I think Nick Clegg has had a good day. He did well to face down lots of jeers in the Commons at PMQs. He has just made an excellent appearance on Channel 4 News. Good for him. [Dodges to miss well directed rotten tomatoes from numerous bloggers]
I applaud the honourable actions of the three front benchers who disobeyed the three line whip. They were right to resign. They are entitled to their views but they should be expressed outside of the shadow cabinet. They would undermine the party if they continued on the front bench. I am glad that it didn't come to "pushing" rather than "jumping".
I think Nick has taken the right course. It is a course that Chris Huhne, I strongly suspect, would have taken - had the 511 votes swung the other way. And it was the course of Ming as leader.
The rebels who broke the three-liner are quite entitled to their view but Nick Clegg has to lead and he has done so. It is quite clear that the Lisbon treaty is not a constitution. If any of the rebels are contradicting that, then it is a dangerous undermining of a completely valid point being made by Ed Davey, Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne and the rest.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Well done Nick Clegg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think they never should have been put in a position where they had to resign.
We wanted a referendum on Maastricht so why this volte-face?
Its a mess. Its allowed us to be portrayed as divided (and given Iain Dale a lot of fun).
Its not sticking to principle in any way I can see, its just a failed gambit from Ming which has been carried on too far.
Don't agree. But then we've all been round this mulberry bush thousands of times. Iain Dale needs fun. I am delighted for him.
I shan't upset you by disagreeing with you Paul, even though you're utterly wrong on this one !
It wouldn't/doesn't upset me as I am used to go round the same circular argument many times. I respect those with the opposite view.
This semantic white wash is regrettable. Constitution means, 'the body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed'. Surely that is what is contained in the Lisbon treaty?
Anyway, what I think is more important is to ask, have the reasons that the original Constitution was rejected (by several countries) been removed in the Lisbon Treaty (which means, 'an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation')?
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have to publicly deny this is a constitution, because their manifesto promised a referendum (but they don't want to hold one).
This type behaviour, in my view, demonstrates why politics has hit such a low. Nick Clegg has scored a political own goal.
BTW - I used to vote Liberal Democrats, but I stopped after watching the Luker Hall debate (rubber stamping) of granting Sainsbury's their (abandoned) depot in on Greenham Common.
Thanks
Rusty.
"Surely that is what is contained in the Lisbon treaty?"
No it's not. It doesn't include the number of members of the EUropean parliament or the structure of the bodies of the EU. Lisbon just has amendments to the structures - not descriptions of the structures themselves.
Please Mr Walter, what do you mean? My point is that the treaty describes how we should be governed. If so, then it must be described as a constitution, just like the all party Parliamentary committee deduced a while back, I understand.
Thanks
Rusty
A constitution starts from scratch and describes all the functions and strictures of an organisation. Like the American Constitution - it describes the Senate, the House, the President, the Supreme Court etc and all the details of membership and powers etc.
The Lisbon Treaty does not do this. It describes some changes to the structures only.
Why does a constitution have to start from scratch? I feel that labour and the Liberal Democrats were boxing cleaver when they stated that they would hold a referendum on the constitution. This would be to protect some wobbling votes I suspect. It's an easy thing to state and an easy thing to retract. As the treaty, which is based on the constitution, isn't titled a constitution, it is easy to say it isn't a constitution.
I found these words on the Internet.
Several EU leaders have said that the new treaty has been made deliberately inaccessible:
1 The author of the Constitution Valery Giscard d’Estaing has said that “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
2 Former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato has said that: “They decided that the document should be
unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception... Should you
succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it
would mean that there is something new.”
3 Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht has said that, "The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be
more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
Some opponents of a referendum have even argued that the “new” treaty is shorter than the old constitution
and so therefore cannot be substantively the same thing. This is a dishonest argument. The new treaty in its unconsolidated form contains only the “active ingredients” – the changes which were proposed by the original Constitution. However, once it is turned back into consolidated text it becomes obvious that the “new” treaty essentially edits the existing treaties to bring them into line with the rejected
constitution.
Which ever way one looks at this, it shows politics in a bad light. taking into account the people that voted against the Lisbon Treaty, albeit a minority, it was a significant minority. It would suggest that your opinion that this treaty is clearly not the same thing is not entirely true.
Thanks
Rusty.
"Why does a constitution have to start from scratch?"
Because that is what it says in the dictionary:
"con·sti·tu·tion
...5. the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed. "
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constitution
I think relatively fewc people, certainly across the EU would agree about it being diferent from the constitution.
However a the question of its (deliberate) incomprehensibility raises another point. Surely if you get asked to sign a double glazing contract where the small print is incomprehensible it is wise to be cautious. A fundamental legal document on which your governemnt's authority is based should be comprehensible. If it isn't you are signing a blank cheque for your fundamental rights. On that basis even, parhaps particularly, the most enthusiastuic supporter of the EU should demand a reference back.
Neil, the Lisbon treaty is not incomprehensible. It is perfectly comprehensible that it is not a constitution. Yes, it contains most of the changes to the current arrangements which the original draft constitution contained. But the Lisbon Treaty does not contain the bits which made the original constitution a constitution - namely all the founding structural descriptions in the Treaty of Rome plus the constitutional changes of the Treaties of Maastricht and Nice, the Single European Act changes etc etc
Post a Comment