Referendum politics
The last thing Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants is a referendum on the new EU treaty. Most of Tony Blair's demands at the summit were designed to damp down the calls for a popular vote. Mr Brown, the prime minister (it still feels a little odd to write that after 10 years), has all but ruled it out, and the overwhelming reason he has left the door ajar is because he doesn't want to look like he's not listening. The full treaty doesn't exist yet and he doesn't have to sign the thing until October, and there is little political mileage in shutting off an option, however remote and unattractive.
So what could make Mr Brown take not the course he favours, but the one demanded by his opponents? The short answer is, if resisting it would cost him his job. Or, I suppose, if he underwent a sudden conversion to the democratic or Eurosceptic merits of the case, but I think that is as unlikely as Nick Robinson becoming a pineapple.
Drawing poison
I'll come back to that in a minute, but another answer is: "If Parliament votes for one." The government's preferred option is to ratify the treaty in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and I assume MPs will get plenty of chance to have their say before the final moment.
Most Conservatives will vote for their party policy. The position of the Lib Dems is officially undecided. Many are pretty keen on the idea of letting people vote on individual subjects. Others have seats in the Eurosceptic south west. So, the party just could decide to back a referendum vote, as it did last time. I notice that three Labour MPs have demanded a referendum. That is still rather short of the rebellion of 80-odd Labour members the amendment would need to succeed. But it would all turn the heat up under Mr Brown. Which leads me to the only real reason he'd give in - to lessen the risk of being sacked by the British people in a general election.
The government doesn't just want to avoid a referendum because it could lose it. Campaigns cost a lot of political energy, sap a party's strength and as Tony Blair put it the other day, dominate the political debate for months. So the only reason he would grant one would be to draw the poison out of a general election campaign.
If he and his skilled campaign coordinator Douglas Alexander judge that this is such a divisive, difficult issue, that so many people feel strongly about it that it would pollute a any campaign and seriously damage his chances of winning, then that is the moment they crumble. In fact, in Britain this is pretty much the only reason politicians ever offer referendums - to surgically remove a difficult issue from the party-political arena. This was the only reason Tony Blair went for a referendum on the constitution. The then foreign secretary Jack Straw persuaded him that the demand to vote "on Europe" was cropping up on every doorstep and it would spell heavy, embarrassing defeat in the forthcoming Euro-elections. Although Mr Blair had little idea how he would win a popular vote later on, it was better than losing badly in a few months. He reluctantly did a U-turn, the Conservatives had to pulp most of their leaflets, and Labour didn't as badly as they had feared.
Nextdoor's dominos
So is the debate on the treaty such an issue? It depends on the press, the opposition, and on Europe itself. The Conservatives and the press would have to convince people that the government is wrong - that this is not a simple set of rule changes but something much more momentous. After a slightly uncertain start, they are indeed claiming that the treaty is most of the constitution, and that it is first-order stuff. The argument is put with varying degrees of calmness and coherence, but for my money the best expression of this view is put by . If they convince enough people they are right, then the question becomes: "Why doesn't Gordon trust the people?"
Politicians all over Europe are worried about nextdoor's dominos. One of the reasons that it was so difficult for Tony Blair to resist the referendum call was that President Chirac had unhelpfully changed his mind and offered the French people one. Remember how the No-vote in Denmark over the Maastricht treaty rocked British politics? It didn't provoke a referendum but it did strengthen the hand of the Eurosceptics and led to the slow and agonising dismemberment of John Major's authority.
There is no doubt that most governments will want to avoid a referendum, just as in Britain. The accepted wisdom is that Ireland will be the only exception. Back in 1986, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that there must be a referendum on any amendments to EU treaties, after a Kilkenny farmer-turned-economist argued that the Single European Act paved the way for the creation of a European central bank. To its surprise, the government lost the case and Ireland has had a vote on every treaty since. Twice in the case of the Nice Treaty, which was rejected the first time round.
But what about the French and the Dutch who killed off the constitution in the first place?
Sarkozy has just won two elections. He was explicit there would be no referendum. He would be in a strong position to resist a chorus of calls. But there isn't one. The Socialists are divided and demoralised, without a common position. The Greens, the Communists and a small monarchist party have all called for a referendum, but there doesn't seem to be a big debate about it. This could, of course, change, but it would need to be on the piggy-back of a massive Sarko failure in another field.
The Netherlands is a different matter. The Socialist Dutch MP Harry Van Bommel told me that the treaty was "the constitution in drag", and trying to pretend otherwise was "absolutely unworthy" of the prime minister. A debate is going on in The Hague as I write. The Dutch government clearly does not want a referendum but there might be one small problem. The coalition government took ages to form and is a very fragile thing. It includes three members of the , a party which campaigned for the No-vote last time round, and, one could argue, raised its profile enormously by doing so. That's why it ended up with enough votes to get cabinet seats. It hasn't yet decided its position. I'd normally assume a minor coalition party would do what it's told, like the Irish Greens, but these are men and women who say their job is to "make a Biblically inspired political message heard". While the Bible has nothing to say (go on, contradict me) on referendums, this does suggests they may be principled members of the awkward squad, less likely than most to abandon their political beliefs in order to cling to office.
It may be a Brit-o-centric view, but I am assuming that anybody who campaigned for a "No" last time would want a referendum this time round.
An early poll?
Spain and Luxembourg were the two countries where referendums were won last time round. Their governments were valiant in the fight to retain as much of it as possible and there doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm to go through the whole palaver again for a lesser document. Indeed, they might risk the wrath of people who felt they ordered their government to get the whole thing in the new treaty.
Denmark could be very interesting. It was planning to hold a referendum on the constitution but, like Britain, called it off after the French and Dutch "No's". The Danish government does not have to have one, and does not want to have one, although no official announcement has been made. But it may be in for a surprise. When I was in Copenhagen recently, talking to students at the university about the issue, I was repeatedly told: "Oh no, you're wrong: we have to have a referendum. It's the law." Well, I'm not wrong, but when public opinion is so overwhelming the legal niceties hardly matter. Incidentally, they didn't want a referendum to vote "No" they just wanted to be heard. A rather more scientific take on my quick chat round a student canteen was an opinion poll carried out after the summit which indicated 70% of Danes want a vote.
I've heard of calls for popular votes in Sweden, Finland and the Czech Republic. I'm sure there are others. Indeed, do let me know if you think your country should be allowed a vote. Anything that raises the issue would be bad for Brown. If Malta chooses to vote it will hardly bring him down, but it's a few TV and radio reports from me, a few days more of press coverage and few more chances for people to raise an issue he hopes will go away.
But the treaty in the headlines doesn't matter so much unless an election is looming. If the EU pot is bubbling and the calls are loud then they would reach a crescendo around the time of a final parliamentary vote, which I guess would be next spring. If that happens, it could put the skids under the idea of an early poll after a year's bounce. Or it could mean a referendum. I don't think it's that likely, I don't think it's going to happen, but if Mr Brown is in that position someone may tell him: "This isn't worth the keys to Number 10. Let them have their big fight about Europe. After we've won."
Iβm Mark Mardell, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
Greetings,
I've taken to reading this blog on the EU semi-regularly, just to get non-tabloid-inspired view from across the Channel (the overwhelmingly sceptic comments make my eyes roll in exasperation however).
The problem with referenda, especially on the EU, is that in almost all cases the voters are unable or unwilling to vote on the question asked. Instead they end up voting against or in favour of this or that party or government. To teach it a lesson as it where.
Because of this problem with referenda I feel one cannot put much stock into the results they offer and are better not held. At least until the voters learn to do them correctly: i.e. vote on the question asked, not on wether or not the President's bedroom needs to be painted in green or in red.
Bernard, Gent, Belgium
I guess a fundamental question still remains: How much idoes all this political posturing actually contribute to the welfare of the current and future lives of the people of Europe -and how much is it simply s game of survival for professional politians who's pensions are already secure?
In this context: Does the phrase "democratic or Eurosceptic merits of the case" refer to a single position -or to two opposed positions? This is also an important question -because surely empowering the Ruropean parliament is the best way to imporove democracy in Europe -while the Eurosceptic position (although screaming about abuses of democracy) actually wishes to keep the power of locally elected governments (such as the Polish government, presumably). However, surely, to keep the power the individual governments now have -is really to maintain the current "federal" system (of independant states working together -as in the US or Germany, Austria, etc.). Such a system is "locally" democratic -but perhaps less democratic on a larger scale -where one member (state) has the power to block the collective decision making process -possibly against the will of the majority of the others.
While on the subject of the structure of the democratic system: the Dutch coalition system (and perhaps coalitions in general) seems to encourage "back-stabbing" -because although each party wishes to profit from the collective achievement -it also needs to distance itself in order to give the voters a reason to vote for them and not the others: Never get too close to one's friends and never get too far away from one's enemies (whom you may need in the next election) seems to be the rule.
Incidentally -weren't the Poles the "new Europe" -the dependable allies of Blair and Bush in the battle against the evil anti free market forces clearly manifest in (undemocratic) "old Europe"?
In summary -it seems that the internal structure of the "democratic process" can change the outcome of the collective decision making process. Unfortunately, in the heat of the political debate, a serious discussion of the merits of alternative politcal systems seems to heve been entirely neglected within EU debates.
Thanks for the Hannan article link, and some CALM discussion of the referendum option. But it seems to me that an important point has been missed - it is an international treaty and not a constitution because any EU obligation can only be enforced by laws made by the national governments - there is no EU LAW-making body. This is the same as any other international treaty. And if a national government ultimately objects to EU directives it can AT ANY TIME, AND WITHOUR REFERENDUM leave the union, again unlike a normal constitution.
Did Maggie go for a referendum before she decided (advised by David Cameron)to join the ERM? No, she did not. The reason for joining the ERM was to finally loose our Sterling and join the Euro.
Why does not David Cameron say anything about those terrible and disastrous times in UK history, when the Bank of Englsnd lost billions in the last 15 minutes before getting out, and all that was thanks to his adviser (Cameron was one of the advisors)to Lamont?
If there was no need for a referendum then, there is no need for a referendum now even if the issues are different!
LET US NOT FORGET where the Tories are coming from!
There will always be resistance to Euro-enlargement and the formation of the EU Super-state. But, as the Borg like to say, resistance is futile. This is about the political classes removing the barriers to their own success and ensuring their own legacy and I cannot see that changing no matter which small group causes hiccups along the way.
UK elections determine a government to exercise the sovereign power of the British people for a 4-5 year term. It is not legitimate for that temporary government to permanently transfer this sovereign power to Brussels institutions that need take no account of our wishes in the future. This is especially so when the current UK government was elected 2 years ago on a manifesto commitment to give us a referendum on this very issue. If they go ahead and ratify this resurrected Constitution anyway, then we may replace this current government in a future election but no new government will ever be able to undo what they have done. We must have a referendum that all three main parties promised in their 2005 election manifestos.
Mark puts the political realities of the argument concerning a British referendum very well.
Writing as 'Joe Public', I say that, if the forthcoming Treaty turns out to contain 95%-99% of the defunct Constitution (we are told it does), and if it were right to have a referendum on the latter (I think it was, no matter that Blair's hand was forced on the issue), then the British people should have one on the Treaty. In my opinion, a Prime Minister and his Parliament ought not to be able to bind future Prime Ministers and Parliaments by transferring their powers elsewhere. Such a momentous matter should be for the British people to decide.
Were Brown to avoid a referendum in the circumstances described above I am one Briton who would think very little of him.
I think the idea of Britain holding a referendum on a Treaty is ridiculous.
The only time we have had a referendum was in 1975 when the Cabinet was split on the issue.I doubt that this will be the case in the new Cabinet.I would rather we had an early Generqal Election, thereby maintaining the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
What was the point of a promise if there is not intention of keeping it?
I do not understand why the issue of a Referendum is now considered to be so important, by so many people. When I was a young man, growing up in Britain, nobody knew what a Referendum was. Important decisions were taken by MPs in Parliament, taking into consideration the views of their Constituents, and after rigorous debate. Everyone trusted our elected representatives to consider all the options and make the right decision. What has happened to this trust? Why do we now demand that we make the decisions, after little or no debate, and with even less real knowledge of the issues? If we make all the important decisions, why do we need a Parliament?
Solution A. Let's have a referendum on everything, once every four years or so. People could vote for the political party they want to represent them on important issues (according to a pre-announced platform) and then let them get on with it. We could call this the "general referendum".
Solution B. If we are to have a referendum on a European issue of interest to European citizens then let's have a pan-European referendum, count up the votes, and see what Europe wants. Ah but, democracy, 'tis a terrible thing.
Solution C. Remind people that the new Treaty provides an exit clause from the Union. Something for everyone...
No Parliament has ever been given a mandate that specifically permits the ceding of sovereignty from the British people's elected representatives to a supra-national body. Hence the need for a referendum.
The ceding of any power to Brussels, represents a constitutional change and a change to the sovereignty of this country. The people demand a democratic vote on such a monumental change to our constitution. These fundamental decisions cannot be left to the self-serving and patronising political classes.
If Brown is forced to have a referendum, he has several options as to how it is best approached.
First, he could call the referendum on the same day as the General Election, and can argue that, if he wins the latter, he will be able to handle successfully either eventuality of the referendum result.
Second, if he calls a referendum before a General Election, he can be ambivalent about its outcome and not campaign very much, if at all, for a yes vote. After all, he probably doesn't support the treaty privately anyway.
Either way I don't see it causing a real problem for him.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't want a referendum.
I vote for the person I want to represent me in Parliment for the next 4/5 years, I pay for them to learn the facts about these decisions using parlimentary resources they have but I dont.
I dont want a major decision like this to be taken by normal people who's only view of the situation is from the headlines of daily papers they just glance upon while they're buying the latest celeb gossip magazine. You cant judge a book by it's cover, but apparently you can judge an entire in-depth social, economic and political situation from a 4 word headline.
The only reason I can see for people wanting a referendum is because they no-longer have any trust in the people they vote into power, which is a very worrying and sad state of affairs.
"No Parliament has ever been given a mandate that specifically permits the ceding of sovereignty from the British people's elected representatives to a supra-national body. Hence the need for a referendum."
That is simply not true. Every international treaty to which the UK is a signatory does that, whether with the UN, bilateral treaties, EU, carbon-emissions etc! Some "sovereignty" is given up for the greater good.
Hello Mark
The idea of a United Europe is wonderful, followed by a united world.
But, any organization has to be built upon solid foundations.
The two areas, from which problems arise in the European Union, are the lack of financial and political accountability.
The European Union make many of laws, which companies and 'its people' have to abide by.
Yet, the union cannot produce a set of financial accounts, which can be passed by any Financial Accountancy firm, in the world.
Also the people, who make the European Rules, cannot be voted out.
So, until the European Union demonstrates accountability to βthe peopleβ, they can get stuffed.
In other words, letβs have a referendum upon whether or not the European Union should have systems in place for financial and political accountability.
This proposed treaty increases influence of elected representatives as compared with the current situation. Voting against this treaty would mean voting against more influence of elected representatives.
Please organize a referendum about leaving the EU if that is what you are after instead of making up reasons.
We were promised a refernedum.
We don't get one.
Implication: All Labour PMs lie.
Personally I think if we had a half competent Opposition they would crucify the Government on this.
But we do not.
You say "... Luxembourg were the two countries where referendums were won last time round. "
Well, there is more to that. In Luxembourg the referendum was won, but only narrowly. You'll say, there is nothing special about narrow results (e.g. french presidentials) but for this little country, a 53% yes for Europe is a loss really.
I remember that referendum, and although Bernard is right about other referenda, in this case the issue was the treaty, or more specifically some of the lack of social clauses in it, or more specifically the inclusion of one competition clause which was directly opposing the missing social clauses - I'll avoid going into the detail.
You are wrong about Chirac. Blair committed to a referendum before the elections in June 2004, Chirac on Bastille Day (i.e. afterwards). The domino effect applies, but for once lay off Jacques Chirac.
Also, the new treaty will not be as far-reaching as Dan Hannan suggests. The decision-making methods on foreign policy - unanimity among the member states - remain the same. He is wrong to suggest otherwise. A referendum on whether the vice-president of the Commission should chair the foreign affairs council? Sounds marvellous. The new treaty doesn't take powers from the member states and give them to Brussels: it will enable Brussels to use more effectively the powers it already has. And that's what Dan Hannan really objects to: not the future EU but the EU as it is now.
The Council said they want the new Treaty to be on air with the EU Parliament election of 2009. We can do a pan-european referendum in the same day of the Parliament election this will bring a real public and wide spread debate... but I doubt our politicians will never accept this...
Lets just have a referendum in the countries demanding one. If the public refuse to accept the treaty however, they shouldnt be allowed to keep their place in the union. Let the visionery countries plow ahead with reform and then the other countries can join at a later date.
As a Bulgarian, I would like to be asked on a referendum what I think of this new treaty. I am likely to vote yes. I personally support the constitution as it was and I am really disappointed by the present negotiations. Itβs a real shame that such great efforts were put in place only to disallow the people to have their say. And this coming from politicians that claim that EU should be closer to the people and more democratic. I think all EU citizens should be allowed to vote for this treaty. I hope that then the honest leaders will get engaged in a real discussion with their voters and try to explain what the treaty and EU in general is all about and why it is good/bad for them.
The promise referred to a different document and a different set of policies.
That's the point.
Mark, I would welcome a more detailed analysis of how the outline reform treaty differs from the constitution which French and Dutch voters rejected. If is 90 - 98% the same, which provisions have been dropped and which have been retained (even with a change of nomenclature)? Once we see that the two are virtually identical, the Conservatives are bound to promise a referendum if elected, so forcing Brown to do the same if he decides to go to the country within the two years or so that Member States are normally given to complete the ratification process. That is, unless Brown decides to ask Parliament to endorse the Treaty within the first few months of 2008 (assuming that it is signed by Council members soon after the text is agreed under the Portuguese Presidency). But I can't see him doing that. The UK is usually one of the last Member States to ratify new treaties (c.f. Maastricht).
BTW are there other general elections due or likely in other member states during that two year period? Any one country having a new government that is not prepared to endorse the Treaty will surely take us back to the situation after the French and Dutch voted no.
"it is an international treaty and not a constitution because any EU obligation can only be enforced by laws made by the national governments - there is no EU LAW-making body."
It is an international Treaty but that is not to say that it does not have constitutional impact. All of the Treaties have represented a contract whereby sovereignty is pooled or delegated within limited fields to supranational institutions. So long as we are in the club we have to play by the rules - we cannot refuse to implement measures on an ad hoc basis. This has been decided by the European Court of Justice and Accepted by the House of Lords during the 'Factortame' saga regarding the Merchant Shipping Act - an act of Parliament which was in flagrant defiance of European law.
As you rightly say we can leave anytime we like if we don't like it, but it would be grossly innaccurate to say that while we are in there is no such thing as an EU legislator. The EC Treaty made it clear regulations are law in the domestic sense, not in any fuzzy international sense, and this was later held the ECJ to be the case for all other binding Community measures.
While one can cite rare incidents such as France's refusal to pay fines for its illegal blockade of British Beef to the contrary this seems overwhelmingly to be the accepted situation: so long we are a Party to the Treaty we accept European law as law in the full domestic sense of the word. We accept that EC legislation has primacy over all national law except the sovereign power to renounce the Treaties and we accept the powers of the Court and Commission to enforce that law with judgments and fines.
In this respect Tony Blair was correct to say that that the proposed Treaty doesn't change the fundamental nature of our relationship with Europe: it will remain a Union based on conferred powers and what is more it will make the right to leave explicit rather than implicit. Nevertheless it does change some of the details and confer further powers. The question is how fundamental a change is needed for a referendum? Does it require a revolutionary change (in the Kelsenian sense) of the constitutional situation equivalent to the creation of a superstate? Or does it merely depend on the extent or nature of the powers newly conferred? Either way they are constitutional changes but the latter is less fundamental than the former.
"Every international treaty to which the UK is a signatory does that, whether with the UN, bilateral treaties, EU, carbon-emissions etc! Some "sovereignty" is given up for the greater good."
I agree with the main thrust of your comment but perhaps "given up" is the wrong term - I think it is better seen as being "contracted out".
"Also, the new treaty will not be as far-reaching as Dan Hannan suggests."
Dan Hannan's comments are often based on curious interpretations of the law...
The sad thing is many people in the Tory party genuinely see the guy as an authority and accept his interpretations without question.
If there were a referendum in the UK, who would be allowed to vote? Only Brits, or also nationals of other EU countries residing in the UK?
If one wants a referendum for democratic reasons, one might choose the latter option, as foreign EU residents have a direct interest in the UK's future position in the EU.
Given the frequency with which the British government hold referendums on Europe (i.e. every 32 odd years assuming we get one this time), I feel that the issue should be put to rest more finally. The EU founding members have been pushing for years towards a highly integrated, federal European superstate. The British have spent all these years fighting against that, trying to stay in the heart of Europe but dragging their heels and demanding vetos left, right and centre. Hence the image of the British as the "little englanders", and the calls for a two speed EU.
If the majority of the other countries in the EU want to completely surrender sovereignty to an EU superstate, who the hell are we to continually thwart their desires? Would it not be more honest to put Britainβs future in Europe to a popular vote and decide the matter for once and for all? A referendum question along the lines of βShould Britain resign from the EU integration project and try to negotiate a status as a privileged trading partner with the EU block β yes or no?β would at least then give subsequent governments a clear mandate. Obviously such a vote should be preceded by honest analyses of the two options and a national debate (without spin please β in my dreams!).
In any case, if we have a referendum on this Treatystitution you can be sure that the people will be answering the question above with their vote (among others relating to Brown I suppose), so letβs drop the ambiguity and do it properly!
Here's an idea. I think every country should have a referendum, but instead of being over a treaty that nobody will read, much less understand, it should be about the EU in general. It would look something like this:
These are questions that the average Joe understands and is able to vote for. There should be no referendums over implementation.
When building a bridge, first figure out if the bridge is needed. If it is, then let the engineers decide how to build it.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto Canada
Here in Ireland we will be having a referendum and I will be voting "No". There is only a point in voting for a national government and parliament if they will exercise powers. This Treaty abolishes 50 justice-related vetoes, thereby reducing national sovereignty. I am not conventionally a Eurosceptic - indeed I support the Euro and have voted for other EU treaties. But they had a lot to do with the Single Market or Enlargement. This time our politicians are again rolling out the argument that this Treaty is needed for Enlargement to work properly. As far as I can see, it is already working so why should we give up more of our independence? I agree with some elements of the Treaty e.g. more powers for the European Parliament to veto or amend proposed EU laws. But what really worries me is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It just seems so vague and clauses such as the right to collective-bargaining could be used to impose the failed French economic-model on us. I also don't think it's right that we are likely to be the only country voting on this.
The issue of a referendum is about history, predudices and emotions not facts or logic. Just look through the HYS over the last week. However what Dan Hannan says, given a little D.T. bias, is largely true, so what to do about it? Option one: do a De Gaulle -tell the U.K. electorate that they will keep their Pounds and other opt outs for ever - then drop them for the greater glory of G.B. as de Gaulle did over Algeria. Tough but managable. Option two: agree to a referendum. Here the fear factor comes in - nobody but nobody can be sure of the result. Get a Yes and you have wasted everybodys time and a lot of political capital. Get a No and the fun really starts.
The Euro Zone countries, lead by Germany, France and Spain have made it quite clear that they will go ahead and not be held back by Britain or anybody else. They have even put a 'you may leave at anytime' clause into the contract (draft treaty)to underline the point. But can Britain afford to leave? Do not expect Uncle Sam to come to pick up the pieces again, he has more than enough problems of his own.
@Thomas (30):
I have a much better referendum question. And we need only 1 (one) question:
-do you want to be part of a United States of Europe?
This referendum should then be held in EVERY EU member state at the same time. Any country that votes NO will then be free of BrusselsΒ΄ control and regulations. All who vote YES must bind themselves to the new federal state.
@ Mike (28), harry(26) e.a.
The following politicians have already confirmed the new treaty is at least 99% like the old constitution. Zapatero (PM of Spain), Merkel (PM of Germany), Verhofstad (PM of Belgium), Ahern (PM of Ireland), Giscard dΒ΄Estaing (chairman of the convention that drew up the old constitution), the Finnish minister for the EU, Jo Leinen (Member of the European Parliament) etc... etc... etc...
Brown would be pretty isolated claiming the new treaty is something fundamentally different.
Therefore the way is clear, a referendum in every member state and all newspapers and magazines should carry lists of politicians who claim the new treaty is the same as the constitution on their front page. The result would be an unprecedented defeat for Β΄ever closer unionΒ΄ and bureaucratic rule and a victory for freedom, liberty and national democracy.
Decentralization and deregulation now!
Thomas Patricio (#30 above) says that a referendum should ask simple questions. If the questions he poses were put to a referendum in the UK, most - if not all - would be answered with a resounding 'No'. Which is why our lords and masters are trying to ensure that we won't be asked.
History will judge Daniel Hannan as the Churchill of his age - a lone voice against the encroaching tyranny.
We MUST have a referendum because nearly every sitting MP was elected with a manifesto that committed them to holding one.
Saying that the lack of a referendum on Maastricht is good enough reason to not have one on the constitution is a fatuous argument - the signing of that treaty without a referendum was a disgusting, contemptible act against the British people - an act which bordered on treason.
There has been no democratic legitimacy for any of the euro-surrenders in this country ever since it became clear that the scope of the EU was so much broader & deeper than the mere "trading agreement" we voted for in 1974.
Mr Mardell, may I have an opportunity to put the case for referendums (especially in response to the issues raised by Mark Smith, Comment 11, and Duncan, Comment 15)?
The successful model of referendum (or direct) democracy is Switzerland. Studying it will answer all your questions.
1. In response to Mr Smith, a moment's thought reveals that simply electing a party to government cannot possibly reflect the wishes of the People in respect of all policies. What if the People prefer a policy offered by neither party? What if something new crops up? After all, the current Treaty wasn't even contemplated at the time of the last election.
2. In any event, elected politicians suffer from "principal-agent failure". Imagine, for example, if a barrister were to walk into court and say to the judge "Your Honour, I appear here today representing everybody." Anyone who claims to represent everyone ends up representing no-one but themselves.
3. In reply to Duncan, under direct democracy the political parties publish their recommendations on how to vote as a guide for the People. A moment's reflection reveals that this is just the same as parliamentary government. Parliamentary backbenchers do not - indeed cannot - read and understand every piece of legislation they vote on. They follow the recommendation of their party. The real issue is whether "parliament" should be restricted to a tiny minority of party politicians, or whether it may on occasion be "expanded" to include all voters on some issues.
4. In relation to the supposed "exit clause", under parliamentary government this cannot be activated by the People for the very same reason that the People get no vote on the Treaty.
5. In relation to Europe in general, the Swiss have concluded sixteen "bilateral treaties" with Brussels (several of which had to be ratified democratically by the People in three referendums held between 2005 and 2006 after the requisite number of voters - 50,000 - called for a veto). Switzerland is a member of "Schengenland" (immigration and security) and "Bolognaland" (tertiary education) as well as cooperating in many other areas. This "variable geometry" model of Europe (in which member states choose the forms of cooperation that are of value to their People) would be likely to prevail if other European peoples had access to democratic government.
At no time in the entire history of Britain have the People ever - ever - been given an opportunity to vote in a referendum on the type of government they want. They have been ruled by an absolute monarchy, then by an oligarchy of gentry, then by a clique of professional politicians. Who knows? If asked in a referendum, the People might in fact vote for the current system of parliamentary government. We do not know because the question has never been put.
Despite democracy's record of success where it has been implemented, there are still some people who oppose it. That is a perfectly legitimate personal opinion. But there is no self-evident principle - or even a universally agreed one - by which their opinions may be accorded more weight than the opinions of those who might support democracy - if allowed to vote on it in a referendum.
The supporters of referendum democracy do not insist that Britain become a direct democracy. They simply want to put the matter to a referendum and accept the verdict of the People.
Can the opponents of democracy say the same?
Mark,
If there is one good thing that has come out that Irish Supreme Court ruling and the referenda that followed in Ireland, is that the Irish people are well informed on the role of EU, they know what it is, and what it is not.
If only other EU member states would engage with their citizens on the benefits of closer integration in certain areas we would not have this fear of referenda.
The EU, for all its problems, has delivered so much for Europe, give it more powers and it can really deliver. EU citizens have nothing to fear...apart from a protectionist French President!
@John White (33): it's easy for Ireland to be enthusiastic about the EU, they are after all net recipients!
Spain is enthusiastic also but only on the condition that it remains a net recipient. Same goes for all net recipients. It is no coincidence that the net contributors are all complaining (and rightfully so).
The EU has delivered nothing we wouldn't have without it.
In fact, if we had a proper free trade area instead of the EU's overregulated pseudo customs union, all of Europe would be better off.
We in Netherlands also had/have a proper debate. The debate is typified bby the fact that the 'sceptics' are extremely well informed. And also, the EUnthusiasts come up with nothing but empty rhetoric like "the benefits are self-evident" etc...
There is no benefit the EU claims to have brought we couldn't have had with intergovernmental cooperation, not a single one!
After a brand new British Government has taken office without the slightest democratic legitimation it seems to me that the UK first of all needs a constitution for herself.
Any such constitution would need to define the relationship between the EU and the UK, and as it would have to be voted on by the British people, we would finally learn where the Brits are standing (frankly, it is not up to some tabloid journalists to define the British position).
The best solution would, of course, be an EU-wide referendum, ideally on the original text. But are Brits prepared to be overruled by those dreaded French or Germans or any other of the European tribes? I doubt it....
Having an EU-wide referendum would be like having a North America-wide referendum on whether Canada should be subsumed into the United States - the result would hardly be fair on the Canadians, would they?
It is up to each country to determine its own fate, not to be overruled by those who shout the loudest.
I agree with Niels Pace that a referendum on a simple question, but essential question would be useful. He suggests: βShould Britain resign from the EU integration project and try to negotiate a status as a privileged trading partner with the EU block β yes or no?β I would propose an even simpler question: βShould the UK withdraw from the EU?β. A country outside the EU has alternatives to negotiating a status as a privileged trading partner. One of them is to join the European Economic Area, like Norway, Iceland, etc. A bad idea in my opinion, but it exists. However, the result of such a referendum should not be binding without sufficient voter participation, a turnout of 75-80%. A parliamentary decision on such an important issue should not be reversed by the vote of a small proportion of the electorate. If the vote did not reach the turnout target, it could be considered consultative. If it also contradicted parliament, MPs would simply be required to vote on the matter again.
The Swiss system of direct democracy is admirable, but Stephen Morris over-idealises it. The Swiss are not as free in relation to Europe as he suggests. Much draft legislation is tested for βEuro-compatibilityβ. When the Swiss vote yes on an EU project, they often do so in the fear that a no vote will isolate them economically. There is some anxiety that the country cannot go on negotiating special treaties indefinitely. There have already been some close shaves (e.g., banking secrecy), and some fear that Switzerland may end up in the worst of both worlds: having its legislation and policies dominated by the EU without having much say in EU decisions. A better result would be to have the EU adopt elements of Switzerlandβs direct democracy, as a complement to the growing role of the European Parliament.
"If there were a referendum in the UK, who would be allowed to vote? Only Brits, or also nationals of other EU countries residing in the UK?"
I am pondering the same being resident in the Netherlands... Given that EU citizens can vote in local or European election in their host country and given that I am able to vote in local referenda I might by extension have the same right in European referenda. But then again it concerns the transfer of elements of national sovereignty and so may, perhaps rightly, be restricted to citizens.
To Marcel at 40,
"It is no coincidence that the net contributors are all complaining"
I am not hearing the Germans complain much, and the Dutch are only grumpy because they were jealous of the UK's rebate!
To Thomas at 32,
How many people in the UK actually know with any precision what a common foreign [and security] policy means with the meaning of the EU Treaty? My guess would be no more than about 10,000...
If we want a good decision to come out of a referendum we need a population who are all aware of the facts and arguments at stake. Through all the spin, hype and Dan Hannan how on earth do you expect the man in the street to come to a sound balanced conclusion that is in the nations best interest?
The problem with any referendum choice is that there are two very different questions.
Firstly "Are you in principle in favour of greater coordination of government and regulation across Europe to make your life safer, healthier and wealthier and the world a better place?"
Secondly "Do you believe that the current arrangements and these new proposals, with their reliance on agreements in private between politicians and lack of democratic accountability can deliver these benefits?"
While it would be attractive to campaign for the first objective, the problem is that the EU's current and proposed arrangements can't deliver the goods.
Alex Donald got to the heart of the problem. The EU structure is deeply anti-democratic and unaccountable both politically and financially.
The only sensible response from the citizens of Europe to any referendum question is "No more powers until you clean up your act!"
Yes Europe needs a new constitution and should adopt it by obtaining a majority vote from all countries.... but not the proposed one.
I find it interesting that those who object to a referendum on the EU constitution (which although dressed in a treaty's clothes is what it still is) because it is not in keeping with British parliamentary tradition did not raise their voices in protest at a referendum on the question of establishing a Scottish parliament. A referendum was a solemn manifesto commitment upon which this government was elected. Breaking that pledge will instantly undermine Gordon Brown's claim to be a new, more honest prime minister (which rings pretty hollow to most thinking people anyway, given his place in cabinet the last 10 years). Trying to deny that this treaty is not the old constitution in disguise is being undermined by other European leaders, so starting off his term with a blatant lie would be pretty foolish.
As most (probably all) politicians only care about their own political careers - even though as Enoch Powell rightly said they all end in disappointment anyway - the only thing that will persuade Brown to hold a referendum on the EU is a huge public protest which convinces him that he will lose office at the next general election unless he calls one. There are signs that this public outrage is starting to manifest itself through various petitions in the media and the number 10 website. As more continental politicians come clean about the sham of simply reintroducing the constitution under another name, this outrage will only grow in the UK.
There is no doubt that the 1975 referendum on the then Common Market was deliberately flawed and one-sided, which almost certainly influenced the result, but the opposition to the EU (as it has become) is much better organised, funded and informed today. I suspect that a referendum on any aspect of our membership of the EU would be lost, and Brown knows this. However, if in a hole the first rule is to stop digging, and unless he wishes his 10 year wait to be PM to end in one of the shortest tenancies ever, he would do well to draw this particular sting quickly. He is too shrewd not to know this. I suspect that he is hoping that those countries in the EU which are to hold referenda will once again kick this into the long grass by voting NO, saving his blushes, but the question of Britain within the EU will have to be faced one day by our own government. Only a fool thinks that this issue is going to go away.
Edward (#43), you are right that Britain would have a number of options outside the EU - not just the stark choice of "join the USA or die" that pro-EUs like to suggest.
I haven't analysed the details enough, but it strikes me that rejoining the EFTA might be a smart move (after negotiating our own "four freedoms" economic treaty with the EU).
An EFTA containing Britain would be better able to make Switzerland's (and Liechstenstein's) case for deregulated banking. This might go some way to alleviating Swiss anxieties over the EU, and have possible benefits for London as a financial centre.
Also, with Iceland and Norway, this would create quite a powerful North Sea/Scandinavian alliance - Denmark and Sweden might one day find this attractive.
A reinvigorated EFTA could provide a vibrant and attractive solution for those nations who desire economic cooperation, but are less keen on federation (e.g. Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic).
This approach would create a de facto "two speed Europe", without a unanimous decision from the EU. This would likely rile the EU massively, but one day federalists may thank EFTA for removing the spanner(s) from their works.
In addition to EFTA, Britain should also look to reinstate a liberalised trading regime to benefit the Commonwealth - we've neglected our overseas cousins for far too long.
To John (13):
"The people demand a democratic vote on such a monumental change to our constitution."
What Constitution? U.K. doesn't have one. But again, we are talking about informed decisions here ...
Brad Vrabete:
Britain does have a constitution, it is just not written down. The constitutional settlement in the UK has endured for far longer than many European countries have existed in their present form. It is the quiet confidence that this stable background has imbued in the UK (and particularly England) that raises such grave concern amongst her subjects when anyone decides to tinker with it, and even more so when they attempt to do so without our consent. At the very least we regard that as impudence and very bad form, and at the worst, a cause for extreme resistance. Europe has, within living memory, good cause to be grateful for British obdurance and love of liberty. It may in the fullness of time have cause to be so again.
Tricky things are referenda; take for example the process in the embryonic stages of the Scottish Assembly; the subjects of the United Kingdom as a whole were not asked, but the citizens of Scotland were. Like wise a referendum of the whole of the peoples of the island of Ireland was never allowed. The United Kingdom is not a Federation it was imposed by force on its subject peoples. It is therefore difficult for the subjects of the United Kingdom to understand what it is to be a citizen of a Federation. Couple this with a rosy view of the days of Empire. Those who invoke this nostalgia by painting a picture of the United Kingdom, once again the leader of a Common Wealth of Nations spanning the globe; are always well received. This view of the World is much more comfortable than the unknown and dark terrors of citizenship in a free democratic Federation. If a referendum were held on the restoration of capital punishment, the vote in favour would be assured; yet those on juries who face the actual decision to take anotherβs life would baulk. Holding referendums can only work when those who take part understand the question and make a decision based on a sense of responsibility and not out of revenge or fear. Ask yourself this question; βwhy are those who want to see the death of a Democratic European Federation, so in favour of a referendum on this subject, and not on any other? To quote G.K. Chesterton:
βThey stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads. The result is β well, some things are not hard to calculate. They stand at the cross-roads.β
To Marcel (40) - the point i was making had nothing to do with being a net recipient (though Ireland will be a net contributor from 2009). EU politicans need to engage with their citizens, in Ireland they had a 'Forum for Europe' which went around the country and held discussions in towns and cities for people to hear about the EU and raise their concerns. Does that exist in the UK? Poland? and other countries? I do not know but it was a very good idea.
Also, in general, I think the time has come for a two speed europe, those that want further integration and those that want a free trade area. It is the only way, it seems, the majority of europeans can move ahead. How many more EU Summits do European Leaders have listen to the Polish twins and their WWII comments? or the contant stream of anti EU comments from members states like Czech Rep or the UK? or it seems the Dutch?Europe needs to make progress as soon as possible, if we are to have any hope of protecting European economic success against the rising giants of Asia. It is time for strong leadership from the pro EU nations.
Madeup (Comment #42) states that:
"Having an EU-wide referendum would be like having a North America-wide referendum on whether Canada should be subsumed into the United States - the result would hardly be fair on the Canadians, would they?"
That statement betrays both your woeful lack of understanding about the treaty in question and a gives away the true nature of your warped perspective on the UK's current relationship with the the EU.
The document under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with subsuming independent sovereign nation states (i.e. the United Kingdom, France, Germany et al) into a so called superstate and to characterise it as such is disingenuous and mendacious in the extreme.
The treaty is primarily concerned with the functionality (or lack) of the EU's institutional architecture. The only constitutional element in the treaty of any substance is the creation of a legal personality for the European Union, thus enabling it to sign up to international agreements on behalf of the entire EU bloc of nations.
There seems to be a consensus (amongst the more informed contributors here) about the desperate need for a process of democratization amongst the EU's institutional framework.
I happen to share that viewpoint. The EU can only succeed in the long-term if it proceeds on the basis of legitimacy. Representatives operating on our collective behalf must be both accountable and removable from office via the ballot box (provided a fair voting system is used but that's another debate).
However, implementing such principles will have a profound impact upon Europe's democratic landscape because it will necessarily begin a long term process of Europeanising the political arena, creating a European space and fostering the emergence of shared European experiences. This feature in itself spells the end (eventually) of fully functioning sovereign European nation states as we know them today and perhaps that might be no bad thing in a highly volatile and globalising environment.
We should clearly understand the full implications of what we are discussing when we talk about more democracy in the European Union. I support it but I also have no fear about the emergence of a more unified political entity called the European Union, provided it is based on principles of democracy and decentralization, which it can be if electorates across Europe are willing to eschew pre-conceived ideas about the nature of the geo-political template best suited to the 21st Century.
Finally I couldn't help but laugh at the comment "It is up to each country to determine its own fate, not to be overruled by those who shout the loudest"
It seems like that sums up perfectly the basic strategy of those UK based groupings viscerally opposed to any idea of closer European integration, democratic or not; lots of heat but very little light.
The letter from Michael Lunt takes the view that when he was a young man the government made all the decisions and never held a referendum. If you did not like what the government did you boot them out at the next election.
But he misses the point.When the powers are transfered to Europe (without our consent) to then get rid of the government at the next election is like closing the gate after the horse has bolted !
Dear Mark,
Great blog! But are you sure about this..
"One of the reasons that it was so difficult for Tony Blair to resist the referendum call was that President Chirac had unhelpfully changed his mind and offered the French people one."
I thought it was the other way round - Blair's u-turn made it very difficult for Chirac not to hold a referendum in France.. thereby annoying Mr Chirac immensely at the time.. and more so after the result, no doubt!
Best,
Charles
Well said Phil M. I would love one of our leading parties to stand in an election and say we have a choice to leave the EU if we choose. You gave some good options but there are others. The people should have all options before them and then let the people decide.
If Brown does not let us vote on this latest policy with the EU he will be as bad as sleazy Blair.
Dear Mark,
Turkey must never be allowed to join the E.U. this is what night mares are made of.
They however will join because an unelected lobby group has ordered that they will be a full member, whith in 3 years.
That group is American aand British led, they are called the Bilderbergers or, CFR, OR RIIA.
that is the world government who is in power.
"EU"-lovers who read these pages and are horrified by the anti-"EU" comments should realise that the anti-"EU" comments in the real world are far "worse." People wouldn't post them because they are "illegal." The comments wouldn't get displayed and the writers could be in serious trouble.
"EU"-lovers! Many of you have something in common with people like me. You want Britain out of the "EU." Help us to get out and then you will find it easier to achieve your dreams.
Hi Mark, I like your blog so far. Maybe you'd be interested in addressing a gap in the media coverage of the new treaty. Apparently there's somewhere between 40 and 70 areas where vetoes will be given up (less for the UK). The number of new qmv areas is bandied around as a figure to support or attack the reform treay by different people. BUt there's little coverage of which areas are effected. There's a lot more JHA QMV voting, and some obscure committees are having their composition changed. But what is the complete list of effected areas? I haven't seen it anywhere in the media.