A manifesto mandate for wider renegotiation, likely to be pursued by Cameron, is more worrying than the hollow gesture of a referendum after Lisbon is ratified.
As the Conservative civil war over David Cameron’s expected u-turn on a Lisbon treaty becomes clear, Left Foot Forward feels no ease from a sense of schadenfreude on the left. The “manifesto mandate” for wider renegotiation, which Tim Montgomerie predicts Cameron will pursue, is more worrying than the hollow gesture of a referendum after Lisbon is ratified.
On the eve of Conservative party conference, the Guardian revealed that Cameron would “rule out a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if the measure is ratified” and, if elected, plan to:
“Repatriate social and employment powers to a national level. This would effectively mean restoring Britain’s opt out from the social chapter.”
As ardent eurosceptic Ruth Lea has told this blog, “The Social chapter was a special protocol at the time of Maastricht but it was absorbed into the major treaties during Amsterdam.” Following this logic, career diplomat Sir Stephen Wall wrote recently:
“[The] return of social and employment legislation to national control … would require the agreement of 26 other states. And no concession would be made to Britain without us giving something in return. Would we, as other EU members might well demand, give up our budget rebate in exchange? The rebate is worth £3 billion a year.”
And even if a Conservative government did negotiate a successful repatriation of social and employment powers, it would have disatrous consequences for British workers. As Left Foot Forward has shown the following rights could be put at risk:
• A minimum of 26 weeks maternity leave for women, and two weeks for men
• The Temporary Agency Workers directive which will ensure that 1.3 million workers for these agencies will be given pay and paid holidays comparable to the equivalent full-time employee doing the same job.
• The Transfer of Undertakings/Protection of Employment (TUPE) Directive, which ensures that workers retain basic employment, pension and seniority rights if their company is taken over
• Equality between men and women in the labour market and at work
• Social security and social protection for workers
• Protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
10 Responses to “The madness of a “manifesto mandate””
Boudicca
Would that be like the Manifesto madness of Blair lying to us about holding a Referendum on the EU Constitution and Brown reneging on it because the title was changed to Treaty. At the last election, Labour polled considerably fewer votes in England than the Tories, but because of the gerry-mandered constituency boundaries, won more seats. On the basis of that they reneged on a Manifesto Commitment to ram through a Treaty they knew the British people didn’t want.
I don’t think Labour has any right to complain about a Manifesto Mandate. If the Tories are elected, and Cameron has promised repatriation of powers from the EU Politburo, that is exactly what he should deliver.
Anthony
And how many of those 37 or 38% have read the manifesto?
Rebate Discounts
The madness of a "manifesto mandate" | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/RU3w7
Henry
Labour may be in no position to complain about fake ‘mandates’ but the rest of us are…
Politics Summary: Tuesday, November 3rd | Left Foot Forward
[…] on Lisbon as we were promised and as we voted in the House of Commons. No ifs or buts.” Left Foot Forward wrote yesterday on the consequences of repatriating social and employment […]