Nick Clegg wants a vote on EU membership but not on the EU Constitution 'Lisbon Treaty'.

How does this make any sense?

If you consider that the British people should have vote over whether or not they stay within the European Union, surely you also think that they should have a say over the direction in which it develops? You can't seriously believe that the people should have a choice over membership but not the direction in which that organisation develops.

If a referendum is held on the Treaty and the British people vote "yes", then it is obvious that they want to stay within the EU. If they vote "no", then the issue of EU membership itself becomes an issue.

I agree completely with Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, over this when he says:

The Lib Dem leadership should either back a referendum on the Treaty or finally accept that they don't want the British people to vote on the EU at all.

The Lib Dem membership seem to want to back a referendum on the Treaty, so why don't the leadership? Is it because they're chicken, and want to be able to sit on the fence? Yes, of course it is.

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

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez been told to shut up - and not by the King of Spain this time. But, instead, by the people of Venezuela, who have voted against his plans to officially turn their country into a socialist state. Why? Because Chavez's policies are not working:

Does this sound at all familiar?

This is an example of democracy in action - just not the sort of democracy they wanted [h/t Daniel Hannan]. That even a country which has elected Chavez several times votes against becoming a socialist state, preferring democracy over the socialistic imitation, just proves that 'the people' everywhere do not want socialism, despite the usual suspects claims to the contrary.

The people of Venezuela have told Chavez to shut up over his constitutional plans. Hopefully he now will.

Source: The Telegraph, BBC

Russia's parliamentary election has been declared "not fair" by a joint observer team of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe. They said that the Russian election

This isn't really very surprising. Russia hasn't been a democracy for even two decades, so there has been little for it to actually sink into the people as a true belief. The politicians involved grew up grew up during the Soviet era, when corruption was rife and expected, and many of them were involved in it.

Democracy simply takes time to sink in in real practice. Claiming to be a democrat is easy, and ever since democracy has become the only acceptable political philosophy, evidenced by the absurd claims of democratic belief from people such as Mugabe and his ilk. And, of course, there were elections under Communism - except the only candidates allowed were approved Communist ones.

Democracy doesn't exist simply through a democratic system being put in place. It requires an acceptance of the principles and actually putting them into practice. Russia hasn't yet reached that stage. It's democracy is still too young and still not deeply embedded. In time, it will. But not yet. And it appears not while Putin is still around - in any capacity.

Source: BBC

The SNP conference has voted to support lowering the voting age to 16. I don't think that this is a good idea at all. Eighteen is the right age for the franchise to be bestowed. Sixteen is simply too young. At sixteen you are usually still in compulsory schooling, so you certainly can't be claimed to have reached maturity or adulthood.

As Andrew Allison points out, the law is confused. The legal age at which you can buy cigarettes was recently raised to 18, for one thing. You have to be 18 to be able to legally drink alcohol. You can't marry without the consent of your parent or guardian until 18. You can't drive until you are 17. Pretty much the only thing that you can do at 16 that you couldn't before is have sex.

If the voting age was to be lowered to 16, it would make a mockery of every single age-restricting law that prevented sixteen year-olds from doing anything. How is it possible to claim that sixteen year olds are mature enough to vote, yet not to drink or smoke? if you support lowering the voting age to sixteen, you must also support lowering of every other age restriction to sixteen. Otherwise you simply are a hypocrite.

Source: BBC

The Conservatives will use the Lib Dems lack of interest in a referendum on the EU Constitution Reform Treaty against them at the next general election, William Hague said:

Which is as it should be. The Lib Dems are hypocritical in so many ways and, despite the word "democrat" forming part of their party name, refused to take the opportunity to give the British people a taste of it over this important issue.

This issue is one on which the Conservatives and Lib Dems could have actually defeated the government, but both the declared candidates for their leadership have ruled it out. As Norfolk Blogger, who to his credit accepts that the Conservatives should use this against Lib Dem MPs, says: "What a wasted opportunity" for the Lib Dems.

To those such as Bob Piper, who say that:
What you are missing is those, such as me, who call for a referendum on this "reform treaty" accept that it was wrong not to have a referendum then. But also remember that few were in a position to argue for it then. After all, when Major signed Maastricht I was 7.

But two wrongs do not ever make a right. It was wrong not to hold referendums before. It is just as wrong - if not more so - not to hold one now. Saying "the Tories didn't hold one!" is no argument for democracy. Since, I believe, Labour were claiming that we should have had referendums then this was their chance to put that belief into practise. But they bottled it because they didn't think they'd win.

Now that the EU leaders have agreed on the terms of the EU Constitution Reform Treaty, there is a challenge that Brown must face: Having a full and real Parliamentary free vote on the issue. No political party should place any kind of political pressure on their MPs to vote in any specific way. Let the arguments speak for themselves.

But before there is a vote on the Constitution Treaty itself, there should be a free parliamentary vote on whether the people of Britain should have a vote on it themselves. This must be a vote in which there is no pressure applied from party whips, and every MP must be encouraged to vote with his or her conscience - and be willing to support their decision to the people of their constituency in their own words. If they vote no, we should know why each and every one of our elected representatives that does not think that we should be allowed to vote on our own future thinks this. Without just quoting government or party sources.

My challenge to Gordon Brown is for him to allow a totally free vote in Parliament on this. And my challenge to every MP is to justify their decision - both for and against a referendum and for and against the EU Constitutional Treaty itself.

This is an ex-sovereign nation! Or at least it will be as soon as Gordon Brown signs it away.

We want a referendum. 69% of the country wants a referendum - that doesn't mean that 69% want to vote no, but that 69% want to vote on whether Britain should sign up to the EU Constitution Reform treaty. The result of any referendum is far less important than having one - so that it is the British people who decide, not a Prime Minister who got into his current position without any voting at all.

Brown won't have a referendum because he fears he'd lose it, just like he feared he'd lose a general election, and so didn't hold one. Which, of course, most Tories are secretly very pleased about. But a referendum on this EU "treaty" is essential, no matter what your view on the EU is, so long as you believe in democracy.

This is very nearly an ex-sovereign nation, but this is certainly an ex-parrot:

Sky News Blog:

I want to know how he can possibly justify not holding a referendum on the EU "Reform Treaty" [ie. Constitution under another name]. I'm looking forward to reading "his" letter and then seeing it ripped to shreds in the media and by bloggers.

Maybe he'll even post it on his poor excuse for a blog? Even if he does, I bet he won't have the balls to link to anyone who disagrees with him.

Go on David, prove me wrong. I dare you.

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?

Brown chickened out. I'm really not surprised - he is simply too cautious to do it, and took too long to make a decision. And I was right that he wouldn't dare call an election. He is scared of the people.

If he was to take a snap election, he should have called it far sooner. If he didn't want to call an election, he shouldn't have allowed the speculation to grow. He should have put the Young Turks pushing for an election down, and used his conference speech in order to say he wouldn't call an election because he wanted to put his programme for government into practice to allow the people to judge him on what he had done. If he is "just Gordon", that is what he would have done, rather than spinning so much for so long.

To refuse to call an election when Labour had leads of up to 11 points in the polls would have immeasurably increased his prestige. But allowing the speculation to continue for so long, especially encouraged by key Brownite ministers, only to then decide not to call an election after the polls were no longer so favourable, has just shown him to be weak and indecisive. He picked precisely the wrong thing to do. Had he used his conference speech to say that there wouldn't be an election, it is likely that the Conservative party conference would not have been quite so successful for them, with the spectre of an autumn election no longer hanging over them.

He has bottled it, based on polls giving the Conservatives a lead of three points. This has undoubtedly caused him a lot of harm. He is no longer "tough" and "decisive" but precisely the opposite. He has shown himself to lack the courage to go to the people without a great poll lead. This was precisely a risk he had absolutely no need to take. He could have refused to encourage the election rumours, but he did. And whilst this precise fiasco is unlikely to be well remembered by the public, it will undoubtedly be brought up by the media next time. And the fact that Brown chickened out will mar his spin on being a strong leader.

Brown refuses to have a referendum on the EU Constitution Reform Treaty, and he changes his mind over having an election after stoking it to a fever-pitch because the polls, the polls are falling! Is Brown scared of the people and of democracy itself? It certainly seems so.

UPDATE: This isn't something I usually say, but well done to the Lib Dems for producing this video of the Grand Old Duke Brown of Kirkaldy [via Norfolk Blogger].

Image: Robin Sharp via Theo Spark

An autumn election could leave up to a million people without a vote, due to errors on the electoral register:

Thus any autumn election would held using the 2006 electoral register, because the new one does not come into effect until December 1st. This would mean that anyone who has moved since the last electoral register was compiled could end up being effectively disenfranchised by Gordon Brown. However, it is possible for people to get onto the "rolling register" by updating their details up to eleven days before polling day.

Thus, the possibility for people to ensure that they are not disenfranchised exists. And since it does, this is in itself little reason not to call an election. If people want to vote, they will also be willing to get their names on the rolling register. So long as they get plenty of warning, and the system is simple to use, those who are actually bothered enough to vote and want to exercise their democratic rights [and responsibilities] will ensure that they can. Those who can't be bothered to do that almost certainly wouldn't be bothered to vote anyway.

Source: The Times

It's really just not fair:

How come we in England don't get to have one of these as well? This shows that devolved government is more responsive to it's people. The people want a referendum. Why won't Brown just give us one? It is what we want.

The result is not what is important - what is important is that it is the British people who decide whether or not we will accept the new EU Constitution Reform Treaty. We live in a democracy, and this is one area where the people should have direct control over government action.

Source: The Telegraph

Pickled Politics has an article on referendums, asking whether they are good or bad:

What are referendums? A form of direct democracy, where the entire electorate has the chance to decide on government policy. Nation-wide referendums are very rare in the UK - there has only ever been one in Britain, on EC membership in 1975.

Our representative democracy system means that we don't have - and usually don't need - referendums very much. Part of this comes done to the way in which our democratic system has developed, with it's foundations stretching way back in time, of which universal suffrage is only a relatively recent development.

Referendums have good and bad points. They enable to people to make direct choices, but are inevitably simple choices - you have a choice of yes or no, there is no ability to pick and mix sections. They can also open the doorway to the tyranny of the majority, allowing 51% of the population to dictate to 49%. Referendums also still leave a hell of a lot in the hands of the politicians - after all, they are the ones who set the question, allowing it to be phrased in order to push their point of view forward. Referendums also tend to be fought along party political lines, and on information they provide, which itself can distort the result.

However, referendums have a use. Large changes should be subject to ratification by the electorate, such as changes to the political system or treaties which have any effect on national sovereignty. In these cases, referendums are than just desirable, but democratically essential. Unless a party has been elected with a specific mandate to do something - such as to hand more power to the EU etc. then there is absolutely no other acceptable way in which to proceed in a modern democracy.

We should have a referendum on this new EU Constitution - sorry, "Reform Treaty" - because it does entail a loss of sovereignty, and the 2005 Labour manifesto committed the party to holding a referendum.

Image: The Sun

He can't seem to make his mind up:

I still don't think he'll go for it. He doesn't want to risk having the mantle of the Premiership which he has coveted for so long being ripped from his shoulders so soon after getting it. Even despite the recent polls giving him a huge personal lead over Cameron and a potential 8 point party lead, I don't think that he is actually going to go for it. He just won't want to risk it. He is inherently cautious - and that led to the many bungled attempts to make Tony Blair leave office over the last few years of his premiership.

The idea that an election now would be a "mandate" election whilst a later election will be a "verdict" election seems plausible - but would be [and would be seen to be] a simple example of opportunism to take an election now, which could lead to a punishment at the polls. Maybe this punishment would not be all that severe, but if Gordo held an election and returned with less of a majority than that left to him by Tony Blair that would severely hurt him politically.

It is simply too risky for Gordo to plump for an election now. We haven't yet returned to "normal politics" after his coronation, the summer recess, and the conference season. I think that it is simply too risky for Gordo to go now. I think that if he doesn't take the chance for the election now, he'll hang on till the bitter end of the term.

Source: The Telegraph

Ellee Seymour asks whether voting should be compulsory:

If you live in a democracy you have a right and a responsibility to vote. You don't even have to cast a vote for an actual candidate - you could spoil your vote - but if you don't even do that you can't complain about any decisions they take - and it leads into every section of life.

It is a duty, right and responsibility to vote, but I just find compulsory voting disgusting. It is undemocratic to make someone vote - abstaining is a choice as well. You have a responsibility to vote, but making it compulsory to do so is just wrong. You have a right to a vote, and you have a responsibility to use it, but it shouldn't be a statutory requirement for all citizens to vote.

Compulsory voting isn't democratic, even though it may seem so because "everyone casts a vote". Instead it is actually a step away from true democracy because democracy is arranged around choice. Some choose to vote, some choose not to. In the same way that some people choose to do volunteering and some choose not to. If you take the freedom to vote, and not to vote, away from the electoral process you start along the road to greater and greater state interference in the personal life of it's citizens. And that is a bad thing. The state should be strong, but small. It should not use its power except when it needs to. Compulsory voting is not one of those times.

Compulsion takes away the very foundations of democracy - choice.

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