Subscribe to our RSS feedrss

UK Looks At The Lisbon Treaty, Referendums And Power Transfer To Brussels

Source: by Matt Qvortrup, UK Centre for Policy Studies
Posted on: 8th November 2009

So David Cameron has decided that the “cast iron” guarantee for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty he was careless enough to issue was rather lethargic. That, to quote Karl Marx, “all that was solid melted into air”.

Having – rightly – castigated Gordon Brown for his unwillingness to let the British people decide on the latest transfer of powers to Brussels, the Conservatives unceremoniously called off the referendum.

From the point of view of public international law he did, of course, have a point. Once ratified it is impossible to hold a referendum on whether the Treaty should become part of British law.  As he correctly stated, “We cannot hold a referendum and magically make those posts – or the Lisbon treaty itself – disappear, any more than we could hold a referendum to stop the sun rising in the morning.”

But to go on to argue that this rules out a referendum is neither logically, legally or politically the case. The Conservative leader said
it would be wrong to “concoct a reason for a referendum” just for the sake of it. But why? Cameron claims that a Tory government would have a mandate to renegotiate. So why not let the people decide the outcome of that renegotiation?

Why not follow Harold Wilson’s example from the early and mid-1970s, when the Labour leader began renegotiations after the Heath government had taken the United Kingdom into the EEC (as the precursor of the EU was called)?

In those days, the Labour Party – just like the Conservative Party now – could not hold a referendum on a fait accompli. But they were entirely free to hold a referendum on the outcome of a renegotiated pact, and, indeed, did so. In fact, the promise of a referendum strengthened Wilson’s hand vis-à-vis the other EEC member states, as David Butler and Uwe Kitzinger wrote in the book The 1975 Referendum. So why can Cameron not do the same? Is the secret that he is afraid that such a promise may renew warfare inside the Conservative party?

We cannot believe that an otherwise sensible and principled Conservative leader would be fearful of factions inside his own party. Surely Ken Clarke and other europhiles do not wield such power within the Conservative Party. So why? Mr Cameron needs, at the very least, explain why he does not want to follow Wilson’s example.

One explanation, albeit a poor one is as follows. Instead of an immediate referendum, the Conservative Party proposes a so-called “referendum lock”. In the event of further transfers of powers to the European Liviathan EU, the British people will be consulted in a referendum. Cameron says, “If we win the next election, we will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum. And that will cover not just any future treaties like Lisbon, but any future attempt to take Britain into the euro.”

The move – Cameron argued – would hand the British people a “referendum lock to which only they should hold the key”.

It would do nothing of the sort. For better or for worse, that is not how it works under the British Constitution. Parliament, famously, is able to make or unmake any law. We do not have so-called ‘entrenched clauses’ in the British Constitution. Parliament can make or unmake any law. The “Referendum Lock” would not be much stronger that the “cast iron guarantee” that Mr Cameron proposed earlier.

Mr Cameron is, therefore, plain wrong when he says that the “referendum lock” would “put in place real protection for our democracy – protections other countries have but which are missing here in Britain”. Short of a written constitution – which few other than the constitutional radicalists and Liberal Democrats espouse – the promise of a referendum would be a constitutional paper tiger.

Moreover the will be no further transfers in the form we know. In the future we will not get a say over such transfers. For, as opposed to the previous transfers of sovereignty, the Lisbon Treaty is different.

According to Article 48 (7) of the Lisbon Treaty the Council of Ministers may decide changes to the Constitution – including further transfers of power – can be introduced without the involvement of the national parliaments. In other words, the so-called ratchet clause makes Cameron’s promise redundant. To put it bluntly, we are not going to be consulted over changes any way.

All this, of course, only makes the Government’s decision to abandon their manifesto commitment all the more shameful. That, perhaps, was to be expected. But why the Conservative Party follows the same strategy is baffling – especially as another strategy would be more promising.

The Conservative leader should think again. He should be courageous and promise to hold a referendum on a renegotiated deal. A referendum would strengthen the Conservative party, as well as giving a future Tory government a much stronger mandate. Go on Dave, its not too late!

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Print This Article in Plain Text Print This Article in Plain Text


Receive the Gov Monitor Newsletter

Latest Headlines

In The News

Canada Announces Funding For The 147th Antigonish Highland Games

On behalf of the Honourable James

Canada Expanding Trade Relations With South Africa

The Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister

Scotland To Create Confidential Helpline For Men Being Abused

A new service is being set

What Is The Future For Scotland’s Public Information Notices “PIN”

Legislation enabling councils to use online

£34 Million To Make Welsh Homes More Energy Efficient

The Welsh Assembly Government plans to