Turning on Lisbon
Helena and Mads have both blogged about the distinct lack of coverage of the EU so far in the UK.
Yesterday, the Conservatives launched their campaign “to get Gordon Brown to honour his pledge to give the British people a referendum on the EU Treaty”.
But with the Budget announced last week, news that our public finances are spiralling out of control (and won’t be sorted out for two decades), announcements about reforming the highly controversial MPs’ expenses system, and the swine flu outbreak, it’s little wonder that the Tories’ campaign got hardly any coverage at all - not to mention the fact that the poster’s pretty rubbish.
If you haven’t heard, British MPs have come under intense scrutiny over what they claim for expenses, peaking with revelations of the Home Secretary (inadvertently) claiming for her husband’s porn films. This story has actually drawn attention to the EU, but not in a favourable way. After Gordon Brown announced his plans to reform the system, former MEP and current Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: “Giving MPs a lump sum for turning up at the office - that is what they do in the European Parliament.”
“Bringing the Brussels gravy train to Westminster is not the solution.”
(10 votes, average: 3.40 out of 5)
Loading ...
Hi, Etan!
This is an interesting poster. The slogan “give us a referendum” makes it sound to me like the Tories are demanding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU!
Of course, they’re actually only talking about a referendum on Lisbon.
This might just be the way I’m interpreting the poster, but I’m sure the Conservatives are going for the Eurosceptic vote.
Well - at least they’ve actually started campaigning!
Thanks for the comment Josef. I think to some extent they’re going for the eurosceptic vote, but it is much more an issue of holding Brown to his manifesto commitments. The Labour party promised a referendum and they have shamefully gone back on their promise. Most of the British public seem to have forgotten about it, but Cameron clearly hasn’t.
Was the promise of a referendum related to the EU Constitution or to the Lisbon Treaty? I appreciate the latter was specifically written to circumvent the rejection of the Constitution in France and the Netherlands, but technically Brown can claim not to have broken any promise.
Is there any opinion poll data on how Britons would vote on Lisbon if was referendum were held now? Given the turnaround in Irish voting intentions (brought about by the economic crisis) it might be reasonable to assume that Euroscepticism has lost some of its popular appeal in the UK as well?
@ Frank
I think the promise was on the Constitutional Treaty and not the Lisbon Treaty. You’re right that Brown technically hasn’t broken any promise, and there could be some justification that the treaties are different: there have been some changes between the two (though they’re largely similar), and legally they are of a completely different character.
While the Constitutional Treaty would have done away with all the previous Treaties and replaced them with itself as the sole Treaty base for the EU, the Lisbon Treaty is an amending treaty, which changes the current constitutional treaties (after which Lisbon as a separate entity ceases to exist).
(The constitutional treaties of the EU are the Treaty of Rome (EEC) and the Treaty of Maastricht, since they set up new institutions and competence/policy areas. All the other treaties are ammending ones).
It’s a difference that won’t matter to anyone politically, but it’s there.
Thanks Eurocentric. It may be ok for the tabloids to conflate the Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties, but I think we should aspire to a slightly more discriminating and accurate level of discourse.
Frank, I agree that “technically Brown can claim not to have broken any promise” but everyone knows that that is just a technicality. He promised a referendum and has broken it. The Liberal Democrats just as shamefully broke their promise.
What’s more, according to a (British) parliamentary committee, the treaty is “substantially equivalent” to the Constitution - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7034052.stm
They’re about 90% the same (if not more). All references to states or constitutions removed (no mention of national anthems or flags, etc). Some stuff was shifted around from the main body into annexes (no practical difference in doing that, as it’s still legally binding, but makes it less obvious)
I agree that if you make a promise for a referendum on the constitution, it should still apply to Lisbon. I have no polling data at hand, but my gut tells me it would fail.
@ Frank
Thanks. Still, I can understand the politics behind the referendum demands it since the two treaties are similar in what they set out to achieve, if not what they actually are. (Though I would argue that starting from scratch [kind of] could have significant practical effects - especially in how the ECJ could have acted).
However… [Warning: constitutional musings to follow]
The amazing thing about this question is what it reveals about the state of the UK constitution. Namely, that referendums go against the very basis of UK constitutional theory: in the UK the Crown-in-Parliament is sovereign; the people aren’t. Referendums naturally imply that the people are sovereign, so they undermine the authority of the Parliament and the constitution.
That the Tories - the supposed party of patriotism/upholding the constitution - are calling for a referendum shows how much the old political culture of the UK has changed.
This wouldn’t be too worrying in most countries, but in the UK the constitution depends on political culture and custom. Technically, there’s nothing to stop Westminster abolishing local councils and the devolved parliaments or even indefinitely postponing elections (though the last one would need the consent of the Lords). Basically, when all power is concentrated in the country’s politicians, there is nothing to keep them in check except their own self-restraint and loyalty to a political culture that respects local government.
Given the apparent lack of knowledge of basic constitutional principles (or worse - the presence of the will to overlook them for short-term political gain) in even the party that professed to be defenders of the constitution, I don’t see any real restraint. How long can the UK continue without a proper, codified constitution?
(Sorry that this has turned out to be something of a rant - I would like to see a codified constitution, and I think referendums can be a good thing. But is it too much to hope for the British to pick between parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty? Or to be rhetorically consistent?)
@ Eurocentric, Josef and Etan
Thanks all. I suppose I’m a bit cynical about the referendum demands in the UK because as you know they come mainly from Eurosceptic Tories who - as you say, have been THE defenders of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the Past. I wonder how happy the Tories would be to agree to a referendum on Scottish independence - i.e. if there was the prospect of a result they might not like?
If memory serves, the whole concept of a referendum was only brought in by Labour in the 1970’s to deal with the EU, Northern Ireland, and Devolution and has never been used for anything else. It simply isn’t part of the UK constitution or political tradition - at least until relatively recently.
So my argument is that if you want to change to a tradition of popular sovereignty, where Britons become Citizens rather than Subjects, then you should have a written constitution to codify and regulate this. Ironically the EU Constitution was the one chance for Britons to achieve this any time soon!
Having said all that, I accept that the refusal of a referendum now is every bit as unprincipled and expedient by Labour as the calls for one are by the Tories. Referenda will continue to be the instruments for opportunistic politics for so long as the rules determining when they are required aren’t written down by constitutional law. You can be damn sure the Irish Government would have avoided having one on Lisbon if the Irish Constitution had not required one.
now also eu web-cencorship?
http://www.masternewmedia.org/europe-under-internet-censorship-threat-new-eu-telecom-package/