ajva: (Default)
[personal profile] ajva
I think the LibDems should go for it. It's not PR, but it's a slight improvement, and a hell of a concession from the Tories. And what's more, if the LibDems turn it down, they'll be seen as putting their party interest first and possibly be punished for that later on.

What do you think?

Date: 2010-05-10 08:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ajva.livejournal.com
Then we have to campaign for a "yes" vote, yes? And if the British public still votes "no", then that's their choice. It's a big thing; we can't fairly foist it on people - we have to make a good case for it. Which shouldn't be completely impossible, I wouldn't have thought. Particularly because it would be a slight (only slight, mind, I know) move towards keeping the Tories out of majority government.
Edited Date: 2010-05-10 08:05 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-05-10 10:08 pm (UTC)
lovingboth: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lovingboth
Far bigger things have been done without a referendum. Masstricht, for a start.

Date: 2010-05-11 08:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com
But Maastricht got referendums (referenda??) in other countries in Europe (I was in Denmark when the famous 'no' vote came in), and there was a lot of anger in the UK about us not being offered a referendum.

Date: 2010-05-11 09:17 am (UTC)
lovingboth: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lovingboth
I was actually thinking of Thatcher (!) signing up to the Single European Act - "one of the largest transfers of power from a member state to the European Community" through extension of qualified majority voting in Europe, i.e. giving up the UK's power of veto - without bothering to have a referendum. (Again, the Danes and Irish had one.)

Date: 2010-05-11 09:36 am (UTC)

Profile

ajva: (Default)
ajva

August 2013

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314 151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 13th, 2026 09:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios