A done deal
The champagne glasses were raised and chinked with a flourish as Gordon Brown said to the Portuguese prime minister, "Well done, youβve done brilliantly. Weβre very proud of you."
At 12 minutes past one in the morning, a delighted, smiling Jose Socrates declared that the Treaty of Lisbon would be signed on 13 December.
He declared it a victory for Europe that would take the EU out of a blind alley so that it could play its full role in the world. The commission president, himself a former Portuguese PM, Jose Manuel Barroso, declared himself absolutely delighted and said it was a historic agreement.
So the European Reform Treaty is a done deal. How Gordon Brown coped with the boredom, as others discussed details that were of not of the slightest interest to him, I donβt yet know.
The Bulgarians got the right to write the word "euro" in Cyrillic script.
The Italians have won an extra MEP.
And the Poles, on the brink of a general election, have a complex formula to delay legislation written into a legally binding protocol.
A last-minute hitch cropped up about the date the High Representative for foreign affairs would be appointed. That too was sorted out, so that the European Parliament has a say in the matter.
It's clear that the leaders, including Mr Brown, have an agreed line: the navel-gazing about institutions is over, it's time to move on to things that matter to most people in Europe, like climate change and the economy.
Referendum campaign
But will Mr Brown be allowed to move on?
Moments after the agreement, the shadow Europe Minister Mark Francois said: "In the small hours of the night, Gordon Brown has agreed the revised EU constitution which potentially transfers massive powers from Britain to the EU. He had absolutely no democratic mandate to do this and we will now step up our campaign to secure the referendum which he promised the British people all along."
Mr Brown will face similar demands from UKIP, some trade unions and some Labour MPs, to allow British people a chance to vote on the treaty.
It's absolutely clear that he has no intention of doing so. I canβt quite see what would force him to change his mind.
Prime ministers are only forced into a referendum by massive internal splits or the need to remove a contentious issue from a general election. He's not having a general election for a while and although some Labour MPs want a referendum it doesnβt divide the party.
He calculates that while the Conservatives' charge that he doesnβt trust the people may do some short-term damage, it's unlikely to still be hurting him come the time for an election.
The Sun breathes fire in todayβs editorial and threatens to keep up its campaign until the next general election. As it warns that Britainβs existence as an independent sovereign state has been extinguished, I presume it will abandon what it must believe has become the worthless charade of covering Westminster politics, and I look forward to welcoming its political staff as they are all shipped out to Brussels to report on the real action.
Scotland? Denmark?
While there are plenty of arguments - many expressed in replies to my postings here - why he SHOULD give a referendum, I've yet hear or read one convincing me that he WILL.
I suspect the prime minister's strategy is simple: head down, weather the storm. The issue will, however, surface again and again.
Heβll presumably give a statement to the House of Commons on Monday. Then he'll be back for a signing ceremony before Christmas. There are suggestions that the SNP might force a consultative referendum in Scotland, although I haven't yet checked this out. Some Lib Dem MPs might make it an issue in their leadership contest.
Early next year, the House of Commons will debate the treaty in detail and almost certainly vote on the demand for an election.
Pressure may build for a referendum in Denmark, and perhaps elsewhere. The Irish people will vote, and I have heard rumours British campaigners may help the "No" campaign there. But the odds are against such upsets.
I would never rule out a surprise. But by early summer Mr Brown can reasonably expect the treaty to be adopted in all 27 members of the European Union. After that he is probably out of the woods, unless there is some big and obvious European Union policy that allows campaigners to say, "We warned you."
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
Well done Mr Brown! Although why he even half-thought about holding a snap election in November in what he knew would be a post treaty agreement back-lash at home with the Sun baying for a referendum and/ or his head makes me wonder about his alledged powers of reasoning.
Ed Miliband, speaking on the Today program this morning, voiced support for Democracy in Pakistan. Meanwhile, back at home, he continues to deny us a referendum on the EU constitutional treaty, despite previous promises and despite the evidence that the vast majority of UK voters want an opportunity to vote.
Why is Democracy OK for Pakistan but not the UK Mr Miliband?
Mr Mardell may be right, perhaps Gordon Brown can get away with ignoring popular demand for a referendum; but he will have damaged our belief in our democratic institutions if he does.
What Brown is doing is tantamount to treason. He is handing over the power to effectively govern Britain to Europe, a bunch of unelected nonentities, without any mandate whatsoever from the British people. Labour PROMISED a referendum on a constitution (which would of course give him a mandate with a positive vote) and whatever anyone says this treaty document is a constitution is all but name. The people must have their say on this else Brown is not only a bottler but also a lying bottler at that. Reneging on your manifesto promises will play into the hands of your enemies. Wait and see.
I am FOR a fully democratic United Europe.
I am AGAINST a crypto-fascist Europe in which politicians destroy democracy at whim.
The Conservative, Liberal Democratic and other Parties must make this stand now for a truly democratic Europe and make it it abundantly clear that without a Referendum now they will REPEAL UK Ratification immediately on taking office whenever that may be and that if the situation does not then immediately revert to what it is now pending a full public debate and referendum in EVERY EU country then UK will leave the EU and form a new democratic body with any other member States who do agree.
They must inform all the other EU Governments and all the EU Institutions that that will be the case and that signing this Treaty without the full-hearted consent of the UK population will spell the end of the EU as it is and not its strengthening.
With this treaty, Europe is showing that the European project is on the move - now we can look forward to the future with confidence
Jose Socrates,
Portuguese Prime Minister
I've secured peace for our time
Neville Chamberlain
British Prime Minister
As the British parliament no longer has any real purpose other than to rubber stamp decisions made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels could it not now usefully be dissolved permanently having transferred its nominal legislative powers back to the Crown. The civil service would be directly controlled and paid for by Brussels.
Current parliamentary salaries and future index linked pensions would to the great relief of the tax payer, be cancelled and the media, as you say, would concentrate on Brussels where the true centre of power lies.
i expected more of you mark, than the cheap/snide shot about the sun journalists moving to brussels.... This isn't finished yet.
"The Irish people will vote, and I have heard rumours British campaigners may help the "No" campaign there." Surely even the UKIPers would see the irony in campaigning in another country under a banner demanding that foreigners keep out of other states affairs!
"But by early summer Mr Brown can reasonably expect the treaty to be adopted in all 27 members of the European Union. After that he is probably out of the woods, unless there is some big and obvious European Union policy that allows campaigners to say, "We warned you."
Or an absence of unified, common energy policy based on diversification if pres. Gazputin decides to play games with deliveries
of Russian gas@oil again.
It's not only the Tories who claim that there is a "transfer of powers to Brussels". The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's Fiona Bruce regrettably uses the same language.
Aside from the idiocy to call the European institutions "Brussels" (why can't the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ get the terminology right?, there is a very misleading suggestion in this wording. It implies that powers that the British people have are transferred to someone else.
The correct wording would be: "More decisions will be taken collectively in the EU".
Britain is still involved in this decision making, and not to a small degree.
People who speak of a transfer of powers to Brussels are obviously not accepting the very principle of collective decisions. This is not acceptable as this principle is the basis of the EU which the UK joined in 1973. It is also utterly undemocratic as it seems to imply that the non-British Europeans are not qualified to decide things that would also affect the UK.
I think we are seeing here the main problem that Britons have with the EU: They just won't accept the rest of Europe as equal partners. They are entitled to such backwards views, but should nurture them outside the EU like Switzerland. Being in a club, but constantly denying its founding principles is not a very decent and mature behaviour.
Surely this autocratic style of government has had its day in this fair land of ours - the birthplace of modern democracy?
Deals done 'in the early hours' in Lisbon, with a massive impact on our democratic future as a sovereign are swept aside by an arrogant prime minister acting as dictator in all but name. This is not the British way, does not represent our best interests and, in spite of the wishes of a substantial number of reasoned, intelligent and concerned citizens (and voters), expressed in a structured, coherent and measured way, such concerns have been swept aside as counting for nothing. Another, major, manifesto promise has been broken, and the spineless nature of Mr Brown, looking to weather the storm (through ignoring it), will drag on his term to its legal end β unless, Putin-like he unilaterally seeks to change the constitution for personal gain and glory. Surely we have had ten years of Tone doing our βthinkingβ for us, whilst weeking his own personal legacy at the massive expense of all.
I for one feel that, as Britons, we should 'think European', that we should work in close alignment with Europe, but not surrender yet more powers to largely unelected and faceless bureaucrats in Brussels.
We appear to have been sold down the river - this instance the Tagus not the Maas - yet again. A disgrace.
Just a quick side-note:
Bulgaria got the right to
(1) call the "EURO" "EVRO" as well as
(2) write it in Cyrillic script as "EBRO."
Point 1 was the real problem, point 2 not so much.
So it isnβt just a new way of spelling; it is a second name for the currency as well.
However I of course understand the reasons why British media arenβt that interested in details of the Euro...
;-)
Excellent coverage - I love the image of Lech Kaczynski holding everyone else up - the perfect metaphor. Hope you can get some sleep now!
Brown would only call a referendum if catches wind of some particularly horrible bit of european legislation scheduled for 2009, so he's probably doing his best to ensure that Brussels does as little as possible between now and the next election. Are there any troublesome directives lurking on the far horizon?
Anyone who have read the treaty and have a basic understanding of how the EU works, should be allowed to vote in a referendum... Everyone else: Nope.
We are being sold down the river it is time we stood up and said no!
Was there ever a campaign quite so intellectualy dishonest as that by the Tories and others for a referendum on the new EU treaty? While claiming the electorate must have a say on so "far-reaching a handover of power to the EU" (they themselves conceded no referendum when Thatcher signed the Single European Act) they know perfectly well that probably fewer than 1% of voters will have the faintest idea what they're voting about. This after all is the problem with all referendums, and it's why we hold general elections every few years - to elect parliaments to make such decisions for us. No, they're counting on people's knee-jerk anti-EUism, stoked by the overwhelmingly eurosceptic media (large parts of which are owned by foreign press barons), to get the negative result they want.
So Mark Francois immediately called for a referendum. But will the Tories tell us what they think about the treaty? If there was a referendum would they campaign for a yes or for a no? How will they vote in parliament on the second reading of the bill needed to ratify the treaty? If they were in government would they ratify? Will they renounce this treaty if they ever again come to power?
To talk about a referendum is to dodge the real issue.
Personally I find it absolutely disgraceful that sovereignty and control over our nation is being eroded by the European Union. Worse is that many of those running our lives from Europe are not even elected. It is the simple fact that the EU commissioners (amongst others) aren't elected that really concerns me most.
Having been involved in debates with MEPs and government ministers on this issue I do agree that European Union has a great deal to offer us. It just needs to be done right.
reply to Peter,
so forcing through a revised treaty which is generally agreed by politicians to be almost identical to the 'old' constitution is not also dishonest. The old constitution was rejected by 2 member states and should never have gotten to this stage. However the fact that it has just reinforces the view that EU does not like 'NO' answers in its headlong rush to a federal centrally controlled superstate.
If the treaty is that good for all 'europeans' then let us all have a vote on it.
A number of responders refer to democracy.
Democracy? In the UK?
When did we last have a government which commanded majority support of the will of people in an election?
Where in the world would a party that gets 36% of the vote and yet claims essentially totalitarian authority over the other 64% be called a democracy?
All that's happening here is that we are moving from an institutionally rigged system at Westminster to an equally rigged an incompetent one at Brussels.
An interesting test of whether our MP's care what their electorate think or that their own powers are being slowly but surely devolved away from them.
You mock the The Sun for exaggeration in saying Britain's existence as a Sovereign State has been extinguished. Yet Gordon Brown and his Foreign Secretary muppet have been saying for months that the Treaty is "totally different" to the EU Constitution.
Who is exaggerating more, I wonder?
In another blow for democracy, the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations 2007
were laid before Parliament on 11 October 2007, with no option of a referendum for the British people.
These dastardly regulations amend the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/1724) (βthe 1988 Regulationsβ) by substituting new Schedules to those Regulations in relation to the lists of weather stations and applicable postcode districts in Schedule 1, and alternative weather stations in Schedule 2.
This is tantamount to treason. The people must have their say on this. Surely this autocratic style of government has had its day in this fair land of ours - the birthplace of modern democracy? Perhaps Gordon Brown can get away with ignoring popular demand for a referendum, but he will have damaged our belief in our democratic institutions if he does.
Letβs face it, the Tories desire for a referendum is to embarrass and destroy Gordon Brown; it has nothing to do with βprotectingβ the sovereignty of Great Britain. If it was, the Tories would have a history of referenda throughout their years in office. Anyone who joins the Tory bandwagon should bear in mind the Tory motives.
Personally, I would like the UK to be immersed further into Europe; go all the way, in fact β go metric and join the Euro would be just the start. I would have us adopt all the social and worktime directives going. After all, Europe must be doing something right. It is the UK that has the highest teenage pregnancy, highest use of drugs. We have the old and the young pitted against each other in fear and resentment, and our quality of life stinks!
The UK needs to understand that our tabloids are creating a lie that we are the best country in Europe if not the world. Letβs start looking to Europe for answers; they may not have them all, but they have a damn sight more than we do!
Lets be honest.
Do you really really REALLY think you would be better if the UK was out of the EU?
If so, ask for a referendum to leave the EU. If not, shut up, stick with it and stop with the biased comments.
Most of them are just based on the out-classed and out-dated british sense of superiority.
Since when does a country pretend to tell 26 other independent countries what to do?
The Romans used to do that. Napoleon used to do that. Stalin used to do that. And now the fascist British want to do that.
Will you please get out of the E.U., start paying about 500 million euros each year in order to have a right to trade with the E.U as the Swiss are doing; and leave us Europeans at peace.
That is exactly what
Peter wrote "Probably fewer than 1% of voters will have the faintest idea what they're voting about". What a sickeningly elitist point of view. Presumably the same applies in a General Election where there are numerous and complex issues to get to grips with. I've never read the constitution/treaty or any other weighty document in the run-up to an election - like the vast majority of people I'm too busy getting on with life, but I'm still capable of forming opinions. Should we therefore be disenfranshised and let unelected politicians plot our future without any hindrance from the great unwashed. No-one ever said democracy was perfect but it took centuries to achieve what we've got. Why would anybody be anti-referendum on a significant matter such as this - unless of course they suspect that the great unwashed would vote in a way they disapproved.
Posters 15 and 16 have finally made the important argument that has been so missing from the referendum debate.
Every General Election we are reminded of just how grossly uninformed, ignorant and politically naive a huge number of British people are. We should not have a referendum precisely because I don't believe the British people can be trusted to make a decision based on the reality of the situation.
The Sun's scaremongering, and the opposition parties' pandering to fear of handing over our clothes to the rest of Europe, seem designed to provoke knee-jerk Euro-scepticism and inspire a vote of "No" to a question many people do not understand now and will make no effort to understand better during a referendum campaign.
And those talking about the death of democracy clearly don't understand how a parliamentary democracy works. We elect representatives every few years to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. Referenda are actually contradictory to that model.
Why are we surprised at this. Well I was a little - I was quite impressed with Gordon Brown. Never been a Labour supporter before, fed up with Tony Blair and what he did to our country. But I was impressed enough with Gordon Brown to change the way forward and lead the country! But with the under hand and dishonest way of handing our power to Europe, which we do not want to be part off is just typical Labour time and time again. Why cant we have a leader like Maggie, that had integrity, honest, and focus for what is good for Britain. We certainly do not have it from Cameron (school boy who knows little and inspires none). At least we dont have Bush to run our country - sorry, we did actually through puppet Blair.
Democracy in action.
We have a representative democracy, which works well on the whole (it could do with being proportional).
The opinion of the mob must be moderated and those calling most vigorously for a referendum have a (not so hidden) agenda - especially the Murdoch press. The Tory call for a referendum is entirely hypocritical.
Can someone explain the red lines? I would like the protection of a Charter of Human Rights.
The (New) Labour government promised a referendum on the Constitution. They did not need to have one, for reasons we all know. The Constitution re-appears, with a new name, as many "leaders" round Europe have underlined, but now it is not a Constitution, so we do not need a referendum. Politics stink and our present Prime Minister stinks even worse. He is a fundamentally weak man, wrapped up in his "psychological flaws" and personal ambitions, who thinks that to deny what is right is being strong. He will tell us that the new Constitution - sorry, Arrangements - change nothing, just as the British people have been told with each tortuous step on the way to the present lamentable situation. Thus is Britain being slowly abolished, by second rate mendacious politicians.
The Sun newspaper is a typical example of why we not only should NOT have a referendum, but in reality CANNOT have a FAIR referendum.
The Sun has been told by its owner to try and kick this matter into the long grass - and better still, inflame all the idiotic nationalistic tendencies we see in this country and turn them into Sun Readers!
And this is the problem with the debate. So many involved have ulterior motives, whichever side of the debate they are on, that the whole thing is skewed. A referendum would have all the integrity and credibility of that old joke about a nuclear war:
"And the Sun wouldn't care who pushed the button as long as she had big ..."
We elected this government and the members of parliament to decide. Now if the Tories think they are not up to the job of deciding (for instance it might show divisions in their own party) that is their own look out.
Put I want parliament to do the job we pay them for, not cop out and give it to a ill-informed and mostly disinterested British public.
I think the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ should commission a new poll:
Have you read the 44,000 word Draft Lisbon Treaty?
Do you intend to read the draft treaty?
If a referendum were called would you then read the treaty?
Have you ever read the two treaties that this draft is intended to reform?
Have you full understanding of the contents of the Lisbon Treaty?
Have you read the Summery of the treaty?
In the case of a referendum, what will you use to help you to decide how to vote?
Do you think a referendum will be to decide:
a) Should we stay in Europe?
b) Should Turkey be allowed to join the EU?
c) Should we modify the Maastrict Treaty with a new treaty?
d) Should we change the membership fees for countries in Europe?
I would be fascinated by the results!
Anyone concerned about democracy should note that the new treaty will improve the democratic accountability of the European Union. Under the terms of the treaty, no EU legislation can be adopted without, first,examination by national parliaments, second, approval by the EU Council of Ministers (composed of national ministers from national governments) and third, approval of the European Parliament (composed of our dierectly elected MEPs). This is a level of scrutiny that exists in no other international organisation. Anyone genuinely worried about accountability should focus on NATO, the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, the OECD and so on, which lack such accountability.
"This after all is the problem with all referendums, and it's why we hold general elections every few years - to elect parliaments to make such decisions for us."
Governments are not elected to make our decisions for us (although I agree Labour seems to THINK it is). They are elected on mandates of the way they claim they will act on out behalf.
Promising a referendum and then suddenly refusing to have one and claiming it is fine not to because of a technicality is basically lying to the electorate.
Just watch! Repeatedly ignore the electorate at every turn and eventually they'll give up and lose interest in politics altogether. Then, in a couple of years, the only people who will be bothered to vote will be the ones whose jobs depend on the state.
So now it is official - Gordon Brown cannot be trusted. A manifesto pledge is a manifesto pledge - there was no talk of red lines then. As far as I am concerned he (and the whole Labour government) are in power by electoral fraud. He will now be a one-term prime minister like Edward Heath.
Mike (post 15). Would you agree to your restriction on voting also being applied to the MP's who WILL be granted one in parliament? I can assure you that very few (if any) of them will have bothered to read the treaty text before voting! Have you? Because I have.
I just had a look on new treaty or to be precise on project as it is yet.
I could not find anything that would affect people everyday life at all. If we are talking about β transfers of powers β from national government to EU β it is just partly as everybody know that besides EU ordinary citizens live their own lives, elect their own governments and do their own home and foreign policies. Therefore, can someone explain how it affects our every day life? Has anybody suffered because of EU policies - lost jobs or benefits, discriminated or affected in welfare? I think that government should exercise a debate with 10 or more independent, educated people who would be familiarised with new treaty and explain to society how it works and how it affects British people life, what do they loose if loose at all and what is the benefit. Looks like we have forgotten what EU was made for originally β to be independent from USA money and price dictatorship and now Asia and Mid-East. Just imagine if US economy collapse like it was two or 3 times in it history - that would affect UK the most, as well as dependence of cheap Chinese made products. A single player could be week to resist all problems β together it is possible. Has someone asked himself why in UK there are no clothing make factories and other factories to be honest β has someone noticed how many even top brands are made in China and similar countries? Why there is, nearly, no more car manufacturing in UK? I think that to resist that pressure from cheap β made countries should be EU top priorities as well as people living in Europe. That was one reason why I voted βYes βto EU. In addition, there is a lot more to worry about in every single EU country along side with EU. In my opinion, biggest Euro sceptics are people with not enough knowledge about it or have no interest in it at all and that is scary.
The Sun breathes fire in todayβs editorial and threatens to keep up its campaign until the next general election. As it warns that Britainβs existence as an independent sovereign state has been extinguished, I presume it will abandon what it must believe has become the worthless charade of covering Westminster politics, and I look forward to welcoming its political staff as they are all shipped out to Brussels to report on the real action.
That's a bit of cheap shot there. Does faithfully trotting out the government line get you extra brownie points when it comes to figuring out who is surplus to requirements in the newly slimmed down ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ News organisation?
There's a lot of angry shouting down of people who call for a debate. Perhaps more effort should go into providing some factual and positive reasons persuading people why this is a good move for the UK. Reasoned argument, not telling people they wouldn't understand and just trust that the politicians know what they're doing. People aren't stupid, and they definitely don't trust the politicians.
Mark, Another great piece of blogging, Thank you!
I agree with you that Gordon will NOT call for a referendum and I think I can prove it:
Gordon Brown is by definition risk adverse (so you should be when you've be a chancellor for 10 years). When the prospect of a failed general election loomed, he decided not to risk his job by not calling the election.
Well the same reasoning dictates his decision not to call a referendum he would probably loose.
After that, the people of England might agree or disagree with his decision but unfortunately for them, it's irrelevant!
All these people going on about their "right" to a referendum really don't understand democracy at all. Referendums are actually quite undemocratic. A democracy is electing representatives to decide for you (as Mr. Brown and other EU leaders have done in Lisbon). It is not autocratic rule. this so-called "democratic right" to a referendum is ridiculous. While we are fairly intelligent as individuals, when we make decisions in large quantities (as a nation) we tend be no more intelligent than cattle. Referendums are tantamount to mob-rule, which is precisely undemocratic. Voters can have a referendum on the subject come voting day, because that is the closest democracy should allow such an event to occur.
People would want a referendum on everything if asked, many think that is how democracy works. Afraid not.
Anyone bothered to look at the details rather than shout "where's our referendum" will surely see the treaty for what it really is: A good thing.
Again we have unelected people, in this case an un -elected Prime Minister, making decisions that effect our whole country's interest. Why must we allow this.? we were promised our say by this man himself on the way our country is run, but as soon as we make any effort to reject one of his policies, he reverts to type and refuses to acknowledge our wishes. I am against this treaty and want to have a referendum as many others do.Let us have our own laws, not being goverened by Brussels.The Human Rights Bill, showed how we have to accept laws about our country that no one agrees with. So forget this Treaty once and for all.
Brown has underestimated the British public if he thinks he can weather this particular storm.
News coming from Europe will always be negative and from now on always with the additional point that this is a Prime Minster who lied to the British public, went behind our backs and sold out to Europe. Brown becomes directly responsible.
Furthermore if the government won't have a referendum there is the will and power from some people to create one privately. This is not unprecedented.
You cant enjoy the benefit of being in EU without joining EU.
We enjoy using european passport travelling all-over europe without visa.
Those that are not happy should give up there passport.
Well, so much for the thought that the "New Europe" will be a democratically-inclined one. When a significant proportion of the populations in the major European nations want national votes on this topic, the political pooh-bahs have once again said they will do their best to prevent such an expression of the popular will. This is not democracy, it is crypto-fascism.
Oh dear.. how have these awful Europeans managed to steal large lumps of our sovereignty? or, wait a minute, isn't it ALL nations in the EU that are having some previously sovereign powers transferred to the collective decision making apparatus? All this is jingoistic nonsense; either further integration between the members is a good thing, or it is not, but please stop trying to insult my intelligence by seeming to imply that it is only Britian that is giving something up, and not all members of the community.
The question about the EU and referendum shouldn't be about being pro or anti-EU.
It's about simple democracy.
Either we're intelligent enough to be able to appoint people to govern on our behalf, and so should be given the opportunity for a referendum if we so desire, or we're not intelligent enough to understand the EU issue enough, therefore not intelligent enough to vote who will act in our best interests, so the Government is null and void and we should get a referendum anyway.
Better we, the ignorant, decide, than those we cannot even trust, yes?
More than that, we were promised the chance to have at least some say in the direction the UK is headed with the EU, and don't get caught up with semantics saying that was about a constitution and this is about a treaty - fundamentally it was about the same thing, a major change in EU policy.
The fact that a party can be elected on a promise, then unashamedly stamp its feet and say NO NO WE KNOW BETTER once they're actually in power is unfair, unjust, and a damning indictment of our political system.
We do elect our Governments to administrate the country on our behalf, based on who best matches majority opinion, to save the populace the hassle of constant voting.
We do NOT elect our Governments to rule as they see fit, totally ignoring the public when it suits them, only having the chance to switch them after 3-5 years of office.
Pro-EU? Anti-EU? At this point, I don't care. I simply want a chance to have my say on something that will effect me.
If we vote and make a monumentally bad decision, then at least we'll deserve the consequences. As it is, I simply feel dictated to, more and more.
Thank goodness, and a bit of common sense, thats donw with. The E.U. can and will go forward in two specific areas. The fully committed, mor or less the Euro Zone will integrate further as they contine to build the strongest and probably the largest economy on earth. Also more and more countries will be able to join within a reasonable time scale.
As far as I can see, there is no logical reason why it shound not spread as far East as to include Russia and as far South as to include North African states. Marroco which has close ties with both Spain and France, has already expressed interest in joining at some future date.
So where does this leave Britian?
As ever, on the horns of a delemer.
Whether to make the essential political, institutional and legal changes to make a full commitment possible or not. And have no doubts about it, these changes are enormous.
These are core:
The introduction of a written constitution to which the whole society including Parliament and the National Goverment are subject. This would introduce proportional representation at all levels - national, regional and local. It would introduce a code of Civil Law and an independent Constitutional Court. The Constitution can only be changed or revoked to be by National Referendum. Regional Goverment to be resposible for Health, Education, Transport and Infrastructure within the Region and to raise and/or retains tax and other revenues to pay for them. Purely local matters to be delegated to the individual towns and villages.
It has taken a century of revelutions, civil wars, 2 world wars, death and destruction without parallel across the continent to make the E.U. possible and great vision to make it happen.
The Eurosceptics would have bleated whatever the Government had done. They are like a stuck record.
The ordinary citizen can breathe easy. The Treaty will have little practical effect on their daily lives.
This whole issue is just boring. Let MPs get on with debating all 152 boring pages. It's what they're paid for.
The best argument for a referendum is that Brown doesn't have the authority to sign this treaty. Our electoral system means parliament's decisions don't really reflect the will of the electorate. But our government can effectively change the constitution with a simple majority in a single chamber. Worse, because the monarchy rightly stays out of politics in Britain, there is no veto by the head of state. Few governments have this sort of power(Burma might be an exception, I suppose). If we do have a referendum, I will accept the result; otherwise I'll regard accession to this treaty as illegal.
Peter (16), at last, after reading through all the comments, one that makes perfect sense.
well done indeed Mr. Brown, it's indeed time now to focus on things that really matter for the people.
I have lived several years in England, and I love the country, but must admit that it's painful to see how public opinion is being influenced by the popular tabloid press with stories that are taken out of context, or even just lies (e.g; the role of the Queen as I remember from some years ago). So, a referendum in such an environment has nothing to do with democracy, it's all about making the most money with scandal stories for foreign owned media.
Whilst I'm not happy with the Reform Treaty, and not convinced by these "opt-outs" the UK has (I'm pretty sure that there have been several opt-outs in the past by the UK and other Member States which almost always end in the country in question opting in further down the line), I think its maybe a bit of a joke to claim that there are "massive" changes and that the UK's sovereignty has been eroded.
Such claims seriously damage the proper arguments against the Reform Treaty, namely the misplaced priorities. For me the Charter of Fundamental Rights is the most controversial thing found within it... I really don't think its a good idea to give the ECJ more encouragement to deal with Human Rights matters, establishing in effect a second Human Rights court in Europe, and the UK's opt-out here is pretty useless. In fact all these "opt-outs" say to me is that the EU is saying "right well we're going this way, you can stay behind for a bit and catch up with us later", whilst the UK is left standing there going "hold on guys, shouldn't we rest a little?".
And rest they should! Its absolutely clear as day now that this is not the only country in the EU that is sick of constant attempts to keep moving forward, when what is needed is to adapt the EU to a post-enlargement Europe.
Plus, as a European law graduate I have to confess - voting against the treaty would mean I wouldn't have to learn all these new article numbers!
Also, Ronald (10), I can't help but feel that view is a bit of a naive one, it is clear that the EU is quite out of touch these days and that it is an incredibly centralised regional organisation. Just ask any expert on the subject matter. Brussels (and to a degree the ECJ in Luxembourg with its general unwillingness to derogate its jurisdiction on EU law to national courts) dominates how most of the day-to-day matters of the EU are run. Of course national governments have the final say in most cases but to claim it is anything other than a centralised system of "governance" is just plain wrong.
As for the claim that the UK won't accept the rest of Europe as equal partners, it is all very well to say that, but the UK was a champion of the enlargement cause and unlike a number of Member States (which I'm guessing includes yours) we opened the markets to them from the get go. It is the UK that has made freedom of movement so real for so citizens of the new states joining in 2004, and it has been a key contributor to the success of the EU to date. Simply because it does not share the same view of how the role of the organisation should develop as France, Germany, Benelux and co, does not mean that its views are "backward."
I think that Cameron is treating us all like fools just as much as Brown might be. People seem to forget that it was the Conservatives that signed the Single European Act and Maastricht without ever offering a referendum to the British people. Indeed, history suggests that the Tories would do things little differently to Brown if they were in power right now.
It saddens me that there are so called democrats in this country who believe that the general public have only a right to vote on issues if they are intellectually capable of doing so. My experience of the the 'average citizen' is that they make up for lack of insight with good common sense. In any event people without the so called lack of insight will fall on both sides of the argument thus cancelling each other out.
The simple fact is that the European Union is fearful of democracy seeing it as a hurdle to its objectives. The lack of consent issue will eventually come back to haunt those that ignore it now. It may take years to do so but they are sowing the seeds of civil disobediance and unrest by ignoring public opinion so blatantly.
It would appear that crime and the enviroment and more important than democracy. They will live and learn.
I've been following this blog for weeks now and have a general comment to make on the subject on a Referendum, and on the original EU Constitution.
What bothers me about opening such things up to referendums is that, particularly in England, people will vote without really understanding, or worse, caring what that are voting about.
In my experience most English don't speak a second language and have little real knowledge about out Euro neighbours. In England the ability to speak another language is considered an asset. Many of my European friends, (thank you The Internet and Online Gaming), tell me not speaking another language (usually English) can be considered a limitation. It seems because so many do speak English and many English people don't see the point of learning to speak another language (for the record I'm struggling to learn German as a personal project).
Many seem to take a football mentality and vote against such ideas and constitution just because they see it just as a vote for England or not for England.
I wonder how many people in France and the Netherlands actually bothered to look at what the EU Constitution said, even in a more summarised way. And how many just voted no without a clue.
You can hardly blame Gordon Brown for ruling out having a referendum on the new Reform Treaty. For such an important treaty to be opened up to the masses to vote on, I would first impose a condition that people must first demonstrate that they understand what they are voting about first, whether by some form of test or otherwise. (Yes I know this is getting into dodgy ground).
Peter, you appear to have missed the whole point about the Tory campaign. Labour promised the electorate a referendum in its manifesto, the treaty is just the same as the constitution - with just a handful of words changed. In fact I've read plenty of analysis in the European press that make it clear that they are the same. Therefore Brown has a choice. If he does not hold a referendum, we can never trust what he says in his election manifestos again. This is the principle of the parliamentary democracy. We trust the politicians to run the country, because they tell us up front the general principles of what they intend to do. Hopefully the Lords will reject this treaty, since without a manifesto mandate the Parliament Act does not come into play.
Perhaps is time that those in Britain who are against the treaty and the EU as a whole, spare a little thought of the impact of the EU on our everyday lives, even more so when we travel to Europe or when they do business in Europe or indeed when then move to live in other EU country!
The EU is working on behalf of all its citizens for a better future.
The media paint (like almost on every other subject in the public domain) a very negative image of the EU or pretty much everything that is not British.
Enough of British arrogance, atittude and obviously ignorance on EU matters!
Once again the government makes decisions based not on what is good for the country but what is politically expedient for them. The decision in 2005 to promise a referendum on an EU treaty before UK would ratify it can now be seen for what it was. A cheap, cynical ploy to deflect criticism whilst shoring up their own vote. Once it had achieved this - it ignored the promise, despite warnings from all quarters. It did a similar thing with the UK constitution, legislating for a devolved Scotland - ignoring the warnings that whilst this might shore up the Labour vote in Scotland for a while it would inexoribly lead to a break up of the union. Evidence of English voters anger over this is now surfacing and anger over the broken promise of an EU referendum will not be far behind. I fear Mr. Brown is going to pay a very high penalty at the next General Election as a result.
Peter at post 16 is absolutely spot on - it's a representative democracy.
Are we to seek plebiscites for every contentious issue requiring a decision regarding European affairs?
This is a good Treaty for the EU and a good Treaty for Britain.
At last the EU can stop this institutionalised navel gazing and get on with what it does best. That is representing European interests in a world of rising super powers against the backdrop of major changes and major challenges.
Let the europhobes huff and puff about their daft referendums. They've shot their bolt anyway. More people stated their religion as "Jedi" on the last census than have signed up to newspaper-led referendum petitions.
Now Mr Brown must speak out about in favour of Britain's membership of the EU. He should articulate why it is beneficial for Britain to be a leading player in the club. And he must do it daily. British Euroscepticism is a paper tiger. It can be easily defeated with rational debate which spells out how the EU actually works.
Sweeping away all the eurosceptic myths which have built up over the last 25 years must start today.
"(The EU) could play its full role in the world."
Good, which problems that the EU has been ducking and left for the US to solve would it like to tackle first? How about Bosnia, Iraq, Darfur, Kosovo, Iran, tsunami relief, North Korea, Afghanistan, I could go on forever. Let the US bring its people home, close up its bases, and save some money while the EU assumes its "rightful role" on the world stage. And to think the only thing standing it its way was lack of this treaty. Hey Portugal, how about sending some troops to Africa. What about you Greece, how about protecting the South Koreans from North Korea's vast army? Hey Slovakia, how many troops have you got in Kosovo?
Only one problem, Europe is not only in economic hot water up to its neck, it is as stingy and self serving a place as anywhere on earth. When it comes to act instead of just talking, nobody is home. If it had to rely on itself for its defense over the last 62 years instead of the US under the guise of NATO, it would have become and still be a satellite slave of the USSR. One thing Europe CAN do however, talk. That's what it does best. Unfortunately, its hot air only contributes to global warming. Hey Europe, now that Kyoto is drawing to an end, what new GHG reduction targets have you invented that you won't meet either? 20%? 30%? 80%. Well it really doesn't matter, that's the real inconvenient truth. "Europe is and always was all show and no go."
Hopefully British euro-sceptics will head over the Ireland! Few thing are as useful in EU referendum campaigns than being able to (honestly) accuse the NO campaigners of being the stooges of British euro-sceptics.
Title II "Provisions on Democratic Principles"
Article 8a; para. 3
"Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen."
The EU lives up to its "principles", once again.
If the Tories are anti-this so much then he should simply make it a manifesto pledge to repeal it - anyonw reckon he'll have the trouser fortitude to do that ...
Referendums on a treaty are a waste of time - no-one in the country is going to read it and it would be a vote on the govt of the day and not the topic hence why thatcher and major both refused a referendum on constitutionally bigger treaties than this one
camapigns for referendums are political compaigns and should be seen as such
Mike (15) - Read the Treaty? Try it yourself (I have). The treaty is deliberately unreadable. But don't take my word for it. Here's what pro-EU ex Italian PM Amato had to say about it:
"EU leaders had decided that the document to be drawn up by an intergovernmental conference should be 'unreadable'.
"If this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any prime minister - imagine the UK prime minister - can go to the Commons and say 'Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum'.
Thank you Mark, for another reasoned article.
But as for the question of a referendum, it is no wonder that Gordon Brown does not wish to put the issue to a vote. In Ireland, there will be a reasoned debate. The Irish may vote in favour or against at the end of the day, but either way, it will be based on some evaluation of the benefits and disadvantages of signing up to the treaty as they see it.
Over here, we would not be so lucky. It is the very attitude of newspapers like The Sun and the Daily Telegraph - to say nothing of the attitude of many of the people whose comments appear above - that, sadly, would make any referedum carried out in the UK completely meaningless.
Rather than a rational consideration of the pros and cons of the Treaty, our population is subjected to such a barrage of nasty, xenophobic, anti-European nonsense and scaremongering of the teeth-spitting kind that only those who really take the time and trouble to inform themselves properly have any hope of understanding what they are being asked to vote about.
The reality is that there are many good things to be had from the treaty, as well as some dsiadvantages. Some sovereignty would be traded, but in exchange for power and influence in other ways - we play our proper part in helping cement the former communist contries into the European family and cement democracy and liberty in those counntries (as the EU has done aleady in so many of its existing members from Germany through to Greece), and we help reinforce free tading principals across the EU to name just two.
Of course, there are also some disadvatages. If there was likely to be balanced reporting then I doubt that Gordon Brown would deny the referendum some of your readers so want. But he knows that there is no chance of that.
At the time of tne debate on the Maastricht Treaty, the Independent published an excellent summary of the contents of the treaty, and the perceived benefits to and costs to the UK. As far as I recall, only it and The Financial Times adopted any semblance of proper factual reporting about it. I am sure it will be no different now.
If the Euro-haters are denied their referendum, it will be their own fault.
Ronald GrΓΌnebaum writes we are not being honest and full members of the EU "club". Well Mr Grunebaum, why would we be good members of a club, when we do not want to be in the club in the first place?
Brown has no mandate from the British people to negotiate on our behalf, and the team he has assembled would not be able to run a local authority successfully.
If the referendum comes back with a yes vote, then fine, but until Brown asks us what we want, he cannot make decisions on our behalf and on my children's behalf.
So British eurosceptics are going to come over to help Ireland's No campaign. Yes, that's a very sensible idea. I think most Irish people will take very kindly to a bunch of British people telling us what to do with our sovereignty.
Lets hope they do come along. It will be the surest way of getting the treaty passed here.
To what Peter says, I must add that no referendum on EU matters will ever be legitimately called democratic unless it is EU-wide. Or was it democratic for a wafer-thin majority of Danes to hold up the Maastricht Treaty when it affected the whole of the EU?
By the way, and to stay within nomenclatural matters, when is the media going to stop calling "Open Europe" a "think-tank"? Think-tanks are not usually in the business of setting up bouncy castles. And when they do, it's usually solely to entertain their employees' chidren in company parties, and they usually ensure that the compressor is strong enough. Unlike "Open Europe", they aren't called think tanks for nothing, you know. Just call OE the Brussels branch of UKIP and you'll be far closer to the reality...
Do you think the Sun has any sense of disappointment having 'won it for Labour' at the last General Election?
To me, it is a great shame that the government does not have the courage of its convictions by taking it to the people, whatever the semantics of the manifesto in relation to a constitution may be. Even if they are right, they are shown to be shown to be deceitful, albeit very subtly.
I think it's about time we had a regime change in the UK........Yo Bush...we've even got the Oil and WMD!
In an article on the approval of the reform treaty, the Swiss news agency ATS describes it as "incomprΓ©hensible pour les non-juristes", a hardening of an earlier assessment that it was "difficilement comprΓ©hensible pour les non-juristes".
Something that Gordon Brown may want to include in his statement to the House of Commons? Though I don't know whether the point is an argument for or against a referendum.
Were the Arrangements (previously known as the Constitution) put to the people of Germany, Denmark, Sweden or the UK in referendums, probably the referendums would be lost. Hence, there will probably be no referendums because "democratic" governments only have such things when they are pretty sure of the result. In reply to various other comments, if the people are too stupid to decide the main issues in a referendum, then I suppose we should abolish elections as well. Also, we elect members of Parliament to represent us, not to gradually whittle away our independence. With 60%/70% of the population apparently against the signing of these new arrangements, how can Parliament be representing us if it signs anyway?
I note in the various posts to this blog that the only benefit to Britain of being in the EU that is referred to is ease of travel. Wow! Is that what weΒ΄ve got for the over 200 billion pounds net that being members of the Union has cost?
(At todays prices - net yearly deficit + increased food prices)
When Mr Blair promised the referendum in 2004 he said that the Constitution did not mean a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU but that it was time to confront the myth-makers and the naysayers about Europe. 'let the question be put, let battle be joined' he said. Mr Blair wanted the referendum not to be just about the Constitution but about our relationship with the EU per se. He believed that when the pro-Europeans put the argument in a reasoned way then the British people would accept them and vote for the Constitutional treaty.
One has to ask what has changed? Why are the pro-Europeans so frightened of giving people a chance to have their say on the direction Europe is going? Do they not think that their arguments are strong enough? Yes many of the papers will be against the treaty but the Mirror, Guardian, FT and Independent will be in favour, while the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is required to be 'balanced' on the issue. The pro-Europeans will also have the firm backing of the government behind them. Is this not enough for them?
There are seveeral examples above of people saying that one can't have a fair referendum because people will vote "no" without reading the treaty, this is cited as the reason why the French and Dutch voted no in 2005. Why is it that pro-Europeans always assume that only those who vote no haven't read the treaty. Did everyone who voted yes read the treaty?
There are 50 new areas in this treaty in which the veto has been given away. many are small and unimportant but others, such as energy, are not. That means that there are 50 new areas in which I cannot hold my MP to account for what he has done because it is decided upon a European level.
Should the Tories have had a referendum over SEA and Maastricht? of course they should and sensible Tories realise that now. Better late than never. Those who say this is what we elect MPs to do are wrong. MPs are loaned the powers they exercise by the voters, they do not have the right to give them away to another body.
Maybe we are happy with this arrangement but why are the government brave enough to find out?
It has been obvious to many of us that Brown and Bliar have always set out to destroy the UK especially the English section; as such they are nothing more than traitors. Should any party, even a brand new one, promise to revoke this treaty until such time as it has been DEMOCRATICALY voted on, Ifeel sure that this would recieve enormous backing and put the wind up the other parties.
The EUSSR, the last bastion of 'progressive' woolly-brained socialists everywhere.
Gordon knows the electorate can't be trusted to return the right result on this subject and has sold us down the river.
He knows it, we know it, and he knows that we know that he knows it.
If the EU apologists are so confident of its merits, put it to the people and make your case.
Denying the electorate this opportunity over the past 30+ years exposes the weakness of your case.
SO now you will be members of the united states of europe, but without a constitution, bill of rights, or citizenship of your country (you are subjects not citizens).
Should have become the 52nd state of the America not the 13th of Europe.
So he's going to hand over the control of the UK to Europe. Does this make Gordan Brown officially a dictator?
I am fascinated by those supporters of this treaty who say that we should not have a referendum because we elect MP's and should leave it all to them. We vote on the basis of a manifesto. Labour's manifesto clearly promised a referendum on this issue, no if's and's or but's. I wonder if they would have the same view if at the next election a party promised to strengthen ties with the EU, but once in power actually took the UK out without any regard for public wishes? I am sure they would view that with the same outrage as those of us who took this government at its word in 2005 and now want the say that we were promised.
There is a vast difference between calling for referenda on everything like the Swiss, and expecting a government to honour an election manifesto pledge. If Brown gets away with this, then we may as well scrap all future manifestoes, let's just spin a coin at election time, or use Buggin's turn.
# 23
Are you having a laugh!
If we can get it in writing that we only need to pay 500 million Euro a year, to be allowed to trade, then we will break out the champagne and bunting.
We are already paying several billion( that's thousands of millions in case you don't know)to be allowed to trade with Europe. Its called our net contribution to the EU budget.
The man is a traitor and should be arrested at Heathrow on his return.
He seems to be still tramping the fields of the myth that was Culloden with his Scots. cronies. It's a shame and a disgrace his memory doesn't go as far back as his party's last manifesto. Is it impossible that in our so called democracy the Queen can't step in?
Armands Gelins, post 35, makes a very good point about the EU reform treaty / Lisbon treaty / little ditty - whatever it is called; in no way does the treaty affect our everyday lives.. So why do we need one? Why do we need the EU? Why do we need a super-state?
The EU is a 20th century solution to a 20th century problem... bless me it's the 21st century - let's move on!
A trade alliance.. that is all we need.
Mr Brown you underestimate the duplicity of the EU (remember keep voting till you say yes) your red lines mean nothing, for example, all the EU has to do is classify the "working time directive" as an health and safety issue and it would have to be implemented in the UK!
Without any reference to the electors,The British parliament has given up
sovereignty, power ,authority and responsibility to a none elected centralised
bureaucracy. It has done this despite what seems to be the majorities wishes. If
our government and parliament are unable or unwilling to carry out the tasks
required of a full-time sovereign government then their remuneration should reflect their part-time and reduced status with MPs and ministers housing allowance, a cut to nil, their income cut by one-third and a 10 year Cap on the
tax contribution of their pension.until such times they are willing and able to carry out their duties in full
I think it's not worth arguing with people who derive inspiration from the Sun but I am sick of hearing the idiotical argument about the "unelected faceless officials in Brussels". Those who reproduce mechanically the Sun mantra should think a bit more about the meaning of "representative democracy". The EU Commission is set up by democratically elected governments in Europe and it is accountable to the European Parliament which is elected by voters from all member countries. So there is clear line of representation.
You don't elect directly any of your officials either. Do you elect the Prime Minister? (never mind the present one came with no election whatsoever) Do you elect the individual members of the cabinet?
Actually, talking of representative democracy UK has the most archaic and, in fact, undemocratic and unrepresentative system. It is a country where the Head of the State is not elected but inherits the position. It is a state where the upper chamber of the Parliament is not elected with the members either inheriting the position or being appointed by the government (and the government is known to have awarded those entitlements for money). And, finally, UK is a country with no separation between the Church and the State with the monarch being at the same time the Head of the Anglican Church (never mind it's not the only religion in the country). So how on Earth someone from a country ruled according to tribal and Taleban-esque norms may at all raise the question of "democratic deficit in the EU"? It is either sublime idiocy or arrogance.
Dave @ 56: "Hopefully the Lords will reject this treaty, since without a manifesto mandate the Parliament Act does not come into play."
Incorrect. It's the Sailisbury Convention that relates to manifesto promises - the Parliament Act can be used for any legislation not originating in the Lords itself, whether it was mentioned in the manifesto of the government or not.
What's striking for me is that those politicians and journalists now demanding a Referendum, say very little about what would actually happen if they got their No vote. I wonder how many have even thought about it. There will be others who will see the Referendum as the next step to bringing the functioning of the EU to deadlock. They then hope it will implode.
I would have far more time for these people if they had constructive suggestions as to a way foward, but their mindset does not seem to go beyond just blocking. For example, does anyone seriously believe that the decision making for an organistaion with 27 voting members can be based on unanimity? Imagine any committee or board working on that basis.
Thank goodness there are some who are prepared to take responsibility, and think constructively about solutions, usually the Germans.
But well done Gordon Brown as well. I trust he understands the importance to our business of Europe, and also the need to maintain its stability and to enhance its influence in a troubled World.
James @45 is quite right β this is not a question of pro- or anti-EU. It is about the utter contempt of the ruling caste for the rest of us. And they wonder why there is a decline in turnout at elections?
Charlene@ 20 β itβs poppycock to pretend this is comparable to an obscure regulation. I suspect you know this β this is not a minor technical change, it is a settlement of the constitution. If your case against a referendum is so strong, why do you have to rely on this kind of misleading joking? Or are you actually suggesting that government is basically a technical matter, and thus democracy is a waste of time β we should simply allow ourselves to be administered by our betters and shut up about all this political stuff...?
Peter @ 16, etc: It is extremely widespread practice that any substantial change to the constitutional set-up of a country should be approved by unusual means β either a referendum or a two-thirds majority of parliament for example. And if you look, for example, at the French campaign of a couple of years ago, most agreed that the level of public debate and information was extremely high.
Funny how the Sun-readers crawl out of their holes to shout against the EU, while generally they are first group of slobs to use the advantages of the EU to go and drink themselves lazarus on Mallorca.
It is no wonder that Mr. Brown will not hold a referendum. The contents of even this site show that a referendum vote would have nothing to do with the question and more to do with jingoism and whether or not the voters liked the Labour Government. Referendum's are by their very nature flawed instruments used by pressure groups to exert their way over the generally more apathetic majority.
Excuse me. Did I hear someone say Gordon Brown won't hold a referendum.
Are we or are we not a democracy? We are not to be dictated to.Britain's collective voice is his voice. He has is not to have a voice of his own.
The devil in democracy is precisely this: That the representing leader can, and habitually does, boldly follow his own way even when the voice of the people scream otherwise. Bush and Mr Brown are clear examples of this. How does a democracy rectify this?
"In Ireland, there will be a reasoned debate. The Irish may vote in favour or against at the end of the day, but either way, it will be based on some evaluation of the benefits and disadvantages of signing up to the treaty as they see it."
Yes, and as everyone knows, they voted no. But just like Brown, the Irish politicians wouldn't accept it and had another referendum.
Wake up to the looming European dictatorship that will make Hitler and Napoleon look like amateurs.
I have no time for GB (the man, not the country), but the tired (and quite boring) analogy between him and Chamberlain (a Tory, BTW) is telling: Europhobes are really short of arguments.
I find it a shame that such a rich European culture as Britain stays apart, more and more from European construction, not taking part in the Euro, in the Shengen border-less zone and now opting out from the charter of fundamental rights (rights are a strange thing to refuse!)
I thought Britain had a profound idea about what appropriate behaviour should be in a club, what interests do you serve by taking part in an organisation and not applying its rules. Maybe you have a choice to make.
Armands Gelins wrote:
Why there is, nearly, no more car manufacturing in UK? I think that to resist that pressure from cheap β made countries should be EU top priorities as well as people living in Europe. That was one reason why I voted βYes βto EU. In addition, there is a lot more to worry about in every single EU country along side with EU. In my opinion, biggest Euro sceptics are people with not enough knowledge about it or have no interest in it at all and that is scary.
....................
Actually we manufacture more cars in the UK than we have ever done. Which reinforces my opinion that the scary economically illiterate ones are the Europhiles. What will finish us off is an uncompetative protectionist club run by unaccountable bureaucrats (i.e the EU).
A consultative referendum in Scotland? What an excellent idea.
The Welsh Assembly should hold one as well then Brown will be forced into a position of giving one to the English.
What might force him to hold a referendum is the threat of prosecution for breaking the 1689 Bill of Rights by allowing an EU potentate to have jurisdiction in England. Or for allowing a Foreign Prince (the president of France is Prince of Andorra) to have jurisdiction over England.
Gordon Brown is a traitor and should be tried for treason.
When will people get it into their heads that if you have a common market then you must, by definition have mobility of labour (or it's not a common market). Get with the 21st century and move on.
Post 68 is a bit of a laugh. "We don't want the British coming over to Ireland telling us what to do with our sovereignty."
Quite. That's the EU's job.
For the Sun and all those who do not know how to read the treaty, or want to get out of the E.U. this is a concise version of the most important parts.
The treaty will mean the EU can take decisions by majority rather than unanimous voting in 50 new areas including judicial and police cooperation, education and economic policy. Britain and Ireland got opt-outs in judicial and police areas.
Unanimity is still required in foreign and defence policy, social security, taxation and even culture.
The new treaty is a more modest charter when compared to the constitutional project. It amends previous EU treaty rulebooks, but also drops some of the symbolic elements of the Constitution such as formally recognising the EU flag and anthem.
A 50-article charter contains an exhaustive list of well-established rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, but also includes the right to shelter, education, collective labour bargaining and fair working conditions. It will be legally binding on 25 of the 27 EU members. Britain and Poland obtained an opt-out. The EU executive office will be cut from the present 27 members to 17. Commissioners will be selected on a rotation system among the states and will sit for five-year terms. Thanks Mark.
One certain Adolf Hitler must be kicking himself in his grave, throwing all those bombs when it needed only a Sun Newspaper to take over the country. Now seriouly folks,
would'nt it be better to remember the really great man, Winston Churchill and his vision for Europe?
How can you ever forget him?
I for one feel proud of him and for what he stood for. He in turn is probably turning in his grave listning to Cameron and Haig.
Ironically, probably the majority of "British" people on this site arguing against the EU would have been against the Act of Union of 1707 had they lived then!
48: "But with the under hand and dishonest way of handing our power to Europe, which we do not want to be part off is just typical Labour time and time again. Why cant we have a leader like Maggie, that had integrity, honest, and focus for what is good for Britain. "
This would be the Maastricht Treaty you're talking about?
I'm all for letting the people speak - but referendums, particularly after 20 years of scaremongering by the press, aren't the way to do it.
Mark is right there will not be a referendum because he knows it would be a NO vote because of a concerted campaign by the foreign owned Eurosceptic press.
Lots of the posters want a referendum because they want the opportunity to vote against the evil that is Brussels whatever the treaty says. They do not care whether Italy has 73 MEP's or 23, they do not care if the number of commissioners is 27 or 17, they do not care if the High Representative on Foreign affairs is mainly the same role as the existing Commissioner for External Affairs.
They just want out, they want to vote NO!!
Well that at least is an honest position but the idea that this new treaty changes things radically and irreversibly is nonsense. We have give up lots of vetos but so have all 26 other countries but not on new areas of discussion but on areas that were already decided in EU. By agreeing we keep a veto so does Malta or Latvia.
When was the referendum on allowing the Baltic states into NATO and thus committing us to go to war with Russia if it trys to reassert influence there at some point in the future?
When was the referendum on the radical reshaping of the NATO command structure which abolished several UK led commands and put British forces more firmly under US command?
When was the referendum on letting China into the WTO, and thus preventing us taking a protectionist controls against their goods and thus putting out of work the last of the textile industry?
If the Doha round of trade talks ever succeeds will we have a referendum before implementing it?
@ Ronald GrΓΌnebaum (10):
Every national parliament and government should have 100% control over legislation, not 6% or 12%.
According to recent polls, a vast majority in EVERY EU memberstate want a referendum on this thing (ranging from 63% to 87%), who are you to deny us one?
All of Europe would be better off without the EU, even the EU-philes know this, which is why they want to avoid a real debate. Their arguments wouldn't hold up in any forum.
@ Mario Curmi (23): can we (Netherlands) get out too? We're sick of subsidizing corrupt politicians from certain 'Club Med' countries.
You seem to think only British oppose the EU, well there are plenty more there. The 20th century taught us centralization and harmonization are bad things (think: fascism and communism). So why is it now happening all over again?
@ several (25, 28): in the referendum campaigns of 2005 (both in France and Netherlands) it turned out that those who voted 'NO' were significantly better informed than those tho voted 'YES'. Most 'YES' voters tended to have no idea what they voted for, and most politicians don't have any idea ever. Sovereignty is too important to leave to politicians.
@ Richard Corbett (31): your name sounds somewhat familiar. Your ludicrous claims sound familiar too. This treaty in no way improves democracy. Quite the contrary it strikes another blow at national parliamentary democracy by rendering it almost useless. And the existance of the European Parliament and European Council in no way makes the EU democratic. Those institutions only exist to give the EU a veneer of democracy.
Also, the organizations you mention (NATO, IMF, World Bank etc) work on the basis of intergovernmental cooperation. The EU works on the basis of supranational elimination of national democracy. They cannot therefore be compared.
Politicians should be reminded they have no popular mandate for transferring powers from democraticly elected national parliaments and governments to unelected anti-democratic EU-kommissars.
I repeat: NO MANDATE
It's not true that governments of Great Britain, Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, etc., don't want referenda.
They simply don't want citizens of those countries to say "NO".
If they had been reasonably certain those citizens would say "YES", they would have organized referenda in a New York minute.
Sorry, but it is rare to see a post quite as preposterous as that of "Marcel - NL" above. "All of Europe would be better off without the EU, even the EU-philes know this, which is why they want to avoid a real debate", is the claim.
Well, by binding the nations of Europe together in supranational structures the EC/EU has helped keep the peace between its members on this otherwise strife-ridden continent for more than 60 years. By eliminating barriers to competition in practically every sector of economic life it has raised overall prosperity and the living standard of every one of us. It is a means of jointly tackling issues such as climate change and international terrorism. Collectively it is the biggest contributor of development aid in the world, and through its common foreign and security policy it is working to export its ideals of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. By common consent it is a model for international cooperation and continues to attract applications for membership.
If you really think everyone agrees Europe would be better off without the EU, why do you think the EU exists? For the greater glory of a few politicians and to line the pockets of a few thousand eurocrats in Brussels? To annoy the Brits? Come on.
With regard to the "corrupt politicians from certain 'Club Med' countries": why is one not surprised to find that some of the EU's most rabid critics also turn out to be among its worst bigots?
Red lines?
Red lies!
Our new European Masters (as such they are effectively becoming) should look to their history books about what happens to "United States" which have long-standing internal resentments and grievances. The horribly bloody wars of the American Civil War, the Russian Revolution, the break-ups of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and the original UK (both the Civil War & the 'wars' for Irish Independence) illustrate what can happen if the people get too resentful of an overly centralist and dictatorial Government.
The European Economic Community was originally set up with the main aim of preventing another European War. The present, underhanded, methods being used to establish the United States of Europe that Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler failed to do may (Heaven forbid) just be the cause of the next European War.
@ Peter (110): I completely forgot to mention.
Of course politicians all around the world like the EU. It is their dream to also sideline national democracies and establish effectively rule by decree.
And of course countries want to join. They expect to be well paid for it. Wouldn't you join a club that promised to give you a sweet couple o'billion a year for the first 5-10 years guaranteed? And the politicians in those countries eye the well paid non-taxed EU jobs.
Neither the post nor any of the commentators - with the possible exception of Richard Corbett (34)- make any statement whatsoever about the contents of the present Reform Treaty. People either reject it out of hand or support it without reason.
What kind of discussion is this? What would you reply to your children if they asked you what the Reform Treaty is about?
Have you then asked yourself whether you're actually prepared to vote on it in a referendum? If you think you are, discuss the merits, please! Bring forward specific points you deem unclear, unneccessary, unlawful or whatever it is you're opposing or supporting.
Peter, well said (your post #110).
It's ironic that Marcel tries to project himself as the champion of democracy, while he cannot accept that other people disagree with him.
I also still remember his post about closing-off the Western Schelt as a way to protect Rotterdam's interest, so while he says to favor global country-to-country cooperation, it looks to me as he wants a return to the dark ages of provincialism.
To Graham Bukley: (#112)
Neither Napoleon, nor the German Empire, nor the Third Reich sought a unification of Europe. They were primarily concerned with national interests. The EU was the first example of a serious attempt for European unification, and tried to do so peacefully. Your statement that the EU's drive for unification (which has stalled and is unlikely to be brought back to life - for better or for worse) will trigger another major European war is just plain amusing. It is also alarming. Alarming that you have such a warped concept of history and reality.
@MDV (116):
The EU is 'unifying' Europe essentially by means of eliminating the law making powers of the national parliaments.
Why o why do people like you and Peter (110), Ignace (115) and many others think it is a good thing to eliminate national parliamentary democracy and establish in its place rule by decree (by unelected and unaccountable politicians we cannot remove if we wanted to).
Explain to me how you people think eliminating national parliamentary democracy is such a good thing? And do not hide behind Council or EP, because neither are fundamentally democratic.
I shall be waiting your reply (...)
Marcel,
first of all, we all do vote for the EU parliament. And you know well that the voters don't elect the goverment in the Netherlands, it's a goverment formed after elections with XX number of parties that can bring a majority, different from the system in the UK or US, where the PM or President are directly elected. And people then may say that the UK system without proportional representation isn't really democratic. All this to say that there's no one-size-fits-all for democracy. The way your asking your question is typical of the all-or-nothing approach you seem to like to take. I'm a moderate EU person, and would like to see many things done differently, e.g. the waste of money in the agricultural sector. But I do like the fact that the EU provides the framework for policies that otherwise would have to be done on a one-on-one basis, and only 2 or 3 countries in Europe would be big enough to avoid a master-subordinate position in such one-one-one dialogue. And I do like the fact that EU policies provide continuity, while country governments continuously undo/redo policies made by the previous government. And don't forget that your democratically elected goverment in the end has to approve the EU legislation.