EU Referendum

Showing posts with label referendums. Show all posts

Cameron+is+a+Cnut[i-Cameron+is+a+Cnut]The Tories will NOT hold a referendum on Lisbon but seek a 'manifesto mandate' to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU - so says Conservative Home in a shock announcement. And I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.

So where do we go from here? Or to be quite precise, where does the Conservative Party go? According to Tim Montgomerie, there is no point in holding David Cameron to his "cast-iron guarantee" as it was nothing of the kind. Once again, I am shocked, nay, stunned. A politician's cast-iron guarantee means nothing of the kind? Quick, somebody bring my smelling salts.

As it happens, I never believed that guarantee and have always assumed that Cameron would find some way of wriggling out of it. It was, Mr Montgomerie informs us, merely a promise to hold a referendum if the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty had not been ratified. As they did their best to make sure that the ratification went ahead their hoity-toity attitude now is unimpressive.

Nor am I terribly impressed by the implication that it was all the fault of the u-turning Czech President. He withstood a great deal of pressure with very little support from the Conservatives. I don't think he got much in that funny little agreement but that's another story. What happens in Britain does not depend on what the Czech President does or says. Blaming Klaus for Cameron's prevarications is low. I am surprised at Mr Montgomerie who is an honourable man.

What is it the Conservatives will be offering? What is it that makes Mr Montgomerie say that "DAVID CAMERON DESERVES THE CONTINUING SUPPORT OF EUROSCEPTICS"? Well, he took the Conservative Party out of the EPP and withstood the childish taunts produced by David Miliband, which were of no significance whatsoever. That's it. There is nothing else anyone can point to that would make us the people think that this man actually understands either the EU or Britain's role in it or, for that matter, what should be the next step.

Let us not forget that one of his first moves as leader was to drop the carefully worked out fishing policy that would have taken Britain's fisheries out of the devastating CFP and rebuilt the industry.

What they want to do is to get a mandate to repatriate certain powers. This would mean unravelling the Consolidated Treaties, as amended by the Constitutional Lisbon one, rewriting the whole lot and getting all the members to agree. Child's play for people who do not think they can unravel the Lisbon Treaty on its own. Particularly as the ultimate threat is not on the cards.

There is, of course, no need for a referendum about whether to renegotiate the treaties or not. It can be simply put into the manifesto, as one remarkably intelligent (I have low expectations) Tory backbencher told Mr Montgomerie. But simply saying that we shall go to Brussels and negotiate something or other gets us no further forward.

What will be renegotiated? Key powers, apparently. What are they, when at home? Well, errrm, the Social Chapter. That no longer exists, the various articles having been integrated into the treaty. What of the most important issue, the superiority of European over British legislation? So far, Parliament, who made that law can unmake it. What happens after Lisbon? More to the point, what is the Conservative Party's intention over that? Is that one of the key powers to be negotiated?

With whom is Mr Cameron going to negotiate? Does he even know? What he has in mind requires an IGC and unanimous agreement? Does he know that? Do any of them know how an IGC is called and how the negotiations are set up? More importantly, what will the Conservatives do if the colleagues do not want an IGC or, having gathered for one, refuse to accept British ideas? Will they start running around, negotiating, offering deals to the other member states?

So many questions, so few answers. Well, only one, really: you must trust the leader and his wisdom.

COMMENT THREAD

bono[i-bono]Not having the Boss's stamina I did not watch the Boy-King's speech though I did hear that they had a video of Bono (pictured) congratulating the Blue-Socialists on intending to spend even more of our hard-earned money to keep bloodthirsty kleptocrats in power. Way to go, Tories.

I gather he (the Boy-King, not Bono) made all the right noises, even telling the credulous crowds that it is the Left that has fallen in love with that unaccountable body whose accounts have never been signed off. Clearly, there is a memory lapse here? Allow me to remind people of a few events: the European Communities Act 1972, the Single European Act 1987 and the Maastricht Treaty, which was probably more important, even than the Lisbon one, 1992. All passed by the Left? Hmmm. Maybe he knew whereof he spoke.

Then there were the curious references to the referendum that the Boss has already written about. They are going to fight for a referendum. And the opponent is? Who is going to stop a Conservative government from passing the necessary legislation to have a referendum?

Ah well, there is this problem: what are we to have a referendum about? The Constitutional Lisbon Treaty may well be done and dusted by then and the Conservatives, having so recently told us that they will not leave matters there, are now, one and all, saying in a very condescending fashion (for they know better than we do) that there really is no point in opening up something that has been decided. Why have elections, I wonder, when the matter has already been decided once? It’s a good thing people in the former Soviet Empire did not reason thus.

This is, of course, typical of the Conservatives. They talk the talk but when they get to the start of the walk, they decide that the road has probably been closed off and they will just sit down for a while until somebody suggests another path.

Instead, voices are being raised for a referendum on many other matters, not just the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty. The Boss has already quoted the great eurosceptic Daniel Hannan on the subject. (Whatever you may think of Mr Hannan, he is not stupid and he knows a good deal about the EU though not always as much as he thinks. He must know that it is impossible to claim back certain powers without rewriting the treaties, which can be done only in an IGC.)

This morning I received my daily dose of Open Europe media references in which there is this paragraph:

Open Europe's Lorraine Mullally appeared on BBC Radio 5 this morning to argue that the Conservatives should hold a referendum on an EU reform package.

No longer on a treaty, a relatively straightforward proposition but on some mythical reform package. Does Ms Mullally not realize that EU reform is not in our hands, as this country is only one of 27 members? And if it is not in our hands, if our government can do nothing about it, why have a referendum on something quite so complex and so unattainable? Whether we ratify a treaty, on the other hand, is something we can make a decision about.

Over on ConHome one of their silliest and most ignorant contributors proudly proclaims that Brussels should not be so cocky as the Conservatives will sort them out: they will have a referendum on "our broader relationship with the EU".

First of all, dear Sally MacNamara, we do not have a relationship with the EU, we are part of it and what we need to decide is whether we stay there. The Tories have already decided that for themselves.

Conservatives do not really want a relationship with the EU based what we have now. If Cameron's tactic is to renegotiate our relationship with the EU by repatriating key powers – defense, justice, home affairs and employment legislation for a start – then he will need to head-off Brussels' inevitable pushback with his own 'game-changer'.

There speaks a woman who has not a clue of how the system works. What does heading off Brussels mean? What sort of pushback is this silly creature expecting? So we want to repatriate various powers, some of which are still intergovernmental, some will change from one pillar to another once Lisbon is fully in place, some have been part of the core legislation for some time? How are we going to do that? Oh right, by having a referendum. Then what? Has this dumb cluck heard of IGCs and treaties? Because nothing can be repatriated without the treaties being rewritten and that cannot be done without a unanimous agreement at an IGC.

In the comments she is praised by no less a person than Roger Helmer MEP for having the right political instincts. That, I think, disposes of Roger Helmer.

In the coming weeks we shall see other front organizations lining up to support the nebulous idea of a referendum for which they need to fight but which will not be about the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty but about repatriation of powers or new relationship or whatever. None of this is attainable and there will be no need for a referendum. But the talk will be talked with the hope that the electorate will buy into it.

COMMENT THREAD

In response to Lord Stoddart's written question about the euro and a possible referendum, HMG said:

The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains unchanged. As stated by the previous Chancellor in October 1997, “whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree”.

Not sure what those last four words mean. The people are unlikely all to agree. So, if there is merely a sizeable majority, will there be another referendum in order to achieve a unanimity? And what happens if HMG decides that the euro is a very different euro from the original?

Kate+Hoey[i-Kate+Hoey]At least 150 of them, possibly 200, is what we were told not so long ago. That many Labour MPs were threatening Gordon Brown, telling him that they would defy the whip and vote for a referendum when the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty is to be debated.

Our opinion on this blog was that those 150 or 200 or 5,689 or whatever figure you care to name, would disappear like morning mist and there would be half a dozen rebels left at most. Well, we were half-right. The 150 disappeared but the half a dozen was an overestimate.

Four Labour MPs, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer announced their support for the IWantAReferendum Campaign. They were threatened by the Chief Whip and two of them, Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer gave in. They withdrew their support for the campaign and, one must assume, for the notion of a referendum on the treaty, though we must wait for the vote on the amendment.

Kate Hoey and Frank Field are holding out and there are calls for them to be expelled from the Parliamentary Labour Party, whether because they disagreed with the leader or because they were insisting on the party honouring its manifesto promise, is unclear.

Frank+Field+copy[i-Frank+Field+copy]Meanwhile, Andrew Slaughter, the rather hysterical Labour MP and frantic opponent of the IWantAReferendum Campaign, of whom my colleague has already written, is becoming more and more ridiculous. You wouldn’t think that was possible but it is.

On the CentreRight group blog Greg Hands MP for Hammersmith and Fulham writes that

Now, in a remarkable escalation of efforts to prevent the Hammersmith referendum from taking place, Slaughter has reported IWR to the Metropolitan Police for allegedly breaching the PPERA sections relating to literature carrying an imprint.

As somebody who lives in the area I am absolutely delighted with the idea that the police will once again be directed away from chasing criminals or preventing crime. I was afraid if there were no more political shenanigans they might be reduced to doing just that. No sirree, they will spend their time working out whether IWR is breaching the PPERA (Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000) sections relating to whatever it is.

As the literature is not carrying a party political imprint, I cannot quite see how the complaint is going to be justified but it will keep the fuzz busy and off the streets so that’s all right.

Mr Hands gives his own explanation and it sounds reasonable to me:

Many readers will see two ironies here. First, this is the same Government that has spent the last 18 months believing that the PPERA does not apply to it. Second, my interpretation of the rules is this: no imprint is needed by IWR, as this is not a Government-organised referendum of the likes envisaged in the PPERA. These rules are for referendums like that seen in 2004 for the North East Assembly, or if there ever were a proposal to join the Euro. The irony here is this - if the Government did allow a referendum on the EU Constitution, as they promised before the 2005 General Election, then IWR would have to put an imprint on their literature!

I have already received my ballot paper. As readers of this blog know we are not convinced that the campaign will lead to anything by way of change in policies. However, I was, obviously, intending to vote and vote the right way. Now that my MP, Andy Slaughter, as he likes to be known, has made such a prize ass of himself, the need to vote has redoubled.

Spectator[i-Spectator]We are going through another period of fussing about referendums and it seems to me that I should try to weigh in on this subject. What with one thing and another, I have written and spoken about referendum – need for one and justification for it in a supposedly functioning representative democracy a few times.

In the previous posting I link to above I outlined my opinions as to why referendums are not un-British (many things are un-British until they are done in Britain when, lo and behold, they become British) and why at present, it is the only way to exert some control over the elected dictatorship we have instead of a democracy, though, of course, it is controlled by the unelected dictatorship in Brussels. (No, boys and girls, it is not totalitarian or even authoritarian. But it is undoubtedly a dictatorship. Many things are.)

So, it seems clear that, until such time as, rid of the European Union, we can implement a new Bill of Rights that will actually be kept by the politicians and not abolished item by item, possibly a clearly defined Constitution and a consequent Constitutional Court that will prevent MPs from destroying it, there can be only one controlling mechanism; only one way to ensure that there are some controls on the elected dictatorship we have now, and that is through referendums on important constitutional issues.

Moving right along there, the question arises of what it is we should have a referendum on and, at present, the most pressing issue is the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty.

There seems to be a widespread effort to avoid having a referendum on the subject even if it means having one on something else. On Thursday I wrote of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the newly re-elected Danish Prime Minister (a man, incidentally, with many admirable qualities) talking about holding another referendum on whether Denmark should join the euro some time in the next four years.

He has also suggested that possibly at the same time, possibly separately, there should be referendums on all those opt-outs that persuaded the Danes to vote the Treaty of Maastricht through the second time round.

For some reason, Open Europe in its daily press summary showed itself to be delighted with Mr Rasmussen’s comments, on the grounds that any referendum is better than no referendum.

Which brings me, very neatly, the subject that seemed to convulse the blogosphere yesterday: should we have an in or out referendum instead of one on the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty.

This was first proposed by the then leader of the Lib-Dims, the undoubted europhiliac Sir Menzies Campbell and has since been taken up by various luminaries, all on the other side of the debate. Yesterday it was suggested in his column by Iain Dale, who is not a europhiliac but a reasonably mild eurosceptic, which means he does not go as far as I do in his views on the subject.

His argument, as far as I can make out is that an idea of this kind would smoke out UKIPers and strengthen the Conservative Party. Tim Montgomerie, also a mildly eurosceptic Tory, disagrees with him on ToryBoy blog. According to him, the last thing the Conservative Party needs now is another split on “Europe”.

Our readers may be surprised to hear this but I do not really care whether the Conservative Party goes through any more convulsions on “Europe” or not. Neither am I too impressed by their obsession with UKIP. If the Conservatives had spent as much time attacking the government in the last couple of elections as they did blackguarding UKIP, they would have done considerably better.

From a eurosceptic point of view, I cut my teeth on the Maastricht Treaty and the debates around it. Therefore, I assume that the default position of the Conservative Party on the subject will be one I shall probably dislike. Can’t say fairer than that.

My colleague tells us that there are serious discussions going on in the party on the subject and a reasonable position may well be arrived at soonish. I don’t know about those discussions but I am assuming that as in education or tax and welfare reform, so in the European question – in the end the Tories will be too scared to do anything but waffle.

Where does that leave us with the in/out referendum? The instinctive argument is that we should avoid that like the plague and stick to demanding a referendum on the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty.

Ruth Lea, Director of Global Vision, spent a good deal of time emphasizing that at the Bruges Group conference a week ago. She also insisted that she was different from withdrawalists as she wanted to have a trading agreement with “Europe”. I have yet to meet a sane withdrawalist (I have, as it happens, met a large number of completely insane ones but they do not really count) who does not want to have trading agreements with European countries. It is not an either/or argument and I do find it a little annoying that I once again have to listen to arguments I thought were over and done with 15 years ago.

On the whole, I suspect that the suggestion of an in/out referendum will not be repeated by Gordon Brown or any Labour politician of standing. At one point it looked like Keith Vaz was being used to fly a kite. But our Gordon is not a risk-taker and a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU would be an enormous risk.

The europhiliac calculation is that people will be scared and reluctant to vote to get out and be out there in the big bad world. But a much more likely calculation is that most people will not feel strongly enough to turn out to vote.

That leaves those who are strongly in favour of staying in, those who are strongly in favour of getting out and those who will opt for one or the other because they feel it is their duty to vote in something as important as a referendum.

It is not at all certain that the figures will pan out in favour of the europhiliacs. It is a risk for both sides but I do think it is a bigger one for the government and an absolutely enormous one for the Conservative Party, which is why I suspect there will be no serious suggestions from the leadership on either side of the House to hold an in/out referendum.

COMMENT THREAD

Rasmussen[i-Rasmussen]Both Reuters and AP report a statement by the newly re-elected Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, on the subject of an EU referendum in Denmark. No, it is not a break-through for those who have been campaigning for a referendum on the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty. That is going to be ratified without any recourse to the people.

What Mr Rasmussen is proposing is another referendum on the euro, rejected by the Danish people in 2000 but for which there is a marginal support in the opinion polls at the moment. Marginal support will not necessarily transform itself into votes, especially not if the economy of the eurozone remains a little choppy.

Mr Rasmussen thinks that many things have changed and it is time to ask the Danes again (the last time they voted the wrong way) about that and about the opt-outs that they were promised for the second Maastricht vote (the first time they had voted the wrong way).

As our readers will recall, in the second Maastricht vote

Danish voters approved a revised treaty with clauses letting the Scandinavian country stay outside a single currency and banking system and refrain from joining a European defense structure or conform to EU citizenship laws and common law enforcement.

Is Mr Rasmussen running interference by trying to disarm those who are calling for a referendum on the treaty by promising a referendum on something nobody really wants except for the political establishment?

COMMENT THREAD

Undoubtedly we shall have a more detailed report from Our Man in Amsterdam (a.k.a Simon North) but, meantime, it seems that the Dutch cabinet has ruled out the idea of a referendum. Even the BBC has blithely assumed that the reason was not protection of representative democracy but a fear that the Dutch people will vote against the treaty.

Then again, the decision not to hold a referendum will have to be upheld by parliament so we might see a reversal. Over to Our Special Correspondent.

link[i-link]… a day seems to be a long time in Dutch politics. Last Thursday, September 13, politicians and the media were absolutely sure that Holland will not hold another referendum on the Constitutional Reform Treaty.

The government on Thursday received the long-awaited formal recommendation from the Council of State, its main advisory body that is chaired by Queen Beatrix.Although the official recommendation remains classified until the cabinet has discussed it, Dutch press reports have said that it's already clear that the Dutch will not organize a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty that is expected to be agreed next month.

It seems that the government had asked the Council of State whether the new treaty was a constitution or not, hoping that it will say no.

If the Council of State decides that the reform treaty still includes constitutional elements, then the Dutch socialists may call for a new referendum. The christian-democrats are against a new vote because they fear that the people will again reject the proposal.

Well, the best laid plans of mice and men …. The following day, the cabinet met to discuss the Council’s advice, which was not to hold a referendum because the treaty did not have any constitutional elements in it. Sadly, things did not go as expected.

The EUObserver reports that the cabinet decided to postpone the decision on whether to hold a referendum by a week.

Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad writes that the government's failure to take a decision on Friday points to internal divisions in the cabinet.

Prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian Democrat, was hoping to convince his coalition partners - the Labour Party and the small Christian Union - that a treaty poll is not necessary by pointing to the Council of State's advice.

But Labour ministers are reportedly under strong pressure from their party's parliamentary faction to back a referendum, with Labour's parliamentary leader Jacques Tichelaar publicly promoting the idea.

NRC Handelsblad also seems to predict that the Labour ministers can be bought off by other concessions but as that might involve the Dutch mission in Afghanistan, the concession might be too great for Prime Minister Balkenende to contemplate. In any case, why should we listen to this prediction?

Anyone would think these people were frightened of a referendum.

COMMENT THREAD

FlyingPigs[i-FlyingPigs]Otherwise known as “ritual huffing and puffing”, as my colleague so eloquently put it. And it does not come just from the Conservative Party either. Here are a couple more examples from organizations we have written about before. Well, three, to be precise and all from organizations that claim to be the leading eurosceptic one and raise money on those grounds.

First off, here is Open Europe, whose representative, I understand, was on yesterday’s World at One, demanding that Tony Blair call a referendum on whatever it is that is going to be agreed in June.

Their media summaries yesterday, understandably, paid a great deal of attention to Blair’s various interviews in which he promised to sign up to “a new treaty”, which will not be a constitutional treaty and, therefore, will not need a referendum.

One wonders how this is going to work. A new treaty requires an IGC, a European Council not being the body in which this is decided. So, whatever it is that Blair will be signing up to, it will not be a new treaty, though, probably just as dangerous as other agreements he and his predecessors have signed up to.

In any case, Open Europe and the other two organizations I shall deal with in a moment, were warned by those “extremist” eurosceptics, in whose presence they hold their noses, that this was a likely scenario. Various parts of the constitution will be pushed through in ways not necessarily noticeable to the political community and a small new document will be presented instead of the constitutional treaty with the assertion that it does not need a referendum.

Try believing us, ladies and gentlemen of Open Europe. We have a good track record of being right. Neil O’Brien’s comment remains somewhat inadequate:

This is a disgraceful attempt to wriggle out of the promise of a referendum. Tony Blair knows that the overwhelming majority of people would vote against giving away more powers to EU officials, so now he is going to take away our right to a vote.

More powers are given away to EU officials all the time and many of those officials, whether Mr O’Brien recognizes this or not, are our own civil servants and quango officials.

The only way of solving this conundrum is by beginning negotiations for exiting and then remodelling our own system. However, I am not sure that Mr O’Brien has changed his views on it from the time he and I were both on 18 Doughty Street and he made it clear(ish) that he would not vote for a withdrawal from the EU. I guess he and his organization are still hoping for that nebulous EU reform that will change the organization to something it was never intended to be.

Then we have the European Foundation, the “leading EuroRealist think-tank”, which describes itself thus:

The European Foundation has been at the forefront of debate on the European Union since it was established by Bill Cash MP in 1993. We advocate an overall policy of “yes to European trade, no to European government.” We believe that greater democracy can only be achieved among the various peoples of Europe by the fundamental renegotiation of the EU Treaties. The Foundation does not advocate outright withdrawal from the European Union, rather its thoroughgoing reform into a European Free Trade Area with political cooperation.

More tales of porcine aviation, in other words. Their chairman, Bill Cash MP, incidentally, is still blathering on about a German Europe as he has been for the last ten years. He could try reading "The Great Deception" but that seems an unlikely development.

They, too, are upset at the apparent development, which, so far, has consisted of Blair giving interviews. Like Open Europe, the European Foundation probably foresaw a great and glorious role for itself during a referendum campaign and this might not happen. (Maybe I am being over-cynical.)

The European Foundation, however, in its own words attached great and unsustainable hopes to the “new” treaty negotiations and the subsequent referendum, without, it would appear, realizing that any negotiation will bring in all sorts of demands from all sorts of member states.

The Prime Minister’s position in preventing public referendum on the EU Treaty is fundamentally wrong and democratically illegitimate. To make the European Union an institution which is beneficial to Britain and the other Member States, and thereby achieve greater democracy among European nations, it is essential for the UK to hold a public referendum and thereby renegotiate its position on the binding treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. Now is the time for the European Union’s thoroughgoing reform, not more mismanagement at the hands of a Labour government which has officially turned its back on the British electorate.

Give me the Commission any day of the week. At least, it knows what it is doing (mostly).

And so, with a heavy heart because I like the people involved and know what their private opinion is, I come to the shining new “business backed campaign” Global Vision. They, too, put out a press release yesterday.

They, too, as our readers will recall, hoped for some new negotiations during which Britain would be able to change the treaties and her own membership of the EU to a series of free-trade agreements. Sadly, this, as predicted at their launch, is not going to happen.

Ruth Lea is absolutely right when she says:

There is no doubt that any new EU treaty will affect this country significantly - especially if qualified majority voting is to be extended. Every treaty means further political integration in Europe and it is disingenuous or dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Of course, it may have escaped her attention that the biggest surrender of policies to QMV came with Maastricht, signed, sealed and delivered without any suggestion (from the government) of a referendum by the Conservatives.

There is no harm in demanding a referendum on whatever is agreed at whatever time through whatever channel but it would be terribly nice if these organizations looked at the whole problem a little more realistically and did not attach that many hopes to questionable contingencies.

COMMENT THREAD