A referendum on EU membership would recapture the initiative from Britain's Eurosceptics ? and might split the coalition in two
It's common knowledge that the Brits are reluctant, foot-dragging, handbag-swinging partners in Europe ? just look at the numbers. According to one recent poll, 48% would vote for Britain to leave the EU if given the chance. Another poll last October found that 75% of us want an "in-or-out" referendum and 59% believe Britain could survive "perfectly well" outside the EU. Even the EU's own Eurobarometer poll can't hide the figures: 68% of Brits don't trust the EU. We've heard all these numbers many times before ? now if only our cowardly, expenses-scrounging politicians would listen to them!
Well, there are rumours that they might be starting to do just that. Fraser Nelson writes in the Spectator blog of "intriguing whispers in the Commons of Labour championing a Lib Dem proposal ? that is, the in-or-out referendum." Indeed, the shadow Europe minister, Wayne David, has admitted that his party will be examining the case for a referendum on EU membership as part of its policy review process ? this Saturday's Fabian conference might well be a step in that direction. Why would a pro-EU party such as Labour even consider a move that could only end in withdrawal? Indeed, why did the pro-EU Liberal Democrats risk campaigning for an "in-or-out" referendum in 2010?
The answer is what David diplomatically refers to as a "finely balanced" argument. While the shadow Europe minister is "yet to be persuaded" of its merits, he notes that senior voices within the Labour party are starting to explore the possibility of a pro-EU referendum campaign designed to "lance the boil" of British Euroscepticism. By reducing the debate to a simple "in-or-out" equation, these "senior voices" wonder if the greater part of the British public might be persuaded to reject uncertainty and embrace the status quo (particularly while the economy remains fragile). In short, they think they can win. Senior Eurosceptics are starting to wonder if the game might be up.
The problem is that, for too long, it has been Eurosceptics that have led the debate when it comes to Europe. They have constructed a narrative that portrays themselves simultaneously as the plucky underdogs and as popular champions ? fighting faceless bureaucrats and gravy-training politicians on behalf of freedom-loving little people. This narrative, of course, is a sham. The British public are not anti-EU. From the perspective of both supporters and detractors of the EU (ie people actually interested in the subject) they are something far worse. They are apathetic.
The latest YouGov poll on UK voter priorities (published at the beginning of this month) shows the EU languishing at the very bottom of the table. Only 6% identified the EU as one of their top priorities ? just above the oh-so-sexy issue of "transport" at 5%. In contrast, the most important issues for voters were the economy (82%) and immigration (a distant second at 43%). These were not atypical results ? the EU regularly appears as the lowest priority in such surveys ? and when people vote in a referendum they rarely make a decision based on their least important priority.
True, the British public do not like the EU much. However, that is not the same thing as rejecting it outright. If voters ever had to make a choice between economic stability or the EU they would vote for the economy in a heartbeat. Given that 74% of business leaders believe British withdrawal from the EU would damage the economy, it is not difficult to predict what might happen.
The truth is that the number of voters who identify the EU as a priority is very close to the number of voters intending to vote for anti-EU parties in the next general election. According to last week's YouGov data, 92% intend to vote for a party (Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, etc) that supports EU membership and only 6% intend to vote for parties advocating withdrawal (Ukip, BNP, etc).
What about European elections? At the last European parliament elections in 2009, Ukip beat Labour into third place. Wouldn't a result like that be more representative of an "in-or-out" referendum in the UK? Again, things aren't as easy as they seem. If you reduce European elections to a simple question of "in-or-out," then the results appear markedly different. When you compare all the votes in the 2009 European elections for parties whose official line supports EU membership with votes for parties advocating British withdrawal, then the result is almost 70% in favour of EU membership to 30% against.
As an added bonus for Labour, this is an issue that could rend the coalition in two and split the Tory benches. Some Labour party activists argue that an "in-or-out" referendum would just be a half-hearted solution to a long-term problem. Rather than engaging with Europe, a referendum would be a flashy way of ignoring the issue ? and quite probably wouldn't even silence the Eurosceptics for long. Yet at least a referendum would force a public debate. A Eurobarometer poll in 2009 found that 83% of British voters knew "little or nothing about the EU". We need our leaders to put the case for why Britain should be in the EU in the public arena. Just look at the numbers.
Global terrorism Conservation Consumer spending Mafia ITV Switzerland
No comments:
Post a Comment