Government ensures voters fail to get say on EU future again

Mark Croucher · 06-06-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UKIP Press Office

For Immediate Release –16:00hrs 6th June 2005

Government ensures voters fail to get say on EU future again

The government has once again ensured that British voters will not be allowed to have their say on the future of the EU by suspending the British referendum on the EU Constitution, the U.K. Independence Party said today.

UKIP Leader Roger Knapman MEP said that the government should now offer British voters their only say to date on whether they wanted full political union with the European Union, or preferred to retreat to the type of free-trade agreement that they voted for in the 1975 referendum.

Mr Knapman said, “We have gone so far down the road towards full political integration that it is only right that voters should have a say, and there is not a better time than this. The Constitution is dead, and yet many of its provisions are being implemented regardless.

“The government should offer a referendum on whether we proceed towards full political union or retreat to a genuine free trade agreement, which is to date the only part of the European project which the British electorate have specifically consented to.

“Instead, we now find that the decision regarding Britain's continued surrender of sovereignty is made on our behalf by our French and Dutch neighbours. This is simply not acceptable.

“The whole history of Britain’s involvement in the European project has been one of preventing the electorate from making their voice heard. The political establishment must be breathing a huge sigh of relief that events outside of Britain have allowed them to avoid consulting the people once again.” ENDS

Notes to Editors:

For further information, please contact:

Roger Knapman MEP, UKIP Leader,
Mark Croucher, UKIP Press Office, 0207-222-9365 or 07960-584161

gareth2 · 06-06-2005, 01:29 PM

Have this in your campaign literature.

Blair PROMISED unequivecoly that regardless of the french outcome, we would get a vote.

He PROMISED

Regards,
Gareth.

06-06-2005, 01:40 PM

i personally dont want the British Government spending 50 million on a referendum that means nothing

it would be pointless for it to go ahead as everything stands why would UKIP want Britian to waste all that money

gareth2 · 06-06-2005, 01:44 PM

So a high voter turnout, with a high percentage of those saying no, would mean nothing to the lib dems?

Regard,
Gareth.

Mark Croucher · 06-06-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotgirl

i personally dont want the British Government spending 50 million on a referendum that means nothing

it would be pointless for it to go ahead as everything stands why would UKIP want Britian to waste all that money

Why should the government be able to implement the provisions of the EU constitution despite not giving people the promised say on it? The death fo the document itself has not halted the provisions it contained.

Rgds

Mark

06-06-2005, 02:05 PM

that consitution cannot go ahead

why would you think then that you would be able to get the public out to vote on something the constitution as a whole which means nothing now

i think threre would be a huge outcry on cost if Blair did try to run it . what do you think is mroe important to the electorate as a whole voting on something which cant now be brought INTO phpbb_affect or spending 50 million on something which cant be brought INTO phpbb_affect

I can see why it would be popular within UKIP and i could be wrong but i dont think you would get much support fro the proposal outside of UKIP the cost alone would put many people off for supporting running it here

basically UKIP knew that one country saying NO could mean that the UK would not get a referendum so UKIP should have been hoping for yes votes until it got to us but instead they were happy for other countryes to get no votes

Mark Croucher · 06-06-2005, 02:33 PM

Except of course the EU COnstitution is already being implemented; IIRC, over half of the COmmissioners said at their confirmation hearings that they would begin implementing it immediately rather than wait for the inconvenience of public ratification.

It's already being put INTO phpbb_place, its just not bundled together and called a constitution. If that this the sort of democratic accountability that you think is acceptable following 2 huge defeats, then I can see why you're so keen on the EU

Rgds

Mark

06-06-2005, 02:35 PM

i suppose you have links or further information for me so i can see which parts are being impliemtned

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-06-2005, 01:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
gareth2 Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 731	Have this in your campaign literature. Blair PROMISED unequivecoly that regardless of the french outcome, we would get a vote. He PROMISED Regards, Gareth.

06-06-2005, 01:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	i personally dont want the British Government spending 50 million on a referendum that means nothing it would be pointless for it to go ahead as everything stands why would UKIP want Britian to waste all that money

06-06-2005, 01:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
gareth2 Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 731	So a high voter turnout, with a high percentage of those saying no, would mean nothing to the lib dems? Regard, Gareth.

06-06-2005, 02:05 PM	#6 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	that consitution cannot go ahead why would you think then that you would be able to get the public out to vote on something the constitution as a whole which means nothing now i think threre would be a huge outcry on cost if Blair did try to run it . what do you think is mroe important to the electorate as a whole voting on something which cant now be brought INTO phpbb_affect or spending 50 million on something which cant be brought INTO phpbb_affect I can see why it would be popular within UKIP and i could be wrong but i dont think you would get much support fro the proposal outside of UKIP the cost alone would put many people off for supporting running it here basically UKIP knew that one country saying NO could mean that the UK would not get a referendum so UKIP should have been hoping for yes votes until it got to us but instead they were happy for other countryes to get no votes

06-06-2005, 02:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mark Croucher Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dartford, Kent Posts: 981	Except of course the EU COnstitution is already being implemented; IIRC, over half of the COmmissioners said at their confirmation hearings that they would begin implementing it immediately rather than wait for the inconvenience of public ratification. It's already being put INTO phpbb_place, its just not bundled together and called a constitution. If that this the sort of democratic accountability that you think is acceptable following 2 huge defeats, then I can see why you're so keen on the EU Rgds Mark

06-06-2005, 02:35 PM	#8 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	i suppose you have links or further information for me so i can see which parts are being impliemtned