John Bercow becomes fifth Tory MP to oppose referendum on EU Treaty

"What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and to know that we have as our Speaker somebody who is simply not prepared to be pushed around, either by snobs or by bullies."

Those were John Bercow's words from an intervention he made in the Commons on Thursday.

Many believe Mr Bercow wants to be the next Speaker and that may explain his opposition to a referendum on the EU Treaty.  In a letter obtained by ReferendumList.com and passed to ConservativeHome.com, Mr Bercow explains his opposition to the Lisbon Treaty by emphasising the importance of the authority of the Commons.  See a scan of the letter below.

Mr Bercow argues that referenda are "susceptible to manipulation" and he puts faith in elected representatives who, he writes, are less likely to "succumb to pressure from newspaper editors and proprietors who make populist arguments".

Mr Bercow - who joined Gordon Brown's big tent at a maximum time of electoral danger for David Cameron - joins a small group of five Tory MPs who oppose a vote by the public.  The others are David Curry, Ken Clarke, John Gummer and Ian Taylor.

11.30am: Ben Rogers makes a general defence of John Bercow's contribution to politics at CentreRight.

Comments

[IRJMilne]

He has missed the point that a referendum was promised by all major parties. It's a moot point whether a referendum should have been promised in the first place.

[Betty]

I am glad to find your Diary. I have been out in the cold trying to get to you on conservativehome.com.uk which seems to have packed up.
Our little Tory Group here has been missing you. We had no expanation!
Let me know what is happening so that I can tell our members.

[Richard Allen (Ukip)]

Is there anybody who is actually surprised by this?

[Editor]

Sorry Betty. I'll investigate the problem but conservativehome.com always works.

[Anonymous Eurocrat]

What is it about the electors of Buckingham? Robert Maxwell, George Walden, and now John Bercow.

[Sammy Finn]

I am amused by the fact that the pompous Mr Bercow is listing his awards from 2005 on the bottom of his taxpayer-funded letterhead. What a vain man.

[James Maskell]

MPs can be manipulated, yet MPs will be the ones making the call. Theres no completely independent and unmanipulatable (if the word doesnt exist I claim it for myself) way to decide.

I posted yesterday about the Speaker and the arguments defending him. The thing is, most of the detractors arent being snobbish about it (funnily enough the issue of class is only being brought up by the Speaker's friends) nor do they want his job. What they want is a Speaker who actually knows how to do the damned job. Michael Martin ghas been overtly partial towards the Government and has shown a serious lack of parliamentary knowledge. reasons enough for him to be replaced by someone more competent, like Sir Alan Haselhurst, or as others have promoted, George Young. Its an issue of competence not class and its lowball tactics like that that demean politics in general.

[Jack Stone]

Its about time that people in the party grew up and accepted that not everyone in the party does or should agree with the Anti-EU views of the majority.Its healthy when people disagree with one another and its dangerous in my opinion when they don`t!

[Dave B]

Simon Carr wrote an entertaining piece on Mr Bercow.

[David Parker]

I wonder if Bercow has bothered to read even so much as a condensed version of the Lisbon Con/Treaty (or, for that matter, the Maastricht Treaty either)?

It is understandable that a convinced and openly declared Europhile might argue in favour of ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, upon the grounds that it represented a major advance towards European integration.

However, to claim to be a eurosceptic and
to pretend that the proposed Treaty does not involve a very substantial transfer of powers to the EU (as well as reinforcing those already transferred by Maastricht), is either very stupid or very dishonest. In Bercow's case, probably both. Nor, of course, does it justify the breaking of a clear manifesto undertaking.

Either way, it is extremely doubtful if Bercow is acting, either in good faith, or in accordance with the wishes or best interests of the great majority of his constituents. This may well be reflected in the results of the next general election. If, that is, he has not already crossed the House before then.

[Sean Fear]

Jack,

John Bercow fought the last election on a manifesto commitment to support a referendum on this treaty. It appears that this a pledge he is happy to break in order to advance his career (he knows his career in the Conservative Party is over).

It is time to deselect him, and get a Conservative candidate in place in Buckingham.

[James Maskell]

Bercow pledged a referendum on the former European Constitution not the Lisbon Treaty actually Sean. The Tories use the argument that because a substantial amount of the Constitution made its way into the Lisbon treaty, that the referendum pledge still stands. In fact it doesnt. Unless you want the Conservatives to actually hold a referendum on the former European Constitution rather than the Lisbon Treaty?

[Chris Palmer]

Surprised: no. Annoyed: yes.

[Pete]

No wonder UKIP continues and will reduce our seats at the next election.

[Michael Nye]

John Bercow, upset the constituents of Buckingham at your peril. They are not without voice, and if you think them to have just enough senility to have forgotten, already, what you fought the last election on, then perhaps it may be your own memory failing. Or, as another view, perhaps your choice of Party may be in question. I have observed one other Party that is quick on 'U' Turn policies, but then, only in the face of dissent - so your 'U' turn seems totally unprovoked and irrational!

[IRJMilne]

James Maskell -

The Treaty and Constitution are virtually identical in substance - virtually every European leader has said this openly. What is the practical difference? Changing the constitution's name, its technical operation and some superficial odds and sods does not alter the substance of it. So having campaigned promising a referendum on the constitution because of its substance, a referendum should be given now that we are presented with exactly the same substance, repackaged.

One runs out of ways to put this any more clearly.

[Common Sense]

I said before that Bercow is a rodent in human form. His latest outrage is to have voted with a group of left-wing Labour MPs for a agency workers to be given the exactly same rights as long-term employees, despite the fact that this would prove ruinously expensive - fact acknowledged by the Labour frontbench which opposed the measure.

Bercow is now officially to the left of Brown. Perhaps he'll join Galloway in Respect.

[Editor]

Common Sense: "A rodent in human form" is not acceptable.

Other personal comments on this thread will be overwritten.

[christina speight]

James Maskell @ 1058 , Have you not heard the expression "A rose by any other name", Everything excerpt the name that was in the Constitution is in the Lisbon Treaty. (Even the flag and the anthem were slipped in at the last moment)

Merkell says so; Giscard d'Estaing says so - and he should know - he wrote it!. Junker says it. Prodi said it and what is more Gordon Brown said it in an unguarded moment to Bertie Aherne (who also said it).

It's the constitution alright and any Tory who breaks a solemn party pledge on which they were elected should have the Whip withdrawn at once.

We've had enough broken promises.

[michael m]

The day we do not tolerate the right of some of us to have independent thoughts, then the poorer we will be as a national party. Although we may not always agree with John Bercow, the party needs him

[michael mcgough]

What a weird signature!
With a labour supporting wife and short UK roots it is easy for his views to be manipulated .As a very short son of a taxi driver his reference to snobs and bullies is also most revealing-----ignore.

[michael mcgough]

What a weird signature!
With a labour supporting wife and short UK roots it is easy for his views to be manipulated .As a very short son of a taxi driver his reference to snobs and bullies is also most revealing-----ignore.

[Iain]

"The Tories use the argument that because a substantial amount of the Constitution made its way into the Lisbon treaty, that the referendum pledge still stands. In fact it doesnt."

Yes it does Mr Maskell, for the Lisbon Treaty was born of deceit, for having had the Constitution rejected, the EU establishment, never ones to accept the will of the people, dressed up their project with a different name to represent it, in order that mealy mouthed politicians and EU fanatics could get their way and this time deny people the opportunity to reject it.

What is truly stunning is that the EU is openly brazen about its deceit, and its only the British Government who are trying to pretend that the Lisbon treaty and Constitution are not one and the same, and using this pretence as a fig leaf in order to deny us a referendum and perhaps delude themselves that they aren't the dishonest, deceitful lying cheating people they are.

The author of the EU Constitution
“This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional
Treaty.”
(Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Telegraph, 27 June 2007)

The European Commission
“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”
(Margot Wallstrom, EU Commissioner, Svenska Dagbladet, 26 June 2007)

Giscard d’Estaing
“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we
dare not present to them directly” … “All the earlier proposals will be in the new
text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
(Le Monde, 14 June 2007 and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007)

As for Mr Bercow, well its no surprise that he should be supporting Gordon Brown's Labour in their deceit. The only question is how much more are the Buckinghamshire electorate going to take from him, and as he is making them look like cuckold fools when are they going to do something about it?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Bercow against Conservative party policy? Like Maclean's opposition to scrutiny of MPs expenses some things are entirely unsuprising. As Sean Fear recommends above it is for the Buckingham Association to think long and hard as to whether they want this man to continue to represent them.

[ukipwebmaster]

No surprise there then!
The video of the Westminster Lobby is here:
http://www.ukip.tv/?page_id=3
and the results of East Renfrewshire are here:
http://www.westbournemouthukip.com/parishpolls.htm

[Andrew Lilico]

Well, Bercow's right, but I don't see it as, on this occasion, a conscience issue that justifies his breaking the Party line in favour of a referendum. Obviously we don't *actually* want a referendum. The point is, rather, that the Labour Party promised a referendum, and if we can make trouble for them by supporting one, then there remains the outside (and sadly declining) chance that they might be forced to abandon the ratification process altogether rather than fight a referendum they obviously wouldn't win.

I'm a bit disappointed that Bercow (of whom I've usually been a fan) can't see this and go along with it. But perhaps he is trying to resist a wider "direct democracy" trend within Conservative ranks - which is certainly present (sadly) and might even eventually be as significant a threat to the British Constitution as anything Blair did.

[Common Sense]

Editor - I apologise for lowering the tone with a gratuitous personal remark.

The reasons I find him particularly nauseating are his eye-watering hypocrisy and unprincipled careerism.

Quentin Letts made an exception to his journalistic code of conduct (don't reveal a source) in order to expose Bercow:

http://tinyurl.com/3c7pdb

He is not an independent thinker. He is positioning himself to live down his Monday Club past and inherit the Speaker's chair.

[Deborah]

MPs should be free to voice their own opinions. The real issue is whether MPs are properly accountable to their own constituents.

If Mr Bercow's constituents are unhappy with his performance, will they be given an opportunity to change their Conservative candidate?

[David]

What are 'short UK roots'?

I'd hope however that we don't do a Labour and LibDem and threaten the chap with expulsion. After, we've criticised them on those grounds.

[alan]

The problem Cameron has, is his question to Brown to allow his MP's who stood on a manifesto promise for a referendum to have a 'free vote' and not be three lined whipped!

If he demands athree line whip on this issue he will get it in the neck from Brown.

[christina speight]

All these people defending Bercow for breaking a promise must surely see the irony in the LibDem leader threatening to discipline people for refusing to break a promise!

If Bercow didn't like the idea of a referendum on the EU Constitutioh the time to have made that clear was when the manifesto on which he was elected was published. Not now!

And Andrew Lilico @1145 - What DO you mean - "Obviously we don't *actually* want a referendum" ???

Since 79% of the population say they want one and 89% of Tory voters say that too it is surely "obvious" that we "actually" want that very thing. And the population will be mad if they don't get one. Whether that translates into more Tory votes depends on whether Cameron gets some fire in his belly about it.

I repeat - any Tory MP who votes against party policy on this and thus breaks his promise should lose the whip - Pronto!

[Common Sense]

I assume that 'short UK roots' is a snide reference to Bercow's immigrant father (or was it grandfather).

If so, you couldn't be more wrong. John Bercow is an all-too-recognisable English archetype, represented in literature by the Vicar of Bray and Uriah Heep.

[christina speight]

Alan @1204 - Lack of logic. A 3-line whip on Labour making them BREAK a promise is very different from a 3-line whip from the Tories making them KEEP a promise.

Keeping promises is critical to restoring trust in politicians!

[Andrew Lilico]

christina@12:08

We don't want a referendum for exactly the reasons Bercow spells out. Furthermore, I think it's pretty clear that if we to take over as the government tomorrow we oughtn't to have a referendum. I'd certainly oppose that, and I would think you would as well. Surely what we all want is for the ratification to be abandonned. We aren't in favour of having a referendum as such (and neither is almost anyone that says they want one). Virtually everyone that "wants a referendum" (other than Lib Dems and other loons) is just saying that as a means to express their desire that the Treaty not be ratified. You don't seriously believe thawt if the government announced tomorrow that it was abandonning ratification, then 80+% (or even anything close to a majority) of people would *continue* to be in favour of a referendum - do you?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Speak for yourself Andrew. I do really want a referendum.Not only because I believe the British people would not to accept any further transfer of powers to Brussels but it would provide an ideal opportunity for a debate on our relationship with the EU outside the confines of a general election where other issues may take precedence.

[Jack Stone]

John Bercow thought the last election on a manifesto but it doesn`t mean to say that he agreed with everything in it. It would be a pretty poor state of affairs if MP`s just followed the party line without exception.
I have said it before on this site and I will say it again its about time you right-wingers started to learn to disagree with someone without insulting them and saying they should be expelled from the party!

[Sean Fear]

Jack,

John Bercow has a consistent record of disloyalty towards his own party. This is not a one off.

[David]

Similar objections to Bercow should be raised about those MPs signed up to Better Off Out. After all, the Conservative Manifesto does not support withdrawal from the EU......

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

As a pro-European Conservative, I do not see a need for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, so in that sense I welcome John Bercow's statement. That said, I am becoming increasingly worried about John's politics. I find his support for useless 'Mick' very disturbing.

[Ephraim Gadsby]

I wonder if some of the posters here have actually read Mr Bercow's letter.

He clearly states he is in general terms a Eurosceptic, opposed to the single currency, and believes that the EU is in need of major reform. Fairly mainstream views, I'd have said.

However, what he goes on to say - and what most of the foaming Euro-haters seem unable to grasp - is that we (Britain) are far better off arguing for such reform from a position of active engagement in Europe. If we are semi-detatched, as we became during the Major years, no-one will listen to us - and why should they?

Unless we want to withdraw from the EU entirely - not a view I share, but I appreciate many (though by no means all) Tories do - then we HAVE to engage with other countries. Blocking reform is not a sensible way to proceed.

I agree with Bercow. I don't think we should have a referendum - on this or on pretty much any other subject. It's wholly alien to our traditions - a point made most eloquently by Anthony King on radio 4 yesterday.

We elect politicians to represent our views. If they don't, or if our views change, we elect them out again. Referendums are expensive, easily manipulated (who writes the question? who pays for the campaign?) and play to the ignorance of the majority. MPs are far better informed than most people on these issues and, as King said, are far more likely to take the long view.

Start having referendums now and where will it end? Re-introducing the death penalty? Abortion limits? Introducing Sharia law into Britain? Let's not go down that road.

[Iain]

"It's wholly alien to our traditions"

So was handing over our sovereignty to others, and binding the hands of future Governments, that is why it needs the approval of the elecorate in a referendum.

"We elect politicians to represent our views. If they don't, or if our views change, we elect them out again."

But by then the damage would have been done, they would have voted away our sovereignty disenfrachising the electorate, and in doing so bound the hands of future Governments.

[About time we had a change]

"If they don't, or if our views change, we elect them out again."

This only works if the voters are given a choice. In Conservative-minded areas where the Conservative MP has reneged on previous manifesto promises, what choice do the voters have?
The power lies with the Association, not the voter. We need open primaries.

[Ephraim Gadsby]

This only works if the voters are given a choice. In Conservative-minded areas where the Conservative MP has reneged on previous manifesto promises, what choice do the voters have?

There is always a choice. What about UKIP? The Euro-haters can vote for them.

The fact that UKIP have never won a seat in Parliament rather undermines the idea that many people - let alone anything approaching a majority - care about Europe, at least over and above issues such as education, health, transport, pensions, the environment etc.

[John Wilkin]

At least the other four MPs listed have been consistent. They're wrong but at least they have principles. Does anyone think the same is true of JB?

[TFA Tory]

The last two European elections show that voters switch to UKIP to show their disgust of the EU. Cameron has offered only token support for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He and most of his senior colleagues (except Hague) only showed lukewarm support for the IWAR Parliamentary lobby last Wednesday.

Unless Cameron takes a more robust approach to the EU, the Tories can expect to lose even more votes to UKIP in next year's European Elections. It will give Tory supporters the opportunity to get even for Dave failing to deliver his leadership election pledge to leave the EPP by January 2007.

If Cameron, has a bad result in the European elections (especially if Boris loses to Red Ken too), there will a crisis of confidence inside CCHQ and the Parliamentary party. Voters will see Dave as a loser and turn against the Tories. The nationalists and the Lib Dems (especially with a pledge to have a referendum on EU membership) will be the main beneficiaries.

Pro-Europeans like Messrs Gadsby and Hinchcliffe should not be so smug in dismissing Europe as an election issue. It could, in practice, cost the Conservatives power.

[About time we had a change]

Ephraim, you miss my point.
Many people have always, and will always, vote Conservative. Other Conservative-minded voters might not want to vote for UKIP because they are worried that it will split the vote and let the opposition in. But have the Conservative voters ever been asked whether they really support their Conservative candidate - or do they just have to "get what their given".

[christina speight]

Andrew Lilico @1215. Please don't go on repeating "We don't want a referendum" as a sort of mantra when all the proven facts are - in poll after poll - that we DO want one. It is plain silly to state the opposite!

We obviously wouldn't want one if the treaty was abandoned as there wouldn't be a major constitutional change proposed which - apart from promises - is the justification for putting an issue directly to the people.

And David @1303 the BOO MPs are not breaking a specific promise. And Jack Stone, this promise was not a vague commitment but a very specific promise b y which all MPs are bound (labour and LibDems ones too)

And Ephraim Gadsby - you don't seem keen on your promises either. Shame on you.

In fact there are an alarming number of posters on this topic who seem to care not a jot for honesty and integrity in politics

[Jamie]

John Bercow is becoming a worry to the conservative party. There is nothing wrong with being independemt-minded and differing from the party line on some occasions, but it seems more often than not he is against us. You would have thought he would be more at home in the Cameron-led conservatives than at any time since he was elected, however he seems increasingly further detached. I hope his party in Buckingham will be asking for certain assurances from him before he is allowed to stand again at the next election.

[Ephraim Gadsby]

And Ephraim Gadsby - you don't seem keen on your promises either. Shame on you.

Eh? What promises? I haven't made any promises, certainly not on this issue.

My position hasn't changed. I am opposed to referendums in principle, on the same basis as Ken Clarke and John Bercow, as I have argued on other threads in more depth, so I'm not going to rehearse all the arguments here.

I thought it was a stupid commitment to make at the time, and all three parties were extremely unwise to make it.

there are an alarming number of posters on this topic who seem to care not a jot for honesty and integrity in politics

I care a great deal for both. The referendum is not a tool which makes use of either - it disguises true opinions behind a simple question which cannot possibly encapsulate all the complex arguments on both sides, and is a cynical device used by politicians who are either too scared or too politically inept to make a decision and stick to it.

[Richard]

"Start having referendums now and where will it end? Re-introducing the death penalty? Abortion limits? Introducing Sharia law into Britain? Let's not go down that road."

Sounds like a good idea to me. Are you implying a majority would introduce Sharia law though? I very much doubt it.

As for John Bercow, my main issue with him isn't his opinions but his insufferable smugness whenever I've seen him on tv. Not to mention his arrogance - describing our past immigration policy as nasty even though it had a great deal of public support.