Letter: I really cannot let Philip Dunne MP get away with the arrant nonsense published under his name on November 5.
Of course a Conservative government could give us a referendum. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been fully ratified the question has to be “in” or “out”.
I know that the Conservatives will stubbornly resist asking that question for fear that the people overwhelmingly vote for “out”.
But let’s face it, the precedent exists. In 1975 Harold Wilson gave us a referendum, although admittedly, not to satisfy the voters, but simply to keep the peace within his own party.
As an alternative the Conservatives could promise that if they can’t get it changed to their liking they would pull Britain out of the EU altogether, but we know they won’t do that either. In any case what is a Conservative promise worth when Cameron has just ratted on the “cast-iron promise” he made in November 2007?
Philip Dunne might like to consider the fact that nobody under the age of 52 has ever been asked whether they wanted to arrive at this situation.
Face the facts, Philip. Its no use legislating “to make sure that no further transfer of power to the EU can take place without a referendum”, the damage is already done. The EU, thanks to this latest treaty, doesn’t need a “further transfer of power”, it now has supreme power.
Christopher Gill
Bridgnorth
See Also:
29 Comments
I agree. None of the main parties are trustworthy and before any europhile starts wittering on about xenophobia – let’s not forget how well Norway is doing on its own.
Report abuse
That is the problem none of the two main parties ASK. And if you as a voter complain what the insults fly.
Report abuse
Well, Christopher, as you know: the majority opinion in a public vote is not necessarily the best option. Compare the debate about Europe with the debate on the death penalty.
Stop trying to turn the issue of Europe into some kind of “X Factor” – Europe’s good for us. Why are the British so obsessed with isolation?
Report abuse
H. St. John Peasbody – In the past the population of our country had a low level of education and hence intelligence which is why we had a Government to make the big decisions for national good. Now that the majority of people in this country have a very good level of education it is safe to allow the population to make the big decisions via a referendum
Report abuse
Avoiding being too selective;
Norway – member of the Council of Europe, member of the EEA – hardly going it alone.
Luxembourg – as above, also ratified EU constitution – higher GDP than Norway (per capita).
EU GDP – higher than US, India, China, Japan…Everywhere.
Of course we could vote to keep well away from this lovely dosh, we could avoid trade, we could say the adage that there is strength in numbers is not true, we could chose what is comforting over what is true, we could choose short term popularity politics and long term poverty. We could, but why ?
Report abuse
The usual unproven Pro EU themes wrapped up in a couple of sound bite sentences! Just as well really as the suggestions simply do not stand scrutiny:
To say the “majority opinion in a public vote is not the best option”, is to deny the very basis of democracy, so we are to understand once again the total disregard for the democratic principal within the EU.
“The EU is good for us” is a totally unproven protestation! Many think that being members of such an undemocratic organisation to the extent that it is now our real government can be considered good.
Sovereignty of the nation state and democratic accountability of our government does not equate to “isolationism”, in fact if we had a different arrangement with the EU we would free to become less introvert and less confined and embrace once again the concept of an outward looking sovereign Britain as a world wide trading nation. Instead of a sub state in the EU Empire with a Local government in Westminster that has less control of our day to day lives than the governor of California has over Californians.
Report abuse
Is it though, Y Mab Darogan? Is this the educated population where graduates can barely talk or write in a coherent manner?
Report abuse
why are the UKIP “fruit cakes” so convinced that the people would vote their way? Most people who take holidays abroad etc realise that foreigners aren’t bogeymen, and that there are real advantages in having close ties, including a single currency.
Nationalism cost Europe 2 world wars in the first half of the C20; since then with greater European integration we’ve had peace across the continent. If for no other reason, that’s why I want to remain in the EU – end of story.
Report abuse
Norway and Switzerland always come up response to being outside EU, both countries in fact contribute to EU in return for trade, they also abide by the EU Directives, so hardly going it alone. Remember Iceland went alone and look where it got them.
Do you really thinks that if we left the EU we would be treated sympathetically, by our former partners. It is better to stay in take an active part and get the chnages made that would improve the EU.
Report abuse
Norway and Switzerland always come up response to being outside EU, both countries in fact contribute to EU in return for trade, they also abide by the EU Directives, so hardly going it alone. Remember Iceland went alone and look where it got them.
Do you really thinks that if we left the EU we would be treated sympathetically, by our former partners. It is better to stay in take an active part and get the changes made that would improve the EU.
Report abuse
“Why not a referendum”? is asked. I can think of many reasons. Firstly we don’t need one. As far as I can tell UKIP, the BNP and some Conservatives are the only ones getting vexed about the EU. A couple of days ago Bob Wydell, an avowed UKIP supporter, described some aspect of the Lisbon Treaty as the worst decision in the history of the world…primary school children could put that claim into perspective. I think most people in this country are not stupid but are not actually too bothered about EU related issues. Secondly the point about a referendum. Any single issue vote is unreliable. As has been mentioned earlier according to opinion polls the majority in this country are in favour of capital punishment. Those of such a view have no desire to consider complexities. I suspect the same is true of the anti EU brigade who don’t want reason to get in the way of unhealthy paranoia.
Report abuse
Well Richard as for fruitcakes! What a shame it is not possible to conduct a reasoned debate about the future of our country without resorting to insults! I don’t know about UKIP but I for one will be happy whatever the outcome of a fair referendum on the EU issue, because unlike the EU, I do believe in the democratic principals. It would however seem that it is those who are, for whatever misguided reasons, in favour of this undemocratic European project who are running scared of the public vote and invent reasons why a referendum is not feasible or why the people cannot be trusted.
Those of us who are anti EU are not afraid of foreigners as you claim we simply want our government to be accountable to the people of this country and we do not agree with the undemocratic way in which this project is being foisted on the British public.
You would be free of course to put your point of view and explain to us all exactly how much better it is to have an unaccountable government in Brussels. How much better it is for us to have our laws decided by people we do not elect, rather than by those we do in our own Parliament. But unless the end result of such a debate is a referendum of the British people then all you will be doing is arguing for the present unacceptable arrangement where the British Nation is being destroyed on the altar of the EU Empire. You see without a referendum we will not know if your version of what is good for this country is acceptable to the people of this country, we will not know if you have managed to convert anyone to your cause.
It was not nationalism which caused the last two wars but expansionism, which of course in the case of WW2 was aided when Hitler transformed his democratic position into dictatorial power. Further I would hardly call the past thirty years a war free zone, and do not forget it was the USA which through NATO did contribute massively to Europe’s security whilst the founders of the EU project were talking about CAP and just look at the wonders that particular device has wrought.
Report abuse
This is just an example of Tory morals. Promise something to get votes even if you cannot or know that you should not really deliver.
Do we really want to be led by a group of people so lacking in principles?
Do we want leaders who went to an exclusive school where they continue they wear top hats to chapel presumably to show the world that things never change?
Report abuse
In what sense is the EU non-democratic ? I’m sure I got the opportunity to vote in the European Elections.
If by, undemocratic we mean that the majority doesn’t want it, then under the system of plurality voting we invariably could say the same for the UK government.
Report abuse
Eva Land (#13) forgets Labour’s manifesto pledge prior to the last election. It was to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. However, Brown just went ahead and signed the Treaty without a referendum. So Eva Land attacks the Conservatives for something that LABOUR have done! Comedy!
Perhaps, Eva Land, you might like to get rid of the chip on your shoulder and your prejudice.
Report abuse
Nistagmus: Fair question, however I would go a little further and say the EU is anti democratic.
Certainly you got the chance to vote for a party to represent you in the EU parliament, but that is the end of your control over the direction or the laws your government in Brussels makes.
If for instance you do not agree with a particular EU stance, you have no opportunity to vote against that stance in any following election. Just having the ability to elect someone to sit in the EU parliament does not therefore make the system democratic.
Within the EU our democracy has thus become fragmented, we can still vote for Labour, Conservative or LibDem but we cannot vote to control the EU or the policies it decides to pursue, because they are no longer part of the national political debate and even if they were the British government no longer has the power to implement policies other than those agreed at the EU level and cannot change polices unless agreed at the EU level. This was seen when Mr Brown thought it would help meet our Co2 targets if VAT was reduced on clean goods.
In order to address or rather window dress this lack of democracy the EU has begun to allow a percentage of us to voice our opinions if we were to get together with a few million others from other states, the Commission has said it will listen, but as Professor J.H.H. Weiler says “Democratic self-determination requires more that the opportunity to voice one’s opinion.” And so called deliberative and participatory democracy are really just alternative terms for no democracy. The only democracy that counts is when the system allows for those who hold power to make our laws to be removed by the people.
I say it is anti democratic because it is a system designed with the specific intention of negating the public power of influence, Schuman and Monnet believed in a system of bureaucratic technocracy and that is exactly the model they built. We the people find ourselves powerless to influence through the ballot box our government; we cannot rid ourselves of one government and elect another with a different set of political principals or one offering a different direction.
At this stage of its development the EU is not all encompassing and our local government in Westminster has reserved some areas where independent actions is still at present possible, but it is moving in the direction of eradicating all independent action for member states.
Report abuse
Y Mab – Every now and then someone throws out a completely vacuous comment that I can’t ignore and you are today’s lucky winner.
Just when did the ill-educated past end and the current period of the majority being highly educated start? And what is the measure for being highly educated? Finished high school, trade school, 4 year degree, …?
And, there is no link between proving yourself capable of being educated (by whatever your measure may be) and demonstrating intelligence. It is quite possible to be highly educated and demonstrate a complete lack of intelligence, and vice versa.
Please keep your pointless comments to yourself.
And finally, next time you are out and about, take a look around at your fellow countrymen and you might re-think the safety level of giving the average Joe and increased ability to make decisions about the future of our country. There is a reason the turnout at elections is so low – thankfully most people don’t care.
Happy Thanksgiving from an intelligent and educated expat.
Report abuse
Ken if I read you right, and apologies if my eyes glazed over (that’s my fault, not yours), what your saying is that I have no control over the people that other people vote for. E.g. – if the majority of people in Europe, say, vote for politicians who favour policy x, whilst the people in my country favour policy y we still have to go along with policy x even though we don’t want it – like a mirror held up to the US with the red states v the blue states (or small scale with the UK – or on an even smaller scale my street, or even my house).
Surely ‘them’s the breaks’, it’s still democracy – we can have our ‘own way’ but as far as the US and ..ahem.. emerging nation super-states are concerned it’s the ‘highway’ – we can be proud but defeated, or go up/down/sideways humbled but at least in the fray with the big boys.
Report abuse
This is a very important subject which normally should not be characterised by childish, insulting or idiotic comments by idiotic people who’s comments we have come to expect but this is what “eva land” said.
This is just an example of Tory morals. Promise something to get votes even if you cannot or know that you should not really deliver.
Do we really want to be led by a group of people so lacking in principles?
Do we want leaders who went to an exclusive school where they continue they wear top hats to chapel presumably to show the world that things never change.
If this is the level of debate, fine, most of us can readily adjust to whatever level anyone else wishes to converse in. So why not bring up the issue of a “cast iron” election pledge cum manifesto promise that Labour would give the country a referendum only to renege on that guarantee once in office on the insulting and spurious grounds that the “treaty was a “constitution” and the “constitution” was a “treaty”, in fact either was anything as long as it gave them grounds to break their solemn promise. They had no intention whatsoever of giving us a referendum – it was just a Bliarite vote catcher. Then he had to lie to get out of it.
When Cameron promised a referendum – it was conditional upon a number of things which he could not possibly have known at the time of making it.
(a) The Irish holding a referendum and voting YES and the date which it would be held.
(b) The Chezk Republic Premier ratifying the treaty on the date that he did.
(c) Whether both (a) and (b) would be held BEFORE our election. He could not possibly know this.
(d) If the Tories would win the election. Nobody could predict this when he made the promise and nobody can predict it even now.
Eva land credits Cameron with knowing the answers to issues which no person in this country could have known when Cameron made the promise. Cameron made his pledge in good faith not knowing the likely outcome of any of the factors which had a date/time bearing on it.
If childish comments made by a “sheep” who follows the Labourite lot purely because his/her Great Grandfather voted for them are the order of the day then is it any wonder that politicians regard us all as idiots and treat us all in the shameful way that they do.
Report abuse
Like several others contributing to this thread, I long for a day when we can contribute as a fully positive member of this European partnership, rather than be dragged down all the time by those who either live in some sort of imaginary between the wars idyll of Merrie England, or are instead seduced by some idea that naked American-style devil take the hindmost Capitalism is the answer to our problems – when in fact it’s a template for a sweatshop economy.
When will these people realise that the only viable future for this country lies in Europe? Forget the Empire, forget cosy trading agreements, and forget any nonsense that somehow we will lose our identity or autonomy.
Are the French any less French? Are the Germans any less German? Closer to home, are the Irish any less Irish for their positive attitude to Europe? Of course not.
We do have at least the consolation that UKIP is essentially a party for middle-aged and old men, and that with the passage of time the pro-European view will prevail.
Those that seek to isolate us have nothing to fear but their own insularity.
Report abuse
Peter (#20): I never agree with you on any issue. But today is your lucky day! Well said!
Report abuse
Nistagmus; What you describe is democracy within the nation state, we all decide to be ruled with those with whom we do not agree for a period on condition that our chance to rule might come after the next election when our party wins ect.
Yes I agree that is democracy, however it presupposes two main things, firstly a demos i.e. a people who are prepared to accept the notion of a shared nationality, and
that we the voters have a choice between parties and policies so that we can choose the direction of our nation and hold to account those we elect.
With the EU this concept fails on both counts; we are not one people, we do not see ourselves as EUeans and do not consider the EU to be our nation state, (although some would like to claim that is the case, they make absolutely sure they do not test that claim by a public vote). Secondly none of the candidates standing for election to the EU parliament can offer a raft of polices, because the EU parliament cannot instigate laws, all they can do is vote on laws initiateted by the EU Commission. Also the situation is that when a new parliament is elected they simply carry on the work of the previous parliament, likewise the Commission. You also have the “ratchet” which states that once a power has been handed to the EU level it cannot be returned to the member state.
So as far as your X an Y scenarios go they do not apply in the case of the EU because nobody in any EU state gets to vote for either X or Y, hence the EU is not democratic.
Comparison with the USA is also not relevant they have recently elected a new president who does not have to carry on the policies of Mr Bush, but can take the country in a totally different direction and was elected after offering a new set of policies to the voters, it is also not relevant because all the American people consider themselves American it is a fully functioning nation state.
The knock on effect of this is that it is making out own fully functioning parliament in Westminster nothing more than an expensive talking shop.
Report abuse
Sorry Stuart: when Mr Cameron made his cast iron promise it was not conditional on anything, he said;
Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.
When repeated his promise this year he again did not place any conditions on his promise.
The so called qualifications or conditions were added as excuses later when Cameron decided to break his promise.
Peter; if you want this country to be a fully paid up member of “Le Project” then you are saying that you agree with the destruction the nation state of Great Britain, well it would seen that you have your wish because that is exactly what is happening.
I will however say again that those of us who want to once again be in a position of voting for our own law makers and want once again to be able to both elect and dismiss our government are not isolationists; nobody is talking about towing this country into the middle of the Atlantic and hauling up the drawbridge.
We have always been an open world wide trading nation and should we leave this exercise in post democratic government or should it ever collapse under its own inconsistencies, we will once again be free to resume our natural trading inclinations, but this time on a world wide stage and that would include all the members of the EU. With whom it must be remembered we have a massive trading deficit, in that we buy much more from them than they buy from us. So are they really going to say sorry Britain we are not going to sell to you if you leave our little club?
Report abuse
Ken, I’m sorry if you were upset by my use of David Cameron’s description of UKIP members as “Fruit cakes”. I’m also happy for proper debate. I actually share some of your views re democracy and think we have very little democracy in this country, never mind in EU.
I still dispute your view that it was expansionism rather than nationalism that led to 2 WW, and I still hold that peace in Europe can largely be attributed to the EU. yes, there are conflicts elsehwere, inc Balkans not too long ago, but if those countries had been in EU then that too might have been avoided.
To come out of the EU would be completely retrograde step and condemn us to being an also-ran on the world stage, and reflects a petty and naive mindset.
You may personally, not be afraid of foreigners, but I believe most UKIP & BNP supporters are, largely through ignorance.
Report abuse
Ken Adams, sorry, I totally and utterly disagree with you, Cameron’s referendum promise is there for all to see. It was conditional on the “treaty/constitution” NOT being ratified and of course, even that was worthless in isolation so of course, it was conditional upon the Tories getting into power. There are a lot of presumptions flying around here, not least on the part of eva land, some presume that the Tories are going to get into power but I don’t accept that until the fat lady sings, it is still an unknown quantity and opinion polls mean nothing.
Report abuse
Thank you Richard, I was not upset as I am not a member of UKIP!
I mention the insult rather in despair at the lack of thought that is evidently behind such utterances, Fruit cakes, little Englanders, swivel eyed loons added to which you have fear of foreigners and xenophobic tags! None of these stand up to scrutiny. But all of these insults and much more are the only answer to very serious constitutional questions that really must be addressed and they are all intended to convey that those who would destroy this nation state are the only right thinking people and those who wish to defend the nation state, because of its democratic benefits, are somehow the odd balls. These insults are all because those who support the Project cannot argue coherently for their cause, it has been the same from the beginning, until now you feel you are justified in using such insults (even toned down) of the cuff and feel that you are making a contribution to the debate, when all you are doing is parroting basic untruths about democrats and supporting a wholly undemocratic movement and not adding anything to the debate.
Let us just for a moment look a little at the argument that it was nationalism which caused the wars and then see where that leads us; it is an argument that says the nation states are themselves at fault, because somewhere in there makeup lies the germ that will eventually cause war. Hence according to that argument all nationalism is to be frowned upon as undesirable, support for your nation is in fact something to be condemned.
But then we see that all nationalism is not frowned upon, in fact in many cases we can see nationalism being urged on the people of a particular area, Scotland and Wales for instance. It would appear that in some instances nationalism is to be so desired that it should be promoted by both central government and by the external influences of the EU, but at the same time other nationalism British or English is to be discouraged. At the same time we are witnessing very strong moves by the EU to promote its own nationalism its citizenship, its anthem, its flag, talk about an EU national sports teams ect. And of course the EU is being built along recognizable traditional national lines, so the EU itself is designed to become a nation, so much for the argument that nationalism causes wars.
I don’t know about you but when I see inconstancies I question the basic premise of an argument! The truth is that for the EU to gain prominence it needs to destroy to all the condition of statehood within its member states and transfer the popular mandate from the member state to the EU and if you would care to look at the way the EU is developing you will see that is exactly following that line.
I do not agree that to leave this attempt at post democratic government which is what the EU project is, would be a retrograde step and condemn us to an also ran, We hear a great deal about how being at the EU table gives us a voice, it might do, but that only works in our favour as a nation of we want to go in the direction proposed by the others, if we do not then we will find instead of our voice being amplified it is will be quashed and in any case it is an EU voice not a British voice that will be promoted on the world stage.
Stuart: Sorry once again Cameron said nothing at about conditions when he made his cast iron promise to call a referendum, the only condition was “if” I become PM which is obvious, because unless he does become PM he will not have the power, will he! You are right about the polls and of course if Mr Cameron does not become PM no one will blame him for breaking his cast iron promise. But because he already has done so then he will loose a lot of votes from those of us who do really care about the state of our democracy and demand probity and integrity in our leaders, Cameron has shown twice now that he is not to be trusted.
Report abuse
well said Ken Adams! …. it is most refreshing to read an opinion of the “Voice of Reason’ ……. As for the others! .. difficult to say I can’t quite make them out for your dust! …
Report abuse
Ken,
Take the blinkers from your eyes. If you take even a cursory look at how the major economies of the world work, you will see that whether we like it or not, in order to survive, we need to be fully part of one of the major trading blocks.
The idea that we could continue as anything other than a disadvantaged minor partner in Europe were we to withdraw from the EU is fantastically naive – don’t forget that when we were the ‘world trading partner’ we had the benefits of the labour and raw materials of an Empire to allow for that – that Empire, like the view that we could ‘go it alone’ economically is a thing of the past.
It would also be unwise to imagine that we could return easily to being a manufacturing nation. In the ’80s a conscious decision was made to turn us into a service industry economy – with much of that based upon financial services. We’ve now seen that decision bring us to our knees, but the idea that we could just switch back to being an independent trading nation (if we ever really were) is ludicrous.
The suggestion that we no longer have control of our laws is just nonsense.
Do you really think that the Germans and the French believe they have handed over their ability to govern themselves? They certainly don’t! The constant empty threat to ‘take our ball home’ must be a huge source of frustration to our European partners – we should be taking our place alongside the French and the Germans as senior partners in Europe, instead of scowling, sulkily, in the corner.
It may not be your desire or intention to tow us into the Mid-Atlantic and abandon us, but if we pursue the folly of leaving the EU, that is surely where we’ll end up.
Report abuse
Peter; sorry I am not wearing blinkers or rose tinted spectacles, because of that I can clearly see the EU is not a trading block it was never intended to be just a trading block! That was the pup sold to the British people back in 1975, I am surprised to see that you are still using the same tired old misleading claim.
Essentially the EU argument is for EU powers, hence it has nothing to do with what is good for the British state, but what is perceived to be in the interest of the EU, the debate however is positioned in terms of what is best for the British state. Hence it is a deceptive debate because to remain part of the EU requires a constant movement of sovereign powers to the EU level and a constant reduction of our own self determination.
It is fundamentally an anti British debate because it can never be in the interest of Britain to pay large sums of money each year so that the EU will make laws for us. Especially when we already have a fully functioning government of our own, of course on that last point, the question demands asking, if the EU is making our laws what on earth are the 650 odd MPs that we pay to do that job actually doing with their time.
Well funny you should mention the Germans in this respect perhaps you do not know on 30 June the German Constitutional Court ruled to withhold approval for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, demanding a law to guarantee the rights of the German Parliament in the EU decision-making process. In essence, the court ruled that by passing the so-called “accompanying law” to the Lisbon Treaty, which determines the rights of German parliament to participate in European legislation, the representatives had relinquished significant monitoring rights to Brussels. According to the judges, this unconstitutionally subjects the people that they represent to the whims of a bureaucracy that lacks sufficient democratic legitimacy.
The European Parliament, as the judges in Karlsruhe clearly state, is terminally undemocratic, and EU law would only be valid in Germany “in accordance with the decision by the German Constitutional Court.” They also said the “identity” of the German constitutional order may not be damaged by Brussels.
No matter what the representatives of the Berlin government decide at the Council of Ministers in Brussels, their decisions will now be subjected to three possible tests back home. First, the court wants to ensure that the EU does not overstep its contractual competences. Second, the judges intend to enforce the “subsidiary principal” enshrined in EU law, which largely prohibits Brussels from taking action if a member state can handle the issues in question just as effectively on its own. Third, the judges now reserve the right to conduct an “identity check,” in other words, to test whether Germany still performs the functions that the Constitutional Court itself has defined as national tasks of government.
So the short answer is Yes the Germans do realise that they longer have control of their laws and have done something about it.
Now out of all member states Germany is the only one which legally has the ability to overturn any and all EU legalisation domestically and to ensure that the EU is not the final arbiter of EU law but the German court.
Hence the Germans have signed a treaty which clearly states that EU Law takes precedence over National Law but at the same time have said that is only acceptable if the German law take precedence over EU law.
Report abuse