EU Referendum


Brexit: in danger of losing the game


10/09/2013



000a Guildhall-010 debate.jpg

Reuters is running a story on Vince Cable saying that Cameron's attempts to negotiate a new role for Britain in the EU "would probably be blocked by other members of the 28-nation alliance".

He was speaking at the Evening Standard debate on Britain's future in "Europe", held in the Guildhall last night, taking the time out to declare that Cameron would be better off working with other EU states to reform the bloc as a whole rather than seeking special treatment for London.

This was a debate on the motion, "Will [the] Square Mile prosper if Britain leaves the EU?". And as well as Cable, it also had Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of marketing giant WPP, and jailbird Vicky Pryce in the pro-EU camp. This pair was arguing that the City needed Britain to stay in the EU. Alongside Blair, we now have three good reasons for leaving.

Star of the anti-EU movement in the debate, which notably lacked a UKIP presence, was Tory backbencher Jesse Norman. He argued that the City's size and dominance based on language, time zone, openness and culture meant that it would thrive outside the EU — provided Britain’s departure was "orderly".

As we have pointed out earlier, this is where the debate framing totally fails. It is cast far too narrowly in terms of "in" and "out". The judgement as to which route we take depends as much as anything on how we leave – the consequences of leaving. If the result is likely to be chaos, then the status quo effect is likely to kick in, and we lose the referendum.

This is where Jesse Norman seems to have been the only one to offer anything constructive. And his caveat points up why the Article 50 debate is so important. But it is so typical of the legacy media that it will ignore the important issues – alongside which we also have UKIP members, fuelled by ignorance, doing the same. One branch chairman tells me:
My understanding is that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is designed to prevent the sheep leaving the fold. We must leave on our own terms, even though we know the technocrats will try to make it as difficult as they can.
Such nonsense is near-suicidal . While in July 2011, UKIP supporters were revelling in the results of an Angus Read poll which had 49 percent saying they would vote against the UK membership of the EU in a referendum, with only 25 percent opting to stay in, Reuters now cites a TNS BMRB poll which has 43 percent wanting to leave and 39 percent staying.

Different polls, with different methodologies, are not always comparable, the TNS BMRB poll represents a continuing trend which has the "out" lead narrowing. But a four percent lead is dangerously slender which, in a real contest, would have us losing – no wonder the europhiles want an early referendum.

Alarmingly, sources close to Nigel Farage record him believing that we would win an immediate referendum, which suggests not only unwarranted complacency but also a misreading of referendum dynamics. Going into an "in-out" campaign, we need a lead of 20-30 points just to overcome the status quo effect.

Perhaps, then, it was just as well that UKIP was not represented at the debate. If our UKIP chairman is any guide, rather than 43-39 percent, the next hit could be an even tighter margin. With that sort of baggage, we are in danger of losing the game.

COMMENT THREAD