political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Friday, September 07, 2007
I Want a Referendum
Can I urge you to sign up to the cross-party I WANT A REFERENDUM campaign? Click HERE.
UPDATE: Nirj Deva MEP is also mounting a campaign HERE.
If, however, you believe all the Tory rhetoric about how Parliament should be made more important, then no way should you endorse a referendum on this decision and undermine Parliament.
David, you really do not get it, do you? If powers are being taken away from Parliament in such a major way, and our constitution is being changed irrevocably, then the people have a right to be consulted. Brown keeps saying he doesn't want to govern from the top down, but every time he's given a chance to prove it he does the very opposite. I'm not at all surprised by that. No doubt you supported referenda in Scotland and Wales. I fail to see what is different here. And nor do 80% of the rest of the country. Let's have the argument.
So nice to have Open Europe and the Conservative Party decide that the work that has been done so far on Rally for a Referendum should not be supported and, in fact, ignored. Shades of the North East No Campaign.
I think, honestly, if this was put to a referendum no one would bother to vote. The public doesn't for a general election.
So what is the point?
There is nothing significant about this new reform treaty. We need it. Britain is apart of Europe and we need the EU. That's why everyone supports it, including David Cameron.
We need a stronger European Union, it's about time we got over old Empire thinking.
I wonder if you noticed that the Dave Cameron edition of the Sun was specially priced at 20 pence - which causes a big blip in sales..clever aint they?
It's all very well banging on about how wonderful our historic parliamentary system is, but in fact it is broken which is why we need a referendum.
The people in charge of Parliament are also the people signing up to the Treaty who are also the people whose careers benefit most from signing up for any Treaty. There is now a serious conflict of interest at the heart of our system which is why we need both a proper debate about the EU and about constitutional reform.
Oh dear! Could you remind us how many referendums Conservative governments gave the British people?
Don't you realise the damage this bit of opportunism could do to a future Conservative government? Their Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary would find their authority at forums such as NATO, the UN and the EU weakened if it was known that they would face demands for referendums based on this precedent on any agreement reached.
How sad it is if the Conservatives really have given up on the long term.
BD I disagree, by requiring a referendum on major constitutional changes the British negotiating stance is strengthened because the government could not countenance signing up to things which would not win a vote.
Labour promised us a referendum on the Constitution, and most have admitted that the Treaty is pretty much the same bar for the flag and the anthem. Brown's claim that it won't fundamentally alter our relationship with the EU is b*ll*cks.
Just because Tory governments got it wrong in the past is no excuse to get it wrong this time around.
I have been away enjoying myself baiting Compass and even in that little old lady`s armpit where the left grow their mushrooms there is disquiet about the fraud perpetrated on the British people by Brown . Kamfner was engaged in constructing a shaky pontoon bridge for his beloved leader to day with talk of wiggle room and reference to Browns supposed Euro Scepticism ...( which is a lie really ) The question is do we try to nail Brown on this lie and use it to pull the whole rotten tooth of his record back out into the light or do we leave him with a face saving alternative .( I mixed that metaphor earlier in the show ) Rather a good idea I thought the other day was to have the Referendum separate and along side the GE. This would prevent it being a manifesto commitment which would not be good enough on a cross party issue and not dent the standing of Brown mid term which paints him into a corner on the referendum before the election .
David Boothroyd you really have to stop talking nonsense it just has no credibility to live in a K Paxian Constitutional fantasy when the truth is so childishly simple . Honestly I do mean to be kind I appreciate a lot of what you are trying to argue for Something else I have to report is that in my recent cruising of the low and sleazy left sites it is noticeable how they view the destruction of national identity as an open objective. It is justified by the possibility of a progressive agenda ...soi disant and the ability to fight the inner cabal of capitalist manipulators in what appears to be an updated version of the Protoculs of Zion without the beards .
This unintelligensia have nothing in common with their support who in fact they despise . This issue unites the true socially conservative constituency into a perfect storm wave Those committed to the country and the Queen as the living spirit of the tribe are a mighty majority who will squash the gnat sized self appointed elite who have betrayed them time and time again. The excitement is this .In this cross Party talking the Conservative Party can reconnect with their working class support. Brown as his elitist henchmen will have a rough ride form the Unions and some of their members will see we are all the same a people with a proud history worth protecting form its fate as airport One of the Euro sector. Our father and Grandfathers fought together to save from the Nazis and we will unite again to save the country as the One Nation sprit rises like a sleeping Lion to tear apart the yipping Hyenas that though they could steal everything while it slept
And in My head Land Of Hope and Glory is Playing !!!!!
We need referenda to determine every issue of national importance because politicians invariably call them wrongly, either because of their congenital stupidity, or their duplicity, or their venal cowardice under the predictable barrage from screeching trotskyites.
Ian consents in private, let the rest of us be xenophobes in private in order to preserve the inheritance our ancestors fought and died for.
British Democrat- That sort of sophistry is used exclusively by those who wish the government to exceed its authority by not governing but giving away our right to choose who governs us in the future . I notice you forgot to mention the Security Coucil...why would that be ?
Well said Ed I am so very very tired of the way the developing awarenes of what the EU is in the Conservative Party is used to supposedly undermine positions held today. Its all about the future and the direction we take now .Not maundering on about the past as the left seem to have to do
So I understand the LibDems aren't even discussing this issue at their Conference? What exactly is the POINT of having the LibDems these days? What do they do - other than lurk in the shadows, waiting to wield power in a hung Parliament.
One reason why people bother to vote less than they used to in general elections (actually, the majority still does turn out despite your world-weary comment) is because they have begun to understand that as long as the EU controls a huge swathe of issues it does not matter who gets to sit on the government benches. We cannot throw out European legislation. That's it.
There are several important issues in this treaty that take a huge step towards the creation of that state that nobody outside this country denies is the aim of the integration process. The fact that the European Council and the ECB become institutions of the EU may sound dull to you but is quite important constitutionally.
Being part of Europe is a meaningless phrase. Europe is a Continent or part of one and Britain is an archipelago of islands off its shore. So that makes us part of it. Big deal.
We do not need to be part of the European Union and nobody in eurosceptic circles indulges in empire nostalgia. Evan as an aunt sally that is dim. Outside the EU there is - gasp - a great big world. And in it - gasp - there are many countries we can be close to. The United States is only one of them. There are - gasp - many other Anglospheric ones.
The EU is out of date. It belongs to the immediate post-war world and even then it was not the answer to the questions that began to emerge. It is a dinosaur that has outlived its era. Why can't you recognize that and get over your eurocentric nostalgia?
Oh dear. If it is really true that the Reform Treaty transfers major powers from the UK government to the EU, then why is that not the case being made? Because if that was true it would be a much more powerful case than the rather weak one based on identification of the Reform Treaty with the rejected Constitutional Treaty.
Of course it is not the case that the Reform Treaty is a major treaty. It makes some very welcome procedural changes to allow the EU to function efficiently with more member states. Of course the Reform Treaty is also very good for national Parliaments because it gets them directly involved in EU legislation for the first time.
The Reform Treaty is not remotely comparable with the creation of a new devolved elected administration in Scotland, Wales or Greater London.
But you can't get away with ignoring the basis of my original comment: all the Tory waffle about contempt for Parliament is thrown into sharp relief when a major decision comes up and the Tory demand is for Parliament to be bypassed.
Such a referendum would deliver a Yes vote. In 1975, the federalists managed to convince two thirds of the electorate that they were merely voting for “a free trade area” called “the Common Market”, even though the first clause of the European Communities Act was, and is, a textbook definition of a federal state.
This was achieved by persistently putting up Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to state the case for a No vote. Most people voted instead for the position espoused by politicians with whom they felt more comfortable.
The same thing would happen again. Powell’s place would be filled by that nasty fringe which holds his economic views untempered by his romantic Toryism.
Such would be the sole No campaigners on at least two out of every three, and quite possibly three out of every four, programmes. The rest of the time, Benn would be back. No Ian Davidson. No Frank Field. No Kate Hoey. No Nick Harvey. Just Wedgie occasionally, and the Genghis Khan Institute the rest of the time.
Even fewer people would identify with Benn now than in 1975. And do even tribal Tories, never mind anybody else, believe in unrestricted immigration to feed unbridled capitalism? Or the total deregulation of alcohol, gambling and pornography? Or the legalisation of drugs and prostitution? Or the wholesale privatisation of health, education and pensions? Or the abolition of farm subsidies?
“Well, then,” the federalists would say, “what makes you think that you agree with these people about this, and this alone? Their position is coherent. It all fits together. And your views don’t fit into it at all. Vote Yes, if only because they want you to Vote No.” And people would.
Instead, Parliament should do its duty by throwing out the Constitreaty without any need for a referendum.
Not least, the unions should be refusing to fund any MP who does not vote in Parliament both against the Constitreaty and in favour of securing workers’ rights (among other things) through the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and should instead be undertaking to fund alternative parliamentary candidates who will do both of those things.
For we don’t need the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, we need a proper party like Labour of old, dedicated to just that: securing workers’ rights (among other things) through the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
newmania " left sites it is noticeable how they view the destruction of national identity as an open objective."
Excellent point, this needs to be emphasised more. The whole referendum thing is yet another example of how the left play games, cheat, lie and generally do whatever is required to both attain and keep power. Racaille.
I am against referendums. The problem for the Government is that it is not. It is difficult to concede a referendum on the original constitutional treaty and not one on the new proposals, which maintain the predominant components of the constitutional treaty. (The fact that there was no referendum on the Single European Act or on the Treaty on European Union is no argument for not having one now. It is case for conceding that there should have been referendums in 1986/7 and 1992/3.) There is one other objection to what is proposed, and that is in terms of process. Parliament, and the people generally, are being given far too little time to digest and discuss properly what is being proposed.
One final point. It is more appropriate to refer to referendums rather than referenda to denote more than one referendum. Referendum is an unusual Latin gerund that has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive referenda, meaing 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.
'One reason why people bother to vote less than they used to in general elections (actually, the majority still does turn out despite your world-weary comment) is because they have begun to understand that as long as the EU controls a huge swathe of issues it does not matter who gets to sit on the government benches. We cannot throw out European legislation. That's it.'
Might we know the psephological authority for this assertion?
29 comments:
Urge away but I still don't want to waste taxpayers money on such a crazily un-British exercise....
no you can't
If, however, you believe all the Tory rhetoric about how Parliament should be made more important, then no way should you endorse a referendum on this decision and undermine Parliament.
David, you really do not get it, do you? If powers are being taken away from Parliament in such a major way, and our constitution is being changed irrevocably, then the people have a right to be consulted. Brown keeps saying he doesn't want to govern from the top down, but every time he's given a chance to prove it he does the very opposite. I'm not at all surprised by that. No doubt you supported referenda in Scotland and Wales. I fail to see what is different here. And nor do 80% of the rest of the country. Let's have the argument.
So nice to have Open Europe and the Conservative Party decide that the work that has been done so far on Rally for a Referendum should not be supported and, in fact, ignored. Shades of the North East No Campaign.
I think, honestly, if this was put to a referendum no one would bother to vote. The public doesn't for a general election.
So what is the point?
There is nothing significant about this new reform treaty. We need it. Britain is apart of Europe and we need the EU. That's why everyone supports it, including David Cameron.
We need a stronger European Union, it's about time we got over old Empire thinking.
We don't rule the world anymore.
Nope. Now f-off and blog something more useful instead.
I wonder if you noticed that the Dave Cameron edition of the Sun was specially priced at 20 pence - which causes a big blip in sales..clever aint they?
It's all very well banging on about how wonderful our historic parliamentary system is, but in fact it is broken which is why we need a referendum.
The people in charge of Parliament are also the people signing up to the Treaty who are also the people whose careers benefit most from signing up for any Treaty. There is now a serious conflict of interest at the heart of our system which is why we need both a proper debate about the EU and about constitutional reform.
done
Iain if parliament is, as you suggest having its powers taken away, then that is every reason to vote UKIP rather than have a referendum.
Oh dear! Could you remind us how many referendums Conservative governments gave the British people?
Don't you realise the damage this bit of opportunism could do to a future Conservative government? Their Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary would find their authority at forums such as NATO, the UN and the EU weakened if it was known that they would face demands for referendums based on this precedent on any agreement reached.
How sad it is if the Conservatives really have given up on the long term.
BD I disagree, by requiring a referendum on major constitutional changes the British negotiating stance is strengthened because the government could not countenance signing up to things which would not win a vote.
Labour promised us a referendum on the Constitution, and most have admitted that the Treaty is pretty much the same bar for the flag and the anthem. Brown's claim that it won't fundamentally alter our relationship with the EU is b*ll*cks.
Just because Tory governments got it wrong in the past is no excuse to get it wrong this time around.
Yes, I'd like a referendum too !
What is it for ?
I have been away enjoying myself baiting Compass and even in that little old lady`s armpit where the left grow their mushrooms there is disquiet about the fraud perpetrated on the British people by Brown . Kamfner was engaged in constructing a shaky pontoon bridge for his beloved leader to day with talk of wiggle room and reference to Browns supposed Euro Scepticism ...( which is a lie really )
The question is do we try to nail Brown on this lie and use it to pull the whole rotten tooth of his record back out into the light or do we leave him with a face saving alternative .( I mixed that metaphor earlier in the show )
Rather a good idea I thought the other day was to have the Referendum separate and along side the GE. This would prevent it being a manifesto commitment which would not be good enough on a cross party issue and not dent the standing of Brown mid term which paints him into a corner on the referendum before the election .
David Boothroyd you really have to stop talking nonsense it just has no credibility to live in a K Paxian Constitutional fantasy when the truth is so childishly simple . Honestly I do mean to be kind I appreciate a lot of what you are trying to argue for
Something else I have to report is that in my recent cruising of the low and sleazy left sites it is noticeable how they view the destruction of national identity as an open objective. It is justified by the possibility of a progressive agenda ...soi disant and the ability to fight the inner cabal of capitalist manipulators in what appears to be an updated version of the Protoculs of Zion without the beards .
This unintelligensia have nothing in common with their support who in fact they despise . This issue unites the true socially conservative constituency into a perfect storm wave Those committed to the country and the Queen as the living spirit of the tribe are a mighty majority who will squash the gnat sized self appointed elite who have betrayed them time and time again. The excitement is this .In this cross Party talking the Conservative Party can reconnect with their working class support. Brown as his elitist henchmen will have a rough ride form the Unions and some of their members will see we are all the same a people with a proud history worth protecting form its fate as airport One of the Euro sector. Our father and Grandfathers fought together to save from the Nazis and we will unite again to save the country as the One Nation sprit rises like a sleeping Lion to tear apart the yipping Hyenas that though they could steal everything while it slept
And in My head Land Of Hope and Glory is Playing !!!!!
We need referenda to determine every issue of national importance because politicians invariably call them wrongly, either because of their congenital stupidity, or their duplicity, or their venal cowardice under the predictable barrage from screeching trotskyites.
Ian consents in private, let the rest of us be xenophobes in private in order to preserve the inheritance our ancestors fought and died for.
British Democrat- That sort of sophistry is used exclusively by those who wish the government to exceed its authority by not governing but giving away our right to choose who governs us in the future .
I notice you forgot to mention the Security Coucil...why would that be ?
Well said Ed I am so very very tired of the way the developing awarenes of what the EU is in the Conservative Party is used to supposedly undermine positions held today. Its all about the future and the direction we take now .Not maundering on about the past as the left seem to have to do
Done.
So I understand the LibDems aren't even discussing this issue at their Conference? What exactly is the POINT of having the LibDems these days? What do they do - other than lurk in the shadows, waiting to wield power in a hung Parliament.
Liberal Republican,
One reason why people bother to vote less than they used to in general elections (actually, the majority still does turn out despite your world-weary comment) is because they have begun to understand that as long as the EU controls a huge swathe of issues it does not matter who gets to sit on the government benches. We cannot throw out European legislation. That's it.
There are several important issues in this treaty that take a huge step towards the creation of that state that nobody outside this country denies is the aim of the integration process. The fact that the European Council and the ECB become institutions of the EU may sound dull to you but is quite important constitutionally.
Being part of Europe is a meaningless phrase. Europe is a Continent or part of one and Britain is an archipelago of islands off its shore. So that makes us part of it. Big deal.
We do not need to be part of the European Union and nobody in eurosceptic circles indulges in empire nostalgia. Evan as an aunt sally that is dim. Outside the EU there is - gasp - a great big world. And in it - gasp - there are many countries we can be close to. The United States is only one of them. There are - gasp - many other Anglospheric ones.
The EU is out of date. It belongs to the immediate post-war world and even then it was not the answer to the questions that began to emerge. It is a dinosaur that has outlived its era. Why can't you recognize that and get over your eurocentric nostalgia?
Oh dear. If it is really true that the Reform Treaty transfers major powers from the UK government to the EU, then why is that not the case being made? Because if that was true it would be a much more powerful case than the rather weak one based on identification of the Reform Treaty with the rejected Constitutional Treaty.
Of course it is not the case that the Reform Treaty is a major treaty. It makes some very welcome procedural changes to allow the EU to function efficiently with more member states. Of course the Reform Treaty is also very good for national Parliaments because it gets them directly involved in EU legislation for the first time.
The Reform Treaty is not remotely comparable with the creation of a new devolved elected administration in Scotland, Wales or Greater London.
But you can't get away with ignoring the basis of my original comment: all the Tory waffle about contempt for Parliament is thrown into sharp relief when a major decision comes up and the Tory demand is for Parliament to be bypassed.
@Helen
Are you sure this 'i want a referendum' thing won't be joining up with the Pro-Referendum Rally?
Such a referendum would deliver a Yes vote. In 1975, the federalists managed to convince two thirds of the electorate that they were merely voting for “a free trade area” called “the Common Market”, even though the first clause of the European Communities Act was, and is, a textbook definition of a federal state.
This was achieved by persistently putting up Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to state the case for a No vote. Most people voted instead for the position espoused by politicians with whom they felt more comfortable.
The same thing would happen again. Powell’s place would be filled by that nasty fringe which holds his economic views untempered by his romantic Toryism.
Such would be the sole No campaigners on at least two out of every three, and quite possibly three out of every four, programmes. The rest of the time, Benn would be back. No Ian Davidson. No Frank Field. No Kate Hoey. No Nick Harvey. Just Wedgie occasionally, and the Genghis Khan Institute the rest of the time.
Even fewer people would identify with Benn now than in 1975. And do even tribal Tories, never mind anybody else, believe in unrestricted immigration to feed unbridled capitalism? Or the total deregulation of alcohol, gambling and pornography? Or the legalisation of drugs and prostitution? Or the wholesale privatisation of health, education and pensions? Or the abolition of farm subsidies?
“Well, then,” the federalists would say, “what makes you think that you agree with these people about this, and this alone? Their position is coherent. It all fits together. And your views don’t fit into it at all. Vote Yes, if only because they want you to Vote No.” And people would.
Instead, Parliament should do its duty by throwing out the Constitreaty without any need for a referendum.
Not least, the unions should be refusing to fund any MP who does not vote in Parliament both against the Constitreaty and in favour of securing workers’ rights (among other things) through the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and should instead be undertaking to fund alternative parliamentary candidates who will do both of those things.
For we don’t need the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, we need a proper party like Labour of old, dedicated to just that: securing workers’ rights (among other things) through the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
newmania " left sites it is noticeable how they view the destruction of national identity as an open objective."
Excellent point, this needs to be emphasised more.
The whole referendum thing is yet another example of how the left play games, cheat, lie and generally do whatever is required to both attain and keep power. Racaille.
"I think, honestly, if this was put to a referendum no one would bother to vote."
Unless you have strong feelings about such a thing of course.
So the turnout will probably be 99% "no".
I am against referendums. The problem for the Government is that it is not. It is difficult to concede a referendum on the original constitutional treaty and not one on the new proposals, which maintain the predominant components of the constitutional treaty. (The fact that there was no referendum on the Single European Act or on the Treaty on European Union is no argument for not having one now. It is case for conceding that there should have been referendums in 1986/7 and 1992/3.) There is one other objection to what is proposed, and that is in terms of process. Parliament, and the people generally, are being given far too little time to digest and discuss properly what is being proposed.
One final point. It is more appropriate to refer to referendums rather than referenda to denote more than one referendum. Referendum is an unusual Latin gerund that has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive referenda, meaing 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues.
Heeln said:
'One reason why people bother to vote less than they used to in general elections (actually, the majority still does turn out despite your world-weary comment) is because they have begun to understand that as long as the EU controls a huge swathe of issues it does not matter who gets to sit on the government benches. We cannot throw out European legislation. That's it.'
Might we know the psephological authority for this assertion?
Bandwagon Alert!
Why would Ian want a referendum - isn't that banging on about Europe and something of which Michael Ancram would approve?
Dave Bartlett,
No. Open Europe has known about Rally for Referendum all this time and has rejected the idea of a joint effort. It's the way they operate.
I signed up but was dismayed to find that the link to their Privacy Policy is broken. Just what exactly are they going to do with my details?!?!?!?!
Post a Comment