Dear Jim, i think it is time we looked at the EU Parliament/Treaty strictly on a level of financial balance .Can you tell me that the money being paid to the EU and to finance Euro MP's is being more than returned to us ,if not i am not interested and dont tell me British Businesses are benefiting ,if so then these businesses should be footing the bill not the taxpayer . I am sorry but dont tell me how it helps good causes etc ,that is not what i pay my taxes for .Make the books balance or get out ,paying well paid jobs for MP wannabe's or has beens is not what i want nor do i want laws we live by set in europe .

I have lived for a time in Germany, and I am in general in favour of the EU. However, it is surely time that the EU parliament is fixed in Brussels or Strasbourg. The financial waste is intolerable and unjustifiable, as is the alleged abuse of expenses of MEPs etc. How can you expect the UK public to take european politics seriously until these and issues such as the CAP are properly addressed?

i 2 lived in germany and worked abroad years. my uncle will howlet was a founder member of the labour party and wrote the speaches for rammsy mc donald he must be spining like a drunk in his grave to think the party he faught to form has become what it is. never mind euro expenses what about welsh ams expenses eg beth jenkings claiming 12 500 pound for a second home in cardiff when she lives in briton ferry. what about the expenses claimed by labour in the assembly the rules state that any claim must be done so in a way that it canot damage the reputation of its members so claiming 12500 when u live 30 min away is ethicly correct what a joke no vote on giving away more sovrenty another joke yr all a disgrace the people that faught and litteraly died for us to vote 2 world wars and in the streets of britain are crying for justice .no more powers for welsh assembly pay back the moneys and take criminal prociedings against all who have had their nose in the money bag give us a vote on eu or the next election will destroy the party my uncle faught for may be forever how can labour or any other main stream party demand us to keep the laws that theymake when they act in disgrace WELCOME TO STALINIST BRITAIN no vote no free speach and corrupt politicians

What is the email address of the Labour Party? How do I send an email to you?

Here is how to contact us: www.labour.org.uk/contact or Contactus@new.labour.org.uk

If climate change exists in the way governments of the world are currently claiming, then the effects of this and any possibility to make changes or at least slow the way the climate is going, concerns us all in the way we run our lives. Noone likes being told how to run their lives, me included. But something has to be done and it doesn't just lie with the population being told to make changes in their lives, it also lies with the policies our government and the opposition are making. Lets face it, there are too many cars on the road for the small country we live in. I recently passed my driving test after 38 years of catching buses, trains and walking and yes I have a 4x4. Public transport is disgraceful, its getting there but not quick enough and the lack of money going into transport and the road system is building up to a major disaster in years to come. Or is that a government target? Has anyone noticed that there is a lack of investment in repairing our local roads. In my area of Blackpool, there has been over the past 2 years hardly any repairs done on local roads. Pot-holes in some areas are more than 6" deep and becoming extremely dangerous. If the road system is efficient, then the transport using those roads, is running efficiently and hence public transport runs extremely well also. You can also say the same for immigration. There are too many people in this country using what little resources such as NHS, council, housing etc. etc. we have. I am not saying we should basically close our borders and not let anyone in, but we need some sort of breathing space to put some things right. What could say, one year breathing space do to immigration?. It would enable border security to be sorted, put systems in place to keep border security, secure etc. etc. It would also give us a chance to work on people who are not supposed to be in this country. Then start the same system as say New Zealand does, whereby you need ex- amount of points until you become a possibility. But that still shouldn't be a guarantee!. I made myself aware of politics, when Thatcher came to power and how she and her government basically closed the country down. I was unemployed for many years, there was no training albeit the YTS scheme paying next to nothing for a full weeks work and giving businesses a cheap alternative to staff. Greed stemmed from the Tory years and unfortunately with some it stayed. If labour want to win the next election, you need to step back and look at the country as a whole. There are still many people on low incomes. Forget the statistics, there are! To cut the 10p tax was the most rediculous idea ever done. What was the reason who made the decision and didin't they realise what they were doing? The 10p tax was there for a reason, did they think that everyone had more money now?? and so the 10p tax wasn't needed?? There is a simple answer which everyone in politics should realise. YOU WILL always have some sort of poverty. The only thing you can do is ease the burden on families, but it will always be there. As for the credit crunch. What are you doing helping the banks that pushed the money on to people in the first place. The IMF stated last year that house prices in the UK were 25-35% over-valued, so why were banks still lending?. It will end up that many more people will innevitably be repossessed. They are the people you should be helping. I lost my house when the Tories mis-managed the economy in the early 90's and believe me you do not recover from that, for a long time. For god-sake go back to your principles that started New Labour and not to a situation where you seem to be heading to the old Tor'ian days!

Im an English man and I agree too.

As a Welsh man I totally agree with you.

Why is no one petitioning the Queen to dissolve parliament and call a general election. As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre eminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever. If this is ratified and receives royal assent then the Queen is in breech of her coronation oath. The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs. The protection of our constitution, the bill of rights and Magna Carta still stand. Petition the Queen and invoke them. Our democracy, and therby our sovereignty, were not handed to us, we fought and won them. On this issue the Queen has every right to intercede on behalf of her subjects. It's why we have a constitutional Monarchy. The same applies to all EU treaties. Any treaty that affects the sovereignty of the people is an act of treason and illegal under the constitution. The constitution cannot be altered by parliament, government or the sovereign. Non are above the common law.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land. Why was there no clamour for such thing after Maasticht in 1992? or when the milk snatcher signed the Single European act in 1986? When we can elect a Queen I will go along with giving her a say. You either have faith in those elected to run the country, if not you vote them out. If the argument is for an elected national government to decide, why do you need a referendum? It is becoming a stale argument providing no help or support to the things that matter to ordinary people. As for Fergus and his talk of broken promises and lost faith in politics, the answer is straight forward. If politics was an answer for anything, it was a damn stupid question. European union or national government. It is who employs us and who controls our mortgage that rules and runs peoples lives. Not over egotistical politicians and the 0.001% of the country interested in politics. Get real. Ted Heath and the Tories gave Britain into Europe. Thatcher continued. Major Followed on and Tony Blair kept the tradition going. We are in Eurpore, we will not be coming out and thats the way the World turns.

FAITH IN OUR ELECTED POLITICIANS ?. where u been mate the moon dont tell me about europe i lived worked and set up buisness on the continent they dont abide by the rules as we do fact try setting up in france or germany as i did if you are small and you may afect a small local firm u got no chance they wont have it love these people who been no where done nothing and think they know it all live abrod like i did then tell us about europe and keep your fath in the politicians so they can keep on claiming our money

Labour will still win with a majority. Tories keep talking and critisize, but no solutions or alternatives ever given. Lib Dems, well, who knows what they stand for. Street by street it is a different policy per house. NO. Labour has not broken any promise. Untill told, what percentage of the population even knew what was in any of the parties election manifest? You need to ask yourself this. After all the treaties etc. did the Tories ever offer a referendum, WHEN THEY WERE IN POWER? No. They mutter for one because it is easy in oposition. If they were in power and had said they would have one, they too would be saying the negotiations have not resulted in a constitution, but an amending treaty. Because the only question those wanting a referendum is should we stay in, or leave. And that would cause more trouble to the Tories with UKIP hanging on to their shirt tails. As I said earlier. If politics was the answer, it was a ... silly question. And Europe is well down on the list of priorities except to those few who have any interest in it. Jobs, Debt. Crime. Law and Order. Cost of fuel. These are the things that parties should be focusing on. This referendum debate is only hiding the fact that the Tories still are not a credible alternative.

Mr. Murphy, We have been in the European club for over a generation and well on our way into the next so yes, yes, yes get on with it. The EU club is an anti-war movement in a very tribal region of the world. If you can get agreement across Europe then South America, Africa and the Middle East might see there is a formula beyond the US that actually works without giving up the country title and status. Labour has been too slow, too tentative and has not informed the people what this all really means but I like the organisation endorsements offered, at last. Please start selling the EU Treaty beyond the simplistic signing ceremonies that annoy people rather than helping the process.

Yes I see, but then again did we not also go to war, funny how you New labour types forget we went with the USA, we are part of the USA. We are on the out side of the EU, not in it.

The only reason we went 'to war' (in fact this was 'serious consequences' as cited in article 1441 of the EU treaty on weapons of mass destruction) in the minority - the 'out side' of the EU as you put it - was because the majority of EU nations didn't have the strength of their convictions to take the tough and unpopular decision to finally take forceful action against Saddam Hussein, that Britain, France, the U.S. and Spain voted upon (France opting to veto 'anything the British voted for'). In fact, ALL the EU nations signed up to that agreeemnt on WMD (including Iraq) - so Britain, the U.S. and Spain merely *proved* where they stood while the other nations wavered. This puts us in the vanguard of the EU, not on the sidelines.

Following signing of the treaty, do you see the EU acting as a collective in its approach to international development in areas like sub-Sahara Africa?

Jim, why are my comments deleted?

I can't follow this wanting a referendum. Those in Parliament argue for Parliamentary democracy. We elect those to Parliament to make the decisions. I do not want those elected coming back and saying they are not able to decide and want a referendum prior to them voting. Everyone knows that a referendum on any European issue would simply turn into a vote to stay or leave the EEC. Ask Mr Murdock at News International if he will put in The Sun a balanced opinion. At the end of the day, we are in Europe. In my opinion for the better. Those arguements against the Treaty seem simply based upon giving power from one group to another. The big decisions today cannot be taken by Britain alone. We need to be a player within Europe. If Europe goes ahead with the Treaty and we do not, what bits of Europe will we have imposed upon us, because we rejected being a total player? Besides, who in todays busy World has time to read and digest the Treaty anyway? Between Corrie and Eastenders, does not give the public time to even read the headers, let alone the main body. Referendums are like that rubbish Big Brother. Are we realy going to decide major issues on what would be little better than a phone in?

i cant beleave this guy they were quick of the mark to have a vote on having a welsh assembly even although it had been refused by the welsh people and in the end through apathy a small amount voted even then the yes vote was smaller than could be beleaved and still they put an assembly in place. so the attetude is if you get a no vote keep the people voting untill they get fedup and only the hard liners who want a yes will keep turning out but if you dont haveto give them a vote on anything realy immportant then dont your idea of democracy and the majority of people is worlds apart you sound like a politician or a wantobe 1 fact is most people in uk hate the eec its done nothing for us but make rules and laws that the people hate we had our own market b4 eec the commonwealth or are you to young to remember that

Exactly Ian. The whole point of a workable democracy is to elect *politicians* (preferably on the strength of their integrity, political acumen, and dedication to the job) to do the decision-making *for* the vast majority who don't have the required politic acumen themselves. This is the lamest of arguments which can be dredged up from the bottom of the barrel by any dishonourable party for any possible subject - let's have a referendum on it - put it to the people - they aren't stupid! It's populist drivel that appeals only to those least intellectually capable of deciding anything more than who to vote for on Strictly Dancing! A classic example of the Tories being happy to draw support from anyone even if they're all Sun readers who enjoy headlines like, 'It was the Sun wot wun it'. treborc, with this thinking, why bother with elections? To put the best political decision-makers in the role, of course!

What a silly thing to say, we have a right to decide who runs this country be it in the Uk or in the EU. I mean with your thinking why bother with elections.

treborc. The whole point of elections is to elect people to represent us. To make decisions they feel are in the best interest of us. That is democracy. Referendums are a nice way of those elected 'coping out'. The argument is straight forward. On one side are those who feel we have given power away to a much larger, undemocratic organisation; the EEC On the other side are those who argue that we must be part of a wider body to influence that body in a World much different from when parliament was thought a good idea. We do decide who runs our country every four and a half years. It is the General Election. We also decide every few years who runs Europe, again through elections. So what is the point of a referendum? I see them only for those who think elections give the wrong ressult. IE not the one they wanted and try for a second option to get their way. And the number who would vote in such a referendum would be no different i suspect, than those who vote for the European elections. And Memebers of Parliament who keep requesting a referendum are defeating the very thing they argue for. Parliament to decide what is best for Britain. They are elected to make decisions. Get on with it.

Funny that I always was under the impression MP worked for the community through the local Labour party, I know that some MP's think they are a power unto themselves. and perhaps deselection does not scare them. it should.

CORRECTION: Livingston's quote ends, "Every penny should be accounted for." Didn't close quote last time.

Ken Livingston said of the government running of British institutions," Every penny spent should be accounted for. It isn't as of yet, but this would apply equally to my vision of Europe. Ideally when we have some democratic control over European administrators, they will be more accountable than say unelected boards from large companies-or sadly many unelected civil servants either here or in Europe

There is a frequently held assumption that Membership of Europe gives away power. The contrary is true in that only within the context of Europe can we exert real power although that also means sharing it with likeminded nations. There is little real demand for a referendum and that is usually the tool of non democratic states. The answer can usually be produced by the manner in which the question is posed. We happen to live in a representative democracy and it is more important to abolish the House of Lords and introduce a fairer election system than to use the cop out of a referendum. To support our membership of Europe does not involve agrreing 100% with every decision or policy but it allows us to operate both in terms of our position in the world and within its geographical context rather than being at the mercy of capital as we were in the sixties. Those who look to the past and have a fear of freer flows of people and goods naturally fear Europe whereas we can learn a great deal from our shared history. It was not Europe which initiated the war in Iraq and a movement away from the U.S. in the direction of Europe would create a better balance in the world. We would be more committed to human rights, but we can also influence our fellow Europeans by our example and become a greater power in the world-but a power for peace,for freedom and justice. We cannot turn our backs on the world but we can strive for a peaceful settlement to the Middle East problem and fight the moral corruption of the religious fundamentalism which motivates so many nations' policies. The anti European prejudices of the left are based on the same same prejudices which motivate the far right.It is time that the left United for a Socialist/democratic and liberal Europe conscious of the need to help the nations of the third world and working together for our shared ideals.

So, there is little real demand for a referendum is there? And referendums are the tool of non democratic states, are they? Go ahead, my friend and blindly follow your masters. I am not anti Europe, but I do believe in honesty and democracy and that is one thing sorely lacking in this government's dictatorial steamrolling of this latest EU treaty through parliament. That's right, dictatorial, because one thing you wouldn't get in a dictatorship is a referendum on anything. I firmly believe that the workers of Europe should unite and drown those faceless politicians and beurocrats in their own weasel words. At the moment the EU and multinational business are one and the same. When I hear some of your precious Labour MP's stand up in the commons and address the rights of British workers and trade unionists against the encroachment of Europe wide policies which erode those rights, then, perhaps I might, just might, start to belive that the signing of this treaty was not to give Bliar a foot in the door to the Presidency. There is power in a union, both trade and European. Let's use it!

Hi Paul, I would like to support your comments. I think there is a tendancy and perhaps a degree of scare mongering in people assuming that we are giving over our power to Europe. In my view I instinctively feel that it is right to be a member and a part of Europe and that we gain both socially and economically. I guess there will always be arguements to be had about whether we should have a vote on Europe but if something is different eg.the Treaty, then why have a vote? We should use our influence to work with our partners in Europe to make sure that the needs of British people are met, to promote good EU policies and where appropriate to challenge or change EU policy. Undoubtedly, many parts of Britain have benefitted from things like EU grants so this should be seen as a positive and not a negative. Like any big family there will always be times when squabbles and disagreements take place , but more often than not families try to resolve their differences and work together to create a harmonious environment. Best wishes John.

Paul, I would trust you with you fair-minded vision to rule the likes of me. But I fear those already in high office, whether elected there or not, would ever do that which you and I would want. The human condition is such that self serving interest would prevail --- just as our great reformer hope, Neil Kinnock, fell from grace when he put his family before standing up against the EU accounting scandal. My fear is that we are creating an un-natural empire so great that should we ever stand up to protest we would become the "disappeared" , branded terrorists as enemies of the state. ------ I wish you or Jim could assure me without weasel words and hidden agendas --- by proposing full financial transparency and open and free elections for all posts in high office. A certainty that officials could be voted out and brought to justice. In brief, get the books to balance without the corruption and self-interest. Otherwise it is better the devil we know.

referendums for everything as feedback on reality TV. Elect your lecturers in Parliament and accept the powers exploiting current regulation making the most profit possibly measured in taxes compared to funding streams in some 'upper' house. Issuance of currency to measure things other than the power to command without betting on psychology would help. The powers accept that the people of France and Holland simply made the wrong decision with respect to world power realities. Well can anyone question belief in the current money system underlying that position as now we appear to be reticent at least to endorse some sort of God and His interpreter amongst the clerics or even God-Monarch in local terms. Herecy and Treason some call - Section 3 of the Mental Health Act anyone?

Well Jim, -- opinion here is split but seems more in favour of a referendum. --- So are you going to listen to the public or just pay lip service ?????? --- please let us know before you waste more of our time with this pretension. -- What have you to loose from a referendum other than an even fatter pension??? -- Do tell

Of course the majority view is in favour of the referendum - it's the simplest conclusion to reach. However this doesn't make it right! If you did a survey and asked people whether a 6-sided dice that had just rolled five 6's consecutively, was more or less likely to roll a six again, most people would answer that it is less likely. Yet this is mathematically wrong! The chance of rolling a six remains 1 in 6, no matter what results have come before. These people who all want a referendum do not understand how this actually results in the *worst* kind of democracy - the kind where idiots far, far outnumber those who understand the politics. Politics is not a simple subject, no matter how much you might want to think it is, or that the general public has enough interest and education to make an informed decision. The reality is that most people don't even know the most basic facts of politics such as what the right and left indicate. Asking these people what they think on the matter of the EU treaty would be as meaningless as asking the same question of a four year old!

"Under the bill of rights we said we would not give away our power to other countries." How many "foreign" companies run services in our country-for instance electricity and water supplies. How will these big companies be controlled nationally and internatonally? Via National and European democratic parliament I hope. Abuse of expense accounts happens in the UK too-I don't condone it anywhere and it should be rooted out. But if that's an argument for denying a (European) parliament we may as well go back two hundred years and only give the vote to those rich enough not to "need the money". Europe is about sharing power-something I feel Labour is all about.

"How will these big companies be controlled nationally and internatonally?" They won't be controlled they will be in control. It is the merger of state and corporation originally the idea of Mussolini he named it fascism. "Europe is about sharing power-something I feel Labour is all about." Europe is far from about sharing power the same as new labour. It's about taking power away from the stupid people. If you think my comment is far fetched then look no further than the nanny state. Mussolini told his population who to behave through the iron fist of the brown shirts. Modern fascism pretends it's totalitarian system of politics is for your own health.

Just spent 8 hours wattching the commons EU scrutiny debate which which can be found at- "http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/VideoPlayer.aspx?meetingId=877" Sorry Jim Murphy but I can not under stand how you can look yourself in the mirror. You are abouts to give the power of this countries and the peoples power of self determination away. You spook of red lines and opt in's but any one with even the smallest modicum of sense would realize that if the treaty is ratified these are merely slight hurdles to the EU. As for home Secretary Jackie Smith she quite clearly did not even know what the EU treaty is never mind being able to discus the contents of it. Jim your clearly an intelligent man and have been given the task of promoting this treaty and have coned yourself into believing in it. Please remember this is not your career this is a take over of the democratic power of the elected body of parliament.

bernardpearson@talktalk.net. Hi thisis my first go at this but I am very passionate about one thing. Will all our people who have a voice in the E.U. please get together aND STOP THE CONTINENTALS FURTHER REDUCING OUR FISHING QUOTAS . All this does is allows french and spanish trawlers free reiogn to take all our stocks with illegal nets . Talk to our fishermen and they will tgell you that stocks are healthy. Get the qoutas upped and at the next Gewneral Election you will almost certainly sweep Conservativee Robert Goodwill outr of office. Remember we have three fishing ports hbere in Scarfborough Whitby anf Filey . Please take on Europde and give our trawlermen a fighting chanc to aqt least have a level playing field.

we do have a lot of " little Englanders! ".We are in the E.U. so lets get on with it.We elect Parliament to look after our interests - give them the debate.They probably have more knowledge of the Lisbon Accord than most of us. I wonder how many of the critics holiday in the E.U ? We need the E.U. and the E.U. needs us,each can offer the other many benefits. As I go around, I see many acknowledgements saying , " Thanks to the E.U. for contributions to this project ." Personally I am proud to be British and also European. ( and I am an O.A.P. !)

We all voted for you on the basis that we would get a referendum. No amount of mealy mouthed spin convinces anyone that this is the constitution inall but name. It is a total breach of faith and trust not to give us a referendum. No know how the police feel because you have done the same to them over their wages. How many other promises are you going to break. No more mixed wards perhaps. This will cost you the next election.

To call it Treaty or Constitution is syntax. The result is the practical reality of it all in the context irrational humanity. You might refer reality to statistical or exhaustive opinion polling. Say vote pi=3 whatever the experts said. The panel of experts had to go back to the drawing board to work out how many lines there were to a circle: if the obvious answers of 0 in any flat space or 1 in an appropriately curved topology would prove to be unpopular to being who preferred to work things out on their fingers in base 10. Binary based on do I get hit for saying it.

I belive that the aim of the eurepean union is the increase the living standard of every eurepean,do we expecting a federal constraction in the future. what is the labour party decision about this idea,is it possible? and other thing is the common language, for example before france revolutıon many many ethnic gruops were spoken different language and after the republic they started to use french as a common national language the reason for this make people understand each other and increase economic growth and trade, so can we expect similar progress in EU and if happen what is going to be the Uk role?

Would some one please tell me why we need to give parliamentary power away to the EU what is so great about that?

Yes, I cannot understand those people who want to wreck the Treaty. I want us to stop discussion and debate on this issue and just want to get on with the job ahead. That is why I am interested in becoming a Memebr of the European Parliament oneday soon (hopefully). I am very much interested in climate change and speeding up internation aid. Can you tell me what are in plans to take this two agenda forward? I just want to see actions to deliver.

Hi Solma, yes and yes, --- I can't wait to get a job with the EU so I too can give up work and join the grave train -- the sooner the better if you ask me -- and don't let the duffers get a vote to spoil our party -- thank jim when you're in for just looking after ourselves -- go for it!

Jim, please stop the energy miss-information – have all energy saving schemes provide a whole energy audit . -------------- Forget all the financial costs to buy, install, maintain and dismantle these naive green wind edifices. Instead look to a whole energy audit as a benchmark. Financial subsidies and suppliers profits will distort fiscal pay back time. For those really wanting to be green, the real acid test is whether these wind driven turbines will ever produce more energy than it took to make, install, commission…etc. Consider all the energy required in prospecting for and sourcing the ore and raw materials, digging, shipping and processing, the energy required to make the warehouse, all that concrete, machines to manufacture, ---- you get the idea --- the list is considerable right through to the energy cost to dispose of the thing itself and items of manufacture. The energy audit can not be cheated – that was the real cost whether you like it or not. --------. So if the manufacture can provide a positive whole energy audit then please buy one. Otherwise see it for what it is --- just part of a multi-billion dollar business selling snake oil. -------. So, I have coined a term for the foolish and extravagant who indulge in such fantasies. Some will think they may save the world and others will want to be seen as saviours. Either way, they are ---- Obscene greens ------.

Hi Jim, Do you think we should let more states in to the EU and if so, when do you think this will happen?

Will the government apply pressure on the media for accurate reporting on the EU? And will there be a public information drive, to demonstrate the benefits of being part of the EU, and the benefits of the treaty?

In terms of being more obediant regarding bar laws in Britain than in Spain. I think I might have been to a number of British pub, "lock ins" before the government gave the English more rights to be adult about drinking times. The disasterous Spanish illegal housing boom happened under the previous(Conservative-PP) Spanish government. A british documentary concluded that people had bought the houses, without consulting Spanish lawyers and this is unwise anywhere. These houses were often introduced to British buyers by timeshare salespeople, who are often Brits selling to Brits. Finally I understand people questioning the need for democratic decision making in Europe. I think that decisions, which are of continental importance, are best made by people I can vote for. If not the vacuum is normally filled entirely by big business. However, those Euro-sceptics now, that do come round to accepting this form of European democracy, will probably make amongst the best Euro-citizens. I certainly feel that all democratc institutions need to be kept under constant scrutiny.

I was inspired by the motto debate. This is my submision: “While our strength has forever been our personal right to be different, we strive to live, perpetually, in our finest hour.” This leads into how I feel Britons should be wish to be perceived by the world: A wise, caring, and influential Nation, motivated by pride to be the most accomplished in every field one might name, and motivated by selflessness and pragmatism, to assist and lead, broken and beaten nations, to a point where they can be considered stiff competitors.

All those in favour of doing something to slow climate change stop eating meat -- Otherwise, just expel less CO2, pay less tax, beat yourself foolishly into a guilt ridden pulp and start to feel smug !!!!!!!!!! Oh yes, and join up fully to the EU for updated silly diktats.

I, for one, am glad that the Tories will be exposed as the Eurosceptics they are and that the EU can move on from this debate and begin being a world leader in all areas.

Jim, Not really a question, just a statement that I would like our MPs to approve this treaty so we and the European Union can move on. For me the most important issue is climate change, and finding constructive ways to build our global economy while reducing carbon emissions. Yours Joe

The Commons European scrutiny committee has concluded that the constitution and the 'new' treaty are "substantially equivalent". That means that by failing to hold a referendum, we are effectively reneging on a manifesto commitment; that will make it very difficult for Party members to campaign on the basis of future manifestos, and makes us appear dishonest. I agree that Global Warming is vitally important; but the EU alone is not going to be able to tackle it. That requires multi-national, global efforts - as do nearly all the challenges that go beyond the purely national context. I'm not anti-Europe; but I do despair of the fact that the Labour government I have campaigned for seems incapable of trusting the judgement of the electorate and resorts to sleight of hand and what looks very much like dishonesty. We need a proper debate about our place in the world in general, and in Europe in particular, and this would be an opportunity. And, incidentally, whilst most of what emanates from the EU is positive and welcome at the moment, some of it isn't, and there is no guarantee that in the future we won't find ourselves facing regulations and directives that are contrary to our values. That's why a real debate and a referendum is vital.

Joe, glad you are aware of climate change but why do you think the EU can help? The EU bandwagon is hell bent to just raise taxes according to CO2 production --- Do your part and don't eat meat-------- Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. Why don't the EU masters ban Animal farming? Too anti French?

Where is the referendum we were promised by labour back in 2005? This is an issue for the british people to decide, and is a breach of trust by the labour party for welching on this election manifesto promise!

Mr. Jim Murphy, you may or may not be surprised to know that i believe we do not live in a complete democracy. I would say we live in about 48% of a true democracy. So what relevance does this have to this discussion? Well, everything. If we are to engage in wars going in the name of 'Democracy and freedom', then when the opportunity rises we should set an example to those who are not, that we, Britain, are. If the people want 'have' democracy (democracy - where the people are sovereign), then the people will have (provided it is a majority) the final say on whatever MP's so wish be passed into law. However, regardless of what MP's think of the severity of change to our British way that will or won't be effected by the European Constitution, if the people want a referendum to have the democratic right to vote when they so wish, they shall. If it is a "no", then so it shall be. I myself am divided to what our position in Europe should be, because we should most definitely uphold our standards and expect every other country to have similar standards. So why is it, that Romania, Poland, and indeed any other country that does not have as strong economy or democracy as France, Germany, Britain, Spain or Italy, should be even considered for entry. Balance immigration. One hand, you have a higher productive state and more tax, on the other, the money is being taken away to the country they have come from, the NHS becomes even more drained, you have even more crammed conditions in housing, higher crime, and even greater poverty (i.e. Slough). It is illogical and as 'great' as Britain is, we cannot sustain this for much longer. Even one of the developed countries i have mentioned, Spain, is ploughing through our British emigrants land, and charging to the bill 'infrastructure work' to them, who are at risk? 22,000 Britain’s! Surely, if we are so 'united' we could have discussions with the Spanish about this and secure their homes? Regardless of how good or bad this 'Treaty of Lisbon' will give us, the British People, the owners of Britain, a better future, remember if the people want a vote, by every moral, decent, democratic, civilised, economically strong standard, we should have that right. Surely, elected REPRESENTATIVES, we have that right? So please, our right honourable gentlemen, answer my question. Yes or no.

Europe needs to be a Near-Zero CO2 Emitter by 2016. It is not taking this target seriously, and the target set is far too little and far too late.

Why did you red line the human rights part of the treaty? We have never had a positive right to strike and new labour doesn't seem to want to give us one. Every country where they have this right has safeguards that protect essential services. Our laws encourage strikers to close essential services- stupid?

i suppose you already know about the expats living in spain .there are now thousands of old age british pensioners living there mostly for there health.now they go over there see a house they like get a spanish solictitor.and then have to see a lawyer type person to check every thing is right.before they can buy.then after they take there money.and about 3 years down the line they find there home has to be pulled down because the main party in power has never given permision for the house to be biult.and they lose everything.surely the european goverment must do something about all this.the british consulet say it is nothing to do with them.brotish embassy said it is nothing to do with them also.so its down to the eurpean goverment to sort it all out and fast dont you think.lets not start saying it all will go away when we no it will not.please .please talk to them for all your british people .the old aged pensioner who just dont know what to do any more they may be living in spain but they still are british ,waiting your reply

I am old enough to have had the opportunity to vote to join the Common Market which was sold to the British as a European area for free trade. I have not yet had the opportunity to specifically vote away my sovereignty . Our cherished democratic system is swamped by party politics, but politicians opinions on important national views are shared regardless of party politics. The British public have never had the chance to vote solely on EU membership without the confusion and inclusion of other party issues. Therefore, this incremental drift into a European Empire is achieved only by stealth, a stealth perpetuated by the self interest of those who rise to power. The lucrative salaries, benefits, slush funds and pensions paid by the EU are enough to turn an honest(ish) man. You just have to look at Kinock’s fall from grace into the EU feeding trough. So give the British a democratic chance to vote on both this Constitution and whether EU membership is even wanted.

I voted "No" to the "Common Market" because I read it up and discovered that the ultimate aim of it was a United States of Europe. Thirty-something years down the line it is astonishing that European politicians have managed to fool enough people to have almost accomplished their dream! And STILL many people don't believe that we are already principally controlled by Brussels!

Old people who go to live in a foreign country should learn the language and these spanish building laws have been in existence since 1988. If you want blame someone, then blame the agents and lawyers, they must have known all along

So what your saying. A couple of people purchase a property in spain in 1972 for their retirement. Go through all the correct procedures.Then the law is changed in 1988. So the property that was perfectly legal is now deemed illegal and can be knocked down. Regarding learning the local lingo.Does that apply to all our migrants from the old british empire? There are old people in this group that have still no english language. When their love ones over here bring their old folk to spend the re-mainder of there days with the protection of the NHS and other aid which is not available in their own country. I am fourth generation born and bred in this country. I'm better then most at understanding forms,terms,liability.Ect,ect. But even I have problems Understanding the wordings of purchasing an house or completing my Tax return.Thats why I use a solicitor for one and an accountant for the later.If both we'er as bent as a ten bob note.Then I am as vulnable as theses ex pats

"The lucrative salaries, benefits, slush funds and pensions paid by the EU", to the extent that they may, or may not exist, are exclusive to the rest of Europe but not Britain??! Really. So Whitehall has not faced the odd financial scandal then? I accept the argument based on whether democratising European administration is necessary or not.Sorry I cannot accept though, that Britain runs itself better than all the Europeans together could run Europe. European treaty law (including the last one) was clear that it could not interfere with issues which were of national interest alone. I'm proud of so much that is British, Labour history for example. However I wish to see the Labour flag embrace, cooperate and build a better world with every nation. To me this European project is a central aspect of that. Finally twisted history aside, Neil Kinnock is, and has been, an internationalist who is a pretty fine ambassador for Britain (and in Europe.)

Vincent, thanks for you comments. I agree that the alleged " lucrative salaries, benefits, slush funds and pensions paid by the EU" are paid to ALL those in top EU jobs, that is exactly the problem – it has become self-serving and therefore self propagating. We need a detailed public register of all who benefit from the EU to ensure transparency from those who are deciding our future. I too don’t know if “Britain runs itself better than all the Europeans together could run Europe” --- I really don’t know, we all want a better world but baby and bath water seem to come into mind. But I would like to, (I mean --- demand to), have a vote on whether we accept foreign (collective?) rule. I too respected Kinnock right up to and until he pulled the rug on Marta Andreasen, the European Commission's former chief accountant, when she blew whistle on the lax EU finances during his watch -- This is just the tip of the corruption we must fight against. I’m sorry but if he is seen as a “pretty fine ambassador” for Britain and the EU then we need Mafia protection!

The Lisbon Treaty is not the EU Constitution rehashed, thus a referendum is not necessary. That needs to be made clear. Parliament will I'm sure come to the correct decision eventually. Britain's future is Europe and the alternative is quite frankly isolation and UKIP. Not my choice.

Just let's get it signed! We are becoming the laughing stock of the EU with our prevarication, and our red lines etc. Remember that the vast majority of the 27 members are happy with it, and it's mainly the right wing press here and a few die-hards who think Queen Victoria's still on the throne who are trying to kill it - and get us thrown out.

Your right we are the laughing stock of EU. If i'd coned you into signing away your house your money and your family I would probably have to laugh.

Er - David - the parliamentary committee that scrutinised the "Treaty" concluded (they could hardly have done otherwise) that the "Treaty" IS substantially the same as the Constitution. Please. At least get your FACTS right. I don't mind people saying, yes, we SHOULD be governed from Brussels, fly the blue flag, sing "Ode to Joy", welcome in the Euromilicia, accommodate millions of immigrants, give up the pound: but in doing so, don't try to perpetuate the lies that the politicians would have us believe!

OK. I live in Madrid. Shocked!! Don't be. Honestly it's a great place. It would be greater than London even. But sadly it doesn't have a mayor that even comes close to Ken. I belong to another political party here too. It's Spanish and it's called PSOE (Labour connected). They're great bunch of people like my Labour mates. PSOE loves the European hope. Partly because it helps ensure that another Franco (or even a Mosely) cannot mount a coup whilst the rest of Europe looks on. A treaty can further prevent this. Spanish citizens can pass borders without a passport to certain other EU countries, because Spanish people see fellow Europeans as their local brothers and sisters, not as a foreign threat. The European Parliament has given us the right to elect the administrators who are going to be making continent wide decisions whether we want them to or not. Many of their decisions benefit us. Transport and environmental issues have been improved by political cooperation. The european Parliament has often looked to pool resources in regards to beyond Europe aid. As regards to the referendum. I understand the fear. The Spanish newspaper, Publìco, researched and published an article on the 100 top European myths. You know the sort-the straight banana thing. By the way it was a positive directive that one-ensuring quality food- it suggested that a banana which was past it, usually had the appearance of being very bent. Which country's newspapers do you think contained more than two-thirds of the myths?? Yeah. You got it. The UK's. So in that sense though I believe the pro-treaty argument is winnable it is going to have to face heavy artillary from the myth makers. Finally having worked in London schools from 1997-2006, I saw improvements across the board in deprived areas. It can still get better. The Spanish PSOE want tackle poverty here in Spain. Hey what about this for an idea. Let's get together and pool our resources!

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/index_en.htm is a list of all the euromyths - many dreamt up by Murdoch's finest. As you say, people like the banana myth or the cucumbers or the sausages (from the TV series 'Yes Minister')- I suspect they are all phallic and that appeals to the Sun and the Telegraph readers. The real problem for us is the promise to have a referendum in the first place. No other EU Treaty has had a referendum in the UK. If anyone should have a referendum it is surely the French or the Dutch who rejected it first time around but are not accepting the new draft. Britain is now opting out of huge swathes of it anyway, so it would be really ridiculous and silly to have one now. Who really understands the provisions of the Nice Treaty (currently in operation) and the provisions of the Reform Treaty well enough to have a sensible vote? It's basically a UKIP/Tory Right campaign with a few easily-led people from outside (even in our own party) soggily following them. The populists calling for a referendum haven't even thought through their position, I suspect. It sounds good, but imagine a 20% turnout with the blimps and the UKIPs winning 12%. This seems likely to me, most people think Europe is boring and irrelevant - they don't even vote in the European Elections (unless there's some other election the same day so you might as well while you're in the polling station). A 12% vote then dictates Britain's international policy, at a time when the only way to save our planet is for groups of linked nations to work together. And there would be no European labour norms protecting our people on an international basis.

12% of the electorate, whilst hardly ideal, is considerably better than about 400 MPs, many with vested interests in EU membership.NO MP has a mandate to give away our sovereignty. Open your eyes: see where the EU is leading us!

Tom, you sound like a UKIP person! We SHARE sovereignty with the other members for the good of all. As to "see where the EU is leading us!" - we have elected our MEPs ourselves, and the Council has our reps.on it. The Commission can only propose, and any directives have to be approved by our government. The EU is not an isolated body "over there" telling us what to do. We are a part of it, and, I would wish, an enthusiastic part. I don't understand the desire for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. We didn't have one about membership of NATO, and that involved sharing sovereignty with certain somewhat larger countries. The EU is not the enemy of the sovereign nation state, it is the only mechanism there is for European governments to wield power on the world stage. What's the alternative?

I know many, many voters, like me who firmly beleive very passionately in the UK's membership of the EC, and of the many benefits we receive in return, and also we are very much in favour for the proposed changes in the constitution or treaty( whatever you wish to call it)to be implemented, nevertheless, I and many, many Labour voters that I speak with, we still wish to be able to use our prerogative to be able to vote 'yes' in a feferendum, as previously promised in 2005- why the change - Our dilemma at the next general election is being a loyal and dutiful member of the Labour Party to we vote for labour or alternatively do we vote for a party that will offer us the opportunity to exercise our democratic right or a third option- do we abstain. Which course of action do you advise we should take Mr. Murphy

I think the way that Gordon Brown is treating the British electorate over the European Union, is absolutely disgusting. Why is he not allowing a Referendum, when it was promised by Tony Blair. It is a common fact that Britain is contributing more to Europe, than what we are getting out of it, and the trade we do with our European partners costs us billons of pounds whereas trading with the rest of the world, we make a large profit. How can anybody with an atom of common sense say "we are better to be in than out" What good is it doing us? For the sake of our country, and in memory of the millions that died to keep it safe, let's say NO TO EUROPE, and get the hell out of it

So why won't the government give us a referendum? Jim has failed to answer this very simple question. If it's not important then surely we can decide the fate of this country. If it is important then surely we have the right to decide. What are the real reasons for this government not wanting a referendum.

Jim I have real concerns about Europe. It is a major problem. Rangers just cannot seem to get past the the big teams, infact, even the diddy teams seem to horse us. And it is such a huge waste of money! Archie from Duke Street told me we might be signing some French bloke, but they are ususally mince. Except for that Zidane. He was no bad. Not a Laudrup, but not bad. Any advice? Fin

the SNP want to withdraw from Europe. Why would this be so damaging?

Where to start. Is this just a way of letting us let off steam without taking any notice? Clearly those in favour of the EU ("Fiona, Lisa, Dan, Brigid, Jon, Geoff, Hugh") have very little to say about the benefits of being in the EU. Rebecca-Jane is simply patronising. I have a degree, flower, and I am not fooled for one minute by the deceit and lies that have been told over the last 35 years by politicians hell-bent on forming a United States of Europe. I was a member of the Labour party but left in disgust over their stance on the EU. We HAVE to get out in order to maintain and improve our way of life. We need to be able to control our own laws so we can reverse the destructive effects of things like "Human Rights" - which are more to do with child labour and prison without trial than whether a school can give a pupil a detention - and "Health and Safety" - in a recent kids' TV programme that involved a couple of youngsters getting a custard pie in their face they were given HUGE "safety goggles" to wear! I ask you. We ned to control our own fisheries again; we don't need to be told when we can sell beef abroad; we can't afford to pay for underground trains in Warsaw when many schools and hospitals here are crumbling; as the financial capital of the world we must retain total control over our currency and fiscal matters; the list is endless. Those who claim that the Treaty is "fundamentally different" to the rejected Constitution are either (a) ignorant, (b) deliberately lying; (c) naive; (b) possibly stupid (you don't need to pass an IQ test to vote); or a mainstream party politician. That we should be treated with such contempt by the government and opposition is despicable and explains the fall in turnout at elections; this helped by the skills of the deceivers. The EU machine is devilishly subtle. How else do you explain that at the last EU elections, Cornwall's largest vote went to UKIP (just); yet two years later in the General election Cornwall returned every Lib/Dem candidate - the most cravenly pro-EU party of the lot! Clearly, enough of the electorate have been fooled into thinking that the EU and Westminster aren't linked and that Westminster still has some power! Referendum NOW!

I'm not interested in what happens in Europe. The fact that we are paying for projects in eastern europe is every reason why I want out. If the EU is interested is raising living standards then why does the UK have some of the worst poverty in western europe. Why is it than under Labour poverty has got worse rather then better. Why is it that so many families rely on tax credits to support their families. If this bill is so important then it sould be the people who decide and not our politicians. If it's not importantant then please don't sign it at all.

Poverty worse under Labour? Are you kidding?

Child poverty his been reduced by hundreds of thousands, people no longer die on waiting lists and the winter fuel allowance has really helped alot of people!

It's not what the figures are showing Colin. In fact labours own figures show otherwise on poverty. It's also not what I see day in day out in my community. I've not seen this level of poverty since the miners strike.

If the Labour govt want to show they are serious about democracy, we must have a referendum on the treaty with real information and a proper debate. This could also serve to bring back an interest in politics among the population in general. I also want to mention that at the moment, I am living and working in Macedonia - an EU candidate country. There are many EU projects going on here - building roads and so on, the EU definately makes a difference and it is offering a real carrot to the Balkan countries for reform and modernization, not to mention the Kosovo issue. I much prefer the EU approach to the ghastly American approach with is basically to offer cash for military bases and flights of rendition which are landing on a regular basis in Pristina. I believe that the EU has a real interest to raise living standards for all its citizens. I would rather Britain turned to the EU than to the USA.

WELL DONE!!! Finally we get a rational explanation of the benefits of the EU. I'm fed up with all the negativity - I'm proud that Britain plays a strong role in the EU.

The Government hasn’t sold the Treaty well to the public, people understand the quick “sell-out” headlines better than Labour’s answers. Why haven’t you explained the merits of this treaty to the public?

France and the Netherlands voted against the constitution but now it is being brought back in a slightly watered down form without the right to vote. Is this because the democratic voters were wrong?

What is the Labour party scared of, why won't they let the people of Britain decide on this? We want a vote, it's our country and we want the choice.

That's not how the system works, Andrew. If you want a system of democracy that decides every question by putting it to the people *individually* you're going to have to set up your own party to achieve it because NONE of the parties available use such a method! Democracy has been said to be the best method of a load of bad ones. Look at the U.S. - supposedly the most democratic nation on earth - with it's obvious indications of corrupt politicians serving their own interests, its House of Representatives (which everything that 'the people' might vote has to be okayed by), its preposterous system of electing a president which demands he be enormously rich to even run for election, etc. At it's theoretical best, which is how you see it, the politically aware will have their wise votes swamped and negated by the politically ignorant masses. Have you ever visited message boards dedicated to the popular media? You'll find grown adults having flame wars over Britney Spears hairstyle (or lack of hair!) and how great a mom Jessica Alba will be purely because she's 'hot'. Yet you would put the gravest of decisions into the hands of such people? If your toilet was blocked, would you call a plumber (an expert for the specific task of fixing it) or would you call a pop star, a farmer, a police officer, a checkout girl, etc?

The E.U. is ruining our farming and fishing industry's, our country is being overrun with foreign workers who don't even speak our language, and are costing this country millions of pounds for interpreters, to translate for them in the NHS, and other welfare services, I agree with the first the message I read on this site, ( John message posted 10:12pm Thur 24th Jan)the labour party is reneging on its promise to give us a referendum, why do you think its OK for us to vote labour into power, but when it comes to something as big as giving our country away to be run by unelected foreigners, you think that only the few MPs in parliament should speak for the whole nation ?, this is no ordinary law being passed by one government, that can be changed by the next party comming into power, once we are in that's it, everything we fought for during the war is gone, millions died to keep this country free, I know not many MPs have served in the forces, maybe, that's why, you are willing to give up our country so readily, having supported the labour party for years, I'm disgusted at the totalitarianism attitude of this government, it mirrors some of the worst dictatorships in the world, they are taking away our freedoms every other day, and I for one will no longer vote Labour, and I suppose that statement will ensure that this post is not published, we all know you cant take criticism. I want a REFERENDUM.

Almost all European leaders have conceded that the reform treaty is actually the constitution in all but name. Most fair minded and objective commentators agree, yet for reasons best known to themselves, this government seeks to impose this treaty on us knowing all the while an overwhelming majority of the British people are opposed to it. Setting aside all of the well known issues surrounding broken promises and manifesto pledges from our last two prime ministers, there is something else to consider: If the 20th century taught us anything, it is that freedom and autonomy are the values that people hold most dear, and that artificial constructs like the Soviet Union are doomed to failure. (I urge everyone to examine the similarities between the Soviet Union and the European Union). Constitutional changes cannot be imposed from the top down by a bunch of faceless nonentities with one eye on their paycheck and the other on their place in history. The people of Britain will never forgive the politicians who blithely surrender freedoms hard won and staunchly defended. Until now, the British people have given succesive governments the benefit of the doubt because they believe them to be benign. I am struck lately by the change in people's attitudes. I do not believe they will roll over on this one. I think this is a broken promise too far and I urge the government to think again.

I think this is great news. Europe gives us alot - and I'm glad that we are now on a fairer basis with the EU.

Just why is public money being used to promote a labour party propaganda website? Is this legal? Perhaps this should be added to all the other labour party misuse of public funds. Honours for donations --donations from the northeast etc

Clement, where is the evidence for your very serious charge you have levelled in your comment?

My previous comment has disappeared. I hope that was a glitch and not censorship. Whether the Treaty and Constitution are one and the same is largely academic. The simple fact is that this Treaty so fundamentally changes the way in which we are governed that no Government has the right to pass it without the consent of the British people. It will be the last Treaty of the European Union as it is 'self-amending'. Changes can be made without any further reference to the Governments of member states. Brussels bureauocrats will be able to set up a United States of Europe and enforce measures on member states.

My question is when are we going to get a referendum. Even my local labour MP says the treaty and the constitution are pretty much the same thing. Are you going to keep your promise and give the British People a vote on this?

Alot of people here seem to be repeating that they think this is a constitiution rather than a treaty. Your wrong but fine. How about you use this opportunity to you know, ask a question?

So Jim, how will this help us fight climate change as you state in your piece?

If it looks like a Constitution, sounds like a Constitution and 26 EU States think it's a Constitution, then in all probability it's a Constitution. The Labour Party's constant protestations to the contrary just make us look like we're living in cloud cuckooo land. It may well do all the things you suggest and more, in which case we should take that argument to the people in the referendum we promised. The simple fact is we have betrayed a Manifesto Promise because we didn't have the courage of our convictions or any trust in the people whom we are elected to serve. If you seriously expect Party Members to stand on doorsteps at the next election arguing for the return of Government that won't listen and reneges on its most basic promises you are going to be very disappointed.

I disagree with you, so I will doubtless be ignored. However, if enough people do so you *might* adapt your view by maybe a small amount. Many informed commentators have asserted that this document is substantively the same as the old constitution document. Even if you disagree with this you must at least agree that it represents a major change in the way we relate to the EU. Why would you be pushing so hard for it if it was of negligible effect. If you want the general population, to back Labour's EU stance, you need to give them a say. It's called democracy. Nobody has had a chance to vote on this issue since the 70s, when they narrowly agreed to a simple free trade area. For the sake of peace and general cooperation, you really MUST have a referendum on this "Treaty". There are a great many people who feel very deeply about this. I am one of them. As I am "only" 41 I have never been asked anything about the EU through the ballot box. I do not want this treaty and would vote against it, but I know a number of people who disagree with me about the treaty, but agree that for the sake of future harmony we really need a referendum. Now you can hit delete. Don't worry, the population is getting quite used to being completely ignored by politicians. Why do you think so many don't even bother to vote.

Andrew, so many people don't vote because they don't understand the importance of it or the issues involved in what they would be voting on. You contradict yourself in saying that informed commentators have said the treaty is substantively the same as the old constitution document but then imply that it *must* be very different because people are pushing hard for it. This is actually a specious argument of yours. In fact, the changes the treaty represents are not ones which we in the U.K. need be concerned about, or, if you like, should be 'bothering about. Why, you ask, does *anyone* bother about them then? The answer is that *other* nations, probably much smaller and less well-established in the realm of international politics, that they are inclined to 'play' politics in demanding a re-wording of something here and there in order to satisfy their 'own people'. These things are often of the most trivial nature but can be things that a nation, with cultural differences to ours, genuinely sees as important. Such a change can be likened to staunch feminists who want the word 'man-hole' officially re-designated as an 'inspection cover' because they feel it somehow negatively supports an unequal society that favours men even on a subconscious level. These activists may be deeply serious about their little issue but it actually has zero implications on what man-holes are really about. Now those who have *actually* ploughed through what is a lengthy and verbose treaty have come out and said it doesn't represent any threat to our constitution whatsoever and that it would be preposterous to have a referendum on it. Any who suspect this is Labour reneging on a promise might not be taking into fair consideration the possibility that Labour were actually promising to hold a referendum *had it turned out to have been necessary*. One can't fairly expect the party to undermine its credibility by having a referendum on something that no one else is having one for merely to avoid a bit of criticism (from the opposition who *always* find something to complain about) once they'd got the chance to examine the proposal. Besides, does anyone seriously think that if this document, this piece of paper, turned out to impose upon real people in the U.K. serious hardship, that we'd submit to it merely because some ignorant politician signed it unwisely when it was first written? These things can be challenged, overturned, ignored, torn up, re-written and so on add infinitum. This treaty doesn't represent iron shackles that will enslave us all. More to the point however, is that if this is really your fear, then don't, for God's sake, ask Joe Public to decide upon it!

I think you would concede that, ill informed or otherwise, there is a significant proportion of the population that believe the similarities between the constitution and treaty are sufficient to warrant a referendum. The setting up of this facility is evidence of that. The government's resistance, and patronising tone taken by some supporters to defend government's stance, reinforce the view that something underhand is being perpetrated. When the competence of government is being questioned so frequently isn't it the case that you fear such a referendum would simply be a popularity vote on government? Look at it this way, if you had the trust and confidence of the nation you would have nothing to fear, if you think you don't, then your handling of this matter would be a good illustration of perhaps why that lack of respect and confidence exists. A referendum will continue to be denied because this government will not countenance any form of dissent, we lose a vote to save their pride.

How do young people and children benefit from this new EU treaty? and also you say that for the first time it enshrines the rights of children, what are these rights?

You have learnt nothing from the fiasco of Keith Vaz's comparative comment regarding the EU Constituion being no more legally binding on the UK than the Beano. If it wasn't so important you lot would be laughable bunch of clowns. Of course the Treaty is the substantially the same as the rejected Constitution. You will be treaing the same road as Vaz and Hain, hopefully.

I don't see the point in having a referendum when there is little informed debate in the UK about the role of the EU. Why does the government seem afraid of reminding us about the social, economic and political advantages of being in the EU and that we are part of Europe?

The answer is simple, Brigid. The benefits are so little compared with the drawbacks. That is not to say that nothing good has ever come out of the EU. But, as the curate said when asked by his bishop if his breakfast egg was bad, 'Oh no my Lord, parts of it are excellent'.

As some of the comments below show I think half the problem surrounding the EU is a lack of understanding. What can the government do to challenge some of the myths around what Brussels does? (who would really believe in Brussels banning bendy bananas?)Do you think that how the EU works should be taught as part of the national curriculum?

The argument about whether a referendum on the EU Treaty is required on the sole basis of whether the treaty is or is not a constitution is typical of the foolish justifications put forward by people trying to rationalise a position in argument rather than addressing the underlying realities. A vote of any sort is capable of becoming in reality a vote on something else - in this case on something like the popularity of a government, the trustworthiness of politicians or the general popularity of the EU. (Remember how De Gaulle was finally defeated.) The effects of any result will quite likely be quite different from what the majority of voters wish and abstention may well be high because the arguments deployed and emotions engaged will not relate closely to the question formally being decided. I make no comment on the motives of the Liberal Democrats in taking the position they do; but it raises at least the question whether, at a key stage, their idea of a referendum on EU membership could gain enough support in Parliament to get adopted. The government needs to assess the likelihood of this now and assess also whether by seizing the initiative in proposing this could be the course which is best for the interests of the country, the EU, our government and our party.

The leadership of the Party has behaved in a most underhand way in sneaking this issue "under the radar". In all but name this Treaty IS the Constitution remodelled. The Country deserves a referendum. This issue is too importantly to be left in the hands of this elected collection of New Labour YES MEN! To regain the support of the Country the Party must break-free of the shackles of New Labour and re-exert itself as the voice of the People. We are the Labour Party, we are NOT New Labour! New Labour is a collection of Thatcherite ideals re-packaged under a red rose. Bring back the Red Flag, bring representation of ordinary British people, bring back Labour’s socialist ideals. Let the people speak, let them respond to Europe through a referendum. Have faith that the British people, if allowed a free and fair debate will see through the lies of politics and embrace the European experiment as right for Britain, right for Europe and right for mankind!

Tottaly agree with u Richard. But alas labour would not gain power.This was proved with M.Foot.I believe (Yes Minister)Their is a civel servant desk with three draws One for labour one for tory and the third that if ever opened will require a lot of effort due to its lack of use SDP. This country is run by the superior class that as always been in charge.The moment any party steps over the line They are removed By what ever means.Even Mrs T in her own way believed inwhat she was doing was correct.Selling council houses was ok short term. But long term theres no social houseing to speak of.And all our public utilities are owned by other countries. The ruling classes think long term to get there way.They keep wages down by allowing access to cheap labour from the EU.They are not bothered by the romanian gipsey slave labour coming to an area near you.Because they havent got to live with or near them.its called devide and rule my friend

I think the EU has been very beneficial for the UK but some of the detail of the treaty is really hard to understand for example could you explain exactly how the treaty will 'speed up international aid'?

It is generally accepted that the Treaty is in fact a modest rehash of the original Constitution, even among leaders of the EU (read the excellent article by William Rees-Mogg in The Times this week), so how can you avoid having a referendum on the issue? How was it possible for the vaious leaders to sign the "Treaty" when Ireland has not yet voted on it. Does this not demonstrate their arrogance and their view of the opinions of ordinary people?

Isn't this just a treaty. We've never voted on these before. Where's the beef?

Some fine legal minds are saying that in fact the government exceeded their authority in signing those previous treaties, but this one is actually the old constitution with a new title page. If they were still using the word "Constitution" then they would be obliged to have a referendum. As they have tipexed out the C word and dubbed it a treaty, they feel they don't have to; on the basis that if they say it often enough, a lie becomes the truth.

'Some fine legal minds' equals a subjective appraisal. I can just as fairly say that some fine legal minds, not to mention many fine and respected, experienced politicians have said that this treaty does not justify a referendum. As to 'tipexing out' word and then trying to pass it off duplicitously is preposterous. The whole point of this exercise is because all the nations involved want to have their say on the precise wording and will consequently, if it ever becomes necessary in the future, point to whatever *precise* word is pertinent to their argument or challenge. Thus, it was that the UN had a right set-to over the precise meaning of 'serious consequences' in their agreement 1441 pertaining to WMD. Did it mean 'invasion and military force' or did it mean a fine? A massive (and stupid) debate ensued which only revealed the UN to be an almost toothless tiger (the U.K., Spain, and the U.S. being the only three 'teeth' it had). In short, if the details of this 'treaty' ever need to come under close scrutiny, you can be sure it will.

I remain exceptionally disappointed that we have not had a referendum - the reasons we've been given as to why not are totally spurious.

I'm all for a European Union. However, has there been any mention of reform of the European Central Bank (ECB) within the EU Treaty? If it was not compulsory for member states, who have signed up to the Euro, to allow the ECB to dictate to them we could tackle poverty, racism and inequality much better as we're turning into a United States of Europe when we should become a United European Union that works on a par with the United States. At least that way, the USA cannot dictate to Europe or play the Big Brother card every time it has a financial crisis barking at it's door.

As this treaty is self-amending, can you give me an assurance that there will be another geneal election in this country or will we become part of the European State by 2010 and therefore not need one? I can only echo the comments of many others that this issue is too important to deny the people a say. If it is such a good thing, why is it so hard to get the benefits across? Either call a general election so that you have a mandate from the people or let us have a referendum. And as so much government business is now conducted in Brussels, why do MPs need a pay rise? Surely by now they could go part-time and take a pay cut.

why ask us now - we are not stupid, we know it is the same treaty and you knew we would vote no because you do not have a mandate from the British people to be part of a "greater Europe" so do what you like but don't pretend now that you want our opinion because we see right through you and you do not have our support. Clearly that does not bother you or the Labour Party anymore but one day we will get to vote and then we will have our say and you will be gone

Sorry Helen but that's just not true. The Labour party represents the views and aspirations of the majority of those who voted in our democracy. We were already a part of a 'greater Europe' and the labour party 'asks for our opinions' via its PIP process. If you want a say in the running of our nation, you have to join the party that is in power. If your voice isn't heard because you're out-voted, tough luck - that's the system we're using. You're free to set up your own political party which holds referendums for everything if you want to. You are right that one day the Labour party will be gone but it won't be for want of the politically ignorant spreading nonsense, or the self-serving Tories spreading downright lies to topple us. The parties may be flawed, the *system* may be flawed but you've just got to ask yourself one question: which is the *least* bad option to vote for? Because the Conservatives have a long track record of lying to the public and running this nation into the ground. How short is your memory of the Thatcher years? Or how politically ignorant of how bad the Tories were, and how hard life was in Britain when the Tories were last in power, are you? You must ask yourself which party is the worst. At least the Labour party is, in principle, a good party; a socialist party that at least pays lip service to society and *all* its members, that created the minimum wage and the health service. The only sizeable opposition is fundamentally opposed to labour's concepts of society, working together to prosper, and valuing every individual no matter how feeble their ability to contribute may be. Make your choice.

Loads of people are saying that this is the same as the Constitution. Why's it not and whats the difference?

does this treaty include pension rights throughout europe as it has been stated the UK State pension is the worst in Europe many decent hard working individuals now over 66 like myself are stuck on an income a 6th of what earnings now are well below poverty

I think that this is a good move for Britain but don't quite see how 3 million jobs are at risk?

I am at a loss to pose a question as the deal is done.! Why did we not get a referendum??

This is quite a simple situation that people like to shout about because it has the word "Europe" in it. Most parties promised a referendum on the EU consitution, thing is, France took it first and voted Non! So the constitution died and we've gone back to making treaties - however people are demanding a referendum simply because they don't get to be Euro-sceptic with no grasp of the facts. It's a treaty - just imagine if we'd had referedums on every treaty in the last 500 years! They'd be none, we'd have no allies and people would be voting every week!

The facts are that the EU is not the same as Europe. That the EU has failed their audit every year for the last 10+ because of massive financial irregularities of the level that would see a corporate being torn apart by the courts. It is a fact that the UK sends a huge amount of money over the channel every year and gets a small proportion back; so every £1 in EU grant aid costs the UK taxpayer many times that in taxes. The UK has absolutely no need of the EU and is being dragged down financially by it. Oh and try taking a look at the fact of the way the EU law generation machine works; it is almost completely unaccountable and runs at such a breakneck pace that such oversight as there is cannot possibly function effectively. Geoff, you really need to acquaint yourself with the real facts, not the spin, before being so flip about other people's ignorance. Some of us have spent a lot of time studying the beast and are frankly terrified of it.

To my mind the base of all the problems is overcrowding or the building of unsatisfactory too small, too uninsulated flats and homes with insufficient storage. Most of the new builds do not allow families with children enough space for each person or for the children to do their homework or do their own things. The buildings are overlooked from every angle and sound carries. Nobodys nerves can get used to the excessive sounds of traffic or neighbors bathrooms and arguments. Children are joining gangs on the streets as their homes are not comfortable or suitable enough for the family configuration so the children take to the streets. There is nowhere for the children to run wild as all the green spaces are being built upon for the influx of what is it? 2million new immigrants. Walking around my own Borough which is supposed to be one of the greenest. It is dishevelled and not looked after and nobody could get lost as one bumps into a building too often and too soon. Of course people need to be housed but we are an Island and not a particularly big one and the needs of its own citizens are being overlooked to accomodate an inflow that has lousy reasoning behind it in regards to immigration. Citizenship, respect and tradionalism (English) are not being taught and even the children say they are not being taught the basics. They all appear to know the laws on how to ridicule teachers and get away with it. They too are frustrated and bored. Borough planning is not far sighted,and doesnt take future issues into consideration, immigration and Home office guidelines are inadequate, the police have become a laughing matter and lets not even go down the road of justice. How about the prison system? The Community Safety teams are a waste of money even though the idea appeared sound. They dont have any legal teeth and our money is paying for people to talk to us and do nothing. Somebody is not listening to the people and not walking around talking to the people enough or comprehending the overall proplems by analysing them. Politics has become a dirty word and that is harsh coming from somebody who has spent most of their life doing community work. A lot is wrong and above all the attitude towards all of this is not right somehow. Then there are those who say: First and foremost, we should be governed by common sense. But common sense should be based on moral prinicples first. And it is not possible today to have morality separated from religious values. That alone is a huge discussional point. I believe though that if you teach respect by referring to traffic lights. Green to go, Amber stop and think and Red is an outright stop with examples clearly shown we might get somewhere.

I agree 100%, because I did the same. The Labour government think we are stupid and think by calling it a treaty we will think its different. The Prime Minister in his opening speech in Downing Street the day he took office promised to listen to the people. He hasn't. The people want an adequate pay rise for the police, this hasn't happened. The Labour party are looking like a lame duck government who will lose the next election. This will usher in another Tory era, more unemployment, higher interest rates and arrogant government, still they can't be any worse than what we have already

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. First thought is, who'd be a politician these days? Everybody is so angry, and so sure they're right, when really, too many show by their comments they're not putting in enough effort to think things through. The European Union is a GOOD THING! Why? Because it subordinates national interest to common interests, in the same way, in a civilised country, individual interests are subordinated to social interests. Why is this important? Should we have to ask in the Labour Party? We believe it is right to look after everybody - that's the sort of people we like to think we are. Does anybody remember what the West Germans did for the East Germans when the Berlin wall came down? Should we not be embarrassed to compare their generous statesmanship with the curmudgeonly sentiments now being expressed by some members of our Party? And now, when the EU is expanding to embrace countries kept for years in poverty, offering willing peoples the chance to make decent lives for themselves and their families, and in doing so generates a need for an updating of the machinery, is this the time to throw a big spanner in the works? I say, better to get out altogether in that case, and let decent folk get on with decent work. And by the way, does anybody remember how conflicts get resolved when nations pursue their own interests exclusively?

There is one major flaw in this logic. The system that has been set up, was not designed to achieve those aims and in fact is very badly broken. I have spent the last 10 years+ dealing with the EU law creation machine and have studied the system to some depth. It really is very badly broken right down at the core. In one this we do agree, we should indeed get out ... as soon as possible .. then we'll be in good shape to come to the aid of the benighted countries who stay in and suffer the consequences.

I have lived and worked in Brussels for 4 years (not in politics but in business) and there are definately many benefits to EU membership associated with the free movement of goods, people and services. For example, I could work in Brussels but keep my final salary pension in the UK but be socially insured in Belgium - which has a far better healthcare system than the NHS I might add! With our populations aging and global competition intensifying, we really need to reap the benefits which EU membership can bring and the EU treaty in my mind is actually a way to make the EU function better and be more transparent than it is currently. We must have a body which is streamlined and able to make decisions and to put in place legislation which will keep us on track towards a level playing field in the business world as well as ensuring some minimum standards and synergies and health and education. However, I also recognise that I am probably in a minority of British pro-Europeans! And I fully understand the reasons why - firstly on the continent, people can 'feel' part of Europe, they can drive to visit other countries for holidays and they can spend their euros and easily compare prices. Secondly, the EU itself does little to communicate and market itself properly to its citizens - the British Government is also guilty of this. Therefore, unless you have a degree, it is often difficult to understand what really are the benefits of EU membership. Thirdly in the British media, especially the tabloids, which let's face it, the majority of Brits read, there is too much anti-European propaganda and little debate as to the real issues. In my opinion, the goverment should do more to inform people of what it actually means to be in the EU - that they don't need to apply for a visa every time they go abroad and so on and how the EU actually functions - but in terms which are relevant to people's everyday lives. In simple terms people need to understand what the EU treaty actually is, it is simply a reform of the EU as it is now. Lastly, I can speak from experience that the EU institutions are rather wasteful and bureaucratic, not to mention in the mainpart unelected but in order to drive change, we must be at the heart of Europe. Just one example of closer EU cooperation which i would like to share... currently all over the world we have embassies with highly paid Ambassadors and diplomats, all issuing Visas. Instead of 25 embassies, we could have 1 EU Embassy in each country - imagine the cost savings?? That money can be invested in education which is really the future foundation for our continued prosperity!

Don't equate anti-EU with anti-European. They are not the same thing. I for one am very much a Europhile, but hate the destructive effect the EU is having on Europe. Pro European, Anti-EU.

How far do you think the Hoops will go in Europe?

Ok Jim you sent me an e-mail inviting me to ask a question so i expect a reply. I would like to know how you and your fellow MP's believe that it is right to give up a mass of sovereign powers to a foreign entity [EU] without obtaining the express consent of the British public by either holding a referendum or general election.You are temporary custodians of power in this country and are in parliament to represent your constituants.I doubt there is a single constituancy in the country that supports this treaty and therefore it is the MP's duty to represent this fact. I await you answer

New Labour promised the people of this country a referendum.When will they fulfil that promise? It seems that once a politician is elected they forget that their job is to represent the people who voted for them in the first place. Most of the electorate want this referendum,so come you MPs stand up and be counted, start doing your job properly and not following your leader like sheep to the slaughter.

Did they not promise one on the Constitution? From what I've seen this is pretty different.

What impact will the treaty have on our constitution, bearing in mind that it is uncodified. Will the treatie take over from the current system of conventions?

We should not be in EU, most people I talk to think the same. Not only is there corruption in our Government, it is even worse in Brussels. All on the gravy train, just take a look at the MPs pay rise. Lets get out and save money.

Let's get out and become the republic of England! Save even more money!

For those people who would like to read the "red lines" referred to in the media, David Miliband helpfully delivered this document to the House of Commons and the House of Lords - which highlights the differences between the two documents and the red lines that Britain has secured. It can be found here: http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/UKRedLines1110_2.pdf

Are these the same 'red lines' that the Labour Chairman of the Labour dominated Commons Scruting Committee referred to as 'being written in water'?

Read the full document and you will see clear changes to our constitutional rights as outlined in the failed constitution. You can try and hide the truth but the electorate won't buy this. They don't believe you, simple. Let me put it another way, so if we don't get a vote on the treaty...what do we get a vote on? I say that there won't be a vote on the constitution because the changes have been hidden in the treaty, as I've just shown.

How will this speed up delivery of international aid?

No matter what the benefits are, you can not escape the fact that this government promised a referendum. Don't we live in a democracy and wasn't there an election promise to hold a referendum. So no matter what the benefits are the key issue is a vote. If the British people don't want this then the Government has no right to deny that choice.

It IS the constitution in all but name. To claim otherwise is splitting hairs. If we don't have a referendum now, David Cameron may offer one in 2010. In Birmingham one Labour MP is threatening to organize an unofficial one for his constituents.

But it is, it's just been rebranded. Gordon knows this is very unpopular at the moment and he wants to deny British people the choice.

The treaty treaty deals with constitutional change and British people wanted a vote on this

I've read the treaty and is is substantially the same as the rejected constitution

Sorry - but your just wrong on that. It is fundementally different.

It's been said before - if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, then it is a duck This treaty all but metaphorically quacks No-one in Westminster who feels (knows?) that a referendum would be lost has the cojones to admit it

Tim Ok then well let's see the proof. Please tell what are the key differences between the treaty and the failed constitution. I'm well briefed on this issue and can tell you that the two documents are fundamentally the same.

The proof is in the substantial changes highlighted in the 'red line' document. There are contrasting views on this, you don't see big differences, others do. That's why Parliament - the people elected by you - are voting on it after a debate. If the people's elected representatives vote for it, then the people can't say they haven't been represented. Lobby your MP for a no vote if it means that much to you. If every one did that, maybe the result would be different. Or perhaps the fact that no one will shows that people are happy to see it go through.

Many people would not have voted Labour at the last election if they knew we were not going to get a vote. We are all aware of the Labour Whips so no matter how much you protest to your local MP...the chances are that your voice is ignored. Labour are showing utter contempt for the democratic process. I'm glad to hear that Cameron will tear this treaty up when he takes power in 2010.

Well you heard wrong. Cameron has promised nothing, in fact the Telegraph were calling for him to clarify his position today in an attempt to instil more Euro-scepticism. Cameron has actually said that he’d consider holding a referendum if the countries haven’t ratified it – which is giving you nothing because once it’s ratified the Tories are happy to let it go.

If it's ratified without a referendum then Labour will not only lose power they risk destroying the Labour party completely. Support for this government is falling every day. This is yet another example of a Labour government forcing their opinion on us. The government is scared to put it to vote because most people don't want it. A recent online poll showed that almost 80% of people were for a referendum on this subject.

This government talks about trust and accountability, surely to deny the country of the right to choose as promised is breaking that trust.

Labour promised a referendum on this subject and has clearly gone back on it's word. No matter how Labour dress this with spin, this is a complete betrayal.

It really is up to the government to decide how important this issue is. If they choose to deny voters the right to choose then I'm sure even more people will be voting against them in 2010.

I can't imagine why Labour would take this stance. Basically liars and non accountable.

How have they "lied" this is NOT a constitution. Nothing has really changed - it just makes the current system work better.

Have I understood you right here? If nothing has really changed then surely that means the treaty is the constitution in all but name? Regards Ged

Have you read the treaty Dan, I think you will find it very similar to the constitution. I've studied it and so have many top lawyers and they all say the treaty deals with the fundemental elements of the constitution. I suggest you download a copy and have a read.

I'm really pleased to see this topic debated and being given the opportunity to ask the Minister a question. I just hope that this thread isn't over run by BNP/UKIP/Tories with bees in there bonnents. Any way - I think Europe has a great capacity to change global economic models. For example - we've got the largest economy in the world. Why don't we just say we won't import anything that has been produced in slave labour conditions? The difference to the consumer in paying for a slave/non slave produced pair or trainers would be about 30p. Can't we use the EU for the good of the world in this way?

Nice to see Labour's traditional respect for democracy in not wanting the EU debate to be engaged in by people who are opposed to it. Compulsory carrying of id in at least 4 of the countries of the EU (Italy, France, Belgium and Germany) ? Votes for two parliaments, both of which seem not to want any power ? The EU is a bigger threat to our freedom than the Soviet Union ever was. 3 million jobs ? Really? Then how come we have a huge trade deficit with the rest of the EU. I used to support labour because I valued civil liberties, now I vote aginst you for the same reason. I first realised you had gone wrong when Tony Blair pretended not to understand the West Lothian question (1988 ?) and when he treated dishonesty as a cause for amusement in a speech to the French parliament. Although I have great sympathy for Gordon Brown, I won't be making the same mistake again.

Do you not see this debate - spotlighted on labour's website - as an important start to this?

Maybe some Labour members should have a play around with the latest political map. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/election-map/nosplit/election-map.xml

What is the fundamental change?

What powers does this give away?