"a referendum could give citizens back some much needed control over the direction of the EU"

Not really. All it would do is offer a single yes/no option on a complex document hardly anyone's read and even fewer people understand. And even if the result was a resounding "no" (most likely, but by no means a certainty), the direction of the EU would then be decided (as always) by the bigwigs in Brussels - just as it was after the French and Dutch no votes two years ago.

I agree that a major rethink of the EU's direction is necessary (I've been arguing it for years), but no one member state will be able to force this through - especially not under the current system where every member state has a veto on such matters (something the Lisbon Treaty goes some way to correcting - along with increasing the EU's democratic accountability).

It would take a genuinely pan-European effort to force genuine reform - as well as some constructive alternatives. That I can recall, such an effort hasn't even been attempted (although eurosceptic Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde has come close a couple of times, to be fair). When working with national politics, having state boundaries and state politics as the limit of your ambition is fine - it doesn't work when you move into the international sphere.

[...] Government should persuade us to support the Lisbon treaty - not tell us it is none of our business Indeed it should. Though it’s rather too late for that now. And, of course, this particular government hasn’t got a great deal of goodwill or trust left towards it… (tags: UK EU) [...]

Nosemonkey, the point is that a referendum would force the government to make a case for the EU Reform Treaty, or for membership of the EU as a whole, if that's what the referendum was about. Without a referendum, the government can simply blithely carry on using its unrepresentative majority in parliament to get the Treaty ratified without even feeling they have a duty to try and inform the public about its significance and to win something approximating to assent (even from a small majority or large minority of voters). As it is, public opinion is neither informed nor consulted because government, and to some extent parliament, believes only it is 'competent' (in both senses) to make such a decision on our behalf - mistakenly believing that, because it was elected, notionally, in a democratic process, it continues to carry democratic legitimacy. Whereas, in reality, even at the time of the general election, the composition of the House of Commons grossly distorted the will of the people; and that will is even more cynically traduced over the denial of a referendum the government would almost certainly lose.

David, aka Britology Watch

Or, as Tony Benn would argue, it is that guarantor of our liberty and does not have the right to cede sovereignty to another institution - Parliament cannot bind its successors.

I don't remember anything in the New Labour manifesto about signing a Lisbon Treaty.

Quite agree that the Government is running away from a debate - presumably they think we are too stupid to understand such complex issues.

David - by that logic, we should go down the Swiss route and hold referenda on every issue under the sun, because you're arguing against the very concept of representative democracy. It's a position I entirely understand - but it's not overly convincing on a practical level.

I can agree, however, that the last decade under a supposedly pro-EU Labour government has seen our lords and masters provide us with a shocking lack of information about the EU. If Blair had put his money where his mouth was about his being a "passionate pro-European" he'd have made a bit more effort to overturn the previous Tory regime's eurosceptic rhetoric and bring the people on board. Instead he did pretty much nothing other than continue John Major's "wait and see" policy, and as a result the last ten years have seen nothing but stagnation and retrenchment - and with them an unsurprising rise in resentment.

by that logic, we should go down the Swiss route and hold referenda on every issue under the sun, because you’re arguing against the very concept of representative democracy.

A referendum is, more often than not, a wonderful way to engage people - against the government of the day.

One should often take a mirror view: What would happen if all 27 member states followed the new dogm of referendums for the ratification of interntaional treaties?

Hardly a more democratic European Union, if you ask me.

Ralf, On one level, it's as simple as ukliberty says: the parties actually promised a referendum on this issue; so if they don't deliver, they'll damage people's trust in politicians even further, if that's possible. Besides, it's not a new doctrine. Several countries held a referendum when what we now know as the Treaty was a Constitution. France and the Netherlands rejected it, and the French parliament recently cynically ignored the will of its own people by approving ratification all the same. Ireland is constitutionally obliged to hold a referendum this time, presumably on the basis that the treaty is . . . constitutional in its impact. Let's hope the Irish people have the sense to reject it for the sake of all the countries being denied a choice.

The British government is trying to get away with the pretence that the Treaty isn't constitutional because, as we don't have a written constitution, the claim that it is could not easily be tested. Shabby business all round, and hardly the new kick start the European process - whatever that actually is - needed.

David, aka Britology Watch

[...] Suzy Dean wrote at OurKingdom, “Government should persuade us to support the Lisbon treaty - not tell us it is none of our business“. But shadow foreign secretary William Hague said: “What we are dealing with here is [...]