No means no

The rash of rather creepy articles written by a range of Euro-phile sleazes from Denis MacShane to Richard Corbett have one thing in common: they all view the No vote in the Irish referendum as a starting point for negotiations, rather than as the final decision of the Irish people as ratified in plebiscite. It's a bit reminiscent of a leering pervert in a sweaty club - 'Now you don't mean that darling, come on, give us a kiss.'

Good little post-feminists such as anyone educated at a British university after the 1990s will have had drummed into them as an article of faith that 'no means no' and that continuing to press your affections after that point is not on. There was a particularly unfunny cartoon I saw on a blog a while ago taken, I think, from a 1950s playboy. It had two men and a girl in a bedroom, with one of the men saying 'well, two out of the three of us consent.' Not funny then, not funny now.

***Breaking: Have the Irish voted No?***

Via politicshome, it appears that early returns in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty suggest that the No campaign has won. Still too early to say for sure, but this would really put the cat among the pigeons...

More as and when...

Confirmed! And apparently Brown is determined to carry on ratifying this dead treaty. Fun and games to follow...

Tory splits on Europe

Cameron has not inherited John Major's problem

Gordon Brown thinks that he's onto a winner over the European Constitution. So toxic has been the legacy of the Maastricht debates, where poor John Major's narrow majority was all but wiped out by the rebellion of a handful of euro-sceptic Tory MPs, that the perception has been implanted that the Tories are hopelessly split on Europe. This is why he is not too bothered by the fuss around the denial of the referendum promised in the main parties' manifestos - he thinks that the entire Europe issue is far more damaging to the Tories than to him.

He's wrong. Listen to his line of attack at PMQs yesterday:

Mr Cameron, he said, should be leading his backbenchers instead of following them, "standing up to the Eurosceptics instead of appeasing them, and moving to the centre of Europe instead of being left at the margins of Europe!"

In other words, Brown still believes that the Tory leadership are being compelled to appease the Euro-sceptic back-benchers in order to avoid John Major's fate. But the truth is that the Tory party are more united on the question of the European Union than any other party - the only difference of opinion is just how sceptic they are. The Tory split was mostly a generational issue, with the pro-Europeans being men like Clarke, Heseltine and John Gummer - important figures in the Major days, but peripheral and isolated now. The new blood that has come in since 1997 has been overwhelmingly Euro-sceptic, and that includes Cameron and Osborne. If this wasn't enough, by making the debate about whether there should be a referendum, Brown ensured that even those Tories that are friendlier towards the EU were onside.

What divisions there are, are now on the Labour benches, and even more so among the Lib Dems. Brown remembers the bitter infighting among the Tories in the 90s, but what he doesn't realise is that one side won.

My position on the European Union

Rather neatly summed up by Mark Mardell of all people.

Being Norway or Switzerland might prove of great benefit to the UK. But becoming Norway or Switzerland would be a painful and long drawn-out process.

It's the question of when the benefit becomes worth the process that is the crucial one.

The European Treaty - what should happen next?

One of the things that Gordon Brown's delay of the next General Election to 2009 (probably) has meant is that the Conservative position on the European Treaty has become significantly more complicated. Presently, their position is admirably clear: they support a referendum, in which they would oppose the ratification of the Treaty. Hard to pick a hole in that really. But suppose the Treaty does not go to a referendum, but is passed through Parliament by Labour and Lib Dem enthusiasts. This would be in early 2008, and the Bill would go through to the House of Lords, where surely an amendment allowing a referendum would be returned to the Commons.

Intriguingly, of course, though the Commons can force a Bill through the Lords, it is more or less convention nowadays for this to happen only where the Commons are upholding a manifesto pledge of the Government. In this case, it would be argued, the Government are in fact reneging on a manifesto committment, and it would be the Lords upholding it - a tricky case to use the Parliament Act on. Fun and games aplenty in store for us here I suspect.

Lets imagine, however, that by a combination of low cunning and dirty politics, the Bill is passed and Royal Assent is given. A year later the Election is called and the Tories come into Government. They are faced with a fait accompli. In a discussion at the Ministry of Truth, Bob Piper says that they should honour their current committment and call a referendum on the Treaty - and repudiate it if that is what the referendum decrees. He gives, as an example, the referendum called by Harold Wilson in 1975 on the entry into the European Union.

I think this is either based on a misunderstanding of the issue at hand or, more likely, mischief-making aimed at painting the Tories into a corner. Wilson's referendum was 'In or Out'. A straightforward question with clear actions following. Had the No vote won, Britain would (probably) have left the European Union. In the current situation, unless the referendum is also an 'In or Out' question, the scope for Britain in the light of a No vote is very unclear. It is possible (and in this case desirable) to attempt to alter the rules of a club of which one is a member before the rules are introduced. It is not possible to repudiate those rules a year after they have been unanimously endorsed - unless you want to leave the club altogether. I do rather, but suspect that this isn't yet a majority opinion. So, Hague and Cameron are right to act with extreme caution on what the Tories future tactics will be with regard to the Treaty - it's all too easy to sign up to a policy that would be entirely impossible by the time of the next Election.

Depressingly, I find that I have written a piece that could be by Timothy Garton Ash. I'm quite profoundly Eurosceptic, veering towards the Worstallite position. At some point there will have to be a reckoning. At some point public opinion will tip to the point where current federalism is no longer sustainable. And the massive cynicism of the European political hierarchy over the Constitution may well be the beginning of that movement. I hope so. But it would be a very bad thing for both the Conservative Party and, the pretty valid criticisms of the DK notwithstanding, the wider Eurosceptic movement in Britain if the Tories were to go to the mattresses over an impossible principle.

An unsettling gap

One of the most enlightening aspects about the debates about the European Treaty has been the light it has shed on the strained relationship between the ruled and the rulers. Peter Oborne's new book on the new political establishment has identified a new 'elite' in British society that consists of the political classes, media darlings and the like. This is held to explain why there exists such a dichotomy of opinion between 'us' and 'them'.

Think about capital punishment. If there were to be a referendum on whether that should be re-instated it is quite possible that a majority would still be found in favour. At the time that it was abolished that majority would have been very large indeed. Or look at Europe. People argue about whether there would be a majority for absolute withdrawal, or mreely a substantial minority, but it's fair to say that public opinion is significantly more sceptical than mainstream political opinion.

Does it matter? We live, as people who don't want a referendum on the European Treaty are constantly reminding us, in a representative democracy - we rely on our elected representatives to take all those difficult decisions for us. But where there is such obvious disconnect isn't there also a democratic deficit?

PMQs - again

After last week's ritual slaughter, Gordon Brown had to do better today. And he sort of did, although that's not saying much. But there are times when Brown tries to think on his feet that he says some really peculiar things. Responding to Cameron's question as to why he won't call a referendum (as if we all didn't know) Brown said something along the lines of:

The [shadow] Foreign Secretary (he didn't actually call him shadow, but surely he must mean Hague...) denied the British people a vote over Maastricht, which was a more important Treaty...

Well, what the hell's he talking about? Maastricht was signed in 1992, and ratified by the British Parliament in 1994. Hague wasn't even a minister at that point - and he only entered the cabinet, at which point one could, I suppose, invoke collective responsibility, in 1995. Brown's trying to get the current Tory front bench on hypocrisy, since there wasn't a referendum on Maastricht. But he's talking absolute nonsense, and he really ought to be better than this.

An essentially bogus argument

So, should we have a referendum on the European Constitution? It is, I suppose, an important question, and the arguments brought on both sides are largely interesting and sometimes even valid. But they are also, almost entirely, bogus.

The prime argument in favour of a referendum is pretty straightforward. The Treaty is structurally identical to the Constitution, and all major parties pledged a referendum on that. QED. This is less, of course, an argument for the merits of referenda in general, or even this one in particular, than it is a statement of political fact. Wriggling out of this is tricky.

But they've tried, of course they have. And all the arguments brought as to why there shouldn't be a referendum are false. Not perhaps intrinsically, but because they are made in fallacious ways by people who are least qualified to make them.

Lets ignore the claim that this document is a different document to the original European Constitution: it isn't. Where the Constitution brought European Treaties together into one over-arching document, the Treaty simply incorporates them by reference. The effect is the same, except that it makes the Treaty impossible to read - a feature, not a bug.

So, what's the first argument against a referendum? That referenda are not a part of British democracy - we live in a Parliamentary democracy, read Edmund Burke for the classic defence of this position. Parliament is the place for proper scrutiny of such matters. Linked to this is the Ken Clarke position: referenda never answer the questions asked. "You ask the public for a decision on bi-metallism, and they reply 'Throw the rascals out!'" as the hush-puppied one said. Both these are fair points. But not when made by the party that has brought referenda on London mayors, on devolved assemblies, on devolution in Scotland and Wales, on the peace process in Northern Ireland. All these referenda were said to be necessary because they involved a transfer of sovereignty. So does, par excellence, the European Constitution. The argument doesn't fly, not from them.

What else? That Britain has defended its red lines? That's an argument why the Treaty is a good one for Britain, not why it should not be decided by public vote. You think it's a good treaty? Excellent, then winning a referendum should be easy. If you think the Treaty is bad for Britain, then why are you even considering signing it?

The arguments against a referendum are flawed beyond measure. But so, in truth, is the argument for a referendum. Those of us who want a referendum don't do so because we believe that the measure is so important that it can be decided only by a plebiscite. We do so because we know that we would win it. The only truthful position is that those in favour of a referendum are opposed to the Treaty, and those we are in favour of the Treaty are opposed to a referendum. High and philosophical arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament, or the mandate of the people is so much nonsense.

Cat among pigeons

When I first saw the BBC headline Lib Dems call for EU referendum I'd assumed that Ming Campbell was just getting a bit forgetful, bearing in mind that a couple of days ago he'd said that a referendum wasn't necessary. I now see that he's actually been entirely consistent - he doesn't want a referendum on the constitution, but on the broader question of Britain's relationship with the EU in toto.

Received wisdom seems to be that Brown might just go for this. It's essentially what Keith Vaz called for, and Brown will probably think that he could win a referendum on this. It would be a bit of a fraud:

do you: a) want to sign the EU Constitution; or

b) want to leave the EU altogether

but that won't prevent Brown from doing it. The question is, would the British electorate vote vote in favour of staying in the EU? It's got a terribly bad press, and the public have been deprived of an effective voice on the matter ever since 1975. I wouldn't be astonished if, on being asked the question, a majority didn't just say: actually, sod you all, I want my money back.

Red star in decline

Given how very much more acceptable it still is to declare allegiance to Communist ideology and Communist 'heroes' than it is to do the same for Fascism and fascists, an odd line of argument has been developing within the pages of the Guardian. Apart, of course, from anything written by Richard Gott, who was after all a paid agent of the KGB, or Seumas Milne, whose article comparing colonialism disfavourably with communism was the subject of one of this blogs first ever extended posts, there have been a few pieces now that have declared that Communism was not as black as it has been painted, and that modern historians are artificially condemning the Communists while rehaibilitating the far right.

My initial response is that this is nonsense. No-one wears a wristwatch with a picture of Himmler on it - not even ironically - while Che or Mao or Lenin are considered chic. George Galloway can describe Stalin as a hero of his, and Ken Livingstone has a bust of Lenin in his office. Even Alan Clarke didn't take his regard for Hitler that far. But, here we are, and another piece seeks to defend the Soviet Union and claim that unprincipled politicians are manipulatin history to rehabilitate the far right and condemn the Soviet Union.

The first point to make is that, for Eastern Europe, the Second World War was hardly a clear cut case of good against evil. Nazi Germany invaded and occupied through brutal puppet governments until they were defeated by Soviet Russia who invaded and occupied through marginally less brutal puppet governments. The claim by Hegyi that millions of Soviet soldiers died for the freedom of Europe is nonsense - they died for the conquest of Eastern Europe. As such it is hardly surprising that war memorials to the Red Army are being removed in Poland, Lithuania and Lavia - you don't expect to see war memorials to the English dead in Aquitaine, who fought to liberate France in the Hundred Years War do you?

The Baltic republics should remember Stalin's victims, and we have to understand their mixed feeling towards Russia. But those who sacrificed their lives against the Nazi regime should be heroes for every democrat.

Again, this is rubbish. Those who died fighting in the Red Army in Eastern Europe were undoubetdly very brave men, but the replacement of one brutal left-wing dictatorship by another is not cause for celebration by democrats the world over. Talking of the Soviet occupation of Hungary she writes:

They had come as liberators but, due to the geopolitical reality, they became oppressors.

What on earth does this mean? It wasn't the geopolitical reality that 'turned' the Red Army into oppressors - it was the nature of the Red Army, the Soviet Union and the ideology of Communism that did that. The statue of Soviet soldiers in the Baltic states, in Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic are memorials of oppression and of subjugation. It is not only right for them to be taken down; it is wrong that they have stayed up so long.