One of the first tasks of a party in our time of fragmented politics is to stop their opponents making alliances. As things stand, the Tories can form a coalition with Ukip (and it tells you all you need to know about David Cameron that he would even consider such a possibility) the Democratic Unionists and the Liberal Democrats. As the Lib Dems are likely to form the largest block, they are the most important target for Labour.
You only have to listen to Nick Clegg, say, or Danny Alexander, to suspect that they would rather keep the coalition with Cameron. Why shouldn’t they? They’ve worked together for five years. Like a partner in a stale marriage, they will stick with what they know, however often they dream about divorce. Yet the Liberals are also a pro-European party. In private, many MPs are in agony at the thought that they may look back in 2020 and realise that their most momentous act in government was to allow Britain to leave the European Union.
Their thoughts are staying private for two reasons.
- The standard of political journalism in this election is abysmal. No one or, let’s be fair, hardly anyone is thinking more than five minutes ahead of the next news cycle. If the hacks were doing their job, they would be bombarding Liberal Democrats with questions about whether they could agree to go into coalition with a Conservative prime minister who wanted a referendum on leaving the EU. Is this a red line for the Lib Dems or isn’t it? From the sound of him, it doesn’t sound as if Europe is a red line for Nick Clegg. I can assure you it most certainly is for many other Lib Dem MPs, as is Britain’s continued support for the European Convention of Human Rights.
- Liberal Democrats don’t want to talk about Europe and Labour does not want to raise the subject because it sounds a tad undemocratic to be against a referendum. Tony Blair today laid out reasons why the democratic argument is phoney today, and they are fine as far as they go.
- Cameron doesn’t believe a referendum is necessary. As Blair said he’s a weak man making a ‘concession to Party, a manoeuvre to access some of the UKIP vote, a sop to the rampant anti-Europe feeling of parts of the media’.
- We are being pushed into what could be a catastrophic decision by the anti-European faction on the Right which would not dream of allowing popular votes on, say, zero-hours contracts. Again, Blair put it well.
‘Apparently we should have a referendum because its 40 years since we last had a vote. That is seriously an argument for doing something of this magnitude and risk? A sort of ‘keeping us on our toes’ thing? So should we do the same for NATO? Or have periodic referendums not just in Scotland but all over the UK just to check popular feeling? We should have a referendum if we seriously believe that getting out of Europe is a national priority if our terms aren’t met. If we don’t, then it is a completely unacceptable gamble with our future.’
But Blairs’ are not the best arguments. So dominant is the anti-European faction in right wing politics and journalism, no one ever asks them what exactly the British will be voting for when we are given the opportunity to vote on our future in the EU.
Do Ukip, Murdoch, the Telegraph, Hammond, Cameron and all the rest of them mean that if we vote ‘out’ we will be voting to join Norway and Iceland in the European Economic Area? They have access to the EU single market, which would please British business, but must sign up to EU rules, without having the say of a member country on the formulation of the rules – oh and they must make contributions to the EU budget to boot.
In the nice phrase of the Centre for European Reform, if Britain joined the, we would have ‘regulation without representation’. Switzerland fares little better. The Centre for European Reform continues:
“While it has a set of bilateral accords to give it access to some parts of the single market, it must regularly update its standards to match those of the EU, or risk a suspension of access. Were Britain to sign a free trade agreement with the EU, the latter would insist that British exports to the continent met EU product standards. And Britain would only be given full access to EU financial services markets if it matched EU rules.”
In both these instances Britain would find that the EU is like the Hotel California: You can check out anytime you like but you can never leave. An honest referendum question would then be: ‘Do you agree that Britain should leave the EU but still be subject to EU regulations which we would have no voice in drawing up?’
Hardly a vote-winner, is it?
Of course the anti-Europeans may not want that. They may want a total break with no requirement that we continue to follow EU rules. They may not care if the car industry and much of the City leaves. Give us sovereignty and to hell with the consequences, may be their slogan.
If so, shouldn’t journalists start demanding that David Cameron and Nigel Farage say so, and tell the voters what the option will be on referendum ballot?
As they won’t, Labour must start using Europe as a lever to prise the Liberals away from the Tories. In every debate, they must demand that the Lib Dems make their position on Europe and indeed on the Human Rights Act clear.
Labour must recognise that at the very least Europe has the potential to split the Lib Dems, as many MPs will not be prepared to go along with a Lib Dem leadership that goes along with Cameron. At best it could prevent the entire party from signing a second coalition agreement.
Comments