Letters rebutting calls for referendum
Dear Editor,
The features of the now abandoned Constitutional Treaty that may have justified a referendum have all been eliminated from the new package: the "constitutional" aspiration of the text; the full application of the Charter of Rights to British law; the title and status of the "Foreign Minister" for the EU's external representative; majority voting on criminal law issues and so on. Their elimination, together with the various derogations and opt-outs granted to Britain , mean that, for Britain especially, this is a very different treaty.
Are we really to have a national referendum on whether the term of office of the President of the European Council is changed from six months to thirty months, or on a new weighting on the votes in the Council that gives Britain an increased share of the votes? We have never ratified an international treaty by means of a referendum because we are a parliamentary democracy. Let us not tear apart British traditions in the name of preserving them!
Dear Editor,
The package of reforms agreed by the European Council to replace the constitutional treaty certainly do not justify holding a referendum. The "constitutional" character of the treaty has been dropped and the contents are far less significant than previous treaties. Interestingly, not a single other government intends to hold a national referendum on the matter, with the exception of Ireland which is required to hold one on any changes to the European treaties, however minor.
Dear Editor,
I am amazed that, of all subjects, some people want a referendum on the proposed EU Reform Treaty. Why not on the forthcoming WTO world trade treaty, which will have a far greater effect on jobs in Britain ? Why not on Iraq , which is a matter of greater public concern? Or the reforms to our own constitution, such as what should replace the House of Lords? Or on council housing?
The new EU treaty is a set of complex but minor adjustments to the current EU system to cater for its expansion to 27 countries. Hardly the best subject to hold our first national referendum for over a quarter of a century on!
Dear Editor,
XXX is being highly opportunistic in citing Ireland 's referendum on the new EU Treaty. Ireland is constitutionally required to hold a referendum on any changes, however minor, to the European treaties.
The package of reforms agreed by the European Council to replace the constitutional treaty certainly do not justify holding a referendum in Britain which has always ratified international treaties through parliament. The "constitutional" character of the treaty has been dropped and the contents are far less significant than previous treaties. Come to think of it, William Hague was on the Tory benches when the Maastricht Treaty, which had a far more expansive remit, was ratified by parliament, and I don't remember him calling for a referendum then.
Dear Sir,
Pushing aside the hyperbole, the agreement by the heads of government at the European Council summit will replace the Constitutional Treaty with a set of pragmatic reforms to the European Union that will help it operate and deliver on policy more effectively and will improve parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability. This is a result to be welcomed.
These reforms do not require a referendum. Britain has never had a referendum to ratify an international treaty, and it is nonsensical to demand on one that does modest things like changing the length of the European Council presidency from 6 months to 30 months.
The Conservatives' call for a referendum on a treaty that changes far less than either the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty smacks of more desperation from a party that has no credibility on Europe .
Dear Sir,
Why must Britain vote on the new EU Treaty? There are dozens of subjects in which public interest in a referendum would be far greater than on obscure tinkering with the EU institutions.
Restoring the link between pensions and wages, university top up fees, aspects of immigration, the death penalty and whether to host the Olympic games all spring to mind. Calls for a referendum on the EU question are not are not a broad based wave of support for deciding matters by referenda, it is merely an opportunist move by the Eurosceptics in their single issue campaign on a subject the general public are not interested in.
Dear Editor,
If we are to have a referendum on minor adjustments to the European institutions, should we not also have one on the results of the WTO "Doha round" of trade negotiations which will have a significant economic impact? Should we not have one on the expansion of NATO's remit beyond the North-Atlantic area? Should we not have one on the successor to the Kyoto protocol which will change all our lifestyles, but with an even burden sharing amongst different parts of the world?
I could go on, but these are all complex issues for which we elect parliamentarians to delve into the details. Britain is a parliamentary democracy and should remain so.
Dear Editor,
The changes to the EU treaty envisaged at the European Council summit are far more modest than those that were brought about by the single European Act (under Mrs Thatcher) or the Treaty of Maastricht (under John Major) and certainly do not justify holding a nation-wide referendum.
Dear Editor,
There are dozens of subjects in which public interest in a referendum would be far greater than on obscure tinkering with the EU institutions. Restoring the link between pensions and wages, university top up fees, aspects of immigration, the death penalty and whether to host the Olympic Games, all spring to mind. Calls for a referendum on the EU question are not a broad based wave of support for deciding matters by referenda, but a single-issue campaign group hoping to win on an obscure subject with a low turnout
Dear Editor,
Of all the key political challenges and issues facing Britain - the economy, health, education, housing, transport and so on - it is only the question of Europe that some of your letter-writers clamour for a referendum on. Yet Europe, as an issue, is way down most people's list of priorities. Could it be that a vociferous and well financed campaign by a small Eurosceptic minority backed by certain newspapers is having an undue influence?
Dear Sir,
It is ludicrous to claim that ratifying a new EU Treaty without a referendum would be undemocratic. Britain has never ratified an international treaty by means of a referendum at any point in its history. We are a parliamentary democracy and elect representatives to give detailed scrutiny to such complex matters. Why the modest set of reforms to the existing EU structure agreed by the European Council should justify a referendum is hard to discern – unless you are a rabid anti-EU zealot who will jump desperately at any opportunity to get their own way on a subject the British public simply don't care about.
Dear Sir,
I refer to your leader stating Labour should keep its promise to hold a referendum on the outcome of the EU treaty negotiations. The package of reforms agreed by the European Council to replace the constitutional treaty certainly do not justify holding a referendum. The “constitutional” character of the treaty has been dropped and the contents are far less significant than previous treaties. Interestingly, not a single other government intends to hold a national referendum on the matter, with the exception of Ireland which is required to hold one on any changes to the European treaties, however minor.
Dear Sir,
I refer to your article that claims Gordon Brown will not hold a referendum on a European Constitution because he is scared he will lose the vote. Wrong. The reason there will be no referendum on the European Constitution is because there is not going to be a European Constitution. The government has listened to the British people, who do not want a European Constitution, and have decided to ditch the idea in favour of simply amending the existing treaties.
2. Letters on the merits of the proposed Reform Treaty
Dear Ed,
The proposed EU reform treaty sounds rather good - if you bother to check it out instead of listening to anti-European campaigners!
It would cut the size of the European Commission and put a cap on the size of the European Parliament, it would guarantee that national parliaments would look at European proposals before ministers take a position in the EU Council (instead of hearing about it afterwards), it would enshrine the principle that the EU may only deal with subjects that member countries have requested it to deal with, it would give countries a vote in the Council of Ministers proportional to their population (thereby increasing Britain's power) and it would get rid of the silly “Buggin's turn” presidency of the European Council (having instead a chosen 30-month president).
Real “sceptics” (as opposed to Europhobes) should welcome it!
Dear Editor,
Take away the hyperbole of both the pro and anti European camps and look at what the package agreed by the European Council actually says. It amounts to dropping the constitutional pretensions of previously signed treaty and adopting a number of reforms which Britain has advocated for years: an end to the “Buggin's turn” rotation of the EU Council presidency, a single spokesman (instead of two) for the EU on external affairs, a better voting system in the Council of Ministers, enhanced scrutiny by both national and the European Parliament.
These are modest reforms, but useful ones and deserve support.
Dear Editor,
Eurosceptics claim that "the EU needs reform, not more powers". In that case they should welcome the treaty reforms agreed at the European Council which do not expand the remit of the EU but change the way in which it exercises its current competences. Since these changes focus on increased efficiency and accountability, one would have thought that any honest critic of the EU would welcome them!
Dear Editor,
The path that EU countries have embarked on for a new treaty instead of the Constitutional Treaty is one of pragmatic adjustments to the current EU system, rather than a grand new replacement constitution. In this sense it is peculiarly British - that is precisely how our own constitution has evolved over centuries.
Dear Sir, Far from handing yet more powers to Brussels , the draft treaty agreed at the European Council summit actually takes the EU a step away from the direction of a federal superstate. The 2 ½ year Council presidency will strengthen the intergovernmental Council presidency at the expense of the European Commission President. This is why the avowedly anti-federalist Gaullist Nicolas Sarkozy was so keen for it to be kept in a new treaty
Dear Editor,
Why do anti European campaigners claim that it is somehow disrespectful of democracy to have negotiations on a new treaty to replace the constitutional treaty? After all, the constitutional treaty was ratified by two thirds (18) of the member states of the European Union and rejected by just two. Surely it is the right thing to do to try to find a new agreement that is acceptable to all, whilst taking into account the concerns of those who rejected it and the overwhelming majority that supported it?
Many thought that the 27 Heads of Government would not be able to reach such a compromise. That they have is surely to be welcomed.
Dear Sir,
The proposed EU Reform Treaty should be welcomed by those who have fears about the EU becoming overbearing.
Under what is proposed, EU action would be limited to those areas where national parliaments have, through the treaty, conferred powers on the EU. Even then, any measure would first have to go to national parliaments for consideration before being dealt with by the Council of Ministers, itself composed of a national minister from each national government. No measure could be adopted without the approval of a very large majority in the Council of Ministers and of the directly elected European Parliament - a Parliament that is not dominated by a single party majority. Any measure that goes beyond the remit of the EU can be challenged in the courts.
If these are not checks and balances, then I don't know what is. They certainly amount to more checks and balances than exist in our domestic political system.
Dear Editor,
What is now envisaged for a new European treaty amounts to far smaller changes than were made at the time of the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, but such as they are, they are highly beneficial: a voting system in the Council that will give extra votes to Britain, a single (instead of double) external representative of the EU and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. Small changes, but welcome ones.
Rebutting particular claims about the proposed Reform treaty
Dear Editor,
The prevalent criticisms of the proposed EU Reform Treaty are ill informed or deliberately misleading. This is an ordinary treaty amending previous treaties, not a “constitution” – an idea that was dropped. The EU's external “High Representative” will not have his title changed to “Foreign Minister”. The President of the Commission may indeed be elected by the European Parliament, but the candidate will be proposed by the European Council (i.e. national governments) as is the case already now. The new treaty will change little in terms of the EU's remit, but will strengthen the accountability of EU institutions and reinforce the scrutiny roles of both the European Parliament and national parliaments
Dear Editor,
The Eurosceptic letter-writing campaign makes a number of claims about the proposed EU treaty that are simply unfounded and presumably calculated to worry people. It is just not true that the treaty would create a “new EU President and Foreign Minister” – the current 6-monthly president of the European Council will become a 30-month one (rather sensible!) and the current “High Representative” will not see his name changed to “Foreign Minister”, precisely because Britain (and the Netherlands) objected. It is misleading to claim that it will give “the EU the right to sign international treaties”, when the EC has always had the right to do so, provided the EU Council – composed of the Member States, including Britain - agrees. It is plain wrong to say that it “surrenders powers to Brussels”, when it actually increases national controls over those powers. As to EU cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, Britain has a right to opt out in such matters.
Dear Editor,
Anti- EU campaigners claim that the proposed EU Reform Treaty envisages an unacceptable loss of vetoes for Britain in more than 40 areas. Yet if you look at this in detail:
* Thirteen of them do not apply to the UK because they are about the eurozone or judicial and home affairs, which we have opted out of.
* Six involve issues such as allowing a group of citizens to propose initiatives, or the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement;
* Two relate to ending special state aid provisions for Germany post-unification.
* Nine are minor and technical, including the Council review on the composition of the Committee of the Regions.
* Nine of them relate to new legal bases, but powers already exist.
* There are only nine articles of genuine substance on matters such as the implementation of own resources decisions, which it is in Britain's interests to have QMV on, because it allows us to ensure that other countries cannot block that; on the intellectual property rights protection, which, it is absolutely in Britain's interests to have; and on matters such as urgent aid to third countries and humanitarian aid operations."
As to the objection about a "full time President", is this not a somewhat exaggerated term to describe the fact that the current six month Presidency is turned into a 30 month one?
Dear Editor,
XXX cites other EU leaders as saying that the proposed EU Reform Treaty is the same as the Constitutional Treaty. Maybe for them - but Britain's various opt-outs and derogations mean that this must, by definition, not be the case for Britain.
Features of the now abandoned Constitutional Treaty that gave rise to calls for a referendum in the first place have been eliminated from the new package: the "constitutional" aspiration of the text; the application of the Charter of Rights to British law; the title and status of the "Foreign Minister" for the EU's external representative; majority voting on criminal law issues and so on. Their elimination, together with the various derogations and opt-outs granted to Britain, mean that for Britain at least, this is a very different treaty.
Dear Editor,
XXX is being wilfully misleading in claiming that the Reform Treaty is identical to the abandoned Constitutional Treaty.
All the controversial elements that gave rise to calls for a referendum (the "constitutional" designation of the treaty, the creation of an "EU Foreign Minister" etc) have been removed. That, together with the various opt-outs and derogations granted for Britain, mean that the remainder carries very little constitutional significance for Britain. Rather, the set of practical and pragmatic adjustments to the EU institutions, such as strengthening Britain's voting rights in the Council, cutting the size of the European Commission, changing the term of office of the Council presidency from six months to thirty months and so on, should be welcomed.
Dear Editor,
XXX complains that the EU Reform Treaty establishes a single European state. In fact, the treaty does quite the opposite - it specifically limits EU action to the minimum necessary in areas where the member states have agreed to take common action. It also strengthens the participation of national parliaments in EU decision making.
Indeed, what is envisaged for a new European treaty amounts to far smaller changes than were made at the time of the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, but such as they are, they are highly beneficial: a voting system in the Council that will give extra votes to Britain, a single (instead of double) external representative of the EU and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. Small changes, but welcome ones.
Dear Sir,
Comparison of the new EU Treaty with the American constitution is bizarre. The US President has executive powers conferred on him by the Constitution, the President of the European Council gets to chair a few meetings of heads of powerful national government and can only do what they agree. The US constitution can be changed by 2/3 majority in Congress - changing the EU treaties requires unanimity among the component nations. I could go on. Using such inaccurate sensationalism does not strengthen the arguments of those who want us to leave the EU.
Dear Sir,
XXX worries that the new EU treaty might create an EU Foreign Ministry.
What is envisaged in the new treaty should reassure him. At present, the "embassies" of the EU in national capitals around the world are exclusively under the remit of the European Commission. Under the new treaty, the Council of Ministers (ie the national governments of the EU member states) will take joint responsibility for them. This is something that eurosceptics might have been expected to support.
Dear Sir, The creation of the External Action Service in the new EU Treaty, although not noticed by many, is a reform that eurosceptics should not criticise. At present all EU external "embassies" are run by the Commission. The EAS will give national governments a say in running and staffing them, a clear step away from a federal system.
Dear editor,
The proposed Reform Treaty does not mean that our foreign and defence policies are set by “Brussels”, as no policy can be agreed by the EU in these fields unless it is endorsed by Britain, something that is made even clearer than now by the proposed text.
General points about the EU/European integration
Dear Editor,
XXX is reviving the old eurosceptic myth that we only thought we were joining a free trade area when we decided to join the European Community. This is simply not true.
Britain was in fact LEAVING a free trade area (EFTA) to join the more far- reaching European Community. Both the Labour government's White Paper (1967) and the Conservative's one (1971) stressed that the EC was far more than economic. They spoke of "the opportunity of a great move forward in political unity that we can - and indeed we must - play our full part in" (1967) and of "a sharing and an enlargement of individual national sovereignties in the general interest" (1971).
Eurosceptic campaigners should stop myth-making and discuss the issue on the basis of facts.
Dear Sir,
Criticism of the cost to businesses of EU legislation is all very well, but all legislation - national and local as well as European – can impose costs on businesses. This is often justified for reasons of health, safety, the environment, or consumer protection. Certainly, there is widespread agreement that costs should be as small as possible. But, let us not forget that, when we get it right, European legislation is an exercise in cutting red-tape.
The fact that European legislation allows a company to register a trademark once, valid across Europe , instead of having to go to 27 separate national administrations, fill in 27 forms and pay 27 different fees is a clear benefit to business. The fact that lorries taking British exports to Italy now need a single administrative document rather than 40-odd to cross national frontiers is similarly a benefit.
All legislation - European and national - should be judged on its merits and not all lumped together under a heading of "bureaucracy"!
Dear Sir,
XXX calls for a return of powers from the EU to member states.
Nobody could quibble with that - but it is worth bearing in mind that the EU only has those responsibilities in the first place that the member states have agreed to confer upon it. Its remit is determined by treaties ratified by every national parliament and the subsequent exercise of those responsibilities requires approval from the Council of Ministers composed of the governments of the member states.
The EU cannot arrogate powers to itself of its own accord without national approval and to pretend otherwise is deceitful.
Dear Editor,
It is claimed that the British public has not had its say on Europe for more than 30 years. But if the only way the public can "have a say" on an issue is through a referendum, then logically the British public has not had a say on anything for the last 30 years! Surely, general elections are the normal British way of deliberating on issues, be they Europe , health, foreign policy or education. Indeed, on Europe , there has in every general election been a marked difference between the two main parties in their enthusiasm for Europe . When Labour was eurosceptic during the 1980s it consistently lost elections, just as the Conservatives have in recent years.
Dear Editor,
In the 1980s, Labour were Eurosceptic and the Conservatives styled themselves as the "party of Europe ". The Conservatives won all the elections of that period.
In the 1990s and since then, the Conservatives have been Eurosceptic and Labour have been (relatively) pro-European. Labour has won every general election.
In the 2004 European elections, UKIP, despite outspending all the other parties added together, obtained only as many seats as the ultra pro-European Liberal Democrats.
Surely it is time to stop pretending that Britain is a country of reluctant Europeans?
Dear Editor,
Of all the international structures to which Britain belongs - WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, NATO, the EU, the OECD - the European Union is the only one to have an elected parliament playing a key role in its decision making procedure. It is also subject to more scrutiny by national parliaments and its decisions also require the approval of a council composed of national governments from all its member states.
Those who have concerns about deficiencies of democracy when acting internationally would do well to focus their concerns on other organisations than the European Union.
Dear Editor,
It is nonsense to claim that EU decisions are taken by unelected officials. EU decisions of any consequence are taken by ministers from elected governments, including ours, and it is wrong to let the government (and previous governments) off the hook for what they have accepted in the EU Council of Ministers. |
