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.

[Bill]

I want a referendum.

PS

Isn't a word missing from the first line last paragraph of this letter; "time" perhaps.

[Lapse Member]

Why on earth does anyone bother with John Bercow? He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a self-serving opportunist who is equally bereft of brainpower as he is principles.

Unfortunately, he appears to have the ear of an equally unprincipled and ambitioious character.

[Ephraim Gadsby]

Are you implying a majority would introduce Sharia law though?

Not right now they wouldn't, I'm sure - but my point is, introduce a culture of holding referendums on every issue and we open a Pandora's box - one day, with changes in the ethnic and religious balance in the population... it could happen.

Even today there are enough people ignorant enough to support the reintroduction of the death penalty - never mind the moral repugnance of a punishment which can never be revoked, even if the person is subsequently found not guilty (Timothy Evans, et al), it's nothing short of government by kneejerk, mob mentality. Thank God these people do not legislate for us; MPs do.

[christina speight]

Ephraim Gadsby - Because I wrote "you don't seem keen on your promises either. Shame on you" you don't seem to understand what this thread is all about.

You have consistently throughout this thread belittled the idea that an MP should keep his promises. You are therefore belittling the importance of promises and thus causing the rift between people and politicians which is wrecking the political life of this country .
'You chuck trust out of the window, so I repeat -Shame on you

[Praguetory]

Can someone get that handwriting analysed a l'Osborne?

[Ash Faulkner]

"Even today there are enough people ignorant enough to support the reintroduction of the death penalty - never mind the moral repugnance of a punishment which can never be revoked, even if the person is subsequently found not guilty (Timothy Evans, et al), it's nothing short of government by kneejerk, mob mentality. Thank God these people do not legislate for us; MPs do."

So let me get this straight. Because you disagree with the death penality, the British people should be forbidden from having any say over it? Are you going to forbid candidates that support capital punishment? Take away the votes of those that do?

How exactly do you think MPs are chosen? The 'mob mentality' you talk of does exist, but the last time I looked 'knee jerk' ignoramouses were not the only ones allowed to vote. You are basically trumpeting the rule of a 'moral' oligarchy. The way you 'thank God' for our benevolent rulers worries me. In my view, to have a handful of politicians and bureaucrats sending out orders from the Westminster bubble is the worst possible way to run a country. People who make a career out of politics are not good, and they are certainly nothing we should thank God for.

In any case, of course this doesn't open a precedent. It is a referendum on a constitutional matter. It does not follow that there would be referenda on crime or abortion or the environment.

[Ephraim Gadsby]

You have consistently throughout this thread belittled the idea that an MP should keep his promises.

No I have not. It's not that I don't think MPs should keep promises they make - I think they should - but I think they shouldn't make (a) meaningless promises as a political gesture, or (b) promises they will not - or cannot, due to factors beyond their control - keep. The ridiculous referendum promise falls into both of the above categories, as was rightly identified at the time by Ken Clarke and others.

You are therefore belittling the importance of promises and thus causing the rift between people and politicians which is wrecking the political life of this country
The thing most likely to cause a rift between people and politicians and wreck the political life of this country is using referendums to take away the power of politicians to think and act as they judge best, and instead put them in hock to fanatics, special interest groups, tabloid newspapers and billionaire businessmen.

[Sean Fear]

Eprhaim Gadsby (not that that's your real name) I suppose you think we should be grateful we get the opportunity to vote at all for these intellectual and moral titans, who are able to determine things, that we, the Great Unwashed, are far too stupid to understand.

Perhaps the best course of all would be if wise, intelligent, europhile left wingers like you just legislated on our behalf, without the need for any ignorant popular involvement in the process at all.

[Jeff]

As one of the traitor Bercow's constituents, I wish he would just get on with leaving the Tory party in favour of NuLabour, and give the voters the opportunity to have a Conservative again. Typical career politician, he should be keeping second hand car salesmen company. The local Association have never found it necessary to explain why they selected him in the usual behind closed doors huddle.

[John Scott]

I just want to record that I agree with John Bercow's views about referenda in general, and the Lisbon Treaty in particular. We live in a Parliamentary democracy and Conservatives should support the supremacy of Parliament, not undermine it. Whilst much of David Cameron's modernising agenda is to be welcomed, undermining Parliament is a step too far in my view.

Having read much of the recent debates in the Commons on the Treaty, there is little that the Conservative Party opposes in principle about this Treaty - the main disagreement is that there isn't a referendum. Our position is hugely undermined by the fact that we didn't give the country a referendum on the Single European Act or Maastricht - points that most voters understand.

[Malcolm Dunn]

But John Scott, I think most Conservatives would recognise that our failure to give the country a referendum on the Single European Act or Maastricht was a huge mistake. It was bad for the party and very bad for the country.
As regards the Lisbon Treaty itself. You claim that there is little the Conservative Party opposes. Are you writing this with a straight face? Honestly? Or you having a laugh? Or do you like Brown and Clegg take the people for complete and utter fools? You may have noticed that there has been absolutely no attempt by anybody at all to sell the benefits of this treaty to the British people. Why do you think that is? I'll give you three guesses.
In the 1990's this issue would have split the party badly. Now we see that there are only five Europhile MPs who are willing to put their heads above the parapet. All ageing,all yesterdays men, all seeing out their time with absolutely no ambition to achieve anything constructive.
That I think sums up the current Conservative party rather well. Overwhelmingly united now, but with a few old relics,increasingly irrelevant, powerless people who hark back to the party of the 1970's.

[Pots&Kettles]

Now we see that there are only five Europhile MPs who are willing to put their heads above the parapet. All ageing,all yesterdays (sic) men, all seeing out their time with absolutely no ambition to achieve anything constructive"

Pots and kettles, Dunn?

[christina speight]

Ephraim Gadsby @2017- " It's not that I don't think MPs should keep promises they make - I think they should", But everything you have written supports Bercow breaking his promise. You are not not only incoherent but unprincipled too. As for your idea that the people don't want a referendum to stop their MPs making all the decisions when 10 constituency referendums turned out more people than in in euro elections and local elections to demand one! There's lack of logic for you!

And John Scott @2208- The fact that we didn't have referendums earlier but demand one now is because we've learned a thing or two about the EU since Maastricht. But at the end of the day we promised a referendum now as did Labour and the LibDems. The latter two have broken their promises but the Tories to their credit along with all the small parties want to keep their promises.

I believe a promise should be kept. Why don't YOU?

[Johnthedewk]

I have trawled all the way down this thread and "listened to the debate". But all the points being made are what I would regard as 'Political'. The issue from John Bercow's viewpoint is 'Constitutional' - that sovereignty lies with the elected representatives at Westminster. Whatever you may think about the messenger, that's not the reason to shoot him but see if his case stands up.
It has recently been established that the electorate is sovereign and this authority is handed to the winning candidate at a General Election to be handed back IN TACT when the next one is called. Also that Parliament cannot bind itself or its successors! Ergo Bercow is wrong in law. It is only by a Referendum that the electorate may surrender its sovereignty.
The Lisbon Treaty will, and its forerunners did hand power to a different authority therefore depriving the electorate of its.
Things like the death penalty to not diminish the sovereignty of the electorate because if the vote is lost the matter can be pursued again and if won overturned.
I would argue that on this basis we should have a Referendum on any Pension Reform as any settlement is intended to endure over a number of Parliaments. But issues that are not of this nature are not suitable for referenda. MPs can make the judgement and suffer the consequences at the next election.
As for the issue being too complicated for the electorate, so are issues at a General Election yet we hold them. But in this case Parliament will have scrutinised and maybe amended the Treaty. Then the issue will be put to the People to "take it or leave it". This is not removing MPs from the decision making process and handing it to a lynch jury!
But this Treaty is different from its predecessors! Treaties applicable to the UK will be able to be agreed without the say so of the monarch. Does this not usurp the authority of the crown contrary to the solemn Coronation Oath?

[John Scott]

I think if people actually read the debates that are happening virtually every day in the Commons we are actually dancing on the head of a pin, trying to find things to oppose in the Treaty for the sake of it.

It was a mistake to promise a referendum in the first place. We elect a Parliament to make laws in the UK. If we do not like the laws that are passed we can get rid of our MPs at the next election. It's a fundamental feature of our democratic feature and just because we are now all Eurosceptics (unlike in Margaret Thatcher's day when we all supported the Single European Act) doesn't mean we should ditch constitutional conventions.

With respect to why we are calling for a referendum now - I think, with respect to the earnest reasons put forward here, it is to do with the fact that we are in opposition, and not government. That is why Cameron sits firmly on the fence when asked if he would hold a post-ratification referendum.

It is also why, when you are a million miles from government, you can propose things like EPP withdrawal to keep the grassroots in your own party happy. But the closer you get to actually wielding power, deeper considerations are made (such as the UK's international reputation), meetings are convened and such proposals are quietly put into the long grass.

It is the difference between opposition and government and this board, sometimes, is a very good reflection of a party in opposition - angry, tactical, keen to oppose - but lacking the strategic vision, subtelties and compromises we will HAVE to make when we get back into power.

[Boris]

Quote from post above - "We elect a Parliament to make laws in the UK. If we do not like the laws that are passed we can get rid of our MPs at the next election. It's a fundamental feature of our democratic feature and just because we are now all Eurosceptics (unlike in Margaret Thatcher's day when we all supported the Single European Act) doesn't mean we should ditch constitutional conventions."

But the point is that the UK Government hardly makes any laws anymore, they are all inflicted upon us from Brussels - whom we can't vote out!

[Malcolm Dunn]

OK, John Scott as it seems you were arguing for our party to renege on its promise to hold a referendum with a straight face I'd be grateful if you could tell us which parts of that treaty will benefit Britain? Not the EU but Britain .

[James Maskell]

Some here are still arguing that the similarities between the Constitution and the Reform treaty are so small that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is the referendum to which we were promised before. But we werent. In fact all three parties are breaking their manifesto commitments.

Tories-"We oppose the EU Constitution and would give the British people the chance to reject its provisions in a referendum within six months of the General Election." The Tories pledged a referendum on the provisions of the EU Constitution, not any Treaty after it or resulting from the rejection of the Constitution.

Labour- "The new
Constitutional Treaty...It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe." So Labour promised a referendum on the EU Constitution and not on any Treaty resulting from it.

Lib Dems-"We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest – but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people." Again, a pledge on the EU Constitution only.

It seems pretty irrelevant then as to the similarities between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty since no party pledged a referendum on this Lisbon Treaty. If the parties had pledged referenda on Treaties made, say within the EU, then of course they are bound by their own manifesto commitments. But they didnt. The Tories have made it a policy since the 2005 election but that commitment obviously doesnt act retrospectively.

The far better line of attack is on the provisions the Lisbon Treaty makes and the powers that it removed from Britains control. The Lisbon Treaty rightly deserves to be ratified by public referendum, but I dont buy the line that is being peddled here. The Lisbon Treaty should require a referendum in its own right rather than its similarity to the failed Constitution which is not in front of us anymore.

[Ephraim Gadsby]

As someone who wasted several hours of my life I'll never see again arguing on here with people determined either to ignore my points or to misrepresent them, I didn't want to come back into this argument...

However, I just have to say: John Scott - I agree with every word, you are spot on about both the constitutional implications of having a referendum and the treaty itself. I was trying to make some of the same arguments but allowed myself to get sidetracked by insults; you have done it more eloquently, so thank you for showing me I'm not alone.

[John Scott]

The difference in law between the Constitution and Treaty is that the Constitution would have abolished all existing Treaties and effectively started again under a new framework. Lisbon more closely mirrors Amsterdam and Maastricht - it amends the original founding Treaty which was enacted by Parliament.

Malcolm - you ask how the Treaty benefits Britain specifically. I could talk in general terms, but very specifically there is a new protocol in the Lisbon Treaty that guarantees that nothing in the Charter of Rights extends the ability of any court to strike down UK law. That was a specific win included in the Treaty that benefits the UK directly.

[John Scott]

Ephraim Gadsby: You are not alone and I predict that, as we move towards Government, sanity will prevail on the EU and many other matters.

[Malcolm Dunn]

So how does this Treaty benefit Britain John? You haven't answered the question.

[John Scott]

My goodness Malcolm, I have just given you a specific example of how Britain is protected by this treaty. I believe the treaty is good for Britain because it strealines voting procedures, ends the madness of the six month rotating presidency with wildly conflicting priorities being pursued and actually puts the UK's position on climate change firmly in the Treaty.

But presumably Malcolm you disagree with all this?

[Malcolm Dunn]

I aked you how this treaty would benefit Britain not the EU Britain.And you haven't given me a single reason.Britain hasn't actually gained anything through the charter of rights nor does it gain anything from streamlining voting procedures or through the ending of a rotating presidency. These procedural changes make the EU easier to govern I grant you but I'm not asking how this treaty benefits an EU beaurocrat but a Briton.
In return for these procedural changes we are being asked to give up our competency to manage our affairs in numerous areas. Would you care for me to list them?
Regarding your assertion re climate change. I would suggest that that is a very moot point. What is Britain's position in your opinion? And how does it differ from anyone else in the EU?
You are very keen to deny the British people a democratic vote and to support all the political parties in reneging on promises made to the people in 2004/5. There must be very major benefits to the British people for us to agree to this mustn't there?

[christina speight]

John Scott @1059 So you approve of us giving up our veto in 60 new areas and call it "streamlining". Hmm?
And you like a President unelected by any voter anywhere it seems of up to 5 years. That sounds like the beginnings of an unelected dictatorship to me.

As for Climate Change - the whole Global Warming idea is now proved bunkum with the coldest winter in both hemispheres for half a century and record polar ice . So to entrench a bartty policy is no reason to approve this treaty.

Malcolm Dunn is 100% right so you, John, lose the argument on all counts.

[Ephraim Gadsby]

These procedural changes make the EU easier to govern I grant you but I'm not asking how this treaty benefits an EU beaurocrat but a Briton.

Malcolm Dunn, if you can't see how making the EU easier to govern benefits everyone in Britain, then there really isn't much point arguing with you any further.

John Scott - we're banging our heads against a brick wall here. These people are never going to see reason and will twist any counter argument from those of us who attempt to explain our point of view. Thankfully they are not - whatever they may think - representative of most normal people.

This is my last post on this thread, so Malcolm, Christina and others you can jabber away your anti-EU nonsense (and anti-global warming, and any other silly conspiracy hobby horses you care to ride) to your hearts' content without further interruption from me.

[Mari]

The guy is so weird anyway, he should leave politics. He is one of the rudest MPs ever-I am in an office near to him and he never says hello or smiles or anything. The public were promised a referendum, it is as simple as that.

[Malcolm Dunn]

No Ephraim Gadsby, I can't see how making the EU easier to govern benfits everyone in Britain. Neither of course can our government who like to boast about every opt out or red line they manage to secure.
Bye then. I'd like to say it's been a pleasure debating with you but sadly I can't. Presenting bald assertions as fact is hardly debating is it?

[John Scott]

Malcolm - the difference on climate change is critical. The EU approach has been to regulate and tax rather than use market mechanisms. The EU emissions trading system hasn't been particularly successful.

The UK position, which is now gaining ground in the EU, is to create a carbon trading scheme and, fingers crossed, London could host this. It will be a global platform for trading carbon and reducing emissions. This is a market approach.

Malcolm and Christina - you are Conservatives who best sum up our Party's "Opposition Years". You can see nothing positive in the EU or wider world, deny climate change and wear blinkers. Fortunately, your influence is diminishing so I am not ashamed to say that it is you who have lost - if not the argument on this thread - then certainly the debate in the country.

[Malcolm Dunn]

John, thank you for the information on the climate change aspect of the Lisbon treaty. You are right that the emissions trading system has not been successful. The EU as a whole has seen its carbon emmissions grow since Kyoto which has severely limited its moral authority on the subject.
You are either mistaken about my attitude toward (man made) climate change or more likely just made it up. I have had many debates with the Editor of this blog and others on this subject. I think I've always been honest about my beliefs and not tried to invent facts to suit my case.
Regarding the EU I believe Britain pays far too high a price for membership of this club. I would like to see a rational debate in this country about our membership and would campaign for a much looser relationship based purely on trade.Should that not be achievable then I believe Britain should seek to withdraw.
Regarding the Conservative Party I again feel I have the facts on my side and have no need to invent them.
Every poll on the subject suggest that Britons favour a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The results published by the IWAR group not only confirm this but give a very strong indication as to the likely result of the vote.
Within the parliamentary party it is significant that only 5 MPs have argued against a referendum and scores of others have been campaigning for months for it.
Far from losing an argument the facts seem to indicate that we are winning. Perhaps you don't like the 'facts' to get in the way of a good smear.
Congratulations though on having the courage to blog under what I assume is your real name.

[christina speight]

John Scott - Your bland dismissal of any critic ism of the EU speaks volumes and you utterly fail to answer my criticisms but friom a nose-in-the-air stance just dismiss them.

How can you possibly justify an unelected president??? The Americans spend a lot of time get their democracy in order. Every single referendum on the EU in any country has resulted in a defeat for the EU (until the naughty boys are told to vote again).

You don't bother to answer the facts on the greatest scare "con" for years - Global Warming. We need CO2 to live and so do the plants and CO2 is the only thing thats Earth turning into a giant snowball as could happen in the cooling which is under way. But NO you arrogantly ignore the argument. Ye Gods - What conceit!

YOU've lost ther argument because you won't en gage in one, because you can't.

The EU is akin in structure to the USSR and is steadily getting LESS democratic. But you're not interested in that, just you don't care that the Constitution would deprive us of power to order our own lives in 60 new areas.

You ought to be ashamed to hold such autocratic - nay bureaucratic views.

[John Broughton]

John Scott

Your understanding of the "opposition years" is perverse. Major (and others) created the problem when they insisted on entry into ERM. Black Wednesday is portrayed as the pivotal reason for the party's decline. However that Wednesday was a partial release from the dead hand of bureaucratic intervention and allowed the "economic miracle" which has sustained Brown since '97.

Our tragedy is that Brown is about to cede most of what remains of our independance economic, personal and fiscal to Brussels with the potential impoverishment of this country as the most likely outcome.

How anybody who calls themselves a conservative can seek to give away self governance is a mystery beyond comprehension.