Blair Determined not to give British People a say on new EU Constitution

C0ckney · May 19, 2003, 12:18

Quote:

Blair condemns EU 'scaremongering'

Tony Blair is to meet Valery Giscard d'Estaing for talks about the new European constitution amid growing calls for a referendum on the issue.
Ahead of the meeting, the prime minister's spokesman condemned "hype and scaremongering" from Eurosceptics who fear that the constitution will lead to the loss of more British sovereignty.

But Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said the draft constitution proposed "deep and dangerous changes" to how British people were government adding a referendum was crucial.

He told the British-Swiss Chamber of Commerce in London: "We believe that the people of Britain should have the opportunity to vote on any proposed European Constitution."

Labour MP Frank Field is to table a bill calling for a referendum, arguing that British sovereignty would be ended if the constitution were adopted.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said: "Amidst all the hype of recent days it is easy to lose sight of where the EU is going.

"As Valery Giscard d'Estaing said this is not part of a plot to establish a European superstate but to complete a free Europe."

On areas of tax and foreign affairs Britain would decide its own policy but it made sense to pool efforts when came to issues like crime and the environment, he said.

No tyranny?

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also played down the implications of the proposal which he said was "not about the sacrifice of national civilisations, nor about the imposition of central control".

He argued that the UK would not accept any change that threatened British interests and he pointed out that Mr Ancram had been opposed to a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

"The reality is more prosaic. This is about making an enlarged European Union more efficient and open.

"It is absurd to suggest, as some in Britain and elsewhere do, that the EU 25 will be a tyranny when this wider Europe has been built on tyranny's defeat.

"The British public deserve a higher level of debate than this and we will do all we can to make sure the debates and arguments ahead will respect the public's intelligence."

Mr Field is seeking to increase the pressure for a vote, calling the draft constitution "horrendous" and saying it would spell the end of Britain's sovereignty.

The prime minister's spokesman would not confirm what Mr Blair and Mr Giscard d'Estaing would be discussing.

But Mr Blair was reported to be planning to lay down a set of "red lines" which would mean a British veto if they were crossed.

There are fears the draft could include giving the EU sweeping new powers. Several member states have already said they will hold a referendum, including Ireland, Sweden, Denmark and Spain.

"When it comes to the establishment of a single European state, the people of Britain should have a choice," Mr Field said.

Controversy promised

Mr Field has indicated his private member's bill will be tabled this week. It would then be for the government to allow time in the Commons for it to be debated.

If the government refused, one of the opposition parties could step in and offer some of their time.

The owner of Telegraph newspapers, Lord Black of Crossharbour, said on Sunday supporters of a referendum were not prepared to abandon their struggle.

"If there is anybody in the government who imagines that there is not going to be a serious controversy about whether a referendum is called for on an issue of the importance of the new constitution of Europe, then I can certainly set their minds at ease - there will be a very serious controversy about that," he told BBC Radio 4.

Recent opinion polls have suggested as many as 84% of voters think a referendum should be held before a new constitution is adopted.

A British campaign group, provisionally called Vote 2004, has been set up by a number of Eurosceptics to campaign for a referendum, according to newspaper reports.

i remember a few days ago a government minister was quoted as saying that we shouldn't have one because the british people don't understand the issues, if that's the case then why are the people in so many other countries (including the irish for christ's sake, and they can understand something, anyone can...) being given that chance?

the reason is simple, the british people don't want any more power handed over to europe, which is unaccountable and dominated by france and germany. the government would lose any referendum on the issue, as it will on the euro.

richard littlejohn's view

Whaleboy · May 19, 2003, 12:27

I dont like Blairs presidential style, and think that this is indicative of it again

. I doubt he has a choice though, if he doesnt give a referendum, I very much doubt he will win the next election (assuming it is in this parliament). If he was really shrewed and sneaky, he would force us in just after the next election if he wins. In that case, the next election then becomes the effective referendum.

Euro constituion and the Euro currency are huge issues that must be put to the British people. I dont think he wants to, because of the Euro-sceptism in this nation (especially since Gulf War II), that I dont agree with, but as he is in power, he must respect.

Monk · May 19, 2003, 12:29

There's the saying that if the EU applied for membership in the EU, it would be rejected due to lack of democratic process. I guess the people of the U.K are now supposed to shut up and do as they're told, just like the Germans were. The moral of the story is that you guys are in need of a constitution that puts limits on what the government can do without public approval.

MikeH · May 19, 2003, 12:32

Quoting an article from The Sun to back up your position?

That paper is so rampantly racist that it's embarassing.

They had a front page the other day featuring historical British victories in Europe and trying to suggest that Tony was "surrendering" to Europe. Absolutely terrible.

Read The Sun for lies about footballers and models or pictures of half naked mingers but don't get your politics from there. There are plenty of good anti-Euro arguments without resorting to that crap.

reds4ever · May 19, 2003, 12:33

I perfectly good post ruined by linking to a racist, homophobic w@nker!

MikeH · May 19, 2003, 12:34

Exactly.

reds4ever · May 19, 2003, 12:41

the funny thing with Littlejohn is although he professes to dislike gays, he seems utterly facinated by them, writing about them at every opportunity, if i didn't know better i'd say he's in denial!

MikeH · May 19, 2003, 12:43

Basically he's Boddington's.

gsmoove23 · May 19, 2003, 12:45

But the Page 3 girl is amazing today and the little bit about pasting Clair Short's head to a page 3 girls body is just so supremely clever!

Dauphin · May 19, 2003, 13:11

Any referendums on Europe, the Euro etc are pretty pointless.

1) Most British are prejudiced against Europe from the off (poor metric martyrs, save our bendy bananas!

). So even if the cost/benefit of voting yes on any European issue is neutral we will overwhelmingly vote "No!". We cut our political nose to spite our European face.

2) Most British are clueless about European issues. A Sun poll pointed out 84% of people want a referendum on this EU constitution. At the same time they said 81% of people didn't even know there was a draft constitution to vote on.

3) The truth of the pro and anti arguments for European referenda issues will not see the light of day. Any campaign would turn into a mudslinging of anti-Europeanism bordering on racism versus pro-European misguided Utopianism. The public will end up voting on whether they want to be more xenophobic or more idealistic.

I don't think referenda on Europe are a good thing for the UK, we need to be lead on such issues simply because the populous can not be trusted. What the government needs to do before it ever considers referenda on European issues (or passing bills without referanda) is raise the profile of Europe and its institutions so we have a clue about what we or they are voting on, the context of such a vote, and to dispel all the myths.

Monk · May 19, 2003, 13:52

You raise valid points, crunchy dude, but I don't agree with you. You're right in the sense that the public discussion regarding European involvement won't be on any appropriate level. That's the case here as well, where we've had our share of the "They'll take the queen away from us" arguments.

The primary reason why you still need the public approval is that unlike the usual legislative work, it's virtually impossible to undo EU-related decisions which usually comes down to taking power away from the national parlaments which the Brits can regulate themselves.

Secondly, like you said, the Europeans aren't sufficiently informed about the European Union and what it does but it's my honest opinion that the increased debate that wlill certainly forego the referendum will help to make people understand the importance of the issue as long as not everybody reads tabloid newspapers.

Thirdly - and this is extremely important as well - the people need to have some sort of faith in their politicians to help break down the barricades between the ruling elite and the people who voted them into office. Personally, I'd lose faith in my political system if I lived in Germany and had no say at all on the issue.

Imran Siddiqui · May 19, 2003, 14:20

I agree with Monk... I think for the EU to be viable, you have to give the people a say whether they want to join. I mean this isn't simply an economic arrangement, this affects the politics of ALL joined states. You can't do that without having a refendum!!

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 14:21

I really don't want a referendum on it. I think Big Crunch's figures show what seems obvious, this is a complex issue, that most people do not understand. We have politicians for these reasons, it is their job to understand and act on the basis of that. I think people are prejudiced against Europe. A vote in Parliament would be enough for me. I don't think this is Blair being a President, since it is not just him making this decision. Much as I am growing to dislike him and Straw, I agree with them on this.

Also, it is a good point that we never had a referendum on Maastrict, something a lot more important IMHO.

Quote:

We believe that the people of Britain should have the opportunity to vote on any proposed European Constitution.

They didn't when they were in power.

Quote:

doubt he has a choice though, if he doesnt give a referendum, I very much doubt he will win the next election

I don't think Europe will be a big issue. Like when Hague tried to campaign with "Keep the Pound" and lost, I really don't think the majority of Britain cares. Although saying that, I think so many people just care about what the Sun want's them to care about, so maybe it will be a big thing this time round

DinoDoc · May 19, 2003, 15:23

He seems to have learned his lesson from the Irish debacle. It's best not to give the rabble to much say in the workings of the process because you might not get your favored result.

Edit: After reading the rest of the thread, I'm glad to see Big Crunch defending the absurd notion that people are too stupid to decide important issues such as this.

*End Is Forever* · May 19, 2003, 15:25

Quote:

I think Big Crunch's figures show what seems obvious, this is a complex issue, that most people do not understand.

Hey, why not disregard democracy completely?

Hold on... that's what these proposals are doing anyway!

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 15:31

We have democracy because we elect the people that choose on our behalf. It is not disregading completely, but some issues are to complex for the people to vote on IMHO. Thus the people should elect someone who they agree with, to act on their behalf. Seems logical to me.

*End Is Forever* · May 19, 2003, 15:49

Yes, but we elect people to act within our own democratic boundaries. These proposals fundamentally change those. Would you tolerate MPs voting to set up a one-party state and dictatorship "because they're choosing on our behalf"? Of course not.

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 15:54

You have a point. I don't think these change them that much though. Does anyone have a link that goes into detail about what this constitution is?

Dauphin · May 19, 2003, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Edit: After reading the rest of the thread, I'm glad to see Big Crunch defending the absurd notion that people are too stupid to decide important issues such as this.

Why glad?

Dauphin · May 19, 2003, 16:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
You have a point. I don't think these change them that much though. Does anyone have a link that goes into detail about what this constitution is?

Do like the average voter would on this issue. Vote first, then find out its implications later.

TheStinger · May 20, 2003, 03:44

I can't believe people saying that we shouldn't have a referendum as people are too stupid to decide such complex issues. Why bother having elections after all.

Spiffor · May 20, 2003, 07:13

The European Convention website publishes the draft of the future European constitution. It has it in all languages of the Union IIRC.

Spiffor · May 20, 2003, 07:18

Actually, this constitution doesn't change many things (from what I've read ca two months ago) and the scaremongering of the tories is just that - scaremongering.

The main role of the constitution is to get rid of the mess that are the founding texts of the EU, and to have one constitution that doesn't need a protocolar nightmare to have it amended.

When I've read the drafted articles two months ago, I found this constitution extremely inambitious. I don't think it will bring any significant change except for one thing : It will allow significant change to take place in the future.

By the way, I'm all for a referendum on it, after a real information campaign, so that people know what it is about (so that scaremongers aren't the only ones present on the issue). And I want this referendum to be Europewide, not nationwide. I think it is absurd to have nationwide referenda on an issue that is a common one, common to all Europeans.

MikeH · May 20, 2003, 07:23

Quote:

Originally posted by *End Is Forever* Hey, why not disregard democracy completely?

Hold on... that's what these proposals are doing anyway!

The Conservatives had one issue to campaign on last election, Keep the Pound. They got absolutely slaughtered.

I'd be all in favour of a referendum but clearly it could never be fair with the amount of tabloid lies about Europe the public would be subjected to, to say nothing of the rampant racism.

Worthingtons · May 20, 2003, 07:24

I see Mike is bodd bashing again, shame he doesnt like people with different views to his own.

Anyway, If there is a referendum about 95% of the country will vote NO to Europe, and even that is probably an understatement. We do not want Europe, and we dont want the Euro either. While there may not be significant changes, it's a slippery slope and the people need to be given the chance to stop of from sliding down it NOW.

The only such merger I would agree to is if we Joined the USA.

Worthingtons · May 20, 2003, 07:26

And can you just try and leave Racism out of this thread now Mike, since the issue is Europe, and not the Racism of various tabloids.

TheStinger · May 20, 2003, 07:30

Well I don't think statement like 95% of the UK don't want europe help the cause of people who are in favour of close ties with europe but on a very differnt basis to the set up we have now.

MikeH · May 20, 2003, 07:31

You clearly don't know me very well. I actually like Boddies, I just don't agree with him about most things. I'm quite happy for people to have different opinions to me, doesn't affect me being friends with them.

I don't think you can have a referendum without the media influencing voters therefore it's a relevant point.

TheStinger · May 20, 2003, 07:34

I would prefer to debate europe ont he issues rather than just insulting the French ( I can do that anyway)

MikeH · May 20, 2003, 07:40

I also don't agree that it's 95% of Brits that don't want to be closer to Europe. In fact the numbers opposed to the Euro are 58%.

http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/sw030508.shtml

Which is still clearly a majority against but nowhere near 95%. I'm pretty sure a lot of those against would change if Europe was more democratic.