12/05/2015
It used to be the case that the media - wedded to trivia as it is â would entertain itself with idle speculation about the date of the general election. But now that toy has been taken from them with the advent of fixed-term parliaments, journalists have acquired a new plaything and are guessing about the EU referendum date.
Currently up front in these trivia stakes is the
Guardian which is running the headline: "David Cameron may bring EU referendum forward to 2016" â which is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.
Crucially, it is not up to the prime minister to decide the date of the referendum. This remains within the gift of parliament, and in what will be a heavily-argued Referendum Bill, there are no certainties about what will be decided. Mr Cameron may make proposals, but what comes out the other end of the parliamentary process may be very different.
Further, it is a very rash prime minister that takes Parliament for granted, and to assume a rapid passage of a Bill through both Houses is to invite deliberate sabotage and delay. Mr Cameron would be very unwise to presume on the good will of Parliament and attempt to rush the Bill through the House.
Then, of course, there is the Electoral Commission, in which context readers may remember
The Boiling Frog's masterful discussion on whether a 2015 referendum would be possible (updated
here).
TBF relies heavily on the
Electoral Commission Report on the Scottish referendum, and perhaps special note should be taken of this passage:
Stepping back to the start of the process, the crucial role played by the Scottish Parliament in passing the referendum legislation as early as possible should also be acknowledged. In sharp contrast to the referendums in 2011 where the rules were confirmed only three months ahead of polling day, the Scottish Independence Referendum Act was passed nearly nine months ahead of the poll.
This ensured that there was adequate time for those administering the poll to prepare for delivering their respective roles at the referendum. It also allowed campaigners to familiarise themselves with the campaign rules and ensure they had adequate processes in place to comply with them. Future referendum legislation should be delivered to a similar timetable and standard as this Act.
Effectively, the Electoral Commission is saying that there should be a nine-month gap between the passing of the Referendum Bill (and implementing legislation) and the actual poll.
If we then assume that the minimum passage time through Parliament for what will be a complex and contentious Bill will be about a year (and that is assuming there is not a draft Bill for consultation), and we add at least nine months to meet Electoral Commission recommendations, then we are already into March 2017.
Furthermore, this does not take account of any renegotiation schedule with the "colleagues". It is all very well Mr Osborne rushing over to Brussels, and
starting negotiations, but the EU comprises 28 members, and there must be unanimity if a new treaty is to be agreed.
We
are told that Mr Cameron will be setting out some of his ideas for EU "reform" at the June European Council) â which the hacks still insist on calling a "summit", but getting everyone on-side is going to take time. Again, Mr Cameron would be unwise to try to force the pace â again that would invite sabotage and delay.
Then, there is the question of the UK presidency in that latter half of 2017. That would undoubtedly giveMr Cameron a publicity boost and would be the ideal platform from which to announce his "successful" renegotiation package. I don't see him wasting this opportunity.
Putting the various strands together, the prospect of a 2016 referendum looks extremely remote. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely â and one that has no evidential substance to support it. As it stands, this is the media playing games â which they are wont to do when the issues are above their pay grade and they are out of their depth.
What we really have, therefore, is yet another illustration of how badly served by the media. They are not able to report serious matters seriously, leaving us to work things out for ourselves, while they play their silly games.
