It is over 36 years since we, the British public, had a say on what we think of our relationship with our European neighbours. Back in 1975 there was a referendum on whether or not we stayed in what was then referred to as ‘The Common Market’ the European Economic Community the E.E.C. Since then the nature of the organisation which the British people voted to remain part of has changed beyond all recognition. Firstly, the word ‘Economic’ was dropped and we became members of the European Community. Then, we became members of the European Union. All without any consultation of the British people.
It is now time we all had our say!
12 thoughts on “Time we all had a say”
I believe that the British people should have the right in a single issue referendum to say yes or no to membership of the European Union. Whether one is pro or anti European is not the point, the British people were only given one chance to vote on this single issue to join a common market in the 1970’s and has never had a say in being part of an increasingly single political, economic and legal state. Some say we should be at the centre of Europe others say we should be at the centre of the world. All that I believe in is that we should have the chance, as the people of our great nation, to have the opportunity to say for ourselves which path we wish to tread.
Peter i am sorry to have to correct you but the British people were NEVER given the chance to vote on entry to the common market in 1972 only a rigged vote on wether to stay in in 1975. False promises and lies as to the benefits of the EEC kidded people, but not me, that we would have more opportunity to trade with europe but this put paid to trade with other countrys namely Australia and New Zealand. We have a trade DEFICIT with the EU of 40 BILLION POUNDS and the EU has taken over our lives in numerous ways. As i write it has come about that there will be a back benchers debate on the 27 october on a motion calling for a referendum by May 2013 put forward by our MP David Nuttall but as this is a back benchers debate i think i am correct in saying the result is not binding on the government, maybe David can confirm if i am correct because it is not a debate initiated by the government so is therefore not binding on it.
Hi David, sometime ago on your blog, which for some strange reason i cannot find, i questioned you on the number of paid positions in the government and i said under the tories the number had gone up to around 100, this was in responce to a report that the tories were ‘cutting the cost of government’. As you will no dought remember you tried to correct me by saying you ‘did not think this was the case’ as the number on the government payroll, i.e. ministers and pps was limited by statute.Today, tuesday 11 of october, i was watching the goings on in the house and i heard the number was 143 and you were present at the time, a figure which was not disputed by the government. The ‘appointment’ of government ministers and pps means they cannot vote against the government so in effect guaranteeing the passage of a bill, is this what is meant by ‘cutting the costs’ if so , what is your responce to this FACT and don’t forget everything is on BBC video.
When you sought votes from residents in Bury last year your parties manifesto said that it would ‘play a leading role in an enlarged Europe’ and ‘continue to be an active and activist participant in the European Union’. Now you seem to want a referendum on continued membership.
Perhaps you could explain what has changed since you were elected, whether you really supported the policy you asked us to vote for at the time, and exactly what the question would be in the referendum you suggest.
And finally what would your position be on the question to be put.
Thank you in anticipation of a response. For referance the ‘Europe’ bit of ‘your’ manifesto is copied below.
The Government believes that Britain should play a leading role in an enlarged European Union, but that no further areas of power should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum. This approach strikes the right balance between constructive engagement with the EU to deal with the issues that affect us all, and protecting our national sovereignty.
We will continue to be an active and activist participant in the European Union, with the goal of ensuring that Europe is equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.
We will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or areas of power over the course of the Parliament.
We have introduced a Bill in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty – a ‘referendum lock’.
We have introduced a United Kingdom Sovereignty clause to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.
We will ensure that Britain does not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.
We are strongly defending the UK’s national interests in the EU budget negotiations and agree that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.
We are pressing for the European Parliament to have only one seat, in Brussels.
We support the further enlargement of the EU subject to all candidates meeting the strict accession criteria’.
On the subject of pre-election commitments I’ve just read a post on this blog from 21st April 2010 headed ‘Conservatives will maintain Children’s Services at Fairfield’.
Would the vote be conducted with a maximum spend on each side?
My concern is that the full force of the EU machine will be put into place in an attempt to attempt to ensure that any proposal to weaken our relationship with the EU is defeated.
Whilst clearly this is not a reason for not having a vote, any referendum must be done fairly.
The usual referendum rules would apply as far as
I am concerned which would mean both sides being limited to spend the same amount.
sadly The Heath Referendum was without any shadow of doubt utterly corrupt or we would never have become a vassal of the supra national EU.
Let us not forget that Enoch Powell warned of exactly the outcome we now suffer in his speech of February 1970 which you can read at:
It is also a metter of public record that Ted Heath admitted he had lied to Parliament and the peoples of Britain as he believed had he told the truth the people would have voted against Ratification of his signature to The Treaty of Rome – Too Damned Right We Would Have.
The You Gov poll commissioned by Independent MEP Nikki Sinclaire showed clearly that:
70%+ Tory Voters want an In/Our EU Referendum
66% of Tory Voters would vote to Leave-The-EU
52% of all voters would vote to Leave-The-EU
30% only of all voters would vote to remain in The EU.
Rather more conclusive percentages than were even obtained by Heath’s lies and a massive pro campaign and funding which by dishonesty won would now democratically vote against.
We do know based on The EU track record of corruption and the EUroPhile proppensity for lies that huge funding and man power would pour in to try to keep us in The EU.
It is far far better to die on ones feet that live on ones knees slowly being nibbled to death by ducks as the EU salami slices our freedom, ratchets ever tighter the barbed wire circle of stars and erradicates the fundamental human right of self determination.
We were lied to inorder to dupe us into joining and they continue to lie at every stage.
We deserve an HONEST & FAIR Referendum or the divisions & discontent will rage for the next 40 years – save only when the EU collapses as it surely will.
We need to restore our democracy, sovereignty, borders and judiciary in good order before that collapse already our association with The EU is damaging our economy possibly irreprably.
Please help ensure we regain our liberty and the freedom to manoveur in order to survive in an increasingly competitive world not merely as also rans to be fed into the maw of the failing behemoth.
Here Here !!!
I think our MP is all talk, he won’t answer questions and won’t resign like i and others suggested he should, and he and the rest of this motley talk about trust, don’t make me laugh.
It’s good to see you championing democracy. Great idea. How about promoting democracy at a local/regional level too and consulting people on future of maternity services at Fairfield?
And so say all of us, keep us the good work!
Comments are closed.