There is a bit of a disagreement amongst Liberal Democrats about the date of a referendum. Of course, no date has been yet set, and if David Cameron can’t get a cast-iron deal on his renegotiation, it can’t be on the Government’s first choice date of 23 June.
Yesterday, DUP leader Nigel Dodds led an Opposition Day debate in the Commons arguing that:
Some Members who support our motion hold different views on EU membership and, indeed, on whether we should have a referendum at all. However, whatever side of the argument we are ultimately on, we agree that, when the referendum is finally held, there must be the fullest, most comprehensive debate possible, which does not overlap with, or otherwise become enmeshed in, the election campaigns in May for the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, and indeed for that matter, for the London Mayor, and other local elections.
Our Mark Williams, MP for Ceredigion, intervened to say that all the leaders in the Welsh Assembly, including Kirsty Williams, were in favour of a delay beyond June:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking an early intervention. Does he take comfort from the fact that the view that he has just expressed has been endorsed by all the party leaders in the National Assembly for Wales—not just the First Minister but the Liberal Democrat leader, the Plaid Cymru leader, the Labour leader and, critically, the Conservative leader?
Mark was the only Lib Dem MP to vote for the DUP motion.
This is in contrast to the position taken by Tim Farron and Willie Rennie, who have both argued against delay.
My personal preference would be for a delay later into the Summer or early September simply because there is no way that an impending Referendum won’t cast a shadow over the devolved elections. People aren’t going to shut up about it for six weeks.
There is another strategic reason why a short delay might be a good idea. One of the very few strengths of the Better Together campaign was how well the grassroots activists from all parties and none worked together on the ground. Admittedly, a lot of that camaraderie came from mutual despair at how bad the campaign was. That was helped, I think, by the fact that there was some time between a hotly contested election and referendum day. To go straight from combat mode to working together mode will be a bit of a challenge, particularly in the most hotly contested seats. In Scotland that will be mitigated to a certain extent by the fact that the SNP is just going to do its own thing. However, both Leave and Remain campaigns are likely to be affected by an earlier poll. Mind you, the Leave side is hardly united and we’ve barely got going.
I have had it said to me that the reason Cameron is so desperate to have it all over and done with is that the internal stresses in the Tory party won’t withstand a longer campaign. If that’s the case, how on earth are they going to withstand the result, whichever way it goes? I am not particularly bothered about them ripping themselves apart. If they end up in a feud that lasts for years, that may not be the worst thing for the long term political future of this country.
There are legitimate arguments to get it all over and done with by the Summer holidays and I’m not about to die in a ditch for or against a particular date. The important thing to me is that the In side wins and I’ll be campaigning to make that happen
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
GWYN WILLIAMS
Alex Macfie
Peter Martin
John Smith
Nick Baird
18 Comments
A delay would be very stupid. The Leave side are in disarray, we face a troubled summer in terms of the migrant crisis across Europe, and the uncertainty is affecting share prices and business confidence. Local elections 6 weeks earlier is a lame and cowardly excuse for delaying – it’s in our interests to get on with it.
The arguments for going soon are strong. First we don’t know what may happen in the Eurozone – if there is a further downturn or banking collapse it will not help. Secondly the biggest single factor is probably immigration and June would be before the peak summer season for crossings. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly the Leave campaign is currently in a total warring mess. There is a danger they will get their act together.
I agree with Simon on this. His second factor is probably the one that I think is the most important. This coming summer is probably going to be dominated by the refugee situation – and we know how the Leave campaign have and will exploit the immigration card. The Greek debt/austerity crisis has not gone away – the latest report is due soon and it is probably going to show little progress. The German government is not pushing as hard as it did two years ago for more progress, because it is relying on the Greeks to act as a “buffer zone”.
The German government is looking increasingly fragile with two of the partners (SDP/CSU) at loggerheads over immigration and refugee policy. Angela Merkel’s principled stand last year on accepting refugees has lead to increasing strain on civil society and support for the CDU is decreasing, whilst the anti-immigration, eurosceptic AfD are now at a record 12% in the polls. A bitter German election with a eurosceptic party would not be encouraging for the Remain campaign.
Finally from the point of view of business confidence, it would be better to have the decision as quickly as possible. There are companies holding off investment decisions to wait and see. They favour certainty to plan when and how to invest. The earlier that the vote is held, then the better to move forward some of those decisions.
I prefer a delay, but as you say: it’s not worth dying in a ditch over. Two reasons I prefer a delay:
1. Most people seemingly don’t pay much attention to politics and need to get clued up.
2. We can’t complain as much over snap referendums like what happened with Crimea if we then have a snap referendum of our own.
I thought Cameron’s main reason for wanting a quick referendum was to end the uncertainty for investment purposes. But that was just a guess of mine.
I don’t think we should have a delay. It’s not ideal, but if the referendum is to be held this summer it should be as early as possible, before the Mail et al get chance to politicise the refugee crisis. As Simon says, immigration is at risk of overshadowing the debate. People might vote with their first-response emotions not their heads.
Can I just say to @tpfkar that the Holyrood and Welsh Assembly elections are NOT local elections. They are our general election.
The process is accelerating. Sir Winston Churchill thought that referendums were undemocratic, the sort of thing that Mussolini would do. Edward Heath thought the same in 1975. Since then there have been many referendums, for the creation of a steategic authority in Kondon, for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, for increased powers for the Welsh Assembly, for regional government for the northeast of England (rejected) on the Norther Ireland border, etc, for Scottish independence (better together) and imminently another to remain in the EU or leave. Although we can say that this is the first referendum in the UK on the EU since 1975 we cannot say for certain that this referendum will prevent another occurring for another generation. The reverse seems likely as the eurozone may need to make changes for the sake of good governance as they see it, and the UK may need to decide whether we accept the policy changes as well, or not.
Caron Lindsay 10th Feb ’16 – 10:40pm No, inbetween.
We can’t complain as much over snap referendums like what happened with Crimea if we then have a snap referendum of our own.
Strange concept of a “snap referendum” given it has hardly been out of the news since circa 2007 and so became a major issue in the 2010 Westminster election…
I see no real benefit in further delay, we need it settled if we wish to take full advantage of any improvement in the global economy and attract investment into the UK. Remember one of the reasons Ireland did so well in attracting (largely US) investment in the late 90’s, was because of the uncertainty of the UK relationship with Europe.
Is Tim “against delay”? He acknowledged he was comfortable with and edging towards September when this was discussed at the weekend.
He didn’t think having it then lessened the chance of winning the vote.
@ tpfkar “Local elections 6 weeks earlier is a lame and cowardly excuse for delaying”.
There speaks the voice of middle England that doesn’t have a clue or respect for what is happening in Scotland, Wales and Ulster – and of course – what William Cobbett called the ‘Great Wen’, “an unnatural, ungovernable tumour sucking the nation dry” . (i.e. London.)
No wonder the nationalists are making hay.
I have to say, what worries me about a vote AFTER Cameron’s renegotiation is that the Daily Mail or UKIP’s views are entrenched as accurate, about wanting mainly a trade relationship, about “bureaucracy”, about a lack of democracy, specifically the rubbishing of the EP as a democratic forum, about migration from the EU being a one way exploitative process. All these things are against the views that long term Libs and Lib Dems on here instinctively learn and hold dear. I think it is damaging to hold a referendum based essentially on two sides of an argument which are themselves at one end of a spectrum (the Tory end). The other issue, emerging now, is what effect will be different in outcome between vote remain and vote leave?
The founders of what led to the EU were quite clear that it was a political project, based on a union of peoples coming together for mutual benefit to find new ways of avoiding devastating conflict. Diplomacy is a slow old thing, and building a democracy from scratch is not so easy either, but it seems to me the UK media, especially have expected early – and one-sided to the financial benefit of Britain – results.
Finally, I am concerned about the number of contributors to this site, not all Lib Dems, I know, who do not accept that international cooperation, based on democracy is the way to go. The idea that we are “beset by red tape” is also misleading in the extreme. We need good administration and fair rules. Being a Liberal DOES NOT mean opposing rules that are helpful to the way things run, either at local, national, or supranational levels. How do we solve climate change, species destruction etc? Anyone who believes “markets” can do this unaided has bought a lie.
@Allan Heron: That is welcome news. There was one very unhelpful press comment from him at one stage on this issue.
@RichardUnderhill – no, definitely not “inbetween.” The Scottish Parliament elections are, to people in Scotland, equally as important as, if not more than, Westminster. That’s where our transport, health, education, environment, sport, tourism and culture policies are decided. It’s precisely attitudes like that and @tpfkar’s that encourage the SNP.
There should be a delay. There’s no need to do a rush job on the debate – the last referendum on Europe was over 40 years ago, so it’s important that there’s a proper chance to make the case for it. I suspect Cameron wants an earlier date because he sees it as politically expedient – the less time there is to discuss things, the less time there is for waverers to examine whether or not the deal he got is any good.
how about 1 April – 2099 I know Dave said before end 2017 but he has broken nearly every other promise.
With the utmost respect to readers here, if the Lib Dems are all for making the UK a part of an EU “super-state”, which ultimately overrules “constituent state” governments, do the Lib Dems value sovereign nation states such as the UK as having “inherent worth”, or something that can and should be “sacrificed for the greater European/global good” – I appreciate that arguments could maybe be made about the UN etc. taking control of nations and if possible please stick specifically to the EU in this post – thank you indeed.
Charles Kenney once said something like “I’m a European, I’m British, I’m Scottish and I’m a Highlander. None are exclusive of another. Philip – I couldn’t put it better than Charles, but I feel exactly the same. Being one benefits all the others. That’s why I am campaigning for Remain in the EU for a more stable, secure and prosperous future in return for pooling our sovereignty. It’s well worth it. Talk of a EU “super-state” is nonsense.
“Talk of a EU “super-state” is nonsense.” – if the EU controls our borders and has been increasingly overruling our Parliament, in what sense is it not a “super-state”?