By guest author, Ed Davey MP
Yesterday, much to my surprise, I found myself being dismissed from the Chamber of the Commons by the Deputy Speaker. This sort of thing doesn’t happen to Liberal Democrats, and I don’t have a rebellious reputation, so what the fuss about?
The issue was Europe, and our attempt, as pro-Europeans, to get the Commons to debate and vote on whether the British people should get a vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union.
So what, you might ask? It’s not unusual for Liberal Democrats to be squeezed out of parliamentary debates by the other parties seeking to maintain their cosy establishment arrangements.
True, but this was different. First, all the parties fought the last election on referendum pledges, so there is a democratic obligation for a debate. Second, it goes to the heart of the disagreements between the parties over EU reform. Third, we had undertaken an unprecedented amount of preparatory work to secure a debate, but were still denied. So we were cross.
At the last election, all three parties stood on manifestos that included a pledge for a vote on the then Constitutional Treaty, a Treaty that was truly historic, replacing all the past Treaties, from Rome to Maastricht and Nice, with one new EU Constitution. Difficult to deny this was a matter worthy of a referendum – not least because it would give the people a chance to vote on the most integrationist measures passed since we joined the European Community, namely the Single European Act and Maastricht, measures on which the Conservatives denied the country votes.
The debate in Parliament is whether a referendum on the much more modest Lisbon Treaty is the right way to honour that pledge – the Conservative position – or whether a referendum on Britain’s membership is the better way – the Liberal Democrat position. Or, I guess, whether the case for a referendum has now gone away totally – Labour’s position. So there’s a real choice between the three parties.
In brief, the argument for our position is best summed up ironically by William Hague, when he said about the Constitutional Treaty “the fact that it was a Constitution, not simply a treaty, would have revolutionised the EU.” Indeed, our leader at the last election, Charles Kennedy, said of our pledge, “It's time for this debate - time for us to decide what we actually want from Europe. I believe, once the argument has been joined, the consensus will be that it's better to be in than out.”
Some commentators have expressed surprise that a pro-European party like the Liberal Democrats would risk a vote on Britain’s continuing membership. Yet we have come to the conclusion that for Britain to gain the maximum benefits from the European Union, and for Britain to exercise the maximum influence, we must stop appeasing the europhobes, and instead take them on.
Ed Davey's piece "Why I was thrown out of Parliament" does not explain why he was thrown out of Parliament.
Posted by: G Burnaby | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 03:07 PM
GO FOR IT, ABOUT TIME SOMEONE STOOD UP FOR THE BRITISH WORKING PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE OVERTAXED AND SUBJECTED TO UNENFORCEABLE LAWS FROM A GOVERNMENT WITH MULTI NATIONALITIES AND CUSTOMS WE ARE BRITISH, WELL WHATS LEFT OF US AND WE WANT TO RETAIN OUR INDEPENDENCE THAT MY FATHER AND HIS FATHER FOUGHT IN TWO WARS TO SUSTAIN. TIME FOR COMMON SENSE TO PREVAIL GO TO THE VOTE ON WHETHER WE SHOULD STAY IN OR OUT OF THE EU.WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENT FRIGHTENED OFF DONT DELAY THE DAY ANY LONGER OR WE WILL ALL SUFFER IN THE FUTURE. OFF MY SOAPBOX NOW BUT I WOULD VOTE TO STAY OUT AND SUFFER ANY CONSEQUENCES TO RETAIN THE OLD BRITISH WAY OF LIFE.
Posted by: NICK PHILLIPS | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 03:10 PM
Ed,
I agree one hundred percent we must stop appeasing the Europhobes. What ignorant people in the Tory party and UKIP don't realise is that the EU adds to this country's independence, rather than detracting from it. If we left the EU, how would we stick up to the USA or China on matters like the dumping of steel? We would become Orwell's Airstrip One, a satrapy of America. I sometimes wonder if that's what Cameron, Hague and Rupert Murdoch all want.
Dare I say that France had greater freedom of action than us over Iraq because it had signed up to the Euro, and was thus ultimately less vulnerable to US pressure? Personally, I would like to see the Queen's head on a Euro coin - and use it next time I go to Germany - but I don't necessarily expect you to go all the way with me on that!
Posted by: John McHugo | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 03:17 PM
Good on you!
It's time we had the debate, and that people like Nick Phillips (above) got answers to their concerns AND got the reforms of the EU that ensure that the EU is accountable and democratic.
Personally, I'd vote "IN", so long as we got the reforms that Ed Davey clearly wants to see. Europe is the leading light of this world, and it needs to shine brightly. The UK should be proud to be part of it, and we should make it an institution that we can all be proud of!
Posted by: Neale Upstone | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 03:18 PM
This country was once a haven for FREE speech and it seems that now even our elected representatives are denied the right and the powers that be simply want only yes men, TOUGH, go for it Ed and good luck to you
Posted by: J. Pilkington | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 03:19 PM
In five days time Russia goes to the polls, and there will be howls and shrieks about how the whole thing was a fix etc.
And then one reads how debate and voting are managed in the "mother of Parliaments", and realises it's all cant and hypocrisy....
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 03:36 PM
UE,accountable and democratic!!!! your having a "jiraffffe".It's like the old "soviet onion" to many skins(countries)and is soooo ineficient.The more expansion it gets the more it stumbles along like an old "mammoth".We should pull out and become "a lean mean economic machine" less rules and regs.Health and safety and all the other crap that bogs us Urows down.
What is it for ???? only to bully its citizens with rules and laws just like the old(and new)Russian Empire.Up yours Bruxles and Strasburge(whats all that about flitting from one t?other????)
Posted by: dani ellis | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 03:53 PM
Yes, that was the right approche but why did you get thrown out?
I think Nick Cleggs comment today was apt. Parliament is not up to date.
Posted by: Susanna | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 04:03 PM
The question about what will happen if a referendum outcome was for withdrawing from the European Union is a valid one to address. Would the Government have to take notice of the result?. Our unwritten constitution does not have referenda as mandatory last words on anything. The voting numbers may be unreperesentative of the whole population as in most elections. The voting could be heavily slanted by the efforts of our europhobc media to influence the referendum. It is naive to believe we liberals/Liberals can educate the masses on what Europe means. The result could be much as it would for a referendum on hanging; faith in the sense and sensibility of the masses sounds good when preaching democracy but could be the road to the rule of the lowest common denominator. The debate on Europe is an intelectual one for very practical ends. One can see why the major two parties are nervous about the risk. Both are afraid of a vote against the "constitution" or for withdrawal. The Tories are europhobic on primarily political grounds, being well aware of the deeply ingrained prejudice for all things non British in a large proportion of the population. Are we being equally opportunistic ? Whichever way the vote goes we would be able to say we were the party that asked for vote most stridently. Surely this is the type of cake eating and having it Liberal Democrats are accused of practising ?
Posted by: STEWART SHEPLEY | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 04:44 PM
So we increase our indipendance by becoming one part in twenty seven of the European Union, the most corrupt organasiation in the Western World? And that helps us to abandon the Americans who saved the world from the Germans and Hitler in the last war, and received scant thanks for it? And instead we cuddle up to the people who were attacking us? Thats not only the Germans, but the French, Dutch, etc, few European countries did not help the Germans in the last war. So now the war is over, all that's old hat? What about the French and general European refusal to help deal with Sadam? What about the general cowardice of European powers when anything wants doing? Most of Europe supported Saddam, despite the threat to us and his own people. They are a shifty, untrustworthy lot, and we should keep away from them. Stop thinking what the European Union could be in a perfect world, and see what it is in the real world, a corrupt, self interested group of ingrates, ready to deal with mass murderers and totaly unwilling to help the rest of humanity.
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 04:51 PM
To Stewart Shepley..
Germany has not been an enemy for a long time, but a friend, willing to work alongside Britain and other EU states on our common interest.
You sound as if the fact that a former enemy is a fellow EU state is a threat. That's just nonsense and you're views are at least 50 years out of date. The fact is: The EU would never allow fascism to re-enter European politics and has kept Western Europe peaceful since its inception. We are more likely to be attacked whilst outside the EU than within.
The EU has nothing to do with America. Whether we're a member of an international organisation or not, we will always be allies with America, not because we share the same values (other than tongue), but because we're fighting a common interest, and the USA has done far less for international peace than the EU.
Whether other EU states supportes Saddam or not, the Iraq war was completely unjust and based on a pack of lies. Yes he may have opressed many of his people, but we can't support the undemocratic dictators of Saudi Arabia and oppose Saddam.
Posted by: Stuart | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 05:17 PM
It is high time this New Labour Government gave the public what it wants, YES a referendum as promised, not what it tell us what new labour wants, everything this government has touched has been a disaster, and still they insist on selling this country down the river, all that they are interrested in is fiddling the system to line their own pockets, they dont want a referendum because they might loose, and for once the public will have won.
Posted by: frank Armishaw | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 05:20 PM
Well done.We should not be afraid of a referendum.It is time that we made up our mind about Europe,once and for all.Sitting on the fence only means less influence in the decisions that really matter.If we want change within the E.U. we must be on the inside to be able to make our case and to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Kristian Berggreen | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 05:38 PM
"First, all the parties fought the last election on referendum pledges, so there is a democratic obligation for a debate"
Yes, pledges on the Lisbon Treaty, which you've now gone back on. Hypocrit really isn't the word.
Posted by: David | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 05:53 PM
To Stuart,
The Americans are the reason for peace in Europe, not the European Union, without them Europe would all be part of the Russian Empire circa 1945.
If ignoring the vote against the Treaty by the Dutch and French isint Facist, what is?
The French have said on more than one occasion that the idea of a common foreign policy for the Union is to allow the United States to be excluded as much as possible.
Britain may have a common democratic interest with America, I see precious little that is democratic in Europe. Lets face it, Europe is becoming a Prussian State with all the drawbacks that go with that, without the will to defend itself.
Thus we get the worse of all worlds, the corruption without the personal freedom, the police state without the security.
AS to the Iraq war being unjust, I take it that Stuart would be happy with a government that, when told a foreign power was going to attack us, would just give a big yawn and say wake me when they take out Glasgow?
Come to think of it, thats what we are about to get, a state that is all talk and no action. I daresay if the Union was attacked, we would be sending in health and safety people to make sure our surrender was done without anyone getting hurt.
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 08:05 PM
If we do have a referendom and the answer is no were do we go from there as we are so intergrated with Euope, would this country find it self in limbo. We are sutch a small country we would probable become the next state of the USA or if not we would affectivley
Posted by: Andrew | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 08:32 PM
No, Kristian, you're wrong there. Hypocritical is the word for a party that demands a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty when the not-so-hidden agenda of a sizeable chunk of its MPs and membership is that we should leave the EU. The Conservatives don't want a referendum on continued EU membership because it would expose their internal divisions for all to see.
Posted by: Nick | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 08:41 PM
Dave,
Your comments seem to have been sparked by my earlier posting. On a point of fact, remember that we stood alone against Germany until the end of 1941 - the USA only came into the war when Japan attacked it at Pearl Harbour. Hitler declared war on the USA, not the other way round. Until then, when they sent us arms etc, we paid them for it.
I feel almost ashamed to point this out, because of course you are right that the USA was vital to the liberation of Europe from the Nazis, and we couldn't have done it without them. But the point is that it is ridiculous to use rhetoric about Nazis or World War II when discussing foreign affairs today. I stick to my point: the EU adds to our independence, and if we left the EU we would end up an American client. I don't know whether Cameron, Hague and Rupert Murdoch have thought this through. I suspect they are cynically just whipping up anti-European prejudice for their own ends.
Posted by: John McHugo | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 08:46 PM
@John McHugo
Excellent points, but do you really believe Britain isn't *already* a yankee client? The furious rhetoric coming out of the PNAC camp about "freedom fries", "Old Europe" and "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" isn't accidental. It's the very deliberate and calculated yankee policy of undermining Europe whenever possible - and Blair was the "tool" (I choose my words carefully) by which they hoped to achieve it. This is why Bliar must be stopped from becoming EU President - because he's the paid agent of the PNAC, sent to destroy the very thing he heads. Murdoch plays along very happily with his pal William Kristol's plans to damage the EU as much as possible.
This is the same reason why the PNAC New World Order crowd have attempted to buy-off the Governments of E European countries (often with suitcases of cash delivered to their leaders - like those handed-over in Romania and Bulgaria by George Bush in an attempt to buy votes in the UN Security Council) to destabilise the existing EU. The idea was to discredit "Old Europe" (as Dummy Rummy termed it) by creating a bogus scandal that these countries were being "excluded" - when in fact they'd failed to meet the criteria for accession. The latest yankee plan is to lobby for Turkey's membership of the EU - as the economic disaster this would bring would play into the PNAC hands perfectly.
Meanwhile Britain has sleepwalked into becoming the 51st State, and fights yankee wars, contributes to yankee financial scams (like the "sub-prime" disaster) as though there was some patriotic necessity to do so.
It's long overdue that Britain divorced its abusive spouse and realised where its real friends lie.
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 09:11 PM
Hear Hear Neil
Posted by: Andrew | Wednesday, 27 February 2008 at 10:06 PM
To Neil,
I must admit to a certain puzzlement with your posting, you see our friends as enemies, you see our old enemies as new friends, the past counts for nothing, people who were our enemies for hundreds of years are now our salvation, the nation that came to our aid twice in thirty years you hate, the countries who attacked us you love. I think the man who said that people who ignore history are bound to repeat its mistakes was thinking of you.
I don't see the objection to closer integration with America, although I would prefer it if we were alone. Europe would be no loss to us, we could get better trade terms from them than we have now, and we would be spared the cost, corruption, and horrendus red tape that is so damaging to us at the present time. Certainly if we must be part of a larger group the United States must be a better bet than the European Union, at least the States has a semblance of democracy, while the Union is run by unelected beaurocrats, faceless people who cannot be voted out, backed up by a self serving "Elected Government" that is more interested in its own expenses than in the electorate.
Think of California where anyone can propose new legislation, compare that with the Union that ignored the wishes of the French and Dutch people when they voted in a referendum. Perhaps you are happy with a system that allows people to vote, then ignores them when they get the wrong answer.
Margaret Thatcher said that during the twentyth century all that was good came from the west, America, and all that was bad came from the east, Europe. I feel this still holds good, Europe is good for a holiday, they make good cheese and wine, you might like their cars, but join them in political union? You must be mad.
Posted by: Dave | Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 12:45 AM
I'm trying very hard to keep a straight face while reading all this guff about WWII. Fair enough that it's still a subject that makes people passionate - that's a good thing if it means we remember the suffering caused.
Please remember the following. "The Germans" and "the Russians" were not the enemy. Fascism in its various forms was the enemy. And fascism is no respecter of national boundaries, it can arise anywhere. In fact there's a case for saying that the US today is closer to incorporating fascistic elements than any country in the EU - all that stuff about the world mission, spreading one political system throughout the globe? Ring any bells?
If we had taken some of the logic on display here to its full conclusion in either 1914 or 1939 (I notice no-one is mentioning WWI, probably because it doesn't fit the paradigm) we would never have allied with the French on the grounds that we had fought wars with them or threatened to in each of the five preceding centuries. In each case, that would have meant a diplomatically and militarily divided western Europe which the enemy could have rolled up without bother, as in WWII they very nearly did. There wouldn't have been anything for the US to save. And it was by no means inevitable before Pearl Harbour that the US would enter the war anyway.
Please, get rid of the idea that certain nations are "good" and "bad". The fact is, the character of every government and every nation is in constant evolution, and to make decisions today based on sixty-year-old events is terrifyingly unsophisticated. This is a discussion about historical circumstances that are demonstrably no longer in play - can we get beyond tribal loyalties and back to the actual issue at hand?
Let's hear an argument against membership of the EU that doesn't exhibit this woolly thinking, please. I'm pro-European because to me it's as natural as breathing, but I'm not averse to the idea that by the law of averages there must be arguments against. Surprise me.
Posted by: Alix | Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 09:35 AM
Alix,
Well said.I agree with every word you say.I think you have summed the whole thing up.
Posted by: John McHugo | Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 01:14 PM
To be honest the first thing you need to think of with a decision like joining or splitting away from Europe is something that none of you seem to cover in your comments and that is; 'Why do we want a government?'
because as with any management or design project you need to have a clear and total understanding of WHY it is being done, because without that it is doomed to failure.
Once the purpose of governance has been decided then we must seek to implement it in the most effective and fair way passable, which leads back to the topic of joining the EU.
If by fully integrating into the EU it will improve the effectiveness of the government that we want then yes lets join, but if not then joining would be a bad idea.
Posted by: Drezta | Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 01:53 PM
@Dave
I'm afraid Alix has comprehensively demolished the attempt to blacken our EU partners on the basis of what happened in WW2. You do yourself few favours into trying to stir up cheap hatreds as your rallying-call. Found any WMD yet? Your yankee pals were so certain about them - surely they couldn't have told you a lie, could they?
But you did get one thing right at least - you said the USA has "a semblance of democracy", and you were certainly correct there ;)
Neil McGowan (in sleety Moscow)
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 02:29 PM
Alex,
The thing about facism, the sort that you say can arise anywhere, is that it arose in Europe, not Britain, not America, not anywhere in the Anglo Saxon world. You are pleased to dismiss this as a silly argument, thinking that just because its something you personally do not want, then no one else could possibly want it, and so you can prevent its rise by wishing it so. You say you are sophisticated, so was Nevile Chamberlin, he was sure that he knew best, his smug attitude, his need to believe what he wanted to believe, along with ignoring the warnings of history and of his advisors, led us into a war that ended with forty million dead. The reason we nearly lost that war was because of the wishfull thinking brigade who believed that if they ignored the signs of what was happening, then it couldent happen. They refused to take the signs seriously untill it was almost too late. I think your attitude of "It can't happen here because everything is different, and anyway, I don't want it to happen", is just as irresponsible. You ask me did we find weapons of mass distruction, you did not answer my point about ignoring the threat, would you say wake me up when they take Glasgow out, or would you make sure it did not happen?
You still seem determined to ignore history, so you are bound to repeat its mistakes.
AS for getting back to the case in hand, the European Union offers nothing that we cannot get better and cheaper elsewhere, on our own we can get better terms on trade, keep our own laws, keep on good terms with the Anglo Saxon world, arrange our own defence, and avoid the graft and corruption that the Union is so famous for. Most of all, when something goes wrong, and the fascists come back to Europe, we wont be part of it.
Hope you are still smiling
Posted by: Dave | Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 08:27 PM
I really wish the anti Europeans would stop trying to portray their opponents as liars, hypocrites or backsliders. The facts are clear: The Lisbon Treaty is just that, a treaty, amending the rules of the EU. It is not a new constitution replacing all previous EU treaties. What is the point of having a referendum on that, when the real question people who oppose the Lisbon Treaty want is EU in or out.
I did actually organise for and vote in the 1975 referendum. At the start the polls said we would lose, but we won overwhelmingly, once people saw the real arguments and not the continual negative carping of most of the UK press.
That is why we must have a proper referendum here in the UK, to settle for the next 30+ years this festering sore that is constantly used by anti europeans to tell whopping lies about the EU. Let's get all the facts out into the open and decide the UK view of the EU in 2008. Of course Cameron won't want that because he knows he'd have to vote yes to the EU, whilst many in his party would vote no. Brown doesn't want to consider the question at all. Let's all get behind the Lib Dem campaign for a real referendum, not a sham.
Posted by: Mick | Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 08:28 PM
we need a debate on europe we need to ask the people what they want we need openess not hiding behind closed doors. the people are very capable of expressing their views in a referendum. we went into the eec not a united states of europe lets have the debate and a referendum.
Posted by: Bruce Parmenter | Thursday, 28 February 2008 at 11:18 PM
"The thing about facism, the sort that you say can arise anywhere, is that it arose in Europe, not Britain, not America, not anywhere in the Anglo Saxon world."
Absolute rot. British National Party, now gaining unprecedented levels of support and acceptability? American fundamentalist christianity, a whole fascistic horror story unto itself which has influenced the White House over Bush's term in a way we would have thought laughable and impossible fifteen years ago? Methinks you're the one believing what you want to believe and ignoring what you don't. Again, I'm not saying that extreme ideology in its various forms doesn't exist in Europe - it's demonstrably on the rise in France and Austria to name two. The point, I repeat, is that it can arise EVERYWHERE. Please try to grasp this exceptionally simple premise.
And also understand that it doesn't make the country concerned "evil"! It is perfectly possible to be pro the US without thinking they're all political saints, and anti-Europe without thinking they've all got cloven hooves, so why don't you just adopt that perfectly respectable postion?
Your use of the "avoid the mistakes of the past" line is hopelessly narrow. Can you really believe that the lesson of the 1930s is "Don't trust a European country", as opposed to "Be wary of overwheening powers with messianic delusions of grandeur". Gee, who could I mean? Who is the power, these days, that we kowtow to for fear of losing their favour and destabilising the international scene? Clue: it's not in Europe.
I wouldn't say I'm particularly anti-US, by the way (certainly not compared to Neil! :-D). I'm just labouring the points in the hope that you might develop a more balanced view.
Posted by: Alix | Friday, 29 February 2008 at 08:58 PM
lets have a referendum and get us out of the EU FOR GOOD THEN BE A RICHER COUNTRY IN 1966 WE WERE THE ONE OF THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORD NOW THAT WE ARE SIGNED UP FOR THE EU WE ARE THE POOREST SO LETS GET OUT OF THE EU
VOTE FOR A REFERENDUM TO GIVE US BACK OUR COUNTRY FOR GOOD
Posted by: MARGARET GARRAWAY | Wednesday, 26 March 2008 at 04:15 PM
I can't help seeing all this pro-European stuff and thinking: so what? What does it matter if we are in or out of Europe? Call me naive but maybe if the Lib Dems weren't so pro Europe and concentrated on matters at home a lot more - stuff that gets votes - then we wouldn't all be wasting our time debating pointless referendums; lets face it there will be no referendum and even if there was it wouldn't matter one jot because the government never listen to anything the people say!
Of course the people want a referendum but it is obvious that the government are not going to give us one because they will hear what they don't want to hear so lets just forget the whole thing and concentrate on supporting issues closer to home and looking after us Brits!
Posted by: C Gayton | Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 04:37 PM
If you read what Nick Davey said, you would know that you've got to read what you're told (by everybody) very carefully. Just about everything the Tabloids tell you is an Opinion not a Fact.
The Tabloids (and the MPs who get paid by them) want you to distrust the Europeans and their treaties.
The newspapers will make more money if Britain stays out of it and buys more goods and services from the USA where the owners of the tabloids, mostly, live.
What I've written here is an opinion, but believe me, I know what I'm talking about. You don't have to trust me, but you definitely have to trust them. Not!
They want your money.
RussXPD
Posted by: RussXPD | Friday, 28 March 2008 at 08:39 PM