Jock's Place - Facing both ways - the Tories needed someone else to blame for not having a referendum on Lisbon. - Comments

Three-way referendum

Mark Wadsworth — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:59:54 +0000

I can't stand all this posturing on whether we should have a referendum at all; whether we should have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; or whether we should have an in-out.

I think that we should have a three way referendum, with STV, of course:
1. Ratify Lisbon and stay in.
2. Don't ratify Lisbon, but stay in
3. Out.

Apparently Lib Dem voters are broadly in favour of this...
http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2008/03/two-question-referendum.html

I am sure that few people would actually be against having such a referendum, altho' of course there will be plenty who couldn't care less, which is fine. Glad to hear you'd campaign for an 'Out' vote!

Good point James - given

Jock — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:27:32 +0000

Good point James - given that Ming started talking about over summer, I wonder why it did not generate enough interest then to force an emergency motion or urgent business at autumn conference. There must have been some policy wonks who would have spotted the potential for trouble and who would have known it was due for ratification in the next parliamentary year.

Or maybe we were all happy to agree to it until a month ago when the Tories/IWAR started successfully transferring their guilt to us.

Unfortunately, perception is

James — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:50:40 +0000

Unfortunately, perception is reality in politics and the media. Thus, the 'Lib Dems in chaos' headline in the Metro this am.

The way Nick presented and executed our vote on the Lisbon Treaty has made for lousy politics and headlines. It shows the value of our conference making policy, rather than the parliamentary party - the party membership's views are expressed and the resolutions take on the form of 'collective responsiblity' on a democratic vote.

Also as you say, at least in the short-term, it takes the heat off the Tories and their own crapulous European policy. I can't see their policy standing up under the scrutiny of a GE campaign. That said, I'm jolly glad i don't live in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal!!

Facing both ways - the Tories needed someone else to blame for not having a referendum on Lisbon.

Jock — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:42:00 +0000

I know sometimes there are things that make one doubt whether one is in the right party. My last occasion was, I think, the stabbing of Charles Kennedy and before that his sacking of Jenny Tonge (though her reaction to his alcoholism proved to me I made the right decision remaining in the party despite my misgivings about his treatment of her).

But, for all the bleating and moaning appearing around the Lib Dem blogs and for all that the other parties are trying to put all the "blame" on the Lib Dems for on not having a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty-not-Constitution, I can't say I give a flying foxbat about the events of today.

There has been plenty of opportunity for those with a differing opinion since Ming first suggested an in or out referendum instead of a Treaty referendum back in summer. We had a leadership election in which both candidates took this same point of view. Members who were so against it now, especially ones with 300+ Technorati ratings perhaps who get way more coverage than most of us, could have argued their position then and got concessions from one or other candidate. At the very least they could have made it a bigger issue in that campaign either to understand the proposed policy better or to be able to support it with good grace rather than this after the fact bleating.

Let's face it, the Tories have little consistency on Europe. They needed to make us the scapegoats over Lisbon. They would not have wanted an in/out referendum in any event as that would have exposed them for the bi-facial opportunists they have been on Europe since at least the days of Wee Willie Hague's 2001 election campaign.

"In Europe but not Run By Europe" is vacuous tripe trying to have it both ways. They started the move towards being run by Europe before Maggie's volte face "no, no, no" speech. Had they had to face an in/out referendum they would not have known what to do - campaign for "out" as many of their supporters probably believe they stand for, or let those all down and campaign for the protectionist superstate they helped to create and they still support as a political cadre. Even the true left have had a more credible and long standing consistency on the matter.

Me, I can't see the difference frankly between trying to decide whether to put the brakes on pre-Lisbon or post-Lisbon. Personally at the moment, whatever my party affiliation I would probably fight hard for an "out" vote in a proper referendum on membership. Nick's policy would have given me that chance. A vote on Lisbon wouldn't - it would just let me say "a little bit more or a little bit less" of the same illiberal project of the same power hungry political elitist structure.

Ultimately the one thing that Nick Clegg was probably wrong on was to make it a three-line-whip on an issue on which policy had changed without a positive resolution of the party in conference since his MPs had last put it to their electorates. But the principle of holding out for an in/out vote was to my mind correct, and I know which way I would have voted in that, but not in a silly vote about Europe plus or minus Lisbon, but above all Europe still. Bu people falling for the Tory and IWAR attempts to lay the blame on Nick are I think mistaken.