20/10/2014
This is a guest post from Autonomous Mind
In discussions on a number of posts on this blog, some commenters have repeatedly pushed their position that we should not be trying to secure David Cameronâs promised in-out referendum on EU membership in 2017 (subject to election results). The basis for their position is that, i) Cameron can't be trusted, and ii) Cameron would (gasp) try to win his argument that the UK remain in the EU.
When asked what they consider an appropriate time would be for an in-out referendum, a popular retort is that we should wait for a new Treaty negotiation to trigger the so called referendum lock.
The argument I have made against this time and again is brought into sharp relief by a contribution on today's
Telegraph letters page. For it is there that we see the editors give prominence to the submission of one GH Jones from Bangor in Wales, whose letter expresses his concern that they would not want to make a decision on "in-out" on the basis of just one issue such as immigration, when they write:
Mr Cameron's approach will be popular and might well lead, if his demand is unsuccessful, to Britain's withdrawal from the EU. But is it really good government to have such a momentous decision depend on a single issue such as immigration? I donât know how I would cast my vote in any referendum, but I would not want the debate to focus on just one factor.
Substitute "immigration" for "treaty change" or "treaty amendment", or even something as specific as "new financial regulatory regime" - which is just one possible issue that could trigger the referendum lock and an in-out vote - and the premise remains the same. It would be far more difficult to convince people to vote to leave the EU in such circumstances.
A vote triggered by a single issue would lead to a campaign narrative among the Europhiles that it would be a grossly excessive response to vote to leave the EU just because the regulatory model for the financial sector was being changed. Wouldn't it be, they would argue, wholly disproportionate to vote to leave the union just because of such an innocuous technical change?
The likes of GH Jones would likely buy that argument and see the anti EU campaign as an unreasonable overreaction. There lies the path to losing a referendum.
Waiting for a referendum lock-triggered in-out referendum is a dangerous approach because such a campaign would strengthen the likelihood of voters choosing to stick with the
status quo.
David Cameron, returning from the continent with a jumble of vague commitments and undefined pledges and trying to convince voters he has secured meaningful change to the way the UK is governed and the laws to which we are bound, with all negative aspects of membership being on the table, would result in a far more powerful anti EU sentiment and make voters feel far more comfortable about rejecting the
status quo and continued membership.
The promise of a 2017 referendum is not perfect, but it remains the best opportunity for anti-EU Britons to achieve their wish of regaining British independence. It would be a fight, but so would any campaign. However, it would be more even and winnable than if we fought a Brexit campaign against a backdrop of what would be painted as a largely irrelevant, technical, single issue.
FORUM THREAD
