You are here: Home » Comment »

Indecision in the national interest

May 20, 2012 3:43 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Slowly but surely the question of whether the UK should have an in/out referendum on its membership of the EU is creeping up the political agenda. Labour’s leadership has carefully left the option open without endorsing it. Behind the scenes voices in favour are becoming stronger. Is there a strong case for Labour advocating an in/out referendum? On balance, it is better to keep options open at this stage.

The arguments in favour split into the good, the bad and the ugly.

Firstly, let’s take a look at the good. Harold Wilson had a confirmatory referendum on our EEC membership in 1975. Almost two-thirds turned out and two-thirds voted in favour. Much has changed since then. While it’s simply not true that we thought we were only joining an economic union back in 1975, formal sovereignty has been further pooled and the EEC has both enlarged, deepened and is now the EU. The big changes came in the Single European Act in 1986. Given our opt-out from the Euro, the Maastricht Treaty was less directly significant. Maastricht will become more significant over time as the Eurozone becomes the de facto union.

So a great deal has changed and anyone born after 1957 has not had a say in a referendum on our membership. They have had a say in general elections and opportunities to vote for parties who wish to leave. They haven’t done so in any great numbers. Why should people have to choose between their views on Europe and, say, the NHS? Well, that’s the nature of democratic decision-making. You may like a party’s stance on education but not on immigration. You have to choose which is more important to you. Nonetheless, the changed character and fraying mandate of the original referendum decision are good arguments in favour of a referendum. They are not, however, decisive.

Before considering why, let’s have a quick look at the bad and ugly arguments. One of the bad arguments in favour is that it will ‘lance the boil’ of euroscepticism. It won’t. The original referendum didn’t. The original Scottish devolution referendum in 1979 defeat didn’t ‘lance the boil’ of devolution. And the successful devolution referendum didn’t ‘lance the boil’ of nationalism. Nor do I suppose the independence referendum will do so. Referendums can mobilise movements as much as dissipate them – especially if a mythology of betrayal, mendacity and unfairness of the actions of the other side springs out of it. It only seems to be progressives who lick their wounds after defeat.

Now for the ugly. One of the impulses behind suggesting that Labour goes for an in/out referendum is the political agony it will heap on David Cameron and the Conservatives. The idea is to split the UKIP-leaning vote away from the party. This argument just doesn’t work. If Labour goes for it, it is very likely that Cameron will do too. A ‘renegotiation’ referendum might be a compromise solution – but that is to begin down the path of exit anyway. Whichever option he chooses, it should deal with Cameron’s short-term ‘UKIP problem’ to the extent he has one. UKIP-sympathetic Tories could vote Conservative in 2015, knowing they will get a referendum vote in the next Parliament. They can have their cake and eat it.

The medium-term  - ie the next Parliament – is different though. 1846 is the year that fills many Conservatives with dread. It is the year the Conservative party split over repeal of the Corn Laws. They were left out of power until the 1870s – these things stay with a party for a long time. Could the Conservatives similarly split over the EU?

While this may all seem dramatic and apocalyptic, there is no doubt the divides over the EU run far deeper in the Conservative party than in Labour. Could the party survive an EU in/out referendum and retain any semblance of unity? It is not beyond the realms of the imagination that there could be some political alignment on the right. Cleggites and Cameroons could unite into one bloc or party and the euro-rabid Conservatives and UKIP might similarly coalesce. This is all political science fiction but you can see why some Labour strategists might be tempted.

But there’s just one problem – our national interest. The naïve presumption seems to be that an in/out referendum would be resolved in favour of continuing our membership. This is not at all clear. At the moment there is a plurality in favour of exit. There is no knowing what circumstances we will face in the next Parliament – or indeed what circumstances the Eurozone will face. The anti-political elite atmosphere that pervades could well be still with us. It is not impossible to see a low turnout of somewhere in the region of 40 percent (the AV referendum was 42%) with a narrow victory for ‘out’. We’d be making a decision about the national interest on the basis of one in five voters. Is this what we really want? Is it really ‘democratic’?

What’s more, a Labour Government that went for this referendum would then have to spend its entire political energy on leaving the EU rather than concentrating on resolving our domestic challenges. We may still be facing enormous economic challenges in five, six or seven years’ time. Do we really want to create even more economic uncertainty in that context?

And Labour’s leaders believe that retaining membership on balance is in our national interest. They could be faced with choosing between our interest in, for argument’s sake, 2019 and a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum. There are times, especially in crisis, where the national interest conflicts with what seems like the democratic option – though in reality it is not. Politics is about resolving tensions and finding ways through incompatible choices. People might want to have their say on EU membership and expect economic stability. What is the democratic course? It’s far more complex than simply saying give the people a vote and disregard everything else in considering the best democratic outcome.

Sensibly, both Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have both argued forcibly that the priority is to restore jobs and growth and questions over an in/out referendum are for another time. The time is likely to come but don’t bind yourself now. Ultimately, demands for the referendum may become impossible to resist. For now, there is time and political space. Act irresponsibly and the consequences could be severe. This is one of the moments when indecision is justified. Don’t play political games with the national interest.

Related posts:

  1. Placing party interest above national interest
  2. The politics of proxy: National Insurance or National Interest?
  3. Dust and twigs: how the Tory ideology is detrimental to our national interest
  4. Dust and twigs: how the Tory ideology is detrimental to our national interest
  5. Cameron is betraying the national interest by facing both ways on the EU
  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    I believe that there should be a referendum, probably on an in/out question, for reasons of basic democracy.  Most of our laws are made in Brussels.

    Playing around with some numbers (from Wolfram Alpha, for details see end of post), well over half of the population have never been asked at all, and 62.3% of the electorate have never been asked to vote even once on the question.  That proportion can only ever rise, probably by 2% per year, so by a 2017 referendum it may be 75% of the electorate.

    I can appreciate Anthony’s tactical considerations about not needing to decide just yet, but I think that events may move to force the issue to the top of the agenda if (as I feel is very likely), the Euro crisis unravels untidily with a Greek exit, further “contagion”, and an economic collapse that puts strains on the institutions of the EU.

    In such circumstances I believe that the mood against the EU would harden, not just in the UK but across Europe.  The tories would probably opt for an in/out referendum as an election promise to capture the public mood and to vaccinate themselves against UKIP.

    I do not make a firm prediction that will happen, I believe simply that it could happen and indeed may be likely.  Therefore Labour’s considerations should also include having a prepared (if possibly unannounced) policy on Europe in the event of a messy Euro collapse, and also if the tories “surprise” everyone with an electoral promise for a referendum.

    Numbers:

    The UK population over the age of 55 (i.e. only those who could possibly have voted in 1975) is 17.622 million.

    The UK population aged 18-55 (i.e. with a vote as citizens, but too young to have voted in 1975) is 29.564 million.

    The UK population aged 0-55 is 37.115 million.

    Of those 17.622 million who are still alive and over 55, and dividing by the turnout in the 1975 referendum (66%), it is likely that 7.887 million voted “Yes”, and 3.849 million voted “No”.

    • derek

      Imperial Jaime looking to drop the metric stuff and return to that old yard stick.He’s probably got a few tones of thrupences tucked away somewhere.The age of referenda is with us.  

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        Derek,

        you’ve made a logical jump there.  Is simply raising the question in the context of basic democracy interpreted as a wish to leave?

        I don’t understand the old pre-metric measurements or coins either.  I do however have some Canadian and some Austrian gold and silver coins that are measured in “ounces”, as you say “tucked away somewhere”, and not on Canadian or Austrian soil so the governments there cannot repeat Franklin Roosevelt’s act of theft.  Similarly, some British coins also measured in ounces and “Sovereigns” which are gloriously idiosyncratic British measures not of value or weight, but commitment and solidity, and likewise not in Britain.  Given his rape of pension funds and the incomes of those in the 10% tax bracket, it was only sensible to remove them from Gordon Brown’s jurisdiction when he was unfortunately our Prime Minister.

        • derek

          Interesting phrasing “Jump” a leap of faith is very much required in Europe, you’ll be familiar with the leap of faith-story at Killiecrankie and unless we come together and Jump together then the fall will be much harder.If we withdraw from Europe, then we’d also be withdrawing from the European human rights charter as well as kissing goodbye to 3 million jobs.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Don’t forget that the European ideal was only ever conceived to stop Germany and France from killing millions of each other on a serial basis*.  It does not necessarily mean that everyone from southwest Portugal to the Russian border, or from Greece to Ireland has to be part of one nation.

            *  It is no coincidence that the European Coal and Steel Community, the forerunner of the EU, was formed from the two belligerents and 4 sufferers of nearly 100 years of repeated wars.  Who can blame the Dutch, Belgians, Luxembourgers and Italians who wanted to protect themselves from being the battlegrounds over which French and Germans fought, and if the price of that was a cartel of industry, it was worth paying.

          • robertcp

            Yes, but other Europeans have also killed millions of Europeans over the last century, for example, Poland, former Yugoslavia, the Spanish Civil War and the Baltic states.

            We should also not forget that Europe has not always been as peaceful as it is now.  The European Union has to be given some credit for this even if, like me, you are not a great enthusiast for it.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            We are probably arguing in the same direction, but from my knowledge the death totals of those countries you mention do not even begin to approach those of the Franco-German wars.  There is no excuse in that, simply a matter of numbers.

            Let there be no doubt – the genesis of the European Union was completely in the desire to stop France and Germany killing millions of each other.  Every other nation was a bystander.

            I will acknowledge the humanity in that desire, although I deplore the ambition and practical execution.

            We are also in interesting times in the next six months, with Angela Merkel and François Hollande not yet agreeing on anything.

            I believe that Britain’s position on any of this is as a bystander, although we are exposed to the toxic fallout in financial terms.  It is my belief that the fatally flawed Euro project will be dead within a year, the EU membership intact, but the fundamental project of “ever-closer union” to be fatally wounded.  And I would welcome that, if we can return to a simple free-trade zone.

          • derek

            So if the logic is? a failed Europe will force our hand to be more productive and manufacture more, isn’t that the mind set all nations will try and follow causing deep ingrained nationalism and protectionism? resulting in the “never again” scenario becoming another likely reality. 

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            No, the logic is France and Germany should conclude a treaty of friendship, and then other European nations should have a free trade area.

            A “failed” Europe?  The idea was stillborn, it never breathed life to then fail.

          • derek

            I’d say that was the worry? Germany France and Britain drawing up some tripartite arrangement.Poor economic leads to unstable nations, unstable nations produce uncertain leaders uncertain leaders create dictatorship and dictatorship always end in massive fatalities.

            “Peace in our time?”   

          • robertcp

            Yes, but…  I agree that these are interesting times.

        • Alexwilliamz

          Try going to live in some tin pot dictatorship and say that. Although I’m not completely sure what you mean by geographical jurisdiction in this context.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Read up on Franklin Roosevelt’s theft of wealth, also known as “Executive Order 6102″ (there’s also multiple examples in South America).  A simple and reasonably accurate summary is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

            Simply put, many nations issue legal tender coinage in gold or silver – some in platinum as well.  These “coins” are used as stores of wealth, and being legal tender, are also tax-free.  However, as legal tender, the Government has a right to recall them and to issue paper scrip instead.  The coins retain the value of the precious metal.

            So the smart person buys Canadian Loonie gold ounces, and takes them discreetly away from Canada.  Similarly Sovereigns or Britannias get quietly taken away from Britain.  etc etc.  The point is that no Canadian Government could ever compel me to hand over for Canadian paper money any Canadian gold Loonies I may have, because (1) they have no record of my purchase, (2) Canadian marshals and sheriffs have no jurisdiction in other countries, and (3) I shall be busy keeping my head down and cleaning my fingernails.  And this is also the same for other governments.

            I am in no way a supporter of guns, but the American Rifle Association have probably the most effective phrase that sums up the independence of spirit that I feel:  ”From my cold, dead hands”.

          • Mike Homfray

            This is far-right libertarian lunacy. And you expect us to regard you as centrist?

          • Alexwilliamz

            I reckon he got it about right.

          • Alexwilliamz

            Wealth can be confiscated and this can be done legally, irrespective of the form that wealth takes, I seriously doubt you would put your life on the line before these things were actually taken from you. One presumes these ‘gold’ currencies are pretty much directly linked to the value of the gold itself, as such they are not ‘stores’ of wealth, since their value remains tied to our use of gold as a valuable commodity unrelated to its use value. In this regard it is no different to paper money, since (although highly unlikely) it could lose its value if people stopped valuing it. Imagine if there was a sudden discovery of a massive plentiful supply of gold, or people transferred to another commodity. This is all unlikely but the principle remains the same, gold’s value is purely in the eye of the beholder/market.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Wealth can only be confiscated if the authorities know where it is.  

            You miss the point by calling them gold “currencies” and thinking they are linked to the value of gold – the point is that they are gold (real, proper, physical gold).

            Apart from some very minor industrial uses, gold has no use other than as a store of value.  It has been that way for millennia.  It is perhaps a confidence trick, but to make it valueless you would need to persuade an entire world, all at once.  As such, the risk of it losing its’ value overnight is vastly less than paper notes, when central banks can press a button and create more “money” from thin air.  People don’t like that, don’t understand it, don’t trust it.

            The point about an ounce of gold is that is has a world price, no matter whether it is in bar form, or a coined Canadian dollar or Britannia or from Australia or South Africa.  There are no taxes and no exchange controls.  It is ultimately portable, respects no government, and has no exchange risk.  It is also insulated from seizure by democracy:  given that nearly every woman wears gold, and many men as well, all around the world, it would be a very brave government that would try to seize it.

            We live in economically and financially very uncertain times.  How reliant are you on faceless financial institutions for holding your wealth, and do you have complete confidence that if things go wrong, your wealth will be returned to you?  You will have your own answer, but to me I have zero confidence in anyone other than myself to hold anything I may earn and buy over time.  I do not believe that even the Government will pay me a pension at all when I am old, despite the fact that it says it will.  After all, governments operate the world’s largest and legal Ponzi schemes with state pensions, and we all know how Ponzi schemes end up.

            I have less than zero confidence in the private sector financial institutions that offer to take and invest my money.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Wealth can only be confiscated if the authorities know where it is.  

            You miss the point by calling them gold “currencies” and thinking they are linked to the value of gold – the point is that they are gold (real, proper, physical gold).

            Apart from some very minor industrial uses, gold has no use other than as a store of value.  It has been that way for millennia.  It is perhaps a confidence trick, but to make it valueless you would need to persuade an entire world, all at once.  As such, the risk of it losing its’ value overnight is vastly less than paper notes, when central banks can press a button and create more “money” from thin air.  People don’t like that, don’t understand it, don’t trust it.

            The point about an ounce of gold is that is has a world price, no matter whether it is in bar form, or a coined Canadian dollar or Britannia or from Australia or South Africa.  There are no taxes and no exchange controls.  It is ultimately portable, respects no government, and has no exchange risk.  It is also insulated from seizure by democracy:  given that nearly every woman wears gold, and many men as well, all around the world, it would be a very brave government that would try to seize it.

            We live in economically and financially very uncertain times.  How reliant are you on faceless financial institutions for holding your wealth, and do you have complete confidence that if things go wrong, your wealth will be returned to you?  You will have your own answer, but to me I have zero confidence in anyone other than myself to hold anything I may earn and buy over time.  I do not believe that even the Government will pay me a pension at all when I am old, despite the fact that it says it will.  After all, governments operate the world’s largest and legal Ponzi schemes with state pensions, and we all know how Ponzi schemes end up.

            I have less than zero confidence in the private sector financial institutions that offer to take and invest my money.

          • Alexwilliamz

            Not disputing, only wondering if things fall apart whether gold will retain its role or be replaced by something else. It’s prime value was due to its immutability, who knows what a total collapse might bring. I think your position is amusingly paranoid but if it all goes wrong you will no doubt be the one with the last laugh, as the anarchic gangs lay siege to your home.

    • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

      “ Most of our laws are made in Brussels.”

      That assertion is frequently bandied about by Ukippers but I haven’t come across much in the way of convincing evidence:

      http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/is-most-of-the-uks-law-made-in-brussels/1498

      • Peter Barnard

        Indeed, Dave Stone.

        House of Commons Research Paper HCRP 10/62, “How much legislation comes from Europe?” makes it pretty clear that (i) it’s almost impossible to say and (ii) it’s almost certainly nowhere near “most.”

        It is precisely for this reason – in the event of a referendum, there will be misrepresentations by the shovel-load, and Jaime’s assertion is par for the course- that I am against a referendum. Political parties should either sh*it or get off the pot and at the next general election make it clear that they are either in favour of staying in, or getting out.

        It’s also rubbish to say that it was last decided in 1975, and so we need a “refresher.” By the same token, we may as well have a referendum on staying in NATO, Trident, retention of our “independent” nuclear capability …

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        That point seems debatable.  What about the wider point that most have never had a vote on the matter?

        • Alexwilliamz

          Do you really want to start a list of the things that affect people, but which people have never had a vote on?

          Monarchy?
          Location of seat of government
          Political union with the rest of the united kingdom
          Death penalty
          Abortion
          Legalisation of Cannabis
          Local taxation system
          NHS reform
          two/three tier education system
          Membership of Nato
          Troops in Afghanistan
          etc etc etc

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Alex,

            my immediate instinct is “why not?”, but some on your list are very old history, and in some respects, also not of critical import today.  You could probably reduce the list of dozens down to 4-6 that do still matter, and are still of live debate.

            My instinct is that anything in 2 generations is current, anything older than that is settled.  At the short end, anything within one Parliament is voted upon as default in each GE.

            So, I would include from your list:

            Death Penalty
            Abortion
            Legalisation of cannabis
            Local taxation (I think you mean Council Tax / Poll tax?)
            Education system (although I’m not sure what the big issue is here, unless it is student fees, which is a current debate).

            I do believe in referenda on a sort of “generational” basis, to confirm or deny support for things that go unremarked in GE campaigns, but are still important.  I would place Europe onto the list, also assisted suicides, the rights of homosexuals to equality, and foreign and migration policy (that is probably not exhaustive, but a start).  Every generation should have its’ say.

          • Brumanuensis

            “I would place Europe onto the list, also assisted suicides, the rights of homosexuals to equality, reform of Parliament, and foreign and migration policy (that is probably not exhaustive, but a start). Every generation should have its’ say”.

            So people’s fundamental rights should be decided by referenda? Surely you’re not serious?  

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            How on earth do you choose what is a fundamental right or not, apart from by asking the people?

            I’m not sure of what alternative you propose, but it had very well damned be more democratic than asking the people.  Unless you wish to reveal yet undiscovered “Uncle Joe” tendencies of some oligarchy deciding what is best, despite the inconvenience of most people thinking the polar opposite.  If you do, I’m sure you are very friendly with Harriet Uselessperson and many BBC executives.

          • Brumanuensis

            Well, there’s the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and also the European Convention on Human Rights. Both are good foundations for deciding what fundamental rights are. The whole point of human rights, after all, is that they are inalienable and cannot be abrogated by others. 

            I have horrible visions of something akin to the Nuremberg Laws being passed, if we started having plebiscites on these sorts of question. A more deliberative process is required.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            What is the democratic basis of either of those “declarations”?  Were the delegates to the bodies that founded either democratically elected?  Eleanor Roosevelt was the appointed US delegate, but herself got into legal trouble with her treatment of Filipina house-staff, including forcing an abortion on one by causing her to be drugged and involuntarily taken to a backstreet doctor.

            Do not get me wrong, or assume some distaste for either.  But you need to prove the case before declaring them to be foundations.  

          • Brumanuensis

            Well in the case of the ECHR it was drafted by the Council of Europe, including about 100 parliamentarians from 12 countries. In the case of the UDHR there’s an explanation here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting_of_the_Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights ).

            I don’t see what those allegations against Eleanor Roosevelt have to do with the question. More to the point, rights aren’t democratic. People’s rights exist independent of whether or not they are approved by others. Indeed, in the justice system of England and Wales, the whole concept of ‘common law’ is of law that is made by courts, so the idea that important legal principles must in all cases be democratically-endorsed is not a feature of our legal system.

            Of course, you can debate ‘civil rights’ versus ‘human rights’ and the distinction isn’t always clear. But the idea that we should have referenda to decided what rights particular groups should and should not have, is offensive to me. It runs a serious risk of turning into a ‘tyranny of the majority’ situation.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            We are in danger of defining referenda only in terms of rights, and there is very clearly grey ground on these considerations.

            The original premise was referenda in terms of political choices.

            The Eleanor Roosevelt example was merely to highlight that a self-selecting and appointing oligarchy is very often put in place.  It is the “Sir Humphrey” argument, in which complex questions are decided upon by committees, or Royal Commissions, and actually no-one ever questions who gets put onto the panel, or why, or to whom they owe some political debt.  In Roosevelt’s case, she was appointed with no votes against her by the US Senate because of her late husband’s fame and patronage, but she had serious questions about her scarcely suppressed racism, which is not a good start for a body working on a “universal” declaration of human rights.

            Of course, this sort of patronage goes badly wrong when we see a serially failed NHS administrator with a record of leaving a worse situation behind her than when she took over getting appointed to be the EU’s foreign supremo.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

            I think rights should not be at the whim of fad and populism. Constantreferenda would encourage this

          • Alexwilliamz

            Every generation has its say. That is what gvt does eventually. If public opinion is sustained and of a strong enough nature it will come into being, that is why often it was tory prime ministers who were often the ones who eventually brought in some of the less tory bills in history. Working through a representative democracy in this way removes short term populist causes and allows a more reasoned and managed change. Sometimes a radical government is called for and generally this is who gets elected if enough people vote that way the Labour gvt after the war being a classic example. Referendum are confused and in reality these issues cannot be boiled down into a simple yes no question. For example the in/out europe question, if it was asked in one way could elicit a complete and opposite response, such is the contradictory nature of many of our views. On the other responses, I’m not sure where you draw the line, I’m not sure how you would make it all work with already low levels of turnout increased referendum would they require a majority of the electorate or just those who vote? Or should those who don;t vote count towards the status quo? Not to mention the overall cost. Then there is the issue of how people would be able to make an informed choice etc etc.

  • JoeDM

    “While it’s simply not true that we thought we were only joining an economic union back in 1975″

    Utter tosh.   

    I was a student in the mid-70s and voted in that referendum.   That is exactly what the public were told by Wilson’s pro-EEC campaign.

    • Bill Lockhart

       From the Labour manifesto of 1974:
      “Labour is an internationalist party and Britain is a European
      nation. But if the Common Market were to mean the creation of
      a new protectionist bloc, or if British membership threatened
      to impoverish our working people or to destroy the authority of
      Parliament, then Labour could not agree.”

      How did that go, in the end?

      • Tiptree

        This man needs a prostate examination, stat!

    • http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter

      Luckily there was another campaign too. But the pro-retained membership pamphlet that was sent to each household makes clear that we were joining a political body. Here it is. See pp11 and 12.

      http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

      It discusses pooling of sovereignty and the policy making process that was then at the heart of EEC decision-making. It was changed by Margaret Thatcher partly because unanimity was slowing down the development of the single market.

      But to say there was no discussion of the political ramifications of membership is just not correct. That these arrangements have changed since is picked up in the argument of the article above. It’s a fair point that they have – and Parliament has voted on the changes each time.

      • Bill Lockhart

         And to suggest that there was any suggestion or explanation whatsoever of  the ratcheting “ever-closer union”  which ensued is also just not correct.

        • Anthony Painter

          Which I didn’t ….

  • Amber Star

    The interesting thing is, it’s the ‘oldies’ who did get a vote in 1975 who are now most likely to vote UKIP & be most in favour of leaving Europe! 

    In a YG poll for the Sunday Times, votes for leaving by age:
    18-24 = 33%
    25-39 = 44%
    40-59 = 53%
    60+ = 64%

    Total in favour of leaving is 51% – And it’s the grey vote which wants us to withdraw.

    • AnthonyZacharzewski

      How much is that related to a conservatism that comes with age (those older voters are also more likely to vote Conservative, not just because of their stance on Europe) and how much the development of their ideas since 1975?

  • http://profiles.google.com/roger.f.mccarthy Roger McCarthy

    Seriously – by the time our sclerotic political system gets round to holding a referendum will there be much of an EU left to leave? 

    It really does look increasingly likely with each passing day that future historians will see the unbelievably rash and hubristic decision to simultaneously implement a common currency and radically extend the borders of the EU eastwards as the death warrant of the original EU idea. 

    I hope that something will survive but even with Britain dithering uselessly on the sidelines  the prognosis does look pretty grim. 

  • Bill Lockhart

    Also from Wilson’s 1974 manifesto:

    “In the long run, a nation, like a family, can only live on what
    it earns. If we want to maintain our standard of living and protect
    people’s jobs and give a boost to our deprived regions, we must
    get industry to produce more and export more.”

    How times change.

    • treborc1

      Wilson was a master at saying one thing and meaning another between him and Callaghan they allowed Thatcher to enter and stay in, the only time I went on strike was the miners and the dam council,  the winter of discontent. Labour like the Tories did not moan about wages at the top going up, but if you were working  within the public sector you were expected to believe it was an  honour.

    • treborc1

      Wilson was a master at saying one thing and meaning another between him and Callaghan they allowed Thatcher to enter and stay in, the only time I went on strike was the miners and the dam council,  the winter of discontent. Labour like the Tories did not moan about wages at the top going up, but if you were working  within the public sector you were expected to believe it was an  honour.

  • Guest

    Why should we want to stay in the EU? All the good bits (the social chapter, Schegnen) we opt out of anyway, and stuff like the ECHR would still apply to us if we left.
    It’s fairly obvious at this point that a huge portion of the population is hostile to their country’s membership of the EU. Ultimately, nobody on this planet has a mandate to govern except through democratic consent, not least the author of the article who doesn’t seem to have been elected to any position. Whether people should be consulted on their own destiny is frankly not his call to make.

    • AlanGiles

      I have always been ambivilent about the Eu – like the curates egg it is good in parts, but of late they have really angered me by meddling with the 50 year sound recording copyright law – which they have now extended to 70 years (which means that the only sound recordings which will be legitimately be able to issued from the end of this year will be those made before December 31st 1942, whereas if they hadn’t meddled it would have been 1962.  If you are Cliff Richard it just shows how much it pays to lend your holiday home as a freebie to a former Prime Minister, who was a supporter of this retrospective act.

      That said, I think a referendum on EU membership should be approached with caution. I have little doubt there would be a massive vote in favour of withdrawal, but that begs the question – what comes after?. A lot of European countries would punish us by refusing our goods.

      It’s a bit like war – very easy to start, very difficult to finish.

      The only advice I would  give is this: don’t promise or even hint of a promise of a referendum if you are not prepared to go ahead with it – both parties have been guilty of this in the past, and it only infuriates the public more and makes politicians look bogus.

      * Bobby Pratt (1927-1968)

      • treborc1

        We asked our MP to vote against the Iraq war, he did,  we know what  happened next and he walked away, the new MP came in and stated she was totally for the war, we asked her to battle to end the welfare reforms she said she had to vote with the Government. Lets be honest once we vote in our MP’s they hardly ever bother with what we think, until they are up for re-election again

    • AnthonyZacharzewski

      We opted into the social chapter under Blair in 1997. Agree with you on Schengen. 

      On the “democratic consent” point, I am not convinced that the EU – which is run by an elected Parliament and a Council of (elected) heads of Government – is inherently less democratic than, say, the Bank of England.

  • robertcp

    Referendums are a useful complement to representative democracy and a referendum on membership of the European Union would be justified.  However, I really think that there are more important issues for Britain over the next decade.  On balance, I agree  with Anthony that Labour should not support a referendum unless it is unavoidable. 

  • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

    “Don’t play political games with the national interest.”

    But how to identify the national interest… perhaps with a referendum?

    Two government sponsored referendum leaflets were delivered to every household in the run-up to the 1975 vote, one pro EEC, the other anti EEC. The pro leaflet looked bright and cheerful, with lots of patriotic red white and blue. The anti leaflet looked like a 1920s missive from the Ministry of Agriculture – blocks of dark green and muddy burgundy and black print mainly on a sack-cloth coloured background.

    Clearly the establishment had decided, prior to the referendum, that continued membership was in the national interest.

    • http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone

      “But how to identify the national interest… ”

      That is a serious question.

      If the ‘national interest’ is to determine when, and what, decisions are to be made how may the population participate in the dialogue that determines the national interest?
      It is the sense of decisions being taken by a political elite, sometimes using ‘national interest’ rhetoric, that has led to significant disillusionment in the EU project.

  • Brumanuensis

    Agree with most this article, although I’m a bit more cynical about the ‘good’ bit. I have never supported referenda. Atlee’s quote about them being the device of choice for demagogues and dictators rings very true here – UKIP are certainly demagogues. The chief aim of political engagement is that it should improve the democratic process and anyone who followed the sordid, depressing mess that was last year’s AV referendum would be hard pushed to think of any benefits that referenda bestow. 

    Ultimately, we have a parliamentary, representative democracy. This means we vote for people who represent us in the House of Commons, who simultaneously have to keep our views in mind if they want to be re-elected and yet sometimes take decisions that are unpopular but necessary. Public opinion alone, after all, isn’t an argument against policy. I would comfortably wager that most people who want to leave the EU haven’t a clue what they’re talking about anyway*. The Sun, for example, seems incapable of understanding that the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, pre-date the EU and indeed the former is founded on a treaty that is unrelated to it. 

    It is a form of cowardice to argue that every important decisions ‘needs’ a referendum to decide it, which is why I’m so angry with Ed for even entertaining this idea, as well as his foolish statement that Lords reform requires a referendum. Politicians should bite the bullet and decide the matter, not fob it off onto someone else. Make a decision, accept the consequences. If people want to set up a petition on the official petitions website and get it discussed in Parliament, all credit to them. I’d support that. But let’s not throw away an important constitutional principle on a whim. 

    *I’ve lived on the continent for many years and am fully conversant in the occasionally comical scleroticism of EU bureaucracies. The EU needs to become more democratic and more transparent. Reform, not abolition.    

    • Brumanuensis

      “I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is if you have a referendum on an issue politicians during an election campaign say oh we’re not going to talk about that, we don’t need to talk about that, that’s all for the referendum. So during the last election campaign the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system and I wouldn’t have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak”.

      -Chris Patten

    • Ho

      Pretty much my position too …..

    • John Dore

      Reform, not abolition…. I think Vote, not denial.

      • Brumanuensis

        Sorry?

  • John Dore

    This Guardian article is interesting, but nowhere near as interesting as the comments. Humour me, read the comments but only those with a greater than 3 positive recommendation. 

    I am sick to death of our political elite telling us whats good for us. My theory is we vote for them, they do what we want. I want a debate right now where 65m people can vote on the political experiment known as Europe.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/13/eurozone-crisis-britain-join-debate 

    • Tiptree

      Hopefully the political elite will do what is sane and sensible rather than what you want, John, as your comments seem to indicate that you’re something of a mentalist.

  • Mike Homfray

    There certainly needs to be some sort of working out of what we would do should we vote to leave – given that options such as a pury free trade agreement are not actually available

  • Daniel Speight

    Anthony is correct to point out that the EEC we joined in 1973 and voted on in 1975 was not the same as the EU of today. No matter what Labour’s 1974 manifesto says, the EEC was very much seen as a protectionist bloc. The protection was aimed at both agriculture and industry. I remember my mother reporting on a discussion she had with Ted Heath during that period who was explaining why the EEC would protect British shipbuilding from the unfair competition from Taiwan. (I’m not sure but I suspect even back then South Korea was the bigger danger.)

    Somewhere along the line the EEC stopped being a protectionist bloc and became a free trade advocate called the EU. I’m not sure at what point this happened but as always I can smell Thatcherism behind it. (Maybe I could become a new Witchfinder General with my sense of smell.) It could have been all those hand-baggings she did with trade-offs to give the City a free run in Europe, (the other Europeans must be really happy about that now). Did we trade the free movement of Labour somewhere along that line. Even Blue Labour knows that came back and bit us with a vengeance.

    Still it  would be good to have a debate on the subject where the economists, (who we all know are never wrong), could explain exactly where our economic future is likely to head both if we stay in or if we leave. At the moment it doesn’t look particularly healthy either way. We are lucky in a way that EU membership is not a point of principle for Labour as a party so allowing the leadership more flexibility than Cameron has. It will be interesting to see what Cruddas comes up with.

    • Brumanuensis

      I’m not quite sure how you got this impression, Daniel. The EU has always been a free-trade area, including in the days of its predecessors. Title I of the Treaty of Rome guaranteed the free movement of goods. Free movement of workers was first enshrined in Article 48 of the same treaty, back in 1957. So this isn’t down to Thatcherism by any means. Whether or not the EEC was protectionist against non-EEC members is another question – in some cases it was. However the EU is broadly in favour of free trade between member states and most other arrangements are negotiated bilaterally.

      • Daniel Speight

         Brumanuensis you are probably correct on the free movement of labour as it certainly helped hide some of the unemployment that Thatcher gave us. The protectionism against outside producers was certainly strong as this is what caused us so much trouble joining at the time. Most noticeable was on agricultural imports from the Commonwealth that we had got used to. I suspect many of the original European leaders, like Heath, were already becoming worried about Asian imports. You have to remember the British motorcycled industry had been decimated by Japanese imports just prior to us joining.What I will stand by is that Thatcher was the Hayekian cuckoo in the European nest and at the forefront of dismantling that protection. I suspect the opening up of the European financial industry to the City was always the payoff she wanted most for not using the veto.

    • Dave Postles

      ‘I’m not sure at what point this happened but as always I can smell
      Thatcherism behind it. (Maybe I could become a new Witchfinder General
      with my sense of smell.)’
      She’s past her spell-by (and smell-by) date.

      • Daniel Speight

         But like the original Dave, maybe I could smell it in others. A march through Westminster with a sniff here and a sniff there could produce a marvelous number for the pyres, and that’s only the opposition benches;-)

  • Barry Edwards

    Perhaps we should discuss with Hollande and other social-democrats what a People’s Europe would look like as an alternative to Merkerom’s banker-led Austerity Europe?

  • Dave Postles

    Focus: we need to ensure the failure of the attempts of the Tories to dilute employees’ rights.  Forget the adiophora pro tempore.  Wonga Wonga.

  • John Slinger

    Excellent article from Anthony Painter, as to be expected.

    Shameless plug…

    Our next Pragmatic Radicalism ‘Top Of The policies’ event is THIS WEDNESDAY –  on Housing, chaired by Jack Dromey (Shadow Housing Minister), at which a variety of speakers will be pitching housing policies in 90 seconds, followed by 3 mins Q&A per idea, then a vote. http://pragmaticradicalism.co.uk/top-of-the-policies-on-housing-chaired-by-jack-dromey-mp-shadow-housing-minister. 6.30-8.30pm, The Barley Mow pub, Horseferry Rd, Westminster, London.Future events are on transport (13 June, chaired by Maria Eagle MP, venue TBC) and justice/constitutional reform (11 July, chaired by Sadiq Khan MP, venue TBC). More to follow.PRAGMATIC RADICALISM – Democratic; inclusive; non-factional; transparent; bottom-up; designed to give a platform for ordinary activists as well as established figures. If you would like to participate or attend – please get in touch john.slinger@pragmaticradicalism.co.uk@PragRad @JohnSlinger:twitter 

    • AlanGiles

      John, I can hardly wait!. Sadly I seem to have an engagement on Wednesday at that time watching “Antiques Road Trip” on BBC2, but I am sure the audience will be on it’s foot, and the bouncers will be chucking them in as the band plays “Tea For One”, at your latest “isn’t-politics-fun?” event.

      Seriously, have you thought about selling your format to Simon Cowell – it could be the next big Saturday night hit – something for everybody, but nothing for long.

      * Ronnie Verrell (1926-2002)

  • http://twitter.com/carlgardner Carl Gardner

    This “in-out” referendum is a truly awful idea for Labour – apparently smart tactics but disastrous strategy. Ed has to spike this idea, soon.

    If you look at politics purely as a short-term tactical game in which the aim is constantly to try to undermine your opponents, then it seems “clever”: there’s a faultline on Europe among Conservatives, so “outflanking” them on this will gain votes and cause turbulence for them.

    The trouble is, politics is not simply about playing short-term tactical games. There are also the very real questions of what you actually do if you intend seriously to be the government, whether or not the UK should be in the EU, and what future the EU has regardless of UK membership.

    A referendum is winnable by the “Yes” side – but only with great difficulty. You have to face the real possibility that any referendum before 2020 will result in the UK leaving.

    If I thought that really would be the great historic democratic choice many people think, I might accept it as a a good idea. But I suspect few people except obsessive and kneejerk Eurosceptics care, and that Britain could easily sleepwalk to a “No” vote on a very low turnout. A Labour government would be stuck with the reality of being distracted by the massive task of managing our departure – if it even survived the humiliation of being forced to carry out the opposite of its own foreign and trade policy.

    There’d be no avoiding the referendum, whatever the polls – it would be a pledge, and any tip-toeing away from it would be punished as a betrayal. And even to be saddled with the policy now will start to associate a Labour victory with massive economic and political uncertainty. It’d be unhelpful to those in Europe whose general approach Labour supports, like Hollande, and to the entire Eurozone. And we’d be back in the 1980s situation in which even Labour’s natural allies in Europe feared a Labour victory in Britain.

    I’m not sure this would destablise the Tories, anyway. Cameron (or Osborne, or Johnson, or Davis … ) could simply do a Wilson and let his MPs campaign and vote however they wanted. And a Labour referendum pledge would offer a (not transformative, but useful) lifeline for the LibDems. If you’re one of the not entirely negligible minority who thinks EU membership is a major policy issue (up there with keeping the NHS, for instance) then I’m afraid this policy risks making the LibDems the only safe vote. It’d enable them to rally their own disappointed sympathisers and peel off some otherwise natural Labour voters.

    Labour must leave the dangerous politics of radical Euroscepticism to the Conservatives. That’s the only safe way to exploit Conservative angst on the issue. This in-out referendum idea really is flirting with disaster in more ways than one.

  • ThePurpleBooker

    I disagree. It is about time Labour started talking about democracy, relationships and the institutions involving this country. As a pro-European, I accept that the EU is a deeply unpopular institution that has not always worked in the best interest of the country but also Britain has never had a referendum on the European Union. If the next Labour government is going to be a relational and engaging state, rather than a big state (WHICH IT SHOULD NOT BE), then it will have to relate and engage with people.  It is about time that us pro-Europeans put the case to the people. This idea has collected support from Peter Mandelson, Peter Hain, Jacqui Smith, Ed Balls, Jon Cruddas (none of which are rightwing nationalist nutters). Labour shoudl not be wavering but committing to a referendum in the next Parliament, but campaigning for Britain to stay in and also Britain can remain in the ECHR and the European Economic Area even if they leave the European Union, and we can still maintain a strong alliance with the EU as well as a strong trade relationship even if we leave.

    • AnthonyZacharzewski

      You elide “relational and engaging state” with “having a referendum when there isn’t a real question to be asked”. These aren’t the same thing.

      Also, the EU is not a “deeply unpopular institution”, it is a shallowly unpopular institution, in that people don’t like it when they hear the name in an opinion poll (and who would, if you just read the media coverage) but like the idea of common European action on a range of issues where it works (energy, climate, trade, etc)

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

      ‘relational and engaging’ – good god, is that the latest Not Labour ‘Progress’ newspeak?

      I think the important thing is to actually know what IS on offer – the EEA isn’t necessarily open to us as an option. The ECHR isn’t actually linked to the EU at all, although most think it is. Its not just a case of ‘in or out’ but ‘ in or what?’

      It would be irresponsible to have a referendum without this being sorted out first

    • AlanGiles

      ”
       It is about time that us pro-Europeans put the case to the people. This idea has collected support from Peter Mandelson, Jacqui Smith….”

      My advice would be if you want to make a strong case for anything, don’t, whatever you do,  have heavily discredited ex-politicians, both caught out for personal dishonesty and cupidity as your main witnesses in support of your case.

      I think a lot of people, knowing Mandy’s form, and Jacqui and her box room would automatically support the opposite side.

      * Bob Cooper (1925 – 1993)

  • Pingback: Labour and the EU: in/out, but shake it all about « Though Cowards Flinch

Latest

  • News Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

    Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

    In a statement this evening, Ed Miliband said: “This is a truly appalling murder which will shock the entire country. “All of my thoughts are with the family and friends of the victim. “The British people will be horrified by what has happened in Woolwich. They will be united in believing that this terror on our streets cannot be allowed to stand. “The Labour Party will offer the Government our complete support in establishing the facts of what happened and [...]

    Read more →
  • News Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    By Kirstin Hay

    With much jubilation, the 3rd reading of the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons last night, carried through on the weight of Labour votes, but how have individual MPs voted on this bill? In the 2nd reading of the equal marriage bill, Labour MP voting totals were: 217 – for 22 – against 14 – non-voters For the third reading 192 – for 14 – against 49 – non-voters —————————————————————- 192 Labour MPs who voted yes on 3rd reading (9 didn’t [...]

    Read more →
  • News Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Unions The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    By Mark Seddon

    Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]

    Read more →
  • News Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]

    Read more →