I’ll readily confess to remaining uncomfortable with the Lib Dem position on opposing holding a referendum on the EU reform treaty. I do not like to see banner headlines on the BBC News Politics website proclaiming: Lib Dems oppose referendum vote.
It does not sit well with the widely-proclaimed belief of both candidates during the leadership contest that the party needed to become more spiky, anti-establishment, and to put the people – not politicians – in control of their own lives. Nor does it sit well with our previous, principled stance (alone among the three mainstream parties) that the Maastricht treaty should be subjected to a popular vote. On principle, and in campaigning terms, I think the party has made a mistake.
However, credit where it’s due to Ed Davey, our new shadow foreign secretary, who put forward a trenchant and persuasive argument in last night’s House of Commons debate on the Lisbon treaty. Read it for yourself, and judge it for yourself…
–>Edward Davey, Lib Dem shadow secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs]: … we argue for a different referendum—a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. Let us face it: a referendum on any EU treaty would become a referendum on the UK’s continued membership. Let us not have that debate by proxy on a treaty referendum. Let us have a debate that people want by asking a straightforward, in or out question. …
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We all know why the Liberal Democrats have adopted this position. It is because they want to be able to say in their manifesto at the next election that they voted for a referendum at some juncture, when in fact they are denying themselves the opportunity of voting for the only realistic referendum on offer. That is a mean, grubby, typical Liberal Democrat trick.
Mr. Davey: If the hon. Gentleman had had the guts to vote with his colleagues for our amendment in the debate on the Loyal Address, we might have been able to get the referendum that the British people actually want. …
The most significant differences between the two treaties lie in the constitutional terms of those treaties. While Lisbon is just another amending treaty making a number of important, if modest, reforms, the constitutional treaty was something quite different. It abolished all past treaties, to replace them with one document: a new constitution. I believe that people have passed over that point and failed to grasp its significance. The Labour Member of the European Parliament, Richard Corbett, has it right when he points out that the DNA of mice and human beings is 90 per cent. the same—it is just that the remaining 10 per cent. is quite important. It is the same with the difference in nature between Lisbon and the constitutional treaty: the 10 per cent. difference moves one from a mouse of an amending treaty through to a fully evolved constitution.
A referendum on the constitutional treaty would therefore effectively have been a referendum on the whole of the EU—Rome, the Single European Act, Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam. It would have been about the complete constitution.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Surely treaties should be judged by their practical and legal effect. That is why two Select Committees of this House, which included Liberal Democrat among its members, concluded that in practical and legal substance, the two treaties are the same. Why does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?
Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman failed to deal with my point that the constitutional treaty would have created a completely new constitution. The reform treaty is an amending treaty. If he cannot understand that, I really despair.
I shall quote the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks [William Hague] who said, when talking about the constitutional treaty, in 2006:
“the fact that it was a constitution, not simply a treaty—would have revolutionised the EU.”
For once, he was right. That is why he ought to recognise that what the Liberal Democrats are saying now, in our proposal for a referendum on EU membership, is far closer to a referendum on the constitutional treaty than the Conservatives’ paltry offering.
We believe that the British people have been denied a say on Europe for too long—on all the treaties and on the cumulative effects of all the changes. Unlike the Conservatives, who denied them a vote on Maastricht, we think that the people should speak. As a party that is strongly committed to the European Union, we want to offer the people the referendum that they really want. I hope that the House will allow a substantive amendment to the Bill to that effect so that we can begin to settle the European question and to draw the poison of anti-European feeling from the British body politic for a generation.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Shropshire Council's increase in car parking charges will hit Ludlow
Green Health Week 2022
Cuckoos, lapwings and curlews in the Shropshire Hills
RMT Union V Merseyrail – Still no resolution
How the Lib Dems did in the local elections: LDN #160
Live from the goathouse
My tweets
New In my Etsy Shop...
David Langshaw
Michael BG
James Fowler
Ruth Bright
Joe Bourke
97 Comments
We promised to support a referendum on the proposed constitution and the treaty of Lisbon is essentially the same document. I have never been ashamed to be a member of the Liberal Democrats until now.
Liberal Democrat MPs could make a difference in Parliament, something we all campaign so hard for, on the vote to have a referendum. I think that’s the reason we aren’t backing a referendum; because then there might be one and we might lose it.
We made a promise to people and we should stick by it.
As has been pointed out, the Reform Treaty is (unfortunately) not “exactly the same” as the Constitutional treaty at all.
Some of the reforms proposed as part of the constitutional treaty were indeed repeated in the Reform Treaty, but I wanted a referendum on the Constitutional treaty because it was Constitutional. And the Reform treaty is (unfortunately) not.
We didn’t campaign for a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty, nor the Treaty of Nice, and this is probably the least radical of them all. Unless we get caught up in the populist approach of demanding a treaty on all things influenced by foreigners, then it’s impossible to support this referendum.
I thought that Davey’s response was one of the more sensible perspectives on this that I’ve seen – first thing I’ve seen him get coverage for as Shadow Foreign, so I hope he keeps it up.
Hmmm.. but you did campaign for a referendum on Maastricht, which was….a treaty!
I’m with you Stephen – our position just doesn’t sit right with me at all.
Well hello again to the Tory trolls who have been passing themselves off as unhappy Liberal Democrat members in this thread.
As ever, apologies if anyone has has their comments wrongly moderated, in which case just get in touch to clarify matters.
Someone should have the honesty to say that the real mistakes here were –
1. For Giscard d’Estaing et al to attempt to create a “constitution” for the EU. If anything could be used to allege that “they” were trying to work towards a “country called Europe” then this was it. It never was anything like a constitution. Everyone who values the EU has been trying to dig themselves out of this hole ever since.
2. For the Lib Dems to advocate a referendum in the first place. We are a representative democracy. We elect MPs to go deeply into these things and to make decisions. Does anyone seriously think that any more than a fraction of one per cent of the population will have any real idea of what they are being asked to vote for or against? Sorry Flo’ -it is not like being consulted about local house building. Even on that, no-one expects to have a binding referendum – just plenty of information and consultation before decisions are made.
Lib Dem MPs now face a decision like they faced when the Maastricht Treaty was under threat. They could have brought a Tory government down then but bravely decided that the future of Europe was more important.
Let the anti-Europeans bleat about our (mistaken) previous offer of a referendum. Vote against it now, Nick. Not abstain – vote against!
It makes no sense for us not to support a referendum. Surely our vision of liberalism is to give people a say. Clegg is all about empowering people, yet when the biggest issue for a number of years comes up, suddenly the public cant be trusted. Shameful.
The weakness in the In or Out referendum idea is that that is not the same as a constitutional referendum, either. You CAN vote against a constitution – or a treaty – without leaving the organisation, as two countries have recently demonstrated, and Denmark did previously over another Treaty.
My own view is that we need a settlement in Europe which goes much farther than the Constitution (or the Treaty) in ensuring that politicians are held accountable to the electorate.
A popular constitution, no less….
I suspect this is not an issue that will trouble undecided voters much at the next election.
Our position is clear, we want a referendum on membership, in or out, and we will back in.
If the Conservatives wish to remind people that anything with the word Europe attached brings out a side of their party that scares children, then let them.
Nick Clegg detailed his agenda for our European Policy years ago, in an article in the Guardian. He wants a more liberal Europe, I suggest we focus on selling that vision, rather than engaging in the Conservative Party’s periodic desire to have a mental breakdown in public.
We should have said ‘Yes, we will vote for a referendum on the Treaty, but even better, let’s have a referendum on staying in the European Union’.
That would have put the Tories in a difficult position.
Kevin @ 3, Maastricht was more than “just” a treaty, it merged the EC into the newly created EU and effectively created a new organisation on the foundations of the previous one. For my sins, I had to read plain-English versions of Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam, and it was significantly bigger in scope than any of the subsequent treaties.
Denis @ 6: I agree completely with your point 1), but disagree on your point 2. Evidence from France and elsewhere shows that, if given a serious question and the opportuntiy to look into it, people will bother. The trick is to enthuse them so that they actually care, currently most don’t.
I’ve long held that although it’s not a British tradition, we should have referenda on issues of constitutional import (ie how we are governed). I also think that while we may have been wrong to say we’d have one on the constitution, I don’t believe we were, and I think we should still have one—the deferred decision until the text was finalised was a good call by Ming, but keeping to that (effectively the Govt) line since is bad.
We should call for two questions on the ballot, one for the treaty, one for membership, that would really crystalise the debate.
Membership first, then “if Britain does vote to stay in should we ratify the treaty”? Then people could even (and some would) vote no for membership but still yes on the treaty as it’s likely the best deal we can have.
Politically I think we’re in a mess regardless, but Europe does seem to do that to most of the parties. A membership in/out referendum is essential though.
It is not a constitution. You just have to read the summary to see that. It carries a series of amendments. Having a referendum on it would be completely stupid. We are quite right to insist on a proper full referendum on the EU as it is constituted, i.e the whole salami sausage, not just a slice which the Reform treaty is.
I applaud the bold and honest stance of the party and no one explained all this with more clarity and authority than Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne during the leadership election campaign.
I can’t see anything in this new treaty which requires a refferendum. From a constitutional point of view i’d have though ID cards and 42 day detention were bigger changes to the way we are governed. No one asks for refferendums on these issues. Parties just say yes or no to them and slug the issue out in our parliamentry democracy. We are not Switzerland.
I have my own views on the partys EU In or Out proposal but it is at least (a) clear (b) I have no doubt In or Out is an important enough issue for a refferendum.
basically the calls for a referendum on the treaty seem to be about giving a Euro Sceptic veneer to the party for Door Step consumption. I suspect there is just no point in pretending to be something we are not.
You may think promising a referendum was unwise, but we did promise, all three parties did and yet there will not be a referendum.
What does that make of peoples perception of politics and democracy? In fact not just perception but the reality of it to.
“We should have said ‘Yes, we will vote for a referendum on the Treaty, but even better, let’s have a referendum on staying in the European Union’.
That would have put the Tories in a difficult position.”
What? Play short-term politics with the long term future of this country and the European Union?
Your point puts into sharp focus the fact that the party’s stance is strong and principled rather than cowardly and short termist – which your suggestion would be.
Andy @ 14 “You may think promising a referendum was unwise, but we did promise, all three parties did and yet there will not be a referendum.”
That’s simply factually inaccurate – at no stage did we promise a referendum on the Reform Treaty, and rightly not. We’ve promised referendums on major treaties changing the nature of the EU and we’ve not promised treaties which merely amend existing systems. We’re continuing the approach that we’ve consistently had since the UK joined the EU (though we could debate about whether we should have had a referendum on the Single Act, perhaps).
This isn’t weasel-words or anything else – there was no such promise made, and it looks ridiculous just to claim there was.
I find all this discussion on whether or not the treaty is a constitution or not completely ridiculous. Whether or not the front page calls itself a constitution or an amending treaty, there seems little debate that what is inside details the procedures and rules by which the EU should be run. By my reckoning, it is therefore a constitution (much as an apple remains an apple, even if you call it a banana).
Whether we should have a referendum is another question on which I am not going to bore you all with my views again, but stop pretending that we are not talking about a de facto constitution here.
Andy
Ed Davey’s speech very clearly outlines the major and crucial difference between the constitutional treaty (which would have been a “constitution” in that it negated all previous treaties and started from scratch – i.e a constitution) and the reform treaty which is not a constitution but a series of fairly modest amendments.
So we have not broken any promises. We promised a referendum on what was proposed to be a constitution. The reform treaty is not a constitution. It is a reform treaty. That’s not a surprise, because it is called a “reform treaty” and the constitutional treaty was called a “constitution”.
This is like going round a washing machine on fast tumble dry! If I am bored with this circular, repetitive debate then surely the public must be and that is backed up by the very limp response to petitions etc on this. The Sun edition promising a campaign on this apparently lost them 20,000 copy sales on the day it came out.
Passing Tory
Abolute nonsense. If you go through the provisions and then compare them with the US Constitution it is like comparing a nail file kit with a house.
Good on you Paul (15). One of our delusions is that by putting something forward we think we can get it. There is not the slightest possibility of our getting a referendum on EU membership. Putting this forward is just a useful way of baiting the Tories by pointing up the real nature of their “euro-scepticism”.
Partly by having allowed the antis to play all the best tunes – often the only tunes – and partly because there will be such a lack of understanding of the issues by otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people, we have reached a position whereby a referendum on the treaty in the UK would wreck something profoundly in the best interests of our country. Swallow your scruples MPs and vote accordingly.
The evidence of France suggests that far from being informed, people will answer the question they think should have been asked… in France’s case, “Should Turkey join the EU immediately?”.
The reform treaty – which it’s simply deceitful to rhetorically dress up as a constitution – changes nothing about the state-Union relationship. I wish it did. The President that the extreme right are so afraid of is an existing position, simply occupied by a nameable, identifiable, acccountable person instead of a rotating state. The external relations supremo can do nothing except when the 27 are in concert. Britain and France retain their laughable, anachronistic security council seats.
Yes, the treaty and the constitution contain much of the same. But we’re 95% the same DNA as a banana – that five percent makes a huge difference. Thanks to the short sighted, xenophobic reactionaries who are still stuck in 1946, we are left in the reform treaty with a Union that, whilst improved, remains unable to function efficiently or decisively.
Yes, we should pass this treaty, no it is far too complex to go to referendum, yes we should continue the reform as soon as it’s in place.
passing Tory @ 17
If you think the Reform treaty is a Cosntitution that sets out procedures, then presumably all the previous treaties signed by the EU are also all Constitutions?
@David Morton, (and others).
“I can’t see anything in this new treaty which requires a refferendum. From a constitutional point of view i’d have though ID cards and 42 day detention were bigger changes to the way we are governed.”
Yes, but the issue here is slightly different. If ID Cards or 42 days detention are introduced by one government, then the next government can repeal the law and abolish them.
This cannot happen with EU legislation: once it is introduced, it cannot be repealed. In short, EU legislation binds future governments which is fundamentally against our constitution (such as it is).
Leaving aside what I think of the EU, anyone who truly supports democracy should be worried by this state of affairs.
On the Lisbon Treaty itself, you have all missed an extremely crucial point — especially when taken in tandem with the above. That point is that the Lisbon Treaty is self-amending: whilst it may not be “constitutional” now (whatever that means), there is nothing to stop it being so in the future. In fact, there is nothing stopping it becoming whatever the EU leaders want it to be.
Therefore, one can argue that even though this Treaty is not a Constitution as such, it can become so potentially.
All that is required is a majority vote in the Council of Ministers: since the majority of EU countries’ leaders were prepared to ratify the old Constitution, it would seem to me that this majority vote would not be difficult to obtain.
DK
Paul W,
With respect, Paul, you completely miss the point. If you have a document that fundamentally modifies the way in which an organisation works then you have changed that organisation’s constitution. It doesn’t matter whether it is two sides of A4 describing how your local poetry club selects its committee, or thousands of pages; the rules by which an organisation is run is, by definition, its constitution and this is what the document describes.
As for the comparison with the US; I assume you mean that the US constitution (at 4500 words – OK, 7500 if you include all the amendments) is the nail file when compared to the rather more detailed EU Treaty under discussion (I don’t know the precise length, but I do know it took me orders of magnitude longer to read than the US Constitution), in which case your argument is what, exactly?
@DK: Interesting, had indeed missed that bit, can you point me to the relevent clause(s)? I haven’t had time to read more than a precis unfortunately.
Peter @ 22: PRecisely, was the point I wanted to make.
@John Smith,
“Thanks to the short sighted, xenophobic reactionaries who are still stuck in 1946, we are left in the reform treaty with a Union that, whilst improved, remains unable to function efficiently or decisively.”
Perhaps it is because I am well-versed in history that I do not have the same unerring faith in the state as you appear to have, but why on earth should the fact that a load of politicians can act “efficiently or decisively” be a good thing?
One could always rephrase it as “hastily and without consultation”, after all.
Further, where is the democratic accountability? Even were the EU Parliament not a pale farce, do you know which way your MEP votes on anything?
I’ll answer that for you: you don’t. And how do I know this? Because the votes are not recorded unless a special request is made at least one day before, and it rarely is.
In fact, the IndDem group and some others have recently been censured for demanding these roll call votes before every session.
So, how on earth are you to hold your democratically elected representative to account if you do not know how he has voted on issues that matter to you?
DK
MatGB,
It’s explained over here:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/08/footbridge-to-power.html
DK
Peter,
In simple terms yes (although not all were for the EU of course). I would add that, as far as I am concerned, the situation is complicated by the fact that at the stage there was no effective entity as the EU it was easy to claim that this was a treaty governing the relationship between a group of countries. Now, AIUI, one of the key differences between the so-called constitution and the current treaty is in the legal status of the EU (does it have one). However, to claim that the EU does not exist as an entity of its own is sheer sophistry – in real terms it does exist and exerts a political pressure of its own.
Oh dear, some of these comments do seem to be saying that “you cannot trust the public with serious questions”.
Not very liberal?
People do seem to want a say – why not give them one ????
(And, no, I’m not a passing Tory troll!)
Devil’s Kitchen wrote:
“All that is required is a majority vote in the Council of Ministers:”
The page you linked to seems to say it requires a unanimous vote. Am I missing something?
Chris Phillips
Passing Tory –
The US constitution contains all the substantial elements of the US state – Senate, President, House etc.,with comprehensive details of how that are formed, elected and carried out.
The Reform treaty does not contain any or all the substantial elements of the EU – President, Commission, Parliament etc It merely contains some changes to those elements.
cgp,
Apologies: my fault. Having dug that page out for MatGB and reread it, yes, it is a unanimous vote required and in the European Council, not the Council of Ministers.
The point remains, and becomes significant though, when (if you click through the link there) that the EC “shall aim to promote its (the Union’s) values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States…”.
Interestingly, I went and watched Miliband defending the treaty, a couple of months back, in one of the Committee meetings, and the MPs focused on the word “shall” (used in the same phrase but in a different clause). Did it mean that “must” or did it mean “can do if they feel like it”.
Miliband maintained the latter: several of the other MPs, including a couple of Labour MPs, maintained that it obviously meant former.
It’s a crucial point: the particular clause that the Committee focused on dealt with whether or not member Parliaments were, like the EC, compelled to promote the aims of the EU, or whether they could choose to if they wished.
DK
“Oh dear, some of these comments do seem to be saying that “you cannot trust the public with serious questions”.
Not very liberal?
People do seem to want a say – why not give them one ???? ”
That’s certainly not an argument you will hear from me. As Ed Davey said, let’s give the public a referendum on the real issue – membership of the EU – rather than a dishonest and totally misleading referendum by proxy for the real issue.
Of course people want a say, but they want a say on the real issue – membership or not of the EU.
Yes, you can trust the public with serious issues, that is why we as a party want to trust the party with deciding the real serious issue of whether or not we continue as members of the EU, rather than a ludicrous referendum by proxy on an amending treaty which is far LESS serious than the VERY serious referendum the Liberal Democrats are proposing.
“I assume you mean that the US constitution (at 4500 words – OK, 7500 if you include all the amendments) is the nail file when compared to the rather more detailed EU Treaty under discussion ”
Oh well then – the Reading phone directory is 1562 PAGES long – let’s have a referendum on that.
23. All existing EU treaties are brought into UK law via Act’s of Parliament. What parliament ratifies it can repeal. While this relationship remains I don’t accept your argument.
Federal Britain in a Federal Europe….as we used to say back in Liberal Party days.
Many of us still hold true to this aim, you know.
Frankly it doesn’t matter whether this is a constituion or an amending treaty. We will be judged on what people think.
People want a referendum on Europe and we have just voted against one. Like it or not we will be portrayed as bunch of europhiles out of touch with the British public.
Ed’s arguement are as usual well thought out and probably correct but the effect will go down like a lead balloon with most members of the public
Devil’s Kitchen
Thanks for the clarification.
On the question of a referendum, I can see both sides of the argument, but I think Ed Davey’s speech would have made better sense if he had left out the statement that “a referendum on any EU treaty would become a referendum on the UK’s continued membership”.
Because, realistically, there is not going to be a referendum on UK membership of the EU and, given that, it makes little sense to say that we want a referendum on the UK’s EU membership but that we will vote against a referendum that would in effect address that issue.
I heard Nick Clegg on TV today arguing the same point made in Davey’s speech – “constitutional treaty” versus “amending treaty” – and I thought it came across as a legalistic quibble.
And I think what he said about looking at the “Parliamentary arithmetic” before we decide whether to vote against or abstain (despite having earlier said – unintentionally? – we would vote against) was terrible. Or at least, if we’re really going to be so cynical, the last think we should do is spell out that fact in public.
Chris Phillips
Liberal? Democrats?
Shame on you! By betraying your manifesto commitment to support a referendum, you show your true colours. Not only is your party’s position contrary to what you promised when up for election (betrayal number one) but by your actions you deny the people a choice (betrayal number 2).
Do us a favour and find another name for your party – you give democracy a bad name.
I haven’t read all the above comments so apologies if I’m just repeating what others have said, but I have to admit that I’m torn between wanting the Lib Dems to support the treaty referendum out of principle and a growing realisation that the vast majority of the public don’t care either way. The Telegraph have quietly removed their epetition from the front page of their website. After all the brouhaha, I Want A Referendum can only boast 35,000 signatures – that’s less than the Independent (readership: one man and his dog) managed to raise for electoral reform in 2005 in two weeks.
Bearing in mind that in any system of citizen-initiated referendum used anywhere in the world you have to be able to raise signatures from at least 1% of the population, that’s very embarrassing indeed. They need to get ten times what they’ve got even to reach that low bar (to force a referendum for an elected mayor, you need to raise signatures from 5% of the population), and that’s assuming none of their signatories are bogus.
that’s assuming none of their signatories are bogus
Just had another look at their website. “Derek Marsh” is listed on their front page twice. That would be a no then. 🙂
James,
the vast majority of people probably don’t think it makes any difference if they sign the petition or not, believing that the arrogant politicians will do what they want, being a bunch of lying, treacherous bastards. And who can argue against that?
Even if the majority are apathetic, it just illustrates that the default position is set wrong. The politicians – if this were really a democracy would only do what the people wanted, and if the people weren’t in favour, the default would be the politicians couldn’t do it. As it is, the politicians do what they want unless the people raise hell and start setting fire to things.
The patrician attitude I see displayed in this thread, such as the suggestion that the treaty is too complex for the hoi polloi makes me sick. Woe betide any Lib Dem who comes canvassing my vote in any future poll.
Trooper, you are hardly in a position to accuse others of being patrician while simultaneously claiming to know why people aren’t signing the I Want A Referendum petition!
Presumably therefore you would support a referendum on electoral reform, something which appears to enjoy more public support and was also promised in a government manifesto?
James,
don’t be silly. I said ‘probably’. This is not patrician in the least.
I’m happy to have referenda on anything you like. Labour promised that one back in 1997. However, don’t try and weasle out of your party’s obligation to hold a referendum on this treaty, right now you are in no position to judge.
I’m not trying to weasel out of anything – if you’d been paying attention you’d know that I support the Lib Dems supporting a referendum on the treaty.
I’m happy to have referenda on anything you like.
So you accept that the Tories are wrong to oppose our support of an in or out referendum?
I think it was Al Smith that said; ‘it doesn’t matter how thin you slice it, it’s still baloney.’
Is there a principled reason for not holding a referendum? Some believe the successful passage of this treaty is more important than a commitment made all by three parties to hold a referendum. It is hard, if not impossible to justify that position. That is why we are seeing so much bunk being discussed. People don’t want a referendum because they think people would vote against the treaty.
All this nonsense about the whole issue pivoting on whether it’s a constitution or a treaty. It’s essentially the same document and nearly all European leaders say so. In fact the only people that say the treaty is different from the constitution are people who backed a referendum and now believe there shouldn’t be one.
Now it is being said that we are not having a referendum because people don’t want one. So, some of you claim, by breaking our promise to the electorate we are actually doing what the people want. Haven’t we heard enough of this crap from the Labour government over the last 10 years, justifying the unjustifiable? A lie repeated a million times is still a lie.
Lib Dem MPs will abstain on a vote in parliament for a referendum however if it looks like it would get passed anyway then we will vote AGAINST. We are not voting against unless we have to because we know it is unjustifiable.
It makes me really doubt whether we would stick to our guns if we ever got into power.
James,
fair enough if you support the referendum.
As for holding a referendum on membership, I’m all for that, but I think the Lib Dems are using this as a cynical ploy to wriggle off the hook presented by all three parties committing to put this treaty to the people.
I am also in no doubt that the reason the Lib Dems would want such an ‘in or out’ referendum is because it’s probably the only one that the pro-EU side could win.
As for the Tory position on this latter matter, I have no particular view, not being a Tory myself.
I am proud of our position on this one. I have always been of the view that referenda are very dangerous vehicles. All the people I know who advocate a referendum are doing so because they dislike the EU full stop. When asked why they do not support a referndum on the EU as a whole they either say they would like that or grudgingly admit that they would lose it. In addition none of them have actualy read it and most don’t know what the major changes are.
The public would vote on the treaty secure in the knoweldge that we would be able to stay in the EU but that we could mess up the treaty. Most people objections to the EU are not the role of the body in terms of foreign affairs but issues like CAP and the Fisheries Policy. We should thank Ming for developing this policy and we shouldn’t take any lessons from Tories on democracy. Just becasue we have the word democrats in our name does not mean we should support a vote on everything under the sun.
Trooper Thompson we have not betrayed anything – we promised a referendum on a constitution. We still want a referendum on the full constitution of the EU as constituted from the various treaties since Rome – ie. an “in or out” referendum – which is a much, much wider matter for referendum than the very narrow amending treaty – the EU Reform treaty.
There is a principled reason to ask for a referendum on the EU as a whole and to reject a spurious referendum purporting to be one on EU membership but in actual fact being on a series of amendments.
@ Paul 49: That is a good way of putting it, and much better than your earlier comments. That does in fact persuade me of the case—we proposed a referendum on the constitution, and it is that that we should have, the Lisbon treaty is a set of amendments and not the replacement to what has gone before originally proposed.
I do wish the constitution itself had kept it short and to the point, rather than trying to be a catch all including policy areas and similar.
There is still a bit of me that’d like a referendum on both on the same ballot, but I doubt we’ll actually get either. Someone get Paul’s wording to the attention of Mssrs Davey and Clegg…
@DK: Thanks for that link, as always, EU Refendum gives good facts and analysis I disagree with, I also don’t agree that the Council becomes an agent of the EU, the Council is the body that sets the purpose of the EU, and the best interests of the Union are what the Council defines it to be, so I have no real problem with the wording of the intent. While I am slightly disquieted with the idea of a self-amending treaty, it does require full ratification of any amendments made, so effectively it’s a way to update things without having a full treaty every few years, something which anyone on the reformist wing (which as you know I am) should really support.
Mat – if I could find a blushing “smilie” I would use it! Thank you
Surely just the change from having a rotating presidency to having a single person president is a constitutional issue? I don’t give a toss what the document is called, but if it is restructuring the way the EU works in any substantive way, then surely that is constitutional?
I am a Lib Dem member, and I too am very disappointed in the party line: I think that there is sufficient ambiguity as to whether the treaty is constitutional or not that we should have a referendum anyway, to be “on the safe side”. The only reason that this is being opposed is because both we and Labour are afraid that if there is a referendum, then we will lose.
The alternative, to argue “the public won’t understand” is, as mentioned above, intensely illiberal.
52. That is a constitutional change, but it doesn’t amount to a constitution.
We are proposing a fuller and bigger referendum on the whole EU constitution, not just on a restricted list of changes.
I have never argued “the public will not understand” and I cannot see anyone above promoting that view – someone merely disagreed with it after mentioning it themselves.
Paul Walter,
“we have not betrayed anything”
Oh yes you have! (Forgive me, I went to a pantomine recently.)
This may allow you to rest easy, but it’s stinking sophistry. You know and I know that this treaty has the same effect as the constitution.
At the last election, the fact that all three parties committed themselves to holding a referendum removed the issue of the EU from all discussion, and myself as a member of the electorate rested easy, safe in the knowledge that the people would have a say in the matter at a later date. By backing out of this commitment, and then to play this game of ‘it’s not the same as the constitution’ is unforgivable. Any MP that votes against this referendum is spitting in the face of the people of this country, and they should not be surprised if the contempt they have for us is repaid in kind.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
54
No. A constitution starts from a completely clean sheet and stipulates the structures of an entity. So, for example, it would state that there is to be a parliament and it will be made up of x members, coming from each country at a proportion of x members per million population etc and that it will sit between the months of x and y and pass legislation which will have x impact.
The EU Constitution is a series of treaties which have been signed since the original Treaty of Rome just after the war. What the LibDems are proposing is a referendum on the actual EU constitution – i.e that whole series of treaties which deal with the whole framework of the EU, rather than just one reform treaty at the end which simply amends some of the institutions.
Preen and posture all you like. I was promised a referendum AND I AIN’T GOT ONE, and your party promised to support it and now they’re helping Labour stop us having one, and no amount of spin and sophistry can save you. Why should anyone support your party if you won’t do what you said you would? You’re no opposition party, you’re the Government’s reserve. To hell with the Liberal Democrats – YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT EITHER WORD EVEN MEANS.
We promised a referendum on the EU constitution and that is what we have and will vote for in the House of Commons. The Reform Treaty is not the EU Constitution. The EU Constitution is the whole series of treaties since Rome.
Utter vacuous tosh! You promised to support a referendum on the document prepared by Giscard D’Estaing, the document that the French and the Dutch voted on, that was then revised and renamed, including the exact same content, with the exact same effect. That’s what you promised. Now you want to break that promise, and think you can retreat to the moral highground by promising something that you know ain’t gonna happen? If you can’t see how shabby your party’s acted, you must have caught Blair’s disease and now believe your own lies. Stinking lying hypocrits who haven’t got the guts to face the public and argue your case and let us decide.
You make your bed, you lie in it, but don’t ever expect anyone to believe anything your party says again.
Oh, it must be sh*t being a Lib Dem.
Change leader every whip stitch, and then, once they are installed you find that there is a little problem..
This one drinks too much..
This one is too old…
This one won’t do as he’s told…
It must be like in the days of BL where patriotic types would insist on buying British Leyland cars, and the Morris Marina / Austin Princess / Triumph Dolomite would be fine as you drove it out of the showroom, and just about until you got it to your home, and then you noticed a few rattles that weren’t there before, and then the problems started…
Thanks to the trolls this is all getting unwarrantably rancorous. Europe presents problems for all parties (apart from UKIP one would suppose – and look how united they are!): Labour have never clearly decided what their view on Europe is; the Tories are split between those who have a visceral dislike of anyone who doesn’t have English as their mother tongue and the economic realists who recognise a good thing when they see it; and the LibDems who believe wholeheartedly, for the most part, in the European ideal but who are afraid that to proclaim that support will lose votes, thanks to the misinformation peddled to the electorate by the Murdoch press.
I believe that the Treaty is the same as the Constitution and that it is sophistry to argue otherwise. Our mistake was to offer a referendum on the Constitution. Surely as Liberal Democrats we had enough knowledge of what is involved in writing constitutions to know that it is not a process that can conceivably be ratified by a referendum. Writing a constitution involves endless discussion by people who understand the intricacies of such a process – inevitably a tiny subset of the population. A constitution is not susceptible to a Yes/No question: whether you want to belong to the organisation for which the constitution has been written is susceptible to such a question, and that is why Ming was right to reframe the debate in those terms, though our argument would have carried more weight if we had acknowledged our mistake in the 2005 manifesto.
Having come back to this thread after a gap I see some accusations that to suggest that the electorate may not look deeply enough into the real issues before voting in a “treaty” referendum is illiberal. Perhaps I am the guilty party because of 6 and 20 above where I said
“Does anyone seriously think that any more than a fraction of one per cent of the population will have any real idea of what they are being asked to vote for or against?” and –
“Partly by having allowed the antis to play all the best tunes – often the only tunes – and partly because there will be such a lack of understanding of the issues by otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people, we have reached a position whereby a referendum on the treaty in the UK would wreck something profoundly in the best interests of our country.”
This is in the context of my belief that we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy with popular votes on specific issues. To be precise I do think referenda have their (very rare)place – mainly to decide big “in or out” issues such as joining or leaving the EU or Scotland leaving the UK etc.
Do those who use words like “illiberal” really think it demeaning to suggest that lengthy,complex, detailed and often specialist legislation is better handled and voted on by those we have elected for that purpose?
This treaty is different from the “constitution” but we should not have proposed a referendum even on the “constitution.” To allow ourselves and our country to be hoist on that petard now makes no sense whatsoever.
Let’s have a bill which sets out for future reference all those categories of issue which will be subject to a referendum – in some cases with a weighted majority. Then rule out referenda being offered in any other circumstances.
Just stumbled across this. Flabbergasted by the self deluding rationalisation displayed. You make much out of insisting we have a referendum on in/out of EU but not on treaty/constitution. This is a complete reversal from initial stance when Menzies Campbell & rest of L-D spokesmen insisted we must not have said referendum on “treaty” as it would become surrogate referendum on leaving EU. Now that it’s clear majority are keen to remain in EU but not cede any more power,stance completely changed as you’ve realised electorate are quite intelligent enough to seperate the issues and vote accordingly.The only way you can force new “treaty” on unwilling electorate is not allow them to have any say. No-one of stature is seriously advocating leaving EU, this is completely spurious. Far from being a principled position as someone above would have us believe, I find this redolent of the worst manipulative and disingenuous instincts of the political class. Liberal? Democrat? My eye.
58 The 2005 Liberal Democrat manifesto said:
“We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest”
So it specifically said “constitution”.
63 – That’s the whole point isn’t it! By not calling it a constitution some people think they can weasel out of a promise to hold a referendum.
While it is called a constitution, it is largely the same document.
64 should be – While it is NOT called a constitution, it is largely the same document.
I agree we are not a direct democracy.
BUT apparently we thought the electorate were clever enough to understand the issues in a vote on the Constitution.
We think they are OK to understand and have a vote on the WHOLE issue of Europe.
Same went for Maastricht.
Now we are to say this is not the same so they don’t need to vote..
We are wrong.
There is cleary a view that the public are being denied a vote because it will be lost. By going along with this we look as if wetoo are frightened and are circumventing a vote and a argument we think we will lose.
The ‘whole issue’ vote just looks like changing the question to one we know we can win [and to one that will never be asked].
For a power to the peolpe party, it doesn’t feel right.
66. It may look that way to some – but it isn’t the true situation.
64 and 65: My dictionary defines “constitution” as “The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.”
The Reform treaty is not that – it is a just series of amendments. The Constitution of the EU is the collection of treaties back to and including Rome and the Reform Treaty and the Maastricht treaty – the whole lot.
And that is what the Liberal Democrats want a referendum on – the EU constitution – as promised.
[Edited by moderator: the language was, shall we say, a little over-robust]
Like I said before, if there is ambiguity between this being a constitution or not, and there are plenty of people arguing both ways, then surely the only responsible position is to vote for a referendum on this document?
That way, if the document is a constitution, no-one has broken their election pledge. And incidentally, I don’t buy for a second that when the parties said “constitution” they meant “a document that we all agree is a constitution”, I’m sure they meant “this document that Giscard D’Estaing is preparing”. That being so, then we still have the same document, just with a different title.
Alternatively, the document is not a constitution, and Britain has a healthy debate on its position in Europe, and makes a vote on a significant international treaty.
Surely no harm done either way?
EXCEPT for the fact that, as James Graham blogged today, the Lib Dem PP and everyone else opposing a referendum on this document is doing it solely on the basis that if the referendum were to be held, that they believe that a “NO” vote would win.
It’s pathetic and childish and I am pretty peeved to be associated with a party playing such games.
Also, Paul, you’ve just been pwned by TT @ 69. I’ve just gone and double-checked the manifesto myself and TT is absolutely right.
Paul W,
Stop being ridiculous. You know as well as I do that the amending treaty defines “The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.”, in this case the EU. You can claim that the EU is not officially an institution, but this is a legal dodge which doesn’t fool many people.
Indeed, as you claim the treaty doesn’t change the way in which the EU will work (bearing in mind it is an amending treaty, so it only needs to define the deltas, not the whole structure), then why do you think is it needed?
Passing Tory – that thought occurred to me too; surely whether it is labelled as a constitution or a treaty is pretty meaningless since the net effects of either version seem to be the same.
If the results of implementing the treaty or the constitution are functionally equivalent, then what the document is called, and the manner in which it achieves either of the identical results is, basically, irrelevant.
Technically it’s not the Lisbon Treaty which would have virtually the same legal effects as the Constitution, it’s the combination of the Lisbon Treaty and the existing Treaties that it would amend.
Once that had been done, it would be open to the Court of Justice to declare that the end result should be regarded as the EU’s Constitution – a not unreasonable step, as the legal contents would be so similar to the previous Constitution, and in any case they have already described the Treaties as “the constitutional charter of a Community based on the rule of law.”, back in 1991 – but to make it more comprehensible to citizens it should be tidied-up or “codified”.
During that process of codification, the word “Constitution” which was noisily removed this year would be quietly re-instated, and as (according to the Court) that would have no material effect on its legal substance, it is doubtful whether it would be seen as a treaty change requiring ratification by the member states. A few minor bits and pieces, such as the flag and the anthem, could also be slipped back in at that time.
So, hey presto, the EU would have erected its Giscardian Constitution, by sleight of hand.
Incidentally, the Court of Justice has long claimed that the principle of primacy of EU law over national law extends to the relationship between EU law and national constitutional law, so that EU Constitution would be deemed superior to the British constitution.
And all that, without any attempt to obtain the consent of the British people, or the consent of any of the other peoples of Europe, with the assistance of the so-called “Liberal Democrats”.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
An ‘In / Out’ referendum pledge is fine in principle. But the problem caused by going back on our original referendum pledge is one of credibility.
People say to me how they’re supposed to believe we’ll honour this new referedum pledge, however appealing or well justified it may be. It’s not good.
I’m at a loss to understand why Nick Clegg doesn’t just do the sensible thing and say the party will stand by the referendum we promised in our last manifesto.
That’s clearly the option that ticks all the boxes; simplicity, honesty, integrity, consistency, and democracy.
69. There isn’t ambiguity. It’s perfectly clear.
Perhaps the PP think losing a referendum on an amending treaty would leave us, the United Kingdom, in limboland with the need to have a full referendum on membership after that anyway – so they think it is better to have the proper referendum without delay.
70. I can’t read Trooper Thompson’s remark – I think he was swearing like a trooper. I quoted directly from the pdf on the LibDem website of the 2005 manifesto. Please let me know what you think it says.
71. I didn’t say the RT wouldn’t change the way the EU works. If the RT is a constitution then can you tell me:
a. Where it says how many members the European parliament will have and what powers it will have?
b. Where it says what the powers of the Commission are?
or c. Where it says what the make-up of the Council of Ministers will be?
73. You are actually agreeing with me in that the EU constitution is the combination of all the treaties since Rome including the RT. That is what we need the referendum on.
74. We haven’t gone back on our pledge. We promised a referendum on the constitution and that is what we still support and indeed, have held a vote in parliament on at the last Queens speech debate.
The European Union has had a constitution since the Treaty of Rome. It’s ludicrous to suggest that this is some new thing.
The problem with Giscard’s constitution was that it didn’t change anything; it just rewrote the existing one from treatyese to constitutionese. There were a couple of minor amendments, but that’s what they were – minor. The Treaty of Lisbon is essentially those minor amendments rewritten back into treatyese instead of constitutionese.
Eurosceptics keep getting offended by things that were in the Treaty of Rome – and then pretending that they are some new innovation.
The EU is a constituted structure that is superior to the nation-state. Always has been. It already is a federation – has been since the Treaty of Rome. The so-called federal superstate is something I’ve lived in my entire life – and I’m in my mid-thirties.
If you don’t like it, propose changing it, or propose leaving it, but so-far-and-no-further does require you to actually have a clue how far so far is. And you don’t.
I agree with pretty much everything Richard has just said except “it’s already a federation”. Byt most definitions of what a federation is, it isn’t. It’s more closely a confederation with some extra bits, my old lecturer in EU politics called it a “confederal consociation” which is good enough.
I’d like it to be a proper devolved federation with proper democratic accountability at each level and as little as possible decided at Brussels, but that would require a proper rational informed debate. Which we might manage to get after we have the membership referendum.
This threads going to run and run isn’t it…
matt,
It sounds as though we more or less agree with the best sort of EU, but I strongly disagree with you about the best way of achieving this. The current momentum in the EU is very much in the opposite direction – towards greater central decision making – and ratifying the treaty is going to establish this process rather than increase the possibility of changing it. If we want a different EU, the time to debate is while there is some leverage, and that means now.
“A referendum on the constitution” would have been a referendum on whether to move from the present legal position, that laid down in the present treaties, to a new legal position, that laid down in the Constitutional Treaty.
“A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty” would also be a referendum on whether to move from the present legal position, that laid down in the present treaties, to a new legal position, that laid down in the Constitutional Treaty.
Bar a few minor differences, which could easily be adjusted afterwards, the legal changes are the same.
Previously the Liberal Democrats said that those legal changes were big enough to merit a referendum, and promised support for a referendum in their 2005 election manifesto – which, NB, was the manifesto on which Nick Clegg was elected, like all the other Liberal Democrat MPs.
Now having been elected on that manifesto Nick Clegg, and most of the other Liberal Democrat MPs, claim that almost exactly the same legal changes do not merit a referendum.
79. The manifesto promise was for a referendum on the constitution which we are still supporting – a referendum on all the treaties, including the Reform Treaty, since Rome – i.e the complete constitution of the EU. i.e “in or out”.
The Reform Treaty is not a constitution so we have not broken any promise.
Now you really are demeaning yourself.
The French had “a referendum on the constitution”.
Their “no” meant that the Constitutional Treaty couldn’t come into force, but it didn’t affect the treaties which were already in force – the present treaties, as amended up to and including the amendments agreed at Nice.
The EU has carried on under those treaties, and France has continued to be a member state of the EU, because their referendum was only on the new treaty, NOT on the existing treaties, and therefore not on EU membership.
If those drafting the 2005 Liberal Democrat manifesto had intended to pledge support for an “in or out” referendum, then no doubt they would have had sufficient command of English to say so.
81. In 2005 a constitution was being prepared and that is what the LibDems promised a referendum on. The EU Reform Treaty is not a constitution. The LibDems still support a referendum on the EU constitution, which is, in effect, an “in or out” vote.
Paul Walter
There’s a huge difference between a referendum in which a “No” vote would result in us leaving the EU, and a vote on whether to ratify a (new) constitution for the EU, which is what was in the manifesto.
Obviously we are proposing something very different from what we proposed in 2005. I think it’s clearly just a manoeuvre to avoid the issue of whether there should be a referendum on the Treaty.
Chris Phillips
Which is why France, having rejected the EU Constitution in a referendum, is no longer in the EU.
Thanks for explaining that.
I should add that my 84 was in reply to the unprincipled nonsense in 82, not the good sense in 83.
83. Chris, we promised a referendum on the EU constitution. The Reform treaty is not the EU constitution. It’s a list of amendments. So, in order to fulfil our promise to have a referendum on the EU constitution we have to have a referendum on all the treaties since Rome – which is effectively a “in or out” vote – it is one and the same.
84. I don’t think the French comparison is relevant because the document they rejected was then withdrawn.
Paul Walter wrote:
“So, in order to fulfil our promise to have a referendum on the EU constitution we have to have a referendum on all the treaties since Rome – which is effectively a “in or out” vote – it is one and the same.”
No. We did not propose an “in or out” vote in 2005, and there is absolutely no reason why we “have to have” one now.
The vote we promised in 2005 was on whether to adopt the proposed constitution, or to leave things are they were.
If the practical effect of the Lisbon Treaty is similar to that of the proposed constitution, as most commentators seem to think, then the equivalent referendum would be on whether we should ratify that treaty, or leave things as they are.
And you know as well as everyone else that there simply is not going to be an “in or out” referendum. It is not on offer. The choice we have to make is whether we support a referendum on whether to ratify the treaty. Our current policy is just a diversionary tactic.
Chris Phillips
“If the practical effect of the Lisbon Treaty is similar to that of the proposed constitution, as most commentators seem to think, then the equivalent referendum would be on whether we should ratify that treaty, or leave things as they are.”
No that’s not true. The Lisbon Treaty is not a constitution and therefore does not have a “practical effect” which is similar to a constitution. It just makes a few changes.
Paul Walter
If your argument is that the practical effects of ratifying the treaty are _not_ comparable with those of adopting the constitution, then that’s another matter.
But it seems to me that that isn’t the argument that’s being made. I’ve seen very little discussion on this thread about the _practical_ differences between the two.
And if that’s the argument, then the issue of an “in or out” referendum is irrelevant. Even if, for reasons I don’t understand, some people in the party want another “in or out” referendum 30 years on – even though no one else apart from those on the fringes is calling for one – then it’s an entirely separate issue.
Chris Phillips
I am warming to my namesake – 81, 84, 85 et al – even though I suspect he is a Eurosceptic and I (the ORIGINAL Denis) am a Europhile. Those who argue that a referendum on the Giscard “constitution” would have been in effect an “in or out” decision are up a gum tree, I’m afraid, as Another Denis has eloquently pointed out by citing the French example.
If you have the stomach please go back all the way to my 6 above.
1. It never was a constitution asnd should not have been so designated.
2. The Lib Dems made a mistake in offering a referendum in our representative democracy. Why Oh why can political parties hardly ever say – “We’ve thought about it and we’ve changed our mind!”
Oh, this guy Clegg has got you spooked, now hasn’t he ?
You wait till he starts talking about the value of private health insurance…
I think I have said all I can say – twenty times. Ta-ra!
On a lighter note, what does the phrase ‘economically and socially liberal’ mean in terms of the current £100 billion spend on welfare/benefits, and the move to Wisconsin style workfare which, say, Frank Field is in favour of for Labour and which the Tories appear to be casting a jealous glance at ??
And what will Lib Dems say when Nick Clegg tries to break it to them that he will not turn down any nuclear plants / heathrow extension which Labour approve during their term of office ??
I have to say, this is the world’s dullest thread but since you bozos insist on lengthening it and I’m still getting sent your postings every time you make them, I thought I’d jump in and try to bash some sense into you all.
Arguing over whether the Lib Dems did or did not break a manifesto commitment is irrelevant on at least two grounds. The first, narrow, point is that the Constitutional Treaty does not exist any more. We can argue about whether supporting an in/out referendum or the Reform Treaty referendum is closest to honouring that until we’re blue in the face (several of you appear to be already) but the fact is that Treaty is not what is being debated.
Secondly, opposition parties are not bound by manifesto commitments. This fact ought to be obvious: the Lib Dems do not have the same manifesto as the one used in 1931 for instance. The Lib Dems have already ditched lots of manifesto commitments such as support for the 50p income tax rate for example. The Conservatives completely disowned theirs. So banging on about “you promised” is not only babyish but irrelevant.
The only pertinent issue is not whether the Lib Dems are honour bound to support a referendum but whether they should. You all seem obsessed with the former issue and utterly disinterested in the latter.
Give it up and get over yourselves.
Initially when the Liberal Democrats announced that their policy is to have a referendum on EU membership rather than the substance of the treaty, I was concerned that this was suddenly our policy without any debate.
However I now think the position of the Parliamentary party is correct. First of all they had to take a position at a time when they did not have the time to consult the party membership.
And secondly they are right that when people complain about the lack of a referendum, and you ask them what specifically they are concerned about, they do not mention any detail within the treaty, but they do outline a list of complaints about the EU itself.
Logically then that is what people should vote on; something that they understand.
So who said this, then?
“If any Government propose to agree to a major shift in control or any transfer of significant powers from member states to European institutions, or to agree to any alteration in the existing balance between member states and those institutions, there should be a referendum of the British people.”
Menzies Campbell, 2003, explaining the criteria the Liberal Democrats apply when deciding whether a referendum is justified.
And when the legal changes which would have been introduced by the Constitutional Treaty were examined, they were deemed to meet those criteria; but now that virtually the same changes would be brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, albeit by an alternative mechanism, they are deemed not to meet those criteria.
I’m afraid it just doesn’t wash.
Geoffrey Payne wrote:
“Logically then that is what people should vote on; something that they understand.”
The only snag with that argument is that we end up advocating a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU, which no one outside the political fringes is calling for.
Meanwhile, returning to the real world, we’re going to vote against a referendum on a treaty which – in practical terms – will apparently have much the same effect as one which our manifesto of 2005 said “must be subject to a referendum of the British people”.
Certainly there’s nothing forcing us to be consistent with our manifesto commitment of only a couple of years ago. But on the other hand, aren’t we supposed to be in a new era of openness and honesty now, not in yet another one of sophistry and cynicism?
Chris Phillips