EU referendum: strategy is the problem
Thursday 20 September 2012
 So, His Grace tells us, with a referendum on the next EU treaty looming - and, as sure as night follows day, it is coming - please don't expect political coherence or campaigning strategy from the Conservatives, UKIP, the Democracy Movement, the Campaign for United Kingdom Conservatism, Better off Out, Campaign for an Independent Britain, the Freedom Association, or the Liberty League. Frankly, he says, you have more hope of persuading a Wahhabi Sunni to sup with an Ahmadiyyan and plant the cornerstone of a new mosque. If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand: the referendum may already be lost. Hesitant as one is to disagree with His Grace, one has to say that he is wrong. This is not a matter of egos, gargantuan or otherwise, but of strategy. Egos we could cope with. The more profound differences over strategy are far more problematical. Courtesy of Witterings from Witney, we see demonstrated precisely the point in the recent adjournment debate led by Tory MP Andrea Leadsom. This is a woman who is determined that we should "renegotiate our EU membership - to remain within the EU but to have our absolutely best attempt at renegotiating a relationship that works for Britain, with full and free access to all EU assets, but without being hampered in a global world by EU regulation". What she wants, she tells us, is "fundamental reform". No red-blooded eurosceptic could begin to agree with such a europlastic view, but within the debate there was also David Nuttall, Tory MP for Bury North. As chairman of the Lords and Commons "Better Off Out" group, he wants us to repatriate all powers from the EU. We would have no difficulty in accepting this desirable objective, except that Nuttall does not think we are likely to be given the choice of an in-out referendum. He thinks we are more likely to get an in/in referendum: the choice of the status quo - staying in as we are now or staying in with 17/20, 18/20 or 19/20 of the status quo and repatriating a few powers. The trouble is, as Leadsom points out, while a July 2012 YouGov survey had 48 percent wanting to pull out and 31 percent wanting to stay in the EU, if a new deal was renegotiated, the poll suggests that people would vote in a completely different way. Most - 42-34 percent - would vote to stay in the EU. This is the eurosceptic nightmare: a referendum offering not the in-out option but the "reform-out" option. This would be very hard to win. Strategy becomes absolutely vital. Then, as WfW reminds us, there is the Lilley point: during a referendum campaign, on average there is a 17 percent swing back in favour of the status quo. This means it is necessary to start with a 34 percent lead for change to have a 50 percent chance of winning. Starting with roughly half of people being in favour of leaving and a third in favour of staying would result in a vote to remain in the EU. Problematically, though, our people are not thinking strategically. Under these circumstances, theMinford idea of unilateral withdrawal, followed by negotiation, would be a disaster. The uncertainties would drive voters into the EU camp. Yet, despite the potential for disaster, this is the preferred UKIP option, and the guardians of the message are quick to stamp on dissident thought. There is no debate in this "outer" fraternity. You either conform with the approved message or you are consigned to outer darkness as a "traitor".
Nor is there any recognition of the "Stokes precept", from Richard Stokes, the Labour MP for Ipswich, who on 15 October 1940 told the House of Commons in a debate on war aims that it "... is no use fighting for a negative object. You must have a positive one, and the sooner that [is] stated the better".
To gain a broader acceptance from the majority of the population that we should leave the EU, we must be able to offer a positive object. Simply to fight on the negative one of leaving the EU is not enough. And just to argue for a referendum, without the first idea of how you would win it, is suicide. Those who refuse to accept this, who robustly argue simply for unilateral withdrawal and expect the nation to rally to that cause, are part of the problem – as much as those like Leadsom, who are arguing for "fundamental reform". Egos really don't matter. It cannot be emphasised enough that what counts is strategy. Sadly, while the old saw, "divided we fall" may be true, uniting behind the wrong strategy could be just as fatal. We thus face the prospect of "united we fall, divided we fall". Even so, there is time yet to mend our ways. We should take the opportunity while we can, if we can. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 20/09/2012 |
EU debate: Minford gives evidence
Wednesday 19 September 2012
The House of Commons foreign affairs committee interviews "one of the most prominent economists advocating Britain's withdrawal from the EU". This is professor Patrick Minford CBE, Professor of Applied Economics, Cardiff Business School, contributing to an inquiry on: "The future of the European Union: UK Government policy".
The egregious professor then regales the LSE blog with his arguments as to why the UK must leave the EU. "The institutional evolution triggered by the euro crisis", he says, "threatens to make the economic costs of EU membership higher than ever, in a highly visible way. The case for leaving the EU has become overwhelming".
Sadly, in his oral evidence to the HoC committee, Minford argues that we should engineer a unilateral departure, whence we could then ask the "colleagues" to sit down and negotiate with us. And, if they don't, then we can compensate our industries (such as the car industry) for their losses. The man does not seem to have heard of Article 50.
Listening to all this, one again gets the sense of a debate that has not developed. Prof. Minford seems to have very little new to say, with a very limited idea of how regulation is made, and its sources. The world has moved on but, it seems, Minford, hasn't.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/09/2012 |
EU Treaty: Future Group – final report
Wednesday 19 September 2012
The full text of the Future Group report (in English) is here. The European Union has reached a decisive juncture, it says. The on-going sovereign debt crisis and the ever-accelerating process of globalisation pose an unprecedented dual challenge for Europe. We will have to master it if we want "our continent" to enjoy a bright future and effectively promote our interests and values in a more polycentric world.
The crisis, it continues, has long also had a political dimension. In many parts of Europe, nationalism and populism are on the rise, while the feeling of solidarity and sense of belonging in Europe are dwindling. We have to take action to restore confidence in our joint project. The political debate about the future of the European project has to be conducted now, and it has to take place all across Europe. Crucially, it needs to engage Europe's citizens. The Guardian and the BBC - europhiles both – are doing their best, but, so far, the rest of the English press has yet to do the story. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/09/2012 |
Politics: unparliamentary behaviour
Wednesday 19 September 2012
For someone who has ambitions of being elected to the House of Commons, Nigel Farage seems to have remarkably little idea of what constitutes acceptable parliamentary behaviour. Since almost the dawn of time, "unparliamentary language" has been prohibited in most legislatures in the free world, even Canada.
For Mr Farage then to confuse such constraints with restraints on freedom of speech rather says more about him than the EU Parliament. Had he been elected to the Commons and he had tried it on there, such behaviour would have had a similar response. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/09/2012 |
EU treaty: eleven go for political union
Wednesday 19 September 2012
 And now, they – eleven EU foreign ministers including the German – are at it again, this time with another "joint paper" calling for states to hand over more powers to Brussels in order to resolve the eurocrisis. Their proposals include EU rights to intervene on national budgets, treaty reforms without unanimity and majority decision-making in foreign policy. However, the ministers stress that suggestions are "personal opinions" that do not necessarily reflect the views of their governments. Westerwelle, speaking for the group, said in Berlin: "At the end of the path that we are now taking now can only be political union". He added: "this would complete our economic and monetary union. At the same time it would realise a common foreign and security policy in the fullest sense". This political union, Westerwelle continued, must be based on a foundation of European power. He wants "a parliament which adopts European laws and a commission that does the work of a European government". The president, he says, should be directly elected, and with a council, as a second Chamber to represent "the concerns of the member states". Including Westerwelle, we have the foreign ministers of Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal and Spain. Not all members of the group agreed with the idea of a directly elected president, however, but they all called for short-term measures to strengthen the single currency. The majority of these measures, it is felt, would be possible without changes to the EU treaties, but they are not enough. Also needed is "effective surveillance powers with specific competencies for the European institutions to monitor and implement fiscal measures in the member states". This means that the EU commission must be able to veto national budgets. Westerwelle says that no member state should be allowed to jeopardise the safety of monetary union. The community is "entitled to act and should have the powers to do so". Some members go as far of requiring the pooling of sovereign debt. These may have been France and Italy. Germany and the Netherlands were opposed. As to the ESM, this to be expanded into a permanent crisis fund known as the "European Monetary Fund", taking over responsibilities from the IMF. The EU parliament would also be involved in any further euro rescue measures taken at EU level. Other proposals include splitting the now very large commission in senior and junior commissioners. The "majority" of the eleven ministers agreed that only MEPs from the eurozone, and those involved in the Fiscal Pact, would participate in decisions affecting the euro. That would exclude UK and Czech MEPs. To circumvent vetoes by the United Kingdom or other countries such as Ireland, "most" ministers believe that treaty changes should be possible with a "super-qualified" majority, with the treaty provisions binding only on the ratifying states. Taking in the foreign and security policy, minister want a "fundamental review" of the newly created European External Action Service. They want to see changes the neighbourhood policy, over which the commission still has some control. They want majority voting where there is joint representation in international organisations, "where possible". Also, the ministers want a European defence policy. For "some" ministers this could mean a European army. And all ministers want a European Border Guard to secure the external borders of the Schengen area. National visas should be replaced with European visas. This is all serious stuff, and the eleven are not messing. Westerwelle and his fellow ministers are to submit formal proposals in the next few days to European Council president, Van Rompuy, and Barroso. The EU parliament was informed last week. They ministers regard their paper as a contribution to a wider institutional reform paper being developed by Van Rompuy and his "quartet" in Brussels. Theirs is a shopping list from a few individuals. By the end of the year, however, they expect the next moves towards the objective to be made. And once the countdown starts, there will be no stopping it. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/09/2012 |
EU referendum: the tragedy of euroscepticism
Tuesday 18 September 2012
 In fact, by seeking election at the 2014 EU parliament elections, she and her supporters are not a political movement, per se. A movement, as defined, does not seek election to public office. Instead, "it aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement". Thus, while the Harrogate Agenda is a movement, Sinclaire's "We Demand A Referendum Party" is a classic political party, and one built on an incredibly narrow single issue. Despite that, as it is ostensibly a well-motivated campaign seeking our extraction from the EU, we might perhaps be expected to wish it well. But we are actually more inclined to deplore yet another example of the absolute determination to fail that plagues euroscepticism. In this particular instance, we are as sure as we can be that there will be no EU referendum this side of the general election, which is to be held in 2015. Our best analysis suggests that the earliest possible date would be 2016, but more likely it will be later. Sinclaire's party has no chance whatsoever of getting a referendum in 2014 However – with a new EU treaty in the offing – one can be reasonably confident that we will get an EU referendum, although its precise nature is as yet uncertain. In that sense, the general battle is already won. Sinclaire is kicking at a closed door, when the one next to it is wide open. What she then ignores is that, should it come to a referendum, the eurosceptic "community" is particularly ill-equipped and organised to fight it - unlike the proliferation of europhile organisations, including Open Europe. And the even greater handicap is the lack of any coherent alternative to the EU, or a credible exit plan - neither of which Ms Sinclaire has on offer. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the launch of her "party" has engendered a goodly volume of e-mail traffic, some of which conveys the sentiment that her effort is a complete waste of time. And with that, it is hard to disagree. On the one hand, she is setting herself an objective than cannot be achieved while, on the other, she is not doing that which must be done in order for a referendum to succeed. In all probability though, her efforts will come to nothing. Setting up a political party is a notoriously ineffective mechanism for achieving political change, which is why we believe that the political movement route is a better option. That another eurosceptic grouping has chosen the former is all part of the tragedy of euroscepticism, doomed to expending energy and resource on the ineffective. And why such groupings are so attracted to failure is one of those mysteries we will never solve. That is the greater tragedy of euroscepticism. COMMENT THREAD |
Posts
