William Hague reaffirms Conservative anger at Brown's failure to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty

"It is worth remembering that no one in this House has any democratic mandate from the British people to agree to this Treaty. All three main parties stood on manifestos promising the British people a referendum on the EU Constitution. No one’s manifesto said that there would be a referendum on the EU Constitution, but if another country voted ‘no’ in their referendum the British referendum would be scrapped, the Constitution would be given a new name and a few tweaks and the Treaty would be shoved through without the British people being given any say on it at all. Because that is the extraordinary thing ministers are proposing – if they get their way the British people would have absolutely no opportunity to vote on this Treaty, either at the ballot box during a general election or in a referendum.

The whole story of this Treaty has been of this Government’s total failure of leadership, in Europe and in Britain. If ministers are to be believed, they never wanted the Constitution or this Treaty, they were defeated again and again in the negotiations – of the 275 amendments the Government made to the original Constitution text only 27 were accepted – and now they have accepted a Treaty which practically the whole of Europe agrees is only cosmetically different from the Constitution and which this Government dares not put to the British people.

Everyone knows what the Government is up to. No one serious believes that this Treaty is significantly different from the Constitution. Indeed some, like the Constitution’s chief draughtsman Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, can’t stop pointing it out. After the October summit he told European newspapers that ‘the difference … is one of approach, rather than content’. Last month he told the BBC that ‘you wouldn’t be honest to tell the British voters the substance of the text has changed - because the substance has not changed’. He has written with satisfaction in his blog that the Constitution’s ‘nine essential points … reappear word for word in the new project.  Not a comma has changed!’

Everyone knows what is really going on. No impartial commentator thinks that the Government are up to anything other than cynical and calculated manoeuvrings to avoid holding a referendum on a Treaty they know the British people would reject. Ministers have neither the courage to fight an election nor the courage and honour to keep their own promise of a referendum. It is as if they are deliberately setting out to confirm the belief that they are happy to treat the people of this country like fools.

The British people deserve better than this drift. Trust and confidence in this Government are draining away. There remains one notable way for the Prime Minister to repair some of the damage – to honour his promise of a referendum. We will see if he has the courage to admit he was wrong, act like a statesman and give the British people – the people who put us in this place – the chance to have the say we all promised them."

Comments

[R.Rowan]

The big question now is what is David Cameron going to do about it stand idly by and let it happen?carp and moan but do nothing as Britains sovereignty is lost?or stand up for Britain and the British people and give us a referendum when he gains power,because my vote and countless others will be lost if he does not act.

[Andrew Lilico]

There would be no point in a post-ratification referendum on a treaty already agreed and implemented. Instead what will have to happen is that if we privileged enough to be elected then we shall have immediately to enter into negotiations with our EU partners to form a new Treaty that would correct the UK position in respect of the competencies surrendered in this and a number of previous Treaties going back at least to Maastricht, and probably including the Treaty of Rome (in respect of fish).

The truth, in my view, is that this is the then end of the road for the strategy (which I have preferred up to now) of thinking that it'll all be okay in the end and that we don't need to rock the boat except when new Treaty negotiations come around naturally. I don't want to leave the EU, or to change our position in the EU so radically with respect to the Single European Act that we would be de facto asking to leave. But I do believe that if this Treaty is ratified, the time will have come, at last, to be calling for a fundamental renegotiation of our position as a EU Member State.

We cannot let this pass.

[michael mcgough]

There was much mirth yesterday at the Federal Trust Conference on the new treaty as Hague's declaration that 'if the treaty was ratified the Conservative's would not let the matter rest there' was discussed.All felt that a victorious new Tory government would quietly carry on (no doubt in the EPP)as if nothing had happened.

[Christina Speight]

Andrew Lilico - What DO you mean "There would be no point in a post-ratification referendum on a treaty already agreed and implemented"

There'd be every point. The people could give their verdict and the government would have to respond in some way. Yesterday's poll for Global Vision said 'nearly' 50% want to arrange a deal with the EU which is mainly about trade while 25% want out altogether. That's 75% unhappy with what we've got.

So it doesn't matter WHEN but a referendum there must be especially now swe see that all the bits of the Constitution that were left out to make it 'not a constitution'' have been put back in a protocol AFTER Brown agreed to it in June. That's shady dealings.

[Adrian Peirson]

Conservatives are EU Stooges designed to get Britain into the EU whoever Britain Votes for.

The Great Conspiracy by Labour, the Conservatives, the Civil Service and the Press to deceive the British
and shoehorn us into the EU. Devolution is to promote DISUNITY. ( Divide and Conquer ! )

http://tinyurl.com/yudm29

ftp://goldmine.bz

[Derek]

A great speech from William Hague. What a pity none of it gets reported on what passes for the news on the main channels. Far more is concentrated on the canoe man and his wife than on this.

The symbolic leaving of the EPP will tell us in 2009 that David Cameron is a man of substance, without any more being said.

[Chad Noble]

Well, a lot of words from Hague to waffle over nothing much of substance.

Is it a treaty, is it a constitution, who bloody cares, it's the content not the title that matters.

Does Hague still oppose its contents and if so, will he publicly pledge to return those powers if the Tories get into power?

There are no 'ifs' that prevent Hague from openly pledging to return the loss of powers, but he just can't bring himself to do so....

[Caroline Hope]

Andrew - you won't find the intention to steal our fish in the Treaty Of Rome. The Common Fisheries Policy was concocted in 1970 when the Six saw us (and, they thought then, Norway) coming.

As I posted on another thread:

Er, Dave *has* promised a post-election referendum. Here he is writing in The Sun (26 Sep 2007):

"Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.

No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum."

Whether this promise is as good as his one to withdraw from the EPP-ED "in weeks not months" is not for me to say…

Source:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/eu_referendum/article273758.ece

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Perhaps Mr Cameron should repeat his "Caste-iron promise and make things perfectly clear?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Should read "Cast" (nothing to do with India)

[Andrew Lilico]

Christina@20:02 - There'd be no point in a referendum because we wouldn't be interested in the result of that referendum. In terms of the Treaty, that would already have been ratified and a No vote in a referendum wouldn't change that, whilst in terms of renegotiation we'd have won a General Election and so would have a mandate to renegotiate without needing to have a referendum as well.

Caroline@23:14 - The CFP didn't apply to us until we joined the EEC, hence the Treaty of Rome is what is relevant.

[David Parker]

The prospect of Britain ever being able to achieve an individual renegotiation of its terms of membership of the EU is so remote that it would be sheer political dishonesty for any party to hold out such a promise in their manifesto.
Even faced with the prospect of a total British withdrawal it is highly unlikely that the EU would ever agree to anything other than, possibly, a very few minor and purely cosmetic concessions. To agree to any changes of substance would set a precedent which would certainly lead to similar demands from other member states.

The entire "United Europe" concept was deliberately designed from its inception to prevent the possibility of any major future alteration to its core structures. So far from 'reforming' the EU the current treaty merely reinforces that situation.

[Adrian Peirson]

This is a Coup, Great Britain Needs a counter Coup, now where is our Army, oh yes they are being demoralised and culled in a Phoney / Pointless war without end at this very moment.

ftp://goldmine.bz/Shoe%20Horned%20into%20the%20EU/START4%20REDUCE%20FILE%20SIZE.pdf