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.
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.
