±«Óătv

With regard to the proposed EU treaty, and the argument over whether or not there should be a referendum, I have to say I think there should be. Nobody who is under 50 years old today (which includes me) would have been either alive or old enough to vote at the time of the 1975 referendum, and in any case the issue was simply about staying in the "Common Market" then.

I consider myself to be pro-Europe and reasonably pro-EU (not the same thing, I think!). I have actually been onto the European Council website and printed off the conclusions of the recent summit, and read through them (only 27 pages, so I've seen worse!). It is clear to me from reading this that, although there would appear to be no Earth-shattering transfers of power to the EU, it cannot reasonably just be described as a "tidying up" exercise.

I realise that previous governments (not least Margaret Thatcher's) have surrendered far more power in a single go than is the case here. But what few people seem to mention is the cumulative effect of all the transfers of powers and extensions of qualified majority voting (QMV) that have taken effect over the years. Unless you take the view that a federal state (in reality if not in name) is desirable, it follows that a point must be reached where you are not prepared to see one further power, no matter how apparently trivial, being transferred unless there is a referendum. I think we are at that point.

If we do not have a referendum, there will simply be yet another treaty in another couple of years, and so on, and of course the transfer of power only ever seems to go in one direction! Where will it all end? The answer seems pretty clear to me - a federal state. Regardless of whether one considers that to be a good thing or not, surely it cannot be right for it to come about without the voters of the UK having a say about it.

Sorry But This Whole Issue Is Just Cracking Me Up..Politics. Pooey I say..Got Out Of Politics quite some time ago..I know it's sad..But had no choice in the matter. Sure There's Lots I could say here, but why bother. What's the point..It just goes in one ear and out the others..Sadens me really. But nothing I can do about it...

Well Jee Sad To Hear That...Does It Hurt? Oh My..Yes I do Believe We Musn't Let Tony Blaire (as I crack up here)loose. He's become a Madman! But, Hay, you didn't hear that from me..Well, Yes, he have gone just a wee bit too far in the UK. haha! True..I didn't say that either...

Labour do referendums but don't honour the results if it doesn't fit in with their own dictatorial wishes.
So what good would a referendum be?
Having read Melanie Philip's column, I think she says it all, as she normally does:-

Brown - no way can he wash his hands of the last 10 years, he was one of the architects of the state of Britain today.
A 'not me Guv' statement doesn't stand up.

Peace in the Middle East - your having a laugh!
Where in the World where Muslims are in numbers is there Peace?

Paul - the only conclusion you could come to is that NuLabour have taken Politics and Politicians into the Self Serving Gutter!

Have a nice show!

It is now Crunch Time whether we like it or not!

It will come as a surprise to no-one that Kenneth Clarke is endorsing with almost palpable passion, Gordon Brown’s post-Brussels assertion that there is now no necessity for a referendum.
Clarke’s federal Europe agenda, though less covert than Brown’s and probably less sinister than Blair’s, is nonetheless just as fervent.
What both Clarke and Brown arrogantly and deliberately choose to ignore and refuse to address, is that the general public have long seen through the red lines/red herrings sham of this and earlier ‘treaties’, and consider, nay demand, that a referendum is now
. totally and indispensably requisite to an end desired! Which, if they stopped to think about it, is precisely what ‘necessity’ means?

Clarke’s blatantly patronising comments quoted in to-day’s press are simply crass.

He has the colossal crust to denigrate the thinking capabilities of around eighty-percent of the Nation when he says
.. “What we have now is far less important than Maastrich
.. I think the idea that we have a referendum is frankly absurd
.. Some of the Eurosceptics will have demanded a referendum just about the date on the top of the paper, but they are flogging a dead horse.”

These preposterous utterances fulfil, in parallel, the correct definition of the word ‘racism’, in that he pronounces through an ‘irrational assumption/belief’ that he and his ilk (for which read Race) are superior by way of intellect (and whatever else) to the rest of us; and can therefore dictate and control our destinies.

One date with which Clarke and his ilk need to familiarise themselves is 15th June, 1215 – the most important referendum ever.

Had Churchill been disposed to envisage what Britain would be like post 1997, he would have forewarned that
.. Never in the annals of British History will the expressed and rightful wishes of so many have been so treacherously betrayed by so few!

'Reigns' Is this meant to be a joke?

As Gordon Brown is taking control of the Prime Minister in this Country. He has so many plans in his mind but would he consider himself that he is doing something for those immigrants who are living in this country for more than 7 years and contribute the econmey? Could anyone of the MP point this issue to newely Prime Minister's mind? There are so many people living in this country and also contribute towards the econmy. I hope this issue will be resolve very soon and those who are already in this country working and support their families would be consider as a British Citizens. Thanks.

I simply cannot help but believe that
New Labour has been a con and built around a chap who can conjure with words. If I could find the button to have him impeached I would. This country will suffer for many years (by which I mean the people) because of the totally inadequate performance
of this government. I was Labour sadly. Every branch and department of this government has been a disaster. And who is looking to go
on a lecture tour on what? How to con the public and make it look good!
Whilst some female has gained considerable wealth talking to people
about it.

Judging by Geoff Hoon's squirming during your interview with him, I would say that he's lying to us. "No, it's not 90% the same as last time, but it's not sensible to compare percentages." What?!?!

Why won't the Tories admit that Maastricht was a mistake? With the benefit of hindsight Maastricht was a step in the wrong direction. I'll never understand why politicians are incapable of admitting that they have been wrong or mistaken.

Anyway, the position of the government on this is even more indefensible. You promised us a referendum. Either have one or declare a General Election in the meantime and explain why you no longer think one is necessary. Everything else is sophistry.

If this agreement is so good for Britain then stand up and defend it and put it to a vote. That is democracy. Make your case, stage a debate and then let the electorate decide. Simple really.

Frank Luntz always presents himself as a polster who uniquely can get to the essential issues, but I am sorry to say his preposterous toupe undermines his credibility. I long for Paxo to ask Luntz why he kids himself no one has noticed his rug.
Frovolous? Yes - I'll get me coat. AR

Hoon could have stayed mute throughout the entire Paxman interview and his mendaciousness would still have been exposed, yet again, with equal clarity.

The pathetically mawkish and monotonous responses from this man were utterly predictable and an insult to viewers' intelligence.

Complicit in all the spin before, during and after the Iraq conflict, his persistently feeble attempts to deal the public cards from a stacked deck in the hope of presenting himself as a purveyor of truth, simply beggar belief.

Yes! I believe Tony Blair will play a useful role in bringing about such peace in the middle East if he can have a backing from PM.

The main and difficult ingredient of peace's success is squarely lying in the identification of causes of conflicts.

Reconciling biligerents without identifying what causes the conflict in the first place is treating the symptoms of a disease you have not as yet known.

And I believe Tony Blair has the capacity of doing that job.

He has the ability to forsee a problem before it turns up. And by extension, he has the capacity of understanding in time what can take many people long time to understand.

Did Gordon Brown stipulate he be interviewed only by the kittens it was such a game of softball,why were the Newsnight rottweilers not unleashed ?

The day that body language analysis obtrudes into Newsnight will be the day I pack my red spotted hankie. Polling is one thing, and the Frank Luntz kind is entertaining, but once you enter the realms of body language aren't you really just looking for yet another way to assert that someone is lying? If politicians, why not interviewers, why not absolutely everyone? And how do you ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't mendacity so much as a slipped disc? It would be beyond frovolous; almost rodoculous.

#17 Frank Hudson - you put it so much better than I did.

Yes, it would be a very good idea to get a language analyst and a psychologist to do a retrospective analyis of political clips. Although maybe in the case of Geoff Hoon it wouldn't be necessary, he's so obviously spinning.

It alarms me that such a person could become Defence Secretary. He oozes dishonesty. [If you think that last sentence is defamatory then drop it]

How much sovereignty did the UK give away "this time?" In the end, it will eventually be all gone which is what really counts. One day in the distant future, the land these nations states existed on will still be there but their national character will have completely disappeared. The proponents of an EU superstate see what they hope will be the consequences they want, increased political and economic power but they don't seem to understand or have overlooked the consequences they don't want. To examine that, they should look at a real superstate, the US for example. It has a heterogeneous population and culture, all regional differences are minor, all cultural differences from the past mere vestiges of what ancestors of the current residents brought with them. In any one spot, there are as likely to be people whose greatgrandfathers once called themselves Polish as there are those whose greatgrandparents called themselves Irish, Italian, or Chinese. In effect, in many ways, the EU WILL BECOME the US. And for practical reasons, it will have a single language, most likely a variant of English, probably as spoken by Americans. The physical artifacts of the extinct European states such as its architecture will remain as a reminder of its sordid and bloody history but other than that it will not resemble anything it is today. In the end, it will also become apparant that the clumsy laughable government construct it is now creating will be far to impractical to function and it will adopt the practical time proven methods of a superstate which does work, namely America's. In 100 years, the EU will be a clone of what it says it hates, The United States of America. Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Why not save all the time and bother and just do it all in one shot, get the pain over with instantly instead of dragging it out?

Re: body language analysis

Although body language is open to subjective interpretation, spoken language can be logically scrutinised and then followed with more probing questions, to either drag the truth out of politicians or show they mislead the electorate with weasel words.

As a purely imaginary example someone might say,
"With the lessons learned from the recent succesful deployment I can guarantee that not one of our soldiers will be at risk due to issues with equipment.",
(while thinking = I don't know how many soldiers, marines, sailors or RAF personnel will be at risk due to faulty or missing kit, but it will certainly be more than one.)

So a follow-up question might be along the lines of "Will you resign from office if any of our forces going into theatre are injured or killed, due in any part to not being properly equipped?"

Europe seems old hat, tired now, and never been relevant to me, and never will be (I, like most people do not like this nightmarish concept), we know what's happening, history has shown this in the past. People know the answer. We are not a Dominion, or a federal state. USA is just an Empire anyway.

Our proper destiny is with the core Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New zealand, and some others. Some sort of union here would be more desirable, and natural. Ironic given the history in which we were part of an Empire only 60 years ago, but those countries above were probably more free even 100 years ago, than us today. We need a referendum, and for us, let the Europe idea die.

One of the other JP's better efforts but can we please stop referring to those who dislke the present EU set up as ANTI-EUROPEANS like he did with John Redwood. This eurosceptic has lived in the EU, worked in 8 of its countries there, speaks two continental languages, loves the place, visits it often and has spent a few of the bob Brown has spared him taking his grandchildren around the art treasures of Italy but I still think today's EU is undemocratic, expensive and over-bureacratic. Too many ±«Óătv commentators seem to think that's a crime. It isn't