Dear Matthew Parris

Just add my name to those who wish to point out to you that this country DOES have a constitution - the rules of which were broken when Edward Heath signed the 1972 treaty in Rome taking the UK into the incorrectly named 'Common Markey'..

Derek Hunnikin, Chichester, West Sussex

Europe referendum:

You say that decisions about the EC are not irreversible because we can kick our Government out. You also say that it would be unwise for a Conservative Government to propose reneging on an already ratified treaty.

Since the EC doesn't seem to reverse decisions once they have been taken I don't quite follow your logic.

Colin Parker, Saffron Walden, Essex.

Colin Parker, SAFFRON WALDEN, Essex

It is interesting that your commentators from France seem more against the EU than many of the UK contributors. Is this an evil EU plot to get rid of us? Let's face it we are a bit of a pain.

Paul Odtaa, Richmond, UK

I find domestic cats highly needy and annoying.

We should all welcome the cat ban.

When will we also have the goldfish ban?

Goldfish - another silly idea.

And without the N.Trust would we still have those forgetful little critters sailing around in our livingrooms? I very much doubt it.

Since they set up their hospital in O.St, the numbers of goldfish has risen to risible proportions and I welcome the kind offer by the EU to take all our goldfish and turn turn them into plumbers. Why has the N.Trust proven incapable of such lateral thinking?

s, london,

The prolem with Parliament, from an outsiders point of view, is that the M.Ps have to jump when the Party Line says jump.This means that instead of a number of wise men debating a subject and coming to a conclusion, a small number of the more powerful tell the herd what to do. I am in favour of referendums because I do not trust politicians as a group although, the are some fine individual ones. The Swiss model is not perfect but I prefer it to ours.

Peter Davis, Reading., Berks.

It seems to me you have your logic somewhat confused. If you are concerned about the way Europe may perform under this new arrangement, then you are better off not having had a referendum and leaving more opt out options. Having a referendum isn t going to improve the process, but it will the more commit you to the new European arrangements. In the alternative, a rejection leaves you no immediate means of resolving the resulting hiatus, as the French and Dutch are presently appreciating.

Henry Percy, London, UK

It's all very well saying we can elect a government or vote them out if we don't like what they do. But what happens during the their elected term 5 years of office? You, Matt are suggesting that we trust them, based on their pre-election manifesto, to do what they said they would do. Well, we have done just that and look where that has got us.
Labour has been importing votes for 10 years - just look at the immigration figures and boosting their client base for the same period - just look at the increasing numbers on benefit.

A referendum is the scourge of the dodgy politician and that is why Broon won't have one. Maybe his next try will be to abolish all the opposition parties as being redundant, just as Mugabe did 20 years ago.The Zimbabwean president said there was no need for them or a vote on the matter. Had he held a referendum then, I feel things there would be better now.
It is no democracy that allows its government to renege its manifesto pledges with impunity.

Terry Harris, Brighton, UK

I think Mathew correctly stated that had Labour not promised a referendum few people would be angry at this not being delivered. It is a complete break of trust and an insult to the British public,showing disrespect toward the voter and making party manifestos (in which we base the majority of our voting decision) basically worthless.
Also, one basic point to note is that most of the polititians seem to be saying little about where as a country we want to be in the future and how we will make this happen - i.e. what do we wish our identity to be?
Once we know more clearly what each party is aiming to achieve (honestly, not just for the 'party self preservation') then voters can decide which party is best suited to take us into our future.
Seems fairly straight forward to me. Maybe I should run for Parliament as the 'tell the truth about what we believe party'.... not the 'you tell me what you want, ill put it in my manifesto then break all my promises once you've voted party'

Paul, Bradford,

If they ban my cat I will be very angry. Since when did we confer the E.U. with such powers? What's more where will all the children go when they become ill. No sir, the sooner we are out of Europe the better;

Kenneth Wheatley, St Pée sue Nivelle, France

Most if not all my Greek students would subscribe to the proposition, repeated here by Mr Parris, that Britain doesn't have a constitution. How then would he categorise the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement as anything other than a constitution? Constitutions come in all shapes and sizes and the new EU Treaty fulfills all the paradigm features of a constitution and, in most cases, replaces the 1689 Bill of Rights but not the UK as a constitutional monarchy (per the Act of Settlement). I agree with Mr Parris that David Cameron needs to be careful not to repeat his grammar school gaffe in relation to opposing the new treaty as the British people will soon tire of discussing it and will not respond well to Conservative filibustering. He would be better advised to concentrate on Tony Blair's gaffe, supported by Mr Brown, in giving away a percentage of Mrs Thatcher's refund in exchange for the final demise of the Common Agricultural Fund. This issue will arise in 2008-9.

Dr David Green, Athens, Greece

The point that seems to have been missed in Mr Parris's analysis is that this Treaty defines the only basis on which any party may subsequently withdraw. The terms of such withdrawal will be determined by the remaining parties thus effectively making such an option so onerous as to be meaningless.

The EU is now a state and we a province, if we choose to withdraw we will be crushed, either economically or by other brutal means.

If the Westminster Parliament ratifies this treaty democracy will end and we will lose the power to rat or renege on anything.

Martin Cole, Angouleme, France

As to be expected a very astute analysis by Matthew Parris on this issue. The Tories will land some heavy punches in the coming months but eventually their policy will unravel. Gordon Brown now has a reason, additional to the likely economic downturn, for playing it long. If he goes to the polls in late 2009 or even spring 2010 the Reform Treaty will have been in force a not insignificant period (nearly 18 months if the elections are in 2010). During that time it will be crystal clear that it won’t have meant the end of British civilisation as we know it. Indeed, I suspect the great British public won’t notice any difference at all. If David Cameron fights the election on the Treaty it will inevitably turn into the issue of continued UK membership of the EU. If he doesn’t, the Eurocrazies in his party will ensure that the Tories come across as deeply split and containing a sizeable swivel-eyed minority raving about something bearing no relation whatsoever with reality.

Arnold, Alderley Edge,

England is ar right-of-centre, freedom-loving capitalist society with a passion for democracy.

The EU is a socialist, anti-democratic, unaccoutable, centralising and corrupt bureaucracy.

Gordon Brown is an authoritarian socialist Scot.

Of course Brown will do everything he can to bind England to the EU as it shares his controlling socialist vision. Brown and the Marxist Milliband are quislings of the EU. This treason must be reversed.

David Rochester, Liverpool, UK

The question is one of change, and how the media and the people are failing to adapt to change in Europe and the wider world. The biased press coverage is the biggest travesty in British journalism history.

Jon Kingsbury, Southampton, UK

Matthew, your argument started badly with "In the UK we elect governments to make these decisions; we expect party election manifestos to warn us in advance of the really big ones. We ask Parliament to decide."
Only about 22% of the electorate positively voted for the govt in 2005 - the rest either voted for someone else, or nobody (we don't have a 'none of the above shower' box on UK ballot papers!). Under these circumstances I think it's incumbent upon the govt to put these big big decisions to a public referendum.
In any case, Lab did promise us a referendum, and now they're gone back on the offer.

paul newbold, Sheffield, england

We live in a parliamentary democracy, not a state run by populist referenda. The democratic route forward is for parliament to vote on whether or not to hold a referendum on the treaty. If they vote against a referendum, the people will have spoken through its representatives. If a majority of the electorate believe that in so voting the parliamentary Labour party have broken their manifesto commitment, they can vote Labour out at the next election. That's how we do things in this country.

William, London,

Patrician nonsense, Matthew. When we elect Governments, we lend them powers temporarily for a fixed term. These powers are not posessions of those we elect, and therefore, they are there to remain intact at the next cycle.

If the elected wish to dilute, pool or share those powers, then a direct and unambiguous mandate must be sought from those who own those powers. i.e. the Electorate.

To argue that an electorate are too thick to understand one single matter, and are therefore incapable of sustaining a coherent opinion on it therefore makes no sense when the same electorate is permitted to vote on an election comprising hundreds of interlinking complex matters.

Or perhaps Democracy can only be perfect when Voters can be directly excluded from all considerations?

It's views like yours, Matthew, that provide the BNP's staple food.

Politicians answer to us, not we to them.

Douglas Carter, Emsworth, UK not EU

"Well, there is a way that the Conservatives could test that. They could go into the next election with no concrete example of Euro-folly currently enraging the voters, but promising to renege on an already ratified treaty. The possible consequence (which would quickly become the central isisue of the election) would be that our entire membership of the EU would begin to unravel. This would prove a fascinating test. It is not one I’d recommend Mr Cameron to try."

On the contrary, Matthew, this is something I believe he should try. He might be pleasantly surprised to discover the degree of hostility felt by most Britons towards the obsurd European adventure. We are all itching for this shambolic sandcastle to come tumbling down. The tide has already turned against Europhilia and it is just a matter of time now...

Adrian Gilbert, Tonbridge,

The choice is very simple. Either the British people elect a
British government that they can then get rid of if they are
unhappy, that's democracy. Or the British government
becomes irrelevent and we are told what to do by a
European government which we cannot get rid of. That is the
Soviet System and an end to FREEDOM.

Philip, Dorset, England

Do what the French do. Sign up to treaties and constitutions and then do what ever suits you. You never see fishermen, where I live, chucking small fish back because of EU regulations. They're sold in the local market. It's only the UK that seems to follow every little EU regulation. More fool the UK.

Doug George, Antibes, France

It probably costs the UK 50 billion pounds per year ,every year
to support the EU , Why waste the money?

Denver Watt, Osaka,

Mr Parris falls into the same old trap, that we voted to join this unaccountable dictatorship who are answerable to no-one. I seem to remember voting to join a trading organisation 'the Common Market' I also remember voting to stay in. I never voted, or had the opportunity to vote on a European Union of Soveriegn States.

Norm, Newcastle, England

It's not the case that we can always wriggle out so there's no issue yet. If there's a referendum, we have a choice between pre-treaty Europe and probably exit, if we want to wriggle out later, we have a choice between post-treaty Europe and exit.

There should be a referendum whenever our representatives want to give up any powers they wield on our behalf. Some of the circumstances Matthew Paris mentions do indeed qualify. Some don't.

JA, London,

I agree with Matthew Paris. That is why Gordon Brown must stop defending (the indefensible) and get on the front foot by demanding that Cameron define exactly how he sees the future. We will then see all the devisions within the Conservative Party.
To those who (fashionably) mention Norway and Switzerland; has anyone done a serious assessment as to where the balance of benefit lies?

Robert, London, UK

Britain as a nation is not good on Europe.
As a Briton living in Portugal for the past seventeen years,
and also having worked and lived in places like Italy and Greece, I feel I have a good perspective on the 'European Octopus' ( call it what you will ) from a British standpoint.
With the advent of the Euro in 2002 countries like Portugal adopted it, which resulted in prices going through the roof and employment going down.
We, however, didn't want it so opted out, Nice if you can get it you might say.
The French turn to the streets if their governments do not do what they wish, we turn to our tea and sympathy.
Perhaps the incident which best illustrates these differences is the recent air of jubillation that accompanied the news that Imperial ( measures ) could stay.
If we so want to avoid the little things of Europe how can we reconcile this with our aversion to the bigger ones?
( jurisdiction, sovereignty, etc.)

William Roby, Valença, Portugal

When it comes to trust and honour I would like the Consevatives to be honest and say quite simply they want to come out of the EU and have an arrangement like Switzerland.
Then we could have a long overdue and proper debate which is of such seriousness for the country.that it must be put to a referendum.
Why doesnt Cameron say this.

james gallagher, london, uk

I am not sure that a referendum would be the right solution as many voters have anti europeean feelings. They will not make a correct decision based on facts, they will just vote no because of their nationalistic pride. The problem is that britain cannot stay on her own in the globalised world. If we stay out of it now, we might regret it.

Kevin Smith, Manchester, UK

All very clever casuistry Matthew. But today the problem is that we have an 'elite' bunch at the centre driving and manipulating the ' ademocratic' system we have in place. As it dawns on us, the ordinary folk, that we are ignored the anger of the people is going to mount and direct action willo be the only way to change things: already at my advanced age there are times when I am in danger of snapping. Referendums might be some way of avoiding trouble used sparingly and with common-sense. Certainly after Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam sell outs towards 'ever closer union' there is every reason to have one on this treaty. If denied there is going to be trouble and I would like to be part of it.

Dr J Findlater, Carnforth,

The British are at best ambivalent about Europe. We recognise that it is good for trade and convenient for tourism, working and living abroad etc. Europhiles tend to exagerrate just how useful it is however and omit to mention that we could benefit almost as much were we to leave and adopt the position of the extremely successful and prosperous Norway and Switzerland. They adopt the same sort of arguments we heard when we were told it was vital to join the Euro and yet this is an issue that is now never raised. We've survived and traded remarkably well without it. The same would be true if we became politically detached or semi detached from Europe.

Quiet why Brown is so committed to railroading this through is beyond me. I can only assume it is macho posturing and the traditional reluctance of politicians to backtrack, admit they are wrong or perform a U turn. This treaty is a shameless and cynical document designed to confuse. if GB was really standing up for GB he'd say so.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

I was astounded to see an interview with Ted Heath, long retired, where he admitted that his govt had to lie to the British people about what EEC membership would mean because if the govt had been truthful no-one would have voted for it.

What is it that turns a govt elected by the people into a force for deceiving those electors. And worse, why do we keep falling for it? Telling us not to worry too much because we'll always be able to undo a mistake does us a disservice Matthew. I'd rather we spent our time and resources pursuing the best path for Britain now, not having to fight to get back here later.

Stephen, Orlando, US

I was born, 61 years ago, a white, straight, Christian, British male, in a white, straight, Christian, British England. The only difference now is that I've become English, and that change wasn't my doing; (I try hard to ignore the other aspects). So Goodbye to the Empire, hopefully the same to the Union, (with the possible exception of Northern Ireland), Goodbye to Europe, and maybe let's see England prosper once more, without the burden of the aforementioned, and the reactance of the wierdos and perverts we see so often returned to Westminster.

Lee, Cheshire, England

Am I alone in thinking Edward Heath the worst politician of the 20th centrury. Chamberlain did come to realise his mistake eventually but Ted never did. Even if he thought it a super wiz idea did it never occur to him that instinctively De Gaulle was right. Britain should not join the EEC. We could have had a good working relationship, lots of trade, agreement on the size of bananas all that stuff, but none of the ever closer relationship garbage. But no, the monomanaical Ted wanted to get into bed. And now we're all stuffed.
There was a letter the other day in one of the broadsheets from Leon Brittan, Ted's bag carrier, saying what a spiffing idea Europe is and we should go for it. Really impressive until you realise that he can't say otherwise and keep his pension.

Clive S, East Sussex,

Matthew assumes that Parliament remains sovereign, and therefore able to be perfidious. When it surrenders the powers that we have delegated to it, it ceases to be sovereign.

This is not about retreat from Empire: we are talking about England. The Scots had to seek permission from Parliament to restore their Parliament in a limited way, and under the EU process, so shall the English have to seek their freedom from Brussels.

This is not a schoolboy or an Oxbridge Union debate, Parris: it is a real threat to the freedom of the English nation. That you don't understand this probably explains why you failed as a Parliamentarian. Now you are failing as a democrat.

Colin, Andover, USA

I agree with 98% of your article Matthew, the reason why Brown believes he can just steamroller through the constitution and meaningless red lines is precisely because people don't get too heated by abstract concepts, but the potential for problems for our great leader and his self serving smug grin are almost endless due to the amount of sovereignty that he has thrown away, and it is only a matter of time before it bites him. Although Brown has been in charge of the domestic agenda for last ten years and look what a mess he made of that (NHS, Prisons, Transport, education etc)

Cameron by the next election needs to look closely at where the EU prervents him from achieving what he needs to (perhaps localisation, perhaps control of borders, CAP, fishing, rebate etc) and goes to renegotiate, if Europe won't play ball then he will need to consider Britain joining Norway and Switzerland as not full EU members and offer a referrendum to the British people on that.

Steph, Brighton,