British referendum on EU constitution
On April 20, 2004 British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in the House of Commons that Britain would hold a referendum on the ratification of a treaty that would bring the European constitution to fruition. Although a treaty on the constitution is widely expected to be drawn up in June, no firm date has yet been set for the referendum
In the same speech, Blair made clear that he and his Government would be urging people to make a "Yes, accept the constitution" vote, "provided the treaty embodies the essential British positions...", which he expected it to do (the treaty is still a draft).
Initial reaction amongst the opposition was three-fold. Firstly the Conservatives were pleased as they felt they had forced Tony Blair into a U-turn. For example Michael Howard, the Leader of the Opposition said "Who will ever trust you again?" in his response to Blair's statement. In response, opponents of Howard have said that he himself has done a U-turn by asking for a referendum at all. Howard was a member of the Conservative Government that rejected calls for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty in 1993.
Secondly, the Conservative Party repeated its opposition to such a constitution which it sees as causing an unacceptable loss of sovereignty.
They then wanted to know about the timing of the referendum and the precise wording of its question. Commentators expect that a referendum will not be held until after the next General Election, which is expected to be held in spring or summer of 2005. They have suggested that the Labour Party will want to minimize the impact of the issue of Europe on the election campaign by saying "we can discuss that at the referendum". It is an issue on which voters tend to prefer the Conservative view.
Some Europhiles believe this is because much of the press (e.g. News International in the UK opposes the treaty, as referred to by Blair above. Other Europhiles suggest that it is due to what they believe to be a groundless fear of loss of sovereignty.
Supporters of the Government have said that a referendum would need to be held after sufficient parliamentary time has been devoted to analysing the text, thus forcing a delay until after the election. Conversely the Conservatives reject this, saying that sufficient scrutiny can be given, and a referendum held, in the autumn and winter of 2004. Naturally, the Conservatives hope that a defeat in the referendum would fatally wound the Government, buoying their prospects in the coming General Election.
The Conservatives have also suggested that if the Treaty were rejected the current government would repeat the referendum until it got its desired result.
In the days after the announcement of the vote, government policy wasn't immediately clear on this issue: it initially said that the UK would then be in the same position as Ireland was, after it rejected the Nice treaty. Ireland subsequently adopted that treaty, after a second referendum, suggesting that Britain may attempt to do the same.
However at his usual monthly news conference on April 22 Blair said "If the British people vote 'no,' they vote 'no.' You can't keep bringing it back until they vote 'yes'". Denmark also held two referenda before accepting the Maastricht treaty. BBC Radio 4, and the Times have subsequently reported some back-tracking on this issue from "Number 10" (presumably the press office). Despite Blair's assertions (he has apparently made several other, similar statements) the position is not entirely clear.
The rules governing how British referenda are held are determined by the Electoral Commission. The Commission will judge whether the question asked is clear and unbiased and make recommendations, but Parliament (effectively the House of Commons) will make the final decision. Some concern has already been raised that a simple yes/no question will bias the poll in favour of a positive vote, because of people's instinctive desire to respond positively, all other things being equal. The Commission chairman, Sam Younger, who will act as counting officer for the vote, has said that he will be able to make further recommendations once he has observed referenda taking place in English regions this autumn.
The Commission also places caps on the amount that can be spent by each side of the debate. Two official "designated organisations", one for each side of the debate, will be able to spend at most ÃÂã5m campaigning, of which up to ÃÂã600,000 could come from public funds. These organisations will also be entitled to free broadcasts and mail shots. The names and leaders of the organisations have not yet been named. All other interested parties will be able to spend at most ÃÂã500,000 and must be registered with the Commission if they receive any single donation in excess of ÃÂã10,000.
In a interview with the Times April 24, 2004 , Sam Younger said the referendum legislation was flawed, and unworkable. "There is nothing to stop someone with say, ÃÂã10 million, creating 20 different groups all of which could spend ÃÂã500,000. That could distort the whole campaign. The legislation is flawed." He suggested that wealthy groups on both sides of the debate might do this.
Sam Younger also said that enforcing the regulations would be difficult, both because it would not possible to prove the spending limits had been broken until the referendum was over, by which time the campaign groups involved would have been dissolved, and because the maximum fine of ÃÂã5,000 was too low to deter potential offenders.
Furthermore, the Government is permitted to publish information publicising its view, with no spending limit, until 28 days before the poll. The spending of all other groups involved will be capped for 70 days before the poll. Sam Younger said the same campaign restrictions should apply to the Government as to everyone else.
The announcement
Blair's reasons for a referendum
The announcement was portrayed as a significant U-turn by Blair's government, by the opposition and the press. Blair had previously stated that such a referendum was not necessary, as the constitution was little more than a "tidying-up exercise". This is the way the EU itself tends to describe it, as a consolidation of existing treaties. However, in his Commons address Blair claimed that myths (presumably referring to the straight banana story, and other such inventions) and mis-reporting in the press about Europe were so prevalent that "it is right to confront this campaign [of myth-making] head-on." Blair made no more specific reference to a referendum than that in his speech— indeed observers were keen to point out that Blair avoided using the words such as "referendum" and "plebiscite" at all. The explicit announcement was made in a White Paper published simultaneously by Jack Straw), the Foreign Secretary. Opposition reaction
Holding the vote