Poland are ratifying – the Czechs will before 1st Jan.

So the Beeb says.

Having spent all my life being governed, extremely badly, by the incompetent and nasty clique that dominates London politics I say bring on the European superstate. I’ve seen London at work and I’ve seen Brussels at work. Brussels is more efficient, more fair and more open. By miles.

There is something deeply undemocratic about the fact that a tiny number of the population of one country – last year’s referendum in Ireland had a tiny turnout with a slim majority against, amounting to a number of people who make up 0.17% of the entire EU population) were able to hold up a treaty that has been agreed upon by the democratic governments of 24 of the other 27 countries involved and was a result of seven years of complex negotiations.

Having referenda on such complex international issues really is stupid.

[3] What’s complex about it? The EU wants to become a legally bound country, a collection of 27 states. Why else would they have provision in Lisbon for the office of President of Europe and a foreign office, there to negotiate foreign affairs on behalf of all 27 member states.

One of the jobs of national government is to protect the sovereign rights of the population. To give them away without asking the people whether that is what they want, as 24 out of 27 countries have done over Lisbon, is ‘deeply undemocratic’.

As to the article itself, I would like to know what Cameron would do in the event that Lisbon is in force – but seeing as I DO know that Labour and the Lib Dems are both pro-Lisbon, and that the official Tory line is anti-Lisbon, then that leaves me only one party to vote for if I am against the European Superstate.

#4 Well, UKIP may be a bunch of upper-class fruitcakes, but at least their position on Europe is consistent.

I’m against a referendum personally, (in fact, I oppose referenda government in general), but if this was anything more than political posturing from Cameron, he’d say “we’ll have a referendum on Lisbon if it isn’t ratified, and we’ll have a referendum on membership of the EU if it is”. A referendum on whether we wanted to be in or out of Europe would be more honest. It’s also what 90% of Tory party members want.

The problem is twofold –

1) Cameron isn’t willing to pay the political cost of the millions unemployed that withdrawal from the EU would result in (it’s all very well to pretend that all trade deals could be renegotiated, but the practicality of that is impossible, especially if you’ve just pissed the whole of Europe off by withdrawing from the EU!).

2) Continued membership of the EU is a votewinner for the Tories, because it allows them to rail against it and present themselves as the only mainstream eurosceptic party, mopping up the eurosceptic vote. Trouble is, voters are starting to see through them. If I was a eurosceptic Tory, I’d vote UKIP.

“There is a feeling among many (on both right and left) that there is a conspiracy involving powerful political and business interests to create a European superstate.”

Yep.

From past experience, Mr Pagar is on the right. I am not. But I agree very much with this article.

His dishonesty is exhibited by the obvious disconnect between 1 and 5 above. If he is against the treaty being ratified, why does he not commit now to a referendum if that would be the best way of influencing those still to ratify not to do so?

Sorry, but this is bollocks. A British referendum after the Treaty of Lisbon has been ratified and is in force could achieve nothing. What would the question be? Do you think that we ought to have ratified Lisbon? That’s an opinion poll, not a referendum.

If the Treaty hasn’t been ratified by the time of the British election, then the Tories can pledge a referendum, campaign for a no, and withdraw British ratification. Once the Treaty is signed and put into effect that option isn’t available. That’s not dishonest (like, for example, pledging that there would be a referendum in your manifesto, and then changing your mind would be) it’s a statement of the obvious.

The interesting question is what happens next. The left (and this is a fairly accurate generalisation as these things go) is making the assumption both that the Tories are still split over Europe and that Cameron isn’t really a Eurosceptic. The first is just untrue – when the media were looking for a dissenting Tory they had to ask Leon Brittain for fuck’s sake – and the second is just wishful thinking.

Agree with #7 Tim J, having a referendum on something that has already come into force would be absurd.

Disagree with #6 Tim F, this whole ’3 million people would lose their jobs if we left the EU’ is such rubbish. Why would we have to renegotiate trade deals if we remain within the free market? Switzerland and Norway are part of the EU trading area without being part of the EU itself.

TimJ:

If the Treaty hasn’t been ratified by the time of the British election, then the Tories can pledge a referendum, campaign for a no, and withdraw British ratification.

…or they can just use whatever parliamentary majority they have to reject it: after all, Parliament is sovereign and all that jazz.

Meanwhile, Tory EU poster-boy Daniel Hannan claims that Cameron has actually been seeking to influence the Czech decision by writing to Klaus. Hannan could, of course, be making it up, or Cameron could have written ‘Dear Vaclav: Having a lovely time, wish you were here’, or it could have been a begging letter to slow down ratification until after the UK election. It’d be nice to know which it is.

PS: TimJ – you’re correct to highlight Leon Brittain…but that’s indicative of how far the Eurosceptic/phobic wing of the Tories has taken over.

…or they can just use whatever parliamentary majority they have to reject it: after all, Parliament is sovereign and all that jazz.

They could indeed. And the first step would be to withdraw ratification (via either crown prerogative or a quick legisilative procedure) pending the result of a referendum. Or at least that’s been their stated policy since before the 2005 election.

Meanwhile, Tory EU poster-boy Daniel Hannan claims that Cameron has actually been seeking to influence the Czech decision by writing to Klaus. Hannan could, of course, be making it up, or Cameron could have written ‘Dear Vaclav: Having a lovely time, wish you were here’, or it could have been a begging letter to slow down ratification until after the UK election. It’d be nice to know which it is.

I’ve seen this line being pushed quite a bit recently – why does it matter what was in the letter? And why on earth are the left in the UK – who were quite happy for referendums on devolution, on directly elected mayors, even on Prescott’s ghastly regions plan – so desperate for there not to be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

why does it matter what was in the letter?

Because Cameron has an explicit policy of non-interference in the ratification process in other countries?

The left (and this is a fairly accurate generalisation as these things go) is making the assumption both that the Tories are still split over Europe and that Cameron isn’t really a Eurosceptic.

I don’t think anyone is making that assumption. What is in question is how far Cameron is willing to go in his Euroscepticism. There is clearly a growing tendency in the Tories – including but not limited to the ‘Better Off Out’ faction – which wants a referendum come what may. Cameron, being somewhat more pragmatic, would obviously rather not pick that fight, and also as a student of the party’s recent electoral history, is wary of being seen to be too narrowly obsessed with Europe. That won’t cut much ice with the relatively sizeable element of his membership who remain narrowly obsessed with Europe, and there lie the seeds of a faction fight.

Tim @7

Sorry, but this is bollocks. A British referendum after the Treaty of Lisbon has been ratified and is in force could achieve nothing.

Even if that were true you miss the point I was making.

The excuse he is making for not commiting to a referendum is that he doesn’t want to influence the Poles and Czechs. That’s the bollocks!!!

I really don’t see the issue with the Lisbon Treaty. It’s not as if we’re all a homogenous group of “British” with exactly the same wants and desires anyway.

At the moment, my life is governed by people that I’ve never heard of and have nothing in common with except that we speak the same language, live on the same landmass, and probably grew up watching Pigeon Street.

Whether those people are in Brussels, Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath, Witney, or Gloucester is beside the point – that’s the whole point of representative democracy. We all vote and send a representative to London, Holyrood, Stormont, Brussels or the G20 who we think is the least worst option. Unless we’re all going to revert to single man votes on every single issue – government through Twitter? – that’s the way it’s always going to be.

Actually, that’d be pretty sweet.

“Hang on, mum, I’ve got a text coming through – do we want to go to War with France?”

In fact, as far as I can tell, they want to actually cut politicians’ jobs and make it more streamlined.

TimJ:

And why on earth are the left in the UK – who were quite happy for referendums on devolution, on directly elected mayors, even on Prescott’s ghastly regions plan – so desperate for there not to be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

Well, there’s the ‘precedent’ argument (Major didn’t have one on Maastricht); the ‘constitutional’ one (Parliament is soveriegn, etc.) – though that does make me sound like David Miliband. Given that Blair promised Ruper– sorry, the people – a referendum before the process went pear-shaped (and Blair left office), as far as the government is concerned it’s not so much ‘desperate’ as ‘expedient’. What ‘the left’ think is another matter as it’s not the same as New Labour.

Bring on the euro, I say. The only people who’ll miss out will be Travelex and Forex traders, both of whom are acceptable losses. We’ll be able to import and export freely without distortion, buy online without comission, and be able to have true like for like comparisons on purchase decisions.

Mind you, Labour promised a referendum on the Euro back in 1996, so I’ve not got my fingers crossed..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-referendum-move-turns-single-currency-heat-on-tories-1352954.html

Well, there’s the ‘precedent’ argument (Major didn’t have one on Maastricht);

but there was the “should we remain in the EC?” referendum in ’75 and there have been a number of referendums on other issues.

the ‘constitutional’ one (Parliament is soveriegn, etc.)

Sure but we have had a number of referendums and having one doesn’t mean Parliament cannot overturn the result.

as far as the government is concerned it’s not so much ‘desperate’ as ‘expedient’.

Quite.

ukliberty: “but there was the “should we remain in the EC?” referendum in ‘75 [snip].”

…and some Tories (well, Daniel Hannan) seem to think they they want another such referendum because they were still in nappies at the time. (Can one be born a Eurosceptic? Is EU membership on a renewable basis?) The only pattern emerging on this issue is one of inconsistency, if not expediency, which seems to be very British (like having an unwritten constitution that somehow ‘just works’).

18 – Well the Irish got another go, and they only voted last year.

TimJ – you see what I mean about inconsistency? The Eurosceptics/phobes would want an ‘EU: In or Out?’ poll every so often until they got the answer they wanted.

I think they would get the answer they wanted first time!

20 – you mean like the Euro-philes/federasts do? It ought to be a reasonable proposition that any country’s relations with an evolving supra-national body should be open to re-assessment. The referendum in 75 was about entry to the EEC – that’s been comprehensively overtaken by events.

I suspect that in an ‘in or out’ referendum there would still be a majority for ‘in’. For how much longer that is the case is open to question.

@ LettersfromaTory #8

Why would we have to renegotiate trade deals if we remain within the free market? Switzerland and Norway are part of the EU trading area without being part of the EU itself.

I see it’s educate the Tory europhobe time again.

Both Switzerland and Norway pay to be members of the European Free Trade area (EFTA) (famously Norway’s net contrubutions were higher per capita than our own) which implements EU law WITHOUT the attendant benefits of full EU membership like, oh I don’t know, actually getting a vote on those laws!

For a country the size and complexity of the UK to demote itself down the league table of international institutions in the manner desired by your deluded Tory eurosceptic brethren would be disastrous.

Simple question – can Norway and Switzerland set their own VAT rates or not?

So, instead of being lazy, some googling has answered my own question.

Minimum EU standard VAT rate (centrally directed) is 15%.

Swiss is 7.6%.

Seems a pretty important EU law not to be subject to…

But the Tories opposed Labour’s VAT cut! (Well, most of them, obviously Ken Clarke supported it)

Thats not quite the point…if anyone had wanted to cut below 15% it wouldn’t have been allowed…

Fact is that Norway is bound by laws which directly affect trade (labelling, product standards etc.), nothing more.

Switz is even less hidebound.

redpesto,

ukliberty: “but there was the “should we remain in the EC?” referendum in ‘75 [snip].”

…and some Tories (well, Daniel Hannan) seem to think they they want another such referendum because they were still in nappies at the time. (Can one be born a Eurosceptic? Is EU membership on a renewable basis?) The only pattern emerging on this issue is one of inconsistency, if not expediency, which seems to be very British (like having an unwritten constitution that somehow ‘just works’).

The referendum in 1975 was about staying in the EEC, not whether we should ratify the Lisbon Treaty, but in any case I don’t see what’s wrong with giving new members of the population a vote.

Perhaps we shouldn’t have set the precedent in the first instance, but the argument is that fundamental, constitutional changes should be put directly to the people (I’m not sure either way) – and, as I mentioned, there have been other referendums in the UK.

The Eurosceptics/phobes would want an ‘EU: In or Out?’ poll every so often until they got the answer they wanted.

I’m sure they would – as did the Europhiles with Ireland.

Politicians want what they think is politically expedient (and bears are Catholic) – which is why we haven’t had a referendum here despite being promised one by all three main parties, one of which formed the Government – the same one that promised a referendum on voting reform and didn’t follow through, but never mind.

(let’s not go through how the promise wasn’t broken because the Lisbon Treaty is different from the Consitution blah blah blah – it’s been done to death)

I’m not particularly for referendums – our elected representatives are supposed to be competent to decide these things on our behalf. But some of our beloved leaders have admitted (and they are the honest ones) they haven’t read the Lisbon Treaty but support it regardless, so how can we have faith in them that they are competent to make this decision on our behalf? From this point of view we may as well have a referendum (and not have another one for say five years), because it seems to me the public are just as competent.

“The referendum in 1975 was about staying in the EEC, not whether we should ratify the Lisbon Treaty, but in any case I don’t see what’s wrong with giving new members of the population a vote.”

The idea that because a set of people easily three generations older than us decided on something in a referendum, we shouldn’t be able to have our own say as a new and upcoming population too is absurd.

But then the idea that membership to something as important to the EU should be based on a referendum rather than politics and facts rather than populism is also absurd.

To make the holy trinity of ridiculousness, however, is the absurdity of a body being able to take away accountability and control from its members because of the political implication of saying “no” and/or not following the party whips.

It makes a wholly insane circle of political failure as far as I’m concerned.

Thanks for the comments which are interesting because, as usual, the issue of Europe acts as a prism to the usual tribalist responses. The socialist europhiles cannot condemn Cameron for his dishonesty because they don’t want a referendum and the Tory europhobe cannot condemn Cameron in case it hurts the party.

Of course we can argue about Europe (I am a europhile with concerns about the evolution of power further away from the individual) but I think the more interesting issue is that after so many years of Blair it is depressing that his probable successor is showing no more sign of having a backbone- of allowing policy to be determined by principle.

What is wrong with our political parties and our society that the men of principle never make it to the top and we are ever left to languish under the ‘governance’ of the smooth talkers, the prevaricators and the liars?

On a postcard please…………

Lee @29,

But then the idea that membership to something as important to the EU should be based on a referendum rather than politics and facts rather than populism is also absurd.

I largely agree with your comment @29 but this sentence poses me a couple of problems.

Firstly, if the Treaty is unpopular (note: I don’t know whether it is or not) this suggests on the face of it that, as a democracy, we should be inclined not to ratify it – this raises a question about how what sort of decisions our representatives may make despite majority public opinion, particularly if there was little support for them at election time.

Secondly, it seems lots of political decisions are made without taking into account the facts, so it doesn’t seem to be a prerequisite that we take into account the facts before making a political decision.

Thirdly, you seem to presume our representatives are more competent than the rest of us – but again, some politicians haven’t read the Treaty, so what makes them more competent than me to vote on it?

(By the way, I wouldn’t blame anyone for not reading the original, non-consolidated version – it is difficult to believe that document was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate an already complex issue.)

Pagar,

… I am a europhile with concerns about the evolution of power further away from the individual …

Ditto.

What is wrong with our political parties and our society that the men of principle never make it to the top and we are ever left to languish under the ‘governance’ of the smooth talkers, the prevaricators and the liars?

It seems that, in politics, selection (in the evolutionary sense) favours the dishonest.

“Secondly, it seems lots of political decisions are made without taking into account the facts, so it doesn’t seem to be a prerequisite that we take into account the facts before making a political decision.”

You took a jump in assumption here, but I think that’s because I didn’t explain my third point well enough.

The way I see it is that the public shouldn’t need to be asked about anything that they don’t have to directly take part in. Elections make’s sense, the people know best about how they wish to do the process of electing their representatives, no-one else can know this than the masses. Being a part of Europe doesn’t make sense, the idea that everyone voting knows what they’re voting for is a nice idea but to me doesn’t ring as being practical.

But, the flip side of this is that, as you say, this presumes that our politicians actually know what they’re doing as well. As most are absolutely railroaded in to voting along party lines, with the rest being given barely enough time to read through bloated legislation while doing their other jobs (representation as an MP, not second jobs!) then it can’t be said that MPs are really much more informed on the issue.

So I see it as this bad circle. We shouldn’t need a referendum as it’s not appropriate…but the ability of our MPs, in this constitutional arrangement, to actually do the decision justice is simply not there….therefore perhaps it should be opened up in to a decision making process that is more “group logic”, and simply crying that we had a referendum half a lifetime ago doesn’t stand up as an excuse not to have one. However we shouldn’t need a referendum….

You know me, I’m much along the same lines as yourself, I think the problem that needs solving here is the way legislation is dealt with in our parliament. Referendums won’t solve it, but maybe in this instance it’ll provide the “right” democratic answer in absence of MPs, in general, giving this matter the serious consideration it needed.

Lee, I’m very much inclined to agree.