British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

progcon.org · 03-08-2008, 06:03 PM

Um Jim, you have disagreed then explained exactly what I wrote:

#1 Cameron has pledged a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it has not been fully ratified by the time the Tories come to power. He has also said that he will campaign for a no vote.

#2 If it has already been ratified by the time the Tories come to power, as is likely right now, they will do ****** all. We know that. Given a chance, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Euro adopted under a Cameron government. Please don't mistake me as a Cameron cheerleader.

We all know he is playing politics and does not expect nor really want #1 to happen.

However, the rod he has created, is that at this very moment in time, the treaty has yet to be ratified by all member countries and he has made a clear pledge. If it could be ably shown that the mere announcement by Cameron that he is going to change his position and offer a referendum even if the treaty has already been ratified by 2010, it could in effect kill the treaty now because the EU would have been put on notice by the Tories, and other countries who are yet to ratify may well hold back until then, and certainly won't feel as bullied by the EU to steamroll through the process.

I know it is a subtle difference, but this is the application of intention, not ifs and whens. To date, Tories have simply discussed how difficult/impossible it would be to have a post-ratification referendum and have deliberately ignored the fact that simply announcing their *intention* to do so, based on their poll lead could actually stop the ratification being completed before they come to office, thus obliging them to carry through on their pledge.

Of course Cameron does not want this. Of course he is not to be trusted on the EU. However, the goal is to slow down the ratification process to ensure Cameron is forced to deliver his pledge. This could be done by publicly showing that other countries would hold off ratification until 2010 if they thought that Britain would be putting it to the vote.

It's a big ask, but finding all possible ways to stop ratification before 2010 will deliver the referendum. Agreed?

Imagine if we could get one or more leaders in others countries to state that they would hold off ratifying the treaty if they thought that Britain would be putting it to the vote. Such a body of evidence could corner Cameron into taking a lead, as to duck away from it when other European leaders look to him to take a lead would make him look weak and dishonest and could affect his chance of becoming pm.

It is not too late. It is a difficult call, but if we can slow down the ratification process outside the UK until 2010 we will absolutely get our referendum.

03-08-2008, 06:03 PM	#57 (permalink)
progcon.org Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 934	Um Jim, you have disagreed then explained exactly what I wrote: #1 Cameron has pledged a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it has not been fully ratified by the time the Tories come to power. He has also said that he will campaign for a no vote. #2 If it has already been ratified by the time the Tories come to power, as is likely right now, they will do ****** all. We know that. Given a chance, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Euro adopted under a Cameron government. Please don't mistake me as a Cameron cheerleader. We all know he is playing politics and does not expect nor really want #1 to happen. However, the rod he has created, is that at this very moment in time, the treaty has yet to be ratified by all member countries and he has made a clear pledge. If it could be ably shown that the mere announcement by Cameron that he is going to change his position and offer a referendum even if the treaty has already been ratified by 2010, it could in effect kill the treaty now because the EU would have been put on notice by the Tories, and other countries who are yet to ratify may well hold back until then, and certainly won't feel as bullied by the EU to steamroll through the process. I know it is a subtle difference, but this is the application of intention, not ifs and whens. To date, Tories have simply discussed how difficult/impossible it would be to have a post-ratification referendum and have deliberately ignored the fact that simply announcing their intention to do so, based on their poll lead could actually stop the ratification being completed before they come to office, thus obliging them to carry through on their pledge. Of course Cameron does not want this. Of course he is not to be trusted on the EU. However, the goal is to slow down the ratification process to ensure Cameron is forced to deliver his pledge. This could be done by publicly showing that other countries would hold off ratification until 2010 if they thought that Britain would be putting it to the vote. It's a big ask, but finding all possible ways to stop ratification before 2010 will deliver the referendum. Agreed? Imagine if we could get one or more leaders in others countries to state that they would hold off ratifying the treaty if they thought that Britain would be putting it to the vote. Such a body of evidence could corner Cameron into taking a lead, as to duck away from it when other European leaders look to him to take a lead would make him look weak and dishonest and could affect his chance of becoming pm. It is not too late. It is a difficult call, but if we can slow down the ratification process outside the UK until 2010 we will absolutely get our referendum.