LibDem Hypocrisy about a Referendum

Hmm. I think you've got a major flaw in your argument. You haven't justified your assertion that a failure of the ratification of Lisbon would bring about more radical reform. It seems far more likely to me that a new Treaty would be drafted which would go much less far. Indeed, the europhobes would absolutely ridicule anything else (they'd have a go anyway but wouldn't be as successful). Lisbon's not perfect - we can agree on that - but if we didn't get Lisbon we'd get less. Frankly, I'm getting a bit bored of the whole argument over the Treaty's ratification. I'm not set against a referendum - I just think it's a waste of taxpayers' money when there's a more important issue which is the one people are really interested in.

Hmm. I think you've got a major flaw in your argument. You haven't justified your assertion that a failure of the ratification of Lisbon would bring about more radical reform. It might not. In fact, I'd even agree that it is a long shot. But it is at least a possibility, and it's probably the best chance we could get. Given that the UK is a major member state, and given the history of the constitution being rejected by France and the Netherlands, I don't believe that the EU will be able to quietly skirt around a British failure to ratify the Treaty. They would probably have to undertake another complete re-write. Yes, they would regard that as a nightmare; but they probably wouldn't have any choice. If they were doing a re-write, they would probably realize that a simple repackaging of the existing reforms risked being rejected yet again. Therefore they would have to either ban member states from holding referenda on the treaty (which wouldn't work because the Irish are constitutionally obliged to do so) or they would have to do some genuine research into what kind of reform treaty might actually attract public support.

It might not. In fact, I'd even agree that it is a long shot. But it is at least a possibility, and it's probably the best chance we could get. Given that the UK is a major member state, and given the history of the constitution being rejected by France and the Netherlands, I don't believe that the EU will be able to quietly skirt around a British failure to ratify the Treaty. They would probably have to undertake another complete re-write. Yes, they would regard that as a nightmare; but they probably wouldn't have any choice. If they were doing a re-write, they would probably realize that a simple repackaging of the existing reforms risked being rejected yet again. Therefore they would have to either ban member states from holding referenda on the treaty (which wouldn't work because the Irish are constitutionally obliged to do so) or they would have to do some genuine research into what kind of reform treaty might actually attract public support. I'm sure it would be redrafted but you know as well as I do that the result would be less, not more, radical. They were able to move from Constitution to Lisbon by getting rid of various things that weren't regarded as absolute essentials (and which I imagine you support). These would be under threat if further negotiations were tried. It's also possible that reform would be suspended for a while. That cannot be allowed to happen because it would place the whole EU in jeopardy. Count on this: Lisbon is as radical as leaders were prepared to agree. If you want to destroy the EU, say so - don't try to hide behind saying that progress is insufficient. No, it's not enough. But further reform will happen eventually. It will have to.

Count on this: Lisbon is as radical as leaders were prepared to agree. I'm sure that is true, but I think it comes down to this: what the leaders might regard as a desirable reform is not necessarily the same as what the bulk of the British public (for instance) might regard as a desirable reform. I'm sure the leaders were as radical as they dared in the direction they wanted to go, but that wasn't necessarily a direction that you or I or many other people would agree with. In the event of a redrafting, they might have to be less radical in their preferred direction and more radical in a direction that other people - the various publics of the various members states - might approve. For instance, European Commissioners might think that desirable reforms might include more quasi-ministerial powers for European Commissioners, more centralisation of authority in various areas, and fewer national vetos. The latter would certainly make the implementation of policy more efficient. However, what I personally would regard as desirable reforms would be far less power for the (unelected, after all) European Commission, more transparency, much more subsidiarity, better financial accountability, and less corruption. I'd like to see the 'power of initiative' taken away from the European Commission altogether, and maybe given in a limited form to the European Parliament. I'd like to see an enforceable requirement that the EU's books be approved by auditors. (It may be that they haven't been approved for the last 11 years due to failings by member states receiving EU handouts - but in that case, I'd say no more EU money should be paid to member states which can't account properly for its expenditure). I'd like to see the end of the CAP. Above all, I'd like to see a big return of powers from the EU to national governments. The reforms I've briefly outlined above are hardly original suggestions, and they are hardly my personal pet peeves. I reckon a lot of people across Europe want to see them happen. I think they would enjoy much more support than the kind of reforms the EU leaders want, and I don't think we should give the EU leaders any of their reforms without also insisting on our reforms too.

Count on this: Lisbon is as radical as leaders were prepared to agree. I'm sure that is true, but I think it comes down to this: what the leaders might regard as a desirable reform is not necessarily the same as what the bulk of the British public (for instance) might regard as a desirable reform. I'm sure the leaders were as radical as they dared in the direction they wanted to go, but that wasn't necessarily a direction that you or I or many other people would agree with. In the event of a redrafting, they might have to be less radical in their preferred direction and more radical in a direction that other people - the various publics of the various members states - might approve. So they should stop moving in the direction of subsidiarity and try some other direction instead? I somehow find it hard to see that being approved. For instance, European Commissioners might think that desirable reforms might include more quasi-ministerial powers for European Commissioners, more centralisation of authority in various areas, and fewer national vetos. The latter would certainly make the implementation of policy more efficient. They might, but is that what's in the Treaty? No, it isn't. I'm not sure it would necessarily be as efficient as you think. The Union only works because countries work together. That could place them in conflict with the structure itself. However, what I personally would regard as desirable reforms would be far less power for the (unelected, after all) European Commission, more transparency, much more subsidiarity, better financial accountability, and less corruption. I agree. And the Treaty of Lisbon goes some way towards securing these goals. Chris Davies MEP (Lib Dem, North-West England) recently exposed some of the issues with corruption. Hopefully that will force action. The UK press haven't taken seized on it in the way one might expect with a story about the EU which is negative but I still have hope. I'd like to see the 'power of initiative' taken away from the European Commission altogether, and maybe given in a limited form to the European Parliament. I'd like to see an enforceable requirement that the EU's books be approved by auditors. (It may be that they haven't been approved for the last 11 years due to failings by member states receiving EU handouts - but in that case, I'd say no more EU money should be paid to member states which can't account properly for its expenditure). I'd like to see the end of the CAP. Above all, I'd like to see a big return of powers from the EU to national governments. I'm inclined to agree about the right of initiative being given to the Parliament, though that would be bitterly opposed by eurosceptics (I imagine you can guess why). Of course, keeping it with the Commission would also dismay them. How would you enforce such a requirement? And what happens if they aren't? Or are the auditors required by law to approve them whatever they find (as you vaguely imply, presumably unintentionally). I think pulling all EU funds would actually be counterproductive. Instead, funding should be severely reduced until standards are met. Cutting it off altogether might have consequences far more serious than accounting issues. I'd like to ditch the CAP too, and I strongly believe in subsidiarity. However, I also recognise that sometimes powers are held far more effectively at continental level and that international cooperation is the only way to avoid World Wars on the one hand and Iraqs on the other. The reforms I've briefly outlined above are hardly original suggestions, and they are hardly my personal pet peeves. I reckon a lot of people across Europe want to see them happen. I think they would enjoy much more support than the kind of reforms the EU leaders want, and I don't think we should give the EU leaders any of their reforms without also insisting on our reforms too. It's not a "them and us" matter. The trend at the moment is towards subsidiarity. Competencies are being clearly defined so that it can be seen at a glance what the EU can and cannot do (I think this has been carried over from the Constitution. There's a chance it has been dropped without my attention's being drawn to it.). The "them and us" mentality won't bring reform: it will bring catastrophe. And I'm not just talking about the collapse of the European project.

Appius, unlike you I haven't read the entire treaty - just snippets. I'm also aware that reading the entire treaty is very difficult, because of its having been re-cast as an amending treaty. Therefore the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't make sense unless you read it with the two earlier treaties which it amends open on your knees, so that you can refer back to them to see what is being amended. For this reason, in replying to your last posting I'm going to rely on the Wikipedia entry on the Treaty of Lisbon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon Yes I know, Wikipedia, all made up stuff blah blah etc but it has about the right level of detail, it appears to be written by knowledgeable people and it is well referenced. If it is wrong about any of the specific points I quite below, then I'm sure that you'll point this out. The summary of the Treaty of Lisbon in that article seems very much to support my interpretation of the agreement rather than yours. For instance, European Commissioners might think that desirable reforms might include more quasi-ministerial powers for European Commissioners, more centralisation of authority in various areas, and fewer national vetos. The latter would certainly make the implementation of policy more efficient. They might, but is that what's in the Treaty? No, it isn't. (Best pantomime voice:) "Oh, yes it is!" Extra quasi-ministerial powers for Commissioners: A merged foreign representative post: The External Relations Commissioner post merged into the current seat held by Javier Solana. more centralisation of authority... fewer national vetos: Restructured EU policy areas: Double majority voting in the Council of The European Union expanded to more areas from 2014 on. (I can only assume that this will replace policy-making based on unanimity in those areas - in other words a reduction in the number of national veto areas.) However, what I personally would regard as desirable reforms would be far less power for the (unelected, after all) European Commission, more transparency, much more subsidiarity, better financial accountability, and less corruption. I agree. And the Treaty of Lisbon goes some way towards securing these goals. (Best pantomime voice:) "Oh, no it doesn't!" Democratic accountability: There is supposed to be some extra power for the European Parliament in the co-decision process, but still no power of initiative. There is supposed to be a greater role for national parliaments, put in at the insistence of the Dutch prime minister so that he could justify not holding another referendum. However, the actual provisions are for national parliaments to be better informed about forthcoming EU initiatives, not to have any decision-making role in them. With one exception: Subsidiarity National parliaments will be able to vote on whether new EU legislation breaches subsidiarity, ie tries to decide at EU level what could better be decided at national level. If at least a third of national parliaments vote that some piece of legislation goes against the subsidiarity principle, the legislation won't be dropped, but will be referred back to the European Commission. They won't be required to amend it but will have to give a written justification of why they think it doesn't breach the subsidiarity principle. Having done so, they can then proceed with it if they like, with no further input from national parliaments. So the 'extra power for national parliaments' strikes me as just window-dressing. Chris Davies MEP (Lib Dem, North-West England) recently exposed some of the issues with corruption. Hopefully that will force action. The UK press haven't taken seized on it in the way one might expect with a story about the EU which is negative but I still have hope. Yes, I did read about that. I've never previously read anything about Chris Davies which made me think of him as anything other than a complete waste of space, but I do give him full credit for this one. However, I'd be amazed if his revelations shocked the EU into any sort of reform. In fact, probably the only people shocked were the LibDems themselves. Everybody else already knows that the kinds of abuses he publicized are typical of the way the EU runs, and that only fundamental institutional reforms will change that.

Oops - I missed your comment about my suggestion re the auditing of EU accounts. How would you enforce such a requirement? And what happens if they aren't? Or are the auditors required by law to approve them whatever they find (as you vaguely imply, presumably unintentionally). I think pulling all EU funds would actually be counterproductive. Instead, funding should be severely reduced until standards are met. Cutting it off altogether might have consequences far more serious than accounting issues. I certainly wouldn't require the auditors to approve the accounts whatever they found - my sloppy phrasing, obviously! The European Commission is enthusiastic about fining companies which break its rules. Likewise, I'd write it into the reform treaty that the EU be automatically fined if it fails to produce accounts which satisfy the auditors. In the case that the auditors weren't satisfied, the EU budget for the following year would be automatically reduced by 20% and all the member states would get a corresponding reduction in their contributions. If the same happened the next year, it would be reduced by 20% from the previous level and so on until either the EU produced satisfactory books or else it had a budget mathematically approaching zero and effectively closed down. If this rule had been in place over the last 12 years, then by now the EU would either be a two-man outfit operating from above a tobacconists in Brussels or else it would be a financially clean and transparent operation, and the mafia would be that much poorer. Either of these outcomes would be a big improvement on the current situation, as far as I'm concerned.

Appius, unlike you I haven't read the entire treaty - just snippets. I'm also aware that reading the entire treaty is very difficult, because of its having been re-cast as an amending treaty. Therefore the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't make sense unless you read it with the two earlier treaties which it amends open on your knees, so that you can refer back to them to see what is being amended. For this reason, in replying to your last posting I'm going to rely on the Wikipedia entry on the Treaty of Lisbon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon Yes I know, Wikipedia, all made up stuff blah blah etc but it has about the right level of detail, it appears to be written by knowledgeable people and it is well referenced. If it is wrong about any of the specific points I quite below, then I'm sure that you'll point this out. I've only read bits of it. As you say, it doesn't make sense without the previous treaties. But that's actually one of the most obvious reasons that it's not the Constitution: it is not constitutional. It doesn't create the EU - it just reforms it. The constitutionalism was one of the major criticisms by the Constitution's opponents. The Treaty of Lisbon dumped that. The summary of the Treaty of Lisbon in that article seems very much to support my interpretation of the agreement rather than yours. For instance, European Commissioners might think that desirable reforms might include more quasi-ministerial powers for European Commissioners, more centralisation of authority in various areas, and fewer national vetos. The latter would certainly make the implementation of policy more efficient. They might, but is that what's in the Treaty? No, it isn't. (Best pantomime voice:) "Oh, yes it is!" Extra quasi-ministerial powers for Commissioners: A merged foreign representative post: The External Relations Commissioner post merged into the current seat held by Javier Solana. more centralisation of authority... fewer national vetos: Restructured EU policy areas: Double majority voting in the Council of The European Union expanded to more areas from 2014 on. (I can only assume that this will replace policy-making based on unanimity in those areas - in other words a reduction in the number of national veto areas.) In order: There are no new foreign policy powers that I'm aware of. It's just a measure to cut bureaucracy. Reducing the number of vetoes does not mean centralisation of authority. QMV does indeed replace the requirement for unanimity in the Council. However, what I personally would regard as desirable reforms would be far less power for the (unelected, after all) European Commission, more transparency, much more subsidiarity, better financial accountability, and less corruption. I agree. And the Treaty of Lisbon goes some way towards securing these goals. (Best pantomime voice:) "Oh, no it doesn't!" Democratic accountability: There is supposed to be some extra power for the European Parliament in the co-decision process, but still no power of initiative. There is supposed to be a greater role for national parliaments, put in at the insistence of the Dutch prime minister so that he could justify not holding another referendum. However, the actual provisions are for national parliaments to be better informed about forthcoming EU initiatives, not to have any decision-making role in them. With one exception: Subsidiarity National parliaments will be able to vote on whether new EU legislation breaches subsidiarity, ie tries to decide at EU level what could better be decided at national level. If at least a third of national parliaments vote that some piece of legislation goes against the subsidiarity principle, the legislation won't be dropped, but will be referred back to the European Commission. They won't be required to amend it but will have to give a written justification of why they think it doesn't breach the subsidiarity principle. Having done so, they can then proceed with it if they like, with no further input from national parliaments. So the 'extra power for national parliaments' strikes me as just window-dressing. Would you prefer nothing? That's what you're arguing in favour of. The Europarl has a significantly expanded role in decision making. This is against the protests of the europhobes. I think there would be very little chance of winning the right of initiative for the European Parliament. Sensibly, therefore, that fight has been left for another day. So there is progress after all. As you say, national parliaments can review European legislation. They may not have an absolute veto but this could actually be brought about if Parliaments took measures to bind their government on the Council. More than 1/3 of parliaments opposing something could therefore prevent the 2/3 majority requirement from being met. I'm not sure exactly what constitutional changes, if any, would be required. Some countries might not need any. In any case, national parliaments being consulted at all is a step forwards. If that many Parliaments blocked it there would be a good chance of its failing to pass the Council and the Parliament anyway. Most governments have majorities so in most situation parliaments would likely vote the same way as the Council seat anyway. It is more than just window dressing. It's a significant step forwards. It's not enough but it's significantly better than nothing. (Best pantomime voice) "Oh yes it does!" Chris Davies MEP (Lib Dem, North-West England) recently exposed some of the issues with corruption. Hopefully that will force action. The UK press haven't taken seized on it in the way one might expect with a story about the EU which is negative but I still have hope. Yes, I did read about that. I've never previously read anything about Chris Davies which made me think of him as anything other than a complete waste of space, but I do give him full credit for this one. However, I'd be amazed if his revelations shocked the EU into any sort of reform. In fact, probably the only people shocked were the LibDems themselves. Everybody else already knows that the kinds of abuses he publicized are typical of the way the EU runs, and that only fundamental institutional reforms will change that. The reforms needed aren't especially fundamental. I'm not sure but I wouldn't be surprised if they could be passed by the EU institutions without any need for an intergovernmental conference of the sort that drew up the Treaty of Lisbon. Quite simply, at the moment the rules allow it. Solution: change the rules. It's not a major reform. The difficulty, just as at Westminster, lies in persuading Members to impose restrictions on themselves. I'd also like to point out that the Liberal Democrats have been steadfast in calling for reforms against fraud wherever it occurs. I'd also like to point out that Chris Davies MEP was not the only MEP to see the report. But he was the only one to call in the fraud squad.

As I'm in a rush, I'll only respond to this part of your last posting, for now: I've only read bits of it. As you say, it doesn't make sense without the previous treaties. But that's actually one of the most obvious reasons that it's not the Constitution: it is not constitutional. It doesn't create the EU - it just reforms it. The constitutionalism was one of the major criticisms by the Constitution's opponents. The Treaty of Lisbon dumped that. I can't answer for other opponents of the Treaty, but speaking personally I never had any particular objection to the EU Constitution's 'constitutionalism'. Even a local snooker club or whatever generally has a constitution - a document detailing how it will be run, how disputes will be settled etc. The EU already has a constitution in the weak sense of their being an agreed set of rules on how it is run. The only thing is that those rules are spread over several different treaties. It actually seemed quite sensible to me to bring them all into one document. My objection wasn't to the fact of that being called a constitution. My objections are to the nature of the rules which it contained, and which the Treaty of Lisbon now contains instead.

I can't answer for other opponents of the Treaty, but speaking personally I never had any particular objection to the EU Constitution's 'constitutionalism'. Even a local snooker club or whatever generally has a constitution - a document detailing how it will be run, how disputes will be settled etc. The EU already has a constitution in the weak sense of their being an agreed set of rules on how it is run. The only thing is that those rules are spread over several different treaties. It actually seemed quite sensible to me to bring them all into one document. My objection wasn't to the fact of that being called a constitution. My objections are to the nature of the rules which it contained, and which the Treaty of Lisbon now contains instead. I'd gathered that. But I think it's a mistake to underestimate how some people are afraid of perceived constitutionalisation. In any case, it did define a Constitution (hence the name!) for the EU where none had existed before except in the vague sense that applies to any system. I didn't and don't object to it either because, as you say, it is common sense.

I'd gathered that. But I think it's a mistake to underestimate how some people are afraid of perceived constitutionalisation. A Constitution is a practical thing, yet it is also one of those symbolically-loaded trinkets that matter to nationalists, like a Flag, an Army, a National Anthem, a Passport and so on. Therefore, euro-nationalists were very keen for the EU to have a Constitution, preferably with ringing immortal words inscribed on creamy vellum and an elaborate signing ceremony involving dudes with wigs and frock-coats, possibly with cherubs flying over their heads playing bugles. Then they could puff out their chests and say that Europe was a Nation! :roll: And for exactly the same reason, eurosceptics wanted the EU not to have a Constitution. What did you expect? I used to think it tiresome how much this kind of symbolism mattered to some people. Now I think maybe it could be useful. Eventually, tomorrow or in another decade, we have to reach some sort of conclusion to this Europe debate which satisfies as many people as possible. The Europhiles hope the British public will eventually become reconciled to the EU dream - but after 40 years there is still little sign of that. Many Eurosceptics hope to take Britain right out of the EU - but that would hardly end the debate either, would it? Perhaps the ability of some people to take satisfaction in these (to me) rather silly symbols could somehow be part of some eventual grand settlement.

I'd gathered that. But I think it's a mistake to underestimate how some people are afraid of perceived constitutionalisation. A Constitution is a practical thing, yet it is also one of those symbolically-loaded trinkets that matter to nationalists, like a Flag, an Army, a National Anthem, a Passport and so on. Therefore, euro-nationalists were very keen for the EU to have a Constitution, preferably with ringing immortal words inscribed on creamy vellum and an elaborate signing ceremony involving dudes with wigs and frock-coats, possibly with cherubs flying over their heads playing bugles. Then they could puff out their chests and say that Europe was a Nation! :roll: A Constitution does not a nation make. And it wouldn't have made one. They could just as well puff out their chests now. And for exactly the same reason, eurosceptics wanted the EU not to have a Constitution. What did you expect? I used to think it tiresome how much this kind of symbolism mattered to some people. Now I think maybe it could be useful. Eventually, tomorrow or in another decade, we have to reach some sort of conclusion to this Europe debate which satisfies as many people as possible. The Europhiles hope the British public will eventually become reconciled to the EU dream - but after 40 years there is still little sign of that. Many Eurosceptics hope to take Britain right out of the EU - but that would hardly end the debate either, would it? Perhaps the ability of some people to take satisfaction in these (to me) rather silly symbols could somehow be part of some eventual grand settlement. In all honesty, I'm not that interested in symbolism myself. But I do recognise that it is important to many people and thus becomes important generally. I think the British public are less opposed to the Dream of Rome than you think. There's every chance that the in/out referendum would have been won had it ever taken place.

I just noticed this BBC report from 21st May: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7410140.stm Halfway down: Peers also voted late on Tuesday on an amendment by UK Independence Party peer Lord Pearson calling for a referendum on Britain's continued membership of the EU. Lib Dem peers abstained - despite their party's backing for such a referendum. A Lib Dem spokesman said the party did not want to "give succour" to eurosceptics by voting with the UK Independence Party. 'Dishonesty' He said the Lib Dems wanted a referendum on whether Britain should remain in Europe from a "pro-European stance". But Lord Pearson accused the party of "dishonesty". "The Lib Dems do not know whether they are coming or going," he commented after the vote. "They reneged on their manifesto pledge in the Commons, saying they wanted an 'In or Out' referendum and a proper debate on the EU. "But when they are given the opportunity to vote on such a referendum, they run away from it." So all this stuff from Nick Clegg about the LibDems meeting their election pledge for a constitution referendum by backing an in-or-out referendum on EU membership instead was just a pack of cynical lies the whole time. I bet Appius feels a right fool for having stuck up for the creep.

Appius just messaged me to say that he never reads the forum any more but wants to respond to my posting above... Basically, he believes that the House of Lords LibDems were urged by Clegg and others to back the referendum motion but made their own decision not to do so. He thinks they would have voted against a referendum if it hadn't been for the urging of their Commons colleagues.

Once it was clear the in/out referendum was not possible, the Liberal Democrats should have supported a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Not because the treaty is the same as the constitution, that’s fig leaf to protect Tory duplicity over Maastricht. After all you could argue the preamble to Liberal Party’s and Liberal Democrat’s constitution are almost the same, that doesn’t make the parties the same; but because the Liberal Democrats made a commitment to referenda on Europe. Paddy Ashdown sought a referendum at an early stage of the Maastricht process and he supported Bryan Gould’s private Member's Bill on the issue. Liberal Democrats’ cannot say "we are for a referendum on Maastricht ", and then because no referendum takes place, say that the matter is closed. The Lisbon Treaty has in a reopened the position that the Liberal Democrats took—if a referendum was appropriate on Maastricht it must also be for Lisbon. In 1995 there was a rare Liberal Democrat Opposition day that resulted in the motion that the Liberal Democrats tabled being passed. The motion argued that if there was a material change in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, such change should be ratified and endorsed by a referendum. But a problem arises, if the Liberal Democrats are guilty of hypocrisy, then so is the Liberal Party. And not because at one time the Liberal Party was more Europhile than the Lib Dems: “The Liberal Party look forward to a world in which all people can live together in peace and democracy. We favour: - Full participation in the European Community, with greater European integration in monetary and economic matters and a joint approach to foreign policy… a combined European Security Force which would support the United Nations' role of international policing and peace keeping.” No, the party is entitled to change its policy on Europe, it is because for most of its post-merger existence, the Liberal Party has opposed referenda as a matter of principle not policy. Indeed Paddy Ashdown’s commitment to a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty and all future major EU treaties, was roundly denounced as’ illiberal’ and ‘popularist’ at the time by many in the Liberal Party, and quoted as evidence that the Liberal Democrats weren’t real liberals. “The Liberal Party opposes the concept of referenda on principle, believing that such exercises can be manipulated to exact the desired result by careful selection of the question to be asked. Moreover referenda can undermine the decision-making responsibilities of elected representatives.” 1999

View Full Version: LibDem Hypocrisy about a Referendum