Who will give us the referendum?
Via Captain Ranty, courtesy Fraser:
13th Spitfire commented, saying: This certainly got me thinking….
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2010/05/hidden-conservative-agenda.html
You need to be very careful of Devil’s Kitchen. He makes out he’s one of us but actually he agrees with the Big Three that no referendum be given to the people on the question of EU membership. To be precise, he would not let you have it until five years down the track. He is on record saying:
And I am still anti-EU—as I have been for at least the last twenty years—but it is because of that stance that I do not want a referendum now.
He shows his anti-EUedness by refusing us a referendum, despite widespread calls for it? You fathom that one out. This blog suggests you read the fine print very carefully as to whether someone is for your freedoms or against, for the sovereignty of your nation or not.
Courtesy Sue of Muffled Vociferation:
Filed under: Politics & economics
I think you’re misjudging him. If you see the Libertarian manifesto, it recognises that virtually its whole programme would require withdrawal from the EU, which can be achieved by Parliament repealing the necessary laws, without the need for a referendum.
This is a disagreement over means, rather than ends.
I’m misjudging that he wouldn’t give a referendum to the people? I don’t think so.
Oh no, you’re probably right on that. A referendum would be to force Parliament repeal the necessary laws, in the event of the patriots winning, which Parliament could do any time they liked without a referendum, which I think is what DK would want.
I think you are being unfair to DK. You equate being anti-EU with being pro-referendum now. DK is anti the latter because he thinks that hte people would vote for the EU. I am actually the opposite way round I’m pro EU and pro a referendum on EU membership now (like the LibDems). DK’s position is perfectly reasonable and is a mark of the fact that on Europe he does not agree with the big three (though the Tories are pretty anti-EU they are not anti membership).
I don’t really want to be political at this time but…
From what you have said here DK will give a referendum to the people but not in the time-scale you have explained is necessary.
If you want him and other people to understand why you think that it should be now rather than later you have to say it in such a way that doesn’t turn people off what you are trying to say.
This sort of comment:
You need to be very careful of Devil’s Kitchen. He makes out he’s one of us but actually he agrees with the Big Three
Is the type of comment that puts peoples hackles up and turns them against what you are trying to say.
If you want people to understand your message you have to be mindful of the way you present it.
I can give you a very good example of this from the hustings I was at last week
There is a particular reason for my special lack of grace on this particular matter.
When something is important and a message needs to be explained there is no room for lack of grace.
The message has to be explained carefully without putting other people down. That is the only way you will get people who don’t already think the same way as you do to listen to what you have to say.
If you can do that, they will take the thoughts away and consider what you said. Then based on your thoughts, they will either agree or disagree or at least re-evaluate some of their thoughts. Which gives the ground for further discussion
It is more difficult in the political sphere because people stick to ideologies rather than talking about real issues objectively.
Cherry pie I agree with the thrust of your comments but am not sure that anyone looks at politics objectively- everyone looks at it through an ideological prism of their own.
On the other hand, James if you have other things to say about DK say them- otherwise you don’t look good because his point, though he may be wrong, is reasonable. I’m not saying that you are right or he is right- but I do think that from what I’ve seen in public he isn’t behaving badly. If he is doing so in private, its probably best either kept private or if you want to make points about him, said publically.
I put no one down. I stated it as it was. I said people needed to be careful with his stance because it is not as projected or as people would be led to believe from the other writings. That’s all there is to it.
As someone I just spoke with before said, “This is not an issue of two people disagreeing but of abundant evidence on one side and ignorance on the other.”
Whether I annoy people or not is irrelevant – we are in great danger and people are sleepwalking, refusing to look at the situation, the evidence, then pontificating on no basis except prejudice.
I said this thing was issues based and it is. It is others [such as above] who wish to turn this into a personality thing. Always people want something to be personalities based. People who think that in my case don’t know me very well. I suggest they look through the blog and note how I always base my posts on the issue.
In the case of Cameron whom I, among others, have been having a go at – he might be the nicest person, she certainly seems so – but the point is that what he’s doing is wrong and needs to be dismantled.
In the case of the pornographer, it’s nothing to do with the person in general but with what she’s doing.
This has never been what I’m about. I really don’t give a flying %&$% about popularity – I’m not a politician and have no desire to win friends and influence people. My concern is only to state what is, to retract what isn’t and leave a record of how things are. How people react to that is their own concern. The data is more important than the messenger.
On the other hand, I value real friendship and if I can help people out behind the scenes in some way and be a friend in RL, that’s a bonus.
[...] # Who will give us the referendum? [...]
I just need to finish my thought off here.
In your original post you said:
You need to be very careful of Devil’s Kitchen.
Which if I didn’t know you better would make me think you were attacking him.
In your last reply you said:
I said people needed to be careful with his stance
I knew what your original comment meant but new readers would probably see it differently which is why I made my comments. There is a subtle difference between the two statements.
Your last reply expresses what you really meant to convey.