Recently, the government was defeated in the Lords over part of its plans to offer the public a vote on major transfers of power to Brussels by insisting that referenda would only be binding if there was a turnout of at least 40%.
A "referendum lock" on new EU treaties was part of the coalition agreement and something that has yet to materialise.
The government was defeated by 221 votes to 216, including 5 Conservative rebels and 6 Lib Dems.
The coalition is likely to seek to overturn the defeat when the Europe Bill returns to the Commons.
Independent cross-bench peer Lord Williamson, a former secretary-general of the European Commission, moved the amendment arguing that it should be up to Parliament to settle any issue on which there was "a derisory turnout". In other words, giving the government a 'get out clause' should it be in disagreement with the results of a marginal referendum.
"This amendment would bring back a role for Parliament in those cases, and only those cases, where the British public had demonstrated its lack of interest by a very low turnout in a referendum," he said.
The government was defeated by 221 votes to 216, including 5 Conservative rebels and 6 Lib Dems.
The coalition is likely to seek to overturn the defeat when the Europe Bill returns to the Commons.
Independent cross-bench peer Lord Williamson, a former secretary-general of the European Commission, moved the amendment arguing that it should be up to Parliament to settle any issue on which there was "a derisory turnout". In other words, giving the government a 'get out clause' should it be in disagreement with the results of a marginal referendum.
"This amendment would bring back a role for Parliament in those cases, and only those cases, where the British public had demonstrated its lack of interest by a very low turnout in a referendum," he said.
Of course, any 'lack of interest' by the electorate is likely to have been encouraged, if not manufactured, by EUrophile ministers who are probably now regretting promising 'referendum lock' in the first place.
The Lords twice tried to force the government to set a minimum 40% turnout for the AV referendum but, this was overturned by the Commons.
Tory peer Lord Forsyth said: "It is very, very dangerous indeed to get into a position where we have a constitutional innovation which is the concept of referenda which are drop-dead referenda - the moment the vote is cast it becomes enshrined in law and Parliament no longer has a further say on it." In other words, regardless of how the electorate vote, politicians should have the last say. This would only serve to bolster our 'democratic deficit.'
Lord Pearson, the former leader of UKIP also opposed the amendment, saying the public would only re-engage with politics if given a greater say. He added "Their decisions, even if only 15% of them turn out to vote, will be very much wiser than those of our failed political class," a sentiment with which most of us would probably identify.
The Lords twice tried to force the government to set a minimum 40% turnout for the AV referendum but, this was overturned by the Commons.
Tory peer Lord Forsyth said: "It is very, very dangerous indeed to get into a position where we have a constitutional innovation which is the concept of referenda which are drop-dead referenda - the moment the vote is cast it becomes enshrined in law and Parliament no longer has a further say on it." In other words, regardless of how the electorate vote, politicians should have the last say. This would only serve to bolster our 'democratic deficit.'
Lord Pearson, the former leader of UKIP also opposed the amendment, saying the public would only re-engage with politics if given a greater say. He added "Their decisions, even if only 15% of them turn out to vote, will be very much wiser than those of our failed political class," a sentiment with which most of us would probably identify.
Recently, in alliance with pro-EU Conservatives, Liberal Democrat peers helped introduce a sunset clause to the EUropean Union Bill to ensure that 'referendum lock' expired at the end of this parliament. This would defeat the whole point of the promised referendum lock, which was to ensure all future parliaments cannot make significant transfers powers to the EU without the consent of the British people. EUrosceptics had already questioned the usefulness of referendum lock and it now looks much more vulnerable.
The amendment was passed by just 209 to 203 votes. Among the 209 opposed to giving us the right to a say in the surrender of our sovereignty were Leon Brittan, Lord Debden (formerly John Gummer), Lord Heseltine, Baroness Howe, and Lord Jopling. They were joined, not surprisingly, by many Labour peers andalso Liberal Democrats including Lord Oakeshott, Baroness Williams, Lord Maclennan and Lord Steel.
Lord Risby (formerly Richard Spring MP) unsuccessfully opposed the amendment saying:
"The whole point about this Bill is that it is meant to provide an enduring framework or umbrella under which future important EU decisions can be made. It comes back to this fundamental question, which is one of trust. People need to feel that they have a longer term guarantee of that sense of ownership of these procedures if we are to give away powers to the European Union. That is simply at the heart of this Bill. A sunset clause would give a limited time frame—providing perhaps for a time when we do not expect a referendum, or taking that right away when there might be a treaty change. That is the possible danger. But I might use the analogy of saying to the noble Lord, “Here is £5, but you can spend it only between four o’clock and six o’clock in the afternoon, otherwise I am going to take it back”. That is the essence of what this is all about."
Tory peer, Lord Brittan used his intervention to oppose referenda, demonstrating his contempt of true democracy:
"My Lords, I support the amendment. I start by saying that I am an unashamed opponent of referenda and always have been. It is not therefore surprising that anything that limits the operation of referenda inherently attracts me, as the amendment does. It is entirely reasonable that this piece of legislation, if it is to be passed, should be regarded as being wholly exceptional—which it is constitutionally—because it extends the range of obligatory referenda on a massive scale and fundamentally alters the balance of the constitution in that important respect. The Bill should be regarded, if it has to be passed, as a provisional experiment. I would regard it as a rather dangerous experiment that is subversive of the normal principles of parliamentary government."
This is a view shared by Tory EUrophile Ken Clarke.
No comments:
Post a Comment