Browse > Home / EU Politics, UK Politics / Is Cameron’s best tactical option a referendum that means virtually nothing?

| Subcribe via RSS



Is Cameron’s best tactical option a referendum that means virtually nothing?

October 5th, 2009 Posted in EU Politics, UK Politics by

French referendum ballot papersTory splits over Europe aren’t what they used to be. Nevertheless, David Cameron got off to a shaky start to his party’s conference over the vexed issue of a referendum on Lisbon.

On the face of it, his position isn’t total nonsense. Basically, if Lisbon  has not been ratified by all 27 member states, he will hold a snap referendum in an attempt to rescind the UK’s ratification, thereby preventing it coming into force.  But, if Lisbon is already in place, he’ll have to find a different way to prosecute his plans to repatriate powers to nation state level – which may or may not involve a referendum.

But you don’t have to dig very far beneath the surface for this stance to start unravelling. It’s Parliament – not the British people – who would need to tear up our treaty commitments. This would, of course, be seen as a monumental act of bad faith by our European partners  ( it’s hardly the EU’s fault that the UK’s system of government allows strong majority governments elected on 36% of the vote to wriggle out of their manifesto pledge to a referendum).

A Lisbon referendum would also give rise to the absurd situation of a government holding a nationwide vote in which they want to secure a negative answer. I can’t find any precedent for this in the history of human democracy. Referendums have always been used – sometimes badly – because the government wishes to achieve X but feels the need (or has a legal requirement) to secure the public’s explicit support.

And this shows how the whole European debate has warped a meaningful discussion on the proper use of referendums. Questions along the lines of “Do you like the Lisbon Treaty?” don’t provide much policy guidance if the answer is “no”. It simply begs the question “Ok, what the f**k do you want then?” It’s certainly not at all evident that the “no” votes in various member states have been an expression of settled public support for the status quo – i.e. the present, constitutional structures of the European Union (which is what you end up with if Lisbon falls). At some point, people need to say “yes” to something – even if this is a “yes” to withdraw completely from the European Union.

That’s why I don’t buy the Eurosceptic argument that a re-run of a referendum is intrinsically undemocratic. It’s wholly legitimate to go back and seek to secure a majority vote – especially if you were very close to getting 50% support first time round and if you believe you have taken compelling steps to understand and address the objections of  “no” voters. (I gather the Irish government did this in 14 areas, before the second referendum).

So, Cameron has a difficult problem. His European strategy is no longer in his own hands. Britain’s policy and approach to the EU in 2010 now largely depends on the deliberations and legal processes of the Poles and the Czechs.  So much for national sovereignty.

Our likely next Prime Minister also has an internal party difficulty. Europe is to the British Tories what abortion is to the American Republican party. With ConHome’s poll showing a huge majority of Tory members wanting a referendum come what may – and nearly half wishing to leave the EU altogether – an appeal to “move on” from their party leader will fall on deaf ears.

Perhaps David Cameron’s best option – if Lisbon is a sealed deal by the year’s end – is a consultative referendum on whether the British people support the British government’s attempts to repatriate certain areas of social policy. No doubt, the Tory leader could secure a pyrrhic victory and appease at least some of his hardcore anti-EU supporters. But the rest of the European Union could just turn round and say “no” to the new British Prime Minister.  So, such a referendum would not be an expression of national sovereignty, it would a demonstration of how meaningless the whole concept of national sovereignty has become.

4 Responses to “Is Cameron’s best tactical option a referendum that means virtually nothing?”

  1. Laurence Boyce Says:

    If Cameron wishes to repatriate powers, then he might start by explaining in detail how he intends to give us a Parliament to be proud of, instead of the corrupt farce we currently enjoy. Because with Westminster in tatters, the repatriation argument is even weaker than it was in the first place.


  2. Mark Littlewood Says:

    Very true – and also one of the reasons I favour an intervention n Buckingham.

    Bercow is an unacceptable face of reform, and his main opponent wishes to give him more power.


  3. Charlie Says:

    ML. If you are saying national sovereignty is meaningless what is the situation we have at present and are the British people supportive?
    At no stage has the British people been asked if they wish to have their sovereignty reduced. Most people are happy Britain to operate in an EEC but very few to exist within an EU Empire.


  4. Mark Littlewood Says:

    @Charlie. Quite a few points here, so forgive the long post – and I’m desperately trying to avoid the hyperbole that often surrounds this issue:

    1. My point is that national sovereignty is dying de facto – and that this is likely to continue to be the case even if there is a change to the de jure situation. This is a fact of life in an increasingly open, mobile, trade-intensive world. Even if the UK government were wholly sovereign in a legal and constitutional sense, it is wrong to assume that its in actual control of the country’s destiny. For example, if the ECB jacks up interest rates by 3% tomorrow, the impact on sterling is dramatic and immediate. We might pride ourselves on having our own, independent, technically sovereign bank – but the hard reality is that its room for manoeuvre would be very limited indeed(essentially, balancing off allowing the pound to sink or hiking up our own interest rates as we struggle out of recession). On the Lisbon Treaty, the de facto situation is that whether or not we have a referendum is now largely dependent on the actions of Vaclav Klaus – a foreign politician who none of us voted. I don’t say these things with any glee, just as matters of fact. National sovereignty isn’t like virginity – it’s not something you either have or you haven’t got.

    2. There’s a distinct, but linked, issue about the levels of support amongst the British electorate for the present – or future – EU structure. Opinion polls indicate substantial euroscepticism, stiff opposition to the single currency, and perhaps c. 50% who favour withdrawing from the EU altogether. But, on the other hand, at successive general elections, the British people have voted continually for governments that have supported our ongoing membership of a more integrated EU – and have usually voted for the more pro-European of the two main parties. In 2001, William Hague said people should vote Tory because there were just 24 hours left to save the pound. People decisively voted for Labour – who supported the principle of joining the euro – and the Tories were thrashed (18% voted LibDem who were even mor epro-euro than Labour). In general elections, those advocating a staunch eurosceptic stance, or a complete review of our EU membership, have typically been annihilated. James Goldsmith’s £20m+ Referendum Party campaign secured a woeful 3% of the vote. UKIP has come nowhere near winning a single Westminster seat – let alone forming a government. Europe remains the ONLY issue ever to have been put to the British people in a nationwide vote – with a landslide majority of 2:1 back in 1975.

    3. “At no stage has the British people been asked if they wish to have their sovereignty reduced”. I don’t think this is true. The 1975 referendum was on the Treaty of Rome, which states – on its first page – a commitment to “an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe”. Okay, this referendum was 34 years ago. Okay, the No side say that the Yes side wasn’t honest about this (don’t losers in electiosn always claim that?) But there have been seven general elections in the meantime – all won by parties favouring ongoing EU membership.

    4. It’s important to understand that as a matter of historical fact, that joining the EEC (and the 1975 referendum) were not about joining a free trade area. It was in fact about LEAVING a free trade arrangement and joining a political and economic community. The choice was whether to leave EFTA and join the EEC.

    5. All of this said, I remain an advocate of a referendum. I don’t actually believe there’s an overriding moral need for a referendum per se – but I do believe that (a) the government have renaged on a clear manifesto commitment (as have the LibDems) and (b) that it would be cathartic. The continual dilly-dallying and shilly-shallying about our status within the EU is not good for the country as a whole, so the British people should determine a strategy and we should stick to it.