So, there isn't going to be a referendum, and the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified. David Cameron has said, quite rightly, that we cannot leave matters there. I take that to mean that, if we are elected, Cameron will seek to renegotiate our position within the EU, opening up a large number of issues about which Eurosceptics have been unhappy for many years. I hope that such a renegotiation will be fruitful, and we should be planning exactly how to do it, but we should be under no illusions as to the difficulty of the task. Alas! it seems to me now that without both serious planning of exactly what we are after and a high level of good will and willingness to self-sacrifice from our European partners (implying consistently secure domestic political positions for at least the major Member States), this renegotiation has perhaps little more than 50% chance of success, and we may be forced to withdraw from the EU altogether. If so, that will prove a damning indictment of this Labour government's mishandling of the issues for more than a decade.
There are those that want Cameron to promise a "post-ratification" referendum on Lisbon itself. They are badly mistaken. Here are a few reasons why.
- First, and most importantly, if we have won a General Election, we should just go ahead and renegotiate. We would have no need of a referendum.
- Second, a referendum would slow matters down unnecessarily, delaying the renegotiation we would so desperately need.
- Third, there is a lot more wrong with our relationship with the EU than just the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon is the last straw, rather than the largest step. So a referendum, even if won, would not provide any additional mandate for renegotiation (over and above the General Election victory, which is all that is required anyway) concerning those matters not covered by Lisbon. Indeed, the risk is that the renegotiation would of necessity become narrowed onto the Lisbon issues.
- Fourth, there is of course the chance that we might lose a referendum - who knows how matters might pan out over the course of a campaign? This would have three very bad consequences. (A) We would not be able to conduct the fundamental renegotiation required. (B) (probably worst of all) We would have entrenched the passing of sovereignty from Parliament (where it still resides now, for EU measures act through the Acts putting the Treaties into UK law) to the EU - it would probably not be practical for Parliament itself to take such powers back without a subsequent referendum. So, whilst at the moment we only need to win once at a General Election for everything to change, after a referendum defeat matters would not be so straightforward. (C) (most obviously) Our first Conservative government in more than a decade would be totally discredited within months of taking office. Why on earth would we want to take such risks?
- Fifth, even if we won a referendum, we would be introducing an alien element into the UK constitution. Could we agree any subsequent treaty on anything without a referendum? What about other measures of constitutional significance? For example, could we introduce our own Lords reforms without a referendum?
Hague and Cameron should stick to their guns, and refuse to promise a post-ratification referendum. They should just go ahead and renegotiate.
