LibDem Hypocrisy about a Referendum

LibDem Hypocrisy about a Referendum
Steve Radford has been politely but firmly pointing out to Liberal Democrats the hypocrisy off their party's current position regarding a referendum on the EU constitutional treaty. Here's a recent letter of his published in the Western Morning News: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=248264&command=displayContent&sourceNode=248263&contentPK=18880482&folderPk=83102&pNodeId=249152 LIB-DEM HYPOCRISY 11:00 - 06 November 2007 At the last General Election both New Labour and the Lib-Dems pledged to vote for a referendum on a new EU Constitution. To quote a current Lib-Dem contender, Nick Clegg: "Nothing will damage the pro-European movement more than appearing to have something to hide." (Guardian, October 15).Today every continental leader recognises that the new treaty is only presentationally different from the constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters. So, as I did at the pro-referendum rally outside Westminster on October 27, I challenge my Lib-Dem rivals: How can you on one hand rightly support the case of Palestinian statehood and self-determination and in the same breath vote against the British people having a vote on whether to maintain their rights to self-determination or surrender our democracy to the primacy of EU Law? At the last election every Lib-Dem MP pledged in their manifesto to vote for a referendum, so why are you subservient to New Labour's manipulation to avoid our right to vote on our country' future? That's not Liberalism or democracy but deceit and hypocrisy Coun Steve Radford President of The Liberal Party Liverpool

Apparently there will be an unofficial LibDem leadership hustings meeting in Birmingham on 5th December (ie this Wednesday). If you are interested in going there to help distribute leaflets calling for a referendum on the EU constitutional treaty, then please email me as soon as possible and I'll tell you who to call.

A letter by Steve Radford published in the Reading Chronicle last week: http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/chronicle/letters/tm_headline=the-powers-of-our-mps-are-being-reduced%26method=full%26objectid=20179005%26siteid=50102-name_page.html The powers of our MPs are being reduced Nov 29 2007 THE twisting and turning of the Lib Dem Leadership contenders on their position over a referendum on the EU constitution beggars belief. Being interviewed in The Daily Telegraph, Chris Huhme is reported as saying about a Referendum for a UK settlement involving Scottish MP's no longer voting on english affairs: "We should convene a constitutional convention of not just the political class but civic society, and come up with proposals that could be put to a referendum. So I agree a referendum is the end process by which we approve new constitutional arrangements." This shows the utter hypocrisy of the same Lib Dems failing to support a referendum on the new EU constitution, tarted up as a Treaty, which further reduces the powers and influence of all our MPs, English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish - a pledge Lib Dems and Labour made in their manifesto's at the last General Election which they now intend to betray. Cllr STEVE RADFORD President of The Liberal Party Sutton Street

Here's the latest from the BBC on the EU Constitution debate in the Commons: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7201881.stm Lib Dems oppose referendum vote Nineteen Labour MPs were among those who voted for a referendum Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has delivered a blow to those seeking a referendum on the EU reform treaty by saying his party would vote against such a move. It had been thought the Lib Dems would abstain in a Commons vote, but Mr Clegg told BBC Radio's Today: "We would vote against a referendum on the treaty." The Tories accused the Lib Dems of "breaking a promise" on a referendum. Despite 19 Labour MPs rebelling, the bill to ratify the treaty passed its first Commons test on Monday. The measure will now be debated line-by-line over the coming weeks. Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed what is now known as the Lisbon Treaty in December, but Parliament must ratify it. 'Cowardly and deceitful' It was designed to replace the EU Constitution, which was abandoned in 2005, but on which Labour had promised a referendum. Ministers argue that no referendum is needed as the treaty merely amends the EU's existing constitution, rather than overwriting it - as the failed constitution would have done. The Conservatives have accused the government of being "cowardly and deceitful" for refusing to hold a referendum on a treaty which they say is substantially the same as the constitution. And Labour rebels who oppose the treaty have warned the government it faces a much bigger revolt when it comes to the expected vote on an amendment to hold a referendum. Mr Clegg said he agreed with the government that the treaty was "a rather different beast" to the constitution and therefore a referendum was not necessary. Instead, he says there should be a poll on Britain's continued membership of the EU. Lib Dem split? "We would support the government by not voting for a referendum," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We would vote against a referendum on the treaty and vote in accordance with our long-held position that the real referendum that needs to be had is whether we stay in the EU or not," he said. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said Mr Clegg's stance was "the latest instalment of the Liberal Democrats reneging on their election promise to vote for a referendum on the EU Constitution". "They told the voters they wanted the referendum," he said. "Then they decided to abstain on a referendum. Now they will, if necessary, bail out a failing and discredited government which is itself breaking its election promise to hold a referendum." The Eurosceptic Conservative MP Bill Cash admitted that the rebels needed the support of the Lib Dems if they were to have any chance of wining a vote for a referendum on the treaty. "It's obviously a matter of numbers and frankly it looks as though there aren't going to be quite enough rebels," he told Today. 'Distraction' technique? UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said: "So obsessive are the Lib Dems in their belief in the European state that they are breaking their pledge to hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty." In the first of at least 15 days of debate over the next month, Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the treaty was "good for Britain and good for Europe". "The government is convinced that Britain's membership of and full engagement with the EU is good for Britain and good for Europe," he told MPs. At the end of the rowdy five-hour debate a motion to approve the European Union (Amendment) Bill in principle won by 362 votes to 224.

Nice. They write an article attacking the Lib Dems then note quietly at the end that actually the Lib Dem votes wouldn't make any difference. Incidentally, I believe that the Lib Dems tabled an amendment to the Queen's Speech in favour of a referendum on the EU which was overwhelmingly rejected by, basically, everyone else. The more people are told that the Tories voted against an amendment in favour of a referendum on the EU which the Liberal Democrats actually tabled the better. This is (I hope) the last time I'm going to have to say this: this is a minor treaty which few really cares about for what it contains. Most of those that do want it to pass. What opposition there is is opposition to the European Union itself. Logical conclusion: ratify the treaty - which the EU can't operate without anymore - in Parliament and then have a referendum on whether or not we want to stay in the EU, as amended. Keeping the EU in its present form is not an option. The EU has serious problems which desperately need to be addressed if it is to do what it's supposed to do (and no more). A vote on this treaty would hence be meaningless, which is why the Lib Dems have never supported one. A vote on the Constitution would have been similar equivalent to a vote on the EU as a whole in that it would have contained the the previous reform and initial setup of the EU. That is why the Lib Dems supported that. That referendum is clearly no longer an option so the nearest equivalent is supported instead. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask why exactly you want a referendum.

Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask why exactly you want a referendum. I want a referendum because we were promised one by all the main parties, and because I think this is a bad treaty which the public would probably vote down if they had a chance. One of my objections to the Treaty of Lisbon is that (as various bloggers have pointed out) it is effectively self-amending, under this article: http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/FileCache/PUBPDF/FXAC07306ENC/FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf 289) Article 308 shall be replaced by the following: ‘Article 308 1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures. Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. So no more need for new Treaties or ratifications or referenda or any of that messy democratic stuff. The EU institutions can simply agree to grant themselves extra powers. Sweet. More generally, I'm opposed to the Treaty of Lisbon because it embodies so much of the earlier treaties. It may have been called the Reform Treaty, but it doesn't reform nearly enough for my taste. Most of the undemocratic powers held by the European Commission will remain with the European Commission. Laws will continue to be made with very little input from elected representatives at any level. There will be some gains for the elected EU Parliament, but decisions made at this level are still much further away from the individual citizen than decisions made by national parliaments. Subsidiarity will continue to be a pious hope rather than a reality. Some of this could have been fixed by a more radical treaty. As it is, the political elites are using Lisbon to consolidate a model of the EU which suits themselves and patronises the public. The only choice remaining will be, as you have said, in or out. And no doubt if that choice is ever really put before the people, then they will be told firmly and emphatically that 'out' = expulsion into a wasteland of poverty and chaos. A "Peoples' Europe"? Don't make me laugh! Incidentally, I believe that the Lib Dems tabled an amendment to the Queen's Speech in favour of a referendum on the EU which was overwhelmingly rejected by, basically, everyone else. "Sorry darling, I know I promised you a diamond necklace, but then I thought you'd prefer a chateau in Normandy. However, the bank has bounced my cheque, so I can't give you the chateau. But as I'd already decided to give you the chateau rather than the necklace, that means you can't have the necklace either."

I want a referendum because we were promised one by all the main parties, and because I think this is a bad treaty which the public would probably vote down if they had a chance. I think there's a very strong likelihood that it would pass in a referendum. But that's irrelevant because a referendum on the treaty is worthless since it fails to address the lack of a mandate for past reforms. Holding a referendum on it would make a referendum on the EU itself even less likely. One of my objections to the Treaty of Lisbon is that (as various bloggers have pointed out) it is effectively self-amending, under this article: http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/FileCache/PUBPDF/FXAC07306ENC/FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf 289) Article 308 shall be replaced by the following: ‘Article 308 1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures. Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. So no more need for new Treaties or ratifications or referenda or any of that messy democratic stuff. The EU institutions can simply agree to grant themselves extra powers. Sweet. Only with the consent of the Europarl and the representatives of every member state. My personal view is that some kind of member parliamentary approval should be required - not a new treaty, just some sort of Enabling Act. I'm in favour of giving the EU a right of initiative in member Parliaments. This would be an instrument for subsidiarity. More generally, I'm opposed to the Treaty of Lisbon because it embodies so much of the earlier treaties. It may have been called the Reform Treaty, but it doesn't reform nearly enough for my taste. Most of the undemocratic powers held by the European Commission will remain with the European Commission. Laws will continue to be made with very little input from elected representatives at any level. There will be some gains for the elected EU Parliament, but decisions made at this level are still much further away from the individual citizen than decisions made by national parliaments. Subsidiarity will continue to be a pious hope rather than a reality. Some of this could have been fixed by a more radical treaty. As it is, the political elites are using Lisbon to consolidate a model of the EU which suits themselves and patronises the public. The only choice remaining will be, as you have said, in or out. And no doubt if that choice is ever really put before the people, then they will be told firmly and emphatically that 'out' = expulsion into a wasteland of poverty and chaos. A "Peoples' Europe"? Don't make me laugh! Leaving the EU would have pretty much that effect. Our economy suffered seriously before we were admitted (doubtless much to de Gaulle's amusement and satisfaction). Incidentally, I believe that the Lib Dems tabled an amendment to the Queen's Speech in favour of a referendum on the EU which was overwhelmingly rejected by, basically, everyone else. "Sorry darling, I know I promised you a diamond necklace, but then I thought you'd prefer a chateau in Normandy. However, the bank has bounced my cheque, so I can't give you the chateau. But as I'd already decided to give you the chateau rather than the necklace, that means you can't have the necklace either." Very witty. It's more true to say that it was impossible to get the diamond necklace and the Lib Dems decided that the Chateau in Normandy was the best replacement. It just so happened that neither it nor the other popular option was within the means of the party to procure.

Leaving the EU would have pretty much that effect. Our economy suffered seriously before we were admitted (doubtless much to de Gaulle's amusement and satisfaction). I'm not convinced it would be so terrible, especially as Norway and Switzerland seem to do ok. However, let's assume that you are right and that leaving the EU would be unthinkably awful. If that is the case, don't you think it is even more vital that the public be given a proper say in the kind of EU we have, rather than just told to lump it or leave it? A bit late for that, no? The simple fact of the matter is that the choice here is in/out. The EU needs this treaty (and yes, I agree it needs more reform as well). Norway and Switzerland, for clear economic interests, are in the common market. This is a huge economic asset to them, just as it is to us. That's why they seem to be doing ok. However, in order to stay in the common market they have to implement EU regulations. They do not, however, have any say in their development (whereas the UK has a huge - disproportionate, indeed - amount of control over the process). They call it getting laws by fax. Very witty. It's more true to say that it was impossible to get the diamond necklace and the Lib Dems decided that the Chateau in Normandy was the best replacement. It just so happened that neither it nor the other popular option was within the means of the party to procure. Actually, I'm happy to say that 'the other popular option' probably is within the means of the Liberal Democrat party. All your MPs have to do is back the referendum amendment this week or next, and there is a good chance that the amendment will be carried. Go on - make us proud! Why, though? We don't support it! That's not to say I'm particularly horrified by the idea - except in so far as I think it would be a waste of public money. We have 63 MPs. In a full turnout situation in which only Labour opposed a referendum and every party but Labour had no rebels 17 Labour MPs would have to rebel, right through to 3rd reading. Losing on this would be seriously embarrassing for Labour so it really ain't gonna happen. Something like ID cards might be important enough to Labour rebels for them to work to defeat the government. This really isn't. The EU (and not even the main question there) doesn't win and lose elections the way ID cards could. That's assuming full turnout and no abstentions / double votes. Then, of course, there were 3 Tory rebels at 1st reading, which counts against the 17 needed. Since there were only 19 Labour rebels you'd still be 2 short on full turnout. Then there are a few more who support it from smaller groups. In summary, while it's not impossible I don't think a Lib Dem switch of policy would secure a referendum. We put out 74.4% turnout in that debate, quite possible because some abstained because they were not sure about the party line - but tha would equally be true the other way. So it probably wouldn't work and there's no reason to try.

A bit late for that, no? Not at all. If ratification fails, it'll be back to the drawing board. The EU institutions and member governments will have to recognize that cosmetic changes won't do the trick. Maybe they might try to make the EU not only more efficient (which is the laudible aim of the current treaty) but also more democratic, more transparent, less open to corruption, less ambitious in what it tries to take over from national government and actually closer to the people it is supposed to serve. The simple fact of the matter is that the choice here is in/out. The EU needs this treaty (and yes, I agree it needs more reform as well). Which do you want - the treaty, or reform? If you pass the treaty, then many of the current problems will get locked in for years to come. They call it getting laws by fax. Iceland has a similar arrangement and apparently has only had to adopt about 6-7% of EU directives. It obviously all depends on negotiation and circumstances. So it probably wouldn't work and there's no reason to try. Keeping a promise is a good reason to try. Even if the LibDems voted for a referendum on Lisbon and lost, they could still tick the 'promise kept' box on their scorecard.

Not at all. If ratification fails, it'll be back to the drawing board. The EU institutions and member governments will have to recognize that cosmetic changes won't do the trick. Maybe they might try to make the EU not only more efficient (which is the laudible aim of the current treaty) but also more democratic, more transparent, less open to corruption, less ambitious in what it tries to take over from national government and actually closer to the people it is supposed to serve. The EU is remarkably free of corruption for an organisation of its kind. It's a pitty that member states are incapable of spending its money properly - that's where it goes missing, not in Brussels (except in exceptional cases, like that UKIP MEP I read about). Which do you want - the treaty, or reform? If you pass the treaty, then many of the current problems will get locked in for years to come. The Treaty of Lisbon is not perfect and it is not sufficient. However, it is better than the alternative - no reform. And that is what we would get if it failed. They call it getting laws by fax. Iceland has a similar arrangement and apparently has only had to adopt about 6-7% of EU directives. It obviously all depends on negotiation and circumstances. Circumstances, yes. But the UK has less in common with Iceland than it does with Switzerland, where most EU regulations are applicable. So it probably wouldn't work and there's no reason to try. Keeping a promise is a good reason to try. Even if the LibDems voted for a referendum on Lisbon and lost, they could still tick the 'promise kept' box on their scorecard. I'm afraid not, since as we've discussed to do so would be to deceive the electorate. In any case, we've already got it ticked - we voted for a referendum on EU membership, which is far closer to the Constitutional Treaty than most imagine. I have trouble taking the ToL referendum campaign seriously, especially after its supposed champions (the Tories) went and voted against the Lib Dem amendment in favour of a referendum on EU membership.

Would the Liberal Party have supported that Lib Dem amendment if it had enough support to have MPs?

It's an interesting question, in a theoretical kind of way. The Liberals have been very focused on the Treaty of Lisbon, as most British and Continental politicians agree it is very similar in content and effect to the rejected Constitutional Treaty, on which the three big parties all promised us a referendum. Despite the Labour decision to oppose a referendum on Lisbon, it might be possible to force one through anyway if the LibDems backed it. In this context, every Liberal I've spoken to has seen the LibDem amendment calling for a referendum on EU membership instead as simply a LibDem ruse to wriggle out of their election promise. I'm sure you personally are sincere in your belief that this is closer to what the electors were promised, and I read a few days ago that Nick Harvey has given the same reason for backing the party line, but nonetheless I think the party line is a scam. Apart from anything else, no LibDem in his or her right mind imagined for a minute that there was any danger of their amendment being passed, whereas if they voted for a referendum on Lisbon they might just get one! Leaving all that aside, it is quite an interesting question as to whether a (hypothetical) Liberal MP would have supported the LibDem amendment. I haven't seen any Liberal Party statement on this, but I think the Liberal Party's (hypothetical) decision could probably be logically inferred from its published policy statements on the EU generally. I'll have a crack at this but it won't be now as I've run out of time!

The Liberals have been very focused on the Treaty of Lisbon, as most British and Continental politicians agree it is very similar in content and effect to the rejected Constitutional Treaty, on which the three big parties all promised us a referendum. Despite the Labour decision to oppose a referendum on Lisbon, it might be possible to force one through anyway if the LibDems backed it. In this context, every Liberal I've spoken to has seen the LibDem amendment calling for a referendum on EU membership instead as simply a LibDem ruse to wriggle out of their election promise. I'm sure you personally are sincere in your belief that this is closer to what the electors were promised, and I read a few days ago that Nick Harvey has given the same reason for backing the party line, but nonetheless I think the party line is a scam. Apart from anything else, no LibDem in his or her right mind imagined for a minute that there was any danger of their amendment being passed, whereas if they voted for a referendum on Lisbon they might just get one! It's possible. However, we don't believe that the changes being made justify it. The changes made by the Constitutional Treaty weren't themselves enough - it was the renewal of all previous treaties that made it such a big thing. The Party can either declare our manifesto pledge void and make a new policy or it can pick the next closest thing. The latter option has been chosen. If the Tories and some Labour MPs had supported the amendment then it could have been passed. Anyway, my point, as it has been throughout this thread, is that the thread title is unfair - it's certainly not hypocrisy. If you want hypocrisy then look at the Tories - they claim to be Eurosceptic but then vote against an amendment which would force a full national debate. Leaving all that aside, it is quite an interesting question as to whether a (hypothetical) Liberal MP would have supported the LibDem amendment. I haven't seen any Liberal Party statement on this, but I think the Liberal Party's (hypothetical) decision could probably be logically inferred from its published policy statements on the EU generally. I'll have a crack at this but it won't be now as I've run out of time! I look forward to it.

Leaving all that aside, it is quite an interesting question as to whether a (hypothetical) Liberal MP would have supported the LibDem amendment. I haven't seen any Liberal Party statement on this, but I think the Liberal Party's (hypothetical) decision could probably be logically inferred from its published policy statements on the EU generally. I'll have a crack at this but it won't be now as I've run out of time! I look forward to it. Appius - sorry I haven't done this before now. First I was busy, then later it slipped my mind. Anyway, here goes, for what its worth. The Liberal Party calls for a complete transformation of the EU into a much looser, more decentralised and more open organisation. Liberal newsletters etc often describe this aim as being for a kind of 'Commonwealth of Europe'. The Liberal Party also says that if it proves impossible to achieve this far-reaching reform, then Britain should consider leaving the EU altogether. In practice, it is very, very difficult to get massive reform of the EU onto the agenda at all. Few of the powers that be in the EU agree with your assessment and mine that it really needs reforming. Despite this, there is currently a rare opportunity to do so. Enlargement has made the existing arrangements even more unwieldy than they were before, leading initially to pressure for a Constitution embodying some modest reforms aimed at making things run more smoothly. The Constitution having been defeated, Lisbon contains the same modest reforms. The leaders of the EU badly want these modest reforms. If Lisbon is defeated too, then the EU might be forced to consider much more radical reforms, in order to satisfy their critics and actually get a reform treaty ratified. It is therefore completely in line with the Liberal Party's reform aspirations that it should try to block ratification of Lisbon. Hence it is official Liberal Party policy (confirmed at last year's Liberal Assembly) to campaign for a referendum on Lisbon and then to campaign for a 'no' vote in that referendum. If Lisbon is blocked, and as a result there are negotiations for a massive wholesale reform of the EU, then the Liberal Party should decide at the end of the negotiations whether the reforms go far enough for it to support staying in the EU. At that point it might decide whether to support an in-or-out referendum, and also decide on which side of that referendum it should campaign. If there is no referendum on Lisbon, then I think the Liberal Party should recognize straight away that its hopes of EU reform are never going to be realized, and it should in that case start to campaign for British withdrawal from the EU. Now, as to the choice facing a hypothetical Liberal MP, I was tempted to list and examine various hypothetical scenarios in which the LibDem amendment was voted on after the Tory one, (which is either carried or defeated first), or in which the LibDems promise to vote for the Tory amendment if their own is defeated. In some of these scenarios I think it would make sense for the Liberal MP to vote against the LibDem amendment, in others I think she should vote for it. However, in the situation as it has actually unfolded, the LibDem amendment came up for consideration first, with Clegg making clear that the LibDems wouldn't be voting for a referendum on Lisbon. Clegg's strong commitment to voting against a referendum on Lisbon simply means that there will be no such referendum. This means that there will be no possibility of the UK not ratifying Lisbon. This means that there is virtually no possibility of the Lisbon Treaty NOT coming into force. This means in turn that there will be no further opportunity for meaningful reform of the EU for many years to come. Therefore Clegg's decision means the end of the Liberal Party's hopes for massive EU reform. Therefore the Liberal Party should abandon those hopes and go for plan B, ie UK withdrawal. Therefore the Liberal MP should vote for the LibDem amendment (even though it has no chance of being passed). Anyway, that would be my interpretation of how the Liberal MP should vote. How she actually would vote, or how Steve Radford (say) would vote, I do not know.

View Full Version: LibDem Hypocrisy about a Referendum