- Government wins the Commons vote, but has lost the argument
- Government to face showdown in the Lords
MPs in the House of Commons have today voted against holding a national referendum on the revived EU Constitution.
Today, 311 MPs voted against a referendum, and 248 voted in favour on a Conservative amendment. On Labour MP Ian Davidson's amendment, 311 voted against a referendum, and 247 voted in favour.
Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats split badly over this in the run-up to the vote. Labour Party whips have put enormous pressure on the handful of MPs who decided to stick to the manifesto promise and publicly support calls for a referendum.
Meanwhile Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg created deep divisions by urging his MPs to abstain from the vote, after the party's proposal for a referendum on Britain's continued EU membership was resoundingly defeated on Tuesday.
Pushing the Treaty through Parliament without a referendum lacks all legitimacy. The Government has failed to convince the public that the Lisbon Treaty is different to the rejected EU Constitution. A YouGov poll found that 94% of voters do not believe the Government's claim that it is different to the Constitution - on which a referendum was promised by all three parties.
The Government's strategy relies not on attempting to persuade the public, but simply trying to play down the issue and move on. However, the parliamentary debate is likely to run until June, and the issue will continue to dog the Government.
The battle will now shift to the Lords where the parliamentary arithmetic is better for the prospect of a referendum.
If Nick Clegg orders Liberal Democrat Peers to abstain, there is a reasonably good chance of the Lords calling for a referendum, especially given that the Commons debate has been widely seen as a farce.
As Labour backbencher Gwynyth Dunwoody said this week:
"We should be quite clear about what is happening here. This legislation is being guillotined, not programmed. It is being cut short in a most brutal and unhelpful manner. Presumably, that is happening because we are frightened of debating in this Chamber every massive change to the way in which we organise our affairs...The Government are foolish and unwise; they ought to have handled this matter better." (Hansard)
Today's close-run vote in the Commons - combined with the widespread perception that the Government has stifled debate in the Commons - could create a difficult situation for the Government in the Lords. A large vote for a referendum by the 224 crossbenchers could produce a majority for a referendum; there are 202 Conservative peers, and 215 Labour Peers.
I Want a Referendum Chairman Derek Scott said:
"The battle now moves on to the Lords where the pro-referendum campaign has a better chance of winning. If Nick Clegg keeps his promise to make Liberal Democrat Peers abstain then there is every chance that the Lords will vote for a referendum."
"Labour MPs who voted with their conscience and against the Government deserve congratulations, as do the Liberal Democrats who kept their promise. Those MPs who voted to deny their constituents a say should be deeply ashamed of themselves."
"Despite all the pompous talk about how MPs know best and the voters cannot be trusted, the Government have bludgeoned the bill through the Commons with as little discussion as possible. This shabby tactic may come back to haunt them in the Lords."
"The Government has lost the argument, even if it won the Commons vote. But this issue is not just going to go away."
Background: The Lisbon Treaty debate - a failure of parliamentary scrutiny
1. Amount of parliamentary time curtailed
The Government initially briefed that the debate on the EU Constitution would be at least 20 days long. However it was in the end curtailed to just 13 days debate in the Commons. This is compared to the 29 days that were spent debating Maastricht and the 30 days spent on the Treaty of Rome.
Even the low overall headline number of debating days is deceiving as much of the debate has been merely symbolic or abstract, and has not involved detailed scrutiny of the Treaty.
2. Poor use of time: themed debates which play to the Government's agenda
The Government originally promised that the Treaty would be subject to thorough 'line by line' scrutiny:
Jack Straw: "there is a far better procedure in respect of all EU treaties. They are the subject of line-by-line examination" (Hansard, 25.10.07)
David Miliband: "I think that as Parliament gets to grips with the reform treaty that comes out, as they look line by line, they will see first that it is good for Britain" (Today Programme, 31.08.07)
However, as the debate approached, this pledge was cynically shifted towards a promise of 'day by day' scrutiny:
Gordon Brown: "We are considering the European Union (Amendment) Bill day by day in the House of Commons in great detail.'' (Hansard, 6.02.08)
Perhaps as important as the restriction of debate time, the quality and scope of debate has also been curtailed. At the beginning of the parliamentary discussions the Government pushed through a programme motion which severely restricted the debate within those 12 days and overturned normal parliamentary procedures.
Instead of line by line scrutiny, the Government has devoted most of the committee stage to vapid themed debates on matters which are of little significance in the Lisbon Treaty.
For example, the Government allotted an entire day's worth of debate to the subject of climate change, even though the Lisbon Treaty adds only 6 new words to what is in the existing treaties on climate change. (Article 174) Needless to say these additional words are completely insignificant.
In reality, the EU currently has (and already exercises) plenty of power over environmental policy, and Lisbon will make no difference to the EU's capacity to fight global warming.
As Michael White commented in the Guardian recently:
"Clever Geoff Hoon, Labour chief whip, has persuaded MPs to vote to overrule their own standing orders. Instead of line-by-line debate which explores changes to foreign policy procedures, EU cooperation on crime or energy, at least half of each day is devoted to a "themed" discussion, with debate on specific amendments tacked on later. Does procedure matter? No one would be allowed to change the rules before a football match or criminal trial. Yet younger MPs on both sides barely grasp what powers they have given to Whitehall - let alone to Brussels."
3. Key issues have been ignored
This strategy has meant that key parts of the Lisbon Treaty have simply not been discussed. For example:
No amendments on borders, immigration or asylum were debated in Parliament as the whole of Justice and Home Affairs was lumped into one day's debate - it was worthy of two days (one on police and judicial cooperation, the other on immigration, asylum and borders) but the Government used its majority when the timetable was arranged to limit debate to one day. There was no discussion of the extension of ECJ jurisdiction over this area for the first time, the asylum "burden sharing" agreement, nor the new ability for the EU to set "uniform" asylum standards across the EU.
No defence amendments were debated - only one on foreign policy. Again, there should have been two days allocated: one on foreign policy, the other on Defence. There was no discussion of the creation of the 60,000 strong new EU army (known as permanent structured cooperation), the new commitment to a common defence, the defence solidarity clause, nor the European Defence Agency.
In the institutional debate only the issue of competences was looked at. There was no discussion of the passerelle amendments, the role of the ECJ or changes to the voting weights.
For each themed debate the amendments were collected by the House of Commons' clerks and grouped together. There were generally about 3 groups each day which were then ranked in order of priority. The debates were curtailed to such an extent that discussion of the second and third groupings were impossible, with MPs unable to move beyond discussion of the first grouping within the allowed time.
This is in stark contrast to the Maastricht Treaty, on which every amendment was discussed line by line. In terms of votes taken on amendments, the debate was also notably threadbare. For the eight days of themed debate, there were around 220 proposed amendments listed on the amendment papers. Of these, just 10 were actually voted on - a ratio of 4.5%.
The Government also abolished the report stage of the bill - which would have been another opportunity for more debate and for MPs to put down new amendments.
4. Clever "news management"
The third reading has been cunningly scheduled the day before the budget (11 March), allowing the Government to hide the final debate behind the smokescreen of one of the key annual events in UK politics.
Today Gordon Brown made a surprise announcement of an increase in the National Minimum Wage in order to distract attention from his broken promise.
Notes for editors:
1) For more information, please contact Neil O'Brien on 0207 197 2333 or 07973 142775.
2) IWR is a cross-party campaign calling for a referendum on the revived Constitutional Treaty. The IWR advisory group includes: Derek Scott (chair); Mike Hancock MP; Frank Field MP; Kate Hoey MP; Michael Gove MP; David Heathcoat-Amory MP; Greg Hands MP; and Nick Herbert MP.
www.iwantareferendum.com