This time next year there is the possibility that the United Kingdom will have voted to leave the European Union. For a person like myself who is firstly a proud European and secondly someone who acknowledges the profound benefits EU membership brings to the UK, this is a deeply worrying prospect.
However, I want to make the argument that winning the EU referendum, whether it comes next year or the year after, is not enough. As the referendum on Scottish independence has shown you can win the battle but still face the prospect of losing the war.
It is very much worth examining in further detail what happened in Scotland. The No campaign started with a huge lead in the opinion polls and ran a campaign that largely focused on the risks of Scotland leaving the union. The Yes campaign was focused more on a message of hope – that Scotland could do better alone, free of interference from Westminster.
This led to a situation where Yes Scotland hit the lead in the opinion polls in the final weeks of the campaign. It was arguably only last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and the three main party leaders agreeing to give more powers to Scotland as part of ‘The Vow’ that allowed the No campaign to prevail.
In an echo of what happened in Scotland a recent YouGov poll showed a reasonably healthy eight-point lead for staying in the EU. But, as Scotland showed, it is a very dangerous strategy to try and protect an opinion poll lead based on the tactics of talking up the risks of change.
The campaign for staying in the EU must be based on a bigger message and vision. A message and vision that are not just about grinding out a victory in the EU referendum but about changing the tide of public opinion in relation to Europe and the EU.
We need to confidently make the case that Britain is better because it is part of the EU and Europe – better economically, better culturally and more secure in our place in the world. We should be talking about our ambitions for Europe: passing the EU-US trade treaty which could boost the British economy by £10bn, pushing for more investment in infrastructure, and an expansion of schemes like Erasmus that provide huge opportunities to British students and universities. At the same time we should be relentlessly championing the benefits that British workers, students, business and universities get from being part of the EU.
If we do not do this there are two possibilities: either the disaster of Britain exiting the EU or the near disaster, which is almost as bad, of what some have called the ‘Neverendum’ – a situation, similar to what we have seen in Scotland, where a significant portion of the electorate refuse to accept the result of the referendum and push for another vote.
The only way to really win is to make a passionately pro-Europe and pro-EU case. If we do this then we will not just win the referendum but the debate as well – and settle the issue decisively for a generation.
———————————
Jack Storry is international officer of Young Labour
I would ask you to consider separating the terms ‘Europe’ and its culture from the notion of the ‘European Union’ as a self serving body. The latter being a set of unaccountable, unelected committees of people all of whom acquire social and political privileges from their acquiesce and horse trading of deals done in back rooms. Those bodies operate and have much more in common with the FIFA practices (without the overt corruption, of course). The main committee – the European Commission has not had its accounts approved for 19 years. No other reputable organisation would thrive in such a context. How do know it is not riddled with corruption? it is certainly at the least covert or very secretive. At a minimum you must concede that their is too passive acquiesce to unusual arrangements (how much do you think its self promotion budget is?) It is not a force for any sort of liberation from nationalism.
That you could be proud of a culture of several nations in comprehensible, although I personally find it hard to get emotional about Slovenians winning at tennis or Latvians inventing a new technology. Good for them, but should I proud of that, and not pleased if Australia does well at cricket. This ‘proudness’ language is all a bit strange to me.
Why should we consider we have a special (pride) relationship Romania and not with Nepal or Keyna – our peoples in these nations have such overlapping histories and in so many ways as well as speaking the same language and have suffered similar struggles through wartime and positives/flaws of colonialism. Bulgaria is much more distant from our shared past. Yes, lets build common cultural pride if that is possible, but the EU hierarchies are and will increasingly be obstacles to an international outlook and will lead to conflict within Europe as we already witness,
The whole tenor of the debate is pathetic. We should be working with our socialist sister parties in Europe to create a worker’s paradise from the Urals to the Atlantic.
Jas
I agree and in the meantime the EU and its backer-bankers will squeeze the life out of movements for Socialism whether in Greece, Spain or any up-and-coming movements of peoples. The EU can very contentedly tie up the time and energy of the occasional radical on its 28 acquiescent member committees as long as it takes them away from the building of alternatives. We need a ‘Labour Campaign for EU Alternative’ strategy before full absorption confuses other Labour people into thinking that the myopic (trading) EU is some kind of force for radical or liberating change. Although I do have to admit there are also a number of Labour supporters who do prefer non radical and top down advances. I repeat that a bureaucracy that cannot have its accounts approved for 19 years has a lot to hide and many of the ‘FIFA type’ careerists and back – slappers will have much to account for when the news does eventually break.