The whole Lisbon Treaty mess
I can’t believe that this mess was allowed to develop so far.
I do agree that the Lisbon Treaty is not the same as the constitution. We should not be bound by the manifesto commitment to a referendum on the constitution, that much is clear to me.
My personal opinion is that we should call for a referendum on Lisbon, just as we did for Maastricht. This is especially true since we cannot get our preferred referendum.
The question is why on earth was it deemed necessary to put a three line whip on this issue? Surely Clegg could have stuck to the previous policy but allowed a free vote. Its not some great matter of Liberal Democrat principle. It doesn’t define the party. Why on earth was it necessary to force the issue like this? Clegg doesn’t need to prove he’s a ’strong’ leader, he doesn’t have anything to gain from this. We just come out looking divided and frankly very silly.
What’s worse is that this conclusion has been obvious for weeks, yet we still allowed it to come to a head.
All I can ask is what on earth were they thinking?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
> I do agree that the Lisbon Treaty is not the same
> as the constitution.
Please could you list for me those Articles/Declarations, etc. in the EU Constitution which, in Labour’s view in 2005, required a referendum, but which are no longer contained in the Treaty of Lisbon?
March 6th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Andrew, the constitution would have replaced all the pre-existing treaties on European integration, the Lisbon treaty simply adds to those treaties so it is an amending treaty. It is not a constitution. If we had a referendum on Lisbon and people voted ‘no’ we would be exactly where we are today: in an inefficient, faltering Europe dominated by the French.
Brilliant!
Tristan, you’re quite right, it’s been a cock up but one which will soon be forgotten. A Tory colleague of mine offered the amusing view that only the LDs could have a three line whip to abstain.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:46 am
w&w, you are correct to say the Lisbon Treaty is different from the EU Constitution in form, or structure, a point I doubt anybody denies. However, David Miliband has said the Lisbon Treaty is also different in content and consequence, and in talking of referenda yesterday on the Today programme he also said, “I say it is the content of a treaty that matters”.
As you can see very easily by viewing my website, http://www.constitreaty.com the EU Constitution’s articles 1-150 (still working on the rest) are practically identical. The site show word-by-word highlighting to make this point irrefutable. If this holds for the remaining Articles (and from other sources, I see it does), then the EU Constitution’s content is almost entirely contained within the Lisbon Treaty, making it inaccurate, if not a lie, to say the two are different in content and consequence.
As for the political consequences of a No vote in a referendum, I cannot comment - all I do know, and something I’m setting out to test beyond all doubt, is that the UK government may be completely wrong in saying the two treaties are different in content and consequence. If you know of the specific differences upon which the referendum was denied, I would be extremely grateful for you to tell me.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
It is not inaccurate or a lie to say that the treaty and the constitution are different in consequence, even if their content remains broadly similar.
I said it above and it seems I’ll have to keep repeating it, along with many others: Lisbon is an amending treaty. Opposing it would change nothing. It is not a constitution which would sweep away all preceding treaties. Lisbon is about as different in consequence from the proposed constitution as it is possible to get.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Andrew, personally I accept your point about the amendments in Lisbon having the effect of changing earlier treaties so the whole corpus of the treaties creates a very similar thing to what the constitution proper would have done by replacing instead of amending earlier work.
However, my perspective is that there’s no point in having a referendum on “Europe so far versus Europe including Lisbon”. The better question would be Europe (with or without Lisbon) yes or no.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
w&w, this means you hold the view the same content can have different consequences, which I find most unusual. The point you repeat (about Lisbon being an amending treaty) is simply the point about it being different in form or stucture, which I agree on.
Would you like to point out some specific consequences in the EU Constitution (other than the difference in form, I’m talking about consequences that derive from the content) that are no longer in the Lisbon Treaty? If you cannot do that, I don’t understand how you can have an opinion on the matter.
The British people weren’t promised a referendum on the form of a treaty, but on the consequences of the content in the treaty for the UK’s relationship with the EU. In British politics, a ‘consolidating’ document, as the EU Constitution can be viewed, is of less importance than having debated the content of those documents which originally constituted it. Often, a consolidating document is regarded as a mere technical matter. It is a genuine mystery to me how you can give so much emphasis to form, whilst avoiding debate about content; I suppose it’s because your entire political viewpoint hinges on limiting any comparison to form, not content.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Jock, thanks for your thoughts. I’m totally undecided about the effectiveness of referenda or the best question to put. Considering how most EU countries are against a two-track EU, or an inter-governmental EU, perhaps the in-or-out question is the most practical. However, it’s also the easiest question to play upon peoples’ fears (the UK will be ruined if we leave the EU), instead of calming analysing the in or out question. My own view is that we should be closely involved in Europe, but that we shouldn’t have to do something the EU where we already think we do it a lot better.
After listening to the debate in Parliament yesterday, I do accept the point of view that it would be impractical, if not impossible, for c.60m British people to vote on the content of the Lisbon Treaty. I’ve been working on the treaty comparison for nearly 3 months solid, and I wouldn’t be able to easily summarise all my thoughts on the matter. I still don’t understand all the specialist terminology in the treaty. So what understanding could someone achieve by devoting a few hours, or even a week?
However, the flip-side to this is that the people who should have both specialist knowledge and time to consider the treaty have engaged in a sham debate, imho. It’s rammed through Parliament without the promised line-by-line scrutiny. ps: sorry for the long reply.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Exactly Andrew! The treaty is completely opaque. Which of course allows different people to say different but apparently every one of them objective things about it! The legislative language of repeals, addenda and amendments, and protocols is not the stuff of a great public debate.
But the bigger questions - as to whether we can be more or less effective, more or less liberal, in or out - could be cathartic in a way. I’d expect to lose my “out” campaign, but to achieve recognition perhaps of what ought to be changed and produce a real mandate for fighting for those changes, pre- or post- Lisbon amendments it wouldn’t really matter.
And I certainly agree on the sham debate on the Treaty in parliament.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Andrew, this is perhaps the absolute key, which you discuss in your reply to Jock. I don’t know anything about the Lisbon treaty’s details but I do understand that it will not fundamentally alter our relationship with the EU as it is currently constituted, regardless of the new presidency, majority voting and various other significant changes. A new constitution would since it would be an entirely new statement of our membership of the Union and this would need to be voted on in my opinion. It would be a ‘once and for all’ opportunity for us to (hopefully) hold a sensible debate about the merits of membership or not over a number of months. Discussing Lisbon would be a pointless technical argument among pedants which would go over the heads of most people, including me though I have two degrees and a mild obsession about Europe…
If we did have a referendum on Lisbon would people consider the detail of the treaty or would they actually be considering whether we are for or against Europe in principle. I firmly believe the vote would be on the latter question which is why the LD position, though currently uncomfortable, is the principled one. We tell the truth, the others hide behind semantics.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
w&w/Jock; there are a multitude of points arising from your last posts that could easily take up an evening of discussion.
@jock; agree treaty is opaque without consolidated texts; agree legislative language makes public debate difficult, but also think matters of public interest lurk there, and can be translated into terms/issues that are publicly accessible (e.g. would you want the UK to be compelled to fight in a war to defend Estonians if Russia attacked Estonia? or the death penalty to become acceptable during time of war?); I think a pre-Lisbon debate matters, as much as a post-Lisbon one
@w&w; I have tried to see your pov, but cannot agree the reason for a referendum boils down to the ‘new statement of membership’ the Constitution would have represented, although I do agree a ’statement’ of sorts would have been involved; agree on the need for sensible debate over months; agree discussion on Lisbon ‘as is’ would be too technical (but think it could be made accessible to public); agree referendum would be more about principle than treaty detail (but so would have constitution referendum); tend to think LibDems don’t always tell truth or are not always principled, due to fact they promised as much as the other two main parties, a referendum on the constitutional treaty (which had the same technical content as Lisbon) but then argued the promise didn’t extend to Lisbon (which I believe it does in content and practical, legal consequences).
Anyway, all these issues aside, I’ve never knowingly talked to LibDems before in my, up to now, apolitical life. Could I ask you a question? It’s this; one of the most controversial clauses in the constitution was Article I-6 stating EU law had primacy over the law of member states. Although removed from the Articles of Lisbon, Declaration 17 of Lisbon affirms the existence of the principle of primacy of EU law, as a cornerstone princple of the Union, backed up by European Court of Justice case law - which, of course, is diametrically opposed to Parliament’s official stance that Parliament itself is sovereign (ie. the ability to decide the limits of UK law), and that it only concedes to EU law because it chooses to do so. For the first time, in Lisbon, we are adding our weight and agreement to a declaration incompatible with Parliament’s own statement of sovereignty. imho, this is a massive, if subtle, constitutional change. Do you agree? and is the UK obliged, post-Lisbon, to forever more submit to the ruling of the ECJ (within the jurisdiction of ever-growing competences)?
March 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
No I don’t. This contradiction has always been inherent in our membership of the EEC, EC and now the EU. Technically PArliament is a dictatorship and can do what the Hell it likes. Happily our country benefits from all the accoutrements of a stable, civil society which has developed over centuries so this can never actually happen.
The UK parliament will, as far as I understand it, always have the final residual power to withdraw from the EU if a future government so wills it, making it the final arbiter. However, this is the ‘nuclear option’ and for day to day legislative and legal purposes the EU and its various tentacles has primacy. But that primacy is based on a willingness of Parliament to accept it on behalf of the British people.
Finally, I am always dismayed that any such discussion has to involve criticism of the Lib Dems just for who we are. Just remember that we’ve been around for over 150 years and we have tended to be the difficult bastards arguing for the unpalatable stuff, like home rule for Ireland, pensions for everyone and cutting the power of the House of Lords. By all means argue over the issue in question but leave the childish insults at home.
You have your view, we have ours. That’s democracy, pal.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
w&w;
> No I don’t. This contradiction has always been inherent
> in our membership of the EEC, EC and now the EU.
agreed, it was an inherent contradiction from the start, over very limited ‘competences’, but never before agreed to by the UK within the text of a treaty, afaik.
> Technically Parliament is a dictatorship and can do what
> the Hell it likes.
the first-past-the-post, winner takes all system? I agree a balance needs to be struck between stability and representation, a balance Italy (for example) has gotten wrong, imho.
> The UK parliament will, as far as I understand it, always
> have the final residual power to withdraw from the EU if
> a future government so wills it, making it the final
> arbiter.
Yes, under rTEU Article 50, in accordance with rTEU Article 218 - but once we’re all harmonised and integrated, it will be practically impossible, imho.
> Finally, I am always dismayed that any such discussion
> has to involve criticism of the Lib Dems just for who we
> are.
excuse me? I only criticised the LibDems for their lack of support for the promised referendum, what’s wrong with that? It’s my view of yesterday’s action, not of LibDems ‘for who they are’.
> By all means argue over the issue in question but leave
> the childish insults at home.
Childish insults? I’m amazed. Please point out to me where I’ve used a childish insult, as my posts today have all been honest and sincere. Are you referring to my statement that I’ve never knowingly talked to a LibDem before? If so, that’s the truth - I haven’t - as I said, I’ve been apolitical so far, and have rarely discussed politics with my own family, let alone anyone else. I am genuinely interested in your position. I do not belong to any political party, never have, and am currently working out what I think, and how it fits with what UK political parties think.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Andrew I’m afraid I’m the “wrong” Lib Dem to ask. I am currently not in a good place over Europe as a whole. As I mentioned I think I would campaign for an “out” vote in such a referendum.
My main reason is that I am just not sure that we can make as much headway towards being a genuinely liberal state, in a fast changing world, whilst a member of a slow moving and still too often protectionist organization.
I am prepared to be wrong. I am pro-Europe, as a European. And in particular there is hope in the accession of eastern countries more desperate for liberty after fifty plus years of subjugation to the Soviet Union.
But we have banged on about reform in Europe all of my political memory - from our CAP policy in 1979 till now, and in reality the protectionism of some of the “Old Europe” countries has still won through.
I believe that if we were to be a truly Free Trade liberal nation on the dge of Europe it is possible that we could do better, and actually that Europe could do better for having us there slightly different from them but a gateway to the rest of the world.
Ultimately, I’m a minarchist, and find that position quite difficult to reconcile with the current direction of Europe. I’d like a federal Europe to be part of that minarchist vision but I just don’t see it happening any time soon!
March 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Jock, I like your ‘pro-Europe in principle’ stance, which I can relate to. Interesting the reform debate has gone on for so long without changing the protectionist course. I’ll read up on minarchism, which sounds very interesting. More than anything, I’m intrigued by your ‘pro-out but also a LibDem’ mix, which I didn’t realise existed as an option. Thanks for your thoughts.
March 10th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
The thing I find about the Lib Dems, as I said to a new recruit a few days ago, is that so long as you can back up your arguments with liberal philosophy in general then you are usually at least accepted as having a genuine and honestly held opinion. As a democrat I suppose one has to then agree that if you lose the argument the will of the majority ought to prevail.
But on Europe, I don’t think my particular angle on it has been aired much. We hear a lot about nationalism and “giving up sovereignty” - usually by people already in positions of power they wish to defend in the UK - turkeys not voting for Christmas and so on. And we even hear some arguments that are frankly xenophobic. But do we hear that we could be a more liberal country out of Europe? Not really.
I guess it’s about being the grit in the oyster. If such an argument helps to create a better more liberal Europe then I’d be happy. I hold no torch for national governments - they are often the most protectionist in that defensive nationalist way. For someone who wants the sovereignty of the individual to be foremost, our centralized UK system is as much anathema as a powerful centralized Europe.
I do think it is partly Britain’s fault that reform has not been more forthcoming. We have often equivocated, been a bit half-hearted about our commitment to Europe. I think had real liberals been in power in the UK that would have been different and we might have fought for a more liberal community.
As I say, I think we do have an opportunity at the moment with the accession countries. If we now ganged up on the “old Europe” with them we might get some change more quickly.