This is not likely to win me any votes, but I am proudly pro-Europe and in favour of our continued membership of the EU. That doesn’t make me an apologist for every aspect of the EU: the EU could definitely operate more transparently, efficiently and effectively, and we as Liberal Democrats should say so more often and with more conviction.
Nevertheless, our main challenge has to be to win hearts and minds in favour of our broader membership of the EU, and reverse the completely poisonous anti-European narrative. So many of those who were so indignant this summer about Mr Murdoch’s excessive and nefarious power, seem all too happy to swallow his carefully calculated anti-European narrative hook line and sinker.
Interesting isn’t it, that those who are anti-Europe tell us that they want to protect British sovereignty on the one hand, and then effectively cede sovereignty to a US citizen – and others with a reactionary agenda – who control our media and thus dictate the terms of debate on this and other issues? At least we can vote out our MEPs; we can’t vote out Murdoch and co! But I digress…
I am passionate about our membership of the EU, but I am equally passionate about allowing the British public to decide the future of that membership. An ‘in-out’ referendum is important for democracy, but it would also act as a catharsis. It would force those who take cheap shots at Europe whilst not actually wanting us to withdraw, to face up to realities. Which brings me to the debate today in Parliament…
…MPs will vote in the House of Commons on a Backbench Business Motion calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU. I will be voting against this motion and against the calls for a referendum. Many people will remember that I lost my place in the Shadow Cabinet in the last Parliament because I voted in favour of a referendum specifically on the Lisbon treaty, and I firmly stand by that. The best way to lance the boil of this unnecessarily poisonous relationship with the EU from the British side would be to have an ‘in-out’ referendum. It’s vital that our relationship with the EU is one that the British people consent to – so I am strongly in favour of a referendum, but I’m equally firmly of the view that it shouldn’t be now!
Earlier in the year at the height of the campaign on the referendum on the Alternative Vote, Conservatives complained that a referendum on a constitutional issue was a distraction when the country has such a huge budget deficit. I didn’t buy that argument of course, but following that logic – and in the context of the ongoing economic crisis both in Britain and across the EU – a referendum at this moment on whether we should withdraw our membership of the EU, would be a lot worse than a distraction. It would create massive instability, seriously affect market confidence and add an even greater strain to our economy. It would be a gross act of navel-contemplation and would damage our relationship with our neighbours at the very worst time. Far from being a distraction this would actually be downright destructive.
Think of it this way: suppose you were opposed to the British Empire in 1941 (and I would have been!) and wanted to see self-determination for every part of it, you’d still probably put that concern on hold until you’d won the war – you’d think that dealing with the empire question was a distraction at a time of national and international emergency. I see a referendum on the EU and then our collective ‘war’ against the economic nightmare we face in very much the same light.
So please don’t allow the right wing of the Conservative party to claim today that they are acting out of patriotism. They are not. They are indulging an obsession at a time when their country needs them to act in a more grown up fashion. Voting for the motion today will be an anti-patriotic act when tens of thousands of people face losing their jobs and their homes. The EU is a matter of concern to millions of people, but if you want to know what really keeps Britain awake at night, it’s the economy stupid.
That said, I do still want to give the British public an opportunity to vote in a referendum. That must happen the moment that there is a significant treaty change, which is what we committed to in our manifesto, but please let’s not go there now while we are trying to rescue the economy and doing so alongside our neighbours.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The attitudes of Britain's ethnic minority population - The Week in Polls
Labour demands probe into Leicester South Monster Raving Loony Party candidate
Alex Salmond 1954-2024
Where's the Labour candidate?
Labour's first 100 days - unravelling the spin
A West End Halloween event! #dundeewestend
Martin Gray
Peter Martin
Steve Trevethan
Peter Davies
John Hills
36 Comments
I can’t help feeling, however, that if there were a treaty change next year and we announce that now we are in favour of an in-our referendum, this will confuse people of our actual position having voted against a referendum tonight.
I agree that we should have advocated a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as we had promised, and I think that we should back the motion, (which, let’s be honest, is not a Tory vote but a vote asked for by 100,000 people) as that would improve our credibility and make it better able to campaign in future for the referendum and for a staying-in vote.
Not for the first time, our position looks confusing and inconsistent.
@ Tim –
“At least we can vote out our MEPs; we can’t vote out Murdoch and co! But I digress…”
It is indeed a digression, perhaps even a smokescreen, for to obsess about the peculiarities of our political class is to ignore 100,000+ signatures and endless opinion polls in which the electorate express their unhappiness with Britain’s current european settlement.
“It would be a gross act of navel-contemplation and would damage our relationship with our neighbours at the very worst time.”
For those of use that ‘understand’ that the eurozone’s ongoing existential problems are precisely the result of a headless-sovereign crisis, and not the sovereign-debt and bank-debt crises which precipitated events, the idea of more europe without considering whether the peoples of europe want it or not seems positively lunatic. A headless-sovereign crisis exists precisely because in the absence of accountability and representation Brussels cannot formulate and implement legitimate policy, particularly not radical and painful policy .
“I am passionate about our membership of the EU, but I am equally passionate about allowing the British public to decide the future of that membership.”
Me too, so let’s ask the question and abide by the answer, whatever that may be.
if not now, then when? if we decide against a referendum now, when will the public get their say? there is a reason politicians avoid these questions: they’re europhiles.
We, the British people, have not had a serious say in whether or not we wish to be swept up in the political juggernaut that is the EU since we joined the EEC. Too often, requests to even sensibly debate the costs and benefits of remaining in this Grand Project have been met with obfuscation, party-political sniping and refusals. The obvious fudge that a referendum (note: not necessarily an in/out referendum) would be appropriate at some point in the future when ‘serious’ powers are potentially ceded (who decides?) is frankly unworthy of the voters. Who says debate and referendum would cause instability? Markets might be relieved that GB would be insulating itself against the niggardly attempts to save the euro. Businesses might relish potentially different regulation. GB might be better off for the debate. To argue that now is not the time is ridiculous, because it’s been overdue since the EEC became the EU, and further delay might cost us more in the short and long term. There are many mights above, but that’s precisely why mature debate needs to be had – and the sooner the better.
@Kevin McNamara
Well I happen to be opposed to referendums per se, and I think the Lib Dem Party should be as well.
But that change of policy is something for the future. The simple fact is that voting for this dishonest motion tonight would be in conflict with what we said in our 2010 Manifesto (see page 34 of 57) at:
http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf
It says this: “The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.” (My emphasis)
@ Simon
I am certainly not a fan of referenda here there and everywhere, but i’m minded to follow the likes of Dicey in agreeing that they have there place when:
there is an issue that divides all the main parties
there is an issue that cannot easily be settled at general elections
there is an issue of major constitutional significance
there is an issue that sets Parliament against people
Would you agree that an EU referendum meets these criteria?
@jedibeeftrix
Not really.
1. “there is an issue that divides all the main parties” I don’t think that is true, is it? (Assuming you meant divided within themselves). The Conservatives are fairly united in an anti-EU direction, with Lib Dems and Labour fairly united in a pro direction. If voters really think this is such an important issue why don’t they all vote Conservative (or UKIP). The reason why they don’t is that most voters do not share the obsessions that certain Euro-nutter Tory MPs and the right wing press have.
2. “there is an issue that cannot easily be settled at general elections” Why not? You could say the same about every issue.
3. “there is an issue of major constitutional significance” If is really were “major” then it clearly could be settled at a General Election.
4. “there is an issue that sets Parliament against people” I’m not sure that is true, but even if it were, then so what? If “Parliament” (presumably some or many MPs) were so out of tune with what the “people” want then they could be thrown out at the next election (or could have been thrown out at the last). The reason why they haven’t been and (probably) wouldn’t be in the future is because this is a minor issue for most people (although it is clearly a major issue for a minority – and some of that minority own or edit newspapers.)
@ Simon
“If voters really think this is such an important issue why don’t they all vote Conservative (or UKIP). The reason why they don’t is that most voters do not share the obsessions that certain Euro-nutter Tory MPs and the right wing press have.”
Is. That. Even. Remotely. Close. To. Being. True?
http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_pollwatch.html
p.s. play the ball not the man, i’m sure you won’t like the source but it is a useful aggregate of opinion polls on europe.
It is inconsistent for Lib Dems to support an In / Out Referendum at some appropriate point in the future, but then linking that referendum to the next treaty change.
Being In or Out is constitutionally different to liking or not liking a treaty change.
In our parliamentary democracy, Lib Dems should be clearer about what is a decision for parliament, and what is a decision for the country in a referendum.
“And to the person who mentioned ‘ignoring 100,000+ signatures’ – they only got 36,000.”
I stand duly corrected on the number of petitioners.
My thanks.
I heard Labour were largely anti EU in the 70s until the referendum decided the issue.
The current dissatisfaction with the EU grew during the layer 80s and early 90s as the nature of the Union changed. A new referendum would likely settle the issue until there were significant changes again.
Simon,
I cannot reconcile your view that the main parties are all “fairly united”. If they were, why would the leadership insist on three line whips. Perhaps their leaders know something you don’t?
Another politician misses the point, the debate today isn’t about a referendum being held right now, go re-read the petition.
And, Chris, please cite where the petition only got 36,000 signatures. You should also go back and check exactly what was voted for in the 1975 petition, it bears no resemblance to what we are members of today.
oops, here is one more to add to the list:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/24/eu-referendum-poll-uk-withdrawal
“We’re in the middle of shark-infested waters and the ship’s hit a mine and no-one’s at the helm. We’re hundreds of miles from land and no one knows if it will survive or sink before we get there.”
“OK. Our side of the boat doesn’t have a hole in it. So let’s hold a vote right now on whether to get off at the next port or stay on after for the full cruise.”
given that proposed solution; creating a fiscal union within the eurozone which potentially threatens a block vote against the common-market interests of non-euro partners, your glib tone is rather inappropriate.
Glib – adj. more voluble than sincere or thoughtful
Eh?
OK. It would be a rubbish time to hold a referendum.
I trust that is plain enough.
@jedibeeftrix
“If voters really think this is such an important issue why don’t they all vote Conservative (or UKIP). The reason why they don’t is that most voters do not share the obsessions that certain Euro-nutter Tory MPs and the right wing press have.”
Is. That. Even. Remotely. Close. To. Being. True?
http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_pollwatch.html
p.s. play the ball not the man, i’m sure you won’t like the source but it is a useful aggregate of opinion polls on europe.
I don’t follow you, jedibeeftrix.
1. If what I’ve suggested isn’t true, what’s your explanation?
2. I’m not sure how pointing me at a web-site that (ever so subtly) is headed “The European Union is bad for Britain and bad for Europe” helps. Is that “independent” in your view?
3. I’m not sure what “play the ball not the man” means, but what man am I alleged to have “played”?
@Daniel Henry
“The current dissatisfaction with the EU grew during the layer 80s and early 90s as the nature of the Union changed. A new referendum would likely settle the issue until there were significant changes again.”
I fear that’s wishful thinking, Daniel. The problem is nothing to do with growing “dissatisfaction”, but rather that there has always been a bunch of “Euro-nutters” in the Conservative Party who are obsessed with the issue.
Having a referendum go against them won’t stop them going on and on about Europe, peddling their lies and distortions (ably assisted by elements of the right wing press).
@Don Lawrence
“I cannot reconcile your view that the main parties are all “fairly united”. If they were, why would the leadership insist on three line whips. Perhaps their leaders know something you don’t?”
The only party where an “obeyed” 3 line whip would have a significantly different result from a free vote is the Conservative Party.
That’s why I said above that the “Conservatives are fairly united in an anti-EU direction”.
Or are you saying that the Conservative Party in Parliament has a significant “pro-EU” faction within it? Are they just too scared to come out?
There has been a concerted effort in the right-wing press to overemphasise the limitations on the UK state imposed by EU membership and so to underemphasise all other limitations. I think it a damned cheek that UKIP poses as a “UK Independence Party” when it is actually an extreme free market party whose opposition to the EU is really about handing more control of our country to globalised big corporations. When we are constantly told by the right-wing that we can’t do this and we can’t do that because “it would mean the big companies take their wealth elsewhere”, isn’t it extremely hypocritical to pose the EU as the main thing stopping this country doing what its people would want it to do were it not for global factors?
The reality is that this lot is trying to hide what they are really about by fooling the gullible into believing the EU is the biggest issue, as if we were still in the 1960s and the nation state was still as strong as it was in those days when the economy was not nearly so globalised as it is now.
“Glib – adj. more voluble than sincere or thoughtful Eh? OK. It would be a rubbish time to hold a referendum.”
Let me be clearer then; while you are glibly making allegories to ships sinking people all over europe are rejecting the decisions you think are necessary to keep your ship ‘afloat’.
I agree with a lot of Tim says, although I have a problem with referenda per se and see no political need for one.
The fact that we are debating this is because of the public perception of the EU and Britain’s relationship with it, the failure of pro-European politicians to “sell” the merits of the EU and the cynical way in which UKIP, the Tories and sections of the media have successfully convinced many of the public that continued membership of the EU is diametrically opposed to their interests.
If the referendum is the answer, I have grave concerns about what the question might be. There are many ways in which British voters can be reassured about British sovereignty and the nature of our role in the EU without the necessity of resorting to a referendum campaign in which (if the AV referendum is anything to go by) the usual myths and misconceptions will be indulged rather than the electorate informed and educated.
Tim makes a fair point about timing; certainly the threat of an EU referendum does bring uncertainty and instability, which would be economically as well as politically debilitating. However, he fails to answer the obvious question: if not now, then when? Can the government realistically commit itself to holding a referendum only once specified criteria in regards the European economy have been met? Or is timing determined on the basis of political expediency, cynically overriding the apparent willof the electorate until an opportune moment for mainipulating the outcome becomes apparent?
“The current dissatisfaction with the EU grew during the layer 80s and early 90s as the nature of the Union changed. A new referendum would likely settle the issue until there were significant changes again.”
Approval ratings in the UK of the EU were lowest in the early 80s (moreso than now) and highest in the late 80s and 90s. Polling disagrees with your statements, but rather suggests that EU-philia or -phobia is cyclical.
Polling also suggests that although the UK is generally more eurosceptic than our neighbours, it’s also a very low salience issue for most people.
… I am proudly pro-Europe …
I’m sorry, but this misses the point. Which Europe is Tim in favour of? At a guess, I’d say probably one built on liberal lines, tha, that is for example democratic and that pools our collective sovereignty where it is in our mutual interest to do so but not otherwise and which understands that this is at the other end of a spectrum that runs right through to localism.
But that is not the sort of Europe we have, not by a country mile so why do we (sort of) support it? We should be working to change it into our sort of Europe. What that might be and how we might get there from here are beyond the scope of this comment. Suffice to say that there are very different views of where Europe should be heading and there are political choices to be made about Europe as about everything else.
But in the Lib Dems we don’t get that – only the false choice of OUT (and loose the European project for a generation or more) or IN (and hold your nose about the democratic deficit and other failings while supporting the status quo, no matter have offensive to liberal sensibilities).
And, yes, Tim does qualify his support in the opening paragraph, “It could [be better] … we as Liberal Democrats should say so more often and with more conviction.” “Could”, “should” – how weak is that? Clearly, the official party knows that not everything in the Eurogarden is pretty but that understanding hasn’t transmitted itself to the public at large nor to the formulation of a liberal alternative for Europe.
Instead all we get is a debate on a referendum which is itself a lame acceptance of Eurosceptic framing and try and shoehorn the voters into a horrid choice, “An ‘in-out’ referendum is important for democracy, but it would also act as a catharsis. No! What is important for democracy is that someone stands up in the public square and offers a worked out alternative. (And, I very much doubt if it would even act as a catharsis for significant any length of time).
Lib Dems seem stuck in a 1960s or 1970s timewarp when the issue really was IN or OUT. Maybe some are in love with a fantasy of Europe that bears little relationship to the reality. Either way, we need to move on. Specifically we need to work up an alternative vision of Europe. Given how demonstrably bankrupt (literally and metaphorically) the existing one is, a liberal plan could easily gain traction.
Now there’s a challenge for Tim.
Liberal Eye – some interesting and timely points made.
“Lib Dems seem stuck in a 1960s or 1970s timewarp when the issue really was IN or OUT.” Perhaps that is true. But if we are, then that is also surely true of UKIP, most of the Conservative Party, a sizeable proportion of the Labour Parliamentary Party, large sections of the media and the more vocal elements of UK public opinion. Let’s be blunt – the debate has become unhelpfully constricted around the in/out non-issue for several years to the point that all politiians seem capable of doing now is responding to the cynicism and negativity the media tell us is “public opinion”.
It’s not just the party that’s stuck in a time warp – it’s the debate itself – and possibly the British collective psyche. Sadly, there seems no-one with the courage or capabity to bring the political debate into the 21st century.
@ Liberal Eye – “Maybe some are in love with a fantasy of Europe that bears little relationship to the reality. Either way, we need to move on. Specifically we need to work up an alternative vision of Europe. Given how demonstrably bankrupt (literally and metaphorically) the existing one is, a liberal plan could easily gain traction. ”
Well said!
@Simon Shaw
“@Don Lawrence
“I cannot reconcile your view that the main parties are all “fairly united”. If they were, why would the leadership insist on three line whips. Perhaps their leaders know something you don’t?”
The only party where an ‘obeyed’ 3 line whip would have a significantly different result from a free vote is the Conservative Party.”
Sorry Simon, that may be your opinion, but clearly the party leaderships do not agree, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered. Unless you can point out something you know that they don’t, I will go with the conclusion that your view that the main parties are fairly united, is in fact a fallacy. After all, the leader of a party that believes that none shall be enslaved by conformity, wouldn’t impose a three line whip on his party’s MPs unless he felt it would make an important difference; surely?
Yesterday’s motion was simply to determine whether to allow a referendum. It was not about the merits of remaining in or getting out of Europe or renegotiating our terms of membership. That was to come later. Please don’t forget that it was the Tory led coalition which introduced the mechanism for a political form of X Factor in which if a hundred thousand or so people supported an e-petition it meant that it would have to be debated in the House. This means that any group that has an axe to grind and can rustle up a hundred thousand people to press a button can force their pet obsession on to the House’s agenda. I am in favour of representational democracy and am absolutely opposed to such a small number of the electorate being able to disproportionately influence the House of Commons. If the minimal criteria for debating such a petition was significant: i.e., that it had been signed by 10% of the electorate, at least it would have more justification. However, as the Tory led coalition has introduced such a mechanism the house was obligated to debate it. Cameron and Clegg have only themselves to blame for the mess they have got themselves into. They are the architects of their own obloquy and embarrassment.
I think this whole debate is dangerous we are consistently failing to make it clear to the Public why we want to remain in the EU. Rarely if ever do I hear our leader defending the EU contradicting the lies and myths peddled by the right-wing press. I don’t like referendums per se, they are the instruments of dictators, populism we could easily learn to regret as we have with the AV referendum. We live in a representative Democracy and long may it live. When will our leader stand up and shout we are not handing power to Brussels, we are sharing power with 26 other countries and they are sharing power with us.
@ Roger – “When will our leader stand up and shout we are not handing power to Brussels, we are sharing power with 26 other countries and they are sharing power with us.”
When he forgets that he is the leader of a political-party in a adversarial & majoritarian electoral system, and not a pressure-group in consensual & proportional electoral system.
Nobody here seems to have pointed out that this was not an “in/out” referendum but one with a meaningless third option of repatriating powers. I say meaningless because it is extremely vague and is close to “motherhood and apple pie” in that nearly everyone feels they could vote in favour of it. (There is also a recognised phenomenon that if people are given two options and a perceived compromise, people will nearly always vote in favour of the middle option).
I am somewhat sceptical of deciding matters by referendum but if you are going to have one, I think it needs to be a clear binary choice (or failing that, at least use a preferential voting system amongst clear and unambiguous options). This issue will likely re-occur in any future referendum on Scottish independence where the electorate will likely vote for an “independence-lite” option on similar grounds….
For me, the proposed nature of the referendum would have been a good enough reason to vote “no” even leaving aside the legitimate concern about inappropriate timing…. and I think our MPs were quite right to oppose it.
Don Lawrence
“Sorry Simon, that may be your opinion, but clearly the party leaderships do not agree, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered. Unless you can point out something you know that they don’t, I will go with the conclusion that your view that the main parties are fairly united, is in fact a fallacy. After all, the leader of a party that believes that none shall be enslaved by conformity, wouldn’t impose a three line whip on his party’s MPs unless he felt it would make an important difference; surely?”
Don, you clearly don’t understand what a “3 line whip” is all about. You seem to think that a parliamentary party only issues a 3 line whip if it suspects its MPs are not united.
Not so.
It’s about 2 things: attendance and voting. Parties will still issue 3 line whips even where they know for a fact that there is no disagreement. If they didn’t some MPs would assume it was perfectly OK to do something more useful like going back to their constituency.
@Mark G
“Nobody here seems to have pointed out that this was not an “in/out” referendum but one with a meaningless third option of repatriating powers. I say meaningless because it is extremely vague and is close to “motherhood and apple pie” in that nearly everyone feels they could vote in favour of it. (There is also a recognised phenomenon that if people are given two options and a perceived compromise, people will nearly always vote in favour of the middle option).”
You’re right, Mark.
That’s eaxactly what I meant when I said this in my first posting above: “The simple fact is that voting for this dishonest motion tonight would be in conflict with what we said in our 2010 Manifesto …..”
@Simon
What absolutre tripe! You haven’t come up with any sort of reason why Nick would want to insist on a 3 line whip, which is what I asked you about.
You chose instead clain I didn’t understand. As someone else said “Play the ball, not the man”.
I do understand. I fear you just don’t like my arguement.
What concerns me most about belonging to this club is the cost. Indeed Brussels is wanting yet again increases well above inflation as well as reducing/removing our hard earned rebate. Not impressed that our Lib. Dem. MEP’s also supported these increases . Not impressed. These proposed increases could e.g. employ 32000 nurses; 8000 doctors, 26000 soldiers or £320 per household. Where are Brussels austerity measures. They have not balanced their books for years yet expect countries to blindly contribute more and more to this over bloated bureaucracy. 41% of overall budget still spent on CAP with France receiving some 22%, equates to £6.37billion, UK only 9%.No wonder food prices in France still cheaper than here despite fall in value of pound and vat on food there! If rebate removed UK would pay 14 times contributions than France!
Interesting that our trade deficit with EU ballooned from £14.3billion to £46.6billion so no argument there re UK likely to suffer if our relationship with the EU is changed.
Our fishing fleet has been decimated thanks to EU, from a 19% cut in at time of joining to a further 40% in 1996.In terms of fishing subsidy Spain receives 42%,( £2.2billion) France 11% and UK 7%.
The big question, is the EU good value for money and should we be paying into this bottomless pit???????????
Someone commented that the EU has prevented war in europe I would suggest this had nothing to do with the EU but due to existence to NATO.
Lib Dems need to understand the mood of the nation. Seems yet again to be out of touch with reality and the electorate. AV vote and tuition fees good examples in that regard.