Let Britain decide - the opponents of a referendum grow more desperate
Dan Hannan MEP points out on his blog here how desperate the arguments put forward by Labour against letting the British people decide on our EU membership are becoming.
He quotes a briefing by Robert Broadhurst of the European Research Group, which pulls Labour’s objections to the Referendum bill to pieces. For example:
"‘The Bill seeks to bind the next Parliament.’
"It does not. It makes provisions that extend into the next Parliament, but there is nothing particularly unusual about that. There is no legal impediment to the next Parliament repealing the Bill, should it wish. The Bill is only a problem for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties if they do not want to commit to a referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017. However, that is a political issue for them, not a constitutional problem."
You can read the full post here.
He quotes a briefing by Robert Broadhurst of the European Research Group, which pulls Labour’s objections to the Referendum bill to pieces. For example:
"‘The Bill seeks to bind the next Parliament.’
"It does not. It makes provisions that extend into the next Parliament, but there is nothing particularly unusual about that. There is no legal impediment to the next Parliament repealing the Bill, should it wish. The Bill is only a problem for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties if they do not want to commit to a referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017. However, that is a political issue for them, not a constitutional problem."
You can read the full post here.
Comments
You see the current conservative adminstration want to reform the EU and then hold an in out referendum by 2017.
The thing is to reform the RU would require a new treaty. Which is a 3 year process, that takes us to November 2016 if its starts right now. then it needs to be adopted by all memember states and the uk cant do that without a referendum - remember that referendum lock?
so there would have to be a yes - no referendum (for which no holds the status quo) in 2016 for the new treaty, then there would have to be ratification, then there would have to be negotiated reform, then there would have to be the in out referendum, you see the timings do not make any sense.
Although i must admit there has been no confirmation of exactly what "reform" means, but for it to be anything of meaning, rather than the veto that never was, that would require a treaty.
to quote bazil fawlty
"your name please - jim king"
"and your specialist subject - stating the bleeding obvious"
I know all voted in favour of the latter, but come on, there is your energy cost right there, so man up. Oh dear, we got it wrong, its reapealed.
Before she died, she was a very frail old lady, she was almost blind, she used to get a lift to the polling station, provided by the labour party, then she would go and vote tory, and then get a lift home again. she done this a few times.
I like the story of your grandmother.
2017 gives time for the negotiation to take place so that it is clear what would be on offer if Britain votes to remaing a member of the EU.
We can then go through the process of ratifying a new treaty if that is what comes out of the negotiations and Britain votes for "In", or of setting up a new relationship with the EU if the country votes for "Out."
Not exactly a vote on a reformed EU is it?
The way every EU treaty has been agreed is that the member states negotiate first until they have reached an agreement or a treaty, then it has to be ratified before it comes into effect.
It is a reasonable timetable to allow four years to negotiate an agreement by 2017, which can then be used as the basis of an IN/OUT vote.
If the result of the negotiations if a new treaty, and if that treaty requires a referendum, it might well be possible to hold it at the same time as the IN/OUT vote.
I say "if that treaty requires a referendum" because as I understand the triple lock legislation it requires a referendum on any transfer of power from Britain to the EU institutions but not the other way round.
Either way, you vote on whether to continue Britain's membership first, and if the result is a a yes, start the process of ratification of any new treaty.
If the result is an "Out" vote ratification is clearly redundant.