Nick Clegg has broken his party's 2005 manifesto commitment to supporting a referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty. He is, however, following on from Ming Campbell, who also opposed letting the people of Britain vote on the one piece of legislation which will dictate how this country works for the foreseeable future. Clegg said:

But he is wrong - in every way. It is not "playing games with the treaty itself" or specifically 'party politics' to suggest that the very people who are supposed to give parliament it's power should be allowed to vote on it, considering that all the main parties were elected with promises of a referendum on this issue in their manifestos. Since two of those parties have broken their pledges, they really don't have that democratic right any more to decide this issue at the very least.

The "Lisbon Treaty" as it is now called is not "a series of amendments to a sort of edifice of treaties already in place" but far more than a codification of existing treaties - and even that would be subject to a referendum, just like any codification of the British constitution would have to be - since it provides the very foundations of the removal of sovereign power [even if, as some claim, that has already begun] in the creation of an EU President and Foreign Minister.

Quite simply, Clegg's refusal to push for a referendum on this puts the lie to the very name of his party - the Liberal Democrats. Maybe that's why there are rumours of him wanting to change to to the "Liberal Party" instead?

The idea of a referendum is not about getting the treaty voted down, but about democratic legitimacy. If a popular vote has been held, no-one who opposed the treaty can possibly argue against it being ratified and becoming law. If we the people vote for the treaty then those of us who oppose it would accept it. But if it is passed through a Parliament which promised to hold a referendum on this when it was voted in refuses to meet it's promises, then the opposite will happen.

Such large changes as proposed by the "Lisbon Treaty" require a referendum - or at least it should in the eyes of any true believer democrat.

UPDATE: At least all Lib Dems aren't as anti-democratic as their leaders [via DK].

UPDATE 2: Norfolk Blogger yet again shows why his blog is one of the few Lib Dem blogs I bother to read.

Even MPs are being denied the ability to vote on the EU Constitution - sorry, Lisbon Treaty - now.

So we, the people, aren't to be allowed to vote on this "treaty" and now even the ability of MPs - who are supposed to be deciding this issue for us - aren't being allowed to either.

Yes, we're living in a European Democracy... Not.

So Gordon Brown has signed the EU Constitution "Reform Treaty" today, even if several hours after everyone else had. But the point I want to make here doesn't rely on whether you are pro, anti, or ambivalent towards the treaty, or whether you support parliament or the people deciding whether or not we should sign up to it.

The point is simple: why has Brown - or any other national leader - signed the treaty before it has been ratified?

Whether you think that parliament or the people should vote on it, they have not yet, so why has it been signed? What right does any government have to sign this sort of treaty [or any sort of treaty] before it has been ratified? Until the vote has been cast, the outcome cannot be known. It can be guessed, but not known.

You could claim that Brown's signature was signalling the intent of the current British government to push for ratification of the treaty, but you would be wrong. Intent can be signalled by means other than a signature on the bottom of a document.

As Brown has already signed Britain up to the EU Constitution "Reform Treaty", what can he do if parliament declines to ratify it? Say "oops, anyone got any Tippex?" Simply, signatures should be applied to a treaty only after it has been ratified. No matter how you believe it should be ratified, if you claim to be a democrat then you can't support this.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian

They're telling us something that we already know - that the EU Treaty is substantially the same as the Constitution. But at least they're saying it:

Can we have our referendum now please?

Just a few days ago, Ming Campbell said that a referendum on the EU Constitution "Reform Treaty" was "not necessary" because the treaty was "sufficiently different" from the constitution. But he seems to have changed his mind on referendums.

So he wants a vote on the larger issue of EU membership but not on the direction of that membership. That makes no sense. Apart from UKIP, there are few who really advocate leaving the EU entirely. The difference is over opinions on the direction of the EU and the amount of power that the undemocratic institution should have over sovereign governments and parliaments. Calling for a referendum on EU membership of the whole misses the entire point, and will be used as an excuse for more and more integration into the EU without asking the people.

What Ming is trying to do is simply to have it both ways - more integration with the EU but without being blamed for it because he "offers" a referendum on EU membership. Very simply, both Ming and the Liberal Democrats as a whole have to make up their mind - either they are democrats and thus allow the people to vote on these things or they're not. They can't keep putting their left leg in, then their left leg out [shake it all about] all the time. Pick one position and hold it. Stop trying to do the Hokey Cokey.

You put your left leg in
You put your left leg out
In, out, in, out,
shake it all about.
You do the Hokey Cokey and you turn around
That's what it's all about...

Woah, the hokey cokey,
Woah, the hokey cokey,
Woah, the hokey cokey,
Knees bent, arms stretched, ra ra ra!

Source: BBC

Ming says no to a referendum:

A day after David Cameron says that he'll force a referendum through parliament, Ming makes his job that bit harder by backing Brown instead. Why? On this issue he is definitely opposed to public opinion, and also to that of his own party!

The idea of a referendum is not one based along anti- or pro- EU opinions. It is based along the idea of the British people making their own decisions about the future of our country. After all, it is backed by left-wing trade unions, the Conservative Party, Labour MPs, and Lib Dems - and there are many many different views on the EU and our future within or outside it between [and within] those groups!

As I've said before, the outcome of the referendum is far less important than having it in the first place. Then, whatever the result, it is the people who have decided, not politicians in Westminster, under a Prime Minister no-one elected.

At the same time as this is happening, it is clear that the "red lines" which Labour have so constantly claimed have not been breached really have, to the extent that
We want, and need, a referendum on this Constitution "Reform Treaty". There is no denying that Ming has taken the wrong course by backing Brown on his opposition to letting the British people vote. It is strange, considering his own party's name, that he is opposing to a democratic vote.

Sources: Financial Times, The Times

We want a referendum, and he's going to try and get us one:

Excellent. I've written on the subject of a referendum on this EU Constitution - Reform Treaty, sorry - plenty of times recently so I won't go on too much. But finally a party leader has made it their official policy to have a referendum on this!

The result of a vote is nowhere near as important as having it. So long as it is the People who make the decision themselves and not the politicians deciding for us, the outcome doesn't matter. Of course I would vote no, but that is less important to me than actually having a referendum itself.

Unfortunately in the interview, he also says that we shouldn't have an English Parliament, but just English votes for English laws. That is just the first step, and not enough in itself to rectify the devolution bias.

He also knocks back the absurd idea of making people pay to park at the supermarket.

And so do these people.

On this issue more than any other Brown is talking utter bollocks. We want a referendum on the new EU Constitution "Reform Treaty". The British people want to have their say on the future of the way our country is run.

We were promised a referendum on the EU Constitution and, bar a few lines, this is the same document. Give us our referendum. We want to have our say, and not just be sold down the river.

This issue is above and beyond the electoral mandate that any government gets. If this "Reform Treaty" is adopted, it will fundamentally change the way in which our country is run, with the huge level of transfer of sovereignty.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph

So, as the public are shown to be very much in support of a referendum on the EU Constitution Reform Treaty:

Gordon Brown will continue to refuse to allow us to have our say on the future of our country.
Why won't he just give us our referendum? Two-thirds of the British people want one. Two-thirds of us want to have the chance to vote on our future, to actually be part of a real democracy and not a elected dictatorship. Only 5% want Parliament to decide for us.

Even excluding the vast majority of the British people, a referendum is also supported by the Conservative Party, Trade Unions, and a third of the Parliamentary Labour party.

So can we have our referendum now please?

Yet more support for a referendum on the new EU Constitution Treaty:

Now there is support for a referendum on this "not-Constitution" Treaty from the Conservatives, some Trade Unions, a third of the PLP, and even several senior ministers. We want a referendum on this. Whilst I have every intention of voting against it myself, whatever the result of a referendum on it would have to be accepted.

It is clear that, like Brown, the EU doesn't want the people - and certainly not the British - to have a choice over this. The people of France and the Netherlands rejected the EU Constitution, so they are just changing a few words - and in the process making it "unreadable" - to get it past the people and legislatures of Europe. There will be transfers of sovereignty, and they don't want us to know that or to have the chance to vote on it. The Constitution has not been "abandoned" like David Miliband says, but just slightly re-written. No matter if "[t]wenty-seven European heads of government all signed a document in June, after nearly two years of negotiation, saying the constitutional concept has been abandoned," the reality is that it hasn't.

I thought the European union was supposed to be democratic? That's what the entry requirements include anyway. It's just a pity that they themselves fail their own democratic requirements - if the EU applied to join the EU, it would be rejected on those grounds. But since Britain is still a democracy, we the people demand our right to decide on our own future - directly, in this case.

If Gordon Brown does not give in to their 12 points, the third of Labour MPs who support a referendum on this issue have no choice but to vote against the "not-Constitution" Treaty if it goes to Parliament rather than coming to the people. Even if they agree with the "Treaty" itself, they must vote against it because the people have been denied the right to vote.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Daily Mail

Brown's 'constitutional plan' is a curious thing. It appears to be vague enough that most people can agree with most points, yet specific enough that it can't be dismissed as simply spin and blowing in the wind. The newspapers focused on the bits they liked rather than on those they didn't.

The green paper, sixty-three pages long, is full of great buzz words*, such as "Limiting the powers of the executive," "Making the executive more accountable," and "Re-invigorating our democracy." Doesn't it all sound great! Even despite the spin that there has been no spin - except spin there was.

Most of the proposals sounds good. They're vague enough that everyone can't help but agree with them! But getting involved deeply with the British constitution is a complicated and dangerous business. It is remarkable convoluted and rests significantly on conventions that have never been enshrined in law - one of these being the position of Prime Minister. The benefit of an uncodified constitution** over a written Constitution is its flexibility. Times change. An unwritten constitution adapts with it, discarding out of date or unworkable bits in favour of new procedures, formations etc. The British constitution is prime example of it. A written Constitution, on the other hand, is fixed, solid, pretty much written in stone. Changing a Constitution is like pulling teeth.

We may be one of the few countries without a written Constitution - and that is a good thing. Our democracy is the oldest and longest lasting in the world, and we should cherish that fact. Any attempt to fully codify the British constitution could only be made by people who don't understand its nature. Written Constitutions are almost always created when a country is either established [eg. America, Eastern Europe] or after a revolution [eg. France, Russia]. There is nothing wrong with our uncodified constitution, certainly nothing serious enough to make its codification necessary. The problem is not in the constitution, but the politicians. So any attempt to make or "organise" it into one document must be resisted.

* No, I haven't read the full thing - yet, at least. These are just from the "Executive summary".
** It is not unwritten - most of it is written down - just not in one place. Also note the use of small 'c' constitution.