Cameron’s EU gamble
There is a school of thought that argues David Cameron has played a clever political hand by announcing a referendum on Europe. A referendum may not be good for the British economy by creating an air of uncertainty about the future and giving overseas investors cause for concern but it has won the support of critics in the Conservative Party. Like the referendum that took place under Harold Wilson in 1975, the real reason for a referendum in 2015 is not to give the British people a say but to unite a factious political party.
But examine Cameron’s decision carefully and all kinds of reasons emerge that suggest it could turn out to be politically disastrous. Cameron has set a clear date for the vote and, as Nick Clegg and others have pointed out, there is no guarantee that the planned renegotiations will be completed by then. The EU moves slowly and it will be important to secure widespread agreement to whatever terms Cameron eventually seeks.
Cameron has been vague about what exactly he wants. Some commentators think all he is really after are guarantees for the City and changes to the working time directive but many members of his party have a more ambitious agenda. Far from ending division in the Conservative Party, a referendum could well spark off a bitter debate about exactly what terms Britain should seek. Populists like Boris Johnson are going to have a field day setting the bar ever higher.
The danger is that the electorate could either tire of the endless debate about Europe or grow fearful of an irreversible British withdrawal. Poll statistics on Europe are difficult to judge. Just after Cameron’s speech, The Times, set free by James Harding’s departure as editor to follow Rupert Mur- doch’s agenda, trumpeted statistics showing that 47 per cent of voters in a referendum would vote to leave the EU, 37 per cent would vote to stay and 23 per cent don’t know. As Nate Silver has warned us, much depends on how statistics are weighed and interpreted and a YouGov poll has given a rather different picture.
YouGov in January showed more people voting to stay in the EU than leave for the first time in the current Parliament. According to Peter Kellner there has been a marked shift in recent months in favour of remaining in the EU.
When the last referendum took place all the polls showed a clear majority for pulling out for some time in advance until just before the vote when they began to shift. In the end, Wilson secured a 2-to-1 majority for staying in. Kellner suggests a fear-factor started to kick in near the vote and that it will do so again. When asked whether leaving the EU would be better for the economy, jobs, Britain’s relationship with America, Britain’s influence in the world or for the voters personally, each time most people said it would be worse rather than better although large numbers didn’t know.
As Kellner points out, the history of referendums shows that as the vote gets nearer, the status quo starts to appear more attractive. This is certainly proving to be true in the Scottish referendum campaign.
Since Cameron has said that he wants Britain to stay in the EU the prospect of a ‘Yes’ vote will please rather than trouble him. But the danger for him and for his party is that polling data suggests that voters are more concerned about jobs, hospitals, prices, and crime than they are about rule from Brussels. Even voters who are suspicious of the EU get fed up hearing Tor y MPs constantly ‘banging on’ about it, to use Cameron’s own phrase. Polls show less than 20 per cent think it is the most important issue facing Britain and when MPs become obsessed about Europe they give the impression of being out of touch with the people.
None of this means supporters of the EU can relax. As Kenneth Clarke and others have warned, there is a danger that people will use a referendum not to give their opinion about Europe but to punish the Government in power. That danger will be less if Labour and the LibDems are firmly in the ‘Yes’ camp.
But as with the Scottish Referendum, it would be a pity if the vote on Europe were determined purely by what was thought to be our economic interest as a nation. The EU has many defects, not least the fact that it has been a project driven from the top rather from the democratic base. But the founders of the EU had a moral vision founded on their Christian faith to create a peaceful, united Europe. Britain has suffered from not being a part of the project from the first and from appearing to be a half-hearted member after we joined.
The EU does need reform but we will achieve this better if we are at the heart of Europe rather than constantly sniping from the sidelines. In a globalised world, nations need to act to together. To end the union between England and Scotland or to walk away from the EU would not only be against our national interest, it would also be a betrayal of values we should seek to uphold.