Britons 'too ignorant' for an EU referendum says unelected Vice-President of EU

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-decision.html

Britons 'too ignorant' for EU referendum: Top official says debate on Europe is so distorted that people could not make an 'informed decision'

- Viviane Reding, vice-president of European Commission, made comments
- Speaking in London, she said British people must know 'the facts' on EU
- She boasted about how 70 per cent of UK's laws are now made in Brussels
- Her comments were attacked by critics for 'dangerous' assumptions

Britons are too ignorant about Europe to vote in a referendum on the subject, a top Brussels official claimed last night.

Viviane Reding, vice-president of the European Commission, said the British debate about Europe was so ‘distorted’ that people could not make an ‘informed decision’ about whether or not to stay in the EU.

Mrs Reding - who boasted that 70 per cent of the UK’s laws are now made in Brussels - also rubbished David Cameron’s bid to curb immigration from Europe, saying it was incompatible with membership of the EU.

'Dangerous': Viviane Reding was criticised for making assumptions about what qualifies Britons to cast a vote on EU membership

Speaking at an EU-sponsored ‘Citizen’s Dialogue’ event in London, Mrs Reding accused British politicians and media of so misrepresenting the EU that it is now impossible to hold a fair referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.

‘You are on the verge of having (to take) maybe a national decision?’ she said.‘Do the people who are asked to vote know what they are going to vote about?’

‘The fact is that very often, I see a completely distorted truth being presented and then how do you want people to take an informed decision? They simply cannot.’

Europe Minister David Lidington criticised her comments, saying that pro-EU points of view received a wide airing in the UK, including on the BBC.

He added: ‘It is very dangerous to start making assumptions about what makes someone qualified to cast a vote.’

Pawel Sidlicki, of the think tank Open Europe, said: ‘Mrs Reding epitomises the EU elites’ approach to dealing with the public -superficially embracing debate with citizens while dismissing any substantive criticism.

'Having their legitimate concerns dismissed in such a high-handed manner only drives people towards populist, anti-EU parties. Sadly, EU politicians like Reding often do a better job at driving voters towards these parties than they do themselves.’

But Mrs Reding said the British public needed to be made more aware of the ‘facts’ about Europe.

'Legitimate concerns': Mrs Reading was attacked for dismissing people's concerns, which could lead them to support pro-independence parties such as UKIP, led by Nigel Farage (pictured)

She said the European Parliament was now ‘the most powerful parliament in Europe’, because of its role in signing off new EU laws proposed by the European Commission.

‘Seventy per cent of the laws in this country are co-decided by the European Parliament,’ she said. ‘So it’s not neutral who you sent to the European Parliament.’

Mrs Reding also suggested Britain would have to leave the EU if Mr Cameron pursues his bid to cap immigration from Europe.

She said it was ‘not possible’ to curb free movement of people while retaining free movement of goods, services and capital.

Here again those 'loons' in UKIP and some Tories and Labourites are confirmed as correct again when they say that around 70% of our laws are now made by the EU. A thumbs up for another confirmation of this. Anyway, are we surprised by this? She represents the same organisation that only a few years ago ignored the results of the French, Dutch and Irish referendums - and made the Irish vote twice to come up with the 'correct' (pro-EU) result. It's no surprise that the former President of the USSR, Gorbachev, compared the EU to the USSR.

The outline to this debate is quite clear, as it the attitude of the EU and the Commission. Do you want these arrogant elitests to build a new country without your consent, or do you want your country to be free and independent? Talk about a way to keep digging though - she's the same one who called for a United States of Europe just before Christmas. And just before the European elections too to prove everything i've been saying on this topic over the past few years as correct, I do hope they keep it up.

Britons 'too ignorant' though? Maybe it's the EU which is 'too arrogant'.

Thoughts?

[GommeInc]

Leaving the EU wouldn't really change much. There was an in-depth article published by someone within the EU who stated that:

i) The UK would have so many deals chucked at it because of how much we import from EU nations
ii) The EU would have to fork out more to bridge the gap of funding lost and yet the UK will make gains (though not that many, as it would be re-diverted into new deals with the zone
iii) The EU and UK would probably share laws as they've done for years, though it wouldn't be binding. That said, the UK copies the US and Australia on their court decisions and laws. Precedent and persuasive precedent are wonderful things.

Can't for the life of me find where the article was published. I'm certain it wasn't one of the law journals I read a few weeks ago. It may have turned up on reddit and was diverted towards an article on europa.eu or some other EU owned domain.


Also, she's a berk. Someone shut her up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Leaving the EU wouldn't really change much. There was an in-depth article published by someone within the EU who stated that:

i) The UK would have so many deals chucked at it because of how much we import from EU nations
ii) The EU would have to fork out more to bridge the gap of funding lost and yet the UK will make gains (though not that many, as it would be re-diverted into new deals with the zone
iii) The EU and UK would probably share laws as they've done for years, though it wouldn't be binding. That said, the UK copies the US and Australia on their court decisions and laws. Precedent and persuasive precedent are wonderful things.

Can't for the life of me find where the article was published. I'm certain it wasn't one of the law journals I read a few weeks ago. It may have turned up on reddit and was diverted towards an article on europa.eu or some other EU owned domain.


Also, she's a berk. Someone shut her up.

Leaving the EU will only change anything if we have political parties that have some real difference between them in the future, ie one party supports mass immigration and the other does not. Today in the EU, it wouldn't matter even if we had a main party opposed to mass immigration but which supported our EU membership as EU law would tie the hands of the government. The same for prisoners voters and the ECHR with Human Rights, agricultural policy, river policy which was meddled in by the EU and caused these recent floods, fisheries policy, energy policy (we are required by the EU to have 20% renewable energy by 2020 - a HUGE requirement and change in our energy, our world trade policy - with EU membership we do not have a seat on the World Trade Organisation despite being the 7th largest economy....

There's so much we can change and have proper debates over once we have left the European Union, but just leaving the EU isn't an automatic guarantee that anything will change. Once out of the EU, we will need a return to adversial politics with two opposing political parties that are both dogmatic whereas at the moment we only have one (Labour) that is dogmatic hence why it dominates the entire political history since WWII. That's why I advocate on here over and over the need for the destruction of the useless Conservative Party which stands in the way of the creation of a real conservative movement.

For a return to real politics as well as a chance of getting out of the EU, the Tory Party must be bulldozed out of the way. Ukip is the battering ram.

The model to achieve this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...election,_1993

[The Don]

Dunno why you've put unelected in the title when she was voted for by representatives... should i put UNELECTED Queen when I make a post about her? What about the house of lords ?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dunno why you've put unelected in the title when she was voted for by representatives... should i put UNELECTED Queen when I make a post about her? What about the house of lords ?

I don't deny that the Queen or House of Lords are unelected. The difference - which we're now going through again for about the third or fourth time - is that the European Commission actively enact/push for legislation whereas Her Majesty and the noble Lords do not. If the Queen or the House of Lords had a strong role in pushing forward legislaton like the Commission, then you'd have a point. But they don't - so you don't have a point.

And that's without mentioning the fact that the European Commission is foreign whereas the Monarchy/House of Lords is not.

[The Don]

I don't deny that the Queen or House of Lords are unelected. The difference - which we're now going through again for about the third or fourth time - is that the European Commission actively enact/push for legislation whereas Her Majesty and the noble Lords do not.

And that's without mentioning the fact that the European Commission is foreign whereas the Monarchy/House of Lords is not.

But you've put unelected in the title to try and put it in a negative light and gauge a reaction when that's clearly not your problem with it since you're quite alright with all those other undemocratic things, and again, the commission aren't unelected as you're trying to make out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But you've put unelected in the title to try and put it in a negative light and gauge a reaction when that's clearly not your problem with it since you're quite alright with all those other undemocratic things, and again, the commission aren't unelected as you're trying to make out.

I have a problem with unelected (and foreign) bodies which exercise control over huge swathes of legislation which effect this country. I am alright with unelected bodies when they do not exercise such control over legislation. Do you understand?

And the Commission is unelected. Did the public go and vote for the Barroso Commission like they did the Cameron Ministry? They did not.

[The Don]

I have a problem with unelected (and foreign) bodies which exercise control over huge swathes of legislation which effect this country. I am alright with unelected bodies when they do not exercise such control over legislation. Do you understand?

And the Commission is unelected. Did the public go and vote for the Barroso Commission like they did the Cameron Ministry? They did not.

Representative democracy.

And if you don't think the house of lords have any power then you're deluded, and it's not as if the queen doesn't influence things...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Representative democracy.

So why not just elect Local Councils and have them elect the National British Government on our behalf? 'Democracy' Soviet/Chinese style. The European Union and the Commission are actively undemocratic in that the body which proposes legislation (the European Commission) is not elected and is appointed - unlike parliamentary democracy whereby the Government is elected by the people and is formed from the elected chamber.

A fundamental difference which allows the Government to be held to account but which you seemingly don't care about.

And if you don't think the house of lords have any power then you're deluded, and it's not as if the queen doesn't influence things...

The House of Lords doesn't have the power to propose or even block for that matter any meaningful legislation. The House of Lords serves (at the very most) as a revising chamber which, in rare circumstances, it will sometimes send legislation back to the House of Commons for a period of a few months for minor changes to flaws in policy etc. The same with the Queen who can only advise her ministers and cannot constitutionally propose legislation herself.

It's pretty simple to comprehend the difference between the Monarchy/House of Lords and the European Commission.

[The Don]

It's pretty simple to comprehend the difference between the Monarchy/House of Lords and the European Commission.

Yeh, one's elected by representatives and the other we have no control over whatsoever, but of course, because it's tradition and not the EU that's alrighty then, right?