In his first queen’s speech of the new term, as expected, David Cameron set Britain en route to a referendum on its membership of the European Union. While the full terms of the referendum are still to be confirmed, we know that pro-Europeans are in for the fight of our lives. Our only task must be to work out how we win to stay in, whatever the terms of the referendum.
Today’s speech announced very little on the terms of the referendum. We are barely any clearer on the three key questions of ‘when’, ‘who’ and ‘what’. What we do know is:
- When? The only detail confirmed in the queen’s speech: the referendum will take place ‘before the end of 2017’, still leaving Cameron room for manoeuvre to bring the referendum forward.
- Who? We can expect that the franchise will be the same as for general elections. This would mean that all UK citizens resident in the UK, and those who have been living abroad for under 15 years would be eligible to vote. EU citizens from other countries living in the UK would not.
- What? Again, no confirmation here. It is likely that the question the government will opt for will be: ‘Should the UK remain a member of the European Union?’ with a yes/no answer.
Much of this might appear difficult for Labour to digest, and the associated legislation will be contentious. However, the Tories have earned the political permission to organise this referendum and to do so, broadly, on their own terms – however frustrating that might be for every Labour activist who spent a gruelling election campaign talking to voters about economic competence and leadership, not the future of the EU. While it is right to scrutinise what the Conservatives are proposing, to become immersed in process would only play into the hands of the people who wish to see us out of Europe.
What really matters above anything else is outcome – that we stay in. With this in mind, there are three things we need to consider:
First, the status quo deteriorates. The latest YouGov poll has ‘yes’ on 45 per cent to 35 per cent for ‘no’, with 16 per cent undecided. A year out from the referendum on Scottish independence, ‘no’ had a 20-point lead over ‘yes’, while the final result gave Better Together little more than a 10 per cent margin. This is a more significant lesson from the campaign north of the border than whether or not being on the side of ‘yes’ – still an object of ostensibly serious political discussion – puts your campaign at an inherent advantage. A 10-point lead could well prove difficult to maintain over a year, let alone two.
Second, learn from No to AV. There will be significant financial backing for the ‘yes’ campaign, making this a rare moment when we will be on the side of a campaign that has such resources to hand. We should be unafraid of taking radical decisions, and this means drawing on the widest possible pool of talents. The largely right-wing No to AV campaign not only had huge sums at its disposal; it was ruthless in hiring talent from the left to head up its campaign. We should be unafraid to play the same game.
Third, party unity comes at a price. We should allow there to be separate Labour ‘in’ and ‘out’ campaigns – it would be a catastrophic mistake to try and whip the party. Can anyone imagine Gisela Stuart accepting instructions to join the ‘in’ campaign? The ill will that would fester would far outweigh any possible – and arguably relatively small – benefits to be gained by maintaining a false party unity.
We have to learn the right lessons and act now to build a formidable campaign. The most damaging thing for the Labour ‘in’ campaign would be to waste valuable time contesting the rules of the game. It would be a distraction with consequences too great. So don’t get angry, get organised.
———————————
Felicity Slater is head of partnerships and events at the Fabian Society
———————————
This referendum would be on David Cameron’s renegotiated terms. The 1970s Eurovision dream is dead. On today’s Daily Politics, even Tristram Hunt would not say whether or not Labour would campaign for a Yes vote. It would depend on the terms. The terms agreed by Cameron.
I think those in favour of staying in the EU should be asked how they justify immigration without limit and its effect on our precious public services, housing and education.
Or the net benefit to the economy every study shows. We import a hard working labour force for whose education and upbringing we have not paid for but who pay their taxes and get on with it. They don’t even get a vote in the GE or the EU referendum, which is a disgraceful situation.
So why haven’t we trained our people sufficiently to take up the jobs that are available. We have had persistent levels of unemployment in this country, how has this “net benefit to the economy” helped them.
I agree with the sentiment of the article, but lets face it, when has Labour been in any way radical since the late 90s? I fear that under an uninspiring new leadership it will be back to old habits of not upsetting the Mail and the Telegraph and everything once more being framed by the Tory narrative.
I don’t know what you’re worrying about – the Conservatives want to stay in.
And spare me the “more funds will be on the OUT side” stuff, the whole establishment apparatus, led by the EU-funded BBC, will be for IN.
It’s a foregone conclusion that I will continue to be bound to this unnecessary union – we can trade with EU without the political stuff.
BBC funded by the EU???? Of course we can trade with who we like outside the EU. But they can impose financial tariffs and invisible tariffs. Nation states always have. Only by ‘doing it together’ can separate nations create the economic growth that created the United States, and, more recently, the EU. The result is not a foregone conclusion, most people believe the euromyths that used to be peddled by the saloon bar twerps who set up UKIP and the Daily Express, but now they are repeated and believed everywhere (even the so-called ‘pro-EU’ BBC) after forty years of ‘drip drip drip’ nonsense.
Well I’m not one of these “saloon bar twerps” and I resent the inference that I am, neither am I a member of UKIP, nor do I read the Daily Express – it always seems to be the habit of the EU supporters that they must smear and insult people who disagree with them.
I’m also wondering how all those other countries that don’t belong to the European Union survive.
And you can prod away at he question mark key as much as you like, it won’t change things:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/culturehousedaily/2014/02/the-millions-in-eu-funding-the-bbc-tried-to-hide/
The euro- myths are peddled by saloon bar twerps – some myths are started as April Fools for heavensake and yet they are believed. Obviously this does not mean that everyone anti-EU is a twerp. There are barely any countries left that don’t want to be in the EU. 28 countries are in. Many are applying to join. Oil rich Norway and the Swiss tax haven remain out – a trading nation like the UK needs to be in a trading bloc. BBC being ‘funded by the EU’ is a bit of a mystery
I hope. The left wings organisations like Labour Party will maintain dialog to support the UK stay in the EU. This is an aspiring article.
How dare you call Labour left wing! That does not play well in the Daily Mail.
Don’t get angry, get organised – join the Labour Movement for Europe
The Labour party position on the EU has been one of the weakest of a group of luke warm policies in so many areas. A poor second to the policies of almost all parties. Now we find that a referendum would be an acceptable idea – why? Where is the analysis or justification except perhaps admitting to sloppy thinking The strongest argument presented by the leadership is that trading necessitates ‘EEC’ membership and we are going to ‘bargain’ for reform – what reform is that? and will what chips except we are nicer fellows to talk with. Somewhere we lost the appreciation that we have a single state union (EU) proposition. The ‘Little Englanders’ are no more but the “myopic Euroes’ traders seem to emerge from similarly lazy thinking. Why would Labour wish to subscribe to an a random, unregulated market without introducing proper planning mechanisms? Since when did we commit to the need to build an arbitrarily increasing number of council houses? or flexibly expanding school places? and infinitely adaptable A & Es according to the individual whims of large numbers of people. People who incidentally have presumably felt no similar social obligations from where they came. We didn’t and will not because we adopt the socially irresponsible position of not planning for it – every man for himself and random. arbitrary movement becomes a mantra for a workers liberation. The Labour current position is fanciful. A little deeper thinking would now be apt – and coalescing with the three main party positions will do to Labour in working class England what it did to Labour in Scotland.
Did you use to post on Biased BBC?
Much of this might appear difficult for Labour to digest
– what, the democracy of it? Yeah.
every Labour activist who spent a gruelling election campaign talking to voters about economic competence and leadership
– Respect. That must have been gruelling!
This article fails to identify what the actual arguments for In should be. It also fails to note that the Out campaign hasn’t a bloody clue what its best argument for Out is. Out should have been thinking about this 3 years ago but were so focused on hatred of Cameron they forgot the main issue.
In’s best asset is Nigel Farage. The man is utter poison and has now lost, what, seven by-elections? Amusingly UKIP won Thanet council the day Nigel lost the seat, which shows that it’s Farage rather than UKIP that is loathed.
I’d suggest that as Farage and Miliband both campaigned against a referendum, it might be worth identifying what outcomes of EU membership they think are so good we daren’t risk them by having a referendum; and then campaign on those. For Farage it’s the MEP expenses, but what are Miliband’s reasons?