Quote:
There will only be one irony.....the UK getting a referendum.
|
My understanding is that there will no referendum in the UK about the UK's membership in the EU, even though the UK public is EU-sceptic and the (Murdoch's) press is EU-hostile , basically because the referendum thing in general is new ground, widely undiscussed and the when and why holding a referendum in Britain is not sorted out yet, eg.: http://nortonview.wordpress.com/2011...t-referendums/
But what about this? Would that have been feasible way for David?
"The first question I’d really like answered is why David Cameron didn’t take the same course as the other states that disagreed, and simply say that he needed to consult parliament. It is theoretically possible for a British prime minister to both sign and ratify treaties executively, but it’s been assumed since the first world war that they must be at least seen by the House of Commons, and anyway this one required some very serious legislation at the national level.
I can’t imagine that the Tory hard right would be anything other than delighted by the chance to kick it out, even if the fact of being consulted and given power over a real goddamnit treaty didn’t fix them in itself. Had the Commons killed it, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t just have been another ratification foul-up, like the ones we regularly have with Irish referendums and decisions from the courts in Karlsruhe. Of course, it might never have happened – the treaty will need ratifying, quite probably this will mean one or more referendums, super-majority votes, recourses to the supreme court, and the like."
http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/the-e...e-post-for-you |
