Is the EU Treaty set to be Brown's first victory?

The Daily Mail is unimpressed at Gordon Brown's unwillingness to commit to attend Wednesday's signing of the EU Treaty:

"It looks like a feeble and cynical attempt to distance Mr Brown from a deeply unpopular measure which he is pushing through without public consent."

We know that the Treaty is unpopular* but is it "deeply" unpopular?

The IWantAReferendum petition has 31,091 signatures at the time of posting.  The Telegraph has over 110,000 but broke the 100,000 barrier a couple of months ago and has stalled somewhat since.  The Sun lost more than 100,000 sales on the day it launched its campaign against the Treaty.  A Westminster lobby on the Treaty was pretty poorly attended.

Iain Martin in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph fears that Gordon Brown may be grinding out a victory on the Treaty:

"Even though the wider public told pollsters that they disliked the whole business, such feelings at no point coalesced into an outpouring that might have altered the Government's determination to press ahead. Why did this happen?  ...[Gordon Brown] presumed that while a majority of voters say they care about the erosion of British sovereignty, only a minority do so with passion. Stick this out and it will go away, he thought... Time, surely, for a period of calm reflection by Eurosceptics of all persuasions. The answer is not a turning up of the volume; impotent rage failed in the past and there is no sign it will work in the future."

ConservativeHome does not advocate giving up the fight but, before the new year's parliamentary debates on the Treaty, there is a strong case for rethinking tactics.  The Sun's campaign upset some in the retired 'No campaign'.  "It was too Dad's Army," one said, "noone has yet brought the significant implications of the Treaty alive for voters."

* Global Vision has released an ICM opinion poll today: "On the referendum issue, nearly three quarters said there should be a referendum, whilst less than 20% thought not.  Concerning Britain’s relationship with the EU, people were given a choice of three options. The first, supported by just under a quarter of respondents, was to stay within the EU and participate in further integration. The second was to have a looser relationship with the EU based on trade and cooperation, whilst opting out of political and economic union. This was supported by nearly a half of the people and was clearly the option of choice. And the third was to withdraw from the EU altogether and was also supported by just under a quarter of respondents."

Comments

[Alan S]

Unless the Irish say "no", this issue will be lost AND forgotten by the 2010 General Election.

[anthony scholefield]

These were of course 2 realistic and one unrealistic options. The majority chose the unrealistic'centre'option as you would expect.Options 2 and 3 amount to the same thing so the real majority against the EU as it stands is 3-1.
Any move away from the status quo will however always lose a considerable number of swing votes-thats why a referendum now would be lost.

[HF]

The key battleground is first the HoC and then the the HoL.

The Lords are able to keep voting against because not having a referendum is contrary to Labour's manifesto commitment.

But the campaign against suffers because there is not a single organisation driving it. bitty campaigns by individual newspapers has fragmented the support.

[R.Rowan]

If David Cameron does not offer a vote on a reversal of this stab in the back treaty then he can kiss my vote goodbye and i suspect a lot of other peoples also.

[Alex Swanson]

I suspect that - as someone commented in the papers recently - the lack of enthusiasm is driven mainly by a feeling of pointlessness. It doesn't matter in reality what protest are made, petitions, marches, whatever, Brown has a majority and his MPs will vote as he tell them - and then even if the Conservatives get in, Cameron and his team will just accept the status quo and even advance integration themselves.

[Tony Makara]

R.Rowan, the Conservative party must stick with its promise to hold a referendum on the EU treaty otherwise Gordon Brown will portray any shift in policy as backing down and it will become a Labour victory. The promise of a referendum going into the next election would also add further clear blue water between the Conservatives and other parties.

[deborah]

I agree with Alex. It's not that people don't care - they have just given up hope.

[Richard]

I read the Iain Martin article yesterday and it made me so angry. Labour promised a referendum on this constitution and the majority of people when polled want one as well, yet we are going to have this constitution forced upon us and according to Iain Martin and others it seems there is nothing we can do about it.

When Labour talked about banning hunting with hounds 500,000 people marched through London, when Labour committed our troops to war in Iraq 1,000,000 marched through the streets of London, how many marched on this issue?

UKIP must have a few thousand members, we have a few hundred thousand members, the Lib Dems and Labour had plenty of members calling for a referendum as well. Why weren't all these people out on the streets in protest?

I feel that one of the reasons is simply that there is no Countryside Alliance of Stop the War Coalition sort of group for Eurosceptics. What we have are numerous little factions each with their own tiny memberships and limited budgets etc. UKIP, Open Europe, Bruge Group, Campaign for an Independent Britain, Global Vision and many, many more.

Most of the above groups have poor quality websites and poor communication skills and most of them spend a large part of their time fighting amoungst themselves.

What we need is a new group, staffed, funded and with a brilliant PR team to take the fight to Labour and to win the support of the country. We need to stop the Dad's Army style campaigns favoured by The Sun and make the serious business and economic case on Europe. If such an organisation existed, that united the factions, won the support of business and the media then we might start to see a way forward. But while we still live with a situation where UKIP stand candidates against Tories and cost them seats and give Labour victory then we are doomed to failure and we will have no one to blame but ourselves!

[Tony Makara]

Alex, Deborah, David Cameron has already promised to reverse any decision on ID cards so he should emphatically promise to do the same over the EU treaty. The British people have not been given a vote on this matter, and David can quite fairly argue that it is in the interests of democracy that our people have a say in whether we want to hand more power over to the EU.

[Chad Noble]

Alex, Deborah

The period between ratification of the EU treaty and the next general election could actually raise some hope.

Most of us suspect that Cameron will do nothing once all the 'ifs' have been exhausted, and although nothing to do with me, I strongly suspect that in such a scenario, the emergence of a single issue 'give us a referendum' party is very likely and is also likely to attract plenty of funding to make a real impact.

Whilst UKIP would like the votes, I suspect a cross-party euro-neutral (no position on the EU just seeking to get the parties to honour their pledge to give us a referendum) single-issue party, where all the candidates are bound to resign their position as soon as the referendum is delivered, could really shake our ever-distant political class.

[Rod Sellers]

Some good thoughtful posts on this. There has been a failure of leadership and a too fragmented campaign. The support is there it just has not been mobilised. Like a cancer the damage done by the EU is not immediately visble but only shows itself through consequences that are not always recognised - e.g. Immigration.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

That Sun reader has probably hit the nail on the head – “noone has yet brought the significant implications of the Treaty alive for voters."

For those of us on the doom and gloom side of the argument it is indeed difficult to bring things alive for most of the millions in this country.

It will probably be the EU itself, which will do so.

The EU is hiding behind the British government and British institutions. We can be forgiven for thinking everything is still British. And no British government so far has disabused us. Nor the present Conservative opposition.

But when the long arm of EU law takes away British subjects and imprisons them elsewhere without the protection of English law – locked up for months or years without due process – not once but as a matter of routine – we might as a country wake up.

Or when exchange controls and exit taxes are brought in and we are trapped to suffer the consequences of a fascist, centrally controlled economy.

Or when our media is totally censored by Brussels.

[activist]

Go for it Chad! Will this new party make it a round dozen for you?

[Chad Noble]

Nothing to do with me activist as I clearly noted!

I do like the Tories who try to rib me for change when they have been averaging a new leader every other year for the past decade.

Not even I could manage that.. ;-)

[Alex Swanson]

David Cameron has already promised to reverse any decision on ID cards so he should emphatically promise to do the same over the EU treaty.

Yes, he should, but he hasn't yet, and I see no prospect of him doing so.

[Tony Makara]

This issue must be kept 'in the air' no matter what happens in the commons. The way to do that is to promise a referendum post-election. Gordon Brown cannot be allowed to turn this into a victory, not for political reasons, but for reasons of national sovereignty. We must not allow Gordon Brown to use parliament as means of rubberstamping this treaty. Brown must not be allowed to circumvent the will of the people.

[Opinicus]

So the weasel words campaign has started. It was ever thus with the EU
1) no one's interested
2) it would be electorally dangerous (poll evidence to the contrary notwithstanding)
3) it would present enormous practical difficulties
4) it's too late to do anything about it now.

No one, least of all the federasts, believes there is anyone outside an SW1 postcode who actually wants the EU as it has developed. No it is not high on the voters minds however. When mortgages are up 18% its difficult to concentrate on the constitution. Secondly, no voter thinks that any party, least of all the Conservatives, genuinely believes its rhetoric on the EU. It doesn't make the voters unconcerned about Europe, let alone supporters, it makes them defeatist and cynical.
The first Conservative PM who actually meant his rhetoric and looked like he was going to actually do something would however reap enormous benefit. Poor old Cameron could never survive the abuse from the Guardian along the way though. the betrayal has already started. Why vote?

[David]

"We must not allow Gordon Brown to use parliament as means of rubberstamping this treaty. Brown must not be allowed to circumvent the will of the people."

Um, isn't Parliament the representatives of the will of the people?

[anyone but brown]

A more serious issue seems to be Brown's willingness to trash the pound in order to keep the debt-fuelled spending frenzy continuing just a little longer. We'll be drummed into abandoning the pound and adopting the euro within 2 years after an inevitable sterling crisis forces the pound down towards parity with the single currency.

[Malcolm Dunn]

David, no, it isn't. This parliament was elected on the premise that a referendum would be offered. It hasn't been.
That is why EVERY opininion poll indicates that the people want a vote.

[David]

"David, no, it isn't"

We have, as far as I recall, elected MPs to represent us. That hasn't changed. So this idea of 'circumventing the will of the people' is a bit hyperbolic and silly.

"This parliament was elected on the premise that a referendum would be offered. It hasn't been"

True, but manifestos aren't and never have been binding commitments (should they be? That's a whole other question).

"That is why EVERY opininion poll indicates that the people want a vote."

I don't think people want the vote just because manifestos said they could have one. At least I hope not.

[Malcolm Dunn]

It may be 'hyperbolic and silly' in your opinion,it is ,nevetheless, true.

[Tony Makara]

Issues of national sovereignty are even above the remit of parliament and must be decided by the people of our country.

[David]

"Issues of national sovereignty are even above the remit of parliament"

Not in our constitution they aren't.

[strapworld]

the conservatives should show they are honourable and stand by their commitment to a referendum.

By the time of the next election any movement in the 'red lines' would have been detected.

But I believe the EU will collapse from within anyway.
Too many countries with too much past history of hatred.

Let it just fizzle out itself.

[Dale]

""Issues of national sovereignty are even above the remit of parliament"

Not in our constitution they aren't."

We don't have a real constitution.

If we are to beleive your logic then we may aswell all accept that we live in a dictatorship where the will of the people means nothing.

[David]

"We don't have a real constitution. "

Yes we do.

"If we are to beleive your logic then we may aswell all accept that we live in a dictatorship where the will of the people means nothing."

I don't know what posts you have been reading, but they aren't mine. My logic is based on the current method we have of governance, which is for the people to elect on a regular basis representatives to take decisions on political matters. Quite how that logically means a dictatorship I'm not sure.

[Sean Fear]

"True, but manifestos aren't and never have been binding commitments "

It is reasonable to suppose that MPs will keep to the commitments on which they have been elected (unless new circumstances arise). Otherwise, why bother with an election at all?

The idea that manifesto commitments ought to be kept, or another mandate sought, dates from Gladstone's conversion to Home Rule. Quite properly, he accepted that he had not advocated this policy when he won the 1885 election, and so sought a fresh election to give him this mandate.

I certainly don't accept that a party can just do as it pleases once it gets into power. Nor, I imagine, do most voters.

[David]

"I certainly don't accept that a party can just do as it pleases once it gets into power. Nor, I imagine, do most voters."

No, they don't. Generally, there is nothing wrong with that, and they are quite right to use them as a measure by which to judge a government (but not necessarily the sole measure) and to punish a government if it is seen to be acting in such an arbitrary fashion. But that doesn't mean that manifestos are binding commitments.

[Tony Makara]

On the subject of party manifesto's there is a world of difference between a government not being able to honour an election pledge because of circumstances beyond its control and a government that promises a referendum and then refuses to give it. Labour promised a referendum and if they won't allow one we can rightly say that they lied in their manifesto. There will have been people who voted Labour based on that promise to hold a referendum. Those people in particular have been duped.

[TFA Tory]

A Conservative government will be at odds with the other EU nations that want an ever closer Union. They will never give us our sovereignty and democracy back. We should leave them to get on with it. Britain would be BETTER OFF OUT of the EU. We should join an Atlantic free trade area - NAFTA plus EFTA. Other Commonwealth countries, e.g. Oz and NZ, could join later.

[David]

There's no point in joining EFTA-you're still subject to most EU laws.

[Chad Noble]

The difficulty for Cameron though is that Brown argues (however much we disagree with him) that he will not give referendum as there is no need for one (because the treaty is not the constitution, red lines etc), whereas Cameron argues that we absolutely do need one as the treaty is effectively the constitution, and he would vote against it, *but* then won't offer one if he gets in a position to do so.

It is going to be hard for Cameron not to come out the loser on this one unless he offers a post-ratification referendum as he is the only major party leader publicly stating that he opposes the contents of the treaty.

How can you publicly oppose something then do nothing to undo if you come into power without looking dishonest?

[Paul Oakley]

We're not going to get a referendum but all is not lost. Quite the contrary. There are three positions to take on the EU: enthusiastic involvement in the federal project; advocacy of a pick 'n' mix approach; outright withdrawal.

The second of these has never and will never be on the table and the real battle is between the first and third options. Cameron and others have been quite right to highlight the serious anti-democratic nature of the proposed constitution. Those matters will not suddenly become acceptable as and when the treaty is ratified by the UK.

I fully accept that we would not win a referendum on an In/Out question in 2007, not least because the swivel-eyed EUphiles would use the same half-truths and outright lies as they did in '75.

However, we WILL win a referendum on In/Out when the reality of the constitution starts to hurt. So - bring it on!

[passing leftie]

The Global Vision poll was ridiculous. It may as well have been:

1. Do you want to stay in the EU, and accept all the bad things they do?
2. Do you want to stay in the EU, and only accept the good things they do, rejecting all the bad things?
3. Or do you want to leave the EU?

Of course people will choose 2. One poster (anthony scholefield) suggests this answer means that 75% of people are against the EU; I'd say the opposite, only 25% are in favour of leaving. 50% don't like certain things about it, but would rather stay in, 25% would rather leave.

The Tory party and the almost all the print media are out of tune with the public. The public are sceptical of EU but prefer it to the alternative. There is no paper which is pro-EU, whilst 25% of the population are very pro-EU.

[Gloy Plopwell]

We should sign it, and ratify it anyway, even if it is defeated in a referendum.

[Janice Small]

Richard said: "What we need is a new group, staffed, funded and with a brilliant PR team to take the fight to Labour and to win the support of the country. We need to stop the Dad's Army style campaigns favoured by The Sun and make the serious business and economic case on Europe".

He is absolutely right. I approached a number of the backers for IWAR to offer to head up and co-rdinate their campaign but was told it was all too difficult to pull people togeher. No it isn't. Because of the lack of co-ordination the Westminster rally was poorly attended, most were UKIP members with the BNP on the side. It takes a year to organise such a protest - witness the anti-abortion lobby on the same day; the Countryside Alliance, etc.

We cannot give up the fight. As I have said on numerous occasions on this site, I have organised many Pro-Referendum rallies across the south east. The people told us they not only wanted a referendum, but a say on In or Out. The ICM polls bear out the support I got on the streets where, in some places, we had people queuing to sign our petitions. We ignore the electorate at our peril. If we as Conservatives are prepared to take our message to our High Streets on a Saturday afternoon and have UKIP supporters delivering leaflets for us, then we are showing that we are the party that not only listens, we act.

I am not advocating In or Out, that is up to the people to decide. If we don't stick to our principles then the 40% who don't vote may increase as they feel no one listens to them, UKIP may retain some of their seats at the Euro elections and politicians will all be cast in the same damning light.

[Ash Faulkner]

True, but manifestos aren't and never have been binding commitments (should they be? That's a whole other question).
(14:56)

Manifesto commitments are considered important enough that the Lords is bound by convention to accept them.

[Patriot]

""The IWantAReferendum petition has 31,091 signatures at the time of posting. The Telegraph has over 110,000 but broke the 100,000 barrier a couple of months ago and has stalled somewhat since. The Sun lost more than 100,000 sales on the day it launched its campaign against the Treaty. A Westminster lobby on the Treaty was pretty poorly attended.""

It isn't because people don't care. They have learned from experience that this government don't care and don't listen.

What the electorate are aching for is a Conservative party which is promising to correct the wrongs, with details and timescales.

Why sign a petition when you know it's meaningless?

[thaggie]

presumably Dave thinks too much time and political capital will be spent if he promises a post ratification referendum, and he may well be right. so what he should do is obvious -- bring back powers by stealth. it seems that this is what most voters want. sod the constitution.

[Dale]

passing leftie,

There was a poll a while ago that showed the vast majority would vote to leave the eu if it meant taking back control of our borders, how are you going to twist that into evidence that the british people are pro-eu.

[John Leonard]

Passing Leftie: Haven't you passed yet? The number of times you have passed this way any one might think you are a stalker (as well as a fantasist)!!!!

Now to answer the Editors question. Its a pyrrhic victory

With every undemocratic measure Brown imposes on the British people against their will he reduces the likelihood of him ever winning a real mandate.

For every action there is a reaction and this will just make the people demand to be further disassociated from the EU and further entrench the impression of the oppressive nature of Gordon Brown's authoritarian Labour Party.

[voreas06]

"noone has yet brought the significant implications of the Treaty alive for voters."

This is the key, there needed to be greater thought about what implications, for example the ratchet clause could hypothetically have or what effects might closer integration in other areas of policy cause people. Regardless a lesson needs to be learned, it is the EU's aim to keep the concepts as abstract as possible whilst stealthily increasing power. If and when Cameron gets elected he needs to have concrete pledges (fishing, farming, rebate, devolved powers etc)that require EU acceptnce or he will offer the British people a referrendum on associate membership or pulling out of the EU. By having concrete demands any inevitable opposition from Labour or the Lib dems is effectively saying that they support the unfair deal for fishermen, farmers, taxpayers etc, and fairly conclusive proof that the British people are way down the list in comparrison with idealogical desires.

I strongly suspect that in such a scenario, the emergence of a single issue 'give us a referendum' party is very likely and is also likely to attract plenty of funding to make a real impact.
In 1997 the issue of The Maastricht Treaty, big money from James Goldsmith and because UKIP wasn't yet responsible the Referendum Party was able to get going on the issue of the Single Currency.

If the issue has any effect it is likely to be to push up UKIP support and to a lesser extent other parties favouring withdrawal from the EU such as Veritas, English Democrats and the Popular Alliance.

I see no bandwagon for a single issue party - people want something that could have a more permanent effect.

[michael mcgough]

The Irish referendum result is not a given.A wilting economy ,lack of jobs ,disliked government ,
coupled with mass immigration from the EU may focus voter's minds ,whilst there are complications with the possibility of another referendum (on adoption etc)being held on the same day drawing anti EU Catholics to the ballot box whilst the majority of voters stay at home.Sinn Fein are apparently against the treaty but in favour of staying within the EU.They hope to delay a vote until a lot of other states have ratified to give their own vote momentum.With Irish troops set for Chad---if helicopters are available ---the neutrality issue will rear it's head again.
Surely all EUsceptics are Irish now-----with Ryanair what are we waiting for!

[Richard Carey]

.With Irish troops set for Chad---if helicopters are available

I know he's a bit of a pain on here, but that seems a little extreme even for me!

[James Maskell]

The manifesto commitment was to a referendum on the former European Constitution. As much as we may wish it to be, the Lisbon Treaty is not exactly the same as the Constitution. Yes, I know that the European Scrutiny Committe called it "substantially equivalent" but anybody who can read can see its not the same document.

Forget that line of argument. The distinguishing words make all the difference. Lets not forget how the Government dealt with ID Cards over the words in the manifesto when the \Identy Cards Bill was making its way thro9ugh Parliament...

There are plebnty of other arguments that can be used to attack the Treaty and that is the content itself. The manifesto line is a dead end. The ESC and the Foreign Affairs Cmte showed there were plenty of other lines to use, and I feel they are more appropriate.

[Caroline Hope]

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

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

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

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

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