Free Guinness

I Want A Referendum is organising a rally in support of the Irish No campaigners on 31st May:

At midday on Saturday 31 May we will be organising a short gathering outside the Irish Embassy in London (17 Grosvenor Place, closet tubes: Hyde Park Corner and Victoria). We will have a number of Irish, British and EU flags to hand out, so there will be no need for anyone to bring their own banners or flags. The aim is to send a message of solidarity to Irish voters, not to demonstrate about the denial of our referendum here in the UK. Free cans of Guinness will be available on a first-come-first-served basis.

If you would like to register for the event please email: Susannah@iwantareferendum.com

I'm not sure about interfering in another country's decision making process, but it is probably the only hope of the Constitution Lisbon Treaty being postponed.

Lisbon Treaty and the Parliament Act

Dizzy has an interesting post in which he raises the possibility of the Lords voting for the Tory Amendment on a Lisbon Treaty Referendum. He then raises the issue of the Parliament act which he doesn't discuss and goes off in to discussion on the next General Election date.

I'm more intrigued by the possibility of Gordon invoking the Parliament Act. I am no constitutionalist so I may misunderstand what could happen next so please feel free to correct me.

The PA is designed to limit the power of the House of Lords and is really 2 acts, but that's detail you can read in the link. Traditionally the PA was aimed at making sure budgets and manifesto pledges could be implemented, but with a delay of 1 year if they were really contentious. It has only been used 7 times but has been threatened on a number of occasions.

So what happens if the Lords vote through the Tory amendment for a referendum. We will get a ping-pong with the HoC and eventually stalemate. At this point Gordon can invoke the Parliament Act, but on what grounds? Signing the Lisbon Treaty is not a manifesto pledge, not that Gordon bothers about such trivia, indeed many see the opposite as true and that as a pseudo constitution we should have a treaty.

Its not a money bill either, these go through on a 1 month delay. Its worth noting that the Speaker decides what is a money bill, but surely not even he could stoop that low?

So it looks like Gordon will have to ignore tradition and set a new precedent by invoking the act for no other reason than he needs it for his own credibility in Europe. In this case the HoL looks like the protector of the people's wishes.

So next we come to the signing of the Act into law. What would Her Majesty do? She is a traditionalist but would she be prepared to start a constitutional crises by refusing to sign it? Somehow I doubt it, and correctly so IMHO, but I'm sure it won't go through without some leaks to the press about how dischuffed she is.

So winding forward to the next GE and assuming a Tory win. Its always been assumed that the Tories couldn't unsign the treaty because of its legal status and we will be in the new EU by then, but given its history they could argue that it was illegally, or at least illegitimately, passed in to law. Could they then have a retrospective referendum and tell the EU to get stuffed?

Well that's my brain hurting now, but it does mean that we could, as the Chinese say, be living in interesting times very soon.

Lisbon Treaty Judicial Review

The Cynical Optimist is carrying this email, which is self explanatroy

"We are urgently preparing to seek Judicial Review and hopefully persuade the Courts to declare that the Lisbon Treaty, as signed by Blair and Brown and now being presented to Parliament for approval to ratify, is in conflict with our own extant Constitution and therefore it would be unlawful to accept the EU Constitution into British law.

One of the best and most respected younger QCs with a fearsome record, Rabinder Singh, has been engaged together with a very bright lady junior and we hope to launch proceedings in the High Court within the next two weeks. We are delighted that leading businessman Stuart Wheeler has taken up the case in his own name as plaintiff and agreed to bear responsibility for it through to the House of Lords if necessary.

Naturally we must do all we can to offset his public-spirited contribution - Friends and colleagues, members, supporters - every little counts and donations (non-charitable) should be sent to 'CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE',

c/o This England PO Box 52, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 1YQ.

However my immediate request is to ask each of you to jot down any points, clauses, articles in the Lisbon Treaty to which you object and why, and list them under their treaty references, and then send your list to me on my john.gouriet1@virgin.net address as soon as you possibly can. This would be an enormous help as we are under a very tight schedule to brief counsel and get the case into court before Parliament complete the betrayal, but it would be a terrific feat if we can put a cast iron stick in their wheel, even at this late hour!"

Lisbon Treaty Referendum - No Alternatives

I was listening to the debate on whether we should have a referendum on the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty on Radio 5 this morning and it set me thinking about whether there we any alternatives that might be acceptable.

As you will see from the sidebar, I support calls for a referendum, but only because New Labour made this a manifesto commitment and we should hold our politicians to account on manifesto commitments. I know their argument is that this isn't a constitution but there is enough of a body of opinion, some of it from the pro EU lobby, that it is as close as makes no difference. And now, according to this report in the Telegraph our own foreign affairs select committee say the same:

As the Government prepares to debate the treaty in the House of Commons, a report by the foreign affairs select committee concludes that it cedes vital powers to Brussels and that ministers are misleading the public by saying that it does not.

During the debate this morning many arguments were made against holding the referendum:

That we have a representative parliamentary democracy and that referendums aren't part of our heritage - This may be true, and one that I generally support, but this case is different as I outline above. Furthermore, heritage has to start at some point so I don't have a problem with setting new precedents. I also have a problem with the size of the government payroll vote which is leading more and more to an elected dictatorship.

The people aren't capable of understanding the question – What a condescending argument. We could be trusted in 1975 so why not now? Anyone putting this argument forward should be taken outside and shot. I won't dwell on this one as it is bad for my stress levels.

That those asking for a referendum on the treaty are really pushing for a referendum on leaving the EU – (This was put forward by their pro EU speaker this morning) So what? That is for those phrasing the question and organising the referendum, not a reason against the referendum in principle.

That the rest of the EU will not accept a no vote as the other 26 countries are al for it – Well that's their problem not ours and if they don't like it then throw us out. Indeed if this is the case then it is even more important that we have a referendum to show that we will not be bullied in to signing the treaty.

Anyway, as I listened to these arguments, especially the representative democracy one, I got to thinking about alternatives and wondered if a free vote for MP's might work. Unlikely, because of the bullying nature of Brown and his acolytes and the payroll vote.

So how about really setting a precedent and have a secret free vote for MP's? This might work except it goes against the principle of knowing what our representatives get up to with their voting. Anyway I can't see this bunch of bullies allowing that.

So I conclude that their isn't an alternative to a referendum on this important subject, so I ask you to get across to I Want A Referendum and sign their petition, no matter which way you intend to vote, we have to hold our politicians to their manifesto pledges.