The Lisbon Treaty and the massive contempt of the ruling class for the voters
We've heard a lot about respect in recent days over the Lisbon Treaty - which hopes to reform the EU and which was approved by parliament yesterday.
Gordon Brown said he respected the Irish people's decision to reject the treaty, which by all rights should leave it dead in the water. He added he had to respect the wishes of other countries that approved the treaty, and also respect the House of Commons, which also approved the treaty.
Here's an idea. How about some respect for the people of Britain?
This Government lied to us.
After being given a manifesto promise that we would be given a referendum on the treaty where are we now? Of course there's a simple reason why we haven't been consulted by politicians on this - there is not a snowball's chance in hell that they'd get the decision they want.
The trouble with democracy is that every peasant gets a say. Luckily, regarding the EU, the political elite in Westminster have found a way to avoid this piffling little problem. If you think the people don't want what they ought to, either a) don't ask them in the first place; or b) ask them and then ignore them.
I've heard so much talk recently from pro-Europeans about how the Irish didn't vote on the question put to them. Or how they didn't understand the issues involved. Or how the low turnout there means the result is irrelevant. Please. Don't treat them like idiots.
Every country in the EU has to approve this treaty for it to pass. So if the Irish rejected it, it should be obvious to anyone with a few firing brain cells that this is dead as a dodo. Unless of course, the politicians are planning some way to ignore the views of the people, just like they did the last time this treaty (under a slightly different name) was rejected.
When Gordon Brown says we need to respect the views of countries still to ratify the treaty, what he means is this: Let's wait until all the governments that ignore their people approve this treaty, then we can sort out the little problem of the one that respects its electorate enough to ask it.
The Stirrer wanted to know why five million Irish people got to decide the future of half a billion Europeans. The answer is simple. They were the only ones whose politicians respected them enough to ask.
The Government wants us to have a say in Europe. Well more than half of the people here know what they'd like to say to the Lisbon Treaty. Why won't Gordon Brown let us?
*EDIT* - Looks like Downing Street's own website (via Guido) gives some indication of how the public feel about this.
Older/Newer
« Students learn that cheating pays | The justice system needs to be more impersonal, not less »
6 Comments
Leave a comment
News authors
Jonathan Walker - The Birmingham Post's political editor
My postings |
My feed
David Kuczora - A PR consultant working in Birmingham and living in the 'burbs
My postings
Alister Scott - Professor of Spatial Planning and Governance, Birmingham City University
My postings
Latest Birmingham Post Business blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all business matters.
Latest Birmingham Post Lifestyle blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from the midlands give you the lowdown on what's happening in your region and some musings on culture in the UK and beyond.
Latest Birmingham Post Science blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all science matters.
Latest Birmingham Post Sport blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all sporting matters.
The democratic system we have does indeed mean "every peasant has a say." But what we have a say in is who represents us to make decisions, not a say in every decision that gets made.
The Irish had to have a referendum as their constitution required changing in order to allow for ratification. Any change to their constitution requires a referendum. Abortion is prohibited by article 40 of their constitution which is why they've had many referendums on the issue. Being a fairly conservative country the pro-lifers win every time on that one and it came as no surprise that they won out on the Lisbon Treaty as well.
Gordon made one of his many rash promises in suggesting we should have a referendum in this country - realising how how conservative we are becoming as a nation he clearly had a change of mind. I for one dont blame him.
What you should be getting worked up about is whether we should have a constitutional democracy like the Irish - that's a far more interesting question and would probably give you the greater input into political decisions you clearly crave.
Dave
Hi Tom,
To be honest, I'm not as clear as I should be on the contents of the treaty. Looking at it here it's difficult to decypher what exactly the 'question' would be that we would be asked: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm
Just taking the top four points in bold:
1. A more democratic and transparent Europe
2. A more efficient Europe
3. A Europe of rights and values, freedom, solidarity and security
4. Europe as an actor on the global stage
To be honest I'd find it hard to argue a 'no' case for those four with the assumption that Britain continues to be part of 'Europe' in this context.
However, reading around on comment on the referendum, it seems to me that the Irish vote was more of a case of 'No to Europe full stop' than 'No to just this treaty'.
Perhaps the government's point is that because the issues are so legal, technical and difficult to grasp (that includes for me) it's important for people who are employed to represent us to make the right decisions on our behalf and not leaving it to an argument which is split :
"No to Europe Full Stop" vs "Er.. Yeah I guess, but what am I putting my name to exactly?"
I'm with Tom on this one - and I'm glad that someone is finally saying it out loud. Best blog post I've ever read.
The comment "But what we have a say in is who represents us to make decisions, not a say in every decision that gets made." is a dangerous interpretation of democracy.
I vote for people to make decisions that are representative of my views on the world. I do not vote for people to make decisions based on an open mandate. They are elected to REPRESENT the views of me and other people who voted for them.
Elected officials are therefore accountable to the electorate. They cannot and should not think that because they've been elected, they have a mandate to do whatever regardless.
Foz, thankyou, that's very kind. Dave's right to say that the system we have in this country means we generally express our will through selecting representatives rather than direct democracy. But the system is completely useless when politicians make manifesto promises, and then feel no need whatsoever to follow them, as has happened in this case.
Dave, I think you're absoluteley right. In my opinion, we do need constitutional change in the UK (having a constitution at all would be a good start IMO). But unfortunately, systemic change can only happen through the system, which is unlikely when the aprty making the decision is the one propped up by current arrangements.
Stef, I certainly wouldn't disagree that many people don't fully understand the implications of the Lisbon Treaty - I certainly don't. And there's the irony that anti-EU people rejecting the Lisbon Treaty aren't striking a blow against the EU, they're striking a blow for the status quo. But if people are making decisions about things they don't understand, or based on misinformation, that's the fault of the EU and the national governments keeping us in the dark - not the electorate or the decision to have a referendum.
Just to finish off, Minister for the Cabinet Office Ed Miliband said today the Government's manifesto should create more respect between state and citizen. Oh where to start...
I am actually scared by the literny of nonsense that has been uttered by our great leaders since the Irish vote last week. I unquestionably support the principle of an economic union with our European neighbours but we have created an arrogant, seemingly unstoppable bohemoth. This is an organisation where two of its senior UK polititions have had to resign for syphoning off hundreds of thousands of expenses into family businesses, an organisation that refuses to publish a damning report into expenses fraud, an organisation that has not had its accounts signed off for six years and now it is an organisation that is considering waiving its own veto rules to make it even more powerful. Now I couldn't care less about the angle of my bananas and I'll happily drink my lager by the litre but while the all-pervading stench of corruption and unaccountability continues to eminate from this hapless excuse for a legislature, there should be no more talk of any new treaties - even those that we can actually understand.
I find myself agreeing with most of this article, but with one particular point sticking out like a sore thumb.
Ireland does not have its politicians respect to thank for the opportunity to vote on this issue. Irish politicians have no more respect for their electrate than Hitler had for jews.
Ireland has three parties to thank for our vote on this issue. One of them is Eamon DeValera, and his team who authored Bunracht na hEireann, which placed certain authorities with the government, which could not be remove from the government without a referendum.
Another party is the Supreme Court, who ruled the Single European Act 1970 to be unlawful without consulting the people, and finally Raymond Crotty who brought the case to the Supreme Court.
I cannot speak for any other Irish voter, but I didn't vote against Europe. I voted against Lisbon. I voted for democracy, on behalf of 500 million Europeans that were denied the right to vote on diluting their sovernty. I voted for Europe as it was set up - a community of equals, where each member state was an equal of every other member state, regardless of background, size, or population.
There is a very simple response to anyone who wonders should the future of 500 million Europeans be so affected by 5 million people. Of course it shouldn't - isn't it obvious that every EU citizen should have a vote on such an important issue.