Wasn't Jack Straw's performance on the Dimbleby Programme pathetic? For the first time in this election campaign, the thorny issue of the European Constitution was raised by members of the audience. For Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Europe is the question that dare not raise its head. Charles Kennedy, normally as keen as mustard to promulgate all things Europe, has not uttered more than a few passing sentences on the subject.
Straw, we must not forget, is a lawyer by profession. Lawyers are supposed to have a bullshit answer for just about every question posed to them. Yet, when asked what the consequences of a French rejection of the EU Constitution would be, Straw was unable to give the correct answer. He said that, in the event of a 'No' vote, the Constitutional negotiations would be referred back to the European Council.
Cobblers! French law is like its Irish counterpart. Referendums are binding and should be respected. This contrasts with the legal situation in, say, Holland and the United Kingdom - where referenda are purely consultative. If the French vote down the Constitution at the end of May, it is void as a legal blueprint. No 'ifs', no 'buts'. To suggest that the matter could be re-appraised, as it was in Denmark over the Maastricht Treaty, is to insult the intelligence of the electorate.
What is Straw's ambition here? Is it to see the French people bounced into voting for the Constitution so that Labour can prepare the sacrificial altar in this country next year? Does he know something the rest of us do not? One thing is certain: whatever the French say next month, this text for a European polity in essence is almost certain to be rejected when put to the British people in 18 months time. If Labour think they can ride roughshod over the people on the back of governmental re-election, they must urgently re-assess their hubris.
Comments