October 11, 2007
Let’s get this clear: there won’t be an EU referendum
Why doesn’t Gordon Brown just say it? There won’t be a referendum on the EU reform treaty. He might as well make it crystal clear, because there are some - like the Daily Telegraph - that cling to the idea the prime minister might still put the text to the people, if he doesn’t secure all his negotiating "red lines".
On Monday the PM said that if all his red lines were not met when the treaty is finalised next week at an EU summit in Lisbon "we will veto it or say there has to be a referendum".
This is spin its its most juvenile form - and it left the PM’s official spokesman wriggling as he tried to explain it this morning. Think about it for a moment.
If Mr Brown was to hold a referendum on the EU treaty, that means he will have signed a document which he believes is against Britain’s national interest. Huh? And then what? Presumably he would have to campaign for a No vote - a rejection of a treaty which he had just signed in Britain’s name.
At least the PM was a bit more open later at a press conference when he said he would not agree to a treaty which did not contain all his opt-outs, opt-ins, protocols and exclusions. To make that clear to anyone who still doesn’t understand: there will be no referendum.
Of course, having "bottled" a general election, Mr Brown now stands accused by the Tories of bottling another date with the British people. And they have a point. I recently returned from a five-year stint as the FT’s Brussels bureau chief, and I can confirm that the new treaty is - essentially - the same as the constitution upon which the government did promise a referendum.
All the main ingredients - the EU president, foreign minister, foreign service, new voting system, extensions of qualified majority voting - are still there, albeit with some belts and braces for the Brits. The Commons EU scrutiny committee said as much in a report this week.
In spite of the political hit he will take, I reckon Mr Brown is right. The treaty will modernise the EU and make it more effective (admittedly a result europhobes will not favour in principle). It also strengthens the grip of member states on the Union - after all, the new EU president will be a creature of national capitals, not part of the bloc’s federalist structure.
Even if this treaty did represent a big transfer of power to Brussels, why on earth should this complex issue be a matter for the people rather than parliament? This is a representative democracy after all. The government got themselves into this mess, so I suppose Mr Brown deserves the opprobrium he will get for ultimately doing the right thing.
Hi George
The revived constitution will certainly make it easier for the EU to pass more legislation - indeed the whole point is to weaken members ability to block things they don’t like - but will that really make the EU more “effective”?
Look at all the different things that are wrong with the EU: trade policy, the CAP, the structural funds, the failure of the emissions trading system, the failure to follow through with promises to deregulate - etc etc.
The problem for reformers is not that there is not enough majority voting. The problem is a lack of the will to reform, and a lack of willingness of reform-minded member states to insist on it and campaign for it (e.g. the UK’s attempt to intervene in the 2005 budget discussions: too little, too late).
In fact making it possible for the EU to “do more” through limiting the veto and weakening member states blocking power under QMV will reinforce some of the EU’s worst problems - and lead to more badly thought-through legislative activism.
Cheers,
Neil
Posted by: Neil O'Brien | October 12th, 2007 at 1:25 pm | Report this commentGeorge,
You ask why this treaty should be a matter for people to decide directly in our representative democracy.
There are four clear reasons:
1. The Parliamentary scrutiny that some are speaking of in hushed tones would be a sham, because unlike the normal legislative process, Parliament will not be able to amend one tiny word of the treaty.
So while it may indeed scrutinise to its hearts content, any elements deemed unsatisfactory could not be changed.
Our democratic process would therefore not be working as effectively as it would usually, over domestic legislation.
2. Due to the ‘self-amending’ articles preserved from the original Constitution (former Art. IV-444 & 445), the treaty will hand EU institutions the future ability to re-write large sections of the treaty, increasing their own powers and removing further vetoes (all except defence), without such changes having to be ratified by Parliament.
It is not acceptable democratically for Parliament to write such a wide-ranging blank cheque of powers to the EU institutions without first directly consulting those they represent.
3. The treaty, whilst re-named, is still expected to retain constitutional elements such as giving the EU legal personality and an instruction to national Parliaments to “contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union”.
Michael Connarty MP, chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, has described this as “a takeover of the rights of this Parliament.” Can you get more constitutional than that?
4. The government has already conceded the principle of consulting people directly when the rules change over how we are governed. While there is debate over the degree, this treaty clearly changes those rules.
It’s simply too late to now argue that referenda are such a terrible ‘alien’ contradiction in our system of representative democracy.
What I’d really like to know is how trumpeting virtually the same ‘opt-outs’ as Blair purportedly secured on the original Constitution can possibly justify the government not honouring their original referendum promise?
Posted by: Stuart Coster | October 12th, 2007 at 3:12 pm | Report this commentI hope you were playing devils advocate with the comment, “why on earth should this complex issue be a matter for the people rather than parliament?” - as the same argument could be put to stop people voting.
I mean why let people vote in General Elections -after all they surely can’t understand complex issues and everything that’s contained in the manifestos of the political parties.
I for one have more faith in the British people - and given this is certainly no tidying up exercise the people really deserve a right to have their say.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | October 13th, 2007 at 3:14 am | Report this commentTo Jonathan Sheppard - well said!
The same arguments about ‘complexity’ were put forward by toffs and landowners in the days before universal suffrage, against giving the ’serfs’ a vote.
How disappointing it is to hear them being wheeled out all over again in our supposedly enlightened age.
Such comments are another signal (to go with its fundamentally undemocratic structure) that the EU ‘project’ looks to be ushering in a regressive neo-feudal era.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | October 15th, 2007 at 3:20 pm | Report this comment