Referendum or not

There's a lot of tit-for-tat politicking going on at the moment over who wanted a referendum and who didn't and when and why. The Conservatives were against a referendum on Maastricht (but it wasn't in their manifesto then, so that was OK apparently). Labour and the LibDems said that they wanted one on the constitution in their manifestos but the cover of the Lisbon Treaty is blue, and the Constitution one is red, so it's OK, OK? And the LibDems say they're calling for a referendum on whether we should make water flow uphill instead - they promised a referendum and they're fighting to give it to you!

Thank-you all.

When should we get a referendum?

It's fair to say that there is no default right to a referendum, which undermines the way things are done in the UK. We're a representive democracy after all. Many argue, however, that parliament should refer to the people over fundamental constitutional issues, although it's clear that this was not done for Maastricht or say for Scottish devolution.

I would argue that when an issue is (a) constitutional, and (b) related to the EU, then it is necessary to put the matter to a referendum. Why do I think only EU matters should be treated in this way? The reason is that the single fundamental fact of the English Constitution is that no parliament may bind its successors.  But the succession of EU treaties tying us closer and closer to the EU have had the effect of doing just that. If Lisbon is ratified tonight, it is not possible for a future parliament to unratify it. It has to unratify all the other EU treaties as well. The effect is to limit future parliaments to a choice of "all or nothing". Whichever way you look at it, this is still binding them.

The ropes may only be tied around Britannia's feet, but she is still bound.

Comments

[TDK]

Wasn't there a referendum on devolution in 1997:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/scotland_and_devolution.htm