Brown Remains Defiant On EU Referendum
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown faces a backbencher revolt over his refusal to acquiesce to a referendum on the new EU treaty. Brown claims that the treaty, which Tony Blair negotiated in his final days, has no connection to the failed EU constitution, on which Labour promised a referendum in 2005. His critics, which comprise a good part of his own Parliamentary faction, believe otherwise:
The Government today insisted there would be no referendum on the new EU treaty, despite revelations in the Daily Telegraph that 120 Labour MPs now want a public vote.David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said this morning that the treaty was different in "absolute essence" from the defunct European constitution, so the Government was not obliged to follow through on its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum. ...
Mr Miliband was responding to revelations in today's Daily Telegraph that more than 120 Labour MPs, including several senior ministers, want a referendum on the new EU reform treaty.
The figure - more than a third of the Parliamentary Party - was disclosed by Ian Davidson, a Scottish Labour MP who, despite being close to Mr Brown, is co-ordinating the strong internal campaign for the British people to be given a say.
Mr Davidson, who has written to Mr Brown on behalf of the Labour rebels demanding major changes to the proposed EU Treaty - or alternatively a referendum - told The Daily Telegraph that support among his fellow MPs was running at levels similar to 2004 when Tony Blair had to give way and promise a plebiscite.
Brown may call an election, the Telegraph reports, and base it specifically on the EU treaty. Given Labour's popularity, an election that returns him to power would allow him to claim a mandate for its ratification. It would neatly avoid the direct referendum that Brown apparently fears, while giving him plenty of latitude to pursue his vision of EU integration.
Unfortunately, elections tend to be tricky. If Brown was really that confident of support and wanted a mandate, why not just hold the referendum? That would also settle the matter, do so directly, and not coincidentally uphold a promise made by Labour on the issue. If the support isn't there, however, an election could have very uncomfortable results for Brown, who just rose to 10 Downing Street and presumably would like to stay a while.
Apparently, Brown understands that the British do not particularly like this treaty. Over 60,000 people have signed the Telegraph's petition for a referendum, and they're not demanding a vote for the purpose of approving it. Neither are the backbenchers of Labour or the entirety of the Tories. That's one reason Brown might call elections: to keep the backbenchers in line. In an election, the candidates rely on Labour to help them retain their seats, and Brown could use that as leverage to keep them in line.
One has to wonder why Brown insists on defending a surrender of sovereignty while realizing its unpopularity. A referendum would give Brown an opportunity to keep the onus of its implementation off of his record. The treaty is Blair's, not his, and a defeat would reflect on his predecessor. A victory would give him the mandate he'd need to keep from shouldering the blame all by himself. Brown is giving himself the worst of all possible choices.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on August 28, 2007 6:44 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (12)
Posted by stackja1945![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| August 28, 2007 7:10 AM
"Brown is giving himself the worst of all possible choices."
Brown does not seem to understand politics.
Posted by george | August 28, 2007 8:02 AM
Rather than jump straight to cynicism - It's possible that Brown wants the treaty because he believes it would be a good thing for Britain, and he's willing to take the political risk to get it.
Posted by TomB | August 28, 2007 9:05 AM
So much for the Labour commitment to Democracy. But seriously, the EU is in trouble and, unlike the elites, people "on the street" don't want it to move beyond the economic block any time soon.
Posted by Bryan | August 28, 2007 9:20 AM
Outside of Fife, Brown isn't really very popular in Scotland. The Lib-Dems and the SNP have been making huge gains since devolution. Scottish politics has been taking more and more a nationalistic tone over the last decade, Scottish nationalism that is. I find it ironic that the anti-nationalist is now PM of the UK, and that his goal is to give up sovereignty to the EU. To think the English were worried that having a Scot PM would favour the Scots too much.
Posted by Ann | August 28, 2007 9:44 AM
I don't understand how the question could be resolved through an election, anyway.
* Labour position on the Treaty: Pro
* Conservative position on the Treaty: Pro
* Lib Dem position on the Treaty: Pro
Who exactly are the voters to vote for if they want to vote against the treaty, when all three major parties support it?
Posted by TomB | August 28, 2007 11:06 AM
Ann,
This is exactly the point!
Posted by GaryK | August 28, 2007 11:18 AM
In view of the number of British citizens fleeing the crime ridden, Muslim infested, suicidal and soon to be engulfed pseudo-England of today for a new life in other countries--200,000 British citizens left England in 2005-06 alone, while 517,000 legal (no telling how many illegals added to this figure)immigrants poured into England in the same time period--can the formation of a British government in exile be far behind.
Posted by GaryK | August 28, 2007 11:21 AM
In view of the number of British citizens fleeing the crime ridden, Muslim infested, suicidal and soon to be engulfed pseudo-England of today for a new life in other countries--200,000 British citizens left England in 2005-06 alone, while 517,000 legal (no telling how many illegals added to this figure)immigrants poured into England in the same time period--can the formation of a British government in exile be far behind.
Posted by Carol Herman | August 28, 2007 11:32 AM
It's not unusual for the Brit's to go to the mat with terrible prime ministers; at very critical times in their history.
Yes, Winston Churchill was an anomaly. And, he had to play 2nd fiddle to FDR. FDR, as a matter of fact, forced out the "jewel in the British Crown," by demanding that India be set free. And, also telling Winston that the USA would not play the game he wanted played; whereby we'd save the collective asses of the european colonists.
Today, Brittain does NOT rule the waves. And, she's a shadow of her former "granduer."
And, if the Brit's had kept parliament filled with their MacDonald's and Chamberlain's? As they have a wont to do, anyway? They'd be speaking German, already. And, they'd all be enslaved to the german TRASH. No, the lights did not go out with hitler (the putz') rise.
And, that's how the gambling table keeps setting up; with, this time, the House of Soddie's leading this stupid parade. While a tin lizzy sits on the throne. And, her big-eared STUPID son, Charles, is probably already converted to Islam.
There's nothing we can do, but watch.
Posted by DSD | August 28, 2007 11:49 AM
Ann isnt exactly right. The Conservatives' position is to try and extract the maximum possible electoral advantage from the situation by calling for a Referendum without ever actually mentioning what the Treaty is about, or whether or not they support it. Bear in mind they are dishonest enough to pretend to be 'Eurosceptic' whilst they sit in the most arch-federalist and pro-EU group in the European Parliament and as such give money to a group which then spends it on trying to force Yes votes on issues which they proclaim they are against for the British audience!
I urge all Americans to read this appalling Treaty. It reads like Orwell's 1984 turned into the blandest of bureaucratic language. It is even literally a 'self-amending' Treaty as it even contains provisions for changes after member states ratify it!
And to TomB - 80% of our Laws are already made in Brussels by the Commission. I think its safe to say that if the UN were making 80% of US Law the American people would feel they'd gone somewhat beyond any concept of an 'economic block' already.
Posted by rbj | August 28, 2007 11:55 AM
Why are the British politicians so willing to sacrifice their national sovereignty?
Posted by flenser | August 28, 2007 12:05 PM
Why are the British politicians so willing to sacrifice their national sovereignty?
Why are the Americans?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/6123.shtml
The North American Forum presentations discussed immigration and border enforcement; full economic and energy integration including infrastructure and transportation; a North American investment fund; and common customs and duties. The idea of a carbon tax was raised as a means to combat so-called global warming. References to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) occur throughout the documents.
The notes for the presentations document the need to overcome popular opposition to North American integration: “To what degree does a concept of North America help/hinder solving problems between the three countries?…While a vision is appealing working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board (‘evolution by stealth’).”