So posits Andrew Duff in his letter to the Guardian warning that ‘If we Lib Dems accept this referendum as part of a new coalition pact, we will bring ruination on ourselves’. Well that’s clear then, isn’t it?
There are two reasons of principle why we should not be seduced by this simple hypothesis, and a third to do with pragmatism.
First, there is the argument that complex issues cannot be dealt with through referendums, and the proposed in/out referendum is somehow alien to our own thinking or political philosophy. The Lib Dems have never subscribed to this Burkean view of the relationship between the electors and the elected. In this period of Government alone we have departed from it three times by holding a referendum on the Alternative Voting system, legislating in the European Union Act 2011 for a referendum should there be a fresh transfer of powers to the EU, and in granting a referendum for a yes/no vote in Scotland. Given that the last issue had the potential to breakup the Union and was the subject of much deliberation, an anti-referendum stance is not one of principle.
On the EU itself, we were the first party to offer a referendum on joining a single currency as long ago as 1994 in a paper called the Lib Dem Guarantee. Moreover, it was the Lib Dems who first demanded an in/out referendum in 2008 in opposition to the Conservative Party’s stance on the Lisbon Treaty, when Labour broke its then manifesto pledge to hold a referendum. So a veto on grounds of this principle would be… well, rather strange.
The second argument goes that Cameron’s pledge of a referendum in 2017 will cause instability, is reckless and will be divisive. The first two concerns may be well-founded, but the democratic process is of itself a cause of instability, and we do not seek to emulate the Communist Party of China because the markets might get spooked, sterling might be volatile or our partners may not know with certainty where we will be after the referendum. Democracy comprises pledges which are renewed through an affirmation of the people’s will on a regular basis. The testing of that will is part of normal constitutional practice and has been undertaken in the UK 13 times since 1973.
If we want to constrain democratic practice for fear of the wrong result we should not have had a referendum on the EU in 1975, nor pledged one on the Euro nor indeed on further transfer of powers as we have now legislated for. As things stand, if you were born after 1957 and therefore did not vote in the EC Referendum of 1975, you will be a 60 year old in 2017 when (if the Conservatives prevail) you will be able to express a view on some of the most important issues to do with the laws and strategic direction your country has taken since you were born.
The fear of instability should not be the reason for refusing a course of action if we believe it to be right. The best antidote to instability is to be fearless in our stance that EU membership is an indispensable component of the UK’s future, reassuring all that we will be the party to uphold the UK’s interests in this regard. On the issue of divisiveness one could plausibly argue that when the country is so divided on EU membership, it is better to settle the outcome through a referendum for another half century, as that would provide the stability which is now so much in doubt.
My final argument for why we Lib Dems should not oppose the holding of a referendum on the EU is pragmatic. The Eurozone crisis and its denouement which is still playing out with concerns over Grexit is even less predictable than at its nadir in 2011. Future harmonisation of economic and budgetary policy within the Eurozone will impact on the structural relationship between the Eurozone ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ to the extent that there will be a transfer of powers. Whether this happens with the next five years or slightly more or less is debatable, but we will then have to confront the referendum catered for in the European Union Act 2011.
When big strategic decisions are looming those who make the weather tend to come out better. This issue has dogged the UK since Maastricht in 1992. I would not have chosen to have an in/out call by 2017, but it is there and we should not duck the biggest question of our age through a loss of nerve.
* Kishwer Falkner, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, is a Liberal Democrat and a life peer and the party's lead Foreign Affairs spokesperson in the House of Lords
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
23 Comments
Wow !
Someone talking sense at last about an EU referendum.
A refreshing change from the usual arrogant’ voters are too stupid to understand what’s at stake’ politicians know best.
No, no & no. Just because we have allowed Referendums in the past doesnt mean we have to repeat that mistake. There is nothing undemocratic about being against Referendums on principle, they have been a traditional tool of authoritarian regimes after all.
I am not prepared to risk breaking up both The EU & The UK so I will oppose any Coalition that involves more Referendums.
Please stop with the old ‘some people were not old enough to vote, therefore we’ve got to do it again’ argument for a referendum. We’ve had one. It was once and for all. If you want to hold a referendum let’s do it on something that we haven’t voted on, like the monarchy, or the house of lords.
Or perhaps we could have parliamentary democracy, which suited for centuries until Harold Wilson wanted to use a referendum to heal a split in his party.
I agree with Paul Barker
paul barker 7th May ’15 – 11:00am
No, no & no…. …. There is nothing undemocratic about being against Referendums on principle, they have been a traditional tool of authoritarian regimes …”
Also it is daft for Kishwer to trot this nonsense line that people born after 1957 have not had a say on membership of the EU. For the last 20 years there has been a party called UKIP for which anyone so exercised about leaving the EU could have voted. UKIP have yet to win a single seat at a General Election. They are unlikely to win more seats than Sinn Fein today. So will Kishwer be calling for a referendum on a republic for the Island of Ireland? Will she be calling for a referendum on membership of NATO or whether the week old child called Charlotte should be in line to be Head of State by accident of birth?
I don’t like referendum, but as Kishwer points out it is the policy of our party not to rule out referendum on principle. However Paul Barker is right to point out that referendum are often used by directorships to gain a perceived public mandate for their actions.
I was not old enough to vote in the 1975 referendum, but I tried to influence the way my widowed mother voted. The argument that people were either not old enough to vote or were not born and so we need another referendum really just points out how inefficient referendums are in dealing with any question once and for all.
The economic consequences are the main reason why we shouldn’t support a referendum in 2017 and if we were consistent we would not support an in/out referendum under any circumstance, but support referendums to support treaty changes as these are once only issues and new treaties will need new referendum as time goes by. I don’t believe we should support an action (holding a referendum in 2 years time) that will discourage businesses from investing in the UK and may increase the number of people unemployed and living in poverty.
I do not like using referendums as a legal instrument to enforce the ‘tyranny of a majority’: ultimately the practice is illiberal.
However, one practical problem is that a 2017 referendum is in conflict with the 2011 EU Act. There may well be a new treaty in the offing, but after 2017; do we really want to commit to one EU referendum, only to have another a two or three years later in compliance with the EU Act?
A further problem is the proposed renegotiation: how can we possibly sign up to it, when the content is so undefined? How could we possibly sign up for it if we are not in control of its process, but how could Tories sign up to a renegotiation that was jointly led by Clegg and Cameron?
Moreover, what would the referendum be about? – the outcome of the renegotiation or membership of the EU? How would Lib Dems be expected to vote if they were against the former, but in favour of the latter?
We do have inconsistencies, so the pragmatic reason for not opposing a referendum outright is to avoid all the flak that would be aimed at us if we did. There is a high chance that this issue will not be at the forefront when the results are in tomorrow, so why make trouble for ourselves?
This is a good outline of the merits/demerits of an EU in/out referendum. There are a couple of minor errors of little importance, but one glaring error is crucial to understanding much of the UKIP ‘temperature’, on the need for a fair and free referendum.
“If we want to constrain democratic practice for fear of the wrong result we should not have had a referendum on the EU in 1975,……”
We in fact,..did not have a referendum on the *EU* in 1975. The referendum was on remaining in the *EEC*. This is not some trivial or semantic correction that I make here. I’m old enough to have voted *FOR* the EEC in 75. I did so because it was a good idea, (and would still be, had that position remained). But the EEC has morphed into a completely different political EU ‘animal’, and certainly not the one I voted for or subscribe to now. I also hate the fact that my two children ( in their 20’s), now have no choice, but to endure this creeping anti democratic super state, simply because I was apparently lied to about the true European agenda, by the government of the day, back in 75.
Another important (and overlooked) point is that whilst UKIP want a referendum,… we have no certainty that it will result in our desired exit from the EU. But that would be an acceptable outcome, because the issue here is,.. *the choice*,.. the vote. When the referendum finally occurs, I fully expect that my two children might well vote to stay IN the EU. So their vote will cancel my OUT vote on a 2 to 1 basis. But to me, being on the losing side of the in/out referendum would still be a success. I would still consider a conclusive IN vote, to be a good, free and fair result, because,…. *they will have had their say*.
In short,..How the EU referendum vote falls, is not the point, and you should not, as Kishwer Falkner points out,.. *fear the wrong result*. This is too important a matter to arrogantly exclude everyone below age 56 from having a say on a crucial issue to their lives. And as far as the 2 year uncertainty argument is concerned, the answer is simple. Bring the referendum forward.
I’m worried about the effect on the economy an EU referendum will have, but the fact remains that the Conservatives will not back down on it and from their perspective quite rightly so. If you don’t want an EU referendum then the only option is to not support a party that is committed to one. Ditto, in Scotland, but I think the idea that a referendum should be blocked by anything other than out performing the Parties committed to them will have its own negative ramifications.
I would prefer a referendum was on something coherent and finite, like whether or not to accept a specific treaty, or even a two-question, do you accept the treaty / do you wish to remain in the EU?
But … if we want to have that discussion – and there are democratic reasons to do so – we need to recognise that having such a discussion when a specific large party of government is split down the middle on the issue makes a mockery of claims by that party to ‘stay the course’ and be a government of ‘stability’.
Frankly, I would be happier if any referendum, whether in/out or shake it all about, was held under the auspices of the Labour party, from a party management point of view. I recognise that their track record on the issue is muddy, however.
This seems very politically naïve to me, Kishwer. Chris, above, is right about Harold Wilson – and that is the only reason the Tories want one, of course.
If a majority of people feel really strongly about coming out of the EU, they should vote for an MP who promises to do it. The reality is that this is only an issue for far-right Tory/Kipper swingers and a very few hardline anti-corporate leftwingers. We should not pander to their view, and I would certainly oppose any Coalition Agreement which allowed it.
The country (and the Liberal Democrats) have endured a lot of pain in starting to reduce the vast gulf between what the government spends and what it receives in taxation. Holding a referendum would damage inward investment and reduce the growth in GDP making it still harder to complete the task of balancing the books. We should not be party to such needless austerity.
If we are to support referenda on international treaties why not start on important treaties where there has never been a vote. For example our membership of NATO places far more dramatic obligations on us than membership of the EU does.
A good article. If an EU referendum would be so damaging to business then why have hardly any business supporters come out in favour of Labour?
I understand why people prefer a coalition with Labour, but let’s not pretend it is about concern for business.
Regards
https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/media/grid?idx=0
Guy Verhofstadt and his fridge say it all. He is a Liberal Leader with a magnetic personality.
The wishes of the people must heard, if it is so damaging to ask the people how they wish their country to be governed why are we having an election today ? 40 years ago we were asked if we wished to belong to a trading community The EEC as it was then , since then we have had many changes to that original trading community, it is time we had our say as to how we wish to be governed, the wishes of the people must be paramount.Even businesses say hold a referendum, so that argument is void.
The question must be put to bed or it will never go away.
Wow, a sensible article on Europe on ldv.
If for no other reason, I could judge it to be sensible simply by the volume of opposition in response.
It’s precisely by having a referendum that we can put Britain at the heart of the EU. Until the EU in its current form is legitimised (in the eyes of many), political leaders will be reticent about our role.
The polls consistently show large margins for staying in the EU despite the seemingly eurosceptic times we are living in. We will only continue being further marginalised until we settle the question then get stuck in.
That said, I think we were right not to promise a referendum in the election. The Tories can have it if we enter coalition with them only at a significant cost in terms of the implementation of LD policies.
An in / out referendum wasn’t always considered a bad thing by the Lib Dems, back in 2009 the Euro Manifesto stated:
But Britain will only win the case in Brussels for a flexible, democratic
Europe if we settle our arguments at home on whether we should be part of the EU
or not. That is why Liberal Democrats have argued for a referendum on whether
Britain stays in or leaves the EU. We are clear where we stand – you have to be in it
to win it.
Nick Thornsby 7th May ’15 – 4:02pm
“…It’s precisely by having a referendum that we can put Britain at the heart of the EU. Until the EU in its current form is legitimised (in the eyes of many), political leaders will be reticent about our role.”
Nuck, The logic of your statement is that you would also like a Referendm on UK membership of NATO and the WTO.
Would you really want a referendum on those ?
Great article by Kishwer.
This ‘we’ve had a referendum once’ argument is nonsense. Apart from the length of time which has elapsed, which means that we are being governed by the dead hand of a previous generation, the referendum in 1975 was about the European Economic Community.
It was not about the body into which the EEC has morphed under the impact of the Single European Act, The Maastricht Treaty, Amsterdam and Lisbon, not to mention the post-2004 enlargement not to mention the former Soviet bloc.
There are good ways and good times to call an in/out referendum. Cameron’s plan is neither.
Good times: well, obviously, if and when we might propose to cede powers to Europe. But also, if and when Europe makes a big policy decision, such as either expelling or capitulating to Greece, and the British public appear keen to express an opinion. Or, when Europe gets into a serious mess, and the public want to be offered the chance to bale out. Or, when Europe gets out of a serious mess, and it seems like a sensible time to confirm that Britain wants to stay. In all of these eventualities, a strong Prime Minister (if such a thing exists!) should simply take a judgment, call a snap poll and get on with it quickly, thus minimising the period of uncertainty.
Bad times: At a specific date a long way into the future, so that Britain is condemned to years of misdirected focus on a single issue, while investors hold off because of the uncertainty, and the economy slides.
Bad ways: By insisting, ahead of the referendum, that Europe must make poorly-specified concessions to Britain – transparently an exercise in political blackmail which will rebound on Britain. By setting a high bar, so that anti-Europeans do not only have the option of convincing voters that Europe is bad, they also have the option of convincing voters that Europe has failed to give Britain the concessions, freebies and special treatment to which Britain claimed dubious entitlement. By using the whole idea of a referendum as a political tool in a General Election.
Liberal Democrats should not rule out a referendum, but they should rule out Cameron’s plan for holding one.
If people want to leave the EU they can vote for UKIP.
@ John Tilley – “Nuck, The logic of your statement is that you would also like a Referendm on UK membership of NATO and the WTO.”
Do they need to be legitimised in the public eye owing to existing and decisive split in public trust for the institution?
The important decision to determine our agreed `grass-roots’ policy on whether or not to support an In/Out proposed EU Referendum will be fully debated at the Liberal Democrat Conference in the Autumn and the result will depend on the growing membership and delegates that will surely involve a new plethora of 18-24 year olds.
I take the view that there has now been a seismic change, since the General Election, when there has been an irretrievable loss to the vulnerable and under-represented citizens, by the loss of our gold-standard national liberal fund of talent in parliament.
The cream of our crop of talented MPs aka Simon Hughes,Danny Alexander,Lynn Featherstone,Jo Swinson,Steve Webb Charles Kennedy et al now have been defenestrated by our backward Victorian Electoral FPTP system:with its winner takes all relentless mantra.
Notwithstanding that Nick Clegg MP our most supremely gifted British statesman of this generation from any Party has been cruelly removed as the brilliant Leadership sage of progressive policy .
The democratic decision that the Country made to remove Nick Clegg from any new role in a second `Coalition Agreement’ many may yet rue and live to regret and even mourn, with his peerless unquenchable heart for decency and liberalism, as the guarantor of fairness and human liberty to the ordinary citizen.
Tom Paine in `The Rights of Man’ believed at the time of the US War of Independence in the 18thC and beyond that there had to be frequent Elections in order to safeguard the people from the tyranny of actions that are purely done by the self interested elected whom being separate will thereby stand to risk and compromise their electors.
At the present time the Tories would do well to cogitate on their unexpected good luck in defying all national polls over 6 months and focus on a new workable mutually agreeable federal settlement with Scotland to maintain all the benefits of staying, within the UK for the Scots themselves, as well as fairness for England,Wales and NI.
However, the most pressing Referendum is to hold a new national debate on the merits and dis-benefits of perhaps 2 0r 3 PR voting systems that will eradicate the worst deficiencies of `representative democracy’ for the the majority of 62% of voters on May 7th, whose votes in the main, were wasted and deflected from democracy by `tactical voting’