HomeBack to Home
Search
advanced
AustraliaFranceGermanySouth AfricaUSAThe Daily Reckoning is global
Our newsletter pulls you inside a world of insightful, humorous and contrarian investment advice straight from our global network of experts.

Britain Sovereignty Eroded by Stealth

Lord William Rees-Mogg - Tue 04 Mar, 2008

The Government is ceding Britain’s sovereignty by stealth and breaking its promise to the electorate.

The Government is ceding Britain’s sovereignty by stealth and breaking its promise to the electorate says William Rees-Mogg...

Britain’s Sovereignty Eroded by Stealth

The negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty has been one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the present Government, and the ratification has been even more disgraceful. The Government gave a clear pledge in its 2005 General Election manifesto that there would be a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. Referendums were in fact held in the other member states of the European Union. The Spanish referendum endorsed the Treaty, but the French and Netherlands referendums rejected it. No referendum was held in the United Kingdom, perhaps because the Government had hoped that the British would be influenced by the expected 'yes' votes of the French and Dutch electorates.

The Constitutional Treaty was then renegotiated. The Lisbon Treaty, which emerged, contained well over 90% of the same material. It was not a new Treaty, but a redrafting of the Constitutional Treaty in a deliberately more obscure form. It did not advance the democratisation or subsidiarity which were called for in the Laeken Declaration. It took further the bureaucratic centralisation of Europe, to which most British opinion has been opposed.

The Government decided to ratify the Lisbon Treaty by a Parliamentary process, without a referendum. This was defended on the spurious grounds that the Lisbon Treaty was substantially different from the Constitutional Treaty. It is not. It was also defended on the argument that Parliament is better qualified to handle complex material than the electorate. In general it was argued that Britain is a parliamentary democracy. However, there had been referendums on similar constitutional issues, such as devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Lisbon was a similar transfer of powers of the United Kingdom Parliament to the European system, which is more bureaucratic than democratic. In any case, the Government had conceded the principle of a referendum, and of the capacity of the electorate to form a proper judgment, when the referendum was adopted in the Labour Party manifesto.

However, the referendum has been refused, and the Bill to ratify the Lisbon Treaty is trundling through Parliament. Again the Government made a promise, and again the promise is being broken. The promise was that there would be a prolonged process of line by line scrutiny in the House of Commons. That would have involved detailed examination of the text of the Bill, with, no doubt, debate on many amendments. This is not happening.

Line by line scrutiny might have taken 20 days of parliamentary time. That will not now be available. The proposed amount of time is likely to come to 12 days, not 20. Worse than that, the procedure followed is not one of line by line scrutiny, but of general debate, in which Ministers take up a lot of time with windbag speeches. Line by line scrutiny is only given about half the available time, or about a quarter of the time that would be needed to fulfil the Government's pledge.

The position remains as bad as ever. The Lisbon Treaty does destroy some 40 to 60 veto rights of the individual nations. It does create the European Union as a legal entity, with the equivalent of Foreign Secretary and, rather oddly, two Presidents. It does transfer major powers from the nations to Brussels and it does not transfer a single power back to the nations. It moves Europe towards a federal bureaucracy, modelled on the structure of Bismarck's constitution for the victorious Prussian Empire after 1870.

My own view is that this structure will eventually collapse, as most attempts to unite Europe have done. At present, the British are disenchanted but not rebellious. The opinion polls show that about a quarter of voters are content with the centralising tendency of Europe - they are the Europhiles; about a half want a more liberal and democratic Europe, but do not want to get out; another quarter do want to get out. This means that 75% are reformers, against 25% who are happy to accept the Lisbon Treaty. About 75%, however, would prefer to remain in Europe if Europe could be reformed. Thus a large majority would vote against the Lisbon Treaty, if a referendum were called.

However, one cannot avoid feeling anger at the behaviour of the Government. They often promise what the public wishes; they seldom keep their promises. They deserve to be turned out, but by 2010, when they may be turned out, the Lisbon Treaty, with its curb to British independence, will long since have been ratified.

Regards,

William Rees-Mogg
For The Daily Reckoning

post a comment

   Name

  Email

  Comment

I wish to receive the Fleet Street Daily
Thanks for the execellent summary - I find myself in full agreement and it is all so depressing! However, what the hell can the electorate do about it - the politicians have seduced them with easy money and little work, why should they rock the boat? They will not do so until it is too late and they realise it is sinking - in an economic sense - which I feel sure it will in the not too distant future. Andrew
By Andrew Norton, 05 Mar, 2008, 10:46
The treaty will long since have been ratified, and there will probably never be another British election, ever. The people had their chance when Lord Goldsmith stood for election, on the single promise that he would hold a referendum on Europe and then resign. He lost his deposit and the people threw away their only hope, and any right to complain now. http://www.eutruth.org.uk/tentruths.pdf
By Mrs A Chapman, 04 Mar, 2008, 08:40
Since this government promised one thing in their manifesto and have since gone on to do the opposite (EU Treaty, Top-up fees) without any form of apology and abject explanation for the need for their change of mind, could not all those who stood for election on that manifesto and then voted contrary to those promises not be prosecuted for Gaining Pecuniary Advantage by Deception?
By Jack Daniels, 04 Mar, 2008, 07:33
An interesting Article. The worst scenario you can see is with the rise of a "united" Europe started in 1957 with the formation of the EEC and it's subsequent development to date, a third "big" block is emerging in the world, which Nostradamus prophesied 500 plus years ago. Most of his predictions haver come true. The armageddon prediction is just waiting to happen. How it does exactly is another question. Will it be another resources war? Or will it be a religious war?
By M Smith, 04 Mar, 2008, 06:19

Show more articles by this authorPrint this pageshare thissend to friend
Recent Comments
As ever, our cross-bench peer is as clear as he is truthful - it is a disgrace that all three parties promised the referendum, but only one has stuck to it - the other two abandoning the idea now that it no longer suits their purposes. When will people realise that we will be better off without the Eurocrats? My parents voted for the Common Market when I was still at school, but they both despise what it has become. How about abolishing VAT and coming out of the EU? I reckon I could win a election on that manifesto. By Shaun Hexter
WRM is precise in his analysis and is correct in the final result. i.e.that we will be signatories to this treaty without a referendum. In Europe, not every countrl plays according to the rules, or perhaps it would be easier to say that Britain is the only country that does play completely by the rules. This means that in the future, the fallout will begin when a country's disobedience will impact on a fellow member. This will when consistently unanswered begin the split that will benefit the largest players. If Britain as result of this is released from its European trading responsibilities, then prosperity will again fall to exporters, and our food imports will half in price. The cost was always worth paying when our trade with Europe was so vast, but trade is falling and the rest of the world beckons. We only have to wait until the rule breakers start. By David Pollard
post a comment
Related Economic Forecasts Articles
Most Popular Articles
Recieve Articles like this by email
Name
Email address


FSP Logo