Cameron admits U-turn on Lisbon
Eurosceptics furious over Tory leader's decision not to hold referendum
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
David Cameron has admitted his party is unlikely to be able to hold a promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty once it has become law, paving the way for a policy U-turn that will infuriate Tory Eurosceptics.
Only the Czech Republic is yet to sign off the document, which is fiercely opposed by many Tory MPs. Vaclav Klaus, the Czech President, is expected to sign the treaty should its constitutional court decide that it does not violate Czech law. The ruling is expected today.
Mr Cameron said that his party would "do what we can to make good all our promises", but finally conceded that a chance to hold a vote on the treaty was fading rapidly. It is widely anticipated that he will soon formally announce that a Conservative government will not hold a referendum, despite giving the public a "cast-iron guarantee" in 2007 that they would be given a vote on the treaty.
"What I said is that we would hold that referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but it seems we are getting close to a point when it is part of European law," he said. "I had always hoped that President Klaus wouldn't sign but it seems that times are changing."
Mr Cameron's team are well aware that his refusal to answer questions on his party's future policy should the treaty be ratified is beginning to damage his credibility. "It is clear that times are changing," said a spokeswoman. "The ruling by the Czech court is obviously an important moment."
Yesterday one senior backbencher broke ranks by demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even if it had been ratified by the time Mr Cameron entered No 10. Bill Cash, the Tory MP for Stone and a prominent Eurosceptic, called for Mr Cameron to hold a referendum with "no ifs or buts". He said that any move to replace the pledge with a promise to renegotiate some of the changes the treaty brings about would not be acceptable.
"As David Cameron has said, we need an association of member states. In order to achieve this, we cannot simply cherry-pick individual aspects of the treaty and call for renegotiation of those," he said. "We need a full referendum on Lisbon as we were promised and as we voted in the House of Commons. This is about the Government of the United Kingdom operating in line with the democratic wishes of the electorate."
The Bruges Group, a Eurosceptic think-tank popular among Tory backbenchers, also warned that simply renegotiating Britain's involvement in the treaty would be "incoherent, disingenuous and utterly unconvincing".
Some MPs are now calling on Mr Cameron to live up to his promise for a referendum by giving the public a chance to vote on an even wider issue of Britain's involvement with the EU. Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley, said: "I would like to see a referendum on our relationship with the EU. The public has been promised one, and I think it falls to us to give people some kind of say that they have been denied so far."
Meanwhile, Downing Street said yesterday that Gordon Brown would continue to campaign for Tony Blair to be handed the position of EU President, despite an apparent lack of support for the former prime minister at a Brussels summit last week. "The Prime Minister is four if not five-square behind him," said Mr Brown's spokesman.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
There was, of course, never any other realistic possibility, but they just couldn't resist the posturing. What will they do now to fulfil their pledge that they "will not let matters rest there"? Have a referendum on the UK's whole relationship with the EU, suggests Philip Davies. But hang on, wasn't that the Lib Dem policy? The one that shadow cabinet members and Tory MPs queued up to rubbish?
The reality is that, if they were in government, the Tories would witter and whinge from the sidelines of the EU, but do absolutely nothing. And so we'd get the worst of all worlds: neither properly in nor properly out, just "semi-detached", like the last time they were in power.
Why some people seem to see the Tories as any sort of credible alternative to the present odious lot continues to evade me. Cameron presents a smooth, PR-man's facade, for sure, but is there any substance at all at the back of it?
The message for the legions of Europhobes is obvious, anyway: if you want Britain out of the EU, don't waste your hopes on the Tories. You're going to have to go for UKIP ...
Personally, I have no problem with the "sovereignty" issue which I find totally meaningless. Can anyone really give a coherent definition of this much-abused term? I doubt it.
If MPs did their job properly and scrutinised legislation rather than bleating on about their expenses then people would have more confidence that they are safeguarding our interests both at home and abroad. Most of us have neither the time nor the expertise to discuss on complex issues and asking us to vote on whether Lisbon was a good or bad deal for Britain was always unwise.
I am quite happy to remain within the EU, but I want reform. I want government ministers to go and fight our corner where important decisions are made and I want MEPs to be seen to do their job and to press for more powers of scrutiny, which incidently Lisbon gives them. The EU isn't going to go away choose what we do. We must come to terms with it and learn to promote British interests more effectively.
What worries me about the Tories is that they are posturing. They should never have left the EPP, and if elected next year that position will cause them problems. Britain is in danger of becoming a laughing stock in Europe, or just simply ignored.
It's time we grew up on Europe and learned to do business with it. That's the real challenge.
What is the point of holding a referendum on something that is already law? It won't change anything. The best we can hope for is that Cameron negotiates some decent opt outs.
You should direct your fire at Labour. In their 2005 manifesto they promised a referendum on Lisbon ahead of it coming into effect. They then totally reneged on that promise. Now they're proposing Blair and Miliband take the top jobs which resulted from the new order which was created out of the Treaty they denied us a vote on. That's skulduggery for you.
WHY ARE THE BRITISH PEOPLE SO F$%#ING STUPID??????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
At this rate the Tories are likely to blow it at the election next year leaving the country with a hung parliament.
Bill Cash is of course right there should be a referendum on the whole issue of membership. If Cameron had any guts he would do this.
But Cameron is scared. A referendum on whether Britain remains within the EU or leaves entirely, which should be the only question on the voting paper could blow up in his face and sink his government for good. Because Cameron would actually have to say aye or nay to membership. He could no longer prevaricate as he has a habit of doing and waiting to see which way the focus group goes.
People might actually vote to stay in the EU.
This would scupper the eurosceptics for good and if any of them had a conscience they would resign as MPs. Thankfully that would rid the Tory party of a cancer that eats at its heart.
However if Cameron campaigns to stay in the EU and the referendum goes against him he would be called upon to resign as Prime Minister. Hoist by his own referendum.
What Cameron proposes is re-negotiation of bits of the treaty he thinks will appease the eurosceptics. Clearly they are having nothing to do with such a monstrous fudge.
So here again Cameron is in a fix, and he isn't even PM yet.
The chances of getting the other member states to grant Britain special status and a load of opt-outs to central parts of the Treaty are pretty slim. If France, Germany and Italy tell the newly elected PM Cameron to bog off, he is stuffed. After Thatcher's lack of any respect for the Europeans they are hardly likely to tolerate Cameron swinging his handbag as well.
Watching this poppinjay of a politician sink deeper into a bog of his own making, I frankly have to say is a delight.
Frankly we now have one Party in power in the UK the Lib/Lab/Con party , the only option for an honest Party who will give the electorate a chance to get out of the EU is UKIP
But the Lib Dems have argued for a good while now that, given how this Europe issue keeps festering, we need a proper debate and a referendum on the basic issue of whether or not we stay in the EU. They'd campaign to stay in and try to reform the monster, but, if the vote went against, they'd accept it and "move on", to employ the politicians' current buzz word.
So Lib Dems and UKIP are actually in agreement over the need for a referendum on the real, basic issue, despite their total divergence on what they would want its outcome to be.
Far better than a mere "f**ting about" vote on a treaty that a huge majority of voters don't begin to understand.
Nor, I suspect, a significant number of "honourable members", either.
This is what he actually wrote in the SUN 2007; not the lies from from Browns mouth:
"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.
No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum."
Twist it as you like but it is fair to me that he meant that an unratified Treaty should have a referendum. What I would want is that the legality of the Treaty should be examined. Look carefully also at the self amending qualities of the treaty, it may be such that the Treaty was passed illegally as it may breach UK law.
The Lisbon Treaty was an ideal opportunity for the individual Euro countries to give a referendum to their population. The outcome may not have been as the Europhile or sceptic wanted but would have enabled the EU to finally bring about a common policy that suited all through a genuine democratic process.
The problem is the powers that be seem to hate the notion of a democratic solution or the individuals right to voice their opinion.
The phrase 'wasted opportunity' comes to mind
Cameron very clearly said he would not hold a referendum if the treaty was fully ratified and it now looks like it will be, long before he contends a general election. There is no point and there never was any point, as the measures included in the treaty are already being implemented, even though it is not fully ratified. I know you like to create controversy where none exits, but this is desperate, even for you.
In addition, as the results of such a referendum could have no effect (as we are already committed), a lot of people would not bother to go to vote so any result would almost certainly suffer very low turnout and would be very un-representative (only those who feel strongly bothering whilst most just would not bother). Thus, even if he were to waste our time and money on such an exercise, the results would indicate nothing.
It’s worth considering the difference between the EU and Westminster Parliaments.
The commission is the only institution that can propose legislation unlike the (rubber-stamp) Parliament.
This is totally unlike the Westminster Parliament with it’s Private Members Bill.
The commission is not directly accountable to any electorate.
The EU is essentially a complete inversion of democracy as we know it in Britain.
Both the British Parliament and the EU have most of the powers invested in a two chamber system but the roles are actually reversed.
In Britain, the chamber which can propose legislation is directly accountable to the British Public who elect them to that chamber. This is the House of Commons.
The House of Lords cannot propose legislation but can simply pass or delay legislation. It is not directly elected by the British People. New members of the chamber can be created by the government of the day. There are no checks or safeguards to monitor who or why new members are created. New members are often created out of cronyism or simply as a sort of retirement for a politician whose career is coming to an end. Thankfully it has no real power.
In Europe the roles are essentially reversed.
The chamber that is directly elected by the people of Europe, the European Parliament, has no real power. It can approve or reject legislation but cannot initiate it.
The chamber that can propose legislation is the Commission. The members of the Commission are not directly elected by the people of Europe. They are nominated by their respective governments of the day. On what criteria? Well, often…. cronyism or simply as a sort of retirement for a politician whose career is coming to an end!
See what I mean? The principles of accountability in the Westminster Parliament are completely reversed at the European level.
Our government should not be surrendering any more powers to this fledgling totalitarian state.
It should never have signed the Treaty of Lisbon.
There is some evidence that the Treaty of Lisbon will allow the EU Parliament some small powers to initiate legislation. This, however, could be seen as a reward for already signing away so much of our sovereignty; this is an exercise in good cop, bad cop.
The single European Act paved way for a single European Foreign Policy. Tony Blair took Britain to war with Iraq on the grounds that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. We know this is partly true because the French sold him a nuclear reactor. It is also true that France and Germany opposed removing Saddam Hussein from power. At the time of the ERM there was much talk of economic convergence before economic union could take place. Why is there no discussion of an impossible convergence of foreign policy before political union takes place?
Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown claimed they had negotiated Four red lines where Britain could opt-out of the Lisbon treaty.
Justice and Home Affairs
Foreign Policy and Defence
Charter of Fundamental Rights
Social Security
Legal experts think that the “cast-iron” guarantees to ensure Britain’s opt-outs are, in fact, no such thing, and that Britain will be eventually forced to come into line with other European countries.
“We believe that the red lines will not be sustainable. Looking at the legalities and use of the European Court of Justice, we believe they will be challenged bit by bit and eventually the UK will be in a position where all of the treaty will eventually apply to the UK. If they can’t get these things firmed up, eventually they will leak like a sieve.”
- Labour Chairman Michael Connarty MP, Commons European scrutiny Committee.
It is also said that the red line on foreign policy and defence is not legally binding.
The Lisbon Treaty, as I understand, extends Qualified Majority Voting to 11 areas.
"public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly…. All the earlier proposals in the new text will be hidden or disguised in some way. “
- Former French President and author of the EU Constitution Valery Giscard d’Estaing
Nothing in the EU Commission proposals can become legal or acceptable unless ratified by parliaments of member nations. NOTHING!
It is totally wrong to believe otherwise.
We need an informed debate about the future of Europe because at present it is simply being imposed on us from above.
For 13 years in row, independent auditors have refused to sign off the EU accounts. They are convinced that money is unaccounted for, disappearing into slush funds and personal bank accounts. In one year, £130 million went missing from the EU accounts.
The union is supposed to make convergence of legal systems a reality. This is probably an impossibility for several reasons.
Firstly, the legal systems are quite different. Take the British Legal System compared with a typical continental system such as the French.
The British Constitution ensures Habus Corpus and trial by Jury.
The French system is based around Corpus Jurus, originated by Roman Emperor Junstinian in the 6th Century Byzantium Empire.
Is the European Court the ultimate court of appeal or can it only rule on specifically European Law?
According to the treaty of Ascension, where national laws disagree with EU Laws, then EU Laws take precedence. i.e. laws created by an unelected commission overrule laws created by democratically elected sovereign democracies.
This surely makes our new, much vaunted Supreme Court quite irrelevant.
And both legal systems, at the moment, behave quite absurdly. In the case of Roman Polanski’s arrest, French politicians defend him, despite the fact that the age of consent in France is 15. His rape of a 13 year old in the US should have meant the French should have extradited him, but refused to do so. Absurdly he will not travel to Britain for fear of extradition but was allowed to give evidence to a British Court by video link to bring libel action against a journalist who accused him of groping! Do you really want convergence of two absurdities!
It is argued that Treaty of Lisbon actually reduces number of Commissioners to 15. By a strange coincidence, this is the same number of Commissioners who ruled the Soviet Union again with a rubber stamp Parliament.
The Conservatives after complaining bitterly over Labour signing up to Lisbon without a referendum are now doing the U turn of U turns on Europe, so they have lost my vote at least. As for the hopeless LiberalDemocrats what can you say!
No way will I vote Tory again, as the old Who song goes "Won't get fooled again".
That leaves a choice now of UKIP, Greens and the BNP
Cameron has already established an opposition party in the EU parliament. It does require significantly more members to be effective, but it signals the intent to make the EU accountable by threatening the "rubber stamp" that has greeted any Commissioner's whim in the past. The efforts to smear the Conservatives' allies depends very heavily upon the ignorance of Labour's allies in the parliament and have no credibility.
What those who think a referendum on a fully ratified treaty would achieve is a mystery to me, as the EU will not accept any further challenge if Poland does ratify it. Cameron has outlined the areas he will seek to renegotiate post ratification, but, I repeat, he has never said he will offer a referendum on continued membership.
That could allow us the benefits of trade, whilst retaining 'lawmaking' in our own country.
I, personally, see the EU as a real terrorist organisation as it tries to steal more and more power and sovereignity for itself from the UK in the ever moving drive to become a superstate. It may not be using the tactics of the Taliban and Al-Qaida but it is still using methods that are stealthy, illegal and undemocratic. I have been compaigning against the EU to bring it down for many years. As a result, I have been subjected to at least five attempts on my life while living under the auspices of the EU.
So now our citizens are suffering just like our soldiers in Afghanistan. Violence is being used against the UK's own people. I think it is time to say that we have had enough with the EU and to take action against it. The fight against terrorism must be expanded to include the EU.
I call on HM government, the Security Services, the police, the courts, the armed services and the British people to take the war on terror to the EU. I call on the British people to get the UK to leave the EU with immediate effect and totally unconditionally. I call for the immediate disbanding of the terrorist organisation known as the European Union.
All the rest is detail so, unless we wish to hold a referendum on every detail of every EU treaty and EU regulation, Cameron should put the one question to the people of Britain. The anti's will have their referendum and the pro's will have their result and the politicians can get on with dividing up the spoils as they have always done.
1) He's shown that his promises and undertakings are worth nothing;
2) He loses the Eurosceptic Tories vote - a lot of which will go to UKIP.
3) He is saying that the Electorate should not believe any undertaking by any politician - and certainly not any 'career' politician.
The Tories weren't actually 'winning' the electorate over in the first place - mainly people thought that they were perhaps the least bad or the only party that would get us out of the Lisbon Treaty; with that support gone the Tory lead isn't that strong and everything goes back in the balance.
But there may be a bright side; if the Eurosceptic Tories revolt they might just persuade the eurosceptic Labour & Lib-Dem Members to join them in a "cross-party government of national unity"; not least that gives the labour members a way of ditching Brown without calling a general election, and the Lib-dems a seat in power, all on a "Patriotic Ticket" which would probably have popular support in present circumstances.
The prospect of losing their seats next year might concentrate everyone's minds in the National Interest; now that would be a first in a long time.
Labour have to go but people who vote UK IP or BNP will just split the anti-Labour vote.
It's got to be a Conservative vote.
Until then, there is enough empty rehetoric being aired on this blog.