Comments on: John Redwood Speaks in EU Constitution Debate

By: Bob Piper

Bob Piper — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:19:10 +0000

Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply, John.

1. However, is ‘not promising a referendum’ sufficient reason for not insisting on a referendum? Are you saying that if Blair hadn’t promised a referendum on the EU constitution, or Lisbon Treaty as we are now expected to call it, that you would have just accepted that?

2. A slight misrepresentation here. Monetary Union was a protocol attached to Maastricht, as I recall, not actually in the treaty itself. Also, the European Federalism inherent in everything Delors and co. insisted in going into Maastricht made every development thereafter almost inevitable, as some of your colleagues on the back benches bravely argued.

3. A bit of a cop out, and the same one used equally unconvincingly by Tony Benn for remaining in Wilson’s Government at the time of the IMF crisis. The really honest position would have been to resign and lead a back bench revolt against Major’s craven weakness. It may have even mobilised sufficient support, in the way that Howe’s resignation did against Thatcher, to have derailed the entire project.

Anyway, thank you again for your reply.

I did resign later and led a revolt to keep our currency, which helped persuade both Major and Blair to offer a referendum before destroying the pound - mission accomplished I would say.

By: Bob Piper

Bob Piper — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:17:16 +0000

So… why did you vote against a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty and desert your colleagues who were brave enough to vote against the Treaty?

Reply: 3 reasons. 1. We had not promised a referendum. 2. We were exempting the UK from the main point of the Maastricht Treaty, the single currency. We do not have the same exemptions from the worst features of Lisbon 3. I was a member of the government and decided to fight the issue from within government for longer - voting against the government lline would have required earlier resignation.My colleagues against the Treaty wanted someone within government putting their case. I did subsequently resign from the government over higher taxes and refusal to rule out the Euro in principle.

By: Julian Nicholson

Julian Nicholson — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:54:04 +0000

The constitution and treaty are largely the same. The red lines are meaningless and will be overturned by the European court in just the same way as the opt out from the Social Chapter was (Maastricht). The European scrutiny committee (which has a labour majority) has admitted this.

So lets get this straight. The government know that they are lying, we know the government are lying, and the government know that we know that they are lying.

Thank you for doing everything you can to prevent this “treaty” being ratified.

By: Adrian Peirson

Adrian Peirson — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:02:20 +0000

The Truth and Justice will Ultimately Prevail and You John will have played your Part, On behalf of my children who’m I wish to remain free, not citizens of some Corrupt Totalitarian & Socialist Gulag I thank you.
http://www.planetquo.com

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:35:24 +0000

Please be assured that your work in this debate was much appreciated by an awful lot of voiceless electors throughout the country.
Very well said.
Don’t despair - please. You are totally right in everything you said above.
I watched a bit of the debate on TV. I thought William Hague was magnificent! I loved the way the Foreign Secretary looked so ashamed of his patent fibbing.
I know (from the internet) that I speak for a lot of other people too.

By: Yesterday’s EU Treaty proceedings explained | John Redwood's Diary

Yesterday’s EU Treaty proceedings explained | John Redwood's Diary — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:01:17 +0000

[...] John Redwood Speaks in EU Constitution Debate [...]