Rifkind accuses "Europhobes" of "posturing" in demanding a post-ratification referendum

Sir Malcolm Rifkind has written the following for this week's Spectator (not yet online):

"Already it is being argued that without a referendum, the Treaty will not have legitimacy and that the Conservatives should promise one if they win the next election, with a view to reversing ratification.

Such a proposal is silly and wrong. The government is foolish to renege on its promise of a referendum, and should be punished for it. But if the Treaty is ratified by all 27 member states, it will come into force. That cannot be reversed by a subsequent referendum in Britain. New rules on the membership of the Commission, voting in the Council of Ministers and other changes will already have taken effect. It is posturing to imply otherwise.

That is well known to the Europhobes. They seem unable to understand, however, that their proposal will cause little discomfort for Gordon Brown, but would create a major and unnecessary headache for David Cameron.

The same applies if the debates are used to make unrealistic demands for the repatriation of EU powers from Brussels. The shadow cabinet, at present, seeks repatriation of the Common Fisheries Policy and a few other limited areas. If much wider amendments were tabled, the risk would be a three-way split, with a significant minority of Tories voting with the government and the shadow cabinet abstaining.

I have not the slightest doubt this is what Gordon Brown has been discussing with his closest colleagues and what is behind the generous time he is proposing for debate. He has as much interest in genuine Parliamentary accountability as Machiavelli would have had in the Equal Opportunities Act. His tactics on Europe are as clear as his strategy is opaque. He wants to deflect attention from his own delinquency by allowing the tribal instincts of some Tories to overrule their political common sense."

It is clear that Gordon Brown does want Conservatives to be having this debate about post-ratification scenarios.  David Cameron said as much at his press conference yesterday.  Sir Malcolm is hardly bridge-building when he talks of "Europhobes" and "posturing", however.  Next he'll be accusing the forty or so MPs who have signed Bill Cash's EDM of being "delusional" and engaging in a "pointless" debate.  I'd hoped we'd learnt those lessons from the handling of 'grammarsgate'.

I also think Sir Malcolm is wrong about the shadow cabinet supporting repatriation of fisheries policy.  That was Michael Howard's policy but I do not believe it has been renewed.

Comments

[Gospel of Enoch]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.

[Northernhousewife]

Can't you see that Broon will be cheered to read some of these comments? Are some of you Labour or UKIP stouges?
FACT : The only party who will even attempt to defend further Euro intergration is The Tory Party.
So lets not make our P.M's life easy for him. Views should be aired discreetly and moderately where doing otherwise will play into the hands of our opponents and increase the tenure of this Govt.
There is no point in an honourable charge of the Light Brigade. Obvious and genuine passions are aroused but causing mutiny can only hand led to defeat. I am not interested in "he said /she said". We are at a critical time. Eyes are on us as a prospective Govt. for the first time IN A VERY LONG TIME.
The public want to know that we can act sensibly when difficult issues come up and not start squabbling. We have an objective we can agree on right now ; to fight for a pre-ratification referendum. We must not get distracted from that. If we don't trust our leadership to take decisions in the future, how can we expect others to.

[Mark Fulford]

Chad, sometimes I worry!

Flouncing out of a debate may work for some, but I don’t recommend it for our MPs. Pictures of a half-empty chamber would only damage us.

A huffy “they don’t speak for us” isn’t going to undo the President, the voting changes, the size of the Commission, etc. It’s just going to make us a little bit silly, a little bit peripheral and a little bit isolated.

[Michael McGowan]

Mark, you really are being hyper-legalistic. Show me a comment where anyone has suggested that we "undo" the existence of the President of the EU. The point is a broader and more significant one: the Conservative Party's sales pitch to voters on this issue is hard to take seriously if all that it can say is that if the Constitution is ratified and it then comes to power, it will do nothing to alter the democratic deficit in terms of this country's relations with Europe. Even an arch-integrationist like you obliquely acknowledges that those relations are not set in stone....

[Daniel]

As long as there are dirty traitors in our party who support the fledgling Fourth Reich of course there are splits. Rifkind, Clarke and the rest of the quisling crowd should be thrown out asap.

[Mark Fulford]

Mark, you really are being hyper-legalistic.

No I am not. I am presenting the arguments that, were we to promise a post-ratification referendum on this treaty, would be replayed time and again in the media. “Isn’t this a pointless exercise?” “What precisely can you do?” “How will you repeal the changes to QMV and co-decision?” Etc.

William Hague inexplicably fluffed the answer to “would Conservatives hold a referendum?”. Instead of “It’ll be too late by then” he gave room for the mischievous headlines that have begun to let Gordon Brown off the hook. Are we going to compound that error or are we going to refocus on Gordon Brown's broken promise?

[Julian Melford]

"Europe falls low on voters' priority".

But 'Europe' affects virtually every area of government policy and imposes mega-costs on businesses and taxpayers alike. The EU is already deciding our tax law, criminal penalties and even who can(not) be barred from our country.

It is farcical to claim to be opposed to the Eurostate as defined by the Reform Treaty (EU Constitution) if on becoming elected, we simply decide to accept being under it.

It is up to the Europhiles to tell us what is so vital in terms of 'influence' 'jobs' 'trade' (sic) that could not be sustained outside the corrupt and economically sclerotic EU.

GATT treaties would keep our trade open, and we could operate business-friendly policies on guest workers while keeping out the criminal elements like cashpoint fraudsters. The continentals might benefit too, as without our subscription, they would have to cut back on their bureaucracy.

[alan143]

Surely, if the EU Constitution is ratified and yet the Tories refuse to undo the damage, then the Party becomes irrelevant.

The voters will only bother electing a national representative to the Commission, and a minor group of MEPs, since the output of the UK Parliament will be too trivial to concern them. Oh, Parliament will still have “reviewing” powers will it? How sweet. No “democratic deficit” there then!

The national rep. campaign will be like a US presidential election, based on personal manifestos. As for our MEPs, presumably only the UKIP still will be electable by the popular vote, for another generation at least. What’s the point of keeping the Tory party going if there will be no real Parliament for it?

[Man in a Shed]

The United Kingdom is a sovereign state and can do what it wants, with or without the permission of Malcolm Refkind.

A treaty entered into under deception of the people by a corrupted and dishonest party of government can most certainly be reversed.

If the EU stood for anything remotely democratic it would refuse to accept Gordon Browns shameless oath breaking and anti democratic signing of the treaty that is clearly against the wishes of the English people.