Cameron: Let the people decide

Speaking in the Commons this afternoon (where the number of Tory MPs appeared to significantly exceed the number of Labour MPs), the Conservative leader David Cameron said that the issue at stake in discussion of the Constitution/ EU draft Treaty was whether this Government was serious about listening to people or not.

Addressing The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron said the failure to agree to a referendum would "be remembered as one of the most flagrant breaches of any of the promises you have ever made."  He said that the Treaty was largely the same as the Constitution and quoted remarks from Bertie Ahern and Angela Merkel in support (Open Europe have a full list of Constitution-friendly EU leaders telling their electorates the same).  Mr Cameron went on to say that there were sixty areas where Britain would lose its veto - including energy, transport, the EU diplomatic service and employment law.

The EU was lacking the political will, he concluded, to tackle the real issues of climate change and economic competition.

Mr Brown, the Conservative leader concluded, had promised to be humble, a servant of the people and to listen.  Voters would only take these words seriously if he let the people decide on this Treaty.

Tony Blair, with his successor alongside him, rejected David Cameron's arguments and quoted the Czech Prime Minister (one of David Cameron's allies in Europe) who said a referendum was not necessary and also Ken Clarke who, yesterday, said that some Eurosceptics would demand a referendum if the EU changed the date.  The Prime Minister said that Cameron appeared to be going through the motions in calling for a referendum.  If he really thought it was a big deal he would have raised the issue at last week's PMQs and would have attended last week's meeting of EPP leaders.

To cheers from Labour MPs Ken Clarke spoke from the Tory backbenches in favour of Tony Blair. Frank Field spoke from Labour's benches - warning that a failure to grant a referendum would make the Labour Party vulnerable to Tory attacks of not listening to voters.  Austin Mitchell and Gisela Stuart also called for a referendum from the Labour benches.

David Heathcoat Amory summed up the position perfectly near the end of the statement.  Tony Blair, he said, had given away powers of the British people that had only been lent to him and without seeking their consent.

Comments

[Jennifer Wells]

Cameron was pretty underwhelming. He brought no passion to his arguments. Blair was right. He did look like he was going through the motions.

[Michael McGowan]

Well are you surprised? Who are Cameron's chief foreign policy advisers? Heseltine, Ken Clarke and Chris Patten.

[Teesbridge]

Ken Clarke is a motion DC should go through pretty quickly, preferably with something sharp.

[Tory T]

Well?

Are you satisfied now?

Those who said he would bring up at PMQs in the morning's thread were 100% right.

"Addressing The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron said the failure to agree to a referendum would "be remembered as one of the most flagrant breaches of any of the promises you have ever made.""

That is as strong a statement as you could possibly ask for. Michael McGowan in not recognising it paints himself as the ukipper I believe him to be.

If the traditionalists are not satisfied with this, then clearly their beef against Cameron is personal and has nothing to do with policy.

Fantastically robust performance by Cameron and as a Eurosceptic Tory I am delighted. I expect non-trollish sceptics like Sean Fear for example will be too.

[John]

What struck me was that to the last Tony Blair with the support of Gordon Brown showed his utter contempt for Parliament, The Monarchy and the people of this country.

He lied, he prevaricated and once again arrogantly showed he thinks the people of this country are too stupid to understand this betrayal. He knows best and we know nothing.

David Cameron cannot defeat that. Margaret Thatcher would not have defeated that. Only when the people of this country start to band together to express their views en masse.

There is a petition on the PM's 10 Downing Street site.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted a binding referendum on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU "constitution" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/

Sign it. It is a start.

As for smug disloyalty of Clarke, if Cameron wants to keep any respect then he must deal with him severely!

[Bill]

Surely one can object to someone on both personal and policy grounds?

[Sean Fear]

This particular battle has only just begun.

[Traditional Tory]

I'd have to watch this before deciding whether Cameron's performance was as stated by Tory T, or whether he was merely going through the motions, however...

To cheers from Labour MPs Ken Clarke spoke from the Tory backbenches in favour of Tony Blair.

So what is to be done about this renegade?

[Tanuki]

We could get our killer-stroke in early: a clear and unambiguous commitment to hold a referendum on the EU constitution when we get elected, and if the outcome is a no, retrospectively revoking any constitution-enabled legislation which may have been passed by Labour in the meantime.

In the meantime, can't we find a nice secure retirement-home for Ken Clarke? (and no I don't mean the HoL).

[Michael McGowan]

Do you have any evidence Tory T that I support UKIP or is that just another desperate smear....to add to your long list of pathetic contributions? It is a matter of fact that Cameron's foreign policy advisers are the Euro-integrationist wing of the Conservative Party.

[Denis Cooper]

I repeat that Kenneth Clarke is in the wrong party. He is of course entitled to his views, but to stand up in the Commons and stab his party leader in the back as he did today shows that he has no loyalty to his party and its duly elected leader, just as he has no loyalty to his country. If he relishes making himself into a hero for those sitting on the opposite benches he should cross the floor and join them.

[Michael McGowan]

Ken Clarke will never be reined in David Cameron. In 2005, Cameron depended on the Clarke camp for much of his support and will do anything to avoid the situation in 1997-2001 when Clarke, Patten and Heseltine took every opportunity to help Alastair Cambell attack Hague.

[Tory T]

Trad T

He spoke from the backbenches. As in not the frontbenches. Labour Eurosceptics, equally out of step with their party, spoke from the backbenches too.

We all know Ken's views on Europe and we all know Cameron and his team don't agree with them. His democracy ideas, particularly on English votes for English laws, have great merit and were broadly welcomed on ConHome just recently.

David Cameron makes policy in the Tory party and I don't see a single thing in the Editor's report above that a genuine Eurosceptic would be unhappy with.

Ken Clarke was probably disgusted and Michael Portillo will be too, but I think I can probably live with that!

[Londoner]

For Ken Clarke deliberately to go out of his way to contradict the leader on a matter of clear party policy, not only in comments outside the House (as he had already done) but in the House to the predictable delight of Labour MPs, shows utter comtempt for his own party.

Can't the usual channels organise a hostage exchange - Frank Field for Ken Clarke?

Incidentally Kate Huoy MP was attending a constituency event in London at just the moment Brown was being crowned in Manchester yesterday. As Ken's a former Cabinet Minister, perhaps Labour could throw her in as part of the deal?

[John]

Tory T

Please take off those rose-tinted glasses.

Don't you get it. Clarke has just severely undermined your hero. Clarke is the democracy task force leader who has just denounced the need for a promised democratic referendum that his leader demanded.

If Cameron does not deal with him, the media and Labour Party will savage Cameron for weakness and then we know what happens.

[Bill]

Thge irony is the europhiles think they are so clever and that they deterministically have history on their side (just like the Commies did) as they arrogantly sign away the freedoms and independence which our nation took almost a thousand years to achieve. Will some people never learn?

[Andrew Lilico]

If it comes to it, there will very probably have to be a referendum. 80%/83%/86% support for a referendum are not numbers any politician can ignore. The only realistic alternatives seem to me to be (a) wait it out and hope someone else (e.g. the Poles) kills the Treaty first (this actually isn't such a bad strategy - would "in Europe but not run by Europe" Eurosceptics on this site support that?); (b) veto it at the full Treaty conference in the Autumn - I wouldn't put this past Brown; (c) say that there will be a referendum, but say that the government is neutral on the matter (probably banning Cabinet members from campaigning on either side) - again, I wouldn't put this past Brown; (d) cut up rough at the full Treaty conference, and re-negotiate something involving a transfer of powers back to the UK that could then be sold to the British public in a referendum to secure a "Yes" - I think that this would be very difficult indeed, and matters would have to move a long way, very fast, in other Member States before this kind of thought even entered the equation.

Given that (d) is out, at the moment Brown is probably depending on (a). He has quite a while before he's obliged to hold a referendum (2009, if I recall correctly?). My guess is that he will try to out-stare those demanding a referendum for long enough for someone else to kill the Treaty, but that if it really comes to it we will have our referendum, perhaps even with the government being officially neutral. This may even mean that, if it comes to a referendum, a 2009 General Election is less likely.

The one other possibility might be that if he is too far ahead in the opinion polls next year, he may try to have a General Election campaign in which he argues for the Treaty, and if he wins he would proclaim that he had a mandate and didn't need a referendum. We must therefore make sure that he isn't that far ahead in the polls.

My guess is that his chances of outwaiting events, and being saved by some other Member State's rejection of the Treaty must be pretty high. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't, ourselves, be criticizing the Treaty in the meantime...

[Sean Fear]

Irritating (and disloyal) as Clarke's behaviour is, he can't really be disciplined for it as (a) he's not a frontbencher and (b) he's always made his views on the EU plain.

If he were a frontbencher, then he would of course have to resign.

[malcolm]

I think the moment of truth will soon come.I like Ken Clarke, he is a skilled debater and is better than just about every member of the shadow cabinet in picking holes in Labour party arguments, he is also it seems quite popular with the public. But on the EU he is an absolute total liability. DC will I hope be publically brutal with him and make it clear that on this matter he speaks for noone but himself.

[John]

Bill:

I agree in fact I suspect if any of the previous three governments had bitten the bullet and given the people a referendum some years ago they might well have won.

However, now because of Blair and Labour's general reputation for deceit, spin and obfuscation nobody believes a word they say on things like this.

[watervole]

Cameron did not perform well and got roasted for not attending a key meeting. Blair thereafter completely wiped the floor with Cameron.

I have some sympathy for Cameron as clearly he felt he had to follow the euro-sceptics which, of course, left him totally exposed to labour ridicule.

Clarke's stance, however unpalatable it may be for some, is logical. It is time for some of our members to realise we are already in Europe and that unless we wish to be completely stuffed, we had better get in there and start protecting our interests as clearly Labour would sell their grandmother down the river.

[Mark Fulford]

It's OK to be a rebel, provided you're a rebel with personality. That's why Ken Clarke (and Boris Johnson) get away with it. Were they not known and liked by the public, and were they not net assets, they'd be out.

[tapestry]

Cameron's playing it just right. He can't stop the Constitution and force a referendum without Labour MPs in support. If he makes a tub-thumbing party political row out of this, he will alienate potential support from labour MPs.

He knows he must play it cool for that reason - let alone that his own main policy advisers are hopelessly confused about the EU - Ken Clarke saying he could lead the Party two years ago becasue the COnstitution is longer an issue, and now trying to brush the whole thing under the carpet. What a plonker!!!

Cameron needs to be the voice of sweet reason so he can talk with labour MPs like Austin Mtchell, Frank Field, Gisella Stuart and form a cross party alliance in favour of a referendum.

The jeers that could be heard over Blair's reply to Cameron were most encouraging.

[Tory T]

John,

Sean Fear is exactly right. You can't sack a backbencher from being a backbencher. It has already been made absolutely clear that Ken speaks only for himself on Europe. Those with good medium term memories will remember Ken similarly denouncing Cameron's stance on the EPP as announced not so long ago - namely that MEPs who don't accept withdrawal will lose the whip.

It was said by cchq then with a shrug that 'Ken is Ken' and speaks only for himself on Europe.

Watervole, forgive me, but I think the grassroots will cheer Cameron "skipping a key meeting" if you're talking about the Federalist EPP which we are leaving.

He was right to snub them and 99% of party members will be behind his doing so.

I've always maintained Cameron was a Eurosceptic and his every move proves it. This PMQs was robust, strong, and absolutely shows he won't let Gordo get away with no referendum.

[Bill]

Watervole thinks re Europe "we had better get in there and start protecting our interests".
What a laugh. The idea that being in we can influence from the inside is utter rubbish. It is being in the EU which has emasculated us.

[Michael McGowan]

I don't see how Ken Clarke has ever protected our democratic interests in Europe. To give the French their due, they ruthlessly promote their own interests in Europe. Clarke and the UK left have one goal: transferring more and more power away from electorates to unelected supranational institutions and oligarchies. Ken Clarke has pursued this goal unflinchingly since the seventies.

[John]

Tory T:

Thank you, I have sufficient understanding of our democratic process to understand our election process. presumably he could be deselected by the constituency?

Anyway they won't so it is not going to happen.

However, how can David Cameron keep Clarke as his champion of democracy when Clarke clearly only believes in it when it suits his own personal views.

Am I wrong in thinking that Cameron could sack him from that role?

[Michael McGowan]

He could try .....but even if he had the inclination (which I doubt), Clarke once on the outside of the tent would take every opportunity to p*** in, to quote Lyndon Johnson.

[Tory T]

Again, Ken's Democracy Taskforce is set the job specifically of looking at UK only policies, and he isn't going to be sacked from that as he has already reported.

Furthermore, what proposals he and his force came up with were widely praised on ConHome only a week or so back. How quickly we forget!

This was, of course, after Ken had criticised Cameron mercilessly for saying he'd withdraw the whip from Europhile MEPs who didn't endorse leaving the EPP.

Ken Clark - rubbish on Europe but strong on many other things. That's what most Tories see and what Cameron sees. He was well suited for the job given to him, the grassroots (and ConHome) liked the results, and he's kept far away from anything European and/or the front bench.

Labour has its Mitchells, Fields and Hoeys, and we have Ken. And Heseltine. The direction of the party and the leadership, though, is clear in both cases. Labour are Europhile, we are Eurosceptic.

[Mark Fulford]

Clarke and the UK left have one goal: transferring more and more power away from electorates to unelected supranational institutions and oligarchies.

Michael, please, that's not their "one goal"! You can make an argument that the EU does more harm than good, but it’s absurd to suggest that their motivation is to give away powers to an unelected oligarchy.

EU membership gives a fair exchange of some over your own nation in return for some power over the other members. In that sense it’s not dissimilar to a marriage – an agreement you enter voluntarily, that requires you to compromise on your choices, but that generally enhances your life.

That said, I, a self-confessed Europhile, am very disappointed that the EU hasn't done more to sort out its faults and wonder whether it's the best mechanism to achieve Europe's shared goals.

[Mark Fulford]

correction: a fair exchange of some *power* over ...

[Bill]

We are all like Europe, it's the EU many of us don't like. If Mark Fulford tginks the relationship is like a marriage then it was one arranged by in an untransparent manner and
we need may well need a divorce or at the very least a separation agreement.

[James Maskell]

As pointed out by other learned posters, we should pledge to hold a referendum on the final reform treaty resulting from this process and in the event of a no, remove our signature from the document.

[C List and Proud]

Clarke as an MP is completely pointless.

He has tried and failed three times to get the support of the Party for his brand of Heathite managerial socialism embedded in a socialist euro-superstate. Every time he has failed.

The sooner we select a new candidate for Clarke's seat the better.

[Common Sense]

The eminently sensible Tory T seems to be virtually the only person on this thread who understands the rules of political strategy, as opposed to the emotionally satisfying but tactically calamitous postures demanded by Mr McGowan and his chorus of UKIP sound-a-likes.

The battle over the referendum on the new EU Treaty will be a long and complex one. Brown has to bring a bill before the House of Commons and - crucially - the House of Lords. I expect bulldozer timetabling in the Commons but the Lords simply won't be pushed around. There's a very, very good chance the Upper Chamber will insert a referendum clause into the Bill. This will focus attention on the unanswerable case for Labour keeping its promise to hold one.

What is this mad rubbish about discplining Ken Clarke? Clarke is a demented Federalist whose loyalty to the European 'ideal' is ten times stonger than his loyalty to the Conservative Party. He can easily be patronised and discounted as a relic from an ageing generation, as can Hezza and the other members of the tiny and diminishing band of Tory Europhiles. 'Making an example' of Ken would elevate him from a predictable nuisance into a martyr. A really daft idea.

I understand (and share) Michael McGowan's moral disgust and sense of impotent rage at what Blair and Brown are doing in signing away more power - and lying about it. However, I want to beat the bastards, not howl at them so that the majority of voters (who are basically Eurosceptic but see themselves as 'moderate' and 'reasonable') turn away from us, shaking their heads.

Cries of 'traitor!', 'Munich!', etc play right into the hands of the sleazy conmen of New Labour who wish to divert attention from their crimes and misdemeanours by pointing at the Tories and saying "Look at these one-track loonies - they're obsessed with Europe and see plots and conspiracies under every stone."

Open Europe is the smartest and most effective Eurosceptic pressure group - and the one Labour fears. We should follow their example rather than ranting and raving like UKIP losers thereby playing the pantomime Litttle Englander role allocated to us by Brown.

[John]

Tory T:

Your description of the terms of reference for the Democracy Taskforce is wrong.

Here is one of the areas of the scope.

"making and ratifying international treaties, including EU agreements"

However, whether this applies to quasi-constitutions is another question?

Obviously, David Cameron has decided that this goes beyond the scope, and for good reason, by calling for the referendum promised by Labour.

However, Kenneth Clarke's unqualified support of Labour's stance that this is an amending treaty suggests that he believes that this should be passed using the Royal Prerogative.

This seems to contradicts a key recommendation of his own report.

"Treaties with financial, legal or territorial implications for the United Kingdom or its citizens should require Parliamentary approval before ratification and should no longer involve the use of the Royal Prerogative"

As far as keeping out of European matters.

In the last two days he has denounced his leaders call for a referendum on the BBC and in the House of Commons. If that is keeping out of it then what would he do if he did become involved?

Finally, I actually thought that the democracy taskforce was required to provide 3 reports of which this was one. Can anyone confirm?

If there was only one report then true he cannot be sacked. However, it raises serious questions about Clarke's commitment to the report he has produced and therefore its validity.

I appreciate your attempts to maintain unity but Labour and the media don't need another opportunity to undermine David Cameron and from my perspective I'm afraid that Clarke is handing them one on a plate.

[Liberal Tory]

The referendum is the device of despots and dictators and British politicians should have no truck with them. Clement Attlee said something to that effect, and Margaret Thatcher was fond of quoting him approvingly.

I can't believe this current campaign for a referendum on the new treaty. You cannot give the public a vote on something so complex, there is no way all the issues and implications can be debated and understood by ordinary people.

Whatever the specific question, any referendum would boil down to a debate on whether we should be in the EU or not - which is of course the real agenda of most people calling for a referendum now.

We elect MPs to Parliament in order to debate and decide on this kind of thing. We carp on about Parliament being undermined (at least I do, quite often) so calling for a referendum is just undermining our own principles.

Tories who want to stay in Europe shouldn't be courting cheap applause by calling for a referendum, we should be out there selling the massive benefits of being in the EU - most people have absolutely no idea how far and how fast this country would go downhill if we came out.

[Richard Tyndall]

Interestingly as a result of the boundary changes coming up, Ken Clarke loses part of his constituency to Pat Mercer at the next election. This should make Pat's position much more secure as far as electoral support goes as the bits he gains (Bingham and the villages) are far more Conservative minded than the bits he loses (Retford).

Not sure what this does to Ken Clarke's overall electoral chances - it may be he gains some coal mining areas which may be less Conservative minded.

[John]

Liberal Tory:

That includes David Cameron I take it?

[Liberal Tory]

Yes of course it includes Dave, he's an MP and as such should be giving his views in Parliament and voting accordingly. Whether he's on the winning side or not is the question.

Look, I think we should be in Europe, and at the heart of Europe. But - if the House of Commons were to take a vote to take us out, I'd accept the validity of that.

What I don't accept is asking the ignorant masses to vote on an issue with ramifications they can't possibly understand, with only blind prejudice and tabloid newspaper propoganda to guide them.

[John]

Liberal Tory:

So let me get this right?

You're view is that David Cameron is a 'Despot or Dictator' and the ignorant masses are incapable of making a considered decision in voting and therefore should be denied the ability to vote?

Well there's democracy at work!

[cleo]

Cameron has to tread carefully on this. Whilst there might be a big majority in the polls in favour of a referendum the vast majority of the British people do not list Europe as their chief concern. They might class themselves as euro-realist, wary of Europe and its democratic deficit, but I do not believe they are overtly suro-sceptic in the UKIP or grassroots Conservative sense as hostile to integration and wanting out altogether.

[John Moss]

You cannot give the public a vote on something so complex, there is no way all the issues and implications can be debated and understood by ordinary people.

Liberal Tory at 1927

You're not much of a liberal if your understanding of Hayekian market theory is so poor as to believe in the neccesity of elite planners and decision makers to lord it over the crowd with its many and varied levels of knowledge, but its collective ability to support what is good and reject what is poor.

[C List and Proud]

We can make the Ealing Southall by-election a single issue campaign and give the people of that constituency the chance to send Brown a clear message.

"We want our say!"

[Liberal Tory]

Please don't misrepresent my views. The Attlee/Thatcher quote was pointing out that Hitler and Mussolini used referendums to bypass their parliaments and get their own way - and it's wholly alien to British traditions.

Of course Cameron isn't a despot or dictator. What he is is an elected representative. In other words he's put into Parliament, along with 600+ other people, to debate and make decisions on a wide range of government policies.

No-one is "denied the ability to vote" - we vote for our MP - that's what he/she is there for!

If you want out of Europe, vote for a Eurosceptic party or candidate, but don't hijack one of the great historic political parties with a single-issue obsession.

[Bill]

Liberal Tory is wrong to suggest we should not have a referendum. If parliament wishes to cede sovereignty then it is our sovereignty it is ceding and following the principle of "Delegatus non potest delegare": the electorate should have the ultimate say. To argue that the electorate are not entitled to a referendum on the basis that they don't understand the issues and the procedure in event is flawed intrinsically flawed because dictators use them is insulting, ignorant or both.

[Richard Tyndall]

Thankfully Liberal Tory you are part of a tiny psychotic minority.

The job of MPs is to represent the people. Individually in their election commitments and collectively through the manifestos those MPs promised that on this particlar issue they would agree to a referendum on the constitution. The Parliamentary system allows for such promises and in fact if the system were being adhered to as it should be then the parties and the MPs would be forced to follow up on their electoral promises. This in no way undermiens Parliament as many of those MPs would not have been elected had they not agreed to this point on a referendum.

It is for this reason that the Lords will insist on the referendum being part of any treaty ratification since it was a manifesto pledge by all the parties.

You Europhiles are showing your true colours by your desperate attempts to avoid allowing the electorate their say on this matter of historic importance.

Not that I am at all surprised since no one who supports the EU can claim to have the first idea of what democracy really means.

[Liberal Tory]

We can make the Ealing Southall by-election a single issue campaign

This demonstrates my point exactly! I don't live in Ealing, but I'm sure the people there have many, many issues occupying their attention, they shouldn't be choosing and MP on just one.

The logical extension of this argument is that in the event that the Labour candidate in Ealing is a Eurosceptic who backs a referendum and the Conservative candidate is a European centrist, you'd vote Labour. This is nonsense!

[cleo]

It seems that the vast majority of people on this site, obsessed about Europe and grammar schools and tax cuts secretly want Brown to win and for the Conservative Party to become a right-wing debating society consigned to never being elected again. They support Margaret Thatcher who did more than all other prime minister in by signing the Single European Act. They just don't get it that the public is not obsessed about Europe.

[Richard Tyndall]

Since many of us consider it more important to retain Parliament's power to rule rather than having one particular constituency won by a Tory then the answer to your question is an emphatic YES.

We owe nothing to the Tory party simply because of its name. If a Tory candidate ceases to represnet the views of the people then he or she does not deserve to be supported.

One less vote in Parliament for the treaty is more important than one more clone for the Tory party - or any other party.