5 Comments »

1. Lack of a referendum on this plus the lying and cheating on immigration under Hughes is likely to finish Labour as a whole as well as Blair as a person. Worse – it is likely to increase BNP participation in politics.
   Labour MP’s need to get a grip
   Hipster

   Comment by Hipster — 30 Mar 2004 on 2:16 pm | Link

2. Really? I’ll bet that the EU constitution and Beverley Hughes’s competence are matters of supreme irrelevant this time next year.

   I wouldn’t hold a referendum on the EU constitution not because I don’t approve of democracy, but because I know it couldn’t be conducted in an atmosphere of reasonable and fair debate.

   And the BNP’s miniscule involvement in politics will increase (if it does at all) because of the panic and distortions of the media, not because of anything the Government does or doesn’t do.

   Comment by Marek Ostrowski — 30 Mar 2004 on 5:13 pm | Link

3. Hmm. I agree on Beverley Hughes, but the Constitution might still be a live issue if we or one of the other member states reject the thing in a referendum.

   I also disagree that a referendum "couldn’t be conducted in an atmosphere of reasonable and fair debate". I don’t see why this should be any different in the case of the EU constitution to the circumstances of a general election. At least the Constitution isn’t a manifest object and can’t be followed around the country by a man from the Sun in a giant chicken suit.

   A more serious objection to holding a referendum is that the Constitution is enormous and pretty incomprehensible. If you believe that the meaning of laws should be comprehensible to those to whom they apply, then you’d reject the Constitution out of hand (as well as a lot of current legislation and the existing EU treaties too, but there’s no chance of being offered a choice on those). As I’ve said before, I’ll vote against the thing until they can get it down to one or two sides of A4.

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 30 Mar 2004 on 9:02 pm | Link

4. Chris Lightfoot says, of the proposed EU constitution: "As I’ve said before, I’ll vote against the thing until they can get it down to one or two sides of A4."

   Is this a cry for form over content or a desire for brevity at the expense of clarity?

   Answers please, on two sides of A4.

   Comment by nigel — 31 Mar 2004 on 11:33 am | Link

5. Neither– just a desire for simplicity. After all, the Americans manage with a comparatively short constitution, despite the fact that their federal government has much more power than does the EU. Is the releationship between the EU and its member states really so complicated that it needs 200 pages to describe it? (There’s lots more EU legislation, much of it very complicated, often for good reasons. But the Constitution itself should be as short and clear as possible, so that any European can understand what rights and obligations it creates for them and for the governments of their countries.)

   Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 31 Mar 2004 on 2:18 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.