British referendum on a european constitution

PART 1 of 2

From: Wallace-Macpherson (mm@iniref.org)
Subject: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-05-31 12:29:59 PST

If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on any
topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until now
we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us to
do this. Except by starting a campaign to persuade the government to
give us a referendum. Latter method may be unsatisfactory because the
gov. may ignore our demand or will determine the referendum question,
timing, and aspects of information.

How to proceed?

A suggestion: Start a citizens' initiative which both demands a
referendum and sets the question.

The initiative statement could be as follows:

===================================================================
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a constitution
for the European Union.

(Short pre-amble, to identify the entity upon which we want to decide
but avoiding bias for or against.)

A legally binding referendum shall be held to decide upon the following
question: Should Great Britain and Northern Ireland ratify this european
constitutional treaty?

===================================================================

Wallace-Macpherson

Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

From: R. Mark Clayton (MClayton@btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-05-31 15:50:01 PST

"Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on any
> topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until now
> we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us to
> do this.

This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
the deciding.

In practive the UK Parliament has held referenda where irrecersible changes
have been proposed (join the EU, Scottish Parliament etc.), but not where
the changes are minor or can be reversed (e.g changing the constitution of
my local Council in 1999).

The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental, and a
referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.

> Except by starting a campaign to persuade the government to
> give us a referendum. Latter method may be unsatisfactory because the
> gov. may ignore our demand or will determine the referendum question,
> timing, and aspects of information.
>
> How to proceed?
>
> A suggestion: Start a citizens' initiative which both demands a
> referendum and sets the question.
>
> The initiative statement could be as follows:
>
> ===================================================================
> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a constitution
> for the European Union.
>
> (Short pre-amble, to identify the entity upon which we want to decide
> but avoiding bias for or against.)
>
> A legally binding referendum shall be held to decide upon the following
> question: Should Great Britain and Northern Ireland ratify this european
> constitutional treaty?
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
>
> Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> http://www.iniref.org
>

You just seem to want to hold the 1974 EU referendum again in the hope that
the 2 to 1 majority in favour might be magically reversed.

In practice the Mastricht Treaty and more importantly the Single European
Act had much more far reaching effects, but were of course ratified by a
Conservative government and parliament.

From: Wotan (wotan@valhalla.net)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-05-31 17:11:02 PST

R. Mark Clayton <MClayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bbbbgu$spv$10@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> > If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on any
> > topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until now
> > we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us to
> > do this.
>
> This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
> the deciding.
>
> In practive the UK Parliament has held referenda where irrecersible changes
> have been proposed (join the EU, Scottish Parliament etc.), but not where
> the changes are minor or can be reversed (e.g changing the constitution of
> my local Council in 1999).
>
> The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental, and a
> referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.

That brass necked lie, being peddled "EU" quislings engaged in open
subversion of the state, is not being accepted by ANYBODY !

And you have as much chance of getting away with it as
skating on hell !

From: Andrew (prostetnic_vogon@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-01 01:16:03 PST

"R. Mark Clayton" <MClayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bbbbgu$spv$10@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> > If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on any
> > topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until now
> > we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us to
> > do this.
>
> This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
> the deciding.
>
> In practive the UK Parliament has held referenda where irrecersible changes
> have been proposed (join the EU, Scottish Parliament etc.), but not where
> the changes are minor or can be reversed (e.g changing the constitution of
> my local Council in 1999).
>
I don't recall being consulted about the Scottish Parliament

From: Wallace-Macpherson (mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-01 02:23:06 PST

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote:

> "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> > If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on any
> > topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until now
> > we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us to
> > do this.
>
> This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
> the deciding.

Referendums have been held in Britain so it is the case that on some issues
the electorate has in effect taken over decision-making from government and
parliament.

It is unconvincing to argue, as a British representative at the European
Convention has done, that because (I quote from memory) "we are a
parliamentary democracy" there can be no referendum on the question of whether
to accept or reject a constitution for the European Union.

Elements of direct democracy may be combined with indirect democracy (parties,
parliament, representatives and so on) as already practised e.g. in Italy,
Federal Republic of Germany, Slovenia, Switzerland, the USA.

In Britain we lack experience of procedures such as citizens' initiative,
binding referendum and recall of elected representatives. But we could
introduce these easily.

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

From: ep (ep@ep.ep)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law, alt.politics.europe
Date: 2003-06-01 05:34:25 PST

On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:22:48 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson
<mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org> wrote:

>
>In Britain we lack experience of procedures such as citizens' initiative,
>binding referendum and recall of elected representatives. But we could
>introduce these easily.
>
no we couldn't unless we first neutralise the perncious influence of
two non British media moguls who choose, appoint, and maintain or
sack, British government

From: vonroach (vonroach@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-01 06:20:29 PST

On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:22:48 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson <mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org>
wrote:

>In Britain we lack experience of procedures such as citizens' initiative,
>binding referendum and recall of elected representatives. But we could
>introduce these easily.

Well, you better learn quickly - you are about to join a German `European
Union'. Odd move for those who fought against this in the 1930-40's.

"Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org> wrote in message
news:3ED9C5E4.EA701DE7@NO.SPAM.iniref.org...
> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
>
> > "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> > news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> > > If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on any
> > > topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until now
> > > we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us to
> > > do this.
> >
> > This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
> > the deciding.

So you cut out my argument and reorder the answers...

What I said was: -
"
This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
the deciding.

The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental, and a
referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.
"
>
> Referendums have been held in Britain so it is the case that on some issues
> the electorate has in effect taken over decision-making from government and
> parliament.

Indeed - where the decisions can not be reversed.

>
> It is unconvincing to argue, as a British representative at the European
> Convention has done, that because (I quote from memory) "we are a
> parliamentary democracy" there can be no referendum on the question of whether
> to accept or reject a constitution for the European Union.

I didn't argue that we are a parliamentary democracy (although it happens we
are) I argeud that we are a representative democracy. In much the same way
whilst there are elections for a US president, the voters actually elect
[members of] a college, who in turn elect the president.

>
> Elements of direct democracy may be combined with indirect democracy (parties,
> parliament, representatives and so on) as already practised e.g. in Italy,
> Federal Republic of Germany, Slovenia, Switzerland, the USA.
>
> In Britain we lack experience of procedures such as citizens' initiative,
> binding referendum and recall of elected representatives. But we could
> introduce these easily.

So you want to adopt the procedures of these countries (three of them (CH, D
& USA) with fully federal constitutions) so as means to avoid our elected
representatives, all of who have considerable experience of this sort of
thing, adopting similarly sensible procedures for the European Union.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you oppose the new constitution because
you think (however irrationally) in means a federal europe?

>
> Wallace-Macpherson
> Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> http://www.iniref.org

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote:

> "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org> wrote in message
> news:3ED9C5E4.EA701DE7@NO.SPAM.iniref.org...
> > "R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
> >
> > > "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> > > news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> > > > If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on
> any topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until
> now we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us
> to do this.
> > >
> > > This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
> > > the deciding.
>
> So you cut out my argument and reorder the answers...
>
> What I said was: -
> "
> This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
> the deciding.
>
> In practive the UK Parliament has held referenda where irrecersible changes
> have been proposed (join the EU, Scottish Parliament etc.), but not where
> the changes are minor or can be reversed (e.g changing the constitution of
> my local Council in 1999).
>
> The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental, and a
> referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.
> "
> > Referendums have been held in Britain so it is the case that on some issues
> > the electorate has in effect taken over decision-making from government and
> > parliament.
>
> Indeed - where the decisions can not be reversed.

I do not know the word "irrecersible". Is it equivalent to "irreversible" here?

Surely you are not suggesting that a referendum may only be held if the
proposed change is thought to be irreversible? A referendum may be held on any
serious public matter.

> >
> > It is unconvincing to argue, as a British representative at the European
> > Convention has done, that because (I quote from memory) "we are a
> > parliamentary democracy" there can be no referendum on the question of whether
> > to accept or reject a constitution for the European Union.
>
> I didn't argue that we are a parliamentary democracy (although it happens we
> are) I argeud that we are a representative democracy. In much the same way
> whilst there are elections for a US president, the voters actually elect
> [members of] a college, who in turn elect the president.
>
>
> > Elements of direct democracy may be combined with indirect democracy (parties,
> > parliament, representatives and so on) as already practised e.g. in Italy,
> > Federal Republic of Germany, Slovenia, Switzerland, the USA.
> >
> > In Britain we lack experience of procedures such as citizens' initiative,
> > binding referendum and recall of elected representatives. But we could
> > introduce these easily.
>
> So you want to adopt the procedures of these countries (three of them (CH, D
> & USA) with fully federal constitutions) so as means to avoid our elected
> representatives, all of who have considerable experience of this sort of
> thing, adopting similarly sensible procedures for the European Union.

In the procedure which we at I&R propose the members of our British parliament
would be presented with an initiative-proposal already backed by a very large
number of citizens. They would have some time to debate and decide upon the
issue. Only if they turned down the proposal would a referendum be called, and
the electorate would decide in a law-giving process. With partial direct
democracy, most of the time parliament legislates but on some issues the
electorate intervenes. Whether there is a federal system or some other one, you
can still have elements of direct democracy.

> Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you oppose the new constitution because
> you think (however irrationally) in means a federal europe?

See my second reply to your earlier message
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:53:19 +0200
Message-ID: <3ED9CD07.7D23BCC0@NO.SPAM.iniref.org>

Further to your last point. I would probably vote for the citizens' initiative
to have a referendum, take part in the ensuing public debate then make up my
mind about the European constitution before voting on that.

-------------------------
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

"Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org> wrote in message
news:3EDA4C93.BBC4CA9A@NO.SPAM.iniref.org...
> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
>
> > "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org> wrote in message
> > news:3ED9C5E4.EA701DE7@NO.SPAM.iniref.org...
> > > "R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org... snip
>
> I do not know the word "irrecersible". Is it equivalent to "irreversible"
here?

Yes. The quote accurately reproduced the typo in the original post.

>
> Surely you are not suggesting that a referendum may only be held if the
> proposed change is thought to be irreversible? A referendum may be held on any
> serious public matter.

Well that's your opinion, but there is little grounds for holding a
referendum if the legislature can reverse the change.

snip
>
Messages 11-20 from thread

Prev 10 Next 10
Jump to [ Start of thread | End of thread ]
From: vonroach (vonroach@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-03 19:05:01 PST

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:38:29 +0000 (UTC), "R. Mark Clayton"
<MClayton@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Well that's your opinion, but there is little grounds for holding a
>referendum if the legislature can reverse the change.

You willing to gamble on an `if'?

From: Michael Macpherson (mm@iniref.org)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-04 01:03:36 PST

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message <bbj814$g4t$2@sparta.btinternet.com>:

> > > > > "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> snip
> > Surely you are not suggesting that a referendum may only be held if the
> > proposed change is thought to be irreversible? A referendum may be held on any
> > serious public matter.
>
> Well that's your opinion, but there is little grounds for holding a
> referendum if the legislature can reverse the change.
>
> snip
> >

Usually it's neither practical nor wise for a legislature to reverse a law or
other act passed by a majority of those who elected and are empowered to
re-elect it.

If elements of direct democracy have become part of the political culture and
have been experienced over decades by population and politicians then the sort
of parody which you fear is unlikely to to be played.

For instance, in Switzerland there is the Obligatory Referendum:

"A referendum is compulsory on all amendments to the Constitution and on
membership to some international organizations. A vote must be held in such
cases and a double majority is needed for adoption: firstly, a popular majority
by which is meant a majority of the valid votes cast throughout the country,
and secondly a majority of the States, i.e. a majority of cantons in which the
voters adopted the proposal."

Now, if you have that sort of regulation then parliament is not going to
lightly reverse what the electorate has decided.

These are the sort of reforms which we at I&R are proposing for Blighty.

----------------------------

Wallace-Macpherson

Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote:

> "Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
> news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> *snip*
> > How to proceed?
> >
> > A suggestion: Start a citizens' initiative which both demands a
> > referendum and sets the question.
> >
> > The initiative statement could be as follows:
> >
> > ===================================================================
> > United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a constitution
> > for the European Union.
> >
> > (Short pre-amble, to identify the entity upon which we want to decide
> > but avoiding bias for or against.)
> >
> > A legally binding referendum shall be held to decide upon the following
> > question: Should Great Britain and Northern Ireland ratify this european
> > constitutional treaty?
> >
> > ===================================================================
>
> You just seem to want to hold the 1974 EU referendum again in the hope that
> the 2 to 1 majority in favour might be magically reversed.

I have not stated my position on the EU. What I propose is that if enough
citizens of GB & NI want a referendum on this, or any other important issue,
then they should be able to have one.

> In practice the Mastricht Treaty and more importantly the Single European
> Act had much more far reaching effects, but were of course ratified by a
> Conservative government and parliament.

QUOTE

Hain called the constitution a mere "tidying up exercise" consolidating the
numerous treaties that define the European Union into a single document??? and
thus unworthy of a national referendum.
Source: Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2083520/

A pretty strong argument FOR a referendum?

And do I correctly recall that Prime Minister Blair refused to "allow" us a
referendum on the Treaty of Nice?
--------------------------------------------

Wallace-Macpherson

Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:53:19 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson <mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org>
wrote:

>A pretty strong argument FOR a referendum?

A strong argument for a general election.

>And do I correctly recall that Prime Minister Blair refused to "allow" us a
>referendum on the Treaty of Nice?

A strong argument for a vote of confidence and another general election if you
don't want a Reich's Marshall for PM.
>
>Wallace-Macpherson

On Sat, 31 May 2003 22:49:03 +0000 (UTC), "R. Mark Clayton"
<MClayton@btinternet.com> wrote:

>This is because the UK is a represntative democracy - the MPs you elect do
>the deciding.

This will no longer be the case in a sovereign European Union.

On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:42:39 +0100, Solon <nobody@nowt.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 May 2003 22:49:03 +0000 (UTC), "R. Mark Clayton"
><MClayton@btinternet.com> enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc
>by writing:
>
>>The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental, and a
>>referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.
>
>What would you consider "fundamental"?
Certainly would include anything termed a `constitution'.

From: phil hunt (philh@cabalamat.org)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-02 17:16:51 PST

On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 22:06:15 GMT, vonroach <vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:42:39 +0100, Solon <nobody@nowt.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 May 2003 22:49:03 +0000 (UTC), "R. Mark Clayton"
>><MClayton@btinternet.com> enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc
>>by writing:
>>
>>>The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental, and a
>>>referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.
>>
>>What would you consider "fundamental"?
>Certainly would include anything termed a `constitution'.

Indeed, in many languages the word for constitution also means
"foundation" or "base" or "ground", or similar.

--
Phil
The announcement by SCO last week that it intends to sue everyone
who has ever uttered the word "Linux" is the latest in a series of
desperate measures by SCO to be noticed. -- Humorix.org

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 01:16:53 +0100, philh@cabalamat.org (phil hunt) wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 22:06:15 GMT, vonroach <vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:42:39 +0100, Solon <nobody@nowt.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 May 2003 22:49:03 +0000 (UTC), "R. Mark Clayton"
>>><MClayton@btinternet.com> enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc
>>>by writing:
>>>
>>>>The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental, and a
>>>>referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.
>>>
>>>What would you consider "fundamental"?
>>Certainly would include anything termed a `constitution'.
>Indeed, in many languages the word for constitution also means
>"foundation" or "base" or "ground", or similar.

Good health?
>--
>Phil
>The announcement by SCO last week that it intends to sue everyone
>who has ever uttered the word "Linux" is the latest in a series of
>desperate measures by SCO to be noticed. -- Humorix.org
>
SCO? never heard of it. Linux is marginal and doesn't justify `desperate
measures'.

From: Stephen Souter (s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-03 23:01:01 PST

In article <bbbbgu$spv$10@titan.btinternet.com>, "R. Mark Clayton"
<MClayton@btinternet.com> wrote:

Switzerland is also a representative democracy (in the sense that it has
an elected legislature), but that does not stop it using the initiative &
referendum (as do a fair number of US states).

> In practive the UK Parliament has held referenda where irrecersible changes
> have been proposed (join the EU, Scottish Parliament etc.), but not where
> the changes are minor or can be reversed (e.g changing the constitution of
> my local Council in 1999).
>
> The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental, and a
> referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.

None of the changes you nominated are "irreversible" either. (There is
nothing to stop the UK withdrawing from the EU or abolishing the Scottish
Parliament.) Say rather that politicians tend to (voluntarily) hold
referenda when it is politically expedient for them to do so.

When it political expedient for them not to (which is most of the time)
they don't.

--
Stephen Souter
s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

From: James Hammerton (jameshammerton@yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-09 12:23:29 PST

"R. Mark Clayton" <MClayton@btinternet.com> writes:

And this govt decided to give us various referenda over the years.

> In practive the UK Parliament has held referenda where irrecersible changes
> have been proposed (join the EU, Scottish Parliament etc.), but not where

The Scottish Parliament is not an irreversible change. There is no
legal or constitutional bar to repealing the Scotland Act. There isn't
even a legal or constitutional bar to Westminster legislating in
Scotland in areas where the Scottish Parliament holds competence under
the Scotland Act.

Also "irreversible" is a matter of degree -- reversing the EU
constitution after it has been adopted might be possible but it won't
be easy (those with power rarely give it up without a fight).

> the changes are minor or can be reversed (e.g changing the constitution of
> my local Council in 1999).
>
> The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental,

Have you read it?

There are proposals for an EU public prosecutor, and thus the creation
of an EU-wide police force and system of arrest.

There are proposals for an EU president and foreign minister.

Many national vetoes will disappear.

Under the constitution, the EU would exercise legislative primacy over
national parliaments in all the following areas; common commercial
policy; customs union; internal market; area of freedom security and
justice; agriculture and fisheries; transport; energy; social policy;
economic and social cohesion (what does this mean?); environment;
consumer protection and common safety concerns in public health
matters.

This is subject to the principle of subsidiarity, but it is framed
weakly, referring to matters being "better achieved" at EU level and
moreover the judgement as to whether something violates the principle
is in the hands of the very institutions who will gain from removing
power from the national govts.

ISTM clear that the EU constitution will involve a large transfer of
power from national govts to the EU institutions. That is a rather
"fundamental" change, IMHO.

> and a
> referendum would seem an irrelevant second guess.

Howso?

We know the proposals. We can judge them.

> > Except by starting a campaign to persuade the government to
> > give us a referendum. Latter method may be unsatisfactory because the
> > gov. may ignore our demand or will determine the referendum question,
> > timing, and aspects of information.
> >
> > How to proceed?
> >
> > A suggestion: Start a citizens' initiative which both demands a
> > referendum and sets the question.
> >
> > The initiative statement could be as follows:
> >
> > ===================================================================
> > United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a constitution
> > for the European Union.
> >
> > (Short pre-amble, to identify the entity upon which we want to decide
> > but avoiding bias for or against.)
> >
> > A legally binding referendum shall be held to decide upon the following
> > question: Should Great Britain and Northern Ireland ratify this european
> > constitutional treaty?
> >
> > ===================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> > Wallace-Macpherson
> >
> > Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> > http://www.iniref.org
> >
>
> You just seem to want to hold the 1974 EU referendum again in the hope that
> the 2 to 1 majority in favour might be magically reversed.

Why do you equate a desire to hold a referendum on a new set of
proposals over EU integration, which will be put to referenda in
several EU countries regardless of what we do, with rerunning the 1974
referendum?

> In practice the Mastricht Treaty and more importantly the Single European
> Act had much more far reaching effects, but were of course ratified by a

For example?

> Conservative government and parliament.

So what?

James

--
James Hammerton
http://www.let.rug.nl/~james
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james (mirrored at above site)
Contributor to http://www.magnacartaplus.org/

Messages 21-30 from thread

On 09 Jun 2003 21:25:46 +0200, James Hammerton <jameshammerton@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>> the changes are minor or can be reversed (e.g changing the constitution of
>> my local Council in 1999).
>>
>> The changes to the EU constitution proposed are not fundamental,
>
>Have you read it?
>
>There are proposals for an EU public prosecutor, and thus the creation
>of an EU-wide police force and system of arrest.
>
>There are proposals for an EU president and foreign minister.
>
>Many national vetoes will disappear.

Humm... indeed, unusual in a trade association.

Wallace-Macpherson <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on any
> topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until now
> we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us to
> do this. Except by starting a campaign to persuade the government to
> give us a referendum. Latter method may be unsatisfactory because the
> gov. may ignore our demand or will determine the referendum question,
> timing, and aspects of information.
>

If sufficient people vote in the Daily Mail referendum - then
the UN charter says that this is "an act of self determination"
which the government cannot ignore.

Blair, of course, is a criminal and he no longer attempt to
pretend that he is anything else.

However, if he did ignore it (and he will if he thinks he can get
away with it - just as he did to mount his totally illegal invasion
of Iraq) then his claims to "democratic legitimacy" are empty
- and a military coup to restore democracy are finally fully
justified.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 01:14:31 +0100, "Wotan" <wotan@valhalla.net> wrote:

>If sufficient people vote in the Daily Mail referendum - then
>the UN charter says that this is "an act of self determination"
>which the government cannot ignore.

Really? Things are out of hand aren't they. You not only belong to a sovereign
`EU' but you want to extend that sovereignty to the irrelevant `UN'. Maybe it is
the reference to `union' that has you mesmerized. Well in any event, you might
as well send the royals and the parliament packing, they no longer have any work
to do.

From: Rider (Nick69@joimail.com)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-05-31 18:35:57 PST

Referendums - The arguments against them.

1) The public won't understand them. very patronising
2) Britain is a Parliamentary democracy.
3) We never had one when Maastricht was signed - (we should have done)

Arguments in Favour of Referendum

1) The E U Constitution effects Britains Sovereinty
2) Tony Blair's govt. has had referendums for all kinds of minor issues so
why not this major one ?
3) The people of Britain deserve a chance to be able t vote NO to the New
German Republic once known as Europe.

That sounds extreme but which country will up with power running Europe ?
Not the French, they just think they do once it will be the Germans.

Rider
"Wallace-Macpherson" <mm@iniref.org> wrote in message
news:3ED902A0.EB7E46AA@iniref.org...
> If the people of Britain and N. Ireland want to hold a referendum on any
> topic, then they should be able to do that. A problem is that until now
> we have apparently failed to install a procedure which would allow us to
> do this. Except by starting a campaign to persuade the government to
> give us a referendum. Latter method may be unsatisfactory because the
> gov. may ignore our demand or will determine the referendum question,
> timing, and aspects of information.
>
> How to proceed?
>
> A suggestion: Start a citizens' initiative which both demands a
> referendum and sets the question.
>
> The initiative statement could be as follows:
>
> ===================================================================
> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a constitution
> for the European Union.
>
> (Short pre-amble, to identify the entity upon which we want to decide
> but avoiding bias for or against.)
>
> A legally binding referendum shall be held to decide upon the following
> question: Should Great Britain and Northern Ireland ratify this european
> constitutional treaty?
>
> ===================================================================
>
>
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
>
> Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
> http://www.iniref.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Rider" <Nick69@joimail.com> wrote in message
news:bbbl9l$c6l$1@news.chatlink.com...
> Referendums - The arguments against them.
>
> 1) The public won't understand them. very patronising
> 2) Britain is a Parliamentary democracy.
> 3) We never had one when Maastricht was signed - (we should have done)
>
> Arguments in Favour of Referendum
>
> 1) The E U Constitution effects Britains Sovereinty

Only marginally. In any event the decision could be easily reversed by
Parliament. By contrast a decision to go from £ to Euro would be difficult
to reverse.

> 2) Tony Blair's govt. has had referendums for all kinds of minor issues so
> why not this major one ?

Some minor issues e.g. does Hartlepool want a Mayor (they got a monkey BTW).
Generally if affects the way the people of an area are represented, and they
couldn't reverse it. The only other precedent was dry Sundays in Wales.
Parliament repealed this one.

> 3) The people of Britain deserve a chance to be able t vote NO to the New
> German Republic once known as Europe.
>
> That sounds extreme but which country will up with power running Europe ?
> Not the French, they just think they do once it will be the Germans.

Hmmm. Have you noticed how all these foreigners (with the possible
exception of Chriac) give their press conferences in English. ~90% of pop
videos on French, German and Italian pop channels are in English. So just
who is winning out in Europe?

>
> Rider
snip

From: Andrew (kid_chocolate@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-01 16:51:53 PST

What's the point in having a referendum on any issue that relates to
the EU when the level of debate never gets much beyond "should we or
shouldn't we trust Johnny Foreigner"

Now as far as I can tell most of 300 million or so that occupy Europe
pretty much have the same aspirations, to live a peaceful and healthy
life, have an opportunity to improve their lot, while hopefully giving
those around, as well as the next generation, a shot at the same
deal.

I wish the media and our "representatives" would discuss why they
think a constitution and other EU stuff is a good or bad thing, or why
they think it would or wouldn't work. I couldn't care who governs us
as long as they do a good (better) job.

From: Matthew Robb (matthew.robb1@btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-17 15:27:01 PST

On 1 Jun 2003 16:51:52 -0700, kid_chocolate@yahoo.com (Andrew) wrote:

>What's the point in having a referendum on any issue that relates to
>the EU when the level of debate never gets much beyond "should we or
>shouldn't we trust Johnny Foreigner"

Maybe a referendum wold help that.

But the point is that a lot of people want to have their say on this
issue, and this being a democracy, they ought to get it

>Now as far as I can tell most of 300 million or so that occupy Europe
>pretty much have the same aspirations, to live a peaceful and healthy
>life, have an opportunity to improve their lot, while hopefully giving
>those around, as well as the next generation, a shot at the same
>deal.
>
>I wish the media and our "representatives" would discuss why they
>think a constitution and other EU stuff is a good or bad thing, or why
>they think it would or wouldn't work. I couldn't care who governs us
>as long as they do a good (better) job.

Fine. Others do. For whatever reason

cheers

matt

Matthew Robb wrote:

> On 1 Jun 2003 16:51:52 -0700, kid_chocolate@yahoo.com (Andrew) wrote:
>
> >What's the point in having a referendum on any issue that relates to
> >the EU when the level of debate never gets much beyond "should we or
> >shouldn't we trust Johnny Foreigner"
>
> Maybe a referendum wold help that.

If the gov. were to change its mind and announce that a referendum on a
european constitution will be held then some increases in public
awareness, level of information and amount, even quality, of debate could
be expected.

> But the point is that a lot of people want to have their say on this
> issue, and this being a democracy, they ought to get it

Yes, they ought to get it. But the electorate has no formal way to propose
and trigger a referendum. There is (elsewhere, not in GB&NI) a well tried
procedure known as citizen-initiated referendum. Until this is introduced,
we will be forced to beg the government of the day to "give" us a
referendum, and to witness theatrical performances such as the gov.
directing "Euro referendum, now or never?" and the Daily Mail & Co.
directing "Referendum against a european constitution".

> >Now as far as I can tell most of 300 million or so that occupy Europe
> >pretty much have the same aspirations, to live a peaceful and healthy
> >life, have an opportunity to improve their lot, while hopefully giving
> >those around, as well as the next generation, a shot at the same
> >deal.
> >
> >I wish the media and our "representatives" would discuss why they
> >think a constitution and other EU stuff is a good or bad thing, or why
> >they think it would or wouldn't work. I couldn't care who governs us
> >as long as they do a good (better) job.
>
> Fine. Others do. For whatever reason
>
> cheers
>
> matt

Again, I suggest that the announcement of a referendum would improve the
debate. More improvement would be expected if we were to start practising
better democracy, such as citizen-proposed law, veto, referendum and
recall of elected representatives. People would feel, and would be, more
involved in public life.

Regards,

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:42:40 +0100, Solon <nobody@nowt.com> wrote:

>In fact i can see the argument that, stripping away all the rhetoric,
>and the scare stories, Britain shapes the EU rather more than the EU
>is shaping Britain.
>
>But that is not relevant to the question of whether or not we should
>be asked if we wish the EU to stop being a treaty organisation, and to
>become a sovereign state in its own right.

Do you sell rose colored glasses?

From: Dr A. N. Walker (anw@merlot.uucp)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-03 10:37:30 PST

In article <t7dndvcdl13ghjuvgia5ppeoj56bpssb8o@4ax.com>,
Solon <nobody@nowt.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 17:02:20 +0000 (UTC), "R. Mark Clayton"
><MClayton@btinternet.com> enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc
>by writing:
>Are you suggesting that Parliament could, in the future, repeal the
>legal personality of the EU which will be established by this treaty?
>I think not. It would be easier to repeal the British North American
>Act.

For as long as the UK retains armed forces whose members
owe their allegiance to E2R in person, I don't see the problem.
If negotiations within the EU fail to the point where it is not
possible to accommodate "our" wishes within whatever structures
the EU erects, then we just leave, treaty or no treaty. law or no
law. France and Germany are not going to invade a nuclear power
just to force us to play with their ball. Parliament repeals
whatever needs to be repealed, regardless of whether it has the
"legal" power to do so, and then we just carry on.

I suppose you think there might be some hassle from the
judiciary, if they "refuse" to implement "unlawful" Acts? No
sweat, we just require them to renew their allegiance; any who
refuse are simply sacked [or sidelined, doesn't really matter].

Of course, all bets are off if we ever reach the stage
where there are no UK armed forces, no effective UK government,
and thus no way to proceed by "force majeure".

>> By contrast a decision to go from # to Euro would be difficult
>>to reverse.
>It would be less difficult than disincorporating the EU.

Not clear [to me, at least]. We could "go in" overnight,
essentially simply by declaring the GBP to be worth so-many euros.
Coming out requires that we re-establish our own distinctive
currency; you can't design and print/mint new notes and coins
overnight or in secret, so there would have to be a quite lengthy
change-over period during which we would all know what was going
to happen, but during which the euro was still the main/sole
currency.

In an "amicable" separation of two economies [cf, if
the SNP won power and Scotland became independent], so that
the reason for separation is political rather than economic,
there is no problem [you simply float the new pound against
the euro, and it takes off gently into the sunset]. But it
seems more likely that the reason would be primarily economic
-- eg a divergence of the economies -- leading to intense
speculative pressures as the separation became more likely.
It could be the ERM fiasco writ large, and going on for months
instead of just a few days.

>In fact i can see the argument that, stripping away all the rhetoric,
>and the scare stories, Britain shapes the EU rather more than the EU
>is shaping Britain.

I think, too, that we tend to see the EU as "us" v
France and Germany when, in fact, there are many countries
involved. Benelux tend to follow the F-G line, but many of
the other countries have their own problems with the EU and
are quite likely to be "on our side" on "random" issues [such
as the Iraq war].

>But that is not relevant to the question of whether or not we should
>be asked if we wish the EU to stop being a treaty organisation, and to
>become a sovereign state in its own right.

Agreed. Nor to the even more important question --
*if* the EU does this, *then* do we wish to be part of it?
Nor to the timing of any such referendums [specifically,
whether before or after the EU takes this step, for a vote
on a proposal is different from one on a "fait accompli"].

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

Messages 31-40 from thread

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:44:43 +0100, Solon <nobody@nowt.com> wrote:

>That is one genie which cannot be put back into the bottle.

It can and was in 1945. I hope it doesn't come to that again.

From: Stoudman (pauljiro@yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-06 03:22:52 PST

anw@merlot.uucp (Dr A. N. Walker) wrote in message news:<bbimar$7nm$1@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>...
> In article <t7dndvcdl13ghjuvgia5ppeoj56bpssb8o@4ax.com>,
> Solon <nobody@nowt.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 17:02:20 +0000 (UTC), "R. Mark Clayton"
> ><MClayton@btinternet.com> enlightened the denizens of uk.politics.misc
> >by writing:
> >Are you suggesting that Parliament could, in the future, repeal the
> >legal personality of the EU which will be established by this treaty?
> >I think not. It would be easier to repeal the British North American
> >Act.
>
> For as long as the UK retains armed forces whose members
> owe their allegiance to E2R in person, I don't see the problem.
> If negotiations within the EU fail to the point where it is not
> possible to accommodate "our" wishes within whatever structures
> the EU erects, then we just leave, treaty or no treaty. law or no
> law. France and Germany are not going to invade a nuclear power
> just to force us to play with their ball. Parliament repeals
> whatever needs to be repealed, regardless of whether it has the
> "legal" power to do so, and then we just carry on.
>
> I suppose you think there might be some hassle from the
> judiciary, if they "refuse" to implement "unlawful" Acts? No
> sweat, we just require them to renew their allegiance; any who
> refuse are simply sacked [or sidelined, doesn't really matter].
>
> Of course, all bets are off if we ever reach the stage
> where there are no UK armed forces, no effective UK government,
> and thus no way to proceed by "force majeure".
>
> >> By contrast a decision to go from # to Euro would be difficult
> >>to reverse.
> >It would be less difficult than disincorporating the EU.
>
> Not clear [to me, at least]. We could "go in" overnight,
> essentially simply by declaring the GBP to be worth so-many euros.
> Coming out requires that we re-establish our own distinctive
> currency; you can't design and print/mint new notes and coins
> overnight or in secret,

If there were a changeover to the Euro (God forbid), then the
government
doesn't actually have to destroy the turned in GBP notes or detool the
Royal Mint. It might not have to be secret either.

Just a thought.

On 6 Jun 2003 03:22:51 -0700, pauljiro@yahoo.co.uk (Stoudman) wrote:

>If there were a changeover to the Euro (God forbid), then the
>government

The exports will have to be priced much higher and tourists will become scarce.

On 3 Jun 2003 17:36:27 GMT, anw@merlot.uucp (Dr A. N. Walker) wrote:

>>Are you suggesting that Parliament could, in the future, repeal the
>>legal personality of the EU which will be established by this treaty?
>>I think not. It would be easier to repeal the British North American
>>Act.
>
> For as long as the UK retains armed forces whose members
>owe their allegiance to E2R in person, I don't see the problem.
>If negotiations within the EU fail to the point where it is not
>possible to accommodate "our" wishes within whatever structures
>the EU erects, then we just leave, treaty or no treaty. law or no
>law. France and Germany are not going to invade a nuclear power
>just to force us to play with their ball. Parliament repeals
>whatever needs to be repealed, regardless of whether it has the
>"legal" power to do so, and then we just carry on.
>
> I suppose you think there might be some hassle from the
>judiciary, if they "refuse" to implement "unlawful" Acts? No
>sweat, we just require them to renew their allegiance; any who
>refuse are simply sacked [or sidelined, doesn't really matter].
>
> Of course, all bets are off if we ever reach the stage
>where there are no UK armed forces, no effective UK government,
>and thus no way to proceed by "force majeure".

Maybe this is why the EU so desperately wants an armed force?

cheers

matt

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 17:02:20 +0000 (UTC), "R. Mark Clayton"
<MClayton@btinternet.com> wrote:

>> 1) The public won't understand them. very patronising
>> 2) Britain is a Parliamentary democracy.
>> 3) We never had one when Maastricht was signed - (we should have done)
>>
>> Arguments in Favour of Referendum
>>
>> 1) The E U Constitution effects Britains Sovereinty
>
>Only marginally. In any event the decision could be easily reversed by
>Parliament. By contrast a decision to go from £ to Euro would be difficult
>to reverse.

I reckon a fair argument exists for the exact opposite. Reversing the
Euro decision wouldn't be that tough. All it would take is for someone
to issue a new currency - could be the BoE, or a new e-cash. Or we
could use the dollar.

However, the constituion is a far more serious situatoin. Pulling out
of that would almost certainly mean leaving teh EU, a much more compex
and difficult process, given that we'd have to define a whole load of
legislation - re-negotiate a load of new trade argeements etc

cheers

matt

On Sat, 31 May 2003 19:33:15 -0600, Rider <Nick69@joimail.com> wrote:
>Referendums - The arguments against them.
>
>1) The public won't understand them. very patronising
>2) Britain is a Parliamentary democracy.
>3) We never had one when Maastricht was signed - (we should have done)

It seems to me that tyhje only real argument against is complexity.
The constitution has lots of provisions; what if you like some of
them and dislike others? Perhaps there could be a way of voting on
individual sections.

--
Phil

phil hunt wrote:

> On Sat, 31 May 2003 19:33:15 -0600, Rider <Nick69@joimail.com> wrote:
> >Referendums - The arguments against them.
> >
> >1) The public won't understand them. very patronising
> >2) Britain is a Parliamentary democracy.
> >3) We never had one when Maastricht was signed - (we should have done)
>
> It seems to me that tyhje only real argument against is complexity.
> The constitution has lots of provisions; what if you like some of
> them and dislike others? Perhaps there could be a way of voting on
> individual sections.
>
> --
> Phil

In the past parliament has been asked to ratify European Union treaties.
The MPs were faced with the sort of difficulties which you refer to. They
had to vote For or Agin. Somehow they muddled through ;-).

Alternatively, we could ratify the treaty by referendum.

The proposed constitution might be split into sections for the purpose of
a British referendum but that could lead to huge delays if some were
approved and others rejected.

A statement of intention to hold a referendum could lead indirectly to
solving the problems which you raise. Intensified public debate would
occur. This would have at least two effects, (a) Perception of complexity
would be reduced by information and explanation (b) Bad or unpopular
sections would be identified. Then our "persons in Brussels" could be
delegated to negotiate for changes in those sections, before we ratify.

Regards

Wallace-Macpherson

Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 01:49:12 +0100, philh@cabalamat.org (phil hunt) wrote:

> Perhaps there could be a way of voting on
>individual sections.

Perhaps better to bear the evils you have rather than fly to those you know not
of. `Constitution' is just a `Trojan Horse' for a European dream for centuries
that they have had difficulty realizing militarily.

In article <slrnbdl7o8.c52.philh@cabalamat.uklinux.net>,
philh@cabalamat.org wrote:

The danger of that is you might be left with the proverbial dog's
breakfast rather than something which make any kind of organic sense.

If you wanted to vote on particular facets (eg whether an European
president was directly elected or chosen by the European Parliament, or
whether the vetoes of individual member states be cut back) it would be
better done via plebiscites held beforehand. Once the results of these
were known, then the final treaty could be drafted and put to a referendum
in which the electors were voting on the thing as a whole.

--
Stephen Souter
s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:09:41 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter)
wrote:

>The danger of that is you might be left with the proverbial dog's
>breakfast rather than something which make any kind of organic sense.
>
>If you wanted to vote on particular facets (eg whether an European
>president was directly elected or chosen by the European Parliament, or
>whether the vetoes of individual member states be cut back) it would be
>better done via plebiscites held beforehand. Once the results of these
>were known, then the final treaty could be drafted and put to a referendum
>in which the electors were voting on the thing as a whole.

Well said Stevie, it warming to see that you have reached a conclusion about the
subject of this thread. Now venture into the cruel world over thin ice: What
do _you_ want? Most are already up to speed on the alternatives.

Messages 41-50 from thread

Prev 10 Next 7
Jump to [ Start of thread | End of thread ]
From: Stephen Souter (s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution, uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-05 01:53:45 PST

In article <8vqrdv4e6ntellr3ptt7id49ltd5591e29@4ax.com>, vonroach
<vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:09:41 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
> (Stephen Souter) wrote:
>
> >The danger of that is you might be left with the proverbial dog's
> >breakfast rather than something which make any kind of organic sense.
> >
> >If you wanted to vote on particular facets (eg whether an European
> >president was directly elected or chosen by the European Parliament, or
> >whether the vetoes of individual member states be cut back) it would be
> >better done via plebiscites held beforehand. Once the results of these
> >were known, then the final treaty could be drafted and put to a referendum
> >in which the electors were voting on the thing as a whole.
>
> Well said Stevie, it warming to see that you have reached a conclusion
> about the subject of this thread. Now venture into the cruel world over
> thin ice: What do _you_ want?

I don't live in an EU country so what *I* might "want" in an EU
constitution is not relevant. (Even if a referendum or plebiscite was held
I don't get a vote.)

If however you want my opinion on how to achieve an EU constitution, then
IMHO each stage of further integration into the EU should require each
member state to hold a referendum. It should have happened with the
Maastricht treaty and one hopes it will happen with this new initiative.

But I am not holding my breath. The EU is a kind of exclusive club where
the members want to bask in the reflected glow of democracy and democratic
values but without giving the hoi polloi any real say in establishing the
rules of the club, or even whether there should a club at all--just in
case the hoi polloi get stroppy and spoil everything by voting "no". :-)

IMHO, the way Australia used way back in 1897 to establish its federation
was not a bad one. A popularly elected convention was established (except
in Queensland, which insisted on its Parliament appointing the colony's
delegates). It drafted the constitution, then which then sent back to the
colonies for debate and discussion. Another session of the convention was
then held to consider amendments, and the final bill put to referenda is
each of the colonies.

But that said, using plebiscites (especially on the more contentious
issues) also has merit. (One was offered by Australia's PM on its recent
republican debate. The public would have been given a chance to choose
which of the alternative models they preferred. Unfortunately, he reneged.
Instead the model which got the most votes (but not an absolute majority!)
at the convention was used to frame the bill put to referendum.

The electorate threw it out.

Those who wanted that model may have had the votes on the floor of the
convention to push their model through, but not out among the wider
citizenry where it mattered. That is what every politicans fear, and why
there is unlikely to be any referendum on an EU constitution except in
those countries where the government is legally obliged to hold one (or
some politician was foolish enough to promise one).

> Most are already up to speed on the
> alternatives.

Good for them. But that was hardly the point of using plebiscites or
referenda to decide such issues in the first place, now is it?

--
Stephen Souter
s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:53:44 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter)
wrote:

>I don't live in an EU country so what *I* might "want" in an EU
>constitution is not relevant.
Perhaps true, but if you have trade and foreign or closer relations with the EU,
it concerns you whether you have a vote or not. I am not an Australian, but I
deplore the policies of the socialist-labor union leaning Australian
government..

In article <39ludvo67iutm32qc89ec3u1ib0g0k5pfk@4ax.com>, vonroach
<vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:53:44 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter)
> wrote:
>
> >I don't live in an EU country so what *I* might "want" in an EU
> >constitution is not relevant.
> Perhaps true, but if you have trade and foreign or closer relations with
> the EU,it concerns you whether you have a vote or not. I am not an
> Australian, but I deplore the policies of the socialist-labor union
> leaning Australian government..

Doh!

Are you by any chance confusing Prime Minister John Howard and the Liberal
Party (despite its name, it's really the Australian equivalent of
Britain's Conservative Party and the American Republican Party) with the
Australian Labor Party (which does have labour union links and once might
have been described as "socialist-leaning")?

The ALP has not been the "Australian government" since 1996; and even then
it was responsible for some very unsocialistic legislation, such as the
privatisation of Australia's government-owned bank.

--
Stephen Souter
s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:09:41 +1000, Stephen Souter <s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <slrnbdl7o8.c52.philh@cabalamat.uklinux.net>,
>philh@cabalamat.org wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 May 2003 19:33:15 -0600, Rider <Nick69@joimail.com> wrote:
>> >Referendums - The arguments against them.
>> >
>> >1) The public won't understand them. very patronising
>> >2) Britain is a Parliamentary democracy.
>> >3) We never had one when Maastricht was signed - (we should have done)
>>
>> It seems to me that tyhje only real argument against is complexity.
>> The constitution has lots of provisions; what if you like some of
>> them and dislike others? Perhaps there could be a way of voting on
>> individual sections.
>
>The danger of that is you might be left with the proverbial dog's
>breakfast rather than something which make any kind of organic sense.
>
>If you wanted to vote on particular facets (eg whether an European
>president was directly elected or chosen by the European Parliament,

That is the particular issue I'd like to see a separate vote on!

>or
>whether the vetoes of individual member states be cut back) it would be
>better done via plebiscites held beforehand. Once the results of these
>were known, then the final treaty could be drafted and put to a referendum
>in which the electors were voting on the thing as a whole.

Sounds reasonable.

--
Phil
The announcement by SCO last week that it intends to sue everyone
who has ever uttered the word "Linux" is the latest in a series of
desperate measures by SCO to be noticed. -- Humorix.org

"Rider" <Nick69@joimail.com> wrote in message news:<bbbl9l$c6l$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> Referendums - The arguments against them.
>
> 1) The public won't understand them. very patronising
> 2) Britain is a Parliamentary democracy.
> 3) We never had one when Maastricht was signed - (we should have done)
>
> Arguments in Favour of Referendum
>
> 1) The E U Constitution effects Britains Sovereinty
> 2) Tony Blair's govt. has had referendums for all kinds of minor issues so
> why not this major one ?
> 3) The people of Britain deserve a chance to be able t vote NO to the New
> German Republic once known as Europe.
>
> That sounds extreme but which country will up with power running Europe ?
> Not the French, they just think they do once it will be the Germans.
>
> Rider

I am anti-EU but I can see the Germans (in the not too distant future)
getting fucked of with the EU and wanting out. The Euro is unpopular
there. The Euro interest rates are too high for German (lack of)
growth. They are about to be
fined under the stability pact for overspending. Foreign affairswise
Germany does not have a voice as they have no forces to speak of and
will
get fucked off with the French with their 'counter weight to the US'
philosophy. Along with smaller countries' concerns this may (with a
bit of luck) pull the rug from under the EU.

On 6 Jun 2003 03:14:06 -0700, pauljiro@yahoo.co.uk (Stoudman) wrote:

> Foreign affairswise
>Germany does not have a voice as they have no forces to speak of and
>will
>get fucked off with the French with their 'counter weight to the US'
>philosophy.

And, the French _have_ `forces'? Are they hidden in Syria or did they just
blast off for Mars? Both Germany and France are light on forces - the UK is the
powerhouse of the UK if they stupidly join up. They will be busy being policemen
and meals on wheels to Africa. If you want a military force in the EU, check
Poland, Spain, and some of the new countries of eastern Europe. Perhaps you can
buy some from Russian gangs.

From: Triaka@webtv.net (Triaka@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution
Date: 2003-06-03 17:45:54 PST

While considering referendum, also consider (1) "Initiative", where
proposed legislation is initiated by citizen petitions and submitted to
the voters, (2) "Recall", where citizens petition for a new vote on a
person holding office, and (3) "Direct Democracy", where voters
participate electronically in deciding legislation.

From: Stephen Souter (s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution
Date: 2003-06-03 23:13:08 PST

In article <3027-3EDD3CD4-108@storefull-2377.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
Triaka@webtv.net wrote:

> While considering referendum, also consider (1) "Initiative", where
> proposed legislation is initiated by citizen petitions and submitted to
> the voters, (2) "Recall", where citizens petition for a new vote on a
> person holding office, and (3) "Direct Democracy", where voters
> participate electronically in deciding legislation.

Uh, "direct democracy" does not necessarily mean the electronic sort. It
is generally a synonym for participatory democracy.

--
Stephen Souter
s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

From: vonroach (vonroach@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution
Date: 2003-06-04 06:41:53 PST

On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:13:00 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter)
wrote:

>In article <3027-3EDD3CD4-108@storefull-2377.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
>Triaka@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> While considering referendum, also consider (1) "Initiative", where
>> proposed legislation is initiated by citizen petitions and submitted to
>> the voters, (2) "Recall", where citizens petition for a new vote on a
>> person holding office, and (3) "Direct Democracy", where voters
>> participate electronically in deciding legislation.
>
>Uh, "direct democracy" does not necessarily mean the electronic sort. It
>is generally a synonym for participatory democracy.

Actually, I'll be more frank with you than your professors, `direct democracy'
has been found to be mob rule in any situation larger than say a garden club
with 15 members. Also an interrogatory: what about the term `Republic' do you
find distasteful when talking about a representative democracy. The citizens of
a Republic may put matters to a vote by `initiative', `referendum', or other
term as often as they choose. A `recall' is just a type of public referendums.
Governments, political parties, or other groups can hold referendums - and the
judiciary can judge their results vis-a-vis the law and constitution. Amendments
to the Constitution can be advanced by referendum and legislative action.
A Convention can be called to propose `initiatives' and request a vote on the
results. There is a plethora of ways to propose and advance an idea in a
Republic. This is a basic right of a citizen and should be explicitly recognized
in a Constitution, as in the First Amendment of the US Constitution: "The
Congress shall make no law respecting ... the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why is
this right so important? One only has to look at the historical background of
the drafting of the Constitution and the recent conflicts that had arisen
between the American settlers and the English Monarch and Parliament. A
constitution needs to be drafted with great care and attention to details, and
its establishment should require a vote of the citizens. In the US, such a vote
was held in each separate State which was a party to the Union and the vote was
proceeded by a very vocal debate of the details in each State which was a party
to the Union. No State could be forced to join by other States. NOTE WELL: once
joined the Union was `one Nation' and leaving was prohibited, as the bloody
Civil War demonstrated. This war was fought over a basic difference of opinion
such as could easily develop between say the UK and Germany. If the EU is to be
`one Nation with liberty and justice for all', then `liberty and justice' will
be defined by that Nation - not a Monarch, not a Parliament of this or that
member.

From: Stephen Souter (s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution
Date: 2003-06-05 01:14:27 PST

In article <n6rrdvcdfd51pm0d6i18i9ld5363a2kkrk@4ax.com>, vonroach
<vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:13:00 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
> (Stephen Souter) wrote:
>
> >In article <3027-3EDD3CD4-108@storefull-2377.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> >Triaka@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> >> While considering referendum, also consider (1) "Initiative", where
> >> proposed legislation is initiated by citizen petitions and submitted to
> >> the voters, (2) "Recall", where citizens petition for a new vote on a
> >> person holding office, and (3) "Direct Democracy", where voters
> >> participate electronically in deciding legislation.
> >
> >Uh, "direct democracy" does not necessarily mean the electronic sort. It
> >is generally a synonym for participatory democracy.
>
> Actually, I'll be more frank with you than your professors, `direct democracy'
> has been found to be mob rule in any situation larger than say a garden club
> with 15 members.

Switzerland uses "direct democracy" extensively. Are they under "mob rule"?

Or is "mob" the kind of word that only gets bandied about when the
democracy at issue is of the participatory kind? (When it's of the
"representative" kind, they get referred to as The People, and their
DIRECT participation in legislative elections is seen as the unshakeable
bedrock requirement for a modern democracy.)

> Also an interrogatory: what about the term `Republic' do
> you find distasteful when talking about a representative democracy.

Did you actually read my post?

Where did I express any kind of "distaste" for republics or representative
democracy?

> The
> citizens of a Republic may put matters to a vote by `initiative',
> `referendum', or other`referendum', or otherterm as often as they choose.

That must be news to the citizenry of the republics of France, Germany,
Greece, India, & a whole heap of others! Where have they ever used the
initiative?

Even in America the initiative, referendum, or recall are only found at
the state & local level. (There has *never* been a national referendum in
the US.)

> A `recall' is just a type of public referendums.

A suppose you could say that in a sense, though the recall is very much
rarer than either the initiative or referendum. (AFAIK it only used in
certain states of the US.)

> Governments, political
> parties, or other groups can hold referendums - and the judiciary can
> judge their results vis-a-vis the law and constitution.

IMHO you're confused two different meanings of the word "referendum". If
you mean "referendum" in the sense of a public ballot by the electorate on
a question put to them, then Australia, Ireland, and Switzerland hold
referenda. Both countries use them to amend their national constitutions.
(That is, the national parliament does not itself have the right by itself
to amend the constitution. It can only do so with the people's consent.)

If on the other hand you mean "referendum" in the sense that it is used in
the expression "initiative, referendum, and recall", then you are
referring to something rather different: a public ballot by the electorate
on a questionput to them at the request of a petition of electors. In most
cases the thing put to the electorate is a statute of the legislature
which some in the electorate are challenging.

In that sense, Australia and Ireland do not hold that kind of referenda.
But Switzerland does; and also some US states.

> Amendments
> to the Constitution can be advanced by referendum and legislative action.

Here you're confusing the "referendum" with the "initiative".

It is the INITIATIVE which is used to propose bills (which are then put to
the electorate for approval or rejection in a referendum). The bill
proposed can be for an ordinary statute or for one to amend the
constitution, although not all places which allow the initiative permit it
to be used for both ordinary statutes and the constitutional sort.
Switzerland (at the federal level; the Swiss cantons have their own
rules), for example, only allows the initiative for constitutional
changes, not for ordinary statutes.

> A Convention can be called to propose `initiatives' and request a vote on
> the results.

The US constitution contains a provision for a convention for proposing
constitutional amendments. Such a convention has never been held.

Such a convention can only be established by a 2/3 vote of each house of
the Congress, and such a vote has never been passed.

> There is a plethora of ways to propose and advance an idea
> in a Republic.

Perhaps you might start by listing the many republics where all the ways
you list are available.

How many of them are available in such republics as (say) France or
Singapore or Papua New Guinea?

> This is a basic right of a citizen and should be
> explicitly recognized in a Constitution, as in the First Amendment of
> the US Constitution: "The Congress shall make no law respecting ...
> the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> Government for a redress of grievances."

Since the US constitution does NOT allow the popular initiative (though
some individual states do), the kind of petitions you think the First
Amendment is referring to are not IN FACT what the First Amendment (or for
that matter the American Founding Fathers who drafted it) had in mind. The
petitions referred to there are the same kind as any common or garden
Briton can present to their own House of Commons.

In other words, the kind where action to "redress" (ie fix) some
"grievance" is requested by the petitioners but where there is no legal
obligation on parliament or the government to carry out the request.

In fact, that part of the First Amendment was based on a similar provision
in the English _Bill of rights 1689_, which declared:

"That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and
all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;"

> Why is this right so important?
> One only has to look at the historical background of
> the drafting of the Constitution and the recent conflicts that had arisen
> between the American settlers and the English Monarch and Parliament. A
> constitution needs to be drafted with great care and attention to details,
> and its establishment should require a vote of the citizens. In the US,
> such a vote was held in each separate State which was a party to the
> Union and the vote was proceeded by a very vocal debate of the details
> in each State which was a party to the Union.

I cannot speak for more recent US states, but in so far as the original 13
are concerned, ratification was done by elected conventions of the
would-be states, not by the people of those states themselves voting in
plebiscites.

(This in fact was laid down in article VII of the US constitution: "The
Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for
the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same.")

You may be confusing the US with Australia. In Australia referenda were
held in each of the six colonies before they joined together to form the
Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.

> No State could be forced
> to join by other States. NOTE WELL: once joined the Union was `one
> Nation' and leaving was prohibited, as the bloody Civil War demonstrated.

That was the Union's interpretations. The states of the Confederacy had a
very different view! (Had they rather than the Union won the ensuring
Civil War you would doubtless now be assuring us that membership of the
Union was voluntary! :-)

--
Stephen Souter
s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/
Messages 51-57 from thread

Prev 10
Jump to [ Start of thread ]
From: Wallace-Macpherson (mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european
constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,
uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british,
alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-05 02:41:24 PST

How to proceed?

Because we in GB&NI lack experience of and legislation for direct democratic
procedures, the only way until now has been to request parliament and government to
carry out a referendum. This is not guaranteed to succeed and at best can achieve a
"plebiscite from above".

As far as I know the only formal example of citizens' initiative (other than parish
initiatives) is the thematically very limited procedure designed to trigger a
referendum for an elected mayor. That procedure cannot be directly applied here.

Another tactic would be to "do it ourselves", improving on the "wild-cat"
referendums such as the one about homosexuality funded by Souter in Scotland or the
one which has been announced by the Daily Mail on a european constitution. Several
different approaches are possible. One way would be for a group of supporters to
fund-raise and organise the project. Another would be to pay a reputable
organisation such as the Electoral Reform Society to manage the initiative and
referendum procedure.

Anybody out there want to do something?

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

CONTINUE TO PART 2