Should the House of Commons vote on the before Gordon Brown is allowed to sign it?
That's the Conservatives' reading of the from . They say the committee reserves its position on the treaty which means ministers cannot sign unless they get specific approval from Parliament. But they admit the government has ignored this rule in the past and probably will again.
Jump to more content from this blog
I’m Mark Mardell, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My previous blog, as the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s man in Europe, taught me one thing at least: your comments are key. I read them all, so please have your say.
For the latest updates across ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogs,
visit the Blogs homepage.
|
Nick Robinson: |
 |
|
Douglas Fraser: |
 |
|
Brian Taylor: |
 |
 |
|
Richard Black: |
 |
|
Jonathan Amos: |
 |
You can stay up to date with Mark Mardell's America via these feeds.
Mark Mardell's America Feed(RSS)
Mark Mardell's America Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find useful.
´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
How out of touch can Brown and his Government get!
Not only do most of the nation want a referendum on this Treaty but now we have a cross party committee of MPs saying the so-called opt outs are worthless and Parliment should decide BEFORE Brown signs.
Can we expect Brown to do a U-turn. Don,t hold your breath for this sleaziest of Governments.The only thing we know for sure is after all that has happened in the last month with this Government, come the next election they are history.
Parliamentary approval by all means. But if these are tricks just to torpedo the treaty against the wishes of the other 26 EU members then it justifies De Gaulle's view which you published a few days ago i.e. that the British don't belong in Europe because they think they are better off with the Americans. British fair play would dictate that if the English (not the Scots or the Irish!) do not like the EU why on earth do they not check out? Prediction: In spite of all the nugging in a few years Britain will join the Euro and will get an appetite to lead Europe instead of being marginalised by an influential jingoistic minority.
I have a theory that the only reason we (UK) joined the EEC (now EU) was because the USA told us we had to; to ensure the EU didn’t get too strong or successful. If so, we’ve done our job quite well!
Should there be a vote on this treaty before the government is allowed to sign it? Yes!
But not because of what it contains, or whether it's a bit of a scam pretending it's no different to the previous "constitution". The ideas it puts forth might even have merit.
The reason there should be a vote is the blatant failure to ensure that other countries comply with even the existing ones.
Sure there's the ECJ, but not everyone has, or is willing, to spend the next 5 years or so until the the ECJ rules that one country or another is still breaching, or has put into place, yet another national law which is eventually ruled illegal under existing treaties the UK signed 10-20 years ago.
Of course it should. Even more importantly, Parliament should have sight of the final 'official' version of the Reform Treaty for scrutiny (and debate) before any vote for ratification. Does such a final/official version even exist? If so, where can it be found?
If Parliament - having read the Reform Treaty - considers it worthy of ratification and do wish to cede further powers from Parliament to the EU, then it should be put to the nation in a referendum.
It's not only the UK which has to maintain scrutiny reserves on EU measures before Ministers sign them off in Council (or in the Conciliation Committee where the measure is for co-decision). I know the Danes make a big thing of clearing Parliamentary scrutiny before Ministers agree things in Council. I wonder what is happening in other EU member states.
If the Lisbon Treaty (to be) is supposed to involve national parliaments more in the process of EU law-making, it is a poor show if the Labour Government is prepared to sign the Treaty before the Commons and the Lords scrutiny committes have given the draft treaty their OK.
This governments contempt for the UK publics opinion on Europe, will be the issue that destroys it.
I know of not one other subject that virtually everyone in the Dog and Duck agrees on.
We want a vote and Mr Browns refusal (and its seen as his personal decision) to give us that vote is making him incredibly unpopular and appear very arrogant.
When you go against 80% of Public opinion you are risking a lot. He is not a man of the people on this subject.
no mandate to run the country bring back the tories to save britain from the eu before its too late.gordon brown bad for britain as for the treaty referendum and down with the eu..
Given the current problems of the Labour party, we have a fair idea how much we can trust them to be honourable. Not only will they ignore this committee, they will ignore the general public who voted them into office on a manifesto promise to hold a referendum on this treaty. After all, why would they worry about such a triffling detail?
Now is the time for all men and women of honour in parliament, (there must be some surely) to stand up and hold the executive to account - that is what they are paid for after all - and force them to carry through on a clear manifesto commitment. If politicians treat the electorate with contempt, they have only themselves to blame if they vote for more extreme parties. Do politicians learn nothing from history?
Not only does this Government know that the vast majority of the population want a referendum on the Treaty. Now we have a cross party committee of MPs saying that our opt-outs are not what Gordon Brown say they are and that they can be overruled at a later date. Surely our Prime Minister is honest enough(don,t make me laugh) to tell the truth !!!
Even though Brown is supposed to go along with the committee,s findings don,t hold your breath.This control freak has pushed them aside before.
Only one thing is sure. When they call a General Election this sleazy Government will be history.Let us all hope that the damage they cause in the meantime can be repared.
Not only does this Government know that the vast majority of the population want a referendum on the Treaty. Now we have a cross party committee of MPs saying that our opt-outs are not what Gordon Brown say they are and that they can be overruled at a later date. Surely our Prime Minister is honest enough(don,t make me laugh) to tell the truth !!!
Even though Brown is supposed to go along with the committee,s findings don,t hold your breath.This control freak has pushed them aside before.
Only one thing is sure. When they call a General Election this sleazy Government will be history.Let us all hope that the damage they cause in the meantime can be repaired.
Contray to Tel Tetel (2), I bet that the British will ratify the Reform Treaty around 2050, at the same time as the Swiss and also at the time when the TGV tracks will finally arrive at Heathrow
We Europeans want Britain to have a referendum not about the Lisbon Treaty but about getting out of the EU. This pathetic anachronism against a successful effort by the European states to make their presence felt on the international stage and to stop being exploited by the US Dollar has to stop ASAP. Please vote against Europe NOW. Give us the pleasure never have you back, no matter how much you will beg!
Gordon Brown, if he goes ahead and signs this treaty and denies the British people their promised referendum, will go on to lose the next election.
By behaving the way he is he is making this the major issue for the next election whether he wants to or not.
The MAJORITY of the British people are ONLY in favour of the EU in it's original form - a loose trading alliance. Brown knows this, and knows he will lose any referendum over Europe in either it's present or proposed form.
The conservatives will make this an election issue and go on to win the next general election. What the Europhiles and the rest of Europe forget is that the EU is so unpopular and viewed with so much suspicion and contempt by the average 'Joe in the street' that denying the UK people their referendum is political suicide. People will flock to the conservatives if they promise the referendum, irrespective of any of their other policies no matter how mickey-mouse, or indeed any of Labour's other policies. The next election will become a single issue election.
Indeed it is fair to say that Europe is despised so much by the average UK person that we don't even care what the rest of Europe thinks of that position or indeed thinks of ourselves - it's none of their business and we don't care what they think of us anyway.
Even though Brown will sign the Treaty (in fact treaties because there's 2 of them), we aren't going to pay that much attention to it. As Europe implememts the Euro and the open borders policy, we in the UK are going the other way. We are about to impose more stringent border controls than we have ever had, and even place security controls on internal travel - and EU nationals will not be exempt because even we won't be. And that is what we, the people want. Brown doesn't, but he has no choice, it’s our country not his and sooner or later he will realise this over this treaty. Hopefully before he signs, but if needs be when he is turfed out of number 10 after losing the election
We will have our referendum or Brown will lose the next election - badly.
Contray to Tel Tetel (2), I bet that the British will ratify the Reform Treaty around 2050, at the same time as the Swiss and also at the time when the TGV tracks will finally arrive at Heathrow
The classic procedure for the negotiation of an international treaty is that a (any) democratic government, as executive, (i) negotiates it (ii) signs it and then (iii) submits it to parliament to gain the necessary approval to ratify it, which is a different (and final) step.
Until all Member States have ratified the 'Lisbon Treaty', it cannot come into force.
Opposition and/or other parties may not like what a government has signed up to but they have the opportunity to reject it during the process of ratification, either by vote in parliament or (in the sole case of Ireland, in this instance) by referendum.
It would be a pity if these normal, fundamental steps in a democratic procedure were to be overlooked in the heat of the debate, in any Member State.
"We Europeans want Britain to have a referendum not about the Lisbon Treaty but about getting out of the EU" - Tel Tetel
Perhaps they should. Whether the 'Europeans' would be shouting from the rooftops in celebration as the UK reinstates its 200 mile internationally recognised fishing rights, or rediscovers that they can import high quality agricultural produce from NZ for perhaps half the price, to the disadvantage of EU farmers, is another matter.
The "pathetic anachronism" here is the various EU countries, though signing the same agreements the UK has, who don't respect an honest bargain, but choose instead to discriminate or protect themselves from the agreements they make in some of the worst possible ways.
1997-TB voted in -2001 TB voted in again having walked all over British citizens - 2005 TB voted in again having walked all over British citizens-2007 GB not voted in but still walking all over British citizens - two men who advocate partial birth abortion surely have no problem walking all over living people -but............you get what you deserve in life - US got GB and we got GB - two more arrogant men it would be hard to find - unless TB was lurking around!!..of course, we will not be considered in any future European edicts....all decided in 1953 and after all........they know they can walk all over us and still get voted in.
I think even the Soviet Union had its rubber stamp Parliament vote on treaties. What difference does it make in Britain anyway, if an MP thinks for himself and votes against the party, it could be his political undoing.
"I grew so rich that I was sent by a pocketborough into Parliament"
"I always voted at my party's call and never thought of thinking for myself at all."
"I thought so little, they rewared me by making me the ruler of the Queen's navy."
(G&S)
It is absolutley unacceptable that with the NO votes to the EU constitution via referendums in France and Holland, that this government can sign this treaty without one, or without the explicit approval of Parliament. If this constitution becomes law without the consent of voters it will go down as the biggest fraud and scandal the world has ever seen. For goodness sakes, our sovregnity will be sold to an UNELECTED European government who have the sole right to make law. The European Union is about nothing other than creating a world government, under the rule of fewer and fewer people. Will voters switch of their TVs and wake up from their perpetual state of ignorance before it's too late? Only time will tell. I pray that it doesn't come too late.
Andy Kelly (No.7) writes that they had a referendum at the Dog & Duck and 80% voted against Europe. Actually at the only referendum there is the British voted 70% to join the "ever-closer Union" of the EU after begging De Gaulle for 10 years to let them do so. Now a small naive vociferous minority hold pub referenda and demand from the responsible national Government who know what is best for Britain to go against the other 26 members.
And Michael No.17 thinks the EU will be devastated if the British start buying lamb chops from NZ!. The EU and the Eurozone are the biggest exporters and traders in the history of mankind and I doubt if anybody gives a chop about NZ chops.!
Everybody seems to be missing the point. There is no treaty before it's signed and signing it doesn't create any legal obligations to ratify it. You can't debate a treaty which does not exist!
@ Tel Tetel (2):
according to the Financial Times, a majority in EVERY EU member state wants a referendum. And furthermore, you don't speak for us (Netherlands). We would vote this treaty down if given the chance (and likely, so would a few more like Denmark if given the change). The EU is bad for Europe, bad for business, bad for consumers (see the Chinese products scandal which would have been impossible had national governments been allowed to reject the Chinese crap) and bad for African farmers and fishermen.
In fact, everyone including African farmers and fishermen would be better off, except politicians and Brussels' bureaucratic elite who would no longer have cushy jobs without having to pay income tax.
@ Denis O Leary (16):
this ISN'T an international treaty, this treaty functions to create an embryonic supreme government of Europe and the majority in Britain, Netherlands, Denmark etc doesn't want that to happen. In fact the majority everywhere wants a referendum. Why are the EU-philes so arrogant to deny us one? Politicians do not have a mandate to surrender legislative powers and sovereignty to Brussels.
How on earth did we allow this to happen? National parliaments have lost virtually all sovereignty to make laws (rather: gave it away to Brussels without a mandate to do so). Our laws are made by unelected clowns in Brussels and this must stop.
Most countries that pretend to love the EU only do so anyway because they would be/are net recipients. Who wouldn't want to join a club that promised to pay you a sweet couple a billion for at least 5-10 years?
Marcel
Netherlands
"The EU and the Eurozone are the biggest exporters and traders in the history of mankind and I doubt if anybody gives a chop about NZ chops.!" - Tel Tetel
Strange then, that so powerful an empire has to continually protect itself against little countries.
Regarding the rest, I'd suggest doing a bit more research.
Replying to Marcel #23, the formal title of the document now under discussion is "Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community". Saying that that this is NOT a treaty does not change the fact that it is.
Furthermore, no Member State of the European Union has ceded sovereignty, least of all the Netherlands, without full consultation of its elected representatives and, in the case of the Constitutional Treaty, its people. The answer, in the last-mentioned case, was no. This must be presumed to have been a rejection of anything that smacked of a constitution seen (mistakenly) as superseding national constitutions and leading to a form of European "super-state".
Other Member States have often proceeded by way of referendum, and have, indeed, changed their constitutions, to take account of the fact that they have ceded sovereignty in certain carefully circumscribed areas e.g. acceptance of a common currency.
One can argue about whether or not these changes have been beneficial. But the evidence does not support any claim that this has happened blindly or by way of political subterfuge.
Tel Tetel (21)
I voted in the 1975 referendum and i can assure you we were not told it would go as far as this.Ask the majority of people who voted back then and they will tell you it was about getting a bigger market place. It would creat more jobs etc.
We are not a 'naive vociferous minority' as you say.We are the majority. It is obvious you are not from the UK or you would know what the man in the street is saying.
As for the EU being devasted if the UK left. I doubt that. Even though the countries left would have to pay more money into the kitty as the UK gives more than it gets back.
One thing i can,t understand is if my country is holding the rest back then make us all happy and kick us out, please.
And if you think this is not the view of the majority just ponder over this.If our government thought they would get a yes vote they would hold a referendum !!
I think it is people like you who are VERY NIAVE.
I fail to see how the powers and authority of the citizens of the UK can be given away, even by our Parliament, without the consent of the people of the UK. I see it as unconstitutional to have Parliament subjegate itself. I find the methods used with this latest treaty to pretend its not the constitution to be insulting to our intelligence; do they really think they are so clever these politicians who deny us our right to a referendum. A super state is being built and nationhood is being destroyed and we appear to have no say in any of that. Its wrong fundamentally wrong! Brown should keep his promise or risk forever being remembered as a dishonest politician who deconstructed our nation through underhand means.
I find it extraordinary that Andy Williams (@14)tries to argue that the introduction of a surveillance society in the UK is a welcome manifestation of national sovereignty.
The tiny UK has a quarter of the world's CCTV cameras, one sixth of the entire world's speed cameras and is a world leader in number plate recognition technology, so that every journey you ever make is tracked. Face recognition technology is next on the list.
Full personal ID is already required on all flights including internal ones, and it is tipped that passports will soon be required for travel to and from Northern Ireland.
Members of my staff have been required to identify themselves and answer questions at Leeds railway station (uner the Terrorism Acts) on their way to and from work, and miss trains as a result.
In the UK it is now impossible to open a Bank or Building Society account, or instruct an IFA, solicitor or accountant without showing proof of ID.
Tightening border controls so that no-one is allowed in or out without detailed investigtion is is the next logical step.
In fact, it is becoming impossible to do much without being tracked, and carrying ID here is now a fact of daily life whatever politicians try to tell you.
I doubt that much of this really has anything to do with the will of the people, and everything to do with a control obsessed domestic Government, as, alone in Europe, we sleep walk into a very different society to the one we grew up in.
Tel Tetel@21. Sorry to disappoint you chummy, but being a bit 'long in the tooth' I remember the referendum you talk about.
We actually voted on whether we wanted to join a loose trading block known as the EEC or 'common market'. It was not a referendum on anything else and we did not have a vote on anything else.
I voted in favour at the time and am still in favour of the original idea, as are most of us Brits I believe.
However, we are not in favour of what it has become and we are certainly not in favour of what it wants to become.
We should leave it. It's not what we joined and it's certainly not what we want.
The British economy prospered greatly after joining the EU. Free trade and immigration pulled Britian out of the bad times of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Too, we shouldn't forget the centuries of European wars.
James
Cambridge
No good comes from closer ties to Europe. All the issues wrt democracy aside for one moment, if you look at the way the world's going without any doubt most of Southern Europe will be desert in a few decades time - don’t take my word for it look at the scientific models of climate change, they have been very accurate so far. With environmental disasters unprecedented in the history of civilisation just around the corner we should start looking to our own shores and brace ourselves for the inevitable.
Since when have referenda replaced representative democracy of which the British are justifiably so proud? The whims of the voters are heavily influenced by the popularity of the Government at the time and the attitudes of the press barons. Direct democracy could be feasible in ancient Greece or in small Swiss cantons for mostly straightforward local issues of limited relevance. Laws like the death penalty, abolition of taxes, immigration or royalty would probably wrongly pass or fail in a referendum. A determined minority will go out and vote in a turnout of 40% while the rest put their faith or apathy in the hands of their parties and MPs who are expected to study the full effects of propositions and decide accordingly.Have more than 1% of the voters read the Lisbon Treaty or can relate it to other economic and political issues? Yet many take shrill b/w extreme positions. Referenda are the most undemocratic way to conduct democracy. Hitler would have democratically won hands down every referendum under the sun.
Tel Tetel (Comment 29 above) has made a number of statements concerning democracy, every single one of which is either a logical fallacy or a factual error. In the interests of informed debate, I would like to pick apart the sophistry proposition by proposition.
1. "Since when have referenda replaced representative democracy of which the British are justifiably so proud?" How does Tel Tetel know that the British are proud of (so-called) "representative democracy" if the question has never been put to a referendum?? If the British public are indeed proud of (so-called) "representative democracy", why does Tel Tetel not support a referendum on that issue to validate its use, thereby putting the matter beyond further debate?
2. "The whims of the voters are heavily influenced by the popularity of the Government at the time and the attitudes of the press barons." Studies of democracy have shown absolutely no evidence whatever to support this proposition. To take just one notable case, the 2003 Swedish referendum to join the Eurozone was supported by both sides of politics, by business lobbies and by labour lobbies - and it was still rejected by the People!
3. "Direct democracy could be feasible in ancient Greece or in small Swiss cantons for mostly straightforward local issues of limited relevance." This proposition - which describes the feasibility of democracy - is irrelevant to an argument against democracy. In any case, it is factually incorrect. Democracy is used in Switzerland at the Federal level on any matter that citizen call for it. In recent years it has been used to ratify Switzerland's bilateral treaties with the EU!! Citizen Initiated Referendums are used in California, a state larger than most EU members.
4. "Laws like the death penalty, abolition of taxes, immigration or royalty would probably wrongly pass or fail in a referendum." This proposition is meaningless because it relies upon an a priori determination of which laws are passed "wrongly" and which are not. Does Tel Tetel have a "Charter from Heaven" setting out which laws are "right" and which are "wrong"? If not, any statement regarding the rightness or wrongness of laws is a matter of personal opinion, and there is no self-evident principle by which Tel Tetel's opinion on such matters may be accorded greater weight than those of other people - including people voting in a referendum.
5. "A determined minority will go out and vote in a turnout of 40% while the rest put their faith or apathy in the hands of their parties and MPs who are expected to study the full effects of propositions and decide accordingly." Leaving aside the fact that this statement is hypothetical evidence, it is not clear what point is being made. It is indeed true that, in a democracy such as Switzerland, the Parliament is obliged to put forward a voting recommendation in relation to every referendum, which voters may use to guide their decision. Moreover, each of the political parties usually does likewise. (The same is true of CIR in other jurisdictions.) However, a moment's reflection reveals that this is precisely how (so-called) "representative" government works!! Backbench members of Parliament do not - indeed feasibly can not - read and understand every piece if legislation. They rely on the recommendations of their parties. In this regard, democracy may be regarded not as an alternative to representative government, but rather as an adjunct to it in which the "Parliament" is temporarily expanded to include all voters.
6. "Have more than 1% of the voters read the Lisbon Treaty or can relate it to other economic and political issues? Yet many take shrill b/w extreme positions." (See also item 5 above.) It has not been demonstrated which way the cause and effect flows in this situation. The failure of voters to read the Lisbon Treaty may be the result of there being no democracy. Why bother reading something if you are not permitted to vote on it? Like the children of overbearing parents, voters may adopt "extreme positions" in the knowledge that their opinions will be ignored anyway.
7. "Referenda are the most undemocratic way to conduct democracy." Statement of personal opinion. See item 4 above.
8. "Hitler would have democratically won hands down every referendum under the sun." This is a fallacy of hypothetical evidence, and - even if it were not - it is irrelevant. In fact, Hitler came to power under a system of "representative" government in which the Nazi party never won more than 40% of the vote in a free election. There were three significant plebiscites (none of them binding) held after the Nazi regime had seized power. These were a) ratification, after the event, of the combination of Chancellorship and Presidency in 1934, b) approval, after the event, of the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, and c) ratification, after the event, of the Anschluss in 1938. None was free or fair. This is evident from the implausibly high approval rates: 90% (of those voting), 98.8% and 99.75% respectively. Amongst the techniques of intimidation used in Nazi referendums were a) the arrest of opponents before the vote and abrogation of their voting rights, b) the presence of officials at ballot boxes who received the marked ballots by hand, and c) the use of numbered ballots (numbered with invisible ink) to identify voters.
Stephen (33) must have a PhD in Philosophy. Thanks for responding to my thoughts so diligently but all these hypotheses and assumptions are beyond me. The fact is that the Brits decided by referendum (I am against referenda) to join the EU and the "ever closer union". Now the Government has to play hide-and-seek with their public instead of just quitting like gentlemen if they do not want to contribute to this European scheme. Unfortunately there is no mechanism for kicking out sour members of the EU.
How can it not go to the nations sovereign Parliament? I can understand not being given a refferendum although I'd like one, but for this not to go through anybodies scrunity but Bean (I mean Brown).
next election brown is out with labour bye bye and lets hope the tories give us a say on the eu