The EU debate - Part II

Semantics. Both parties have been promising a referendum for years. Voting out of the Lisbon treaty would've resulted in the UK leaving the EU in its current form.

 

It is as undemocratic as any other democratic organisation, but we've already done that one to death

 

Is that some type of Dutch fruit

 

So, you think staying in the EU would be "leaving the EU in it's current form". What is being in the EU? Having the Euro as your currency? Being part of Schengen Area? So, have Denmark, Ireland and the UK already "left the EU in it's current form"?

 

Were any of those things in the Treaty of Lisbon? No, it was the framework for your undemocratic EU structure that gave increased decision making and control to the EU parliament.
The point being that once it was ratified by all the countries in 2009 then the only way out of it was to leave the EU.

 

So why say that staying in the EU was "leaving the EU in it's current form"?

 

I said voting out of the Lisbon treaty was voting out of the EU in its current form.

 

Even though it would mean staying in the EU?
What is the EU in it's current form? In/out of Eurozone? In/out of Schengen Area?

 

It is all those things and many more as well you know. Are you trying to say we voted out of an EU we weren't in? In which case there is nothing for the government to do.

 

No, that is a major comprehension fail on your part. You said a country would be "leaving the EU in it's present form" even if it was staying in the EU. It just doesn't make sense.

 

The EU in its present form is the EU post the Lisbon treaty. Is that so hard for you to understand. If it still doesn't make sense to you then I can't help you any further.

 

You said: "Voting out of the Lisbon treaty would've resulted in the UK leaving the EU in its current form."
The Lisbon Treaty was signed in 2007. So voting against signing that would have meant leaving the EU in it's 2016 form? It doesn't make sense.
If you mean that not agreeing to the Lisbon Treaty means not agreeing to the Lisbon Treaty then I agree with you totally but it is pretty obvious!

 

Perhaps looking back at Camerons interview in 2009 ( i.e. After Lisbon was signed) might help you understand. He is promising a referendum on whether we implement the Lisbon treaty and the only way you could actually not implement the Lisbon treaty at that time was to leave the EU because we had already signed up to it.

 

I understand what you are saying steve, can't understand why the others don't.

 

To be fair it is only one other.

 

The referendum he included in the manifesto for 2010 was only promising a referendum if there were a transfer of powers from the UK to the EU or the UK joining the Euro. There was nothing about coming out of the EU.
This discussion started because of the issue about the referendum. I repeat my view: The 2015 election was the first time that a referendum was promised in a Conservative Party manifesto which would let the British people decide whether we leave the EU.

 

And I repeat my view that all referendum promises were just previous promises that had been kicked down the road. Each time it was kicked it upped the anti but was essentially that same referendum promise.

 

The 2015 referendum promise on leaving the EU was what mattered to potential UKIP voters. Previous promises by the Conservative Party were relatively minimal changes.

 

http://survation.com/new-polling-theresa-may-favourable-party-leader/

New data from Survation’s UK omnibus shows Prime Minister Theresa May as the most favourable party leader, some 64 points ahead of Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.

Mrs May’s positive rating (+34) compares to Jeremy Corbyn’s (-31) who was the least favorable of all of the politicians listed.

Theresa May’s cabinet colleagues also rate well among those polled with Chancellor Philip Hammond (+4) and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson (+3).

 

You must have a 100% rating Lardy as the only other member of your party is your poor wife.