Will a ‘referendum lock’ prevent any future loss of UK sovereignty?

Civitas, 18 November 2010

Last year, David Cameron promised ‘Never again should it be possible for a British Government to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people.’ This promise has now been translated into a European Union Bill, which contains a crucial ‘referendum lock’, writes Natalie Hamill.  The Bill has been reported as the most significant piece of legislation on the transfer of power between the UK and EU since the 1972 European Communities Act. Can it possibly live up to these high expectations?

David Lidington, Minister for Europe, introduced the Bill last week saying, ‘Many people in Britain feel disconnected with how the EU has developed, and the decisions that have been taken in their name’. The Europe Minister believes the new Bill can ‘rebuild trust and reconnect people with these EU decisions’.

The Bill will not attempt to regain powers that have already been shifted from the UK to the EU level; however, it will guarantee a referendum on future transfers of power. The intentions of the Bill are admirable, but it is naive to ignore its potential pitfalls, which could undermine that which David Lidington is attempting to achieve – reconnecting UK citizens with EU decisions.

At an event held by Open Europe on Tuesday, David Rennie, Political Editor at The Economist, suggested that a ‘referendum lock’ constitutes an endorsement of a two-speed Europe. Rennie suggested that a UK referendum bill would effectively be a ‘UK veto bill’ because it would be virtually impossible to win a referendum in favour of transfering sovereignty from the UK.

However, Mats Persson, director of the Open Europe think tank, highlighted a potential loophole in the wording of the Bill. The Bill will enable the Government to decide, in certain circumstances, that a particular power transfer is ‘insignificant’ and therefore not worthy of a referendum. The Foreign Office favours this wording in order to prevent referenda being held over trivial matters.  However, it would be preferable for the Europe Minister to clearly define what equals an ‘insignificant’ transfer now, in order to avoid future conflict and confusion. A clear definition would also alleviate concern about a ‘snowballing’ effect – that increasing ‘insignificant’ competence transfers would together equal something really quite significant.

There has been a suggestion that the Bill could be improved if it were to include some form of initiative enabling citizens to prompt a referendum. Others have raised concerns that the UK’s Bill does too little too late – e.g. ‘on the table’ plans (such as a permanent bailout mechanism and a eurotax) could become a reality before the referendum lock is established.

The Coalition Government has already agreed that there will be no transfer of power from the UK to the EU during this Parliament’s lifetime (until 2015), therefore this Bill is ultimately being developed to constrain future Governments. As a result, we will have to wait and see whether it is successful. In the meantime,  David Lidington hopes that the Bill will represent an important step towards restoring the confidence of UK citizens who have become increasingly frustrated with the constant creeping of EU sovereignty.  After the farce of the Lisbon Treaty ratification, UK citizens will no doubt be relieved to hear that, finally, their opinions may be taken into account. In a similar vein, in response to the fact that many Eurosceptics remain convinced that the ‘referendum lock’ will be a complete failure, David Rennie commented ‘it is the fate of the paranoid not to realise when they’re winning’.