
but only if they can demonstrate that they've read and understood it, and are able to contextualise it within a broad political, economic and legal picture.
I fail to see the problem with this scheme.
( ,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:26,
archived)
I fail to see the problem with this scheme.

but to say repeatedly there would be a vote and saying they wouldn't sign anything until the public were happy to do so and then go off and do it anyway is a fucking liberty.
At least thats the way I see it. I might have missed a trick some where.
( ,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:29,
archived)
At least thats the way I see it. I might have missed a trick some where.

is not lost on me ;)
( ,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:31,
archived)

I was going to change it but decided against it.
Almost like posting what could be seen as an anti-european post and using the words 'faux pas' in a reply.
:D
( ,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:34,
archived)
Almost like posting what could be seen as an anti-european post and using the words 'faux pas' in a reply.
:D

But I see where you're coming from.
( ,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:31,
archived)

Fortunately, the French rejected that, which saved the UK population the indignity of making a national arse of itself.
The Treaty is different, and there's no reason at all to have a referendum on a treaty. There never has been before, so there's no precedent. And it's a precedent that no government would want to set - quite understandably and rightly, in my view.
( ,
Thu 5 Nov 2009, 21:33,
archived)
The Treaty is different, and there's no reason at all to have a referendum on a treaty. There never has been before, so there's no precedent. And it's a precedent that no government would want to set - quite understandably and rightly, in my view.