On Thursday, June 5, 1975, the United Kingdom held its only, referendum on
Europe. This was to endorse the British membership of the European
Community, which had already been ratified by Parliament in 1971; the treaty
of accession had been signed on January 22, 1972.
The referendum put the question in this form: “Do you think that the United
Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the common market)?” It has
since been objected that this formulation was biased in two ways: by
referring to “staying in”, it put the public preference for the status quo
on the side of a “yes” vote; by referring to the “common market”, it implied
that this was all that Britain was joining. The merger of the European
institutions had taken place as far back as 1967. There has never been a
referendum on joining the European Union. That body was created only in
1993, under the Maastricht treaty.
The result of the referendum in 1975 was decisive. England recorded a 68.7 per
cent “yes” vote, on a 65 per cent turnout. Scotland had a 58.4 per cent
“yes” vote; Wales 64.8 per cent. The only negative votes were in the
Scottish fringes, with the Western Isles voting “no” by 70.5 per cent.
However, all this is a long time ago. The parents and grandparents of the
present generation voted to stay in the common market 32 years ago; that
does not tell us much about public attitudes to constitutional changes in
the European Union in 2007. No one now aged less than 50 could have had a
vote in 1975.
At the 2005 general election all three leading parties promised to hold a
referendum before ratification of the European constitutional treaty. The
precise terms of the Labour Party commitment were: “It is a good treaty for
Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a
referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a ‘yes’ vote to keep Britain a
leading nation in Europe.”
This week Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, will propose at the
European summit in Berlin a new draft treaty of amendment that will contain
most of the legal substance of the constitutional treaty, with some cosmetic
changes to make it more acceptable. Plainly, the referendum commitment
should follow the substance of the constitutional treaty.
The German proposals are expected to include a longer-term presidency for the
EU Council, a foreign minister, new voting weights, more majority voting
including justice and home affairs, and the reintroduction of the charter of
fundamental rights.
At the summit Britain will be represented by Tony Blair, who has said that he
does not think that the new treaty will require a referendum. He has
therefore withdrawn from his commitment to the Labour Party manifesto, on
which he was elected.
Mrs Merkel hopes that the summit will reach agreement on the principles for a
new treaty, and that detailed discussions will follow in the autumn. These
discussions would be conducted by the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He
is said to be worried that Mr Blair will agree to proposals that are
unacceptable to him. However, nothing can be binding until the details have
been settled. It was irresponsible of Mr Blair to postpone his retirement so
that he, rather than Mr Brown, would represent Britain at this week’s talks.
We cannot be sure what will come out of the meeting. The whole new treaty
might collapse. Britain is not the only country to have anxieties. The
French and Dutch referendums rejected the original constitutional treaty.
The Poles strongly resist the proposed changes in voting weights. For a
number of countries — but not for Mrs Merkel — by far the best result would
be no treaty at all.
If a new treaty is successfully negotiated, we can be sure that it will move
Europe nearer to a federal constitution. That will not be acceptable to
British public opinion. Such a treaty would give new powers to the centre,
backed by a new European President and a new foreign minister. That is what
Mrs Merkel wants; but the British would hate it.
The Conservatives have said that they would demand a referendum if there were
any transfer of powers to Europe from Britain. That is entirely reasonable,
since all parties promised a referendum at the last election. Conservative
policy is to draw back powers that have been lost to Europe, not to give
still more power to the European bureaucracy. The main right-wing parties in
Germany and Britain are in direct conflict.
Yet Mr Brown himself is in the most difficult position. He is not in control
of this week’s negotiations, because Mr Blair has outstayed his welcome. Mr
Brown has not said that he would repudiate Labour’s commitment to a
referendum. If there were no treaty, he would not have to decide on that,
one way or the other.
If Mrs Merkel’s treaty is agreed this week, Mr Brown will have no way of
avoiding the decision on a referendum. If he is forced to have a referendum,
Labour will probably lose it. Yet if he tears up the manifesto commitment,
he will inherit all of Mr Blair’s legacy of public mistrust.
Any treaty along the lines of Mrs Merkel’s draft could trigger a fundamental
rethinking of British policy. Like many other of Europe’s electorates, the
British want to get back powers to their own democracy. In the
constitutional treaty itself every change moved power away from national
democracy towards the bureaucratic centre.
Such a Europe could not be made to function in a competitive world. The
British electorate, if not our politicians, might feel they would be better
off out of such a federalised Europe, dominated by the Franco-German
alliance. Apparently, the German draft treaty will include an exit clause;
that could open the way to the renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with
Europe. The British have, I think, decided against the federal Europe that
Germany wants. It seems equally unlikely that the Germans will abandon their
federal ideal, or that the British will cease to prefer economic and
political freedom.
It is in the basic interest of Britain to strengthen the Anglo-Saxon cultural and political dominance in the world and to strengthen its own part in this dominating Anglo-Saxon alliance with the US (see Iraq war). A stronger EU would contribute an element of a balance of power which is not in the interest of Britain and its allance with the US. So Britains only interest being a member of the EU is to take economic advantage of it and to weaken it politically at the same time (and not being politically paralysed by being member of a federal state or so). The other members should be aware of these basic facts which mean that Britain is sort of a Trojan horse in the EU. Therefore all my support and sympathy is with Britain's Eurosceptics because they are the only ones who offer a realistic option for Europe to be saved from the British governments' sabotage strategy...
Kurt, Berlin, Germany
It is still a sad fact that the 34 km (21 miles) between Europe and GB is still so big. Sometimes could you belive, that if there would be a chance to make the chasm bigger they would try. Still, in an Europe of 27, there is this superstition of an Fench-German arbot and an anti – GB conspiracy going on somewhere in ... Mühlhausen maybe . Wheter to believe or not, Primeminister Blair signed at the 29th of october 2004 the Treaty of Rome, as did Polan and both said YES to the political futur of the EU.
Still, and that seems to be the most sad fact of all in this masquerade, some parts in GB (and even politician how ought to know it better) belives that the EU will devastate the Magna Charta, discreate 10 Downing Street, and finally do away the English Crown. Europe as the reincarnation of the Hobbes´sche Leviathan? Europe is not GB, and somehow sad enough GB not seems to be part of Europa.
Finally even GB must rethink, if it is part of the game (and enjoying it) or not – trying to get
Gregor, Vienna, Austria
In reply to Louis form Berlin, it is quite clear from the historical record that when Churchill spoke of a United States of Europe he never included Britain as one of those states. Which, in a roundabout way, restates the point made by William Rees-Moggs.
"We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us and say, 'Shall we speak for thee?', we should reply, 'Nay Sir, for we dwell among our own people'."
(A different Winston Churchill quote)
I am an Irishman, and while it's clear Ireland has benefitted from EU membership, I would vote No in any referendum to expand EU powers at the expense of national ones.
Brian McDermott, Dublin, Ireland
We cannot be a party to a dishonest organisation that presents accounts which would put a limited company's directors in jail, or one which cannot even agree to the siting of its headquarters.
charley farley, christchurch, england
When in the sixties Britain decided to apply for European Community membership, it was not beacuse they had all at once become fans of the european integration, but just because they were forced to admit that, notwithstanding all its empire and it's special friendship with the "other side of the Atlantic" ,the country could not afford remaining outside EEC. Gen. De Gaulle, who had his faults, but was a shrewd politician, well knew all this and opposed fiercely to such a watering down the achievement of the six original members.
Nothing has changed since then, but unfortunately De Gaulle's successors had not been so forsighted. Britain has been a Trojan horse for the EEC for all this years, it's membership being just a way to avoid further integration.
What Britain does not yet undestand is that things are changed, that a single nation cannot make the difference anymore in a globalized world where new giant countries are emerging and old, like US, are turning more more imperialist.
valentina, roma, italia
It is time for a smaller EU, where all its remaining members stand united behind common values and share both the benefits and the responsibilities of membership fairly. Only then will the EU become the strong voice of reason it deserves to be on the world stage.
There should be no place for the UK if it is tied to an opt - out clause on basic human rights. Nor should there be room for countries such as Poland, who threaten European unity in order to get an unfair share of the power and money that they see as being up for grabs in the EU.
Matt, Berlin,
I do understand why Britain fears a united Europe, also I understand Poland. But I just would like to tell you, Germany do not want to frighten anybody and do not want to occupy anything. However I agree with you saying the British do not belong in European Community. Britain does simply not have the same interest like the core EU nations have and they show it with "red lines" and more at every single EU summit. But why Britain still join this Community then? If Britain once would be straight they would leave and would stop to bother the community with their rediculous and ill-founded fear and prejudices. Regarding money: Britain pays only 1/6 of Germany. If Poland and Tchech would leave as well everything would be fine.
Ulf, Duesseldorf, Germany
"We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing."
W. Churchill
Louis, Munich, Germany
Mr Christopher Gillibrand is quite right.
European politicians are re-creating the Holy Roman Empire.
The Premiers are the new electors.
It is Barroso's turn to wear the crown.
It is well known that over centuries the concept failed repeatedly, sometimes catastrophically and sometimes breaking down into
smaller conflicts.
As we progressively move further away from a trade pact to a "super state" the result is increased instability.
The politicians should realise that it is useless to be messing about with the mechanisms year in and year out - Europe does not exist.
J. Kelleway, bern, switzerland
It seems to me that Britain is the one country that has failed to integrate itself in Europe. Since its conception, the EU project's aim was to push forward economic and social integration in Europe. If the UK doesn't accept the rules of the club, then it should get out (at its own risk and peril).
Britain is a lot less different from the rest of Europe than most Brits think. However, the British feel different because unlike the other Europeans, hardly anybody speaks the language of their neighbouring countries.
As far as "high politics" are concerned, most of the problems that we face today cannot be resolved by one state on its own, not even a rich and influential one as Britain. An EU with a proper constitution and a proper mandate to deepen and widen the union would be much more effective than a lone Britain.
Finally, I find ironic that the country with the largest number of surveillance cameras in the world should give lectures about freedom and democracy to Brussels.
Philip, Moscow, Russia
This is constitutional change whichever way you look at it.
You only need to be frightened of a referendum if you cannot win the arguement.
We are not convinced. Make the arguement and stand by the result, which ever way it goes.
That is how a democracy works.
SLC, Wolverhampton,
I agree that the public should decide, but the problem is that as Henry Percy says, most people don't really know what the vote entails. The real problem in my eyes is that the EU has so much negative press in the UK. The majority of people in Britain don't have the faintest idea about the EU and what it has done for them. Only what it has taken away or not done. This is the fault of the politicians, who play on the peoples' ignorance to get votes and the media who don't give it enough news coverage, except to give it negative press. When I go home to Britain I am constantly surprised by peoples' ignorance when it comes to the EU, most seem very angry about it, but for what reason? Because they are spoon-fed what to think! If only we had balanced information, then people could make up their own minds. Of course a referendum in Britain will produce a negative result, because people only know the negative side of Europe!
Louise B, Brussels, European Union
Does the 'exit clause' allow us to get all our money back?
Michael, Brighton, England
For all those people trying to defend this further step to integration, this isn't just more legislation suitable for governments to approve - it's a further one way door that the British public just don't want to go through - if they do, the referendum will pass, if not, well you're going to have to face it, the majority of people of all political conviction don't like it, don't want it and will vote on it.
Andy Iddon, London, UK
I don't speak english very well. I apologize for this fact but I would like to say that lot of french poeple hope the old and proud England will, with Poland and other nations, stop this ridiculous story of treaty.
The new french président Mr Sarkozy is an fanatic pro-europeen (pro-UE). During his campaign, he said he had "understood the french "no"" and he will promote the "national identity". The first think he does, was to see Angela Merkel, and after Baroso, Prodi, zapateros, etc to propose at the European summit in Berlin the new draft treaty of amendment.
This man is fanatic : it's incredible to promote this, in secret (in France nobody is speaking of this problem). All the problem is to keep the legal substance of the constitutional treaty but poeple don't have to know that. There will be no more referundum only a vote in the parlement. Of course, it's for democraty.
Mr Sarkozy is also, the first president of France whose official photography show the french AND UE flags.
Antoine, Lyon, France
“getting rid of past demons is progress” Botho von Senger. Extensive travel in Europe, specifically Austria and Germany has convinced me that far from slaying demons, they live yet in the European dream. Unforgetable was the German MEP shouting in some committee debate on the EU internal market, “We must have one system for Europe, no exception can be tolerated.” Charity dictates that it would be better not to translate the remarks of German MPs about Poland’s “obstinacy” in a debate last week in the German Bundestag. Germany seems to be going, in the space of a few years, from being guilt-ridden to amnesiac about the course of history. Far from fostering peace, the conditions for a fresh European conflagration are being created. The trigger will be when the genteel decay across Europe slips into widespread poverty.
Christopher Gillibrand, Brussels, "democratic" Belgium/ Europe
While I am far from being fully supportive of the EU, I fear that England would become a very mean place without it, due to a historical failure to look after its people, its lack of national identity and class system.
I suggest that without the EU there would be few workers rights, so we'd have a system as in Americia where those who cannot afford to live on a full time wage have to work themselves to a premature death in two or three jobs.
I suggest that the political elites would accept the re-introduction of 'rooming houses' for the poor and new forms of domestic service.
These trends are already evident, but for as long as we have the right to live elsewhere then government has try to make life acceptable for us.
Continually economists scoff at so called 'slow' ecnomomic growth in France and Germany but their systems are more stable. And I doubt if the REAL unemployment figure here is any better.
Culturally there is no tradition of equality here, so we need the EU.
jane, oxford,
Major, Blair and The Queen should be tried for treason - they have signed away our sovereignty/democracy. Of course, the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) helped them every step of the way.
Ray, London,
No treaty, no european constitution: all will rest at is is:
Germany should be for ever the paymaster - the'sugar-daddy' - of Europe. In other words: they should be for ever the true 'Slaves of Europe'. This is barbaric, but it is true!
Frank, Munich, Germany
Frank, Munich, Germany
French and Dutch said no in 2005 to a federal Europe British should one day soon be consulted it's a minimum! We citizens of the world are tired not to be consulted by our own elected politicians . At this stage and for the next 50 year ler's concentrate on main issues like climate change and energy issues. UE should be changed to a Club of Independant European Nations No less but no more The idea of a federal Europe is a dead one . Nobody in France (at least 60% minimum) wants a european constitution because UE is not our country.
marc, Paris, France
I believe that in near future will see a more united Europe. I don’t care if its name will be United States of Europe or something.I think,however,it will be done to different speeds and that a small group of Nations will do a more narrow integration.No Country is forced to tie itself with a Treaty if does not wish and this is not valid for Poland only.
Luigi, S.Benedetto del Tronto, Italy
Sir,
I entirely agree with what you written today.
I do hope that many people feels like you and me on Europe.
ROSS HENRY, LONDON,
Re Marcin Roths statement that "...as it results in Britain being left open to numerous criticisms, such as those of conservatism."
A criticism? It is right up there with other criticisms of the UK levelled by our European partners, such as being "too rich", "too successful" or even "too independent"!
Fraser Mackie, Bromley,
Actually, you are wrong, Mr. Rees-Mogg. In Total Europe (minus Britain), the future EU will be a federalised Europe, dominated by the Franco-German-Russian alliance. The future is Slavic. We Slavs are the largest population group in Europe. The future is exciting. We won't miss you Brits. Pax Europa! Leave now and join Oceania (Anglosphere) led by America, Brits.
Shirley Jackson, Oliver, BC, Canada
peace amongst us is progress; trade amongst us is progress, exchange amongst us is progress; get to know each other is progress; getting rid of past demons is progress; accept competition is progress; accepting any sports character of the EU is progress; why are so many people still thinking in national terms ? Why should we not greet the fact that there is: peace, trade, exchange, competition amongst us ?! and not war. To me it seems that britons are in a conflict in some ways, on one hand profiting - and contributing immensely from/to the EU (as anybody else here), on the other hand - insisting on the fact to stand out, or, in a luxurious move, refuse it? Isn't that schizophrenic?
Botho von Senger, Berlin, Germany
I do think that a referendum would add nothing but confusion and unnecessary tension in a political debate, particularly considering the idiosyncracy of Britain within Europe.
I'd personally rather let the politicians debate the issue and would't make the people have the last word in such an important debate.
Iker, Madrid, Spain
Typical of Mr Rees Mogg not to mention that it was Harold Wilson (Labour) who did hold a referendum and Ted Heath Margeret Thatcher and John Major (Tories) who refused one - so where do the Tories get their new found love of refernda over Europe?
The E.U. has given us peace and prosperity for fifty years - do we really want to go back to the era of the wars of the 20th Century?
f.Pyne, London, U.K.
A huge decision! I wish Britain well. If it opts to give up its traditional powers and liberties, however, it is possible it will never see them again. Also, it should make sure that a clear "escape clause" exists by which it can disassociate itself from the EU should the need ever arise. When our states gave up certain powers and authority they had under the Articles of Confederation in order to form our current Constitution, the question of whether or not a state could authorize its withdrawal at a future date was settled only with our Civil War, a war that saw more Americans die than in all of our other wars combined, at a time where our population totalled only about 32 million.
James, Jacksonville,
Don't let Germans to rule EU. New treaty will enable them to conquere eastern Europe.
chris, lodz,
Europe is at a cross-road and should be moving forward. More efficiency in its decision-making is key and should satisfy as British public opinion as Britain is especially keen on efficiency.
What seems to be me rather unfair is the assumption that the centralized bureaucracy in Brussels gains more power and decides:the decisions are taken by the Council, that is to say by the Member States, and - if co-decision applies - the European Parliament. It is not the Commission which decides. Politicians should be more honest in this respect
The European Union has provided in the past and wil peace and prosperity qnd has increased the wellfare of European citiziens. In world politics the Europan voice is stronger when united: how could Britain held out against the US? In Europe it is a respected partner having a major say! When jepordize that by keeping the myth that Britain will be hapier, stronge and wealthier outside Europe? It will not. Europe is united in diversity!
KJ Meyer-Cabri, Brussels, Belgium
Selecting just one of the many issues sorely misunderstood in the current debate: the proposed removal of the national veto over Justice and Home Affairs. This does NOT mean that the EU could do what it wants. The EU treaty system is based on the principle of attributed competence: if it's not in the treaty, the EU cannot do it and the European Court of Justice will, just as it has many times in the past, declare any EU measure illegal if it fails to respect this division of powers. Removing the veto will not expand the EU's powers, but will enable it better to exercise those powers it already has. The effect of the current voting arrangements is that the EU JHA legislation is of very poor quality and that benefits no one.
Finally, as a lawyer and researcher in EU criminal law I genuinely believe that the English system of criminal justice is something we should be proud of and defend but the threat to the freedoms it protects comes from Westminster, not 'Brussels.'
Robin Loof, London,
Is Britain a democracy? I wasn't aware that Brits vote on their own laws. I thought Parliament did that.
Just for comparison, the US is not a true democracy. We are a Republic. We vote to give Representatives & Senators power to be our government for us. We're too lazy to be a real democracy. That would take a lot more time out of people's lives.
J. Rhinehart, Spartanburg, usa
A referendum is called for by those who want a negative response.
If a debate is to be had it must be in the political arena.
As the world 'shrinks' it seems reasonable for 'governable areas' to increase. If this were not the case we would still be governed by village elders.
The argument will finally be won on economic terms so Rees Mogg and friends may as well relax and go fishing.
Robert, London, UK
I think Gordon Brown already knows how to make himself the most popular Prime Minister since the war. He will call a referendum on the treaty, remain aloof as to the outcome, after all it's going to be Tony's Folly and when the resounding "NO" comes home, bask in the thanks of a grateful nation. Its a win win win situation, win over Tony, win over EU and win the next general election.
Clive S, Crowborough,
Pure hysteria. Would you be able to define the word "federal"? Whatever this Treaty is, it is no federal document. It transfers no new powers to the EU. It strengthens States - eg in the exit clause you mention.
Mod, London,
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 is a written legally binding constitutional document. The European constitution or constitutional treaty is legally incompatible with the original Bill of Rights.
To revoke The Bill of Rights Parliament is required to put it to the vote. It really is quite simple. Tony Blair's opinions are just his opinions. His fudging will go down in British history as despicable and truly in the french jacobean tradition.
A British Prime Minister? I wonder.
Arnold Attard, Bergamo, Italy
Democracy ? We have not had a democracy in the UK for the past 10 years. We have been subjected to a mendacious dictatorship riddled with spin and corruption.
In any other country there would have been a revolution by now. Why are the Brits so apathetic? Can they not see the enemy within?
Alan Jackson, Bury, Lancs.
This is the big test for Cameron. He has an ideal opportunity that has been handed to him on a plate. A simple manifesto commitment that should the Tories win the next election , they will hold a referendum on the whole question of Britain's continued membership of the the EU would win back the votes they need to win that election. If Europhiles like Blair (and one suspects Brown) are so sure that they are correct, then they should have the guts to argue their case but let the British people decide. Untimately it is our sovereighnty that is at stake. It must be us, not the politicians, who take the decision as to whether we are willing to give this up to a new, 'Holy Roman Empire': the European State proposed by Angela Markel.
Adrian Gilbert, Tonbridge, England
Mr Blair quite plainly does not have a mandate to make the agreement that he is contemplating. As William Rees-Mogg says, the proposed treaty is so similar to the original proposed constitution that Mr Blair is obliged to hold a referendum. Of course, his arrogance, his love of presidential rule and his desperation for a grand legacy may well cause him to renege on his manifesto commitment. It is amazing how a manifesto commitment can be used to promote something that a PM wants to do (viz. banning hunting) but ingored when it is no longer convenient. But then real democracy seems to be an alien concept to the present government.
The people of Britain demand a referendum before anything more at all is ceded to the EU!
Julian O, Salisbury,
In a final act of betrayal, Blair is going to surrender our independence to the centralist bureaucrats of the Soviet EUnion in return for being offered the job as EU president. Has this man no shame?
david craig, london, UK
I guess the question whether the EU should move toward a EU federal state ( to define though) is now on the agenda....and has been since the very start of the European adventure 50 years ago. The only question is " will all the present EU member states be part of it?" or will some states go their own way?
Some EU states will probably not be part of that core EU....but with time, maybe all the EU states will eventually become federated states. Personally I do favor a United European Federation that recognizes its members their uniqueness . I don't favor a United Europe modeled on the USA. We could imagine a new type of federation more respectful of its citizens' feelings.
Europe has grown too difficult to govern, with 27 members, each willing to have their say, the EU needs a more federal oriented way of decide. I believe that if the new treaty fails , some EU states, those already part of core Europe, will push forward......in short, an Englishman's nightmare per
pascal-Pierre, Dinan / France, European Union
We worry about all the things we have no control over, Carbon Emmissions, Global Warming, Ice Cap Melt and Monsoon Rainfall all clamour for attention over the Cafe Latte's.
I voted for the Common Market, there was no mention of political unity, those who remember EFTA (European Free Trade Association.) were sold the line a free market where goods could be traded without tariffs imposed. We lived in a world of Currency regulation, where your passport was signed declaring how much money you could take out of the country, (I believe 25 pounds).
Rather like Devolution, the Country was spun a line, then by the Heath Government.
Now soporifically we are heading to a surrender of freedoms won for us by individuals who made the ultimate sacrifice, its being surrendered by men and women who don't even have the self respect to resign when they make errors, let alone give up their lives for their lives for the country they serve... or is it self serve?
Tom E, Berrow,
What one must not forget is that Angela Merkel spent her formative years as a citizen of the stalinist, now defunct, German Democratic Republic. Some of its methods have obviously rubbed off on her. Viz. "we know best" and "you'd better be grateful".
Richard Swan, London, U.K.
William Rees-Mogg mentions the form of the 1975 referendum. He doesn't mention the amount of money that the "yes" campaign managed to secure. To this day, no-one knows exactly where this money came from, although it seems that the EU (then known as the EC) funded it, of course leaving the "no" campaign to raise its own money.
Stewart Ware, London,
Where is the Secession Clause in this proposed treaty ? There must always be a revising clauses and an exit clause. Silvana Koch-Mehrin of the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats in the European Parliament says Poland should leave the EU if it obstructs this Constitution.........but what is the mechanism for a country to do so ? Is there a clause in the Constitution ? How does a nation state leave the EU before, or after the Constitution ? What is the mechanism ?
TomTom, Leeds, England
I think you should have said that the British prefer economic success and they aren’t so concerned about political freedom, because that is how it has been in this country for a long time. But if you had, you would have knocked away any support for separatism in the European context. How much political freedom, and of what type, would we have outside Europe, and surely economic freedom implies a choice for impoverishment.
We don’t want a referendum because most people wouldn’t have a proper idea of what they were voting for or against. We want a free vote of the House of Commons where members will have to explain what they are voting for and why, and we shall all therefore be informed by any result; which should be the appropriate one for the country.
Henry Percy, London, UK
William,
I don't think that Britain belongs in European Community. She should retain her independence.
Everything may be sweet - more or less, now in Europe, but it won't always be that way. Those who think they've eliminated war between European states are misty-eyed romantics. There could well be severe tensions, and possibly war, between states. Britain would be better able to handle these eventualities if she was a non-member.
Britain has a huge advantage in being separated from mainland Europe by the English Channel. Britain has a significantly different heritage from Europe. Though this is largely ignored, it is very important.
It will be to the eventual great loss to Britain if she cedes her powers to Europe. Hold your head high! Be independent!
Kookaburra, Blackwood SA, Australia
Could our government surrender the same powers to Russia? If not then why not?
Brian Gilbert, HAMPTON, Middx
Of all the issues and "red lines" being discussed in relation to the new Treaty, there is one that is surely the key-stone to the whole edifice: Justice and Home Affairs has so far been a purely national prerogative.
Whoever controls JHA holds the power to use physical force on the people of a country. As long as those who hold this power - essentially police powers - are sworn to allegiance to the Queen, then any change of policy decided by our Queen in Parliament will be carried out.
But once we have men-at-arms ("gendarmes") controlled by Brussels on our soil, then the will of our own elected representatives will no longer be supreme. Any Act of our Parliament - even an Act of Withdrawal - can be countermanded by Brussels, and their will can be enforced.
The European Gendarmerie is already a reality. They are stationed for the time being in Vicenza, Italy, where they are being trained in crowd control tactics. See their photos on their own official website eurogendfor dot org.
Torquil Dick-Erikson, Rome,
A treaty without a referendum is a treaty with no legitimacy. No matter what Blair may think, an electorate which has not been given a vote will have no long-term commitment to the treaty, and it will be open to a future Parliament to withdraw from the teaty on a simple vote, with no necessity to hold a referendum.
In addition, this is a clear example of the EU and its supporters being presented with a perfect opportunity to reinforce the EU's rather shaky democratic credentials, and turning down the chance. This makes it clear that the EU's "democratic deficit" is no mere oversight, but instead a deliberate feature by design.
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US
It is interesting to note that any decisions taken regarding Europe have considerable repercussions for both domestic and foreign policy. It can be seen through recent history that the UK has been on the whole unsympathetic and unsupportive of the EU. This is, largely, undesirable as it results in Britain being left open to numerous criticisms, such as those of conservatism. However, the desire to keep many state functions beyond the purview of Europe is understandable, and with regard to concepts such as parliamentary supremacy, entirely justified. Yet, what is promised within politics should be delivered, despite fears that a favourable result in favour of the ECT, may potentially be received. In all such instances, consultation and citizen participation is key. Mr Brown should attend such preliminary talks, as he in the future will be responsible for foreign policy decisions. His direct involvement is essential if the UK is to remain a key actor within subsequent negotiations.
Marcin Roth, London, UK
Lord ReesMogg says he believes it unlikely that the British will cease to prefer economic and political freedom to bureaucratic, unaccountable rule. I hope he is correct. Historically, that has ben the case.
But I fear that today the public is so apolitcal and turned off by the give and take of politics that will just allow the powers to be taken away with barely a whimper. if, on the other hand, a referendum can be obtained then our general bloody mindedness probably means defeat for a centralising proposal.
We must have a referendum to assure Blair does not lead us with another failed legacy. Surely, World War 4 should suffice.
oldasiahand, Manila, Philippines