Hugo Robinson (London, Open Europe): As widely predicted, the Government - aided by a three line whip, together with a combination of threats, concessions and promises to Labour backbenchers - won the Commons vote on the Treaty of Lisbon. But has it won the argument?
As I have argued before, there is no consensus and no democratic mandate for the further centralisation of power that the revised EU Constitution represents. And when yesterday's events are reflected on in years to come, it is likely they will be regarded as a pyrrhic victory that damaged the long term legitimacy and stability of the EU.
The central argument for a referendum on the Treaty is this: it is a permanent and irreversible alienation of power from national parliaments - and it is because parliaments cannot in future reclaim these powers that voters must be consulted first before they are given away. Not only does the Treaty in itself shift significant powers to EU level, it is a dynamic text - a legal toolbox giving the EU the capacity to incrementally and radically widen its powers through a combination of structural reform, legislative change and the expansionary activism of a strengthened ECJ.
<!--more-->Proponents of greater integration are of course entitled to support these changes - but they must ask themselves a more fundamental question: what kind of Europe is it they hope to ‘construct' when the means for implementing these changes has been a shabby, premeditated campaign to avoid consulting the people by referendum?
As things stand today, we are confronted with a very stark choice between a Europe that genuinely represents the will of its peoples and one which merely reflects an elite vision of what Europe should be. The assumption that has underpinned the strategy of Europe's elites in trying to push through the Constitution is that voters are too ill-informed or too stupid to be given a vote on the future of their continent; but are nonetheless apathetic enough to mutely accept the latest dose of integration without being consulted.
Is there any truth in this? I Want a Referendum recently carried out 10 referendums in various constituencies across the UK, with 88% voting for a national referendum on Lisbon. This is in itself was not that surprising, as it is in line with most independent polling on the issue. What was significant about the IWR ballots was the turnout of 36% - an achievement described by polling experts as a "stunning" result for an unofficial referendum, and one which exceeded the proportion of people voting for the sitting MP in eight out of ten of the constituencies. It was a credit to the large numbers of people within these constituencies who gave up their time to hand out flyers on the street, organise meetings in town halls, send emails to friends, wrote to local newspapers and knocked on doors to spread awareness of the votes.
Unfortunately, on the part of the Government, there was no attempt to engage with, or even attempt to recognise the clearly expressed will of ordinary voters. Instead, the well-oiled PR machine instantly spun into action in a concerted attempt to pick apart, deride and dismiss the views of the 150,000 people who voted in these ten constituencies. Gordon Brown wheeled out the decaying argument that ‘millions of jobs' are in some way linked to the UK not having a referendum, and that in any case, no-one really cares: "People can see that in every other country except Ireland there is to be no referendum therefore there is no anxiety about the constitutional effects as people suggest."
The predictable Westminster sneer embodied in these ‘Government knows best' remarks could not be in stronger contrast with the local grassroots enthusiasm and genuine public debate sparked by the constituency referendum campaigns.
But such complacent aloofness amongst our politicians is pure hubris. As OK's Anthony Barnett pointed out those who would want to vote Yes should support a referendum. Otherwise nothing will heal the endemic cynicism that has crept into public life, nor will it reverse the deep-rooted and increasing disillusionment with our political system - especially in countries like the UK, where a specific manifesto promise has been broken.
Should the Treaty be passed, the retreat from referendums has implications for the viability of the European Union in the long-run. It is certain that some time in the future - be it ten, or fifteen years time - we will see a major crunch point, where voters in one member state or many are forced to comply with an EU measure they do not want, and can do nothing to reverse. Up until now, this has generally happened in fields like the single market, or health and safety regulation - and even then has been controversial enough. But if this realisation of powerlessness sets in amongst voters when the matter in question is, for instance, crime or immigration - issues integral to the relationship between citizen and state - the EU's lack of democratic legitimacy will be not only be manifest, but dangerous and destabilising.
If the Treaty enters into force without the mandate of a referendum, the inevitable reaction to unwanted Brussels laws will be, ‘when did I ever agree to this? Why wasn't I consulted first?'
At this point, the broken referendum promises will come back to haunt Europe's politicians. Without the explicit mandate of the people, the shift in power contained in Lisbon has the potential to tear the EU apart at the seams. The EU's path of integration by stealth has worked in the past, but voters in the Europe of today expect better than that: and there are limits to what they will tolerate in future.
Comments
Fair enough David. But you would agree this is a very different proposition to a UK referendum which could unilaterally block the majority of EU states if they wish to cooperate and integrate more closely with each other. Quite seperately the question must be asked: should referendums not really be employed when issues of genuine constitutionality or significant transfers of sovereignty are involved. Neither are the case as far as the Lisbon Treaty is concerned.
Gosh, it seems like an age ago, but didn't no-mandate Brown say something about listening to the people when he took office? Maybe he thinks he can get away with it because no one was listening to him (except the few of us who still take any interest in these things)!
David, aka Britology Watch
I have to ask whether Hugo Robinson has actually read the treaty? It gives national Parliaments powers they have not had before. It further strengthens the powers of the elected European Parliament. It opens the way for the election - not the selection - of the President of the Commission. It adds to the protection of citizens' rights through the Charter of Fundamental Rights (sadly not applicable in the UK on the government's insistence.) Would Hugo accept the outcome of an EU wide referendum open to all EU citizens? Would he accept that if the UK voted "no" in a UK only referendum that it could not prevent the other 26 member states adopting the treaty if they so decided? Would he accept that the UK would then have to negotiate a new relationship with the EU as changed by the treaty?
I could not agree with Hugo more. I have long felt that the pushing through of ever closer union by the political elites of europe will cause an implosion within the union at some point in the future.
With regard to this treaty; there are many groups within the member countries, especially France and Holland,who are somewhat agrieved that the treaty that they rejected has been brought back and they have not been asked again as it is likely that they would have said no. They are having to hope that the Irish will do it for them. If they do, of course, the Irish will be asked again until they come up with the right answer.
John Palmer askes whether Hugo would accept a EU-wide referendum: I would and would welcome an opportunity as would many within the union. It is time that the confidence expressed by the leaders was put to the test. If this meant that we had to have a revised relationship with Europe then so be it.
What the other countries want to do is entirely their own right as sovereign nations, but if Britain's current 80% - 90% who want a referendum on the surreptitiously revived EU Constitution, now renamed the Lisbon Treaty, then decide to reject this treaty, then that is - or should be - Britain's right also.
The astonishing thing about the Lisbon Treaty & all the previous one is how hard it is to unravel mistakes. If, eg, a right-wing government in a member country agrees to a EU proposal which becomes law, a successor left-wing government in practice can not withdraw from that law without causing what the EU calls a "crisis".
Countries outside the EU have this safety valve, but not EU members. Unless a country actually says: WE REFUSE! Certainly it seems that if France and Germany say "No", that's OK. But Britain isays "No", it s treateed as the whipping boy, who isn't allowed to say "No" - in case its rebellion infects the others. What a ridiculously undemocratic system! The sooner the EU collapses, the better!
A huge majority wanted a referendum. Labour sold British soverignty in Lisbon, easy to do behind closed doors. As with most politicians they are unable to admit they were wrong. A referendum would have resulted in, proposals to go ahead anyway, followed by an early election and certain defeat. No referendum means a later election and certain defeat.
Very short sighted.
The British people are not stupid, but they would have appreciated being consulted on this major change to our constitution.
Major change to our constitution Marcus? What major change?
Labour did not sell British sovereignty, it started to be eroded when Heath handed us over to the common market, and agreed to the draconian terms inflicted by the french, De Gaul was the power in the common market. Since then we have poured £billions of our taxes into subsidising foreign countries in europe, france was a net receipient until 2005, only the Germans pay in more than us, we have been net donators since we were dumped into it without asking the public.
The Lisbon treaty which is the constituion hands over a vast swathe of power to the foreign democratically deficient and inherently corrupt government in Strasbourg, i.e. the unelected commission, the euro parliament has no power to actually do anything it isn't told to, and the constitution does nothing to increase its power. Britain will become no more than the province it was in the Roman empire, national government will hold no more power than the present parish councils, and unelected eurobastards like barosso will grab even more power as the constitution is designed to do just that.
There should be a new definition odf a word in the dictionary, euro when used as a prefix or noun signifies, corruption, democratic deficiency, ineptitude, dishonesty, and greed.
John, what is not being admitted by the enthusiasts for this treaty is that it will be the last one as placed within is the right to change anything they like without having to come back to the member countries. Now I think that that is quite a change from previous treaties and deserves to be put to the people. Also, as Liberty has pointed out, every time we agree to changes, and don't forget that this government was elected by only 22% of the electorate, it is not possible to go back on them in the way we can by changing our own, sovereign, government. Was it not the case in the past that if we wanted to change the constitution then there had to be a majority of over 75% for it to succeed, or was that just a dream?
Given how driven by power politicians are, I don't understand why they are wanting to give up more and more of it to Brussels. If they had to run everything within Britain then they would not have so much time to mico-manage what they do have responsibilty for.
Post new comment