Civitas Blog

Gordon Brown, like Blair before him, has consistently confirmed that the government does not intend to hold a referendum prior to ratification of the reform treaty. The programme outlining the intentions for his premiership contained no promise of public consultation on the issue, despite opinion polls suggesting that a majority of the public view this as imperative. This, despite his reassurances that he intends to ‘rebuild the connections between the institutions of the state and the people they serve.’ The justification for the lack of a referendum? That the revised treaty does not contain the constitutional implications of its predecessor – the proposed, and hastily, abandoned Constitutional Treaty of 2004.

In direct continuation of Blair’s approach, Brown has reiterated the ‘success’ of the ‘red lines’ approach and their resultant ‘opt-out’ clauses. Throughout the talks, Blair and British representatives to Europe assured the public that the ‘red lines’ would not be crossed, meaning that certain issues would be non-negotiable during the treaty discussions. These included: the right to opt out of justice and home affairs proposals (including social security and tax laws); a continuing veto on judgements on a common foreign policy and the military; and perhaps most controversially, the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to British law.

A steady stream of media coverage has revealed that even EU authorities recognise that the ‘opt outs’ secured by Britain do not carry assured legal weight; most recently it has been revealed that the EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has said the Charter’s provisions do have the potential to apply to large parts of British law. Even where the ‘red line’ approach to negotiations does appear more robust, such as in the affirmation that tax laws will not be challenged, it has been noted that these areas were not in any case threatened by the original treaty proposals.

It has been made increasingly clear that the central EU authorities intended to bypass their electorates in order to pass constitutional provisions. Indeed even today, reports have emerged that the former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato has explicitly admitted that the Treaty has intentionally been presented in such as a way as to be totally inaccessible to the electorate, thereby discouraging calls for referenda. It is entirely unacceptable that such a significant handover of political power can be made in this way.

The result of the flimsy ‘opt-outs’ and shady securities being offered up to the British electorate is, of course, that this is the same constitutional treaty, being reintroduced merely in a different form. More important than wrangling over the petty details of the treaty and the ramifications of individual provisions are the implications of the governmental attitude towards the public in this area. For anyone just beginning to grapple with the politics of Britain, the EU, and the real consequences of this treaty, the apparent acceptability of the government ratifying the treaty without direct public consultation seems terrifying. Civitas’ primary focus regarding the EU is to educate the young public (and therefore soon-to-be members of the electorate) as to its realities, and to open up debate on its institutions, practices and controversies. This is an increasingly frustrating task – though an ever more crucial one – when the government of the day is wholly unprepared to allow public involvement while pressing forward with Europe’s ‘ever closer union’.

This is not a contribution to the long, and dreary debate over the various provisions of the treaty, or even an argument against deeper integration with Europe in certain senses. It is instead another voice calling for the government to remember that it should be unable to act on such weighty decisions without first consulting its people. You can add your voice to this growing call by visiting the Downing Street website and signing up to the petition for guaranteeing a referendum.

It is British citizens who must live with the consequences of the provisions within this treaty. For that reason alone it is vital that they fully understand the debate, what is at stake and are then allowed to make the ultimate decision on its implementation.

By Philippa Knott