tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post3669644599529407330..comments2024-03-27T16:39:43.522+00:00Comments on Liberal England: Lib Dems should drop the EU referendum ideaJonathan Calderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730157683743989696noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-11765935709773434872007-11-12T01:24:00.000+00:002007-11-12T01:24:00.000+00:00I agree. Calling for an 'in or out' referendum is ...I agree. Calling for an 'in or out' referendum is superficially appealing because it appears to offer a more fundamental choice.<BR/><BR/>But it disenfranchises the large number of people - arguably the majority - who don't want to leave the EU but do want to see it reformed and who reject further integration by stealth. In effect it concedes to UKIP the argument that we can't meaningfully influence the EU's development from within, but must simply 'put up or shut up'.<BR/><BR/>I admit, a referendum campaign on the narrow question of the Reform Treaty probably won't be very edifying. There will be the inevitable tendentious claims and counter-claims about arcane technical points, and some (though not all) opponents may indeed have an undeclared agenda of leaving the EU altogether. It may generate more heat than light.<BR/><BR/>But I think the alternative - of forcing the Treaty through Parliament in the face of clear public disquiet at both what they know of it and being denied a chance to have their say - is even worse.<BR/><BR/>It would also betray our pledge at the last election. The argument that we don't need a referendum because this Treaty is sufficiently different to the original constitution sounds to most people like sophistry.<BR/><BR/>The justification given is that the 'red lines' mean this Treaty has less far-reaching implications for the UK than for other signatories. But as experience (and the Commons European scrutiny committee) has shown, it is open to question how durable and extensive the red lines are. In those circumstances I just don't think it's credible simply to assert that it's only a minor tidying-up exercise; similar claims were made about the original constitution which everyone now seems to admit had some quite major implications.<BR/><BR/>The other line trotted out is that the Tories rammed through the SEA and Maastricht without referenda, and they involved much more significant transfers of power. True, but that's not an argument against a referendum this time: it simply means the Tories were wrong in '86 and '92.<BR/><BR/>So we should support a referendum on the treaty. But we must also address the broader questions of how deep a relationship with the EU we want, what can be done to make it more liberal, decentralised and accountable and what is our strategy for achieving this.Alex Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02284788718409215098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-91424888729022057592007-11-11T13:05:00.000+00:002007-11-11T13:05:00.000+00:00Absolutely spot on. A referendum on EU membership ...Absolutely spot on. A referendum on EU membership would, as you suggest, polarise opinion, reinforcing a stereotypical dichotomy of Eurosceptic v Europhile.<BR/><BR/>I thought we were supposed to be arguing for a more nuanced approach, supporting EU integration on supra-national issues, whilst opposing needless interference into local / national issues.Haribohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11353292402895107855noreply@blogger.com