As far as I'm aware the big petition run by the Daily Express wasn't an E-Petition as you had to fill out a pre worded form and send it by post to your MP.

I think the petition thing has been available for years, but putting it online was "new".

I can't help but think there is an alternative agenda here, and it is anti Cameron. For some reason during the Conservative Conference there were a few "Who is going to be the next Tory Leader?" debates on TV\Radio and press. All very peculiar seeing as it was his first Conference as PM. This was followed by Osbourne being made to look a liar etc with the Quantative Easing 2; May with the plainly untrue story of a cat, which Lafarge had already used; and then Liam Fox with his Werrity. The three main contenders for the Tory Leadership were hit below the waterline in days. Then, The Express pipes up with this, which could only have caused trouble\embarrassment for Cameron. Weird Scenes inside the Westminster Village?

Yes, you're right and I hope that this is finally put to bed for the sake of the relatives of those that died. Hopefully all of the papers will finally be released and I would love to see a big grovelling apology from The Stun.

The Capital Punishment one was a total waste though

Ah, the seductive power of an analogy! Except that holding a referendum on paying taxes bears no relation to holding one on the nature of Britain's political and economic relationship with the EU.


According to the Telegraph, most of those tents are empty overnight. A bit like that old trick of leaving your jacket hanging on the back of your office chair when nipping out for a long lunch

The thing about Europe is that for the first time in its history Britain is being governed by laws passed by foreign judges and bureaucrats, and we the electorate have never been asked whether we agree to this. Maybe being governed by unelected judges and bureaucrats is a great idea, maybe not, but let's at least have a chance to debate the issues and vote on it.

The fact that 35% or 99% or whatever say they don't know what the EU does means it's even more important to have a national debate about it, so that people can learn what the issues are and then make an informed decision. Or should we all live in ignorance and trust that our politicians are making the right decisions for us?

This assumes that given the opportunity the electorate would be willing to be educated as to the pros and cons and that any debate wouldn't be dominated by those happy to cloud it with lies and misinformation.

That argument would apply to any election for anything, from parish council elections to General Elections. It's the risk you take with democracy.

For example, the AV referendum, which when you look back on it was a disgrace.

Referenda/ums are outside the scope of standard democracy. You wouldn't ask every voter to decide on the higher rate of tax or the amount of heating allowance for elderly people. Democracy works by the election of members of parliament who aren't perfect by any means but even small companies cannot be run by individual vote, that way madness lies.

60% of people don't want to know more than nothing about the EU so debate is worthless. It is about prejudice and people have a fixed idea about the EU from lies in rags such as the Daily Fail. They feel safer with their prejudices so do not wish to learn. Their prejudice allows them to blame others for their failings so they blame immigrants, the EU, Muslims etc.

But we don't have a Democracy. As Hague said FPTP meant strong Government, not a Democratic one. It was part of an interview where he was also justifying bombing the strong, but undemocratic Libya. Labour just about managed to top 1 in 5 of the elctorate voting for them in 2005, although 1 in 4 is closer to the standard required to win.

Even the wording of the proposed Refendum is bent as it gives two yes options and only one no option, thereby splitting the yes vote. Just like the last one was worded to secure a FPTP victory..........

I am from Serbia.
We have more problems with EU on our doorsteps than withuoth them.
Do you realy want to be in any kind of union with undeveloped countries from Eastern Europe ?!?
We can only offer cheaper drugs from Albanians, nothing else.
Your call

And cheap labour

OK
That too.

Where did I say we should have a referendum on every area of policy? The EU is a special case, because although the majority of voters either want to pull out of Europe or renegotiate our position, none of the three main parties are prepared even to discuss it. You say "Democracy works by the election of members of parliament", but it doesn't work if those members of parliament then have to vote according to what the whips tell them.

But those MP's are only there due to wearing a blue (in this case) rosette in the General Election, so they should shut up and follow the Party Line. There may be a few wonderful MP's that transcend party politics, but they are exceptions, if they exist at all. (As above, I sense some sort of anti-Cameron putsch within the Conservative Party, for some as yet unknown reason.)

If these MP's were that bothered about Europe, they should join UKIP and stand in Elections with their anti-European views out in the open, but then they would risk losing their massive salaries, kudos, expense account, flat in London, secretary etc.

It was strongly implied and I was simply extending the suggestion out further. You said it was important to have the debate because a large proportion of people are unaware of the what the EU does and how it would impact on us and I pointed out that whilst a debate would be useful a referendum would be dangerous if the key points were clouded due to misinformation. Your response was that the same argument could be made against any issue hence why democracy is inherently risky so I cannot identify your position. Are you pro-referendum as it would give us the opportunity to micromanage the country or against it as we elect politicians to do that for us?

I don't buy the idea that the EU issue is special for example to a large amount of people the issue of immigration is important and there are similar levels of of misinformation and bias. I wouldn't want "the people" to be given the option to decide about how open our borders should be as there is no way the majority would be able to fully grasp the potential ramifications and a worrying large proportion of voters seem to focus largely on the headline and first paragraph which mean they tend to miss any caveats included later.

Why should the EU issue be any more important than matters of taxation or benefits?

I have to agree with the point that Joe Public often isn't in the best position to make decisions as to what's best for him or the country. Just look back to the 70s when major British industries such as car manufacture, coal, steel, railways, etc took great notice of their their employees (union members). Although these were individuals with a vested interest, they still managed to play a major part in bringing about the downfall of their industries.