super city & UKIP.

[Jon the Hat]

That's right, and it's why everyone against Europe is clamouring for a referendum, because they know it will go their way. The mass media will portray, as they have always done, the EU as the Devil.

And perhaps becuase our government promised us one before the last election. Turns out they were lying.

Personally I think it is pointless, what we need is a government with the right view on how the EU should develop.

[davieG]

Perhaps reforms are needed, but they won't be achieved by voting UKIP, or trying to veto a treaty agreed by the rest of the EU.

If enough of the general public show a distaste for it it might jog the bureaucrats into taking some positive action to improve the whole shambles.

Has it been agreed?

What's the point of having a veto if you don't use it to stop something you disapprove of?

I'm on the fence.

[davieG]

That had more to do with Irish voters having issues with their own government, rather than with the EU.

The decision will be reversed by the end of this year.

You mean they'll smother it with more gobbledegook that no one understands until people get bored and don't vote so it goes through by default.

You don't disappoint Ultra you sound just like someone's who's been politically party institutionalised and who's been sat on committees for far too long living your life off the back of endless reports written by political careerists and forgotten what it's like to be just an ordinary member of the public.

[Jon the Hat]

If enough of the general public show a distaste for it it might jog the bureaucrats into taking some positive action to improve the whole shambles.

Has it been agreed?

What's the point of having a veto if you don't use it to stop something you disapprove of?

I'm on the fence.

My question is still what is the actual point of us electing local MEP's when the British Government actually decides what to sign in the end (or should do talk of a referendum aside). I don't see the benefit of the local aspect of representation in Europe. Surely those there should be representing the nation and the views of the presigin government of the time.

[davieG]

My question is still what is the actual point of us electing local MEP's when the British Government actually decides what to sign in the end (or should do talk of a referendum aside). I don't see the benefit of the local aspect of representation in Europe. Surely those there should be representing the nation and the views of the presigin government of the time.

I'm not sure why that was a reply to my post, I don't disagree with you I had a look at the 'Whoiswho' in the EU and it's awash with political non-jobs a totally overloaded bureaucratic monsoon of people. big may be beautiful when it's a mountain or a lake but when it's bureaucracy it's as ugly as sin.

http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm...y&nodeid=12

There's obviously been some really good stuff happen as a result of the EU but when things get too big, and I'm not talking number of nations but areas of influence and control it just becomes totally unmanageable. The problem is those on the inside can't see it they're just wrapped up in their own little world and circle of colleagues.

[Guest]

My question is still what is the actual point of us electing local MEP's when the British Government actually decides what to sign in the end (or should do talk of a referendum aside). I don't see the benefit of the local aspect of representation in Europe. Surely those there should be representing the nation and the views of the presigin government of the time.

The Parliament is part of a tripartite structure (the so-called "Three Pillars"), and (you'll have to bear with me, I'm doped up to the eyeballs on painkillers at the minute, so I can't remember all the details) it can propose and reject legislation etc. I think it has the say on foreign policy, and it also has a say on the economic side of things.

I did pay attention, honest!!

[Guest Bilo]

That's right, and it's why everyone against Europe is clamouring for a referendum, because they know it will go their way. The mass media will portray, as they have always done, the EU as the Devil.

No.

The reason why there is a clamour for a referendum is because we were promised one in the run-up to the 2005 general election, as pointed out by Jon The Hat. That promise has been broken because the Labour government knows that the British public are likely to vote the 'wrong' way. By no stretch of the imagination is that a democratic decision to make. In answer to your point that only those against Europe want a referendum, David Cameron is one of it's most vocal advocates. The same David Cameron who referred to UKIP as 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists', showing his disdain for those who are against Europe. All those who want a referendum have in common is an opportunity to have their voices heard, an opportunity denied to us by Labour.

[Guest Bilo]

I'm not sure why that was a reply to my post, I don't disagree with you I had a look at the 'Whoiswho' in the EU and it's awash with political non-jobs a totally overloaded bureaucratic monsoon of people. big may be beautiful when it's a mountain or a lake but when it's bureaucracy it's as ugly as sin.

http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm...y&nodeid=12

There's obviously been some really good stuff happen as a result of the EU but when things get too big, and I'm not talking number of nations but areas of influence and control it just becomes totally unmanageable. The problem is those on the inside can't see it they're just wrapped up in their own little world and circle of colleagues.

How ironic that one of the acronyms for a European department is COST!

[breadandcheese]

That had more to do with Irish voters having issues with their own government, rather than with the EU.

The decision will be reversed by the end of this year.

Thanks for that Paddy MacUltra. I didn't realise you were so in tune with the Irish public's way of thinking.

Or maybe, you read a report or commentary that agreed with your way of thinking and decided this was so. Please provide evidence that what you said was the case.

However anybody judges it, the EU constitution has not been a democratic process in the true sense of the meaning.

[Jon the Hat]

I'm not sure why that was a reply to my post

You used the word "shambles" and I liked it

[davieG]

You used the word "shambles" and I liked it

Appropriate word

[Ultra]

The reason why there is a clamour for a referendum is because we were promised one in the run-up to the 2005 general election, as pointed out by Jon The Hat.

Things have moved on since then. The referendum pledge was by Tony Blair in relation to the Nice Treaty. That document's now been superceded by the Lisbon Treaty which has been updated to cover the implications of the EU's expansion.

That promise has been broken because the Labour government knows that the British public are likely to vote the 'wrong' way. By no stretch of the imagination is that a democratic decision to make. In answer to your point that only those against Europe want a referendum, David Cameron is one of it's most vocal advocates. The same David Cameron who referred to UKIP as 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists', showing his disdain for those who are against Europe.

That's one way of putting it. Another is that he's seriously worried about the impact of UKIP on the Tory vote. Cameron's own views on Europe are fairly ambivalent, probably because he has no wish to upset his power base within his party, many of whose members would indeed favour a withdrawal from the EU.

All those who want a referendum have in common is an opportunity to have their voices heard, an opportunity denied to us by Labour.

That's a very disingenuous statement and you know it. The referendum call is merely a cloak for the Europhobes' real agenda - to quit the EU altogether.

[breadandcheese]

Things have moved on since then. The referendum pledge was by Tony Blair in relation to the Nice Treaty. That document's now been superceded by the Lisbon Treaty which has been updated to cover the implications of the EU's expansion.

That's one way of putting it. Another is that he's seriously worried about the impact of UKIP on the Tory vote. Cameron's own views on Europe are fairly ambivalent, probably because he has no wish to upset his power base within his party, many of whose members would indeed favour a withdrawal from the EU.

That's a very disingenuous statement and you know it. The referendum call is merely a cloak for the Europhobes' real agenda - to quit the EU altogether.

What amazes me is how you criticise others for their disingenuous statements, yet feel that you are free to make those same sweeping and generally incorrect statements. Unbelievable.

Despite your incessant hatred for all things Tory, with your narrow sweeping stereotypical views, I'll let you in to a little secret. I am a Tory voter yet do not favour a withdrawal from Europe. I believe a referendum is necessary, but do not want to quit Europe. I would like to think I am in the majority when I believe that we are right to be in the European Union, but think that integration has gone as far as it needs. This is my position and I shall be voting accordingly on June 4th. Your views on the Tory party are incorrect.

[Dan]

Haaahhhaaahhhaaaaaa thats the funniest thing Ive read all night! Ahh the naivity of youth

Whats so funny?

Criminal or non-criminal, if your physically trying to resist arrest how annoyed would you be if you were a policeman because you can't hit them back, what I mean is follow the example of the USA, they don't mess around in these situations.

[Guest]

Whats so funny?

Criminal or non-criminal, if your physically trying to resist arrest how annoyed would you be if you were a policeman because you can't hit them back, what I mean is follow the example of the USA, they don't mess around in these situations.

So you would willingly comply if an officer was arresting you for no reason?

[Red Leicester]

So you would willingly comply if an officer was arresting you for no reason?

"If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear."

[breadandcheese]

So you would willingly comply if an officer was arresting you for no reason?

I agree with your point of view, but in answer to your question, when should you ever not comply if an officer arrests you? To not comply could be construed as resistance and thus resisting arrest.

Surely you should comply and then deal with the rights or wrongs of the arrest after.

Disclaimer: I am not supporting the views of the idiot who thinks the police should be able to batter you when they make an arrest. An officer is licensed by the state to be able to use force if neccessary. To use force for no good reason is assault and should be treated as such.

[Dr The Singh]

I agree with your point of view, but in answer to your question, when should you ever not comply if an officer arrests you? To not comply could be construed as resistance and thus resisting arrest.

Surely you should comply and then deal with the rights or wrongs of the arrest after.

Disclaimer: I am not supporting the views of the idiot who thinks the police should be able to batter you when they make an arrest. An officer is licensed by the state to be able to use force if neccessary. To use force for no good reason is assault and should be treated as such.

[Ultra]

However anybody judges it, the EU constitution has not been a democratic process in the true sense of the meaning.

And you accuse me of making sweeping statements..

It may look that way to you. People in Barcelona, Berlin or Bratislava probably take a far different view. They don't have the same angst about the EU that the British, swayed by a notoriously shallow, insular and europhobic media, do.

[Guest]

I agree with your point of view, but in answer to your question, when should you ever not comply if an officer arrests you? To not comply could be construed as resistance and thus resisting arrest.

Surely you should comply and then deal with the rights or wrongs of the arrest after.

Disclaimer: I am not supporting the views of the idiot who thinks the police should be able to batter you when they make an arrest. An officer is licensed by the state to be able to use force if neccessary. To use force for no good reason is assault and should be treated as such.

I know what you're saying, and of course, you can always take issue later, but do we always use common sense when the situation arises?

[breadandcheese]

And you accuse me of making sweeping statements..

It may look that way to you. People in Barcelona, Berlin or Bratislava probably take a far different view. They don't have the same angst about the EU that the British, swayed by a notoriously shallow, insular and europhobic media, do.

To be fair I made a sweeping statement there, but I stand by the statement that the ratifying of the EU consititution/Lisbon Treaty/Whatever anybody wants to call it has not been a democratic process.

Voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the constitution, so it was repackaged and ratified by their governments without a referendum. The Irish public voted no, so they are to be asked until they say yes. We were promised a referendum, but the government ratified the treaty without it. This bureaucrat know best approach overriding the power of the vote cannot be something you approve of.

[filbertway]

Perhaps you should be asking why employers would rather have Polish workers than British ones?

They don't quit the flapjack company after 3 days. Heroes. Companies getting temps must hate it when the people they get sent aren't polish.

[Jon the Hat]

They don't quit the flapjack company after 3 days. Heroes. Companies getting temps must hate it when the people they get sent aren't polish.

You got Beef with flapjacks?

[Dan]

I agree with your point of view, but in answer to your question, when should you ever not comply if an officer arrests you? To not comply could be construed as resistance and thus resisting arrest.

Surely you should comply and then deal with the rights or wrongs of the arrest after.

Disclaimer: I am not supporting the views of the idiot who thinks the police should be able to batter you when they make an arrest. An officer is licensed by the state to be able to use force if neccessary. To use force for no good reason is assault and should be treated as such.

Watch Police Interceptors or Road Wars and tell me if you were the policeman you would easily resist hitting some of those criminals.

[Guest Bilo]

The referendum call is merely a cloak for the Europhobes' real agenda - to quit the EU altogether.

That statement is so steeped in sensationalism even the Daily Mail would consider it 'a bit much.'

The views of the public on the EU are not so black and white, and those who rejected the Nice and Lisbon treaties are not necessarily the insular right-wingers you appear to portray them as being. French and Dutch voters rejected Nice, and Irish voters rejected the warmed up Lisbon treaty. None of these nations are known as being Europhobic as Britain, particularly Ireland, yet still they rejected the treaty. This shows that are genuine misgivings about Lisbon, and opposition to it is too wide-reaching to be dismissed as a Europhobic plot to dismantle the EU.