Should a referendum be held on EU treaty?

Oct 9 2007 by Liza Williams, Liverpool Daily Post

Support for a vote on reform in Europe is growing. Liza Williams reports

A NORTH West campaign has renewed calls for a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty, which they say will bring in legal and constitutional changes for the British people through the back door.

The ‘I want a referendum’ (IWR) campaign, made up of a cross- party group of MPs, has been marshalling support and planning stunts in the region to gain support for a public vote.

The Government claims a referendum on the treaty is not needed as it has secured control over human and social rights, foreign policy, tax and benefits.

And Prime Minister Gordon Brown says Britain will not sign up to the Treaty – which includes parts of the old EU constitution rejected by French and Dutch referendums in 2005 – if certain targets or “red lines” are not met.

The Government had previously promised a referendum in Britain on the old constitution and the Conservatives, Lib-Dems, UKIP and some Labour MPs say one is still needed as much of the old constitution is in the treaty.

Eurosceptics are concerned Britain would lose the power to make decisions, surrendering it to Europe.

Mr Brown says constitutional change cannot be ruled out if the treaty is passed but that Government negotiations have meant there are several “opt outs” in the field of justice and home affairs, giving Britain more freedom.

The UK has secured a written guarantee that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, included in the treaty, cannot be used to alter British labour law, or other laws that deal with social rights. However experts are divided on how effective this will be.

A draft of the treaty was finalised last week and it could be agreed at an EU summit in Portugal on October 18-19.

Today we ask, should the UK have a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty?

lizawilliams@dailypost.co.uk

NO: The Case Against - Mythical European super-state is off the table

by Jim Murphy, Europe minister

WE DID indeed promise a referendum on the old Constitutional Treaty. But the Reform Treaty is not a Constitution.

In June, all 27 leaders of the member states of the European Union took the same view, declaring "the constitutional concept has been abandoned".

Nine EU member states either held referenda on the old constitutional treaty, or were planning to do so. But only Ireland intends to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty because it is required to do so on any EU treaty.

On September 17, José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, made it crystal clear that "the treaty, including the hard-fought UK red lines, is not the constitution".

Some may discount the significance of the removal of the EU flag and anthem and title of foreign minister, but these are another clear sign that the UK’s vision of a Europe of sovereign states has won out.

Eurosceptics ought to be celebrating the fact that the mythical "European super- state" is off the table.

There are also significant changes in both form and substance that make the Reform Treaty an entirely different proposition to the old Constitutional Treaty.

Where the old Constitutional Treaty sought to re-found the EU on a new basis, superseding all previous EU treaties, the Reform Treaty is an amending treaty, like the Single European Act, Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties.

These amending treaties, far more fundamental to our relationship to the EU, were decided in Parliament without referenda, under Prime Ministers Thatcher, Major and Blair.

The new reform treaty is a very different deal for the UK to what the old constitution would have been, had it ever entered into force.

The Reform Treaty confirms we will continue to control our foreign and defence policies. The constitution didn’t spell this out.

A modest external action service is proposed, but this is a long way from an "EU diplomatic service", and does not affect the diplomatic services of EU member states.

Under the treaty, the UK can pick and choose when it wants to take part in EU co-operation on policing and criminal justice.

And it gives us an effective veto on social security. The constitution wouldn’t have let us do either of these.

A new legally binding protocol puts beyond doubt how the charter of fundamental rights will apply to UK laws and measures, and in particular labour and social articles.

It guarantees nothing in the charter extends the ability of any court, European or domestic, to strike down UK law. The constitution didn’t have this protocol.

EU institutions will be obliged to consult with national parliaments on draft laws. If one third consider a proposal goes against the principle of subsidiarity, it must be reviewed.

If half of them oppose, it may even be struck down.

Finally the treaty states national security is the sole responsibility of national governments.

These are not cosmetic changes. They represent a change of emphasis. EU leaders recognised that EU voters didn’t want something with the trappings of a constitution. They wanted delivery.

The government had promised a referendum on the constitution. That was the right thing to do given the constitutional nature of that text. But these changes mean we simply do not need one on the treaty.

I am confident Parliament will fully exercise its responsibility to scrutinise the Government throughout the whole process.

YES: The Case For - Refusal to give us a say is deeply dishonest process

by Birkenhead MP Frank Field, board member of the Iwantareferendum.com campaign

THERE is a widespread feeling among most British voters that the EU has a powerful and almost uncontrollable influence on our everyday lives. In fact, although many people are not aware, issues as varied as fortnightly bin collections, Home Information Packs and the number of hours we are allowed to work are all now decided by EU politicians. It is estimated that four out of every five national laws now originate in Brussels.

When, in 2005, the government decided the UK public should have a vote in a national referendum it rightly promised to let them have the final say on whether they wanted even more decisions to be taken by the EU. This pledge was in the 2005 Labour Party manifesto which all Labour MPs were elected on. Despite this, Gordon Brown is now trying to go back on his word.

Britain never got the chance to vote: the Constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters before our turn came around. But EU leaders refused to listen. They are now trying to reintroduce the rejected constitution in the form of a new treaty. Although they have changed the name, the contents are almost exactly the same. This is a deeply dishonest process.

As the author of the constitution, former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, has said: "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

If Gordon Brown allows this process to continue and refuses to keep his promise to give voters a say, I worry that it will only increase the growing gap of cynicism between the public and politicians.

The revised constitution deserves a vote because it would give the EU even more control over our daily lives on issues as fundamental as crime, immig- ration, and public services like schools and hospitals. More and more decisions would be taken by unelected foreign politicians who we are unable to throw out at election time if we disagree with them.

The Constitutional Treaty would give the EU considerable new powers over crime, policing and the law courts. EU judges would become the highest avenue of appeal, which could lead to them making decisions on important issues such as how long we should lock up our most dangerous criminals for. The EU would gain far more control over our immigration policy and EU judges would also gain substantial new powers to determine the rights of migrants. Do voters really want more rulings like the recent Chindamo case, in which EU law prevented the Government from deporting the murderer of school headmaster Philip Lawrence?

Even seemingly non-political issues such as football could come under the EU's control. Because the Constitution would abolish the national veto - our right to say no - in over 60 areas the British Government could be forced to accept unpopular new proposals such as the plan to impose salary and transfer spending caps on Premiership football clubs.

Whether you agree with these proposals or not it is clear that they will be a big change to the way we are governed. I believe that if politicians want to give away powers to Europe that voters have only lent them in the first place, the people should be consulted.

Gordon Brown has already made high-profile and popular U- turns on super-casinos and cannabis. If we are going to persuade him that he needs to do the same on the EU Constitution, then we need to gather as much support as possible. If you want your voice to be heard, please sign up to support our campaign at www.iwantareferendum.com