Because most people are not interested enough to find out everything about the treaty, a referendum is not important.
Or, rather, he's really paraphrasing Matthew Parris.
This sort of argument bugs the fucking hell out of me, really it does. Especially when coupled with the whole "representative democracy" bullshit.
Apparently people are interested enough, engaged enough and clever enough to understand what they are voting for when it comes to a general election and thus hand a mandate to whichever sordid bunch of venal cunts are up for election this time, but they definitely are not interested enough, engaged enough and clever enough to understand what they are voting for on an issue such as this Treaty.
Yes, many people are disengaged from politics—although the EU-induced similarity of the parties has, in my view, an awful lot to do with this.
Yes, many people are stupid and more are ignorant; but that is not really the point, is it? We live in a democracy, albeit a highly flawed one, and ultimately the power that the politicians wield belongs not to them, but is loaned to the politicos by the true owners: the people of this country.
Any fucking Treaty which gives away any power should not be ratified purely through Parliament, as EU Referendum emphasises.
Where, of course, this paper goes utterly wrong is in defining Parliamentary sovereignty as unfettered license. For sure, Parliament is sovereign in its own House, (once) having absolute mastery of its own rules and procedures. But the ultimate sovereignty belongs to the people. The Guardian would have it that Parliament is free to give away something which is not its to give. It has no license or mandate so to do.
And whilst Nosemonkey might take comfort in the document's turgidity, he rather misses the point.
... the end result is bland and uninspiring, with little of any real substance or radicalism about it. Which is precisely why opponents of the EU have had to shift the argument on to the referendum issue - a simpler, easier to understand issue on which everyone thinks they know what they’re talking about, and about which it’s a lot easier to get excited than a massively long legal text that hardly anyone really understands, and that’s deliberately so vague it can be interpreted in any number of ways.
Given the rest of the tenor of his post, Nosemonkey obviously thinks that this vagueness is a bug; it's not. The fact that aspects of the Treaty can be "interpreted in any number of ways" is, from The Colleagues' point of view, a feature. As we have been finding out to our cost.
Although he has "insisted" that he had "defended all the British national interests," in truth, Brown – no more than Major at Maastricht – has any real idea what he has given away. Who knew, for instance, that in a minor amendment to the transport policy, Major gave away all our powers on road safety, giving the EU the authority to make laws on speed limits, drink-driving limits and many other related issues?
An old hand at this game, Ambrose Evans Pritchard points out that, in this current treaty, Brown has given away power over our energy supplies. He writes:Critics have warned that this risks repeating the error made by the Heath Government when it handed over control of British fishing reserves in the 1970s. UK oil reserves, although depleted, still make up the majority of the EU's untapped crude.
Article 176 gives Brussels powers to ensure "the security and energy supply", with decisions taken by majority vote. A separate article (100) says states must share their reserves in a crisis. It was removed after British protests, but has been slipped back into the text. As always with EU treaties, it is not until later that you find out which neglected sub-clauses prove to have the most far-reaching effects.
That last sentence has particularly sinister implications, for – as we illustrated recently – we are still learning things about the 1957 Treaty of Rome that we did not know. Even with later treaties – as with Maastricht, nearly 20 years ago – there are whole tranches, such as road safety, where the commission is only now beginning to flex its muscles.
Coupled with our spineless, corrupt, piss-ignorant, utterly useless politicians, the self-amending nature of this Treaty means that there will be an awful lot of nasty surprises over the coming years.
The question is, will the British people meekly lie down and accept it all, or will we finally rise up and use the rope and lamp post as negotiating tools to cleanse us of the parasites? Let us hope so for then, finally, I can take a break from my ranting and gaze instead at the lamp posts of Europe, gaily festooned with the hanging bodies of corrupt politicians and conniving civil servants.