In all of the newspapers this morning - as diarised earlier - Brown is on the ropes over the EU Treaty. But Hague's suggestion on this morning's Today programme that the Tories might not reverse ratification (or hold a referendum to reverse ratification) has already begun to upset Conservative Eurosceptics. One backbench MP rang me a little earlier to describe William Hague's position as a "betrayal". He said that "the EPP failure" had been bad enough but this would not be forgiven. Oh dear.
An Early Day Motion - highlighted on ConservativeHome's Parliament blog - "insists that the Prime Minister rejects the Reform Treaty on 18th October and holds a Referendum before or after ratification."
The following Conservative MPs have already signed the EDM:
- David Amess
- Michael Ancram
- Richard Bacon
- Brian Binley
- Peter Bone
- Peter Bottomley
- Graham Brady
- Douglas Carswell
- William Cash
- Christopher Chope
- James Clappison
- Derek Conway
- Philip Davies
- David T C Davies
- Nadine Dorries
- James Duddridge
- Iain Duncan Smith
- Philip Dunne
- Michael Fallon
- Mark Field
- Christopher Fraser
- Greg Hands
- Adam Holloway
- Bernard Jenkin
- Daniel Kawczynski
- Greg Knight
- Edward Leigh
- Ian Liddell-Grainger
- Mark Pritchard
- John Redwood
- Lee Scott
- Richard Shepherd
- Bob Spink
- Graham Stuart
- Sir Peter Tapsell
- Charles Walker
- Mr John Whittingdale
- Ann Widdecombe
- Ann Winterton.
It is becoming increasingly clear that we are on an unavoidable showdon with the EU.
For the Tories, it will simply be a question of whether they benefit from it (by clearly demanding repatriation first etc then acting when this is refused) or are torn apart by it.
Hague can play the old tricks, but he cannot prevent the inevitable head-to-head of UK vs EU.
Posted by: Chad Noble | October 19, 2007 at 11:14
Well, what does one expect from Hague.
His oxymoronic, In Europe but Not Ruled By Europe has to count as one of the most stupidist comments ever concerning the EU.
If Gordo signs, then he is a treacherous swine who has sold the country down the river for a pocketful of promises. He should be reviled as a Quisling/Vichyist and should be impeached.
I am severely disappointed at the lack of support from the party for our parliamentary democracy. Clearly the stealthy manner in which the EU has crept ever closer to federalism and the seizure of control away from national parliaments into supra-national bodies, has been greater then first envisaged, as we have failed to check were the loyalties of our MP's lie.
A pox and plague on all those disloyal servants, there will be a time and place and final reckoning.
Posted by: George Hinton | October 19, 2007 at 11:20
If the Tories waver, so will my vote for them. My nation is already governed by a PM elected in another country. The situation must not be aggravated by that PM then giving away a nation (that is not his to give)to unelected officials of other extra-territorial bodies.
The present situation is wholly unacceptable. If the Tories deflect from their recent new path, then I will vote for an extreme party instead, even though I am not a xenophobic skinhead.
You equivocate; you suffocate in the polls. Simple as that.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | October 19, 2007 at 11:21
A promise to hold a referendum on negating ratification would be such a vote winner and would excite the electorate and add spice to a general election campaign. It would also be a brickbat to use against Gordon Brown throughout the campaign, the question of trust would resurface time and time again. As well as being the right thing to do, it would make sense tactically as a political ploy.
Posted by: Tony Makara | October 19, 2007 at 11:31
Tony - I agree totally
Posted by: Patriot | October 19, 2007 at 11:41
If the Conservatives are seen to become fixated on Europe at the next election it will be a vote loser not a vote winner (as previous elections have demonstrated). The issue with the vast majority of people is one of trust. Labour promised a referendum on Europe and they've reneged on it. That is the message the Conservatives must get across - and it's a powerful one that will resonate with the public. If the Tories start sounding extreme on Europe on the other hand, they will be seen as a bunch of head bangers (whether fairly or not). This will be seized on by the government who will exploit it merciliessly and instead of people mistrusting Brown they will be persuaded that they can't trust the Tories to run the country. Please don't go there. The public wants lower taxes, well run public services that are value for money and a democratic policy of consultation over Europe. Conservatives can win the election by staying on the middle ground, being outward looking and statesmanlike. This way they will win the confidence of the public as a whole. Banging on about Europe will look insular and neurotic. Leave that to UKIP.
Posted by: Oscar Miller | October 19, 2007 at 11:55
This is a really solid team of MPs. I can do without the rest of the House, except Lembit and Frank Field. This campaign is critical to our future as a nation of free people.
And what a team: Graham Brady, Philip Davies, Ann Widdecombe, Nadine Dorries, Bill Cash, Mark Field, Adam Holloway, Daniel Kawcwhatever, John Redwood, and the others. Very disappointed not to see Mark Francois there. Mark, get on the bus!
Excellent citizens. Our thanks. Forward to the guns! (metaphorically speaking at this stage)
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - Ukipper | October 19, 2007 at 12:09
Oscar,
It would not be extreme to enter the next election promising the public a referendum to reverse the EU amending treaty/constitution.
It needn't dominate the election which will be contested on other issues as well as Europe, but it would underline to the public that the Conservatives have changed from the John Major era and are a party who can be trusted.
Posted by: selected candidate | October 19, 2007 at 12:11
It seems a bit odd to be saying that this Treaty is so important that it requires a referendum, but we won't hold a referendum when we get in.
Posted by: William Norton | October 19, 2007 at 12:17
William Hague is realistic not a betraying traitor. Only a referendum before ratification will have any value. A referendum after ratification could only lead to phyrric victory. It would be a fig leaf to cover up the Eurosceptics' embarrassment and justify the official Tory policy of staying in the EU.
Once the Treaty is ratified it by a member state, it cannot be "unratified", even by a national referendum or an Act of Parliament. To repatriate the powers, a new Treaty, ratified by all 25 EU member states, would be required.
It is so sad to see so many Eurosceptic Tory MPs desperately trying to justify their hopeless position. After ratification, they will have a stark choice, support the EU Super-State or campaign for withdrawal.
The Better Off Out supporters who have signed the above EDM are wasting their time and should know better. Instead, they should convincing their co-signatories to join support Better Off Out too.
Posted by: Moral minority | October 19, 2007 at 12:19
In fact, if we were to take the view that if and when this Treaty is passed, there's nothing we can do about it, we would be demonstrating that we were as untrustworthy as the government.
Posted by: Sean Fear | October 19, 2007 at 12:20
Not sure how bright the person who told you that Hague's position was a 'betrayal' is. Hague has betrayed nobody.....yet. Surely the correct position is to pursue the current policy and wait to see how events unfold.
Having said that I would hope and expect the Conservative party to promise a referendum should this treaty be ratified before the next General Election.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 19, 2007 at 12:22
I am sure you can add philip hollobone (Kettering) to that list, but as a point of principle he never signs EDMs.
Posted by: activist | October 19, 2007 at 12:26
Any politician who does not explain to the electorate exactly what the issues are, which is what Gordon Brown is attempting to avoid doing, must be suspect.
When you read an article, such as Ruth Lea's in last Tuesday's Telegraph or Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's one in today's Business Section of the Telegraph, you can see that the EU question is just like a Gordon Brown budget. Only some time after the event do you realise just how unpleasant its impact on the country really is.
I have not noticed anyone else mention that Sarkozy has had the goal of "free and undistorted competition" stripped out from the EU's core objectives (present since the Treaty of Rome in 1957), so that Britain will gradually lose further control over employment law, the economy, energy reserves and no doubt other important areas (despite what our beloved PM says).
I suspect that William Hague is being pragmatic when he says that the tories will not (or cannot?) reverse the ratification of the constitutional treaty.
I suspect we will now have to promise to hold a referendum to line up with Switzerland and the other similar countries i.e. BOO.
Posted by: David Belchamber | October 19, 2007 at 12:35
Sean is right but only the realistic option is leave the EU. Brown has called the Eurosceptics bluff whose "reform" mantra has been exposed as empty rhetoric. He knows that the Conservative Party is split over the EU and that the proposed referendum is convenient wallpaper to cover over the cracks.
The sooner the Treaty is ratified, the better. The referendum charade will be over and we will find out where the Conservative Party really stands on Europe.
Posted by: Moral minority | October 19, 2007 at 12:35
Frankly, are the UK Joe Public really worried about all this? They are far more concerned about the state of the NHS and the hosptial infections- the MPs would be far better employed holding Brown to account for this- can you imagine what Blair/Brown would have made of this had it been the Major Government to blame- remember what how he used Mad Cow disease
I am amazed that Cameron did not directly blame Brown for this on Wednesday.
The situation is so bad that people now dread going into hospital- they are more worried about this than Europe I can assure you!
Posted by: michael m | October 19, 2007 at 12:41
I hope this isn't the start of another Europe row within the party...
Posted by: MrB | October 19, 2007 at 12:49
Another diversionary post from "michael m" who, judging by his recent posts, appears to be a Eurofanatic.
Joe Public is worried about the consequences of EU membership, especially the uncontrolled immigration from Eastern Europe that is affecting the demand and delivery of public services. It is the job of the Shadow Cabinet to publicise this fact and not allow the government and the Eurofanatics to shut down the immigration/EU debate.
Posted by: Moral minority | October 19, 2007 at 12:59
Hague has fallen into the trap of answering hypothetical questions - foolish boy... or have the BBC laid the trap for him? Blair always made it clear beforehand hypo q's would not be put to him - and for very good reason. Hague is putting himself on the ropes for something he may never need to worry about - and Brown will be more delighted that anyone if we start fighting over this in public.
Difficult to fix this now, but if we gain power after we rattify, we could committ to a vote on a referendum in the House?
Posted by: Oberon Houston | October 19, 2007 at 13:07
According to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph Business News this treaty gives Brussels ultimate control over energy including Britain's North Sea oil which risks repeating the error made by Heath handing over control of British fishing reserves. I doubt you will hear Gordon Brown or David Milliband drawing attention to this.
Posted by: Mary | October 19, 2007 at 13:07
This is one lifelong tory voter who will never vote tory again if we do not get some positive comments from Cameron with regards a referendum before or after ratification.
Posted by: R.Rowan | October 19, 2007 at 13:09
After 4 years of this amending treaty, the EU is not going to revert to the previous treaty because the UK got a belated No in a referendum.
In 4 years’ time the only option to get out of this treaty would be total withdrawal – so the only coherent line that we could take now is “if this treaty is ratified then we will have a referendum on EU withdrawal when we next come to power”.
I appreciate that EU membership is a burning issue to many on this site, but Gordon Brown is (correctly I think) banking on it not being a burning issue to the wider electorate. Unity is far more important.
This issue can work for or against us. To make it work for us, our attack has to be very specifically on the trust issue. To make it work against us, give the BBC attack dogs pursue the scent of EU withdrawal and divisions in the Conservative Party.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | October 19, 2007 at 13:13
Dear Reader
I can assure you that I am not a "Eurofanatic" and have grave reservations as do most of us
All I am doing is reflecting what the public is saying- Europe/Referendum is not the talk in the pub- MRSA etc is!!! Brown must be held to account for this and the numerous deaths
I much prefer the Public House view to that of the chattering classes
Posted by: michael m | October 19, 2007 at 13:14
This issue can work for or against us. To make it work for us, our attack has to be very specifically on the trust issue. To make it work against us, give the BBC attack dogs pursue the scent of EU withdrawal and divisions in the Conservative Party.
Mark Fulford is bang on, here.
There isn't going to be a referendum, either
on the treaty, or on our position in Europe. Asking for the latter is the sure-fire way of the "Tories split on Europe", but won't get you what you want.
The only thing we can do is undermine Gordon Brown on the issue of trust to increase our chance of winning the next election.
Posted by: True Blue | October 19, 2007 at 13:28
4% of voters say Europe is the issue of most concern to them. Ok polls say voters want a referendum so call for a referendum but do not let it become a full-blown ant-EU row because people will just turn off. Voters are euro-realists rather than euro-sceptics. Unfortunately much of the Conservative Party cannot stop going on about Europe. But watch out: the Lib Dems might vote Nick Clegg as leader and get progressive centre-right policies but without the Europe obsessions.
Posted by: Cleo | October 19, 2007 at 13:36
Brown is relishing the Tory Party shredding itself over the reform-treaty-which-is-not-a-constitution. Parliamentary procedure should be invoked by Cameron to introduce a Bill to force through a vote on a referendum. This will flush out the Lib Dem leadership candidates, who will have to take account of the Eurosceptics in their party, as well as Labour backbenchers. Just how many Tories will go through the division lobby with Brown is uncertain - pressure should be applied to ensure they abstain at best.
It'll be a close vote, perhaps depending on the position of the Ulster parties, Plaid, and SNP and how they decide to vote.
Eurobashers on this site should not lambast Hague. He's being pragmatic. Once ratified, you cannot reverse the decision. The only way to do that is to pull out of the EU - which you'll recall is what Labour wanted to do in 1983. It would be a brave Cameron to go into the next election promising a referendum because we would be faced with "in or out" choice and when push comes to shove, is there a majority in the UK for withdrawal? There might be in England, but the Scots and Welsh would probably ensure defeat for withdrawal.
Hague is still reeling from the 2001 mauling when "in Europe but not run by Europe" was his mantra. It will be written on his gravestone. He won't want Cameron making that mistake which is why the EU will not dominate our next manifesto. It should be under the more general heading of Trust.
Labour and the Lib Dems are more split on the issue of Europe than the Tories. But I agree with the bloggers who say this will not be the over-riding issue at the next election. Voters are more worried at catching a terminal disease in a hospital, about violent crime, and about their pensions than they are over Europe.
Posted by: Felixstowe Fiddler | October 19, 2007 at 13:43
Many posters on this thread have argued for a post-ratification referendum if the Conservatives win the next general election.
I must therefore repeat that such a referendum would be meaningless. A new Treaty, ratified by all 25 member states, would be needed to repatriate powers transferred by this new Treaty or its predecessors. That is very unlikely, given that other Members States, especially the recent joiners, will profit from the new Treaty at Britain's expense.
Mr B's fears will be realised sooner rather than later. I support a referendum before ratification but recognise that the campaign is ultimately futile. Brown knows that ratification will cause an split in the Party. The pro-membership EUsceptics will have to choose between the between the Europhile (pro-federalist) and Better Off Out wings. Brown recognises that ratifying without a referendum will hasten that split and strengthen his own position.
Cameron has recruited Heseltine, Hurd, Patten Gummer and Clarke as foreign policy advisers or chairmen of policy groups. They would never allow him to advocate a major repatriation of powers from the EU super-state never mind withdrawal. That Europhile/establishment clique plotted the successful coup against Thatcher and undermined her Eurosceptic successors. Dave will therefore not risk losing their support and will support continued membership of the EU Super-State. The price will be to lose the support a large section of his Parliamentary party.
The party must debate EU membership now and the losers of that debate may have to leave the Party, possibly defecting to the Lib Dems or UKIP. It is better that the split happens over the next year rather than just before the next European and general elections. It is time to wake up and smell the expresso!
Posted by: Moral minority | October 19, 2007 at 13:50
Re: Cleo's above comment -
Most people are not "euro-realists". They are euro-pessimists (who see EU advancement as inevitable) or euro-ignorants (who don't know much about the EU).
Nick Clegg's policies are irrelevant at the best of times, as he is a Lib Dem, but they will mean nothing whatsoever if the EU comes to rule this country. It is no good having a centre-right government with no power.
The Tories are not "obsessed" about the EU. It is a very, very major issue. Saying the Tories are "obsessed" about the EU is not dissimilair from saying that, during the Second World War, Winston Churchill was "obsessed" with fighting the Germans.
Posted by: IRJMilne | October 19, 2007 at 13:54
What is the point of holding a referendum after ratification, when we can't unratify it anyway?
Brown and his supporters at the BBC are just using this to make trouble.
Posted by: TimC | October 19, 2007 at 13:56
Mark Fulford wrote "After 4 years of this amending treaty, the EU is not going to revert to the previous treaty because the UK got a belated No in a referendum. In 4 years’ time the only option to get out of this treaty would be total withdrawal – so the only coherent line that we could take now is “if this treaty is ratified then we will have a referendum on EU withdrawal when we next come to power”. I agree with Mark but don't get the four year time limit.
The problem for the Conservatives is that the Party is split three ways on the EU - Europhile, Eurosceptic and Withdrawalists. The amending Treaty renders the Eurosceptic position meaningless, you either support the Super-State or withdrawal.
I used to be an enthusiastic supporter of EU membership and dismissed anti-Maastricht campaigners withdrawalists as loony fanatics. I loved Hague's "In Europe, Not Run by Europe" slogan. Over the last ten years, the Maastrict, Amsterdam and Nice treaties have virtually destoyed our democracy. The amending treaty virtually completes the EU Leviathan Super-state. Hague's slogan is out-dated and regret dismissing the prophetic warnings of Teddy Taylor, Norris McWhirter et al. We are Better Off Out of the protectionist, corrupt and undemocratic EU.
Posted by: Moral minority | October 19, 2007 at 14:09
Also, the full list of MPs, MEPs and Peers who have confirmed to The Freedom Association that they support a referendum can be found at: http://www.tfa.net/ncr01.htm
Posted by: Mark Wallace | October 19, 2007 at 14:32
"The only thing we can do is undermine Gordon Brown on the issue of trust to increase our chance of winning the next election."
And having won, do what?
"But watch out: the Lib Dems might vote Nick Clegg as leader and get progressive centre-right policies but without the Europe obsessions. "
I think we'll find that who the Lib Dems elect is not terribly important to our fortunes.
"The problem for the Conservatives is that the Party is split three ways on the EU - Europhile, Eurosceptic and Withdrawalists."
It isn't.
"The amending Treaty renders the Eurosceptic position meaningless, you either support the Super-State or withdrawal."
Were a future Conservative government to repeal it, it would cease, as a matter of UK law, to apply to this country. It would of course, cause a diplomatic storm, but that is something that I think most of us can live with.
Posted by: Sean Fear | October 19, 2007 at 14:41
Tim C at 1356 "What is the point of holding a referendum after ratification, when we can't unratify it anyway?"
Of course we can unratify it if we want to - it's called abrogation and is expressly covered in the Vienna Convention on Treaties.
Posted by: christina | October 19, 2007 at 14:48
I agree with Mark but don't get the four year time limit.
4 years from now is my guestimate of when Conservatives could organise a referendum. You’re right, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years… it makes no difference.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | October 19, 2007 at 14:52
"Were a future Conservative government to repeal it, it would cease, as a matter of UK law, to apply to this country."
Not true Sean. Under the Treaties, EU law has supremacy over UK law and therefore the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. The European and British courts would rule that the repeal law was unlawful and that it did not apply.
Posted by: Moral minority | October 19, 2007 at 15:43
I'm sending out a card to all constituents asking them to sign petition to go to Downing Street before ratification.
I urge all other PPCs to do the same.
Posted by: Rachel Joyce | October 19, 2007 at 15:43
Gordon Brown has been derelict in his responsibilities by signing the EU Constitreaty. However, what is now needed is not a referendum on that document.
Such a referendum would deliver a Yes vote. In 1975, the federalists managed to convince two thirds of the electorate that they were merely voting for "a free trade area" called "the Common Market", even though the first clause of the European Communities Act was, and is, a textbook definition of a federal state.
That was achieved by persistently putting up Tony Benn and Enoch Powell to state the case for a No vote. Most people voted instead for the position espoused by politicians with whom they felt more comfortable.
The same thing would happen again. Powell's place would be filled by that nasty fringe which holds his economic views untempered by his romantic Toryism. Such would be the sole No campaigners on at least two out of every three, and quite possibly three out of every four, programmes. The rest of the time, Benn would be back.
Even fewer people would identify with Benn now than in 1975. And do even tribal Tories, never mind anybody else, believe in unrestricted immigration to feed unbridled capitalism? Or in the total deregulation of alcohol, gambling and pornography? Or in the legalisation of drugs and prostitution? Or in the wholesale privatisation of health, education and pensions? Or in the abolition of farm subsidies?
"Well, then," the federalists would say, "what makes you think that you agree with these people about this, and this alone? Their position is coherent. It all fits together. And your views don't fit into it at all. Vote Yes, if only because they want you to Vote No." And people would.
Instead, Parliament should do its duty by throwing out the Constitreaty without any need for a referendum. Not least, the unions should be refusing to fund any MP who did not vote in Parliament both against the Constitreaty and in favour of securing workers' rights (among other things) through the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and should instead be undertaking to fund alternative parliamentary candidates who will do both of those things.
For we do not need the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We need a proper party dedicated to securing workers' rights (among other things) through the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
And now, we have just such a party: see my blog.
Posted by: David Lindsay | October 19, 2007 at 16:36
Brown's deceit in refusing to honour his referendum promise is matched by virtually all of his ministers and back-benchers, who all owe their comfortable seats to their manifesto promise.
Our candidates in those constituencies should challenge them by avery medium, local paper, TV, speeches and radio, to stand by their promises.
A certain vote winner in marginals.
Posted by: Martin Cox | October 19, 2007 at 16:50
Moral minority: we can get into circular arguments here, but from the perspective of our constitutional theory, EU law only has priority because ultimately the 1972 Act (as amended) says so. There is nothing which says that the 1972 Act cannot be repealed, and if it were then that ends the primacy of EU law.
The problem would be that this would immediately place the UK in breach of its Treaty obligations if we were at that point still a member state of the EU (and you could have some fun arguments in the courts trying to straighten out everything). It could get rather bloody.
The mechanism would probably have to go something like this:
* An Act to call a referendum (probably including the wording for the question) but leaving the date to be set by future statutory order, and empowering the issue of another statutory order to repeal any Lisbon Treaty legislation if there is a vote to that effect in the referendum.
* Foreign Secretary pops over to Brussels to start discussions about how the EU can adjust to a rejection vote in a referendum (e.g. will they eject the UK, commence proceedings, open negotiations for a new Treaty etc).
* Once UK knows where it stands, issue the statutory order for the referendum.
* Hold referendum.
* Further discussions - could be negotiations for Son of Lisbon; could be agreeing the process for ejection (who knows?).
* Issue statutory order for repeal (but it might be superceded by a new referendum on any Son of Lisbon Treaty).
All in all, if a future Tory Govmt are going to call a post-ratification referendum, they ought to be shouting about it now, to put the other member states on notice (that wouldn't have any legal significance, but it's a sensible move to make). It also puts more pressure on Brown.
Posted by: William Norton | October 19, 2007 at 16:52
"Not true Sean. Under the Treaties, EU law has supremacy over UK law and therefore the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. The European and British courts would rule that the repeal law was unlawful and that it did not apply. "
The European courts would so rule, the UK courts would not.
It's as if, in reverse, we repealed the Government of India Act 1946. Under UK law, we would resume government of the Indian sub-continent. Under Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Burmese law, we wouldn't. But like the EU, we would have no enforcement mechanism, in that situation.
Posted by: Sean Fear | October 19, 2007 at 16:54
How many labour MPs will rebel against the Constitution?
Posted by: Tapestry | October 19, 2007 at 17:18
You may not know that there is a petition on the no. 10 website to hold a referendum on the treaty.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-reform/
Although the petition to hold an election in 2007 has now reached 15,000 signatures thanks to Gordon, the petition to have a referendum only has around 3,000, which is surprising if 70% of us want one.
Worth spreading the word? I don't expect Brown will mention this one at PMQ's.....
Posted by: Patriot | October 19, 2007 at 17:26
David Lindsay - every poll suggests that a No vote would be delivered. It is not the fringe of the Tory party who would campaign for a No, but virtually all of it. Europe has become much more unpopular in the UK since the 1970's. People may not understand the constitution, but they know they don't like the EU now.
Posted by: IRJMilne | October 19, 2007 at 17:50
The consternation caused by Wm Hague's strange comments on Radio 4 this morning should be dealt with urgently by our Leader.
He should do this by making a "firm and bankable" promise to the nation (the UK that is - not the EU) that within six months of a Conservative government being elected, we will have a referendum on the matter - and let the people decide.
There won't be any further "treaties" to have a referendum on - because once this one is in force, the EU will have the power (Article 33)to transfer further powers to itself without the need for any more inter-governmental agreements. Future power grabs by Brussels will happen by QMV.
Posted by: Frank McGarry | October 19, 2007 at 17:57
I am astonished at the attitude of many on this blog. As Frank (1757) remarks there will never be another chance, If this goes through, Westminster will be merely an (overpaid) provincial council and all the worryings of all those who haven't twigged what's happening are mere candyfloss.
Today's decision - There'll BE no point in a general election any more unless it can be stopped. It's curtains for Britain and this blog might as well close down because all decisions will be in Brussels.
The treaty even destroys the one prized gain from the EU - the Single Market
Wake up Please
Posted by: christina | October 19, 2007 at 18:48
Post-ratification there is a different legal position to be considered. The alternatives are then renegotiation or derogation.
The former is not going to happen. The latter is a nuclear option that I believe the present leadership lacks will never contemplate.
Why? see my post at http://tinyurl.com/2lcat7
Posted by: The Huntsman | October 19, 2007 at 19:31
Now they are talking about Blair becoming EU President!
Do they never stop............
Posted by: John Leonard | October 19, 2007 at 19:46
Would be nice if all our MPs in Parliament could sign this, would show that all the in-fighting of years past has gone. Of course with Ken CLark (whom I don't really mind)and a few others we won't have every one of our MPs sigining, but still, considering most of them are supposedly Eurosceptic, it would be nice to see them prove that by signing this.
Posted by: Sasha | October 19, 2007 at 20:09
This is the defining moment of this generation, If the Conservative Party fluff this one they are finished. If parliament fails to reverse this monumental betrayal by Brown then it must be riot and civil disruption - tractors blocking the M1 and certainly a mass boycott of the quizling BBC, What can be more important. Wear your Poppy with shame!!
Posted by: Rod Sellers | October 19, 2007 at 20:24
Patriot | October 19, 17:26
Maybe that's because 22000+ have already signed the following No.10 petition calling for a referendum:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/
Posted by: Ken Stevens | October 19, 2007 at 20:28
"The Tories are not "obsessed" about the EU. It is a very, very major issue. Saying the Tories are "obsessed" about the EU is not dissimilar from saying that, during the Second World War, Winston Churchill was "obsessed" with fighting the Germans."
Brilliant comment IJR Miln
Where we are failing is to conflate 'the EU' with the consequences of membership. Massive Immigration - large scale housebulding and therefore flood risk, air pollution, traffic gridlock.
People care desperately about these issues abd respond when they can see the direct cause. So don't 'bang on about Europe' bang on about the consequences.
We need a commitment that come hell or high water - a future Tory Government will reverse the Treaty/Constitution on the grounds that it has no moral credibility without the clear consent of the people.
If we do not get this commitment many of us will 'retreat to the hills' and fight from there.
Posted by: Rod Sellers | October 19, 2007 at 20:48
This is our only chance ever to reverse the drift to a federal superstate. Thye EU has NO power over any national government other than that it is allowed by that parliament. we should campaign strongly to hold a referendum regardless of ratification and then make a decision.
ultimately we must renegotiate our place in Europe, the people will never accept a superstate and the earlier we pull out the less damage will be done.
time to understand that this government have failed at every level and this is our chance to change the direction of our country.
Posted by: steve | October 19, 2007 at 22:24
the comments about "it cant be repealed without leaving: are utterly moronic. the EU has NO power other than that we afford it. wake up. we are paying for the idiotic scheme.
Posted by: steve | October 19, 2007 at 22:27
I wonder if Brown fancies beating Blair to be first Stalinist President of the USE?
Posted by: M Dowding | October 19, 2007 at 22:31
Of course there is no ratchet clause from the Herald).
However, the Prime Minister's attempt to block institutional change in the European Union for at least 10 years has run into conflict with French plans to set up a group to look at further changes necessary over the next 25 years.
The different approach risks further difficulties for Mr Brown as he pushes for the new treaty, agreed yesterday in Lisbon, to be ratified at Westminster, but without the referendum his critics demand.
He sought to put the brakes on any further discussion, saying EU leaders would "rule out further institutional change for many years". He wants the EU to focus on more practical matters, such as globalisation.
But Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, wants a small group of "wise men" to chart the way ahead. And the French are understood to want further internal reforms to the EU's structures.
Downing Street last night sought to play down the difference of approach, claiming there was an "understanding" between government leaders on further constitutional reform.
Here's the full article
Herald Article
This is beginning to read like 'Our Darkest Hour' II (the sequel) - Brown's Betrayal
Posted by: John Leonard | October 19, 2007 at 23:00
"The European and British courts would rule that the repeal law was unlawful and that it did not apply"
Correct me if I'm wrong but is it true that no government can bind its successor? If so can Brown be held accountable?
Posted by: Curious | October 20, 2007 at 02:06
I urge caution here. I fear the Conservatives are getting close to becoming typecast purely on its EU policy.
Yes, we should campaign for a referendum and hold Labour to account for its failings, but we must continue to talk about other issues and giving them prominence as well. Otherwise it wont matter what we say, all people will hear is "Europe, Europe, Europe".
Health and education are still pretty embryonic as far as policy announcements and Tory proposals are concerned. We need to kick them back up the agenda.
Posted by: James Maskell | October 20, 2007 at 09:42
Why aren't they all signed up? They will not get my vote if they start wavering on this. My MP is not listed, I am about to ask him why.
Posted by: Torygirl | October 20, 2007 at 11:16
Seems to be a lot of debate over whether we can repeal the treaty after rattification. The answer is yes. Power in Europe, and the Regional Parliaments for that matter is simply devolved by an act that can be repealed. In other words real power still lies with Westminster. Sean Fear is correct, there is nothing stopping Britain repealing the act that allowed the power transfer to take place. And he is also right, it would create a diplomatic storm and could have some uncertain bad consequences, but there is nothing the EU could do about it legally under international law.
Having said all that - should try everything we can to avoid rattification in the first place. The best chance we have of doing that is to stick together as a party.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | October 20, 2007 at 11:48
.... stop the treaty, even if it's just to prevent Blair becoming EU President. Was there some deal struck there with Brown I wonder? Course there was.
Posted by: Oberon Houston | October 20, 2007 at 11:51
IRJ Milne, every poll at the start of the 1975 referendum campaign suggested a No vote.
Then on came Tony Benn (on ConHome today, I see) and Enoch Powell, a much more symathetic character than his current legatees, who ARE, I'm afraid "practically the whole" of the Conservative Party, raising huge questions about why anyone at all still votes for it, since it now embodies an utterly unconservative position unknown among the general public.
We know what happened next.
MPs and Peers should just say no. Who needs a referendum?
Posted by: David Lindsay | October 20, 2007 at 12:45
Glad to see most of the comments here are suitably militant. To all those who say "we mustn't seem too obsessed with Europe" - the various institutions of the EU are our real government and make pretensions to "national" elections a complete sham.
Posted by: James | October 20, 2007 at 19:12
Only 4% of voters say that the EU is of concern to them. This is because ALL MPs have avoided telling people the truth about the EU. They avoid it like the plague so is it any wonder the great British public are so ignorant about what is going on.
Only 39 Tories MPs have signed up to this. They should all sign and I have already written to my MP asking him why he hasn't signed. We were promised by Cameron and his shadow cabinet that regardless of whether Brown signed or not, they would honour their pledge and give us a referendum, now we find them trying to distance themselves from that pledge. Cameron hasn't got a brilliant track record on keeping his promises, but if he renages on this, he can kiss the key to No 10 goodbye.
Posted by: Torygirl | October 21, 2007 at 00:19
"...who ARE, I'm afraid "practically the whole" of the Conservative Party, raising huge questions about why anyone at all still votes for it, since it now embodies an utterly unconservative position unknown among the general public."
Hm? Are you saying that the present Tory party is full of people who are a) un-conservative, and b) hardline rightwing?
The treaty must be stopped, by any means possible, be it a commons vote, a lords vote, or a referendum.
Posted by: IRJMilne | October 21, 2007 at 00:20
"This issue can work for or against us. To make it work for us, our attack has to be very specifically on the trust issue. To make it work against us, give the BBC attack dogs pursue the scent of EU withdrawal and divisions in the Conservative Party."
Mark Fulford is absolutely correct on this,
we have to push the issue of trust and make sure that that the debate works for us.
I posted a comment on my concerns on this very point last week in thread for Louise Bagshawe's column. WHY, OH WHY are the Conservative parliamentary party so bl**dy predictable?
Brown is a short term tactician and he is trying to follow a strategy where he can to cause divisions within our party, thus taking the spotlight off Labour's broken manifesto promise. Just looking at some of the names on that list depresses me, because they are behaving in the same as Brown for the same reasons! It is the reason why, even as the public fell out of love with New Labour they never fancied the Conservatives as an alternative.
I admit it, I don't even now fully understood every bit of this treaty, but I do know that it is the constitution without the flag and the anthem that was rejected by some countries in a referendum.
I am just going to re paste my comments on that thread and I hope that the WHOLE Conservative party realise that they have to unite on this and COMPRIMISE on individual beliefs. Lets hope that our brightest long term strategists are in the driving seat when it comes to fighting this in Parliament, if we start having splinter groups running their own individual campaigns then we will lose not just the battle there but also in the longer term at the next GE.
"Excellent article Louise, and I agree with your views. But I have one concern, and that is the Parliamentary party's ability to join together and decide their own achievable red lines on Europe. We have the BOO brigade, but I think that like myself, most of the British public are more reflective of the "in Europe, not run by Europe" brigade.
I want an achievable and viable solution that gives us a good working relationship with Europe and retention of our sovereignty, I don't want to be bullied into the either In or Out option offered by a few on both sides of the debate."
Posted by: Scotty | October 21, 2007 at 14:50
Liberal Democrat policy had changed recently to calling for a referendum on EU membership - why not move for a referendum on whether the UK should remain part of the EU and challenge the Liberal Democrats to support it. The DUP and UUP MP would support such a measure and with Labour rebels voting for it there would be a chance of forcing it through!
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | October 22, 2007 at 14:09
They should hold a referendum I agree with one of the comments right at the top as it would be 'such a vote winner and would excite the electorate'.
Posted by: Catriona Mackenzie | October 23, 2007 at 09:45