say that we don't trust them to make decisions on our behalf and need to have our own say in this.

If you want your say in it, talk to your MP who was voted in democratically.

Where does it stop? Do we have refernda for other things?

When we vote our mps in, are we saying that we only give them power to a point, then we want to have a say?

Thank you lilibet. That is exactly my point.

Maybe people don't think we should have a Government at all. Just daily referendums on all issues of public policy.

We vote in representatives to speak on our behalf when it is not practical to seek a vote. But some things are big enough and important enough and not a matter of urgency and they can and should therefore get the vote from the people. I believe that signing up to a constitution is such an occassion.

If Russia drops a bomb on London, there is not time to vote. The government must authorise appropriate military action and can not go to the people for a vote.

And people who are easily confused and can't work out whether or not they are for the constitution don't have to and probably won't bother to vote. Besides I think even stupid people have a right to vote.

I would like there to be a referendum but only if I approve of the wording of the thing. The Government agreeing to hold a referendum is but the first small step (in the right direction though!).