Over the past week, the debate over the forthcoming European referendum has been dominated by questions of process, when far bigger issues should inform consideration of our future.
First, the Electoral Commission recommended a change in the question on the ballot paper from a simple yes/no question to asking people to choosing between two statements – one asking people whether they want the United Kingdom to remain a member of the European Union and the other to leave. This is not the approach that was taken in other recent referendums in the UK where in both the Scottish independence referendum and the referendum on AV, yes/no questions were asked. In both those cases yes or no was not judged unfair. But No 10 has said it will accept the new wording and the change will be accepted by parliament when the EU referendum bill is debated.
Much more attention will be devoted to the issue of purdah or the rules by which the government and civil servants operate in the few weeks running up to the poll. This has the feel of an accidental fight about it. By that I mean it does not look like the government expected the reaction which took place when it sought to suspend the usual purdah arrangements to allow the government to express its view in the run up to the poll. A lot of heat will be generated next week on this issue and the government will in all likelihood have to retreat, but that should not tempt us into endless battles about the rules. Labour has put forward amendments on the purdah issue but we should remember that there will be some who will never accept a position where Britain could remain in the EU and they will want to cry foul about every part of the referendum process.
Far more important than the civil service rules is the substance of the debate itself.
In the Labour leadership contest three candidates have said unequivocally that they will campaign for Britain to stay in the EU, but the favourite, Jeremy Corbyn, has fudged. Asked to state his view, beyond the rhetoric there is no clear answer. Yet those who seek the mantle of leadership have to exercise leadership. Whatever changes the Electoral Commission has recommended to the wording of the question, the word ‘maybe’ is not going to be on the ballot paper. To lead is to choose and all the speeches in the world about a workers’ Europe will not absolve anyone of the responsibility of answering the basic question of whether Britain should be in or out. This cannot be ducked because the country’s economic future, how we see ourselves and how we see the rest of the world depend on it.
The refugee crisis has exposed the smallness of the Conservatives’ view of the world. While David Cameron was touring Europe talking about the rules on tax credits, other countries were focused on trying to cope with the greatest refugee crisis in decades. Britain’s stance as the outsider was exposed. But the issue of migration raises big issues for Europe: are we going to see a future of razor wire, border guards and detention centres or is there the leadership capacity to realise that the movement of people is not going to stop any time soon and that this issue has to be managed and dealt with rather than running away from it? Our government appeared both heartless and powerless in its response and was forced to change tack through the weight of public opinion.
Sorting out both the immediate crisis and our longer-term relationship with Europe requires leadership. There has been far too little shown so far. Britain should be playing a leading voice in shaping the future of Europe and how it deals with crises like the one which has been unfolding in recent weeks. We should not proceed with a quiet retreat from the world because its challenges are too difficult or because for ideological reasons we reject the notion of a Britain with global reach. We can be better than that.
———————————
These remarks were made at Progress West Midlands conference last Saturday 5 September.
———————————
Pat McFadden MP is shadow minister for Europe
Of course, maybe will not be on the ballot paper but we do not yet know the result of Cameron’s negotiations. I will vote to stay in the EU but waiting until we know what we will be voting on is not an unreasonable position.
Jeremy is usually against things so it will come as a shock when being against is not the obvious choice. Time will tell. Wilson made one of his critics a minister during the 1960 and he was a great success, name of Swindler(?).
The contributor here has failed to notice the real fudge by the about establishment – i.e. what terms are acceptable and is there anything about the EU that is not a goer. in other words anything goes without real challenge. Labour has been committed with only a squeak of reaction to any nonsense that comes from the fudge of 28.
What Labour desperately needs is some principles of acceptability. Is the Labour establishment prepared to tolerate the complete absence of any democracy? Are the ‘top-downers’ prepared to challenge the absence of even one restriction on the financial speculations that the run throughout the EU? Will the establishment eventually concede that ‘ever closer union’ with ‘monetary union’ as inevitable as the only form that will be on offer? Will labour ever say anything about how it plans for the council house building, school building and education and health investment to cope with the random arrivals of aspirant migrants from Eastern Europe, whilst dwelling comfort on its liberal gestures of non-restrictions. The contributor is so right when he says choices need to made. Unfortunately the Labour establishment has yet to even think of the implications of its half-baked thinking.
I am a Jeremy supporter, he’s a great guy. Fudging on Brexit is unacceptable. Any environmentalist or internationalist can see that we need a European Union. It is up to the Left to change it, and accept this may take a long time, not run away from the Institution. The anti-Europeans are fighting dynamically within the Tory Party and on the Right. We must enthuse the Left to fight to retain’s Britain’s membership of this multilateral organisation. Well said Pat.
Actually McFadden, it is not a “simple yes/no question”. How the question is posed can significantly influence voters. You have also incorrectly described the initial and the amended language of the question, merely to trivialise it. The Electoral Commission was correct in this case. It would have been reassuring if some politician had spotted this wording problem, instead of it being picked up by some sharp clerk in the Electoral Commission.