EU referendum: a step closer
Thursday 16 May 2013
I'm not quite sure when the practice stopped but certainly before the war, an important debate in Parliament would get at least two full pages of coverage. And that was in the days when the likes of the Daily Express was a broadsheet. The reports, in eight, densely-printed columns, with only tiny pictures, would run to several thousand words.
Now, we just get the highlights, which means the flavour of the debate comes via the filter of the reporters covering the story – and most often they are either working from agency reports, or broadcast highlights. There is, however, some compensation in that we can watch the debates live and read the Hansard reports later. I prefer to do the latter, finding the written word more reliable without the distraction of the theatricals. Thus, while the MPs were chuntering at each other this evening, I was actually watching a decade-old episode of West Wing on the internet. I'll read the full debate tomorrow. Anyway, the headline news is that 114 Conservative MPs voted for John Baron's amendment to the Queen's Speech "expressing regret" that an EU referendum Bill had not been included in the Government's legislative programme for the next session. This is slightly more MPs than had been anticipated but, nevertheless, the amendment was defeated by 277 votes to 130. Labour and Lib-Dem MPs responded to their whips, and toed the party line. Strictly though, the Tory vote was not a rebellion or a mutiny, as there had been a free vote. The good news is that at least this blog is back doing the very thing is was set up to do when we set it up on 22 April 2004. That makes us now just over nine years old. By the time we get a referendum in 2017, if we do, the blog will be thirteen years old, longer than a typical life sentence for murder. The bad news is that it could be another five years after than before we see a referendum – depending on a lot of things, including the outcome of the general election, so the blog could be 20 by the time we see the results come in. With that thought, we take comfort in the view of the Independent which thinks that David Cameron's "bloody nose" tonight brought an EU referendum a step closer. Please let it be so. COMMENT: COMBINED REFERENDUM THREAD Richard North 16/05/2013 |
EU referendum: a significant event
Wednesday 15 May 2013
 Perhaps the highlight of the event was Edward Leigh taunting the Clegg with a copy of a 2008 Lib Dem leaflet (below left) in which he declared: "It's time for a real referendum on Europe" at the time of the Lisbon Treaty negotiations. Leigh, asked Mr Clegg whether the man pictured in the leaflet was "an impostor or just a hypocrite", only to get a dead-bat reply that he was in favour of a referendum when the rules changed.  Clegg, in turn, complained of the Conservatives of "constantly shifting the goalposts" on a referendum. He said the Commons had spent a hundred hours debating the Bill which gave a legal guarantee of a referendum if powers were transferred to Brussels. Nevertheless, he now seems to concede that a referendum is inevitable.In anticipation of a vote today on an amendment to the Queen's Speech, the deputy prime minister declared: "We on this side should go out and promote what is in the Queen's Speech, not spending days bemoaning what is not in the Queen's Speech", then adding: "I think we should stick to the priorities of the British people, which is growth and jobs". This is a theme echoed by Paul Goodman on Tory Diary, who is relying on a time-honoured formula in an attempt to defuse the "Europe" issue. "The matters that most move the British people at the ballot box", he claims, "are the meat, potatoes and two veg of British politics: the economy, hospitals, schools and crime - plus, of course, immigration". Notwithstanding that these issues are all, to a greater or lesser extent affected by our membership of the EU, Goodman is unwittingly illustrating what we should have a referendum on the EU. Such constitutional matters tend to be swamped by more immediate concerns in a general election, so they should be deal with separately, with the referendum format being the most appropriate mechanism.  What is interesting though is the contrast between this mealy-mouthed response and the triumphalism of the Daily Express which was the only national newspaper to give the referendum full frontal treatment this morning (right). Claiming a victory for its own campaign, it announces without equivocation that we are to get a straight in-or-out choice in a referendum on Britain's EU membership.In a dismissive response, however, Nigel Faragedeclares that, "This latest talk of an EU Referendum is nothing more than gesture politics". Thus, his earlier-declared stance of planning to stand for Westminster in 2015 is still in force, which means that the effect of UKIP's intervention could be to ensure that we have a Labour government and no referendum. Meanwhile, we have the putative rebellion of up to 100 MPs, in the Queen's Speech vote, which is scheduled for 7.15 this evening. As Labour and the Lib-Dems were whipping their MPs against the motion, it is almost certain to fall. Dominic Sandbrook in the Daily Mail is amongst the many who see in this evidence of the Conservative Party tearing itself apart, Sandbrook himself relying on comparisons between Mr Cameron and John Major. This also allows the loss-making Guardian to question Mr Cameron's leadership skills, asserting that he once led his party by challenging it, but now meekly muddles through by pandering to its obsessions. But, for all that, the publication of the draft Bill seems to have had an effect. We are told that the rebellion is "fading away", possibly signifying that MPs attach more significance to the referendum promise than does Mr Farage. Certainly, an evidently frustrated Daniel Hannan has bought the package – but then you would expect that. However, one has a sneaking sympathy for his complaints about the tendency of lobby journalists to look at the EU through the tinted glass of party management. He thus observes that, amid the hubbub about "Tory splits", we are in danger of missing the magnitude of what is taking place. We are no fans of young Hannan here, but in this one instance, I tend to veer closer to his "take" than anything the likes of Iain Martin has to offer. This man, whose own judgement is very often suspect, thinks the Conservatives have "lost the plot". To me, that is the kettle calling the pot black. I think we are looking at an event of some magnitude here, one which the media and the serried ranks of MPs have not entirely succeeded in trivialising. And such are the dynamics of the Cameron offer that I would not be entirely surprised to see Labour and the Lib-Dems supporting the idea of a referendum. Indeed, Cameron is now on the attack, saying that the "focus" must now shift to Labour and the Lib-Dems and whether or not they would be prepared to offer the British public a vote on Europe. He is criticising the two party leaders for "pretending nothing has changed" in the EU in recent years, putting them on the back foot. But, once the events of this day are over, the real focus must then shift to king-maker Farage and his UKIP supporters. As the reality of a referendum seems to be firming up, Farage may come under pressure to rethink his somewhat glib response. If it has become the role of UKIP to deny us a referendum on the EU, then he had better start telling us what he has in mind as an alternative. COMMENT: COMBINED REFERENDUM THREAD Richard North 15/05/2013 |
EU budget: a done deal
Wednesday 15 May 2013
 The "amending budget no.2" will add about £800 million to Britain's EU bill, with potentially another £400 million to find when the complete deal is reached. That will come with the second tranche, expected to be agreed after the summer break, bringing the additional British liability to £1.2 billion. The sum so far agreed represents rise of 5.5 percent on the original budget of €133 billion agreed for this year, itself and increase on the previous year's budget (2012) of €129.1. With the budget now standing at €140.3 billion, that represents an 8.7 percent year-on-year increase, kicking into touch any idea of EU budgetary restraint. Needless to say, Mr Osborne has been very quiet about this, and the UK media has been playing it relatively low key, making light of the British humiliation. Only the BBC hints at the scale of the defeat, citing a British government source who said the government could not support the amending budget. But, with the vote taken by QMV, there was nothing a powerless Mr Osborne could do. Ironically, this came on exactly the same day that the Conservative Party published its draft Bill for an EU referendum. The Party could well have pointed out that we were having to find another £1.2 billion to feed the ravening maw of Brussels, making it another good reason why we should be planning our exit. And still there is the battle of the multi-annual budget to come. Then there will be many more amending budgets to come, as the "colleagues" attempt to chip away at the hidden deficit which technically makes the EU insolvent. Unsurprisingly, we saw yesterday Kenneth Clarke claim that us leaving the EU could "spell catastrophe for the economy". What Clarke didn't specify, of course, was that the real catastrophe would be to the EU Commission's economy. They desperately need our money – and much more of it. We have not heard the last of this. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 15/05/2013 |
EU referendum: a poison chalice?
Wednesday 15 May 2013
 However, it is possible to concede a small amount of surprise at the exact text of the referendum question that might be asked, if we ever get a referendum, which is now supposed to be before the end of 2017. And that question, the one which causes the surprise is, "Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?" The reason for the surprise is that it abandons the great advantage, upon which Mr Cameron was to rely – the "renegotiation" ploy which, according to Kellner and others, converts a majority in favour of leaving into a comfortable win for him. Cameron is still going to be pushing his renegotiation agenda but, unless that is tied in to the referendum question, he has problems. In the 1975 referendum, the question was very similar: "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (The Common Market) ", but that time it was prefaced by: "The Government have announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community" … Also, tying the referendum to the end of 2017 at the latest opens the way to the "colleagues" to block any negotiations right up to the very last minute, leaving Mr Cameron with no room for manoeuvre in seeking to big-up the deal. On the other hand, the one thing Cameron has going for him is that he is now able to say only his party is offering a "clear choice" about the UK's future in Europe. But most of all, he can say with a little more conviction that the only way we are going to get a referendum is by voting Conservative. Whatever one might think of the way he has been dragged kicking and screaming to this position, it would be very hard now for a new Conservative government to back away from a referendum. Even without legislation in place before the election, they have nailed their colours to the mast. Interestingly, Miliband is holding firm so far. He is not bending to vulgar "populism" and matching Cameron's offer. But we can bet he will be watching the polls very closely, and if there appears to be electoral advantage from putting a referendum on the table, the Labour leader will surely be tempted. This also rather puts Farage on the rack. If we judge that Cameron is making a genuine offer, then our best hope for a generation for getting out of the EU is most definitely to back the Conservatives. A vote for UKIP at the general election would have the effect of denying us the opportunity of quitting. These are difficult judgements though. To treat Mr Cameron's offer as suspect is entirely an honourable position. With so many promises made, and not fulfilled, there is every good reason for not believing that this is a genuine offer. Thus, we ourselves have to make the call. Are we going to hammer the Tories, and hold out for something better – whatever that might be – or do we go with the latest offer and hope it comes off? And then, we have to ask whether we are actually capable of winning a referendum, or is Mr Cameron presenting us with a poison chalice. Just for once, the ball is back in our court. We maybe have a chance of a referendum, but maybe it is an illusion. And then, do we really want something we might not win? We are unprepared, with no coherent arguments to put to the electorate, and could very easily lose a referendum.
As yet, though, it is not decision time, but the choices are getting more interesting and challenging.
COMMENT: COMBINED REFERENDUM THREAD Richard North 15/05/2013 |
EU referendum: environmental FUD
Wednesday 15 May 2013
 This is just a taste of then things to come, should a real referendum campaign get underway. What we are being told is that the environmental consequences of Britain leaving the EU would be "huge". Membership of the European Union has been a boon to the UK's wildlife and habitats, and human health is better as a result - we are told. Thus, according to the less than impartial analysis for Friends of the Earth, published today by the EU policy expert Dr Charlotte Burns from the University of York, a go-it-alone Britain would be far from green and pleasant. The UK really was once the dirty man of Europe and only the EU has saved us from a polluted fate worse than, er … a polluted fate. Now, there is no way we're going to be able to mix it with the Greens on their turf, and hope to win. Never get into a fight with a chimney sweep. The trick thus is not to accept the argument on their terms. We have to change the terms the debate. Here, we already have input for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson. A "pragmatic" eurosceptic, he agues that we could not possibly abolish all EU law on leaving the European Union. We cannot have a situation where vital issues, such as environmental control, become totally unregulated. Even EU law, pro temp is better than no law. On that basis, when we leave the EU, we take with us the whole acquis - the whole rag-bag of EU law. We repatriate it, and take it onto our statute book as our own. Actually, much of it already is our own. EU law has already been integrated into the British statute book, by Acts of Parliament and through Statutory Instruments approved by Parliament. These do not disappear just because we repeal the European Communities Act. They stay in force until they are specifically repealed. It is only EU Regulations that fall when we walk away from the EU, and it there that we have to legislate to repatriate the law. We bring it home, so that it becomes ours, to be implemented without a break. On this basis, the Friends of the Earth is wrong. There would be no environmental consequences from Britain leaving the EU. The day after we leave the EU will be exactly the same as the day before we leave. Some have interpreted this, in almost a malicious sense, as the UK remaining locked into the EU. But these people are not thinking straight, if at all. Almost all current environmental law is of EU origin. Thus, the prohibition, say, on dumping toxic waste in a school playground is, ostensibly, a breach of EU law. This we do not want to remove. Looking at this in the round, not all EU law is bad law. Some, in fact, was originally sponsored by the UK. Some we would have implemented whether or not we were in the EU. But some is bad law, and we need to be rid of it. So, what we do is appoint a Royal Commission and/or a review committee to look through the entire raft of legislation. After due consideration and much public debate, we keep what is good. We get rid of the unnecessary onerous and the bad. And we fill any gaps, and improve on what we've got – but we take our time, working carefully and deliberately. Even then, we will not be on our own. Some is Single Market legislation and, if we remain in the EEA, we keep it anyway. We remain members of UNEP, of UNECE and of a myriad of lesser-known environmental organisations. So we stay fully engaged with the international community. And we honour international commitments. That is how we deal with the FUD. That is how we must deal with FUD if we are to win a referendum. We change the terms of the debate. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 15/05/2013 |
EU referendum: "splitters!"
Tuesday 14 May 2013
Peter McKay in the Daily Mail today suggests that eurosceptics would not be demanding a referendum if they thought they'd lose it. They would, he writes, be playing a longer game, softening up public opinion by publicising the iniquities of the EU.
The mistake that McKay makes, though, is in assuming that "eurosceptics" are a homogenous group with a common aim, rather than a rag-tag bundle of groupescules, with more discord than the People's Front of Judea. On the matter of a referendum, there is not even any agreement as to the nature of any referendum that should be held, or when it should be held, and there most certainly is no consensus on whether we could win a straight "in-out" referendum. This blog is very far from alone in asserting that we could win and, therefore, we are indeed playing the longer game. Those who have watched the clip from Monty Python (above), will note with delight the parody of small group politics, with John Cleese (of the People's Front of Judea) declaring that, "The only people we hate more than the Romans is the f*****g Judean People's Front". The cry of "splitters" thus resonates throughout the land, as each groupescule declares itself the custodian of the one true faith, condemning the heretics and dissenter, seeking to condemn them to outer darkness. Far from fostering a debate, the intolerance of many of these groups is such that they assert that dissenting voices should not be heard. No more so is this heard than from the tiny claque which holds itself to be the guardians of the flame of freedom, they who assert that the only way to regain our "sovereignty" is to repeal the European Communities Act. It is this tiny band of malcontents that holds that Article 50 is a "trap", or even worse. The trouble is that, if we assume that the first step towards withdrawal from the EU is winning an "in-out" referendum, without which there is nothing, then it seems to make sense that the entire weight of the eurosceptic "movement" should be devoted to winning the referendum. Necessarily, this means crafting a message which will appeal to the largest possible constituency, including the vast majority of the electorate who do not read the newspapers, do not engage in political discourse and who, increasingly, do not even vote. Here, the vast sum of experience of fighting referendums suggest that the dominant driver will be thestatus quo effect, with people tending to shy away from uncertainty. And, with that in mind, we have already experienced a taste of the europhile campaign, with the emphasis on "FUD" (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt), as a means of convincing people that they should stay within the warm embrace of "Mother Europe". Remarkably, though, there is a voluble faction within the eurosceptic community which also seems to want to rely on FUD, and in particular, maximising the uncertainty attendant on our leaving the EU. This is the faction which would eschew Article 50 and have us repealing the European Communities Act, on the back of a declaration that we have unilaterally abrogated the treaties. Assuming then that the EU would not take any "retaliatory" action against us on the matter of trade, it seems that the newly sovereign UK would then embark on a series of negotiations with the EU, to determine the nature of its ongoing relationship. Bizarrely, anyone who does not agree that unilateral and immediate withdrawal is the winning strategy, is branded as a "europhile", a tool of the establishment, or even worse. However, at the risk of being called that ultimate of epithets, a "splitter", we have to say that the crucial element of any winning campaign is to offer a "soft landing". People are far more inclined to risk "letting go of nurse" if they are reassured that the unknowns have been addressed, and their effects contained. What we would prefer individually, then, is of less relevance. While the prospect of immediate withdrawal, and rolling out the coils of barbed wire in the cliffs of Dover, might have its attractions, the key to the adoption of any strategy must be the assessment of how it will play with what Spinelli called the "swamp" – the uncommitted middle ground. These are the people that matter, and the evidence indicates that they will look first and foremost for reassurance that short-term interests will not be adversely affected by withdrawal. If we cannot give the necessary reassurances, or there are too many uncertainties, the voters "hold onto nurse". We lose. And there, we can do without the "splitters". As far as is possible, we need to be able to present a common front. The opposition will seek to project the most extreme "eurosceptic" stance as representing the whole – something the BBC is very good at. The uncertainties of an immediate withdrawal are a gift to the opposition, and we cannot afford to give them the game. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 14/05/2013 |
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Posts
