On Wednesday night, MPs voted in the Commons on whether to allow a referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty – the successor to the failed EU Constitution.
Since it would require all opposition MPs plus 34 Labour rebels to defeat, the chances look slight – although at the time of going to press, backbench rebels said they expected at least 30 Labour MPs to defy party whips, says Robert Winnett in The Daily Telegraph.
The public mood is less ambiguous. In a series of mini-referendums run by the cross-party I Want a Referendum campaign group, 88% of voters backed a national vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Asked if the UK should approve it, 89% said no.
The unofficial ballot is meaningless, says David Clark in The Guardian. When has the public rejected the offer of a referendum on any subject? What counts is intensity of feeling, and the turnout of 36.2% “hardly suggests a mood of deep public disquiet”. If people really believed the Treaty meant the end of Britain they would have taken to the streets in large numbers. The fact that they haven’t suggests they recognise the treaty for “the minimalist offering that it is”. The real mistake was to have offered a referendum at all, but Tony Blair “lacked the backbone” to tell Rupert Murdoch to mind his own business (Murdoch refused to back his 2005 election campaign unless he promised a referendum).
Caving into Murdoch was politically expedient, says Steve Richards in The Independent, but then referendums are rarely born out of a “noble desire to consult the voters“. In the 1997 election Blair proposed separate polls on the euro, electoral reform for the Commons, the introduction of mayors and devolution for Scotland and Wales. He did so to avoid highly-charged debates during the election campaign and to postpone awkward decisions.
Unfortunately, in the case of the EU Constitution, his promise has had grave repercussions, says Clark. It has allowed anti-Europeans to “trespass on the democratic high ground”. Why can’t the people have a say, they ask; surely the government has only changed its mind because it thinks it will lose? But there is “nothing democratic about allowing one or two members of a club of 27 to block change wanted by the rest”.
The reason Europe’s leaders don’t want to hold referendums is because they don’t trust voters over the issues. They fear people will lash out at unpopular governments. “The result is democracy without responsibility.” Quite so, agrees Richards. Referendums are crude, undemocratic devices and it’s hard to think of an issue less suited to a referendum than arrangements for an enlarged union. “Would there be a televised debate on the voting rights for Poland?”
There are disadvantages, concedes The Times. A referendum might well become a vote on the idea of Europe. But this is a controversy that comes down to “one word and theme, namely trust” – trust in those who enjoy government office to act honourably and stick to their word. And that is why Wednesday is only the beginning, says Mary Ann Sieghart in The Times. “Already voters are telling pollsters they are less inclined to vote for MPs who fail to support a referendum.” There is a general election around the corner. This story could run and run.