This is probably a stupid idea.
I thought I’d get that in before you do, because it probably is, and even it’s not you’re probably still going to think that it is. Nevertheless I’m going to say it anyway because frankly right now British politics is somewhere up a creek and Nigel Farage is running off with the paddle.
How about we hold an in-out referendum on European Union membership on the first Thursday in February?
No, really, how about it? According to UKIP the EU is the source of all evil – the cause of immigration, financial problems, red-tape and measles. The very fact that the major parties have been avoiding a referendum on the issue – not because we necessarily fear the result but because we don’t think it’s a priority or terribly helpful for the country to have the uncertainty – is only adding currency to the feeling amongst certain sections of the electorate that UKIP must be on to something.
So let’s have the vote. If it goes ‘in’, as I think it would, then a large part of the reason for UKIP’s existence disappears – three months before an election the thing they were fighting for, and saying the establishment was afraid of, happened, went the other way, and is now resolved for ten years. Thanks for your input Nige, what’s next?
If it goes ‘out’, well frankly we’re stuffed. But let’s be honest, there is probably going to be a referendum within the next five years – the feeling is strong enough that there will have to be to resolve the issue. Is there any good reason why sooner would be more likely to give an ‘out’ vote than later? Only if you really have faith in Cameron’s argument about renegotiation, so probably not. Put it another way – if we’re stuffed in three months we’re probably stuffed whenever it happens, so it may be worth the risk.
Despite appearances to the contrary I’m not totally stupid, and I do realise that there are other things we want to be doing in the next three months than fighting an EU referendum, like fighting an election. However a referendum would actually still enable us to get several of our key messages across – about a stronger economy and a fairer society (not to mention tolerance, understanding and various other nice things). It would also give us three clear months after the referendum, and it might help energise some of our base to re-engage.
I am very aware that this didn’t work terribly well for us in the Euro elections, but that was a quite different situation – a low turnout election with a good opportunity to deliver a bloody nose without it making much practical difference. We also didn’t get the strategy quite right – a bit too much confusion between ‘party of in’ and ‘party of everything is hunky dory with the EU as it is’
Obviously a referendum would need a parliamentary vote but Labour might be persuadable to the benefits, and it’s possible, maybe even probable, that enough Tories would support it to get it through.
Like I said at the beginning – probably a stupid idea, but maybe a stupid idea worth a second thought.
Photo by Alf Melin
* Adam Killeya is a Lib Dem member, activist and town councillor. He has held various positions in the party including as a parliamentary candidate and agent. He is currently Regional Chair of Devon & Cornwall Lib Dems. In the real world he is Head of Sixth Form of a Secondary School in Cornwall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
David Raw
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
Tom Bailey
50 Comments
I think it’s not a stupid idea, but has zero chance of happening! Given that there’s a legislatively very light programme for this parliament anyway, it would be a good time to divert activity to a referendum; and it would completely remove it as a general election issue. However, the Tories couldn’t support it and Labour wouldn’t dare — in fact, neither would Clegg, let’s face it — so it won’t happen.
Yes it is a good idea. The Lib Dems have supported a referendum on the EU since 1992 and the Maastricht Treaty – until Nick Clegg decdied we didn’t support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, We wanted an in/out referendum, until that came along and we only wanted a referendum when significant powers were transfered to the EU, but only a referendum in advance, so we could get out of supporting one after powers had been transfered. We now believe a referendum will create uncertainty mean while not having a referendum creates uncertainty – and surely there are more important things to worry about than an EU referendum, because the EU isn’t important, although it is according to us vital for 3 million UK jobs, That is why we fought the euro elections as the party of in – and Nick Clegg used our party political broadcats to urge people to use the euro elections as a referendum on EU membership. I hope that’s clear. And I expect that is partly why we are on 3% in the latest Rochester by-election poll.
“So let’s have the vote. If it goes ‘in’, as I think it would, then a large part of the reason for UKIP’s existence disappears”
In the same way that the SNP has suffered after losing the independence vote ? Doubled membership and 10% lead in the polls ?
Excellent summary of the policy by Caracatus!
Adam, I think that’s the best idea since man found the wheel I think the vote would be for in but the most important and by far biggest reason the electorate of all persuasions may well feel that Government actually trusts the people with a decision.
In my opinion the 3 main parties refusing the vote is almost criminal, even the greens have said they support a vote as they feel sure we would remain
The UKIP appeal is they intend to ask the electorate
Well done Adam
” as I think it would, then a large part of the reason for UKIP’s existence disappears”
It is unlikely to disappear. Look at the Scottish Indyref – did SNP shrivel? Nope, they are growing, and complaining how the vested interest has intervened to dupe the people of Scotland.
If UKIPpers lose their “Indyref”, they will do the same, and will continue fighting for their main goal, complaining how th big business, the “legacy parties”, the eurocrats, the Americans, you name it, duped the British public. In fact thay already started predicting this. Needless to ay, they will blame the wily LibDems for not giving them enough time to “educate” the public too.
Otherwise, the idea is not bad, although this won’t happen.
I agree. I’m completely sick of the whole thing dominating the agenda. I think the benefits and negatives of being in or out are being completely overstated by both sides.
Then perhaps we could get onto discussing things that actually affect people’s lives day to day.
One beneficial side effect is it would probably help with the reform of the EU that everyone can agree needs to happen to a greater or lesser extent. An UK in/out referendum would really make the EU think about proposing reforms.
The point of having a referendum on the EU when there is a treaty is to empower UK negotiators in those negotiations.
If you just have a referendum on nothing, then when it comes to a new treaty the negotiators from other countries will not be as willing to concede items to the UK, because they will then know there is no danger of the UK leaving.
If we declare – as we already have done – that a treaty means a referendum, then that empowers our negotiating team to get the best deal for us in Europe.
There is some merit to the SNP point, but not so much that a simple comparison makes it: there are important differences
The SNP were very effective in making clear why there was still a case for their existence aside from independence, indeed they spent 7 years in govt attempting to demonstrate that – they can still achieve enough of what they want to achieve within the union to justify voting for them
By contrast UKIP have gone out of their way to argue that everything they want to do is stymied by EU membership – they can’t tackle immigation, the deficit, red-tape etc etc etc.
There is the public rejects leaving the EU they are rejecting UKIP’s existence much more than a no vote rejected the existence of the SNP.
In response to Alisdair I personally think the treaty argument is valid in itself but a red herring to the in/out debate. We should have an in/out referendum to settle that issue. We should also have a referendum on any future significant treaties, which covers your ‘getting the best deal’point
We have tried to make it sound like promising a referendum after the next major treaty removes the justification for an in/out referendum now, and I don’t personally feel that this is a strong argument.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803377/Support-staying-European-Union-surges-23-year-high-thanks-rise-Ukip.html
Of course support for AV was very high until the referendum.
Sure, let’s go for it. I think that referendums are a notoriously bad way to decide policy, but clearly there is a desire for another EU referendum and there’s currently an unsustainable and unhealthy relationship with the EU.
Having the referendum just after the major budgetary planning period for UK corporates will probably have some impact on the economy and take us pretty close to recession again, but there will always be downsides to any time period you can think of.
So let’s have the vote. If it goes ‘in’, as I think it would, then a large part of the reason for UKIP’s existence disappears – three months before an election the thing they were fighting for, and saying the establishment was afraid of, happened, went the other way, and is now resolved for ten years. Thanks for your input Nige, what’s next?
The lesson from the Scottish result is that separatists won’t take no for an answer. In fact it will lead to increased party membership and funding with an even bigger depressive effect on politics.
For that reason alone, an early referendum should be avoided.
Of course, the main reason to avoid one would be that no party has a mandate to call one. It would be disastrous for the parliamentary system if a tradition of calling popular referendums without a mandate was established. It wasn’t a firm commitment of any manifesto of any of the main parties, apart from UKIP.
@ Adam Killeya
You are very right that UKIP != SNP. However, SNP has not dropped the independence agenda, nor will UKIP, if it loses the first referendum. And thy are also a “multi-faceted” party now, ready to wreck the country in more thn one way.
Remember what did it in for the BNP?
When people elected a few BNP councillors and found out how utterly useless and incompetent they were.
I think the same will happen with UKIP. It’s easy for them to be all things to all men, the voice of the poor and alienated while simultaneously pushing economic policies which favour the wealthy and powerful, so long as all they have to do is wave their hands. Maybe not so easy if they actually have MPs who have to vote on these things.
@ Igor
“And thy [Ukip], are also a “multi-faceted” party now, ready to wreck the country in more thn one way.”
That comment is so self evidently daft, that it shouldn’t need pointing out. But for those that need it, here is the correction :
Ukip are ready to wreck the stranglehold that the EU has over our sovereignty, thus freeing the UK to make its own rules, and control its borders as it sees fit. This constant misinformation about what Ukip are about, will only backfire on you.
A referendum in 2008 on the Lisbon Treaty would have been brilliant – Clegg campaigning with Brown and Cameron, the Tory and Labour parties split, Cross- party co-operation shown to have worked – senior people in Labour and Conservatives discovering thay had things in Common with the Lib Dems than the anti-EU people in their own parties, in fact all roudn easier to work with than Gordon Brown. A chance to reposition the Lib Dems as the Party of European Reform not the party in favour of all things EU.
Just as the referendum in the 1970’s gave David Steel a national profile and eventually led to the foundation of the SDP. Still, that would have required some strategic thinking by Nick Clegg.
It would have killed UKIP, now I fear it is too late but it will seriously weaken them, far more than the SNP has been weakend. Same thing really, a Scottish referendum years ago would have clobbered the SNP, the Lib Dems blocked it.
Alisdair
Your point would only hold if you assume that “Britain” all wants the same type of thing, or reforms, from a changed EU. I don’t know about you, but I am absolutely opposed to the type of changes that Cameron implies he wants. We don’t actually know what he wants (or whether, indeed, what he will say that he wants will depend on what the Mail the Torygraph and the Sun write in the meantime. If we were to go for an early referendum as Adam suggests, I think we should ensure our case carries a much greater “political” content than the Clegg v Farage efforts. I remain convinced that Clegg was fighting with one hand trying to get the economics to take the weight. The whole point of the EU is to tackle the many issues bigger than the nation state. These get bigger all the time, as do the multinational corporates bidding to take over the running of the world.
So, it’s not a “silly idea”, at least not on the surface, Adam, but it is not going to happen, of course. I am sure there are powerful strategic arguments both for, and against.
I am pleasantly surprised by how much support the idea is getting – I did um and ah over whether to post this as I thought it might be a little too outre.
I also appreciate the quality and tone of points made on the other side in the comments – a decent level of debate.
Hi, not Lib Dem; I am a pragmatist floating voter.
I think it is inevitable that the UK will eventually leave the EU. It will always go back to Heath taking the UK into the EU/EC/EEC on a false premise (that it was a trading block with not significant loss of national sovereignty).
From the start in 1957 the European project was clear that the end game was a transnational new country called Europe with federated regions. In the noble hope to end war caused through national antagonism.
De Gaulle was correct to block UK membership but fundamentally the UK would never be interested in such a venture. Our joining of the EU was really about trying to deal with internal industrial decline (un-competitiveness due to nationalised industries and emerging low-cost south Asian manufacturing ) rather grandiose ideas of a trans-national super-state. The UK wanted trade and nothing else.
Continental Europe has always been more pre-occupied by itself while the UK has generally always been more internationalist (not trans nationalist) and outward looking.
As each year goes by and the ever deeper integration occurs this moves closer to the idea of Europe that the continental Europeans signed up for originally but always further away from the trade-only view that the UK signed on for.
It boils down to this: Each year the UK is asked to pay money and when asked what are the benefits that truthful answer would be that it goes to pay to build a federated country called Europe. And that is something fundamentally the UK people do not want to be part of.
Therefore every year the feeling of euro-scepticism rises and the inevitable leaving of the UK from the EU gets closer. And it all goes back to Heath taking the UK into the EU on a false prospectus.
I would agree if we could find some decent credible exponents of the In argument. Those arguments are very strong but no-one is making them effectively. Now Mr Salmond has time on his hands perhaps he can be recruited to lead the In campaign, and hopefully win his second referendum.
An excellent post by steelyglint.
@Stevan Rose
Aye, Mr Salmond would be good for this, but not in England.
A genuinely interesting idea that – as usual with such things – will never see the light of day. For those who want the UK to remain in the EU maybe that’s just as well, because right now the headline in the BBC news website is “UK told to pay £1.7bn extra to EU”. And in the detail we are told that this will pay for a rebate to France of £790 million.
That sounds horribly like a fiscal transfer. To France. The headline is obvious: our austerity pays for their profligacy.
Any doubts about the election of Mr. Reckless in the Rochester by-election have now been removed.
As a supporter of staying in the EU the first thing we need to do is stop its institutions acting as UKIP recruiters….
I can see the poster now £1.7 Billion more reasons to vote UKIP
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29751124
Adam,
This is a daft idea, the LibDems have made many sacrifices on this issue by refusing to listen to the electorate, therefore helping to promote UKIP to their current dizzy heights. Surely the Lib Dems having maintained their intransigence throughout, are morally obliged to continue until the job is done, and their replacement is fully ready and resourced for the fray.
Stay honourable, stay noble, go down with the ship in a glorious statement of Liberal Democrat self- efficacy and bloodymindness.
You know it makes sense 🙂
Paul In Wokingham 24th Oct ’14 – 7:07am
I too was struck by that BBC headline report this morning.
Like me, you possibly asked yourself what the origins of the story are?
I simply do not know.
It may just be a normal adjustment to recognise the growth rates within the “separate” EU economies, which the BBC tells us is the official line.
It may be that someone at EU level has dropped a hand grenade down Mr Cameron’s trousers in the run-up to Rochester to remind him that if he is going to play “hard ball” on “renegotiations” some of those crafty foreigners are already several steps ahead of him.
@ Steve Way – “As a supporter of staying in the EU the first thing we need to do is stop its institutions acting as UKIP recruiters….I can see the poster now £1.7 Billion more reasons to vote UKIP”
At what point does the thing you support become indefensible?
I’d argue that the answer depends on whether the individual sees the lib-dem’s as:
a) political party seeking power in an adversarial political culture
b) political pressure group seeking to nudge british policy in favour of the EU
Are the lib-dem’s interested in [winning] elections? Or can that ambition be thrown onto the pyre in the name of ideological purity…
@ JT – “It may be that someone at EU level has dropped a hand grenade down Mr Cameron’s trousers in the run-up to Rochester to remind him that if he is going to play “hard ball” on “renegotiations” some of those crafty foreigners are already several steps ahead of him.”
I hold no candle for Berlusconi, but if i thought for a second that the EU was trying to do to a British Pm what it did in Italy by turning on and off the liquidity taps, ensuring he was ousted in the chaos, it would serve no end but to harden my resolve in opposing the EU.
@Stevan Rose “Now Mr Salmond has time on his hands perhaps he can be recruited to lead the In campaign, and hopefully win his second referendum.”
Having been told by “Better Together” in their campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to stay in the EU, it might suit Salmond and the SNP to sit back and watch those same people fumble and stumble out of the EU and then to have another attempt at independence.
Steelyglint
“Therefore every year the feeling of euro-scepticism rises and the inevitable leaving of the UK from the EU gets closer. ”
And yet, opinion polling shows that support for staying in the EU has wavered up and down continuously over the last 40 years; support for withdrawal clearly peaked in the early 1980s and has never got close to such levels again; and currently polling shows a clear and increasing majority for staying in.
So, here’s the question: what’s your actual evidence for claiming a continual increase in “euro-scepticism” and the inevitability of Britain’s eventual exit? Is the wish perhaps the father of the thought?
Jediboeuftrix
The choice you offer Stevw Way is a false choice.
All political paties can be characterised as “political pressure group seeking to nudge british policy” whist they remain committed to winning elections and running a majority Governent.
It is the norm to be both.
As for your second comment on Berlusconi, a special services hit squad to take him straightbtoprison might have been quicker. He could have shared a cell with his very good friend Tony Blair and we could possible have had The Chilcot Report by now.
I don’t think this charge is political, but it is no good to demand a lot of money from several countries on a short notice and without giving them time for an appeal. This is where Cameron should stand firm, and everyone support him.
Subsidising France is bad for all, including the French, they need reform, not subsidies.
John Tilley
😀
Congratulations — I think that’s the best play on JBT’s name yet (better than any of mine certainly) — and lord knows there have been a few. What do you think, Jedi? It was subtle, non?
John Redwood said on the radio that :
“…the UK should simply refuse to pay the extra amount [£1.7 billion], and that Parliament should be asked to pass a law declaring the payment illegal.”
If that were to happen, how would Lib Dem MP’s vote.? And where is the phantom Clegg, by the way?
It’s a fine spoof. No problems from in that regard.
I use pseudonym, and a deliberately silly one at that, so I could not complain and maintain any confidence in you all that I possess a sense of humour.
Go wild. 🙂
Indeed, it’s good of you to provide such fertile ground for diverting play for those of us whose a**e-pokers are not too rigid. More power to your elbow!
“Amazon AWS opens a data centre in Germany”
Whilst there are good technical reasons for Amazon doing this, one of the considerations was that there was no uncertainty over whether Germany would or would not be part of the EU in a few years time. I do wonder how much foreign investment we’ve been missing out on these last 5~10 years all because no one in the Westminster bubble actually wants to face up to making a decision…
“That sounds horribly like a fiscal transfer. To France. The headline is obvious: our austerity pays for their profligacy.”
Such a headline would be wrong, a product of outmoded thinking, and totally to miss the point. Don’t think in terms of nation states, but as regions contributing to the common weal..
We aren’t French or German or British we are Europeans. It is totally reasonable, if our GDP is increasing that we contribute more to help out those who have less. Remember all those Commission staff who do such a fantastic job, so selflessly have to be paid you know.
Like California might help out Arkansas in subsiding the Federal Government, right? One European Union, one common good. One wonderful Commission.
Malcolm Todd 24th Oct ’14 – 9:33am
Thank you.
I had better stick whilst I am ahead and simply refer to him in that way in future.
My natural antipathy to his comments has subsided a bit since he revealed that he once did a paper round in Wythenshawe.
Although it must have been difficult on his bike carrying a bag of newspapers whilst dressed like Darth Vader.
@ Simon – “Like California might help out Arkansas in subsiding the Federal Government, right? One European Union, one common good. One wonderful Commission.”
Quite.
Federal US taxation is ~25% of GDP and the variation in spending levels between rich and poor states is ~5% of GDP, so a variation of roughly 20% of federal spending.
How big a budget would the EU need to be able to slosh around 5% of combined GDP into the poor regions (bearing in mind the current budget is only 1% (and heavily constrained by CAP payments)?
The other point is that americans accept this, they are all american, whereas we are rapidly finding out just how german the germans are, and finnish the finns are, when it comes to firehosing cash at nations they consider to be essentially delinquent! In the UK this ‘sloshing’ occurs in the form of:
a) National pay-bargaining which benefits poorer regions (teachers, nurses, etc)
b) National social benefits more generous than poorer regions could afford alone (eg.housing benefit in glasgow)
c) Targeted regional development grants/discounts to encourage business growth (objective 1 EU/WEFO funds)
d) Additional infrastructure spending to support the local economy (the mainland-skye bridge)
e) Operating national services hubs from depressed regions to boost wages (DVLA in swansea, etc)
The heart of the matter: Do I consider myself a european, bound to a common destiny, and obliged to come-good whatever the european ‘family’ requires? No. I am British, and my sense of familial obligation stops at Dover.
@ JT – “Although it must have been difficult on his bike carrying a bag of newspapers whilst dressed like Darth Vader.”
I have long since come to accept my innate evil – i even scored reasonably highly on the online pyschopathy test – but i think it simply boils down to sitting further west (left? 😉 ) on the positive-liberty / negative-liberty spectrum.
🙂
for “west” read “east” #typo (look how down with the kids i am!)
Hi,
In response to Malcolm’s post below: My view is based upon my experiences of following the European issue since the late 1980’s. When Thatcher famously made her “no, no, no” speech there was nobody who I spoke to, nothing in press about a genuine feeling that we wanted to leave the EU. The feeling was that there were some problems with the relationship but they could be worked out. Even in the early -mid 90’s there was no contemplation about in the country that we should leave the EU; it felt some reforms were needed and things weren’t perfect but the benefits were clearly there. Ever since the late 90’s and 2000’s though genuine anger with Europe has become more noticeable when chatting to others. This is almost certainly linked to the rise in mass migrations.
We are now at a point though that when you speak to others, people straight up talk about UK should leave the EU and it just isn’t worth the cost.
That is the biggest change I’ve noticed over the last 20 years. Previously people moaned but never contemplated leaving, now it is seen as a viable or even an attractive proposition.
This is why I think that they country has moved towards being more Euro sceptic. I also think this will continue as we move to ever closer union and further away from the ‘trade only’ position that the UK entered the EU on. IT is inevitable to me that eventually we will leave, be that for better or worse.
———————————————
Malcolm Todd 24th Oct ’14 – 9:19am
Steelyglint
“Therefore every year the feeling of euro-scepticism rises and the inevitable leaving of the UK from the EU gets closer. ”
And yet, opinion polling shows that support for staying in the EU has wavered up and down continuously over the last 40 years; support for withdrawal clearly peaked in the early 1980s and has never got close to such levels again; and currently polling shows a clear and increasing majority for staying in.
So, here’s the question: what’s your actual evidence for claiming a continual increase in “euro-scepticism” and the inevitability of Britain’s eventual exit? Is the wish perhaps the father of the thought?
Reading around the spin from Cameron, he is saying that he will not pay the £1.7 billion extra EU bill ….*by Dec 1st*. He is not saying he will not pay it or that he feels it to be an invalid or illegal request for money from the UK taxpayer. He seems to be saying he needs more time to pay it.?
What is the Lib Dem position on this EU request for £1.7 billion from the UK taxpayer?
Now the answer to the £1.7bn surcharge becomes clear. We’ve apparently been forgetting to include prostitution, drugs and tobacco smuggling in our economic data for many years. We are considerably richer as a country than we thought we were because of these off the accounts activities. Whereas the Germans have been counting prostitution for years. You couldn’t really make it up. Someone in our Government agreed to this recalculation and gave the number crunchers the figures to use. You couldn’t make that up either. This is incompetence on the UK Government side for agreeing to this, not EU “madness” or something the EU have just plucked out of the air.
re the 1.7b, it’s all about timing:
http://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/imperium-why-europe-must-re-discover.html
Stefan
Agreed it is total incompetence on the part of our metropolitan elite, but then that is sadly par for the course.
But if you think that this doesn’t turbo charge the anti EU narrative because they are just implementing already agreed procedures, you will be sadly mistaken. Why should we borrow still more from China to keep Jean Claude in cognac voters in Rochester will thing? What CAC Cameron do? Pay and face a backlash, refuse to pay, lose a court case and we pay mor millions in late payment fines. Marvellous. Of course he should do some deal but because of UKIP pressure that route isn’t open t o him.
The EU is just the gift that keeps on giving.
The EU, for us, is
Agree with the suggestion.
The In/Out issue should be resolved ASAP to remove economic uncertainty.
The tory promise of a 2017 is blatant electioneering to counter the UKIP vote. The idea that Cameron will be able to negotiate major reform is laughable. Over the past 40 years, the impact of British prime ministers trying to negotiate structural changes has been small, usually resulting in the EU carrying on as planned with occasional opt outs for the UK.