The Tory MP who wants a referendum on Lisbon Treaty but would not let the people decide on electoral reform

Gordon - the Irish people don't deserve their government, so they're being given an opportunity to get it right next time.

Er, thats a great explanation Brian but that isn't really the truth is it?

The truth is that there is hope that the Irish people will view a second sitting with contempt and not even bother to go out and vote. Result being that they will get a yes vote on a low turnout. If the Irish do get together and vote no again, a third attempt will be inevitable because eventually the Irish will view it as futile to resist and again, a yes vote on a low turnout.

Which is dependent on the amount of information the people have been given on the Treaty.

I invite you to knock on a random door in the UK and ask the occupant how much they know on the Lisbon Treaty.

No because then that makes absolutely no mention of the £3bn of funding which would have been spent on public transport in Greater Manchester.

Also note that the money would have been spent in Greater Manchester, not Cheshire or Lancashire, and that's why only people in Greater Manchester got to vote on the proposals. Cheshire and Lancashire have their own separate public transport bodies.

What exactly is bizarre about the Irish requiring a referendum before joining up with other countries?

And you're wrong Brian, the clamour to have a referendum is down to the fact that one was promised in the Party's manifesto and was then bypassed by both GB and the EU. Broken promises result in communication with the electorate ending as voters do not trust liars.

Please don't start with the whole Lisbon Treaty not being the one that was offered up in the manifesto for a referendum because you know thats rubbish. You can't just make a few amendments, rename something then pretend a referendum was never offered on it.

Some of the things that come out of the EU are ludicrous. How many butchers were prosecuted for not displaying the weights of their meats in kilos when their customers wanted pounds and ounces? And now that particular bit of EU nonsense has been dispatched with, how many more times will we be greeted with similar rubbish from an outside source that shouldn't be interfering in the first place?

As has been asked below, why is there a need to ask the Irish about the treaty again? They said no, which means they don't want it. If they are asked again and say no, how long before they are asked again?

The EU and democracy don't really go together in a sentence do they Brian? There is nothing democratic about it. Personally I could give a hoot what the end goal is with all this EU business, but as long as we're ignoring the promise of a referendum on the issue, do you really expect the majority to back the EU here in the UK? Or does it not matter what the British people think as long as you can collect a pay cheque?

Ireland's No vote in the first referendum reflected several national concerns. The EU has now agreed on a number of assurances to meet those concerns. In the light of these, the democratically elected government of Ireland requested EU agreement to their holding a fresh referendum to establish whether Irish voters now favoured ratification of the Lisbon treaty in view of the action taken to meet their previous concerns. It's not surprising that all the EU governments have been reluctant to lose the treaty because of concerns specific to just one member country, when every single EU government (including the UK's and Ireland's) is in favour of the treaty as a means of reforming EU procedures following EU expansion. You'd need to be paranoid to read anything sinister into that. The question is not why the "Irish are being asked again?" but "why should the Irish not be given the opportunity for which they have asked to test opinion again following the assurances they have received in regard to the concerns which influenced the outcome of the first referendum?"

I stand corrected, it was on the initial Constitution thatb that france held its referendum.

Again I apologise, being in Korea limits my ability to swiftly collect data and information on Europe.

So on LL I officially and humbly apologise Brian.

Normally the information I rely on is correct, not so on this. I concede the point.

Incidently why did you use the word "corrected" in that form...?

"erm didn't France and Denmark have a referendum?"

No, they didn't, and won't. Nor do I need "correction", thanks -- not on this, anyway.

"Ireland is the only EU country which will put the treaty to a referendum."
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1209066422.24

Why are the Irish being asked again then Brian? Did they get it wrong first time?

Great post Bill and very true.

The other issue I think is that by creating questions like "Do you agree with the Transport Innovation Fund proposals?" do they not understand why turnouts are so low? It alienates people. "Congestion charge - yes or no?" is much better.

Mmmm good idea Mike Ion (is that your real name?) - have a go at someone else over something they've never said they would do because it defends the lies dished out by you over having a referendum on the EU.

If this is the level of your articles I can see why Charley (and his mate Piggy) get a tad annoied over reading them.

The Lisbon treaty doesn't turn the EU into anything resembling a sovereign state, and any proposal to do so would be roundly rejected by a large majority of its members. The EU is a new form of international entity of the kind that's essential if there's to be a collective response to the huge challenges facing the world by countries none of which can possibly take effective action on its own. The provisions of the Lisbon treaty to which you object do hardly any more than describe what kind of entity the EU has gradually become, and introduce procedural changes made absolutely essential to the EU's effective functioning by the recent expansion of its membership. The government has never promised a referendum on it and to accuse it of 'lying' on the subject is very simply wrong. Whatever the similarity of some of its provisions to the now defunct Giscard Constitution treaty, the plain fact is that they are two different documents, Lisbon not attempting to replace all the existing treaties but simply to amend some of them, just as other amending treaties have done before (without the need or demand for referendums). Giscard and others involved in drawing up the doomed draft Constitution claim that the Lisbon treaty is the same thing, but they would, wouldn't they?

BTW, EU law, like all international law (of which international treaties such as those governing EU law are a part), has always prevailed over each member state's domestic law in the event of a conflict. It's bound to, if you think about it. A state which enters into treaty commitments with other states, as it does for example by signing the United Nations Charter, can't simply escape from those commitments or modify them unilaterally just by passing a law in its own national parliament. If that were the case, treaties would be meaningless and international relations between states would be completely unregulated and anarchic. This doesn't and can't affect the status of the parties to the treaty concerned as sovereign independent states -- indeed, if they ceased to be independent, they wouldn't be able to sign international treaties. As for the Lisbon treaty making the EU "an international actor in its own right", the EU has always been that; it would be pointless if it weren't. So is NATO, and the OECD, indeed also the UN. All are established by international treaties and all entail obligations which can be said to limit their signatories' totally untrammelled freedom to exercise their sovereignty. But none affects the continuing status of the signatories, i.e. the member states, as fully independent countries. In the case of the EU, our membership actually enlarges our international freedom of action by enabling us to act collectively, and thus far more effectively, with our EU partners. (End of lesson.)

Brian

http://www.barder.com/ephems/

Ah, apologies Brian, thank you for putting me right.

erm didn't France and Denmark have a referendum?

Guess we both needed correction ;)

I am not a Europhobe incidently I just do not want any further integration in Europe in it's current form. I am in fact very proud of the fact we Europeans have not been butchering each other for over fifty years in a World War.

"On the one hand a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been provided across the EU but we have not been allowed to do so"

Ralph, AFAIK Ireland has been the only EU country to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty (as rather bizarrely required under the Irish constitution, I believe). As far as I'm aware, all the others, including the UK, either have ratified in the usual way, by action of the government approved by the national parliament, or else are awaiting the result of the new Irish referendum in the autumn before ratifying in the same way. That's also the way the UK has ratified all previous EU treaties that amend the founding treaty, including the very far-reaching Maastricht treaty -- i.e. without referendums. The only exception was the ill-fated Constitution treaty which didn't amend previous EU treaties but actually sought to replace them with a completely new document, a quite different kettle of dubious fish. The clamour for a referendum on the Lisbon amending treaty seems to come mainly from Europhobes who want to interpret any popular vote against the Lisbon treaty in a referendum as a vote against UK membership of the EU.

Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/

Well they are seperate issues aren'y they. On the one hand a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been provided across the EU but we have not been allowed to do so...as it was not considered a vote on the EU Constitution. I think people just wanted to be treated the same as our fellow citizens in Europe and exercise our democratic intent.

The other is about how we vote and is a constitutional issue. Of course if the Lisbon Vote was "constitutional" we in Labour, though I think it really means the MP's, have broken your manifesto pledge and even worse than this; forced upon the people a great constitutional change without reference, support or the blessing of the people. Now we are entering that place called "legitimacy"......

If you act like a dictator and force these rules upon people, if you erode thier civil rights at the same time, you cannot blame them for voting for the real thing....

If of course the Lisbon Treaty was not Constitutional why compare it with a change to voting? What would they possibly have in common?

A search for consistency in the application of referenda might be a tad tedious, don't you think? Why stop at proportional representation when you can have one on the death penalty, Scottish and Welsh independence, forcible repatriation of asylum seekers, the level of taxation, disestablishment of the Church of England, the proposition that Chief Constables should be elected locally, whether it is appropriate to address complete strangers as 'old man', free school meals, legalising prostitution and drugs etc, etc.
You might tread wearily before suggesting that anybody who is calling for a public debate on an issue is afraid of a particular result; it seeming quite obvious to me that debate is a aid to informed choice, and as an aspiring champion of freedom and democracy you should be supporting his call. That is what I say to you, Sir.

I don't dislike your views Mike, but they are so far out there and irrelevant I think 'bonkers' is appropriate. Mate, the sky is falling in and you are re-arranging your tea-spoon collection. Get real. This is not a serious issue. It is not an issue of any kind. Except to highlight ONE MORE TIME that Labour won't allow the referendum they lied about. I don't care what this muppet thinks about anything and neither does anyone else. You only care because you can shout TORIEZ! at him. Its pathetic, did you get that? P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. And he beat you which just makes you look like the world's worst loser.

Charlie Farley - your real name I assume? It is easy and intellectually lazy to characterise views you dislike as bonkers. The serious issue is that Mr K wants to have his cake and eat it. Surely he would welcome not just debate about this issue but also the opportunity for the people to have their say. He appears to be in favour of the former and against the latter or have I misunderstood him?

Mark

is it not legitimate to point out Mr K's inconsistent approach? Why does this make me a scoundrel? I am not suggesting Daniel is saying we do not need to debate the issue but I am saying that he appears to want to deny the people the right to vote on any change in a referendum - what say you to that old man?

You're right, but you can forgive people for being suspicious. Look at it another way, in 1996 if the Conservatives had suggested changing the system for the '97 election, what would they have been accused of?

In saying that, I suspect the only reason they didn't do that was because they didn't think about it at the time.

There is no evidence AV would actually improve Labours chances of winning an election, and the majority of people don't want a full PR system.

Interesting question regarding the engineering of a referendum, but it is doable. Not always successful, but when you consider that it is up to the people issuing the referendum to phrase the question, that can influence the outcome.

Take for an example the recent congestion charge referendum in Manchester. To begin with the people eligable for the referendum were those in the Greater Manchester area, even though a huge number of people who commute to Manchester do not live in the Greater Manchester area. I suspect the same happened with the London congestion charge so nothing unusual and you do have to draw the line somewhere, I accept that.

When the ballot papers went out though, what would you think the question might ask? Do you want a congestion charge in Greater Manchester? Its a bit simplistic but it works as a question. Or maybe they could have asked "Would you mind being charged just £1 to get into Manchester if it meant better public transport services?" Again, simple construction that is pretty clear and unambiguous. But the question they asked was:

"Do you agree with the Transport Innovation Fund proposals?"

Luckily for Manchester the question wasn't that complicated and people voted for what they actually wanted which was a NO vote to the congestion charge, but do you see where I'm coming from? It isn't so much the referendum that is engineered, it is the question in this case.

Also with a lot of these referendums we do tend to see a lot of celebrity backing. Strange when GB doesn't want a "celebrity obsessed culture" which he wouldn't, it would mean he wouldn't have anyone to invite to Chequers if they were all out doing adverts for referendums.

Grasping at straws? That's an appropriate description for what Kawcynski did when he had a pop at the BBC over immigration.

The guy obviously didn't have the balls to take on The Sun or the Mail.

Mike no sensible person reading the article by DK could conclude that the word engineer is being used to suggest some kind of criminal activity. That would be to engineer the result, not to engineer the referendum. Especially as DK goes on to explain that the result of a referendum based decision to change the electoral system would be mandatory on an incoming government and thus a distraction from attending to the dire economic situation we are in.
This leads me to wonder whether you think we are all so totally dimwitted that a bit of devious spin like this will hoodwink us all into thinking what an undemocratic bunch the Tories are.
Did you miss the bit about DK contacting the Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society to challenge him to a public debate on electoral reform?
You are a scoundrel, and an insulting one to boot.

Point noted - keep an eye out tomorrow for new policy ideas.

Since Shawbury is literally 6 miles from Shrewsbury, this is really grasping at straws

I think it far from appropriate that we claim the moral high ground on this issue, being as previous Labour manifestos have promised referendums on both of the issues you highlight yet have failed to deliver. Your triumphant ending of "what are you so afraid of?" rings desperately hollow in the context of these broken Labour promises.

Please, please, please can we move away from senseless Tory-bashing (of which, I am sad to say, this article is an exemplar) and start talking contructively about the merits of a Labour government.

Let's not forget that New Labour lied to the people about a referendum. The Treaty is the biggest change in the British constitution since the Act of Union with Scotland and New Labour reneged on the promise.

We are ceding our national sovereignty to a captialist and corporatist federal state with minimal democratic processes and a history of fraud and corruption.

"Article I-7 gives this new European Union, established now on the basis of its own Constitution, legal personality and a distinct corporate existence for the first time. Hitherto the EU has had no legal existence apart from its Members. At present the Member States, not the EU, are superior. This is shown by the fact that the Member States if they wished could agree at any time to dissolve both the EU and EC, and interact with one another like the rest of the world community of States, and as they did themselves before the 1957 Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community (EEC).

The Constitution changes this. Legally and constitutionally it makes the new EU separate from any of its individual Member States, just as Germany is a separate state from Bavaria or Brandenburg, the USA from Virginia or California, and Canada from Ontario. This is the most essential constitutional step for those who seek to turn the EU into a State, an international actor in its own right for the first time.

Article I-6 then provides that "The Constitution and law adopted by the Institution of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States." Thus the proposed Constitution of this new EU overrides and is superior to the Member States' national Constitutions, potentially in all areas of public policy; for the EU Constitution does not seek to reserve any governmental area permanently from EU control. The central issue concerning the EU Constitution is this:

Which Constitution takes precedence, the European one or the national? That after all is the central question of politics: Where do power and legitimate authority lie? The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is clear. The new EU State and its Constitution will be paramount. "

See: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/10/constitution-analysis.html

Don't forget that there are many more traditional Labour supporters like me who want to see the UK remain an independent state and will never forgive New Labour for not allowing the referendum.

Why don't you give its rest, or are you so masochistic you enjoy the roasting and humiliation that inevitably follows articles like this?

Every time Labour List try to take the moral high ground we can throw back the too-many-to-count episodes of serious moral failure New Labour have been guilty of while in government.

No one is listening, and no one will listen, until as a party you undergo a very necessary and very painful moral purge.

If you are ever to gain power again, some heroic individual within Labour ranks will have to do to Blair and Brown what Kruschev did to Stalin - i.e. publically denounce their tawdry moral record as well as cleanse the party of senior personnel associated with the old regime.

Articles like this show you are still in denial.

How ridiculous to link these two issues. We have enjoyed a reasonable degree of democracy for many years using the existing voting system. What has become clear since the Blair years is that this needs improving because of his abuse of power, despite having ony 22% of the electorate hehind him. But it needs a lot of careful thought and discussion, and must not be linked to a general election just to give the incumbent party an advantage.

In the EU there is no democracy; we have had a completely new system of government thrust upon us with no opportuntiy for the electorate to express an opinion - despite a labour manifesto pledge to give us a referendum. I will vote for anyone who lets me have a say on this subject - and I'm sure I am not alone.

Bring democracy to the EU!

Lisbon Treat referendum:

1 Promised by both Tory and Labour Party in election manifestos

2 Relates to the transfer of powers vested by the electorate in their political representatives i.e. morally should require public support

3 A straight forward "yes or no" issue

4 A long running issue where there has been much debate and news coverage, so a good start has been made on public awareness

Electoral reform:

1 No major party other than the Liberals have promised or even suggested a vote on electoral reform in a manifesto

2 Does not involve a permanent change or transfer of powers

3 Is not a straight foward "yes or no" issue as there are many competing options. Who would decide which options were put to the public?

4 There is little public awareness of options, consequences or examples from which to draw information. No public debate has taken place, no comission has decided which options should be put to the public. Public awareness is not high.

Therefore to link a vote on Lisbon to a vote on Electoral Reform is like linking a cheese and pickle sandwich with 13th century French poetry. It may appeal to some of the more "colourful" LabourList contributors but to the rest of us it's just another mad thread designed simply to take a pot shot at another Tory.

Woohoo, another Bonkers Mike article, so this fella who no-one's ever heard of (but so good they named him twice) is for a referendum that we're not allowed to have but against one that we are allowed to have, or rather, Gordon Brown has announced but won't happen like everything else Gordon announces.

the 'democratic consent to the Lisbon Treaty has neither been sought from nor given by the British people.'

He ain't wrong there and its quite possible for this government to 'engineer' a referendum. Its coming to me now, I see the future . . . . "it was a referendum not an election" . . . . . ."we were seeking people's opinions and we are very pleased we have given people this chance" . . . . "the outcome is not legally binding due to the 2010 'Get out of jail free' Act" . . . . "lessons have been learnt and President Unelect Mandelson is very pleased to draw a line under this" . . . . "the coronation will be next Thursday".

The two issues are mutually exclusive, so trying to forge a nubulous link through a personality is tenuous to say the least.

We want a vote on lisbon, because the labour party promised us one. I as a citizen want to exercise my promised right to vote on that matter - that right is being denied me.

On the second point - I too am concerned that a referendum result could be engineered to approve of electoral reforms, as we all know - it depends on the questions that are being asked.

And it is odd that Labour are particularily keen on changing the rules now they might lose.

It's a stupid skewer vote of a desperate political party looking to offer some kind of momentum on Parliamentary reform.

Parliamentary reform that it has stalled, bodged and fudged since 1997.

That is all.

I don't remember anyone in the Tory party making any electoral commitments to a vote on electoral reform. The Tories did not in previous elections and will not stand on a platform of electoral reform in the next election and can be judged accordingly.

Whereas all three main parties and many of the minor ones made a commitment at the last election to a say over the constitution, which was re-packaged as the Lisbon Treaty. Only the Tories of the big three intend to honour that commitment.

A political stand you don't agree with is not the same as lying to the public in an election manifesto. Why anyone would try and confuse the issue, I don't understand. Seems odd to criticise the Tories for being honest.

Indeed we had commitment to electoral reform in the 1997 Labour manifesto too. Guess what, looks like that was another lie. Finally, what will most people think of the honesty of your position as you look to change the rules now you are likely to lose and lose badly under the same rules that kept you in power for 12 years?

That's the trouble with lying, people just end up not trusting you on any issue.

Kawcynski is also the muppet who claimed that the BBC coverage of immigrants was leading to violence against Poles.

Here's a tip for you Daniel, if you want to make an issue about media coverage of immigration then start with The Sun and the Daily Mail.

Oh btw, has he actually moved into his constituency yet or is he still in Shawbury?

Derek Conway - Paul Marsden - Daniel Kawcynski!! Shrewsbury doesn't have much luck with it's MP's.

Funny how Labour are suddenly so keen on electoral reform the moment it looks like they can't win an election. Wonder why?