Haven't read any of the links in this post as I can't be bothered wading through them..however from the jist of the topic I'm guessing we're talking about Blair's ambition to take the UK into a united Europe with him at it's helm.

I Hope this won't happen..a lot of what I've read from different sources has shown me the economic disaster that would occur if we did get tied into a federal european state. I also don't like the idea of unelected officials making laws to govern me that I have no say in.

PS - If I've guessed the contents of this topic wrong then oops

PPS - Grr @ Lando..although yeah he did destroy the Death Star MkII

---

by Ethan
Mr Bob, the only 2 things you can guarentee in life are taxes and death.

---

'In This World, Nothing is Certain . . . but death and taxes.' - Benjamin Franklin (in 1789) is the quote that you were after. I agree as well, they are the only things that are certain. What relevance this has to this discussion, I fear is limited.

I am not complaining about taxes in this thread, but if you want to discuss taxes, I'm sure it is a great topic for a new thread.

---

You don't here me go on and on about the tax on my wages, no.

---

I agree, taxes are a necessary evil.

---

I accept it as part of life and there is very little I can do to change that. I don't moan about how the country us run because as stated before I don't have any interest in politics. It's purely something that has to be accepted.

---

I'm sure there are political subjects that you do have an interest in. I am unable to name any, as I do not know you very well.

These issues do not have to be accepted. Although, I have to admit that change doesn't come easy. Especially, with the resolve that we see in Blair and the apathy of a worrying number of voters.

---

by Mr Bob
He is going to take us into Europe, such that there is no prospect of extraction without serious economic and political implications,

---

You don't think we're already at that stage?

---

without holding a referendum.

---

And there was me thinking we lived in a direct democracy.. Oh, wait a minute, we don't! Not that I'm suggesting we don't need a referendum, but this is long-term stuff - not gonna be forced through parliament tomorrow without us realising.

---

This, in my opinion, is indefensible - he is essentially trying to promote himself as President of Europe, which I think is somewhat optimistic.

---

Did you read the speech? I saw nothing to indicate that. And do you think the rest of Europe would want Tony as their President?

---

He is not doing what is best for the people of this country, if he does not know what their definitive opinions are - something a referendum can address.

---

He's not doing anything. The speech was a speculative vision for the shape that Europe could take. Does it need reform? Particularly with the enlargement that's happening? Damn right it does. To not address that would be foolish. But whatever happens will take a very long time to complete, and by the time it does Mr Blair will most likely be out of office.

---

I suspect that he is afraid that the people will go against Europe and his over ambitious hopes will be forever dashed.

---

Of course he's afraid that people will go against Europe - why do you think we haven't had the referendum on the single currency yet? It doesn't stop joining the single currency being a good idea.

No time for a long post, but when I looked at the article the first thing I was reminded of was that William Rees-Mogg was always characterised in Steve Bell's Guardian cartoons as Mrs Thatcher's cat. So I guess it's pretty easy to tell where his sympathies lie...

Personally the only thing that I read in the papers and accept unquestioningly is the TV schedules (and even they're wrong sometimes). The rest is so much spin, and as soon as I saw the link was to a Times article I knew I'd disagree violently

I'm not into politics at all and defenetly not brittish politics, but...

---

by Mr Bob
A referendum would be ideal.

---

I think a referendum means a failure of the current democratic system. Big topics require a thourough evaluation, by people who know that they're talking about, before a dicision is made. The general public cannot and does not want to do this, that's why they pay certain persons (we call them politicians) to do that for them.
In a referendum, the general population will only be able to give their uninformed, mostly emotional-based optinion and that is not what I think should be the basis for an important political and economical decision.

So, imho, a referendum means the politicians are being lazy.

---

by Mr Bob
No offense was intended, but Ethan did start a series of non-relevant posts, which is somewhat disrespectful.

---

possibly the posts following were irrelevent, but Ethan's original post - to me at least - struck me as a comment aimed to illustrate how OTT the Times article is with its title. Even if it wasn't then i think it should have been!!

Ultimate betrayal my behind. Someone mentioned earlier (I've lost track of who because of the way this thread has gone off topic) reading 'quality broadsheets' for political news. If this is the 'quality' to which you refer then me might as well all go reading the News of the World and have done with it.

Oh and well said Noid


(Edited by Sydney 13/12/2002 09:32)

---

by the Noid
think a referendum means a failure of the current democratic system.

---

oh no no no no no!!!!!! Without a referendum, Tony Blair would have already taken us into Europe. He hasn't because he thinks a referendum is needed, it's the only thing stopping him. Yes, alot of the time the public are not as informed as politicians, but the decision to hand power over to Brussels MUST be decided by the people.

We fort two world wars (and a shed load of others) to stay a nation, to keep our power, and I will be damned if we now hand it over to Europe.

---

by Jayjay
Sorry, but that article was a bunch hogwash, and reminded me why I don't read the times. A poor excuse for aimless europhobic and xenophobic jingoism, with no real content and no real value.

---

He keeps saying what I'm thinking but using better words

---

by KieranFrost
Without a referendum, Tony Blair would have already taken us into Europe.

---

Erm, we've been 'into Europe' since before you or I were born.

If you're referring to the single currency, then yes, there will be a referendum - that's been Labours position on the matter at least since Blair became leader. I don't think we'd have yet joined if that hadn't been promised though. Gordon Brown takes his five tests pretty darn seriously.

---

by Lori
He keeps saying what I'm thinking but using better words

---

Don't you just hate that?

---

by In A State of Dan
Don't you just hate that?

---

I know, it makes it really hard to argue with him, he's TOO darn good And arguing with someone you know is going to win is no fun

Sorry about the confusion Dan, I meant the European Union, just got lazy about typing I guess Tony Blair SHOULD have a referendum before he drags us into it. He won't, but he should.

(this face is SSOSOOO cute)

Erm... We are still part of the European Union... Aren't we

And what about fighting two world wars. What relevance does that have to the European Union as it is now?

---

by The Noid
I'm not into politics at all and defenetly not brittish politics, but...(quotes)
I think a referendum means a failure of the current democratic system. Big topics require a thourough evaluation, by people who know that they're talking about, before a dicision is made. The general public cannot and does not want to do this, that's why they pay certain persons (we call them politicians) to do that for them.
In a referendum, the general population will only be able to give their uninformed, mostly emotional-based optinion and that is not what I think should be the basis for an important political and economical decision.

So, imho, a referendum means the politicians are being lazy.

---

Surely the politicians were elected in the first place by the emotional, uninformed electorate?

---

by Demona
Surely the politicians were elected in the first place by the emotional, uninformed electorate?

---

Yes, with the job to get informed and make the hard decisions. So they should do their job and make those hard decisions and not shove it back at the people who payed them to do it in the first place.

---

by Sydney
possibly the posts following were irrelevent, but Ethan's original post - to me at least - struck me as a comment aimed to illustrate how OTT the Times article is with its title. Even if it wasn't then i think it should have been!!

---

Well, he couldn't have commented on the article as he couldn't be bothered to read it. So, all this really demonstrates is that people who are not interested in politics or current affairs are unlikely to force themselves to read an article on the subject.

---

Ultimate betrayal my behind. Someone mentioned earlier (I've lost track of who because of the way this thread has gone off topic) reading 'quality broadsheets' for political news. If this is the 'quality' to which you refer then me might as well all go reading the News of the World and have done with it.

---

No need to post irrelevances with the basic aim of saying 'I don't like newspaper xxx'. Everyone has their favourites and their not so favourite newspapers, magazines etc.. What do you read, out of interest?

---

by Mr Bob
No need to post irrelevances with the basic aim of saying 'I don't like newspaper xxx'. Everyone has their favourites and their not so favourite newspapers, magazines etc.. What do you read, out of interest?

---

It wasn't an irrelevence. It was aimed at the article this thread is about, which I feel is of the badly researched reactionary rubbish that the News of the World is famous for - hence the comment.

It was not a comment on the Times as a whole and nothing to do with favourites - I'm not that blinkered. I do not like the Independent on the whole but I will acknowledge when they write good articles, likewise, I read the Guardian as my paper of choice, but I will acknowledge when they write badly informed articles - had this exact same piece appeared in the Guardian I would have said the same.



(Edited by Sydney 13/12/2002 16:47)

/me goes back to reading his Sun and the easy life...Blair bad, Europe super bad ugg ugg

---

by The Noid
(quotes)Yes, with the job to get informed and make the hard decisions. So they should do their job and make those hard decisions and not shove it back at the people who payed them to do it in the first place.

---

My point was that if the general public can't be trusted to decide correctly on one issue, how can they be trusted to choose a candidate in a general election concerned with multiple issues? Or does it not matter which politicians make the decisions, so long as they're informed? Which appears to be what you're saying.

---

by Milky
/me goes back to reading his Sun and the easy life...Blair bad, Europe super bad ugg ugg

---

Gosh it must have confused you today when the Sun came out on Cherie's side against the Conman It sure as hell confused me!!!!!!

Again, the constitution of this country means that we cannot surrender sovereignty without the express will of the people. renogotiating trade agreements (which is what the European Union is) is a different matter.