Blog: Is it time for new say on EU question?
Monday 19th September 2011, 3:53PM BST.
Having ruffled feathers at 10 Downing Street a few weeks ago on the issue of circus animals, Wrekin’s Tory MP, Mark Pritchard, has launched another political hand grenade in David Cameron’s direction.
This time Mr Pritchard is urging the Prime Minister to call for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, which he describes as an “occupying force” which is eroding British sovereignty.
Despite the disaster engulfing the Eurozone, the unrestricted influx of workers from EU countries into Britain, and the lowering of the status of the Houses of Parliament to a body which has to obey commands handed down from Brussels, it does not seem likely that Mr Pritchard’s initiative will prosper.
The reason for that is that a cabal of senior politicians and opinion-formers take the view that there are some issues which are so important that the British public cannot be allowed to vote on them, and instead must put their trust in their wise leadership.
Millions of Britons today were not even born when Britain voted to support membership of the Common Market. People were assured at the time that being part of Europe would not affect Britain’s sovereignty.
The very name – the European Union – gives the lie to that.
In the face of the more unpopular EU decisions, British MPs wring their hands and say there is nothing they can do.
It is another example of how the political elite, who like grandstanding with other members in the EU club at their summits and conferences, have become disconnected from those who should be able to wield the power to change things through the ballot box, but in the case of the EU have been deprived of that power.
Most Commented
- Shropshire Council will face £8m redundancy bill
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
It is all too obvious that the people of this country would welcome a referendum on our status within the EU. If Mark Pritchard can see that then I’m sure hundreds of other MPs can see that.
Is it beyond our wits to find a way of forcing such a referendum?
Report abuse
Elizabeth,
I believe the only way to make them listen is through direct civil disobedience.
Or armed insurgency.
We no longer live in a democracy in my book – all three partys have slightley nuanced differences. The journey for all three partys is subtley different – but the destination is the same – the EUSSR.
We should take a leaf out the Arab Spring book – the English Spring has a nice ring to it – Mubarak is no different to Baroness Ashton – both never faced the electorate.
Britain out.
Report abuse
As I have said time and again the only way to force the main political parties to respect the clear wishes of the British people is to stop voting for them.
This means not even voting for those people like Mr Prichard who despite his comments is still a member of a party whose leader has already broken his cast iron promise to call a referendum on any treaty emerging from the EU Constitution failure, this was called the Lisbon Treaty, but is the EU constitution under a different name.
“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.”
“One of the great challenges we face is rolling back the tide of bureaucracy that is drowning our country in regulations and forms. And you can’t do that without targeting one of the main sources of this bureaucracy – Brussels.
Because it is Europe (EU) that ties our businesses up in red tape. And it is Europe (EU) that ties the hands of our courts.
We won’t be able to deal with any of this unless we have a referendum.
The imperative for a referendum is clear if we do not have one we will not able to deal with the EU regulations and the tide of bureaucracy which are tying our hands.” David Cameron in September 2007
Mr Prichard is member of a party whose leaders are not to be trusted on this issue and have despite all their rhetoric continued to pass control of this country to the EU during the past year.
Now they are talking about changing the Lisbon Treaty to give the EU even more power and Mr Cameron is doing ??
Don’t vote for any of them including Mr Prichard and his group as they are only running interference for the Conservatives who are anything but anti-EU.
Mr Pricahrd is not asking for an in or out referendum! He is talking about a new relationship with the EU
“The referendum”, he says, “should be held next year, and a successful ‘No to political union’ result would immediately strengthen the Prime Minister’s negotiating hand in Brussels to commence serious and meaningful negotiations with our partners on Britain’s new relationship”.
The problem is that Mr Prichard and his group have still not taken on board the very nature of the EU! They somehow still cling to the lie that it is a trading block which has gotten out of hand. When it never was and never will be that! Because EU was always designed as a machine to achieve European political integration.
There is no new relationship possible you are either in or you are out, it cannot be reformed and will not become something is was never intended to be.
Report abuse
It’s always mildly amusing to see the Tories getting themselves in knots over an institution they were once so keen to have us join, despite, so I gather (I’m too young to remember) the opposition of those great friends of capitalists everywhere Tony Benn and Michael Foot.
But I would be interested to know, Mr Adams, how you envisage British business if it didn’t ‘have its hands tied up in (EU) red tape’. Surely much of our trade would still be with members of the EU and we would still be bound by its rules without having a say in making them. Surely, you’re not trying to say the UK would become a great, independent trading nation again on the back of its relationship with its former colonies or the USA. If so, I suggest you’re living in fantasy land.
Also, you’re conveniently ignoring the times when EU rules actually work in our favour, eg when the EU decreed that member states must buy British beef once it was declared safe after the BSE crisis. The only other country that wanted it at the time, I seem to recall, was Zimbabwe.
I suspect that no politician truly wants a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, or any other treaty, because they all know that the agenda would be skewed by the tabloid press – in other words those great defenders of British democracy, the Murdochs and their ilk. Non-British citizens effectively telling us how to vote in other words.
Report abuse
James; you are quite correct I do not envisage a future where British companies do not trade with members of the EU. But as we know you are only offering us the same old little Englander argument which always tries to portray realists in this matter as members of the pull up the drawbridge brigade.
A company must meet the product standards of any country with which they wish to trade, products exported to the USA must meet its standards, and we do not have a say in their rules, in this I do not see any difference with those who trade with the EU.
But your comment ignores the fact that every business in the UK must apply EU rules whether they trade with EU states or not. It is not therefore a matter of a company meeting the product standards of the EU but red tape which is applied internally to all of us.
The argument you offer is one still firmly based on the lie I mentioned, “the EU is a trading block which has gotten out of hand” it is not! Its purpose is and always was, to achieve European political integration.
The basic problem of Euroscepticism light as offered by so called Conservative Euro-sceptics is that it does not recognise the inbuilt drive towards full political union, which is the whole justification for the EU. It argues that we can reform the EU into something other than what it is when all the time the noose of political integration tightens. It argues we can pick and choose which bits to apply when at every turn that lie is exposed.
The question should be “do we want full political union” if the answer is no then there is only one answer and that is to withdraw from the EU.
Your comment about defenders of British democracy is interestingly biased, what is British Democracy? To me it is the ability for the British people to control their own government, to vote for and against particular polices offered by different parties.
The “European project” intentionality demolishes that concept, and destroy all representative government in Europe. Because whilst we remain a member it really is not relevant for whom we who we vote. The founders of the EU did not want the people involved because they believed in and government by an administrative elite and knew that if the people were asked they would reject such a concept out of hand. Making the voters wishes irrelevant to government can hardly be termed democratic.
Report abuse
Firstly, you are being unfair in accusing me of using Little Englander arguments. It does occasionally appear that some of those spouting anti-EU rhetoric are those who wish the world map was still two-thirds pink and think communicating with Europeans means shouting at them in English instead of bothering to learn another language. But I didn’t say that about your arguments, which I think are very respectable and well-made.
As it happens, I live on the continent now and consider myself an enthusiast for most things European but I wouldn’t call myself a great advocate of everything the EU stands for and I have grave doubts about the Euro.
Definitely I am not as ‘anti’ as you are, though, and for two other reasons not mentioned in my earlier post :
1. You say the EU never was about a free trade block only, it was always about political integration. I think you’re right. However, you have to remember the historical reasons for this, basically the wish to end the kind of nationalism that led to WWII. And given that the European continent has experienced its longest period of peace in history, that has been achieved. Only because of closer European integration? Probably not, but it’s played its part. More pragmatically, speaking together where European interests really ARE compatible gives us more voice than if we went it alone, eg in discussions over Middle East questions.
2. You say I take a ‘selective view of democracy’ but you haven’t answered the (admittedly flippantly phrased) last point in my post about the extent to which our democracy has been undermined by Murdoch and his like – at least as much I’d say as by the EU. A referendum on whether our membership of the EU should continue would be hijacked mercilessly by such people. In fact, it was to these anti-democrats that Tony Blair first turned when he contemplated Euro membership.
I’m sceptical on referendums on huge documents such as treaties, in part because of the way single-interest groups who object to perhaps the odd clause can combine to bring down the whole thing – even when much of the content is utterly uncontroversial.
Essentially, I’m a don’t know on this issue, obviously unlike yourself. But what we currently miss (and I feel you’d agree with me here) is an intelligently made debate (ie one not led by the Sun) with very clear choices available. And any pro-EU withdrawal party would need to offer a lot more than the kind of anti rhetoric spouted by UKIP etc.
Report abuse
James you say I am unfair to you, but then you proceed to compound the little Englander rhetoric. ?
This is not about being frightened of Jonny foreigner, but about the self determination of the British people.
I would take issue with your rose tinted view of EU history and its reasons to exist, however that is basically not important you accept that the basic reason is to bring the nations of Europe under one central political umbrella. That is where I see the plastic Eurosceptics are not facing the the truth they still want us to believe the EU can be restructured into nothing more than a trading block.
I did not answer your comment about Murdock by pointing out the EU is destroying our democracy by the process of making our votes meaningless.
In a democracy all should be allowed their voice, just because you do not agree with Murdock or the Sun does not mean they are destroying democracy in fact just the opposite they are opening up the debate. As far as I know the Sun is the only newspaper to have come out in favour of a referendum on withdrawal, if by taking that stance they are destroying democracy then you must also accept that media outlets with whom you agree are also doing the same. I do not therefore quite see how you can claim that Murdock and his likes are undermining democracy, is he and his likes for instance preventing the voters from having any impact on the political elites who have grown up around the EU, are he or his likes continually moving areas of government to the EU level where the British peoples votes will have no effect on the policy makers?
You don’t destroy democracy by talking about it or writing about it, in fact that is the way you enhance it, no you destroy democracy by making voting irrelevant.
Mmm you are sceptical about referendums, most people who support the EU usually are, because they know they do not have the backing of the voters, I repeat “The founders of the EU did not want the people involved because they believed in government by an administrative elite and knew that if the people were asked they would reject such a concept out of hand.”
You seem to be referring to the EU Constitution vote, rather than a simple referendum on withdrawal? I don’t see that there would be many clauses in the latter. We as a peoples will either want to stay in the EU with the full understanding that this will eventually mean full political integration or we will decide that we want a government we can control by our votes, we will either accept government by an uncountable, uncontrollable, political elitist group or we will reject that concept and vote for a return to having democratic control over our law makers.
Report abuse
Yes, I think we can agree on what the project was about all along. You are implacably opposed to that, I am uncertain and see good and bad in it. Fair enough I think, though I wouldn’t mind hearing your alternative view on how (relative)peace has been kept on the continent over the last 65 years.
As for ‘little England’ rhetoric, well you brought it up first, because there is no such rhetoric in my first (I repeat, first) post. It’s there in the second because, since you raised the issue, I made the point that, yes, some people hide their anti-all-things-foreign feelings behind the pretence that all they are against is the EU. But again I stress that I don’t see this in your arguments. And yes, there are credible arguments for not being in the EU. I respect those, even if I don’t always share them.
The Sun and democracy – that really is a good one. Even better is the idea of the Sun and debate. That’s the very thing you never get with publications like the Sun because their whole agenda is to infantilise the population, play upon all its neuroses, so that it gets things the way it wants. You seem fairly OK with a billionaire Australian-born citizen of the USA attempting to manipulate the way British people decide their own destiny, and that’s fine. But please count me out.
I accept the arguments about the EU being a largely undemocratic institution, though, oddly enough, it’s 1 elected body out of 3 is mirrored in the UK, where we can’t vote for the Lords or on whether we want to keep the monarchy or not.
A referendum on the withdrawl question would be simple, you say.
Perhaps (though referendum questions do need proper formulations), but I would be extremely pessimistic that, in the present UK political/media climate, people would have the information needed to make the choice rather than deciding on a knee-jerk, tabloid-informed basis.
Report abuse
James, I think it’s more that nobody can be bothered reading your turgid and interminable ramblings.
Report abuse
I am actually implacably opposed to the reduction of democracy, the EU destroys democracy and makes our votes meaninglessness that is why I am opposed to it. I would be opposed to any government system which does the same.
Has peace been kept on the continent during the past 65 years, I think not, look at the break up of Yugoslavia. I do not accept the premise that it is democratic nation states which cause wars, this is the theme of the EU. What caused the last war was not German democracy but German expansionism, that being the case the EU is itself expansionist although at present it does not have military power to take its expansionism to that level it clearly demonstrates its intention to spread its power in everything it does.
Sorry, I confess I made a mistake, I have never read the Sun and therefore withdraw anything I said about it. I was thinking of the Express which has come out in favour of a referendum. But my basic position remains, you do not undermine democracy by talking or writing about it especially when the organisation making the accusations is antidemocratic.
Surely the word democracy means from the people and do not Lincoln’s words “government of the people, by the people, for the people” embody that democratic principal, a principal that is being destroyed all across Europe by a group who believe that only a political elite should have a voice and to ensure such an undemocratic outcome members of this group will do anything to prevent the people being heard, even denigrating the word “democracy” by calling it populism.
Yes I have seen the Lords argument before, but would suggest it is somewhat of a red herring as not all parts of a democratic system need necessarily be elected. It is called a division of powers, no one part of the state can act in defiance of another. The EU is antidemocratic not because the Commission are appointed, but because it is based on a different concept one that is based in elitism and not democracy.
Your comment about tabloids epitomises the mindset of the EU elitists the people cannot be trusted to make the right choice so we wont allow them to vote.
I do not however think you need to be too concerned about people deciding on a knee-jerk, tabloid-informed basis, we have all experienced the dilution of our democracy since we have been members, we all know that in areas of government now passed to the EU there is no difference between the major parties. We have all seen the total incompetence in the EU system that pays farmers not to produce anything, and causes millions of tons of fish to be thrown back into the sea every year, we all know the EU is corrupt to its heart, we all know of the wastage and we are all suffering now as a result of its onward rush by introducing its flagship currency the Euro as a means to further political integration.
The EU was supposed to be good for trade, good for us all and was supposed to raise our living standards, instead we see austerity measures being introduced right across the EU, those in charge of the EU rather than give up their dream of a United States of Europe will happily drag everyone down.
You talk of peace but the EU is creating dissent between its peoples and their governments the danger of that was pointed out by Sophie Davies above, the situation as it stands is unacceptable and the only way we the people are going to change things and make our parliament and our government stand up and take notice of the people is when we begin a process of direct civil disobedience.
I would hope before we are reduced to that people simply just stop voting for the parties who refuse to to listen to the voters. That is where voices like Mr Prichard are being used to make the Conservatives sound tough on the EU when in reality we can see they are anything but. Mr Prichard is just the latest in a long line of Conservative Judas goats, they are nothing more than vote getters for the party, but their words like our votes are meaningless.
Report abuse
I seem to be pressing your buttons a bit. Your arguments started out very sensible and rational but are beginning to sound just a touch hysterical. The use of references like ‘Judas’ (always highly emotive) and the constant repetition of words like ‘elitist’ are just two things which point me to this view. The repetition of terms until they become meaningless is sloganeering. It’s what propaganda always does to achieve the propagandist’s aim. It’s what the tabloids do too.
Still, let’s take up a couple of points. Yugolslavia, as you well know, was outside the EU and the modern states which used to constitute it, Slovenia apart, are outside the EU today. Fair enough, though, I misused the word continent. There are the remnants of ethnic conflicts within the EU borders today, eg in N Ireland, the Basques in Spain etc but the kind of nationalist expansion which led to Germany starting WWII seem light years ago now. As we seemed to agree, this was a big point, perhaps the main point, of the original establishment of the Coal and Steel Community – the forerunner of the EU.
I’m too young to remember the referendum which originally took the UK into the Common Market but my understanding is that it was essentially capitalist driven (Labour opposed it and wanted withdrawal as late as 1983) and ignored the union’s integrationist aspect. A referendum run on misinformation perhaps? The kind of thing I’m afraid of today.
As for democracy in general, I do agree that this is a major problem of the EU. Yet the Parliament itself is directly elected, just as the Westminster parliament is. I could also ask how democratic the Commons would be if we were to leave the EU. Presumably we wouldn’t see a change in the voting system, since another of your beloved referendums (based largely on a smear campaign) has decreed that we keep the old one – the same one that led to Thatcher and Blair running presidential style governments on 45% of the vote.
But even if we accept that FTTP is the way to run a democracy, well, there’s still no way to stop a party running for election on an anti-EU ticket, is there? There is already one such party – UKIP ; if withdrawing from the EU is as fervent a wish of the najority as you seem to think, shouldn’t UKIP be just a tad more popular?
And here’s the other interesting thing ; you and I seem to be the only people on this forum who’ve really got our hackles up over this issue. Does that mean Shropshire needs waking up to the dangers of the EU? Or does it mean that more people than you might like to think accept that, on balance, our interests lie inside rather than out?
Cultural similarities, certain security issues, a stronger foreign policy voice on those matters where we agree with our neighbours (ie most of them), free movement ; all reasons why, despite some misgivings, I wouldn’t be for withdrawal if you got your wish for a referendum.
Report abuse
See? Your postings are so tiresome I replied to the wrong one.
Report abuse
I understand polling has shown about 80% of the people want a referendum on our membership, not that 80% want to leave, but many feel they should have a voice, as this is a matter about the sovereignty of the UK as an independent nation state.
1975 Referendum
Labour were in power! If they had opposed they could have simply taken us out of the EC, after all Heath did not offer us a referendum on entry. Instead Wilson when forced to do something by his party offered a referendum, then used the full force of the government machine in obtaining a yes. I think the “government side” outspent the “out side” by a factor of 10. I do not agree that Labour were opposed until 1983 it is a basic truth when out of power both Conservative and Labour make Euro-sceptic noises even Blair was first elected on an anti-EU ticket.
I use the word “elitist” to describe the basic organisation of the the EU because it believes in a system of government that removes the voters from the equation. Sorry you think it sloganeering!
UKIP gained the second largest share of the votes in the last Euro elections. Not bad considering the party is so young. Don’t forget the Conservatives had been out of office most of the time UKIP had been in existence and at the last election the main concern was to get Labour out! Of course the Conservatives argue UKIP splits the anti-EU vote, problem with that Conservatives in power are not anti-EU or pro the UK.
I think many people even today still believe the major parties when they tell them they will do something about the EU, hence my point against Mr Prichard. Whilst his party is in government and have the power to do something, he is grandstanding whilst the Conservative leadership continue to pass power to the EU. I would be a lot more impressed if he and his group were to actually force the issue with the party leadership.
Your reasons against withdrawing should be viewed within the structure of the EU and this debate, by talking of neighbours you are, probably inadvertently, implying that we are still an independent nation state. This debate is about the fact that we cannot be independent or retain our sovereignty or our national services and stay a member of the EU. They are not neighbours but are to be considered part of the same demos.
This is the basic lie about the EU because the “Project” has always been to unite the countries of Europe under one central government with all that entails with regard to say: our law, national health service, immigration, foreign policy, armed forces, housing our transport or schools.
An instance: Under EU law, all EU nationals are entitled to use a host country’s education system on the same terms as its own nationals! Now we have to charge our own students tuition fees, otherwise we would have to pay to educate all other EU nationals who decided to come to the UK to study. The EU effect was not even mentioned during the recent rows about tuition fees. The effect of EU regulations means we can no longer afford to educate our own people. Transport is an EU competence so we can no longer have a national rail service it has to be broken up under EU rules on unbundling, same for the postal service, the high speed train network is an EU scheme, the list is endless.
The EU is said to be low down the list of voter priority, I find that amusing considering all the things that are claimed most concern people, are all affected by our membership of the EU. I actually don’t wish for a referendum, I want the true meaning of being a member of this union out in the open. Because as they say the EU takes the “R” out of Country its best we the people of this country understand finally what this project is about.
Report abuse
@Drone, point taken and I promise there’ll be no more. Except to say that if there ever is a referendum on this matter, I’ll know I’ll have given my answer some thought, as will Mr Adams. Trust the same will be true of the rest of the voters.
Report abuse
Very gracious. I take your point too.
Report abuse
Sorry James I did not see this before I posted last
Report abuse
Not a problem. And stand corrected re the referendum, which was on whether to stay in, not on whether to enter. But Foot and Benn were the most strident ‘anti’ voices both then and in 83, were they not?
Report abuse
Honest! I dont remember but it seems likly that you are right, I understand Neil Kinnock was involved as well,funny thing Thatcher was for staying in.
But I dont think it was divided along left wing v right wing lines.
Report abuse
Well done Mr.Pritchard. you have spoken for the British people.
Report abuse
I can confirm, unequivocally, that he has not.
Report abuse
Well done Pickaxe. you have spoken for the British people.
Report abuse
The British people speak for themselves – when they are allowed the opportunity to do so.
Report abuse
She needs a new cardiac facility not a referendum on the EU
He needs bulletproof vests not a referendum on the EU
She needs a new maternity unit not a referendum on the EU.
Our country cannot afford it.
Report abuse
But we can afford £70 billion per year the EU membership costs us.
Report abuse
The No2Referendums campaign today issues this statement;
“The British people will be staggered to learn that our politicians are considering squandering £92 million of taxpayers’ money on a referendum at a time when they are being told to tighten their belts. Who really thinks the national priority should be a referendum rather than more nurses, more teachers and more police officers. The simple fact is our country can’t afford to have referendums.”
The total cost of a referendum will be up to £91 million. The spending breaks down as: the referendum itself costs £82 million with the cost of voter education ahead of the referendum at £9 million.
£91 million could instead pay for 1000 doctors, 2500 police officers, 3000 teachers, 4000 nurses, 15,000 hip replacements or 30,000 school places.
Report abuse
And how many doctors, police officers, teachers, nurses, hip replacements or school places for 70 billion a year.
Report abuse
Crikey. All of that for just £92 million? That’s about 3 days worth of what the UK pays into the EU annually. Also, the assertion that the EU has kept peace in Europe for the last six decades is utter tosh. That was NATO – which includes the USA and Canada – for which reason the EU elite are keen to spin their myth at the expense of the truth. No change there.
Report abuse
Hold a referendum on the EU and you might as well hand the keys to No.10 over to Nick Clegg.
Don’t accuse me of peddling lies, stop whingeing about tactics. You’ve never had it so good etc.
Gawd, I hope some of this rings bells with Mr Pritchard.
Report abuse
@Bob, Can I ask who made ‘the assertion that the EU has kept peace in Europe for the last six decades’? If you’re suggesting it was me, can I suggest you read a bit more carefully?
Report abuse