Edward Davey and the EU

Edward Davey and the EU
Not strictly continuity Liberal Party news but I imagine there'll be interest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7265516.stm Lib Dems do feel strongly about this. The point is that the amendment tabled by the Lib Dems was denied debate time, despite - as I imagine you will agree - being quite clearly a matter of public interest. Lib Dem MPs, backing Edward Davey MP refused to allow the debate to continue, pressing points of order. Eventually the Deputy Speaker ordered Edward Davey MP out, whereupon the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party followed in protest.

From the same report: And Neil O'Brien, director of the I Want a Referendum campaign - which is pushing for a referendum on the treaty, said: "The Liberal Democrats are spitting mad because they have been rumbled." "They wanted to camouflage the fact that they have chickened out of a referendum on the constitutional treaty by calling for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. "But now it has become apparent that this "in or out" referendum is not even going to be discussed." The parliamentary debate is on the Treaty of Lisbon. Despite promises, Labour has allocated very little time for actual debate on that treaty, as opposed to statements from ministers regarding its content. I thin it is a darn cheek that the LibDems want to take up some of that very limited time with debate on their quite unrelated motion for an 'in-or-out' referendum. They could press for such a referendum at any time - they don't need to take up the little time that has been set aside specifically for Treaty of Lisbon debate. If they want a meaningful debate on how the EU is run - rather than just a contemptuous take-it-or-leave it, do-you-want-in-or-out approach, then they should support a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. I think the LibDem walkout is a load of sound and fury signifying nothing. If they are miffed about lack of debate time on this amendment, how do they think the rest of us feel about the lack of debate time on the treaty as a whole? As this is LibDem news rather than Liberal news, I'll move the thread to the Home Affairs section.

The handling of the Treaty of Lisbon by all three major parties is scandalous. I have read the text of the Treaty and it is almost indistinguishable from the previously drafted Constitution. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and the British people are being deceived. The Treaty of Lisbon is a Constitutional document and should therefore be submitted to the electorate for a referendum. The Government has played down the treaty from the start and the amount of time allowed for parliamentary debate was disgracefully short. The LibDem decision to call for an 'in or out' referendum is as disingenuous and politically dishonest as the behaviour of the other two parties. I can understand their tactics in stage-fronting their policy in this way but it detracted from the main issue. We should not be faced iwth a 'take it or leave it' choice on this Treaty. One can be against the Treaty without being against the EU as such. This denial of the democratic deliberation on the Treaty and the possibility of reform of the EU from within is undemocratic. The Liberal Party policy on these issues is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the LibDems have just added to the cynicism with which the British public increasingly view their politicians. The lack of public interest in this issue reflects the apathetic despair of a nation whose views on this and other issues (e.g. war on Iraq) have been disregarded by the political elite.

The handling of the Treaty of Lisbon by all three major parties is scandalous. I have read the text of the Treaty and it is almost indistinguishable from the previously drafted Constitution. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and the British people are being deceived. The Treaty of Lisbon is a Constitutional document and should therefore be submitted to the electorate for a referendum. It's not. I've examined the Treaty myself. It's a relatively minor treaty when compared to others which received Parliamentary ratification with barely a whisper of protest - if that. The Government has played down the treaty from the start and the amount of time allowed for parliamentary debate was disgracefully short. The LibDem decision to call for an 'in or out' referendum is as disingenuous and politically dishonest as the behaviour of the other two parties. I can understand their tactics in stage-fronting their policy in this way but it detracted from the main issue. We should not be faced iwth a 'take it or leave it' choice on this Treaty. One can be against the Treaty without being against the EU as such. This denial of the democratic deliberation on the Treaty and the possibility of reform of the EU from within is undemocratic. Certainly one can be against the Treaty without being against the EU as such. However, a referendum on the Treaty would, by logical extension, require a referendum on every previous Treaty. This is the basis of the Lib Dem position - it's hypocritical to call for a referendum on this Treaty without also calling for retrospective referenda on those. The LIb Dem position is that a referendum should be called covering all Treaties, including the present one, as democratic principle requires. I'm hesistant to say it but I suppose I should: my feeling is that the continuity Liberals are only calling for this because they don't want the bandwagon to go without them. If other hadn't made a fuss I don't suppose for a moment they would have done. The Treaty is not the main issue. It is the sideshow. The vast majority of those calling for a referendum are doing so because they want a referendum on EU membership. The Liberal Party policy on these issues is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the LibDems have just added to the cynicism with which the British public increasingly view their politicians. The lack of public interest in this issue reflects the apathetic despair of a nation whose views on this and other issues (e.g. war on Iraq) have been disregarded by the political elite. Many politicians have become somewhat distant from the electorate. I do think you're being melodramatic however.

To Appius Stuartus Tacitus My delayed reply is because I could not locate the extensive notes I had made comparing the texts of the 'Constitution' and the Lisbon Treaty. They are remarkably similar and again, I have to say that playing the Treaty down as minor is deceptive. Both Giscard d'Estaing and Angela Merkel agree with me! Are they wrong? The Treaty says that the currency of the EU shall be the Euro- not Constitutional? The Treaty defines the flag of the EU- not Constitutional? The Treaty creates a new High representative for Foriegn/External Affairs- not Constitutional? The Treaty creates a new Presidential role in the EU- not Consitituional? The Treaty provides for the joint deployment of EU troops- a proto-army. -Not Constitutional? I don't know who you are Appius, but you sound like the arrogant political elite who are treating the electorate with disdain. The Lib Dems promised one referendum, they now advocate something else. I stand by my words. This behaviour is cynical and illiberal and does nothing to strengthen public confidence in our elected representatives. We have been and we are being deceived. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, we are signed up for the Euro, period.

To Appius Stuartus Tacitus My delayed reply is because I could not locate the extensive notes I had made comparing the texts of the 'Constitution' and the Lisbon Treaty. They are remarkably similar and again, I have to say that playing the Treaty down as minor is deceptive. Both Giscard d'Estaing and Angela Merkel agree with me! Are they wrong? Two points: 1. The treaty as it applies to them is not the treaty as it applies to us. Surely you were paying attention when Gordon Brown was trumpeting his "red lines"? I don't like them but nonetheless they are there and reduce the treaty's force on the UK. 2. They have their own political agenda. Merkel wants to make the Treaty look as much like the Constitution as possible because that went through and by doing so she makes it easier to pass the Treaty. Giscard d'Estaing I imagine has similar motivation, with the additional motivation of getting some of the credit for the Treaty if it's substantially the Constitution, to which he contributed greatly. The Treaty says that the currency of the EU shall be the Euro- not Constitutional? It already is. And our opt-out remains. The Treaty defines the flag of the EU- not Constitutional? It doesn't, actually. That was dropped. The Treaty creates a new High representative for Foriegn/External Affairs- not Constitutional? No. It's called cutting bureacracy. The powers already exist in two roles and are being combined into one. The Treaty creates a new Presidential role in the EU- not Consitituional? There's already a rotating presidency of the Council. It isn't really a new role, just a reform of an existing one. The Treaty provides for the joint deployment of EU troops- a proto-army. -Not Constitutional? Is NATO constitutional? How about the UN? No - because it's not compulsory. Neither is the EU version. Indeed, the same largely applies to the foreign policy roles - they represent the Union where there is common ground but member states are free to have their own policy if they want. I don't know who you are Appius, but you sound like the arrogant political elite who are treating the electorate with disdain. The Lib Dems promised one referendum, they now advocate something else. I stand by my words. This behaviour is cynical and illiberal and does nothing to strengthen public confidence in our elected representatives. We have been and we are being deceived. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, we are signed up for the Euro, period. Of course we're now advocating something else. The Constitution is dead! How is proposing the closest thing to a vote on the Constitution - a vote on the EU - treating the electorate with disdain, exactly? And the thing is that we genuinely do support it. It's not political opportunism but genuine principle at work. I think trying to distort the issues, as our opponents are doing, weakens public confidence in our elected representatives. Taking a principled stand on an issue that matters is precisely what MPs are there to do. We are already pledged to join the Euro. It's suspended, no more. It is already a membership requirement - but one which can be suspended.

View Full Version: Edward Davey and the EU