Labour, party of the people, rule out referendum on EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...eferendum.html

Ed Miliband will not hold an EU referendum

Ed Miliband rules out automatic referendum on EU membership by 2017, saying his priorities are “very different” to the Tories'

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/fi...referendum.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telegraph

Ed Miliband has ruled out holding an automatic referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union in 2017 amid concerns it will damage the economy.

Mr Miliband said that Labour will not match the Conservative's pledge to hold an automatic plebiscite in three years time, saying his priorities are "very different".

He said that under a Labour government Britain will only hold a referendum on leaving the EU if there is a "significant transfer of powers" to Brussels - a prospect he describes as "unlikely".

His comments bring his Labour into line with the Liberal Democrats, who have said they will only hold an in-out referendum in the event of a significant transfer of powers to or from Brussels.

The Conservatives, however, are likely to use Mr Miliband's intervention to argue that they are the only major party to guarantee a referendum in the run up to the next election.

---

Two comments posted on the Telegraph by members of the public say it all....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telegraph comment

CAMERON : "If you elect me in 2015, and if I fail to get the <undefined> concessions I want from the EU in the negotiations which havn't even started, then I will offer the people a referendum"

MILIBAND : "If you elect me in 2015, and I fail to stop the EU taking more <undefined> powers in discussions which havn't even started, then I will offer the people a referendum"

Frankly Peter the two are as pathetic as each other. Both parties are now saying the same thing. Both of them so heavily caveated and poorly defined that they are meaningless. At least Tony Blair vaguely described his famous "red lines" before the disregarded them and allowed the Lisbon Treaty to be signed.

---

And....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telegraph comment

Vote Labour - get no referendum
Vote Lib Dem - get no referendum
Vote Conservative - get a referendum in 2017*

* Terms and conditions apply. Referendum promises have been broken in the past and may be in the future. The word "referendum" can be redefined to mean something else, like "no referendum". "2017" can also mean any whole number greater than 2017. The author of the referendum promise does not want a referendum to take place. There is no guarantee the government will abide by the result of a referendum unless it is acceptable to the government and the European Union. Repeated referenda may be necessary in the event of an incorrect outcome. If you vote incorrectly, we know where you live.

For a full list of the terms and conditions of this offer, please send an A0 SAE to David "Cast Iron Promise" Cameron, 10 Downing Street, Westminster, London.

Vote UKIP - get us out of the EU and get our country back.

---

Thoughts?

As a Labour supporter I'm happy with that, and as a UKIP supporter you should be happy as well, you're the only party that will definitely hold a referendum.

Of course the Conservatives are going to Caveat it, a lot can change in the space of three years, there's no point doing something just because you promised to - you should do it because it's a good idea at the time. If they promised it without caveats then I'd be less likely to believe them.

In a similar vein Labour have caveated staying in because if the EU make unreasonable demands we shouldn't follow them.

This is pretty sensible play and the only reason why UKIP can promise it regardless is because that's the entire purpose of their existence. Maybe the other parties have bigger fish to fry than to worry about a financially efficient suggestion committee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

As a Labour supporter I'm happy with that, and as a UKIP supporter you should be happy as well, you're the only party that will definitely hold a referendum.

---

You are happy about the public being denied a say?

It's true what they say, Labour are the modern-day party of the bourgeois.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Of course the Conservatives are going to Caveat it, a lot can change in the space of three years, there's no point doing something just because you promised to - you should do it because it's a good idea at the time. If they promised it without caveats then I'd be less likely to believe them.

In a similar vein Labour have caveated staying in because if the EU make unreasonable demands we shouldn't follow them.

This is pretty sensible play and the only reason why UKIP can promise it regardless is because that's the entire purpose of their existence. Maybe the other parties have bigger fish to fry than to worry about a financially efficient suggestion committee.

---

Yes yes yes they've said all that stuff before, just as with the EU Constitution they said the Lisbon Treaty was different therefore there was no need to hold a referendum even though they were the same. The point is, neither of them want to or intend to hold a referendum: and that means that they support ever closer union, no control over our borders/agriculture/fisheries and increasingly our law. All of this posturing is just that, theatre for the people who believe there's any difference between them on fundemental policy issues. This is the problem we have: three parties which are essentially the same so they create minor differences and exaggerate them to make it seem as though there's any choice.

I just wish they'd all come out openly in favour of a federal Europe and put that to a referendum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You are happy about the public being denied a say?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You are happy about the public being denied a say?

---

Yes.

You mean Labour have a different agenda to UKIP? Scandalous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Yes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Yes.

---

Ah! Well at least your both open in your contempt of the electorate, unlike the three parties.

As it happens I think a referendum may very well be a disaster for my side seeing how the establishment will run scaremongering stories 24/7 - I think we'll be pushed to the exit in the next decade though by the EU making a move to fully blown federalisation.. something that Merkel and Barroso have spoken about in treaty terms for around 2020.

Would you both agree with me though on a referendum on what the European Union is really about though, that is creating a federal Europe? Do you think I should have a say whether my country should take part in that?

Because I think I should, it's pretty damn important really isn't it?

I forgot that all political issues were sorted by the majority vote of an uneducated populace rather than the specialists chosen to represent them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

I forgot that all political issues were sorted by the majority vote of an uneducated populace rather than the specialists chosen to represent them

---

Surely if the population are so uneducated and not to be trusted then we should simply do away with elections altogether? If the plebs can't decide on Europe then they certainly can't be allowed to decide on foreign affairs, defence, education, health, debt & economics, welfare & social issues?

The 'experts' certainly know so much better, like they did when they wanted us to join the Euro.

One saying I've always valued a lot in life applies here really:

Basically, how much does the average Brit know about the EU? Now realise that half of all Brits know less than that person.

I don't think it's suitable for a referendum to decide our fate in Europe, I would rather leave that to the government. So if the Tories or UKIP take us out of Europe, then let it be, but I prefer the government making decisions (even if it is a government I'm not fond off) rather than the general population.

And you say that we shouldn't let the population decide on a whole range of matters either, but where are the referendums on those? Referendums are clearly different to elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If the plebs can't decide on Europe then they certainly can't be allowed to decide on foreign affairs, defence, education, health, debt & economics, welfare & social issues?

---

They don't...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

They don't...

---

Yes they do, in elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Yes they do, in elections.

---

So why can't the people decide on whether we leave the EU in elections?

So you're saying people decide on everything in elections... except our EU status?

"WE SHOULD ALL VOTE FOR EVERYTHING SINGULARLY"
"We vote to let people represent us"
"THAT DOESN'T COUNT THEY'RE WRONG, WE LET PEOPLE VOTE ON OTHER ISSUES"
"No we don't"
"WE VOTE TO LET PEOPLE REPRESENT US"
"..."


We essentially have double the vote opportunities for Europe since there are MPs and MEPs voted in, so if you're going to claim that education etc is "voted on" in elections (even though you earlier showed distaste for representative democracy, flippy floppy again maybe you should see a doctor if that keeps happening) then Europe as an electoral topic is already receiving a far greater share of democracy than all the rest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

So why can't the people decide on whether we leave the EU in elections?

So you're saying people decide on everything in elections... except our EU status?

---

That would be true if our system worked as it is supposed to in which we have two polar opposite parties which staunchly oppose one another, but we do not. Under FPTP, we are suppposed to have two main parties in which they genuinely criticise and wish to overturn what the other does - hence the Westminster system.

However, in recent years, we now have a system were we have two parties which are broadly similar - and both are held in place by FPTP - which diminishes the entire point of voting which is to change the programme of the government. So your point would be valid if we had what the system is supposed to offer which is two major parties that are polar opposites, yet we do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

"WE SHOULD ALL VOTE FOR EVERYTHING SINGULARLY"
"We vote to let people represent us"
"THAT DOESN'T COUNT THEY'RE WRONG, WE LET PEOPLE VOTE ON OTHER ISSUES"
"No we don't"
"WE VOTE TO LET PEOPLE REPRESENT US"
"..."


We essentially have double the vote opportunities for Europe since there are MPs and MEPs voted in, so if you're going to claim that education etc is "voted on" in elections (even though you earlier showed distaste for representative democracy, flippy floppy again maybe you should see a doctor if that keeps happening) then Europe as an electoral topic is already receiving a far greater share of democracy than all the rest

---

Look i'm not a fan of referendums but as our political class feel free to use them to paper over political divides in their own parties (the EEC referendum, the Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums, the AV+ referendum) I think i'm entitled to ask for a referendum for myself thank you very much.

The Swiss seem to manage fine with referenda.

Of course you're entitled to say you want one, it's your hypocritical logic-dodging method of argument that I oppose. That said, you're again kinda missing the point of elected representatives - there's no reason they shouldn't use referenda when they see fit and not when they don't because they've been elected to make such decisions whereas you have not