Do the reverse Salisbury
James Forsyth 2:57pm
Last week, The Spectator called on the House of Lords to apply the Salisbury convention in reverse to the Lisbon treaty and use its power to force the government to honour its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the treaty formerly know as the Constitution. This morning, Lord Strathcylde, the Tory leader in the Lords, endorsed the idea on the Today programme.
The arithmetic in the Lords is tricky but it would make an important statement if the Lords was to at least make the government sweat a little on this issue. As our editorial argued, Labour has been fundamentally disingenuous about the reason why it supported a referendum in the first place and it is imperative that its mendacity receives maximum exposure.
Previous
Comments
Denis Cooper
March 14th, 2008 6:34pmIs it right that some peers are receiving substantial pensions (and possibly other emoluments and benefits) from the EU, on condition that they loyally support the EU, but to the best of my knowledge they are still not required to declare those financial interests, let alone abstain from voting on an issue like this?
adrian drummond
March 14th, 2008 7:31pmI found it very interesting listening to Lord Strathcylde. Well done the Spectator for highlighting the Salisbury Convention in reverse approach. Pity the BBC's Caroline Quinn (I think it was her voice) had to refer to it as a 'ruse'. Fortunately, his Lordship noticed and picked her up on it.
Anne Palmer
March 14th, 2008 9:54pmThe House of Lords have it within their power to make sure the Government keeps their manifesto promise. The Treaty of Lisbon is as constitutional as it gets. ALL 27 leaders of 27 nation states know that the Treaty of Lisbon contains 95% of what the rejected 'Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe' held and upon which Labour's manifesto promise was that a referendum would be held for the people to have their say. . The Lords have a duty to stick to their mandate too. I quote The Rt Hon jack Straw MP (13 June 2006 in Committee on the subject of Salisbury-Addison manifesto promis) "Our assertion is that Governments of course must be assured that Salisbury-Addison will operate in respect of Manifesto commitments because it is absolutely fundamental to the contract that is entered into between electors and Parties". A commitment between electors and Parties. There you have it.
David Boothroyd
March 15th, 2008 9:59amAnne Palmer, your statistic is inverted. The claim is that 90-something-% of the Lisbon Treaty was contained in the Constitutional Treaty, not that 90-something-% of the Constitutional Treaty is in the Lisbon Treaty. The latter is obviously untrue, which is why no-one has attempted to produce a percentage figure (and not because it would be misleading and bogus even if they did). The referendum was promised on any Treaty which ripped up all existing treaties and started again. The Lisbon Treaty does not do that. There was no pledge in anyone's manifesto to have a referendum on a Treaty that did not exist. To claim that there is is to distort logic.
Fergus Pickering
March 16th, 2008 7:31pmDavid Boothroyd, you are wrong. Look at what the man Blair did actually promise. Of course he is a serial liar and as poor Duncan -Smith said, 'you can't believ a word they say'but all the same he promised (for what it's worth whch is probably sweet fanny adams) exactly what Cameron says he promised. The fact is that this lot have lied repeatedly about pretty well everything. Lying is what they do. All of them. Is there anyone in Government you would trust to tell you the thime?
Max Kaye
March 16th, 2008 7:51pmDavid Boothroyd, you write like a lawyer (not a compliment) as only a lawyer could present such a tortuous and wrong argument.
UK citizens were promised a referendum on any treaty that ceded further powers from Parliament to the EU. The (rejected) Constitutional Treaty did just that. All national leaders of any political standing in 26 out of 27 EU member states agree that the Lisbon Treaty is substantially the same - a 'repackaged' version - as the Constitutional Treaty. Everyone, that is, except our Nu-Labour government and some Lib Dems. Who then is distorting logic for political purposes?