Tony "No Reverse Gear" Blair & the constitution referendum

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What are people's thoughts on a referendum on a European constitution and Tony's dramatic u-turn?

I'm in favour of a referendum, I think a new constitution for Europe is a hugely important matter and I shall probably vote in favour. But my breath is taken away by the sheer cynicism of Tony's backpedalling. His decision to hold a referendum has got zero to do with what's actually good for Britain and everything to do with what's good for Blair. It was ever thus, I know, but nonetheless. I hope the whole business sinks Blair.

― thing of thing, Wednesday, 21 April 2004 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Unfortunately Blair is looking more and more unsinkable

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 13:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Everyone is talking about this in terms of Tony's U-turn and whether Tony can survive if the vote doesn't go the way he wants it to. This annoys me coz the crucial questions should be:

what are the benefits of having a written EU constitution?

what are the disadvantages of not having one?

what are the costs involved in introducing one and who will pay?

it seems there is scant chance of the real issue we are supposedly going to be voting on getting a look-in.

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

...and as is the case with all referenda, the real power is in the hands of the person(s) who phrase the question.

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 13:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Nonsense, the power is in the hands of Messrs Murdoch, Kavanagh, Dacre and friends. MarkH OTM about whether the actual real issues will get a look-in.

Is there any actual reason, incidentally, for even pro-Euro voters to get excited about the prospect of a Euro constitution?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Why is the EU Constitution 265 pages long?

― Stuart (Stuart), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

How long should it be?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)

That draft constitution in full: http://european-convention.eu.int/docs/Treaty/cv00850.en03.pdf (and I do mean in full)

Article 1: Establishment of the Union
1. Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this
Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer
competences to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the
policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise in the
Community way the competences they confer on it.
2. The Union shall be open to all European States which respect its values and are committed to
promoting them together.
Article 2: The Union's values
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the
rule of law and respect for human rights. These values are common to the Member States in a
society of pluralism, tolerance, justice, solidarity and non-discrimination.

AND SO ON

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 13:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Journalists know "tactics" and "popularity" and precious few other political narratives.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, TB gets slammed for thinking only in terms of his popularity but I can't think of a single obvious instance of this! (Doubtless they are there; he IS a politician after all)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know about popularity, but it's hard to see how his complete volte-face on a referendum could be seen as anything but tactical. It certainly wasn't based on principle.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

referenda are for FULES and WEAKLINGS, parliamentary democracy DOES NOT NEED THEM, we've elected you to make decisions, please get on with it, thx.

(also everyone on newsnight last night was saying referendums...)

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Blair was obsessed with his personal public approval rating pre-government and for pretty much the entire first term Tracer. I think since then he's realised he's never going to be a popular politician ever again and has gone about trumpeting some of his most unpopular policies in order to make himself appear a strong leader. Possibly because media and public cynicism in this country has now got to the level that trumpeting any actual improvements is likely to be met with cries of "spin!" and "liars!"

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't really see how this IS good for Blair really IN THE LONG TERM bearing in mind I can't see the pro-Euro side winning this referendum. If it IS a tactical decision it is one only in that it will help to neutralise the issue of Europe until after the next election because people won't be able to say "he'll take us into the Euro no matter what".

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:20 (twenty-two years ago)

It is also a capitulation to the all-powerful Murdoch press which has the ability to break the Blair government if it decides it wants to - especially now Howard is making the Tories look semi-credible again.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Blair can't win a referendum on either the constitution or the euro. Most people do not want to be taken into the euro or a new constitution without a referendum. Given that, best to promise referenda/ums but kick them into the long grass and hope it'll never come to that.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm in agreement with Matt here, I can't quite work out why Blair's decided to hold a referendum and I certainly can't see how it's good for him to do so.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Simple. If he hadn't decided on a referendum, he'd get massacred in the upcoming European elections on the issue, and his position on it would become untenable. As it is, he's managed to put the whole thing on hold, perhaps in the hope some other country will vote against the constitution first.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

excellent exchange in prime minister's questions today. michael howard asked blair for a televised debate on europe. blair pointed out prime ministers questions is a live televised debate.

― matthew james (matthew james), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Which countries are likely to a) hold a referendum and b) lose? Denmark? Ireland? Holland? Would one 'no' vote effectively kill the constitution and therefore remove the problem from Blair?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I believe the constitution has to be accepted by all member countries for it to be enforced.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

It does. Blair can either hope for another "no" country, or possibly a string of very strong "yes" votes to provide irresistable momentum. In any case, he's simply playing a bad hand as best he can.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

i think 8 or 9 countries are intending to hold referenda, no idea re: who would vote against it...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:39 (twenty-two years ago)

my guess would be the other two* non Eurozone EU countries Sweden and Denmark.

(* until the end of next week)

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

If 8 or 9 other countries are holding referenda then there's no way Blair can avoid holding one without being painted as a coward or as arrogantly undemocratic.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)

What do you think Michael Howard's skin feels like? I bet it feels papery, like sloughed-off snake-husk with a light dusting of talcum powder

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I have a big problem with the constitution and a big dilemma. I am very pro-europe . My problem with the constitution is that it reduces the democratic power of the people of Europe. More power is cede to appointed officials rather than elected ones. the power of the European parliament is not greatly enhanced by the constitution. Yes they can sack the commission (and I assume any president if we get one) but policy making remains in the hands of the commissioners (and to a certain extent with the council of ministers) I would like to see the commission turn into a cabinet drawn from MEPs of the largest grouping in the parliament. At the very least the commission should have to put all directives to debate and binding vote in the parliament before being put. I envisage a bicameral parliament, the lower chamber the policy making one, directly elected, the upper chamber filled with people elected by national parliaments, in the same way that german Länder send members to the Bundestag, could be 50% elected, members on long terms, 7 years or more, some from each country replaced every 2 years or so, similar to the US senate.

I resent Europe moving forward by disenfranchising its people, but I want it to move forward nonetheless. However I really can't see myself standing shoulder to shoulder with the small minded little englanders being marshaled by Murdoch and Rothermere.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd vote against the constitution. I'd for staying in the EU. My fear is that we'll get the two bundled up. Ho hum. Here comes abstension.

My theory - Blair is worried the murdoch press and rabid europhobes will turn on him re Iraq before an election. He does a deal with Rupe to give him his referendum. This gets his support in an election, which isn't about Europe (and thus destroys a potential clear difference between Labour and the Tories which could have swayed the press. Blair also buys times to start campaigning now on the issue, and resigns anyway into the 3rd time, leaving Gordy to clear up the shit if they lose. He'll either be the man who gave the Uk a referendum on its european destiny, or the man who resolved the european destiny question in Europe's favour.*

* - Sucking dubya's cock doesn't help with this Europe stuff obv. They way he's going, I can see him proposing amalgamation into the Union.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

If the Constitution includes articles on cock-sucking i would need to know whose cocks and who's doing the sucking before voting yea or nay. I would prefer the answers to be "mine" and "the girl sitting one seat behind me on the Edinburgh to Glasgow bus this afternoon."

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

u creepy tracer!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 18:09 (twenty-two years ago)

what do ppl reckon the turn-out would be for the referendum?

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 18:10 (twenty-two years ago)

the sweepstake starts here:

15%

one ward somewhere will have noone

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

eleven months pass...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1442735,00.html

Looks like the French might not ratify it. I think they chose the order quite carefully - Spain first, then France, one of the big guns likely to vote in favour.

Ed, I thought that Parliament had steadily been recouping powers from the Commission in recent times. Or that could just be the spin the MEPs like to put on it.

― Japanese Giraffe (Japanese Giraffe), Monday, 21 March 2005 14:56 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.