The Treaty of Lisbon will develop the power and centralised remote control of the member states of the European Union.

There will be a corresponding reduction in the power of the directly elected governments of member states. So should the governments of these states be allowed to pass power to the EU under the direction of the cabinet in power, or should there be a free vote in member parliaments, or should the people decide in referendums? There is a case for both sides of the argument. The main ideas often put forward are set out below, followed by the case for a referendum in the UK made by William Cash MP. (An extended version of this page and the comments of UK MPs on this topic appear in our website www.EUnow.eu .)

Arguments for and against a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon

Against a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon

1. Ordinary citizens have not read the Treaty of Lisbon so how can they judge it?

2. Ordinary citizens can't understand it, so how can they judge it?

3. Sovereignty (the right to decide what should be done in a country) rests with parliament so it's no business of ordinary people.

4. Treaties are always decided by governments, not the people.

5. Referendums are a waste of time and money because the important thing is to get the agreement settled so that the EU can get on with governing and deciding what to do about such things as energy and climate change.

6. There is an urgent need for this treaty. Already six years have been wasted. No time should be wasted holding a referendum.

For a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon

1. A full, coherent intelligible, stand alone text that can be read by MP's and ordinary citizens has not been published so it is doubtful if any MP has read it. It is doubtful if any have taken the necessary months of study to properly, evaluate it and so be in a position to judge its suitability for the UK.

2. MPs will be told how to vote by the party bosses. There will not be a free vote.

3. It there were a free vote they would still be advised how to vote and not vote out of knowledge and conviction in most cases.

4. It is true that ordinary citizens have not read or understood the Treaty of Lisbon. They would rationally vote against it on the basis that you should not agree to something you haven't read or cannot understand.

5. The general opinion of the public is known. It would be wrong for MP's to agree to something so important against the will of the people.

6. Sovereignty (the right to decide what should be done in a country) rests with the people. They alone should give any of this power away to a superior state. This treaty cannot be compared to other treaties.

7. The people should be given the chance to reject a forfeiture of sovereignty that is unnecessary. The EU has functioned normally without it for 50 years so there can be no pressing need for it.

8. There are real reforms needed in the EU - like ending corruption, making the EU open and understandable, making it democratic so that people can vote for alternative policies at the EU level. This treaty does not deal with real needs. People do understand this and should have the opportunity to reject an inappropriate treaty.

9. European countries should indeed be meeting to discuss such important matters as energy and climate change. They should and will do this regardless of this treaty or referendums. To bring in the matter of topics like these is irrelevant to the referendum debate.

10. The Treaty of Lisbon was written without public involvement or knowledge. People should have an opportunity to reject this approach to the making of major  agreements that concern the sovereignty of a country.

11. The fact that the Treaty is incomplete (ie it needs to be integrated into two other treaties before there is a coherent text) is a reason for both people and MPs to reject it. As we cannot rely on MPs to have a free vote or exercise informed judgement in this matter a referendum is essential to allow the people to decide.

12. In the UK the present government promised to hold a referendum on the European Constitution. Whilst there have been some changes to the Constitution by re-organising the contents into the Treaty of Lisbon the substance of the Constitution remains intact. Therefore, the promise should be kept and the UK should have a referendum.

To top of page 

Reasons to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty (now called The Treaty of Lisbon)

By William Cash MP

The views of William Cash MP, as presented in a draft report submitted to House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee.

(Extract from the Report of the Scrutiny Committee dated 2 October 2007.)
 

"Draft Report, proposed by Mr William Cash, brought up and read as follows:

1. The Reform Treaty, as compared to the Original Constitutional Treaty, requires a referendum of the electorate of the United Kingdom because it is the equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if not the same. It is a distinction without a proper difference.

2. A referendum is required for the following constitutional reasons: the Reform Treaty with the merger of the TEC, based on the Treaty of Rome (which was the genesis of the European Economic Community), followed by the Single European Act on the one hand and the TEU (with its genesis in the Maastricht Treaty which deals with European government, followed by Nice and Amsterdam), on the other, into a Union with an overarching single legal personality and a self-amending text is “substantial constitutional change”, even “fundamental change” in terms that warrant a referendum according to the government’s own criteria.

3. The present Minister for Europe stated to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 12 September that a referendum would be required if a Treaty created “substantial constitutional change”. The former Prime Minister stated that a new Treaty “should not be proposing the characteristics of a Constitution”. The former Foreign Secretary stated to the European Scrutiny Committee on 7 June that the government was intending a Treaty “that was very different from the Constitutional Treaty”. The correlation between the Constitutional Treaty and the Reform Treaty in terms of the specific provisions incorporated into the latter demonstrates that this statement can now no longer be substantiated. The government has also stated that a referendum would be required where there is “fundamental change” and where the structure of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is altered by virtue of the European Treaty. The fundamental nature, not only of the merger of the Treaties, but also the individual proposals in the Reform Treaty, alters the relationship by way of substantial, even fundamental, constitutional change. There are also specific provisions arising in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the legal obligations imposed on the united Kingdom Parliament, measures relating to the criminal law, and measures related to Title IV which are deeply contentious and would require specific exclusion from having effect in UK law which for the avoidance of doubt could only be achieved by excluding their effect by the use of a statutory provision preceded by the words “Not withstanding the European Communities Act 1972”.

Such a formula would be essential but the government, by all accounts, would not be prepared to employ such wording, thereby putting the vital national interests of the electorate in jeopardy.

4. The Reform Treaty on all these tests requires a referendum. It would be a deceit of the electorate (even by the criteria for a referendum set out by the Government) to refuse to hold one, unless the Treaty itself was rejected by the Prime Minister in the IGC on 18/19 October as he should. Unless this occurs, refusal to hold a referendum would be a breach of trust with respect to the Reform Treaty (let alone past promises about the original Constitutional Treaty made in 2004) and would run clearly contrary to the assertions of the present Prime Minister that he is committed to restoring good governance, democracy and trust.

5. The accumulation of the existing Treaties since 1972 combined with the merger described above, has in itself culminated in such fundamental change as warrants a referendum. There are tens of millions of people which have not had an opportunity to express their view on our continuing membership of the European Union. The Labour government to its credit provided a referendum on continuing membership of the then European Economic Community, following its enactment of the Referendum Act of 1975.

6. Contrary to the assertions of the present Foreign Secretary, Parliamentary sovereignty is not diminished but actually is enhanced by the granting of a referendum by parliamentary enactment. The electorate and not Members of Parliament nor the Government are the ultimate source of parliamentary authority, sovereignty and democracy all of which Members of Parliament and members of the Government merely hold on trust subject to re-election at a general election every five years. This Reform Treaty and the merger of all the existing Treaties into a Union of European government, also contains a self-amending text which would effectively obstruct any future referendum arising out of a future IGC. All this clearly requires Members of Parliament to hand back to the voters an impartial question authorised by Parliament and across the political divide a decision in a referendum as to the manner in which the electorate as a whole wishes to be governed.

7. This Reform Treaty therefore must not be put into effect by a Prerogative Act of a former Prime Minister signing the Treaty and departing and then a new Prime Minister implementing into UK law the decision through the Whips in Parliament, without a referendum.

8. It would be a constitutional outrage, in the absence of a rejection of this Treaty to do otherwise.

9. The IGC has not yet taken place so that an opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Government to review the present decision not to have a referendum and even to reject the Treaty is still open. This is particularly the case as the decision expressed and the announcement made by the Foreign Secretary not to have a referendum has been taken without the government even sitting down at the IGC on the latest text on 18/19 October 2007. This announcement was also made even before the European Scrutiny Committee had reported on the text. The Committee is specifically charged by Parliament under its own standing orders to report on the political/legal importance of the proposed Reform Treaty and has not cleared the text (the opinion of the European Commission – COM(07)412) the government’s action in seeking to pre-empt the Committee’s assessment of this document in its report amounts to the contempt of the Committee. Moreover, this announcement is apparently in compliance with the so-called binding mandate of the Member States of the European Union of 19 June 2007. This certainly cannot constitutionally bind the Prime Minister, the United Kingdom Parliament or the electorate of the United Kingdom. The Government has erroneously accepted the Commission’s opinion on the ICG. The Committee therefore calls on the Government either to reject the Treaty or to hold a Referendum. This is on the basis that on both political and legally important grounds, the Government has misleadingly denied that the Reform Treaty is a Constitutional Treaty of the first order, amounting to substantial and even fundamental change to the Constitution of the United Kingdom and to the structure of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Community and the European Union.

10. The Committee does not clear the Commission’s opinion on the IGC from the scrutiny and requests the Foreign Secretary and the legal adviser to attend the Committee in good time before 18 October 2007.
 

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.—(Jim Dobbin.)

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words “Chairman’s draft Report” and insert the words “draft Report

proposed by Mr William Cash”.—(Mr William Cash.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.
 

Ayes, 3 Noes, 7
 

Mr William Cash

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr Anthony Steen

Mr David S Borrow

Ms Katy Clark

Jim Dobbin

Nia Griffith

Kelvin Hopkins

Mr Lindsay Hoyle

Angus Robertson

(An extended version of this page and the comments of UK MPs on this topic appear in our website www.EUnow.eu .)