Britain secures agreement to join Indo-Pacific trade bloc

CapitalOne said:
What makes that such a shoe in for a referendum that doesn't count for anything else?
Click to expand...
Joining a superbloc of countries under a central EU government.. obvs.

Don't you think (in the unlikely event) that the government had designs to join the USA or USSR post 2nd world war, we wouldn't need a vote on that?

CapitalOne said:
It's not up to me is it. They've probably had enough of leaving things though, it never seems to be a positive thing. They'd be fools though right to quit the CPTPP
Click to expand...

That's a cowards dodging answer. If it was up to though, you would vote to leave wouldn't you....
 
plasmahal said:
Joining a superbloc of countries under a central EU government.. obvs.

Don't you think (in the unlikely event) that the government had designs to join the USA or USSR post 2nd world war, we wouldn't need a vote on that?
Click to expand...

There are many other things of national & constitutional importance. This however is fantasizing about the 1990s. Why didn't we get a referendum on CPTPP?

Quote:

plasmahal said:
That's a cowards dodging answer. If it was up to though, you would vote to leave wouldn't you....
Click to expand...

Coward right. There is no way I would give up CPTPP membership as a Scot I'd have to be nuts. I'm not really into pretending I am Scottish though because I am too much of a coward :D
 
plasmahal said:
Joining a superbloc of countries under a central EU government.. obvs.

Don't you think (in the unlikely event) that the government had designs to join the USA or USSR post 2nd world war, we wouldn't need a vote on that?



That's a cowards dodging answer. If it was up to though, you would vote to leave wouldn't you....
Click to expand...

...
 
Last edited:
NickK said:
So basically the tories messed up being in the EU and being out of the EU..
Click to expand...
? was that to my comment? I'm just responding to people talking about whether we should or shouldn't have had public votes to say some have always argued for that, and that other countries found ways to do it. Nice and Lisbon were signed by Labour. It's not a critique of any particular party. However a referendum at the time of Maastricht would have allowed more options and negotations/shaping of the EEC/EU development than the binary in-out 2016 referendum calamity.
 
ik9000 said:
? was that to my comment? I'm just responding to people talking about whether we should or shouldn't have had public votes to say some have always argued for that, and that other countries found ways to do it. Nice and Lisbon were signed by Labour. It's not a critique of any particular party. However a referendum at the time of Maastricht would have allowed more options and negotations/shaping of the EEC/EU development than the binary in-out 2016 referendum calamity.
Click to expand...
My point was targetted at the government that just so happened to be in power at the time - the tories..

Maastricht was signed by Major though.

It seems the HoP are as dumb and corrupt then as they are now..
 
Last edited:
Unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon contains no article formally enshrining the supremacy of Union law over national legislation, but a declaration was attached to the Treaty to this effect (Declaration No 17), referring to an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service which reiterates consistent case-law of the Court.
Click to expand...

So basically it continues the previous treaty..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom