Zen and the art of leading the Labour party

As Napoleon so wisely said: “N’interrompez jamais un ennemi qui est en train de faire une erreur.”* True, the little general’s attempts at uniting Europe were ultimately no more successful than those of Herman Van Rompuy and Manuel Barroso. But he did know something about winning battles. Things were looking good until he over-reached himself (for more detail on this see the lyrics of “Waterloo” by Abba, which won the Eurovision song contest 39 years ago).

The Labour leadership is being criticised for resisting the idea that an in/out referendum on Britain’s EU membership should be called. This political dilemma has been described by some as a “no brainer”: Cameron is in deep trouble, still apparently in favour of EU membership even as cabinet ministers declare that they would vote to leave if the referendum were taking place today. Crank up the pressure by adding to the momentum for a referendum, it is argued, and the PM would be in an even worse position.

Sure, there would be the small matter of Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander having to unsay everything they’d said about such a referendum in recent weeks. But perhaps an opposition can get away with that sort of thing. After all, before the election the Tories committed to matching Labour’s “reckless” spending levels, and opposed nationalising Northern Rock and launching quantitative easing until they were in favour of both.

A new grouping, Labour for a Referendum, has got off the ground. One of its members, Conor Pope, explained yesterday in an interesting feat of logic: “By promising a referendum, we’d be taking the subject off the table.” Right: because talking about this issue has really proven to be the way to stop everyone talking about it..?

Miliband is, so far, choosing not to interrupt his opponent while he is making a mistake. True, the situation is extremely volatile. You can now picture a not completely improbable scenario in which the government will fall over this. If Cameron is bullied into making ever more concessions to the Europhobes, Nick Clegg might just cut his losses and walk. An election in these chaotic circumstances would not be comfortable for Cameron, with Farage and UKIP rampant.

With so much uncertainty in the air, and with the Tories’ position changing almost hourly, holding the line on the referendum may make sense. It has the virtue of consistency, in contrast to Cameron’s frequent vacillations. Just as you wouldn’t write an election manifesto, or make spending commitments, too far in advance of an election, declaring a new position now when circumstances may be about to change again could be a big mistake.

There is another, more long-term reason for the reluctance to commit to a referendum. It is that leader of the opposition Miliband is thinking ahead to the situation which might confront Prime Minister Miliband in 2017. Why give the future opposition a free hit in a referendum that will probably be hard to win? Why waste energy and political capital on a fight that doesn’t need to happen? And won’t a future Labour government have other, bigger priorities, just as today’s government should have too?

There is a positive case to be made for Britain’s continued membership of the EU, just as there is a case for European reform. Those arguments should still be made. But the priority now is to start winning the crucial domestic arguments – over the economy, social security, housing, childcare and immigration – rather than holding speculative and increasingly bizarre discourse about the EU.

Miliband and Alexander are holding their nerve, even if many others aren’t. Miliband’s impressive sang froid, or “Zen-like” calm, is proving a bit bewildering and irritating to some. The leadership needs to show it is listening, and that it understands the concerns of activists who are having a hard time on doorsteps as they try to explain why Labour is not pushing for an in/out referendum now.

Things could – will – change. The situation may become even more volatile, requiring a different approach. But for now I think the policy is right. Miliband’s “masterly inactivity” is keeping the heat on Cameron in the right way – from a position of conviction and principle. That is how a prime minister in waiting ought to behave.

*“Do not interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”