Last word (for now) on the referendum issue I posted on on Friday - thanks for all the comments and particularly Bob, Bill & Tom who did indeed give another slant on the issue (although Tom's still looking into it).
Bob to his credit supports a referendum although can't resist pointing out that the Conservatives haven't always done so. Only riposte to this is that on those occasions public hostility wasn't anywhere near as pronounced and well understood as it is now so Gordon's contempt for public opinion still strikes me as more marked than Heath / Thatcher or Major's was. Having said that I have no reason to believe the any of that lot would have been more inclined to a referendum even if there had been such anger. Skipper sets out the pro's & con's and comes down (only just) against a referendum largely because of wholly justified concerns about how the debate would actually pan out in the country (see comment thread). Although I agree that the Murdoch press would completely distort the debate I differ from Bill in that I don't think that' sufficient reason to duck having it. A few final observations...
Without a doubt the most powerful argument against a referendum is the 'representative democracy' angle and it's one the sadly missed Hughes Views points out in the comments below. In this instance though that argument sort of 'eats itself' for the following reason:
Final word on that promise and this was hinted at in Saturday's Guardian leader - in purely political terms Tony Blair need never have made it. It was clearly a panic measure because Labour were unsure how much electoral traction the Europe issue was going to have but I suspect they would've have won without it even if the majority was a little slimmer. If that promise had never been made then the case for a referendum now wouldn't stack up for precisely the reasons set out above. However, it was so there should be a referendum.
Bob to his credit supports a referendum although can't resist pointing out that the Conservatives haven't always done so. Only riposte to this is that on those occasions public hostility wasn't anywhere near as pronounced and well understood as it is now so Gordon's contempt for public opinion still strikes me as more marked than Heath / Thatcher or Major's was. Having said that I have no reason to believe the any of that lot would have been more inclined to a referendum even if there had been such anger. Skipper sets out the pro's & con's and comes down (only just) against a referendum largely because of wholly justified concerns about how the debate would actually pan out in the country (see comment thread). Although I agree that the Murdoch press would completely distort the debate I differ from Bill in that I don't think that' sufficient reason to duck having it. A few final observations...
Without a doubt the most powerful argument against a referendum is the 'representative democracy' angle and it's one the sadly missed Hughes Views points out in the comments below. In this instance though that argument sort of 'eats itself' for the following reason:
- Europe is a complex issue - too complex for most lay people to understand. That's why we elect politicians to navigate their way around these issues
- At election times politicians make plain their intentions and general principles so we can elect those we think best capable of representing our interests.
- At the last election Labour promised a referendum on the EU Constitutional treaty, not the Reform treaty.
Final word on that promise and this was hinted at in Saturday's Guardian leader - in purely political terms Tony Blair need never have made it. It was clearly a panic measure because Labour were unsure how much electoral traction the Europe issue was going to have but I suspect they would've have won without it even if the majority was a little slimmer. If that promise had never been made then the case for a referendum now wouldn't stack up for precisely the reasons set out above. However, it was so there should be a referendum.
Labels: Politics
8 Comments:
Liam, the promise was made but the Brown/Blair argument is that the opt outs significantly change the contract in the promise.
I hear what they say, but don't agree. I still maintain though that the absolutely gut wrenching hypocrisy of the likes of David Davis - a Tory whip who twisted the arms of Tory rebels to force them through the lobbies on Maastricht, a far more contentious transfer of sovereignty even if as you say less controversial - in now calling for a referendum, is simply breathtaking.
Those Conservative Maastricht rebels were physically abused, spat at in the division lobby and disciplined by their party... and now the self same smug bastard wants a referendum. I almost feel like opposing the referendum for him alone, but I wouldn't crawl to the same level of political opportunism.
As you can tell... I feel strongly about this.
On representative Government as I recently blogged :
Polly filler is another Wittgenstein acolyte. In her recent Guardian article she argued that in view of the complexity of the agreement this was... “ ..the stuff of representative government” . In other words we mere mortals are just to thick to know which way to vote. Clearly she would be horrified at the thought of an untutored electorate taking a mallet to 300 years of Constitutional refinement by entering the Common Market in 1972 . Well no actually , she considers us to have been amply endowed with the requisite perspicacity for that task.
So much for that crapola
Bob` feelings have clouded his mind and his feelings are in fact panic that two months of lying will finish off this period of Labour hegemony as it did the previous Conservative one . Firstly the referendum was never offered on the basis that there was a profound change in sovereignty which was not admitted by the Labour Party,
This is what B Liar had to say in 2004
“( a Press campaign) ...it is all nonsense , myth, designed to distance people’s understanding of what Europe is truly about and loosen this country’s belief in its place in Europe ...It is right to confront this campaign head on”.
The red lines were there at the time . Bob is talking nonsense here as Gisella Stewart would be quick to point out. The referendum reflected suspicion that our elected representatives were exceeding their mandate by giving away the rights of future governments . The realisation of what has been going on has only slowly gained traction since we agreed to join a customs Union .
At the time of Maastricht the only opposition was within the Conservative Party. Not Labour or the Liberals (who also by the way promised a referendum this time ...another bunch of liars ). The Conservative Party were way ahead of the country . The country has caught up and Euro-scepticism is the fixed view of 70% and most Conservatives . This is an entirely different political situation and in any case if Maastricht was so significant all the more reason for a referendum now. There is no doubt that parts of the Conservative Party did get the EU wrong . I imagine the main opposition to it , from the left( in the 70s) , who are now so keen , might similarly wish to revaluate their previous positions. Sowhat.
. Of course we need a referendum and in the words of Anthony Blair “Let the issue be out , let battle be joined”
You will find Mr. Piper a little less matey over the next month or two. It ios the defining period for Gordon brown and he has trapped himself by his own preference for mendacity and cowardice .
What price a safe seat for Quentin Davies now?
The normal puddled thinking from Newmania. The Conservatives demand a referendum now, but didn't have one because Labour didn't call for one? Is he real?
I have no idea why the boy thinks I will be less 'matey' over the next few months. Labour will rule for at least another two years, and if after 10 years in opposition the highlight of Mr Newmania's ambition is to be 3% ahead in the opinion polls (which wouldn't be enough to allow the Tories to form a Government) in the afterglow of their most successful conference in living memory... whew... we're shaking in our seeds.
The Conservative Party is largely an outdated concept. It has had its day and the boy Cameron will finally lead them off the plank. Go back to your consituency and prepare to be a dwindling opposition.
Fortunately, though, I don't swallow everything Labour say as if it were the holy grail. Newmania would be a healthier and brighter boy if he tried to do the same and extract his tongue from the Tory leadership rectum.
TrNySt Very good blog! Thanks!
3FCFf4 actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Good job!
Hello all!
Thanks to author.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home