You are here: Home » Comment »

I’d never been called a Nazi before – until this summer…

August 27, 2012 12:19 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

I’ve been called a “Nazi” twice this summer. Well, once really. One time what they actually said was “fascist pig”, but I tend to lump all similar insults thrown at me in together. Sure, it might be a simplified way of categorising abuse, but it makes it easier to keep up.

For instance, when hand-copying down disdainful comments left under my blog posts here (for posterity purposes), regardless of whether they decry me as “spawn of New Labour” or “unfunny careerist” I file them them under the ‘LabourList comments’ section of bedroom cabinet. I’ve been planning on colour coding them into sub-sections for a while.

But, despite the best efforts of the purveyors of internet feedback to cover all possible bases in their derision of my work and personality, I haven’t actually been called a Nazi before. It’s a whole new genre of abuse for me. The whole colour coding initiative scheme has been put on hold whilst I deal with these new developments.

The reason for the far-right slurs on my good name is that I’ve spent the summer in Stockport, campaigning for an EU referendum. Apparently Hitler held some referendums in Germany in the 1930s, and so, in the eyes of a few, support for any subsequent referendum is to follow in his footsteps. I have to say, it surprised me: it had never previously occurred to me that some people’s problem with Hitler was a tireless dedication to democracy.

I didn’t let this line of argument deter me though and, convincing myself that I probably wasn’t Hitler, continued to knock on doors and tell people why I support a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.

It wasn’t something I was doing entirely randomly; you’d be easily forgiven for missing it at the height of the Olympic fever, but there was a vote on the subject held across two constituencies just south of Manchester a couple of weeks ago. The vote was organised by the People‘sPledge, the cross-party campaign for a referendum, but to ensure impartiality in the vote, balloting was handled by the ERS, who sort out internal votes for the Labour Party and several major trade unions.

Now, I think the UK should be a part of the EU. If there were to be a referendum, I would vote for us to stay in. No question.

The idea of supporting a referendum simply to reaffirm this country’s commitment to a political union it’s already a part of may seem absurd, even perverse, especially given the polling that suggests people would vote to leave, but I think it’s perfectly sensible.

For me, the argument comes down to three main points: it’s the right thing to do; it’s popular; we’d win.

Firstly, it’s the right thing to do. The last time we had a referendum on a matter like this was 1975, on the UK’s participation in the European Common Market. It means that no one under the age of 55 has had any sort of vote on what the UK’s role should be within the EU, which wouldn’t be so much of a problem for me if it hadn’t changed so dramatically over the past 37 years. An evolution has taken place from an economic to a political union, that much of our legislation now comes from there. I’m not bothered by this in principle, and I certainly don’t share Nigel Farage’s view that so many of our laws are made in Brussels that Westminster elections are now irrelevant. However, as much as we live in a parliamentary democracy, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of legislative power being moved away from MPs, by MPs. That’s not their job, that’s ours.

Troublesome too, is the level of apparent unaccountability that exists within the EU. People like Cathy Ashton, who, as far as I can see, has never been elected to any position ever, seem to hold a disproportionate amount of influence for a role with no public mandate. From a purely idealistic perspective, I’d like to see British politicians look to tackle this. To do it properly though, they’d need to show commitment to an accountable EU. For me, there’d be no better way of doing this than holding a referendum here. Cut the democratic deficit, not the NHS?

Something I came across on the doorstep during this campaign, which was also prevalent when doorknocking for Labour in the north west at the 2009 European elections, was people saying they don’t know what the EU is. They don’t know what it does. Why it matters.

Honestly, I often can’t give a satisfactory answer. The EU seems a great, sprawling concept, difficult to engage with. Like a Gorgon, no sooner do I feel like I’ve dealt with one of its heads that I remember it has many, many more. And that first one’s grown back.

Personally, I can’t think of a better way to engage people who feel disenfranchised from a system that seems distant and bureaucratic than by giving them a vote on it. A large part of people’s distrust of the EU stems from the fact that they don’t know much about it. If politicians gave these people a say in it, they’d be forced to set out their ideas of what it is and how it should work. Maybe we could finally dispel some of these myths.

Secondly, it’s popular. This is an inarguable fact. Common sense would tell you that there is a reason elections aren’t usually held in August, let alone when the Olympic Games are being held in that country. People will be on holiday, and if they’re not, they’ll have better things to do. But in the run-up to the deadline of August 9th, when the people of Cheadle and Hazel Grove were given the chance to vote on whether there should be a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU, there was 35% turnout. In percentage terms, that’s higher than turnout for the council elections held there in May. It’s higher than the 2009 Europeans elections, and it’ll be higher than the 2013 ones too. In Cheadle, 86.8% of people voted in favour of a referendum, in Hazel Grove it was 85.59%. These results are pretty unequivocal, and aren’t one-offs. A similar vote in Thurrock earlier this year found 89.9% in favour, and a cursory glance at any opinion poll on the subject will show you that it’s what people want.

So, should Labour adopt the a policy of supporting a referendum, and by having People’s Pledge signee Jon Cruddas as policy chief it could well happen, it would be a popular move. Not simply amongst your usual suspects either: Cheadle and Hazel Grove are hardly constituencies full of “Little Englanders”, and the vote in favour far outstripped UKIP’s support at the last election in both seats.

Should Labour take the step and say it would hold a referendum at some point during the next election, it would send the Tories into chaos. As this summer has proved, Cameron’s ability to faff about on this issue is really something to behold, and would do wonders for Miliband’s personal polling. The same hundred Tory backbenchers who signed the letter demanding a referendum only a month or two ago would howl with outrage that we’d taken the lead on the issue, and Miliband would look bold and even (whisper it) prime ministerial compared to the flailing “practical Euroscepticism” of an under-pressure Cameron.

Finally, we’d win. Really, the least of the arguments, but it’s true. Out of all the newspapers, only the Express would explicitly support an “out” vote. The Times, the Sun and, yes, even the Mail would support a renegotiation of our position. You would probably have the leaders of all three main political parties (presuming UKIP don’t do better than the Lib Dems in 2015) supporting us staying in. You would have lots of doom-mongering business types on the news every night worried about the effect leaving would have on trade. And if you look back to Cameron’s EU “veto” last Christmas, opinion polls on whether to leave were tied at 41%, showing that if people think we have a say in what’s going on in Europe, they’re actually pretty open to the idea. I’m not alone in thinking this, Peter Kellner has a slightly better record of analysing poll data than me, and he seems to agree.

And I missed the Olympics for that.

 

Related posts:

  1. Darling: Time and again, Labour called it right on the economy, the Tories called it wrong
  2. UKIP MEP ejected from chamber over Nazi attack
  3. Tory PPS sacked after hiring Nazi costume for stag party
  4. One by-election swallow won’t make a political summer for Ed
  5. Mancunians are not easily fooled by Cameron’s so-called “Compassionate Conservatism”
  • http://twitter.com/wj557 wj

    Good piece – and I intend to vote for UKIP.
    You’re absolutely correct in your assumptions, if there is a referendum people will vote for the status quo.
    The question I keep asking myself is where do I go when that happens and I don’t have an answer.
    I think that there will be a huge number of people to add to the ‘none of the above’ if there is a no answer.

  • Hugh

    Your first two points are true, and about the most sensible thing I think I’ve read by you. (You can file that under back-handed compliments.) Your last point is more suspect, however.

    You’re probably right about the papers and parties, but the papers and parties in Ireland weren’t enough to prevent the people rejecting Lisbon, despite being told it would be a disaster to do so. Moreover, received wisdom is already that we may want to renegotiate but leaving is inconceivable – yet 41% as you note want to leave nevertheless (and at times a majority). That’s a huge proportion given that the case for leaving as a realistic prospect has barely been aired. Against that, the pro-EU papers  and MPs are – on evidence to date – only going to be able to rehash fairly tired arguments that the UK could somehow not survive outside the EU.

    And, frankly, how energetically do you think many Tory MPs and the likes of the Mail and Sun are going to be trumpeting that? The latter two, as well as the Telegraph may argue for staying in in their leader columns, but their columnists and news coverage aren’t going to be terribly antagonistic towards Eurosceptic voices are they? It will be a more balanced debate than you make out. Voices arguing for leaving will suddenly be getting a mainstream audience and TV coverage that they would never usually enjoy.

    It’s true that the Europhiles might still win it, but I see very little to support the confidence you seem to have. Kellner’s reasoning (that in the two referendums we’ve had as a nation we’ve opted for the status quo) is pretty weak.

  • Brumanuensis

    Conor, I like your articles, even when I disagree with them. But I have to object strongly to some of things you’ve written here.
     
    “An evolution has taken place from an economic to a political union, that much of our legislation now comes from there”
     
    The EU and its predecessors have always been envisaged as political unions, alongside economic ones. Indeed, it’s practically impossible to have a solely economic union – how do you arbitrate disputes amongst members without supranational structures? The ECSC had its ‘High Authority’ and as early as the 1950s, proposals for a ‘European Political Community’ had been drawn up, along lines similar to the modern-day European Parliament and EU.

    On ‘much’ of our legislation coming there, we should recall that the percentage of Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 2009 that ‘incorporated a degree of EU influence’ – the broadest definition, there are narrower ones – is a grand total of 14.3%. For Statutory Instruments, using the broadest possible definition, we get 14.1%. The only way to get the 40-50% estimates beloved of eurosceptics, is if we include all EU legislation that applies to the UK, which includes, for instance, regulations on olive growing, something not exactly relevant to UK farmers. Added to the fact that estimating which of these regulations actually has an impact on the UK economy and society yields hugely variant results and the idea that this country is some sort of EU satrapy becomes increasingly absurd. Irony of ironies, most EU regulations within this broader quota relate to exactly the functions that anti-EU groups would want regulated, in a looser ‘trade union’: http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/ukip-gets-its-facts-wrong-europe

    “I’m uncomfortable with the idea of legislative power being moved away from MPs, by MPs. That’s not their job, that’s ours”.

    No, that’s their job. That’s what living in representative democracy entails. Parliament can determine its own influence; it just can’t alienate it permanently – as indeed it has not.

    “A large part of people’s distrust of the EU stems from the fact that they don’t know much about it. If politicians gave these people a say in it, they’d be forced to set out their ideas of what it is and how it should work. Maybe we could finally dispel some of these myths”.

    Maybe if our newspapers didn’t print stuff like this:

    http://fullfact.org/blog/EU_drinking_water_harrogate_spa-3368

    Or this:

    http://fullfact.org/articles/european_union_fact_from_fiction-26462

    Or this:
     
    http://fullfact.org/factchecks/EU_parliament_flag_england_kit_british_teams.2821

    Or this:

    http://fullfact.org/articles/EU_hairdressers_banned_high_heels-15064

    Then the public might have a better idea of what the EU actually does. It’s not as if, as you note, there aren’t things you can criticise the EU for. It suffers from sclerotic bureaucracy and needs more transparency and democracy in its internal structures. Instead we get the likes of Simon Heffer pointificating about ‘Fourth Reichs’ and the destruction of parliamentary democracy. It’s about as subtle as an Anarchist writing about the financial sector.

    All of this however, distracts from the main point of the piece, which is an argument in favour of referenda. As I always do, I’m going to go back to dear old Clement Atlee and note ‘referenda are the devices of demagogues and dictators’. Referenda are the device of political cowards. They pass the buck on important decisions and absolve governments from the consequences of their actions. It is profoundly antagonistic to the idea of accountable government and instead inserts a naive populism that, like Rousseau, sees ‘the will of the people’ as infallible. In all modern societies, we have to balance the virtues of democracy against its vices – as Churchill said, the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter. Representative democracies, where representatives with a democratic mandate exercise their judgement on our behalf, are an imperfect, but preferable, means of resolving this conflict.

    Can we honestly say, looking back at the squalid, mud-slinging mess that was the AV referendum – sample pro-AV argument: “Vote AV unless you think fraudulent expenses claims are fine and you hate democracy”; sample anti-AV argument: “See this baby? Why do you hate prematurely-born babies, you sick baby-killing bastard” – improved our democracy? Our public discourse? When complex political arguments are reduced to ‘yes or no’ questions, you inevitably end up with charicatures and straw-men, gallore.

    If you want to reform the EU – as I do – start working to reform the EU. If you want people to feel more engaged with the EU, start emphasising the importance of voting in European elections. Don’t support gimmicks that do nothing to achieve any of the aims you aspire to.

    • http://twitter.com/wj557 wj

      Brumanuensis

      You tell us:

       ”If you want to reform the EU – as I do – start working to reform the EU. If you want people to feel more engaged with the EU, start emphasising the importance of voting in European elections. Don’t support gimmicks that do nothing to achieve any of the aims you aspire to.”
      Well, you’ve just told us what you don’t like about the anti-EU arguments – how about giving us some good reasons for sending billions of pounds across to Brussels.Start convincing me of the “importance of voting in European elections”.

    • Hugh

       ”The EU and its predecessors have always been envisaged as political unions, alongside economic ones.”

      Yes, and those driving it have always lied about that fact: particularly in the run up to the 1975 referendum.

      • Hugh

        Incidentally take a careful look at those “Fullfact”stories and they’re not terribly wide of the mark.

        “EU Ban Harrogate Water” says the press. Not so: the council has turned it off because it fears it breaches the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC. Besides “within the Pump Room Museum visitors will still be encouraged to smell but not taste the water.”

        That’s alright then.

        “EU cannot be serious. Fury at bid for 6.8% spending rise” blasts the Sun, foolishly. In fact, the 6.8% increase only applies to “payments” not “future expenditure”. “Payments” in this case account for only a measly €137.9 billion of the total €150.9 billion.

        Best of all is the hysterical claim that British sports teams could be forced to wear EU flags, when in fact “the proposal itself originates from a member of the Parliament’s Culture
        and Education Committee, which itself has yet to approve the report
        before it goes before the Parliament. The Committee’s own schedule
        suggests any adoption will not take place until 5 October 2011, and the
        Parliament will not formally see the report until at least November.”

        Pretty silly, eh? So where are we now?

        Feb 2012: “The European Parliament has voted to back a call for national sports teams to wear the EU flag on their shirts.”

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16854969

        Fullfact are right on the hairdressers though, there’s no explicit plans yet to ban high heels  at an supranational level: the proposals (and how much do you want to bet these won’t progress into law?) merely state that “Workers shall not wear jewellery on their hands or arms during work”  and that “Workers shall wear suitable clothes for their activities or workwear clothing and, in particular, shoes with non-slip soles.”

        So you just need high heels with non slip soles.

        If the plan to keep Britain in Europe is to ensure more accurate reporting of what it does, well, then, er… good luck.

        • Brumanuensis

          Hugh,
           
          They are. They really are.

          Let’s take Harrogate Spa. The council has responded to what it thinks are the terms of an EU directive. You can’t blame the EU for overreactions to legislation; that’s like blaming health & safety laws every time a third party puts up some silly restriction. If the council thinks it is in breach and it isn’t, that’s the council’s fault, not the directive’s.

          The flag proposal, as even the Mail was forced to acknowledge, is not binding upon member states. The proposal was passed with the note that Member States should:

          “Consider the idea of having it displayed on the clothing of athletes from Member States, alongside with the national flags; underlines that it should be entirely voluntary and up to Member States and sports organisations to decide whether they will use the aforementioned options”.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095895/EU-approves-plan-force-British-sporting-heroes-wear-flag-national-team-shirts.html

          A pretty clear win for national sovereignty. Ironically, the tone of the articles exaggerates the powers of the European Parliament, as it notes that the proposal will now proceed to the European Commission, the real power within the EU.

          On hairdressers, Full Fact explicitly stated:

          “It should be noted that these are draft plans being drawn up by the employers’ and workers’ representatives – Coiffure EU and UNI Europa Hair & Beauty – rather than the EU itself. UK hairdressers are themselves represented by the National Hairdressers Federation, which forms part of Coiffure EU”.

          So it’s not an EU proposal. And there is nothing that bans high heels. It will likely be a matter for the employer, once the proposals are finalised.

          On the budget reporting, the failure to mention the rebate and the sloppy reporting of the composition of the EU budget, is a serious problem and contributes to public misunderstanding of the actual costs of the EU.

      • Brumanuensis

        When I read through the government’s 1975 pamphlet on the referendum, there is a whole section which notes:

        “In the modern world even the Super Powers like America and Russia do not have complete freedom of action. Medium-sized nations like Britain are more and more subject to economic and political forces we cannot control on our
        own.

        A striking recent example of the impact of such forces is the way the Arab oil-producing nations brought about an energy and financial crisis not only in Britain but throughout a great part of the world.

        Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.

        Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life.

        Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity. To say that membership could force Britain to eat Euro-bread or drink Euro-beer is nonsense”.

        Which seems a pretty clear acknowledgement that membership will include some restrictions on national sovereignty.

        • Hugh

           Heath 1973: “there are some in this country who fear that in going
          into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These
          fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified”.

          The White paper 1971:“there is no question of Britain losing essential
          sovereignty”.

          • Brumanuensis

            Nor have we lost essential sovereignty.

          • Hugh

             Rather depends on your definition of “essential sovereignty”. The one teh pro-joining group wasn’t was “pretty clear” about the restrictions on sovereignty.

            As rabid right-winger Dave Stone puts it above: “The pro-join camp were very effusive with their assurances of no further assimilation, after initial membership.”

          • Brumanuensis

            Yes it does. And that illustrates the futility of arguments over ‘essential sovereignty’.

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

            “rabid right-winger”

            David Talbot recently accused me of “gushing” over Galloway and now this…

            What will happen when my possibly “adoring” comments on Nigel Farage and Liam Fox are discovered? Oh dear…

          • Brumanuensis

            You just keep handing over the money to me, Dave, and none of this need come to life…

            *smiles sinisterly*

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

            I remember much of the literature and discussion from the time of the referendum. The pro-join camp were very effusive with their assurances of no further assimilation, after initial membership. I voted against joining.

            However, things have moved on and now I’m in agreement with the views presented by Brum. I would vote to stay in provided there are guarantees of more transparency, accountability and democracy.

            Plus, Brum’s mention of compulsory consumption of Euro-beer is an additional incentive. 

          • frp4914

            Sorry, Dave, to pick up on a point of fact which doesn’t materially affect today’s position, but it concerns a much-repeated ‘misremembrance’.  In fact, no referendum was held to decide whether the UK should join the EEC (as it was then known).
            The UK joined the EEC on 1st January 1973; in June ’75, a referendum was held which asked the electorate if it wished to remain in the EEC.
            Apologies again for being pernickety, but there are younger readers who won’t remember those days, and it’s easy for history to become rewritten without pedants keeping an eye out.

    • jaime taurosangastre candelas

      You approach your argument with logic and reason, and unsurprisingly come to a very supportable conclusion.  But in the real world, many (most?  it seems that way) people don’t like Europe, are very prepared to believe both true and untrue stories about it.

      Many people also believe that all 3 parties have reneged on pretty explicit promises of referenda, even if some technocrat can explain that sub-clause 14.3.5 on page 963 in fact gives a different meaning to the word Treaty on page 23 and that something else is very slightly different elsewhere in the document…Rightly or wrongly, I think it likely that the man or woman in the street feels cheated over Europe, and if there was a referendum, I strongly suspect most Britons would vote to get out if the option was offered to them.

      I’d like Britain to fundamentally renegotiate our position (in the direction of less Europe), and even lead a campaign in Europe for a revocation of all ever-closer union measures and of the failed Euro itself, if we can find allied countries.  But that may be impossible.

      • Hugh

         ”People don’t like Europe, are very prepared to believe both true and untrue stories about it.”

        That’s partly because a lot of those “untrue” stories about Europe are broadly true.

      • Brumanuensis

        Jaime, I don’t deny that bureaucratic pedantry has sometimes been used to weasel out of commitments – like Blair’s referendum pledge, which he should never have given in the first place.

        But there is no way we can move towards ‘less Europe’. Like it or not, we are in Europe. The UK is not in a position to adopt nineteenth-century ‘Splendid Isolation’ anymore. We are effectively one of the world’s ‘middle powers’ and unless we want to decline in influence even further, we will have to adopt closer co-ordination with our European neighbours. That doesn’t mean all EU-integration is good – the Euro has been badly managed and implemented – but it does mean that we have to renounce an adherence to rigid notions of ‘national sovereignty’ and ‘independence’. Britain will not cease to be an independent country, in a more unified Europe, but it will have to accept greater constraints on its behaviour. This is not a bad thing, if we consider where untrammeled national sovereignty has brought us in the past.

        • jaime taurosangastre candelas

          “But there is no way we can move towards ‘less Europe’”

          Oh yes there is.  It requires politicians with backbone, not just in one country but in several.  A European trading bloc would have the same economic impact on the rest of the world as the EU has, and the rest of the world does not much care about the political union nonsense that we have to put up with at great financial cost to ourselves.

          Now, the likelihood of that happening is a different calculus.  But it is not impossible.

          I am pretty sure that Alexander the Great did not listen to counsel such as yours before he achieved the impossible.  And what we are dealing with are some unelected euro-slugs such as van Rompuy and Barroso and some bureaucratic inertia, not horizons never crossed.

          • Brumanuensis

            Yes, but look how long Alexander’s empire lasted once he’d died.

            You can’t have economic union without political union. You have to have supranational bodies to regulate common trade agreements, otherwise no-one will abide by the terms. Even the European Free Trade Association had common institutions to uphold its agreements. A fairly minimal body would require an ECJ, an agreement on customs unions, free movement of labour, free establishment and common standards of weights, measurements, anti-trust laws, etc.. A lot of what the EU does is precisely the sort of stuff a ‘pure’ customs union would do. Imagine the costs incurred by having to fill out permits every time you wanted to move goods across a border, or move to take up a job in another European country?

            And if we are to have common standards, common institutions will be required too. We will need a Commission and a Council of Ministers. This may seem undemocratic, so a European Parliament might be required. In the end, we obtain something very similar to the present arrangements.

            Imagine, as a counter-factual, if the United States had not amalgamated itself as a union and had instead remained a very loose association of states? It might have been what Jefferson wanted, but Hamilton and Washington rightly saw that this would impede the stability and growth of a new nation. So they encouraged the development of pan-national institutions. The EU, in a somewhat diferent fashion, is working along the same lines.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            The rest of the world manages perfectly well with regional trading associations.  Around the world, it is only Europe that is trying this insane political union experiment.

            You keep repeating this “economic union needs political union” argument, and maybe in theory you are right.  But nobody wants economic union, merely a trading bloc, so your argument is not addressing what people want, merely what the Eurocrats think is what people want. 

            As for your comparison with the early days of the USA, has anyone, ever, in any place, asked the people of Europe if they want to be part of a United States of Europe?  No, and we all know what the answer of the people would be if ever a Eurocrat had the backbone to ask such an honest question.

          • Brumanuensis

            Jaime,

            On a quick point, you say the rest of the world manages with regional trading associations, but as a Chilean, you must be aware that UNASUR is explicitly modelled on the EU and that its Constitutive Treaty envisages a peremanent bureaucratic body in the future, with a South American Parliament in Bolivia and an anticipated Central Bank, the ‘Bank of the South’, in Venezuela.

            On your point about ‘what people want’, people want many things. Not all of them are possible. In the UK, people want well-funded public services, but are often averse to any tax increases required to fund them. Public opinion is frequently inchoate. Because of this, politicians sometimes have to take unpopular decisions. I agree they should be more open about their reasons for doing so, but ultimately the imperative to take unpopular decisions at certain times, remains. Look at the vitriol that NICE gets, just for doing its job. The same is true of the EU. It may not be popular, or always work well, but it is far better to remain within it than to exit.

            Looking to the future, which EU or European institutions would you sacrifice in your future trade bloc? And which provisions of the Treaty of the Foundation of European Union would you repeal? There are plenty of EU directives and ECJ judgements I have reservations about, but that doesn’t mean the whole structure needs to be felled. That’s like saying that because we don’t like the current government, Labour should commit itself to the abolition of parliamentary democracy. 

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Brum,

            UNASUR’s aims will never happen, and indeed are not yet at the stage of having an impact.

            Re the EU… “…but it is far better to remain within it than to exit.”  You assert, as though there is no possible alternative to an in/out decision.  If the rules are changed, to revert back to a trading bloc, well other options become available.  Your argument does, I am afraid, have an element of “Reductio ad absurdum”.  It is only those completely in favour of the status quo who find benefit in painting a black and white picture, to scare the silly little people into accepting what big brother tells them.

          • Brumanuensis

            Re. UNASUR, that may be. But it does suggest that the EU’s model has some attraction to other countries and is not just an international outlier.

            On renegotiation, negotiating the changes that eurosceptics want will be impossible if the UK does it alone. And for the foreseeable future, the UK will be alone in that course. We can say any number of things, but the other countries in the EU won’t listen, partly because they find David Cameron obstreporous and unhelpful, and partly because they have other issues to worry about than attempting a fundamental re-casting of the EU’s organising principles.

            I don’t see what elements of my argument are reductio. All I’m pointing out is that disentangling political engagements, as the SNP are finding, is extraordinarily difficult and often not worth the effort, relative to the desired ends.

          • Brumanuensis

            As a follow-up about the US, it was plagued for the first 70 or so years of its life by disputes between first Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and then over ‘states rights’. These questions were only settled by the Civil War and the complete defeat of the South. Indeed, it wasn’t until after the Civil War that the phrase ‘The United States’ instead of ‘These United States’, became commonplace.

            This should alert us to the EU’s other great achievement. No wars in Western Europe since 1945. Historically, that’s an astonishing achievement and in large measure is down to the increasing integration and co-operation of the European economy. As the great French classical liberal economist Frederic Bastiat put it, ‘where goods do not cross borders, armies will’.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            It is laughable to suggest that the EU has meant no war in western Europe since 1945.  Apart from the very obvious fact that the EU and it’s predecessor organisations did not exist before 1956, have you never heard of something called NATO?  An attack on one being considered an attack on all, and specifically mentioned in the treaty text, an attack on one by another member being equally treated?  Hence why Greece and Turkey are mutually in check mate, and France and Germany work together after centuries of enmity.

            You will lose all credibility in my eyes if you attempt to suggest that some european trading organisation did anything other than exist and get rich while NATO provided the military impetus to stop the Soviets attacking into western Europe.  Really, that is a ludicrous thought. did the entire Cold War history pass you by, including the proxy wars in Africa and Asia, the 3 way power struggle between the US, USSR and China throughout the 60s-80s?

            And you really think that the rank and festering EU stopped war in western Europe?

        • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

          You are wrong on Blair’s referendum pledge. There is a big difference with the pledge to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution because you have to hold referenda on major constitutional issues like a new EU Constitution. It was the absolutely right thing to do. The reason we never got a referendum is because they got rid of the new EU Constitution because other countries rejected it, and instead put it in the Treaty of Lisbon which therefore meant there did not need to be a referendum. As a pro-European, a referendum on British membership of the EU because it is not really about ‘middle powers’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘integration’ – it is about democracy and it is not right that the current generation has not approved as to whether or not they want to be part of such institution. In fact one can legitimately argue that we have never had a vote on the EU.

          • Brumanuensis

            Well yes, but the Treaty of Lisbon’s differences with the proposed Constitution were much-of-a-muchness. If Blair had abided by the spirit of his pledge, he should have held a referendum. I don’t agree with referenda in principle, but once he’d made that commitment, he should have stuck by it. My prinicple-based objections to referenda are passim, including on this thread.

          • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

            He couldn’t. The Treaty was imposed by the authorities in the EU. It was the EU Constitution written into law, it would not be feasible to hold a referendum on it.

          • Brumanuensis

            He could have held a referendum to endorse that decision though, rather like the 1975 referendum. If he’d wanted to hold a referendum, then he would have done. Where there’s a will, there’s a way and all. I think he made the right decision in a wider sense, not to, but having made the promise, he still should have followed through.

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

        There would need to be an alternative offered and the problem is that the Europhobes haven’t really got one

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JP42QNYATVR2UKDJIUXUEV6RNY Michael

    Absolutely agree with you. A referendum would be immensely popular and give us a tactical advantage.

    • AlanGiles

       But what comes after?

      If a referendum were held there is little doubt there would be a majority in favour of leaving, bouyed by the popular press.

      Then what do we do.  As they say, be careful what you wish for……

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JP42QNYATVR2UKDJIUXUEV6RNY Michael

        Well, Alan, I want to see a more Socialist Britain and as far as I am concerned one of the major impediments to that is our membership of the EEC. 

  • Brumanuensis

    So people who abstain from voting are more influential than people who don’t?

    Ok, it’s a novel theory I suppose.

    • http://twitter.com/wj557 wj

      You still haven’t convinced me.

  • Brumanuensis

    My point is simply that if you want more influence, you’re better off voting rather than abstaining. If you vote UKIP, you’re more of a nuisance to pro-EU governments – and the EU - than you are if you don’t vote at all.

  • MonkeyBot5000

    Should Labour take the step and say it would hold a referendum at some
    point during the next election, it would send the Tories into chaos.

    That’s making the assumption that people will believe you. We were supposed to get a referendum on the EU constitution, but when it became clear that the people of Europe were rejecting it, it morphed into a treaty and none of us were consulted.

    I agree with all of your arguments for why we should have a referendum, but I see no reason to believe that any party would actually fulfill such a promise unless it was legally binding. Unfortunately, no party is ever going to put themselves in a position where they can be held to account for not meeting their manifesto pledges.

  • Daniel Speight

    Conor please place this comment in the “unfunny careerist” file, although to be honest I don’t know if you are a careerist. Still glass half full and all that.

    Mind you I do think a referendum would be good for democracy and a good tactic for the Labour Party. I’m not sure if it would be that great economically and I’m also not sure how I would vote in it. It would at least force the pro-EU politicians to explain why we should be part of this neo-liberal club. It’s certainly not the EEC we joined so many years ago.

  • http://twitter.com/johnringer John Ringer

    An EU referendum does poll very well, but so does a referendum on literally anything. If you phrase the question as “do you want a referendum on the EU/Sunday trading hours/gay marriage/a third runway at Heathrow/HS2/English devolution/a ban on the burqa/deporting all immigrants/Lords reform/fox hunting/the smoking ban/the mutualisation of British Waterways” they will invariably say “yes” in huge numbers.

    If we were to take up People’s Pledge’s proposal, we would have to make sure that our support of an EU referendum doesn’t snowball into some fetishisation of referenda like they have in Switzerland (which had a referendum which led to a ban on minarets on mosques) or California (which cannot balance its budget for all the spending commitments and tax cuts secured by referenda over the years). A referendum on the EU isn’t a bad idea, but full-on direct democracy is just stupid.

  • Winston_from_the_Ministry

    I think you mean a Hydra rather than a Gorgon. 

    Good article that didn’t require the shameless Nazi linkbait.  

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

    I don’t believe in referenda at all.

    I don’t think its possible to bring complex issues down to a simple yes/no answer, which is why I don’t generally value direct democracy even when the result would probably go the way I want. 

Latest

  • Featured Why are the Tories putting a price on loving commitment?

    Why are the Tories putting a price on loving commitment?

    By Mark Ferguson

    So here we are again. Gay Marriage. Civil Partnerships. And a Tory rebellion. Except this time it’s different. Tim Loughton’s amendment calling for Civil Partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples is being branded a “wrecking amendment” and could – bizarrely – see anti-gay rights Tories like David Jones voting the same way as staunch defenders of equal rights on the Labour benches. The argument being put forward by the Tory leadership is that granting such rights would delay the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured We must challenge the biggest welfare myth of all

    We must challenge the biggest welfare myth of all

    By Simon Danczuk

    Who can forget Gordon Brown’s meeting with Gillian Duffy? Nothing has come close in recent years to symbolising the disconnect between the Westminster bubble and the working class. As someone who had to endure every painful minute of Duffygate it’s a lesson I’ll never forget. Mrs Duffy’s memorable intervention on the campaign trail means it’s now widely accepted in our party that calling someone racist simply for raising concerns about immigration putting pressure on public services or pushing down wages [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

    The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

    By Matthew Zarb-Cousin

    Since the financial crisis, the perfect storm of recession and banks restricting access to credit has led to the rise of payday lenders. Our high streets are slowly deteriorating from the vibrant, diverse places they once were into an abyss of pawnbrokers, payday loan shops and bookies. The three feed off of each other, targeting some of our most deprived areas and perpetuating a cycle of despair driven by the need for extra income. Research carried out by Geofutures found [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Should people be asked if they are party supporters when they register to vote?

    Chris Clark and Rav Seeruthun on a small change that if adopted, would free activists to spend more time on community work Every year at party conferences we hear professional politicians eulogise hard-working party volunteers. And there’s no activity more often evoked than that of ‘knocking on doors’. It’s a common delusion that the purpose of doorstep canvassing is to ‘persuade’ voters. Having taken part in our fair share of Labour canvassing sessions, we’ve both had the dispiriting experience of [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe Featured You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    You can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe

    By Douglas Alexander

    Europe is not often the issue which comes top of people’s concerns on the doorstep. Nor do opinion polls suggest that Europe is a priority for voters when compared to issues like the economy or jobs. But you can always rely on the Conservatives to ignore the public when it comes to Europe. This week saw over a hundred Conservative MPs rebel and vote against their own Queens Speech. They were angry that it hadn’t included a bill which would [...]

    Read more →