NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's assume the EU parliament wants to give EU a Constitution. Do you think that it should be approved by a popular pan-EU referendum? Or is the current system (parliamentary ratification, at least in most EU country, that is) enough?

Poll splitted per geographical area of voter.
Non-EU left intentionally out of the poll... it's more important what the EU citizens think. Non-EU posters are welcome, of course!

Poll splitted per geographical area. (coming)

but not quick enough (in before the poll) :p




Non-EU left intentionally out of the poll... it's more important what the EU citizens think.No fair, I wanted to be able to vote:(

No fair, I wanted to be able to vote:(

I'm an eurotyrant! :D

Looking back at the Dutch referendum I have my doubts.
First of all the whole government campaign calling on us to vote was not really impartial, showing happy laughing European children and glorifications of the wonderful document. When the population said no, the government implied it was because people were ignorant and afraid of giving up their national identity.

In truth however many nay-sayers just disliked this constitution. But that interpretation of the results seemed to be unacceptable.

So it all boils down to.. what will the governments do with the results ?

Looking back at the Dutch referendum I have my doubts.
First of all the whole government campaign calling on us to vote was not really impartial, showing happy laughing European children and glorifications of the wonderful document. When the population said no, the government implied it was because people were ignorant and afraid of giving up their national identity.

In truth however many nay-sayers just disliked this constitution. But that interpretation of the results seemed to be unacceptable.

So it all boils down to.. what will the governments do with the results ?

Exactly, i voted against that constitution precisely because there was a lot of junk in that document that didnt belong in a constitution at all.

I want another referendum damnit ! Hear my voice politicians ! I'm one of those guys paying your salary !

It doesn't matter. Ireland voted no to the Nice Treaty and their government simply re-ran it again.

Looks like they'll keep putting the question to you until you give them the right answer.

Exactly, i voted against that constitution precisely because there was a lot of junk in that document that didnt belong in a constitution at all.

I want another referendum damnit ! Hear my voice politicians ! I'm one of those guys paying your salary !

Yes ! Give us a constitution ! Something that inspires, provides goals and is worth defending !

Not a bunch of loosely connected treaties in complex legal lingo.

Yes ! Give us a constitution ! Something that inspires, provides goals and is worth defending !

Not a bunch of loosely connected treaties in complex legal lingo.

<starts making pro-referendum signs>

Yeah baby ! Citizen participation !

Neither, since neither side actually wants a referendum. The side supporting a referendum wants it to be rejected, and the side supporting parliamentary ratification want it ratified. If the British government had opposed the treaty or polls supported a majority in favour, there would be no referendum demands, except possibly from parties supporting the treaty. I can't throw my lot in with either a government goign back on its manifesto commitments or the most disengenuous gang of charlatans pushing their agenda in the name of democracy.

Lose-lose situation. The same applies to any treaty/constitution.

Referanda aren't allowed in Belgium. They don't want the people to speak out.:(

Yes ! Give us a constitution ! Something that inspires, provides goals and is worth defending !
I do think that the EU needa a single defining legal document that can be amended rather than a mess of overlapping treaties that end up with messy deals to get a unanamous decision.

In Britain, we have a parliamentary democracy and there is no constitutional need for a referendum. MPs are the people to vote on international treaties, and a referendum will set a dangerous precedent. Referenda are, as Attlee said, "just not British".

On a non-constitutional note, MPs also have an expertise the voting public lack. The EU is not a simple organisation, and its treaties are far from easy to read. The decisions made by those who vote in a referendum would not be based on a reasoned assessment of the evidence - they would rely on second-hand information (a perfectly rational choice, voters do not have the time or the expertise to know the details of EU treaties). While second-hand information is usually fairly good, such information is appallingly poor when it comes to reporting the EU in Britain. As such, any decision made will not be based on the treaty; it will be based on an uninformed, knee jerk reaction to 'Brussels'.

Finally, a referendum on an EU treaty would not express the popular will. Consider how many people vote in EU elections or in past referenda. Only a motivated minority would vote, and their vote would not be a vote on the actual treaty but a vote on EU membership. Note that the groups demanding a referendum are the groups who want Britain out of the EU.

Referenda are not in the British parliamentary tradition, and it was a grave error by Wilson to allow one for the first time in 1975 (on EEC membership, as it happens). There is no reason why parliamentary democracy should be suspended for a matter as trivial as an international treaty.

A dangerous precedent of political parties being expected to keep promises made in their election manifestos? The Labour Party must either give the country a referendum or lose legitimacy as a democratically elected government (although our 'first past the post' system means that their legitimacy as a parliamentary majority was dubious from the start...)
Although I hate to defend this government, what makes this any more important than any of the other manifesto promises they broke? If every government lost legitimacy every time it broke a promise, surely no government could ever be reelected, Labour or Tory?

In Britain, we have a parliamentary democracy and there is no constitutional need for a referendum. MPs are the people to vote on international treaties, and a referendum will set a dangerous precedent. Referenda are, as Attlee said, "just not British".

A dangerous precedent of political parties being expected to keep promises made in their election manifestos? The Labour Party must either give the country a referendum or lose legitimacy as a democratically elected government (although our 'first past the post' system means that their legitimacy as a parliamentary majority was dubious from the start...)

Although I hate to defend this government, what makes this any more important than any of the other manifesto promises they broke? If every government lost legitimacy every time it broke a promise, surely no government could ever be reelected, Labour or Tory?

Well, for a start there's no going back on this broken promise short of leaving the EU (which isn't something I support). Most broken promises can be changed by future governments. Secondly, breaking this promise represents a complete disregard for the will of the people by refusing to let them vote.

A dangerous precedent of political parties being expected to keep promises made in their election manifestos? The Labour Party must either give the country a referendum or lose legitimacy as a democratically elected government (although our 'first past the post' system means that their legitimacy as a parliamentary majority was dubious from the start...)
Firstly (on the current treaty), the manifesto commitment was to the European Constitution not the Lisbon Treaty. Whatever your views on their similarities, the latter is a different document. There was no manifesto commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Secondly (on any future constitution), manifesto commitments are not binding for good reason. Circumstances change during terms, and MPs are expected to use their judgement. Some MPs judge that a referendum is needed, other disagree - it is their duty as representatives to exercise that judgement. Their decision will be held to account at the next General Election, and the anticipated reaction of their constituents will ensure their actions are not out of line. It would be for MPs to judge whether a referendum was needed for any future Constitution, though I would suggest it would be a mistake.

The legitimacy of this Labour government will be assessed at the next election. That is how parliamentary democracy works. We are not in the habit of holding plebiscites whenever a party renegades on a manifesto commitment or acts in a manner its manifesto did not comment on. Out democracy charges MPs with making decisions, including decisions on the ratification of EU treaties and on the need for referenda.

Firstly, the manifesto commitment was to the European Constitution not the Lisbon Treaty. Whatever your views on their similarities, the latter is a different document. There was no manifesto commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Yeah, but the provisions in it are virtually identical. Most EU member state leaders apart from the UK, for obvious reasons, are quite happy to admit that.

Well, for a start there's no going back on this broken promise short of leaving the EU (which isn't something I support). Most broken promises can be changed by future governments. Secondly, breaking this promise represents a complete disregard for the will of the people by refusing to let them vote.
That doesn't really address what I said. Surely the government going back on, say, promises to have a referendum on proportional representation in 1997 show just as much contempt for the electorate, yet the government was not accused of losing democratic legitimacy.

Isn't treaty ratification a royal prerogitive power under the UK constitution? So technically, the Parliament doesn't even have to have a say, the Queen just gives it the nod on the PM's advice (and it's only a convention that she take the PM's advice). At least, that's what I remember off the top of my head - I think there's also a convention (conventions technically never really need to be followed; they're just fancy state habits) that Parliament has a vote on treaties (maybe under certain conditions... i'd need to read up on it). (Though I think [if what i've said above is right] that Brown has promised to change it).
(A lot of the UK constitution is weird, scary, irrational and potentially dangerous - the Parliament has been described as an "elective dictatorship").

Really I think that it should be passed by the national parliaments. Directly electing the Commission President would have a better effect than referenda on treaties - it'd hopefully encourage a more informed debate on policies (and give people an idea about what the EU actually does) and make it a pan-european discussion of pan-european problems instead of just a clash of pro-EU types and nationalists every time it's brought up.

I've read on Wikipedia (search 2009 European Parliament Elections), that some E-parliament groups are thinking of running a candidate for Commission President to get more people involved and increase voter turnout. If they actually do it (and hopefully do it well), it'd be a step in the right direction.

That doesn't really address what I said. Surely the government going back on, say, promises to have a referendum on proportional representation in 1997 show just as much contempt for the electorate, yet the government was not accused of losing democratic legitimacy.

No more than breaking any other promise (as proportional representation doesn't dispute that people have a right to vote, only how their vote should be counted. You're also missing the first point which I raised, i.e. that this decision is practically irrevocable.

Firstly (on the current treaty), the manifesto commitment was to the European Constitution not the Lisbon Treaty. Whatever your views on their similarities, the latter is a different document. There was no manifesto commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

You're either arguing semantics, in which case you've lost the moral argument, or you're unaware that the Lisbon treaty is 98% identical to the old constitution. Why not let the politicians speak for themselves:

"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention."

Who is V.Giscard D'Estaing? Only the chairman of the convention which wrote the EU Constitution. He also said:

"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."

Angela Merkel proudly told the EU parliament:

"The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact."

Or how about all of these politicians:

The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left."
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007

"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution' "
Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."
Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007 (he was EU President while the Constitution was written)

"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable ... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

"The good thing about not calling it a Constltution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007

All quotes from here (http://www.free-europe.org/blog/?itemid=397).

How anyone can say with a straight face that this is a different document is beyond me.

Secondly (on any future constitution), manifesto commitments are not binding for good reason. Circumstances change during terms, and MPs are expected to use their judgement. Some MPs judge that a referendum is needed, other disagree - it is their duty as representatives to exercise that judgement. Their decision will be held to account at the next General Election, and the anticipated reaction of their constituents will ensure their actions are not out of line. It would be for MPs to judge whether a referendum was needed for any future Constitution, though I would suggest it would be a mistake.

The government hasn't even tried to pretend that the situation has changed enough to alter the need for a referendum, they're simply lying and claiming that the Lisbon treaty isn't a constitution.

The legitimacy of this Labour government will be assessed at the next election. That is how parliamentary democracy works. We are not in the habit of holding plebiscites whenever a party renegades on a manifesto commitment or acts in a manner its manifesto did not comment on. Out democracy charges MPs with making decisions, including decisions on the ratification of EU treaties and on the need for referenda.

...

Where did I suggest that we hold a referendum every time a party fails to carry out one of its promises? I'm suggesting that we should hold a referendum because we were promised a damn referendum and nothing has changed. If the situation is so different that a referendum isn't necessary then the government should tell us why.

Of course, for the Europhiles the only problem with the situation is that the people don't want the new constitution. Democracy can be a bitch like that...

A referendum is OK, if

1) People are forced to vote
2) People inform themselves
3) Each voter is monitored to see if only considerations regarding the issue of the referendum are taken into consideration, so that a vote can never be a protest vote.
4) Faillure to comply with the above 3 rules means that the voter will receive death penalty.

1 is because the outcome needs to reflect the opinion of the entire population, not the political grouping that can mobilize its supporters most effectively.

2 is because in order to properly vote, people have to understand every single bit of what they're voting for. Otherwise, a referendum is merely a political tool of the opposition to force a country's leadership into doing something it could otherwise not do. There's a reason why the opposition is the opposition and not the government: it lacked political support in democratic elections. So a referendum shouldn't provide the opposition with more power than the country's leadership or the opposition should in fact be the government. Thus, if you support representative democracy, you can't support referendums to empower the opposition or support referendums as alternative elections.

3 is for similar reasons as explained under 2.

4 is perhaps a little extreme, but meant to illustrate that referendums can disrupt democracy considerably and can even contribute to the destruction of democratic rule and give rise to anarchy. They can cause this even if polls show a majority of the population favors one alternative over another. Unless we respect representative democracy and vote in referendums sincerely, referendums can exist. Any people that can't, should not be allowed to vote at all, because doing otherwise would harm democracy.

Since option 2 is never the case, option 3 is a blatant violation of our basic democratic rights and option 4 is downright a violation of the most basic human rights, a referendum that is in harmony with representative democracy and does not contribute to anarchy is in practice impossible and also undesirable to organize.

As a comment to British members here: whatever you think of the EU, it is pitiful to let political parties and individual politicians play with you so much as they do when they pressure the current government in London to hold a referendum. If you're a self-respecting person, you don't let political parties use you to further their own interests. Be aware that the wish to hold a referendum on the part of the Conservatives and IP is not born out of an idea that a referendum as such is good, but that it is now a nice tool to cause Britain's government to get in serious trouble. That is opportunism, populism and abuse of the British voters. Britain is unworthy of that.

One more thing:

You know what's funny? The same people that are demanding a referendum are suddenly against a referendum when an EU-wide referendum is proposed. The reason? Because they will to lose in that referendum. Bloody opportunists.

One more thing:

You know what's funny? The same people that are demanding a referendum are suddenly against a referendum when an EU-wide referendum is proposed. The reason? Because they will to lose in that referendum. Bloody opportunists.

Well, I'm a counterexample. I want a pan-EU referendum AND I support an EU-Constitution. Not that my voice matters much, anyway.

You're either arguing semantics, in which case you've lost the moral argument, or you're unaware that the Lisbon treaty is 98% identical to the old constitution.
It is a similar document, however even if its differences are reduced to 2 per cent, it is still a different document. The manifesto commitment was to a Constitution, not a reforming treaty. If you want to tie the government into a manifesto pledge, the semantics are vital. MPs were elected on the platform of a referendum on the Constitution, and now they are ratifying a different document. The degree of difference is irrelevant. If MPs decide that it is similar enough to be considered a Constitution and warrant a referendum, they are free to vote for such a referendum.

Morally, the case against a referendum is different. Even with manifesto commitments, MPs have the right to renegade and change their stance. Once they are elected, they are free to exercise their judgement. Hence, they can even change party. If their constituents do not support their actions, they can hold their MP to account at the next election.

The government hasn't even tried to pretend that the situation has changed enough to alter the need for a referendum, they're simply lying and claiming that the Lisbon treaty isn't a constitution.
It is not a lie to say the Lisbon treaty is not a Constitution: it clearly is not; it is a reforming treaty. It may be similar to the failed Constitution, but it is not the Constitution. That 2 per cent difference makes it a different document.

Now whether or not the situation has changed enough not to warrant a referendum is a different matter, which I addressed above. However, it cannot be claimed it is the same document.

Where did I suggest that we hold a referendum every time a party fails to carry out one of its promises? I'm suggesting that we should hold a referendum because we were promised a damn referendum and nothing has changed. If the situation is so different that a referendum isn't necessary then the government should tell us why.
No, there was a non-binding manifesto commitment to a referendum on the European Constitution. The Constitution fell, and its neccessary reforms were carried out via a reforming treaty, which does not replace the past treaties but adds to them. MPs have now to decide whether their manifesto commits them to a referendum on the new treaty, and whether they wish to keep that commitment or use their judgement and renegade. The closest thing to a "promise" was a vote on a Constitution, not specific reforms. The Constitution has fallen, even if those reforms remain in a different form.

The government has explained why a referendum is not neccessary - they maintain the Lisbon treaty is sufficiently different to the Constitution and that British interests and red line areas have been protected. You may disagree, but the government has been clear on this and has told you "why" their past "promise" does not apply.

Of course, for the Europhiles the only problem with the situation is that the people don't want the new constitution. Democracy can be a bitch like that...
And Eurosceptics only want a referendum because they think the Lisbon treaty will fall and place Britain's membership of the EU in jeopardy. They are seeking to use 'popular' sentiment (i.e., the views of the minority who would bother to vote) to place the prosperity of the United Kingdom in danger.
Do not play the democrat, for this is not an argument about democracy. Our democracy charges MPs with decision making, not popular votes. Our tradition does not include referenda. Our democracy in served by representation, not plebiscites. There is a good reason for this, as representative democracy is a far better system of government than direct democracy. Charging MPs with decision making means they can change their minds since an election, and can even break their promises. But, democracy "can be a bitch like that."

The "reform treaty" is, at a fundamental level, the Constitution clothed in a mantle deemed more likely to win favour. If I am sadly unable to feel any great shock either at the duplicity and mendacity of the EU, or the craven acceptance of Brussle's doctrine by New Labour, I do feel a referenda is required; both because Mr. Brown has previously pledged to hold one, and because the issue lends itself well to a referenda, whilst being sufficiently important to merit one.

I might add, however, that I do not consider referenda to be a panacea or ideal; rather, I think the Constitution would be defeated if put to a referendum, but passed by the irresponsibility of a Labour parliament.

Well, I'm a counterexample. I want a pan-EU referendum AND I support an EU-Constitution. Not that my voice matters much, anyway.

You are not alone in holding those views.

It is a similar document, however even if its differences are reduced to 2 per cent, it is still a different document. The manifesto commitment was to a Constitution, not a reforming treaty. If you want to tie the government into a manifesto pledge, the semantics are vital. MPs were elected on the platform of a referendum on the Constitution, and now they are ratifying a different document. The degree of difference is irrelevant. If MPs decide that it is similar enough to be considered a Constitution and warrant a referendum, they are free to vote for such a referendum.

Empty sophistry. If you're not going to engage with the issues then I have no interest in continuing this discussion.