Maturity is often more absurd than youth and very frequently is most unjust to youth – Thomas Edison

I come from the post World War 2 generation, born in the 1950s to a true European peace that has endured for the first time in centuries. The previous generation and the one before that had all been involved, in one way or another, in the so-called “Great” war and/or the second war. That peace is in no small way thanks to European unity and the moves towards closer co-operation. It is seen today in its present form as the EU.

My own journey to EU support has been long and sometimes difficult. I worked on the UK borders which, as a consequence, I understand well and saw the benefits of free movement both to trade and people at first hand. As a trade union representative I helped negotiate changes in terms and conditions of Border workers locally consequent to the foundation of the single market when all barriers were removed. Not so many were employed on “controls” and those that were exercised them differently with a “light” touch BUT we were still there and are to this day. Whilst seeing the freedom of movement as a benefit I also saw the downside, organised crime and fraud that tried to abuse the relaxations, but we became alive to it and overall there was a positive benefit.

I then retired and at almost the same time became a grand-father, and that has affected me greatly as I started to wonder what kind of world we would be leaving to my grandson and others of his generation.

Hard as it is to say now. I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible”.

Churchill wrote this, in a letter to Anthony Eden after the battle of El Alamein, during the darkest days of war.

Who am I to disagree with him? It was an inspired piece of forward thinking that recognized the need to free the continent from its old animosities and prejudices. All the more remarkable given the fact that at the time the European nations were being rent asunder by war. Britain stood alone but Churchill could see beyond to the greener and more pleasant place that we now inhabit.

The founding of the EEC, and then later the EU with a single marketplace and the right to travel and trade freely, changed the lives of my generation for good and for the better. So why is it that a new “Little Englander” attitude has grown? Mostly it is due to the deprivation that many have suffered economically in the worst depression since the war, and the need to find scapegoats. The “foreigner” become an easy target and immigration is seen as a threat. We need however to row back a little and look at that immigration. There are two strands, the first is emigration to the UK from outside the EU, often from countries that we had once colonized. I do not want to enter a debate on that immigration for good or bad, other than to say that it is always in the gift of the UK government to decide who can and cannot enter. It is nothing at all to do with the EU. The freedom to move within the EU is the second source of migration to the UK and cannot be stopped or restricted; neither should it be.

EU citizens in the UK are net contributors to our economy, putting in more than they take out, and they are roughly equal in number to those people from the UK who have also chosen to use these rights to live and work elsewhere in the EU. I have heard it said that EU migrants force down wages – that is rubbish, as unscrupulous UK based employers do that, not their employees. I have also heard it said that these “people” only come here for the benefits. That is also rubbish as the facts suggest otherwise; there will always be a few but they are far outweighed by the hard working people who contribute positively.

“That’s the duty of the old, to be anxious on behalf of the young. And the duty of the young is to scorn the anxiety of the old.”  – Philip Pullman

Another reason people, particularly the young, migrate here from the EU is to study, which they do in increasing numbers. They enjoy the benefits of freedom to cross borders without let or hindrance and they bring money, culture and life experiences with them. Likewise our own young people travel to other member states to undertake studies or take part in exchange schemes such as the Erasmus one. All of this is at risk if we leave.

We owe it to the young to be mindful of what we leave them. Personally, I would like to leave an economically just, an environmentally friendly and a cultured world that values others as we would wish to be valued ourselves. I don’t want a world of economic uncertainty, which is what a Brexit would bring. There are those trying to sell our departure who would say that we could still be in the EEA and benefit from the single market. On behalf of my grandson I say to them that they currently have all the rights and freedoms economically and otherwise that they will need as they grow and flourish; anything else is uncertainty and worse than the status quo.

Please, on their behalf, campaign for a positive vote to stay in the EU, and also trust our younger members of society who will inherit what we sow, and give the vote on this matter to those over 16.

My duty is done here. We have to proceed now with caution. I conclude with the words of Robert Kennedy -:

“This world demands the qualities of youth; not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity………”

Stu Wilson

Posted in referendum, reflections, voting | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Britain’s four-point package for EU reform – POLITICO

Phillip Hammond – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has been setting out the Government’s 4 point package for EU reforms.

The 4 points cover market regulation, “ever-closer union”, subsidiarity and welfare.

He goes on to say “We approach these reforms in a positive and engaged manner, listening to our partners and intending to agree reforms that will help all Member States to thrive in the 21st century.”

and sums up with “If we can resolve the issues that have so troubled the British people and achieve a “Yes” vote in the referendum, we will settle the question of Britain’s place in Europe and enable the UK to play a fully engaged role in a more competitive, prosperous, outward-looking and confident EU in the future.”

You can read the rest of what he has to say on the Politico Europe website Britain’s four-point package for EU reform – POLITICO.

There are some eurosceptics who will not be satisfied with this, but that will always be the case, there is little chance of convincing some people.

There are others who will say that the points will be too easily achieved as some of these things are already starting to happen, but things have moved on since 2013 and what’s to say that the EU’s reform programme and even Jean-Claude Juncker’s priorities have not been shaped by pressure from the EU’s reformers such as the UK and the Netherlands in addition to the pressures from the Euro crisis and Greece situation.

There is something else to add to the pot, The Times reported that according to a confidential report it has seen there will be the opportunity for Treaty changes between now and 2017 and again between 2017 and 2019. But this should be no great surprise, the work that is needed to consolidate the Eurozone and clear up the fallout from the last few years of Euro crisis was always going to need Treaty amendments.

Posted in brexit, referendum | Tagged , | Leave a comment

11 reasons why the UK should stay in Europe

An article by Dr Julian Keogh posted here from his own blog Dr Keogh’s thoughts

Whatever the outcome of David Cameron’s negotiations with other European leaders regarding our future relationship with Europe, I am a firm believer we should stay. Here I list some of my most important reasons.

11. Its a bargain

For an organisation that is touted as being such a waste of money, and aspiring to be a superstate in the same breath, it really is a bargain. Less than 1% of national spending goes on the European Union. Compare that to the budget for welfare, pensions and the national health service. Eurosceptics will have us believe that the true value is a lot higher, and while it is certainly true that we are legally obliged to hold VAT within certain limits, that does not mean that all the VAT we pay goes to the European Union……far from it. The British government still holds the lion’s share of more than 98% of what it raises in taxes from the British people…so please….don’t exaggerate the superstate argument.

10. Multinationals

Multinationals are becoming ever more devious in trying to control out lives…just look at all the fines the likes of Microsoft, Google, banks and others have had to pay out to the EU and others. This can only be effectively done if these organisations are policed and controlled by larger organisations such as the EU. Britain on its own will find it hard to fight its corner in the face of ever more powerful multinational organisations.

9. Internal stability

If Britain voted to leave the EU, it will reignite the debate in Scotland about whether they want to stay in the UK. A possible scenario may be that Scotland demands another referendum (which would be justified given a change in the UK’s status), and that if the independence campaign succeeds  they would be entitled to take the UK mandate with them, thus abrogating any requirement for them to reapply to join the union. This could quite feasibly swing the vote in Scotland towards the majority wanting to leave.

 8. European stability

I know a lot of people in the UK couldn’t care less about European stability following a UK exit. I’m sure there were a lot of such people back in 1914 and 1939 as well. Britain leaving Europe is likely to cause a ripple effect in the rest of Europe, and ultimately it could threaten the stability of the entire organisation. There will be a power shift within the union towards the south, a situation which Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries would find very unpalatable, and that may lead to pressures within Europe towards disintegration. People laugh today at the idea of some kind of neofascism rising in  Europe again, but this is exactly what could happen. Think of the success that the Front National is already having in France.

7. Divorce is an acrimonious and nasty business

One of the most defining moments for me in the Scottish referendum was George Galloway pleading with the audience about the “merits” of becoming independent, and comparing it to an acrimonious divorce process. I think the same would be true with a UK divorce from Europe. UKIP will tell you that we will have a friendly relationship with the rest of Europe once we leave (see point 4),  possibly by remaining within the European Economic Area. In all likelihood, we will have to renegotiate trade relationships with the EU, but this is not likely to be a friendly process. European politicians aggrieved at our attempts to destabilise the rest of the union are not going to give us favourable terms in any trade talks, and we will be one against many being told to take it or leave it.

6. An independent UK would be unimportant

How could we maintain our influence going it alone ? (particularly if Scotland decides to leave). The US sees the UK as valuable, specifically because it sees it as a valuable bridge between the the EU and the US. It wants the UK to stay within EU, and sees that as a part of its strategy of maintaining a strong transatlantic relationship to counterweight the rise of China.  A rump UK would certainly lose its permanent seat on the security council. Brtain punches above its weight because, and not in spite of, its membership within the EU. In short, Britain would lose its relevancy internationally if it left the EU.

5. The banks will go (and probably a lot of other investment and companies)

I know, everbody hates bankers and banks, but the fact remains that the UK’s financial sector is huge.
It contributes 8% to the UKs gross value added figures, 3.4% of the jobs in the UK, and over 20 billion pounds was raised in tax receipts from financial organisations. Indeed, it constitutes a substantial proportion of the UK’s trade surplus in services. One of the reasons so many financial organisations are based in the UK is because it is in the EU. True, some companies will remain in the UK  because everybody speaks English, but I imagine the main benefactors upon a brexit will be Dublin and Frankfurt as many companies relocate.we will see in the next years how many organisations will follow Deutsche Bank’s lead. Think also of all the foreign car manufacturers that use the UK as a manufacturing or assembling base, by virtue of the fact we are a member of the union.

4. The troubles may flare up

Stability in Northern Ireland is largely helped by the fact that there is an open border with the Irish republic.  If we left the union, there may be pressures to change that rearrangement, which could indeed reignite a whole tinderbox. Indeed, might such problems also start up in Scotland if we leave the EU, given the separatist sentiments up there.

3. It’s a great organisation to be in

The EU is a unique organisation in the world. It is a family of nations that have come together to relinquish some sovereignty in order to cooperate and do things together, and in this way promote peace across the continent as a whole. Of course it costs money, many facets of administration are governed transnationally, and if we left the EU these functions would still have to be reproduced in the UK, and that would also cost money. UKIP tells you there is going to be a United States of Europe. The British want to stay British, but the French also want to stay French, the Germans German etc. etc. Our cultural independence is not what is at stake in the EU. Nobody is suggesting we join the Eurozone either. Parties like UKIP definitely have a role in the future of Europe, I think its part of the necessary political dynamic within Europe that there are some forces that may want an integration, and others who prefer a “Europe of Nations” founded on free trade.

2. Freedom of movement

In the 80s  life in Britain was hard. For many people, the only place to go to make a living was the rest of Europe. British people profited from freedom of movement in those days. Now the tables are turned precisely because our economy is doing good. If our economy turns bad again, people may want to speculate by looking for employment abroad again. If you are unskilled and untrained the prospects for that will be poor, but at least the rest of Europe (currently) has an open door for such people, unlike the US and most of the commonwealth countries. We have to get it in our heads, we have immigration because times are so good here, and when they are not so good, we have somewhere to go too.

1. The future

China and India are set to become even more economically powerful. The world is multipolar and its important that Europe stays united in  such a world to face any new challenges we might face. This is not going to happen if the EU is destabilised by countries seceding from the union. The old commonwealth countries are joining their own regional economic unions, and the commonwealth will never realistically be revived as a meaningful organisation. Europe has to stay united to face the challenges of the future, and should not flirt with disintegration. Only our potential enemies will profit from that.

You can’t always get what you want…but if you try some times, you just might find, you get what you need…

Being independent can appeal to the romantic side of us, it seemed to be a major driving force as to why many in Scotland could feel that country could go it alone. While I am a European in the head, in the heart I am much more an Englishman or a Brit, those are my clear allegiances, for example, at sporting events. I think that is true of most continental Europeans.. The whole principle in Europe is based on giving our neighbours support so that their economies are stabilised, and become prosperous, so that the spectre of future instability and warfare becomes much less likely. It is unfortunate that many in Britain cant think that way, but if you have any vision at all, it is obvious that working to achieve prosperity across the whole of Europe is not just a selfless undertaking. In the end, we should all benefit from that. That also of course applies beyond Europe’s territories too, and it is the same logic which underpins our entire approach to providing such a generous foreign aid programme. Its true that our country had been exposed to sociological and economic pressures due to mass migration, but EU based migration, large though it is, has been due to people coming into our country to work and pay taxes, and alleviate many of our economic pressures. The problem of benefit fraud mostly arises from non-EU migration, and not from EU migrants. Only yesterday I read an absurd story about bangladeshis coming into the UK to claim housing benefits for one day. The author took pains to point out that they came from Italy, a country with which we have an effective border, this was an obvious attempt to psychologically blame the EU for something it had no role whatsoever in.

For me the issue of EU membership is all about what I think my head thinks is best, and what we need. It would be nice in some ways to go back in  time to when the British Empire was great. but for me that time has gone and we have a new future and new challenges. All Empires have one thing in common…they fall, and they rarely if ever recover. We have to get used to that fact and accept it.
Nationalism brings little positive, it creates division and it wrecked our part of the world at the start of the 20th century. It continued wrecking places like Yugoslavia, and it threatens havoc in the former Soviet Union. I think Scottish nationalism is as misguided as UK nationalism. Nationalists use simple arguments about national pride to woo people over, but what they forget is that when you loosen yourself from structures such as the UK and the EU it presents huge risks to the economy, and can lead to acrimonious relationships where new inter-nation deals are being negotiated. In this day and age, it is hard to be independent from someone on the other side of the world, let alone your neighbour.

Posted in reflections | Tagged | 1 Comment

EU Referendum Bill – second reading

Interesting debate on the EU referendum bill, principal players were disappointing, except for Hilary Benn who had an inspired few moments but failed to capitalise on his advantage.

There were some impressive maiden speeches from MPs across the spectrum , Wes Streeting, Alan Pak and Nus Gani caught my attention in particular.

Bill Cash, John Redwood played exactly the role you would expect. Owen Paterson, made a lot of noise but had little impact.

Kenneth Clarke used very few words and made an impact that far exceeded the time he took up. But you would expect no less from a parliamentarian of his standing.

Alex Salmond was more impressive and less Scottish centric than I expected.

Concerns about opting out of the 28 day purdah period, but it was left to Labour to defend that.

16-17 year olds being included in the franchise got a lot of attention and to a lesser extent the case for including EU expatriates did. But, NO mention of UK citizens disenfranchised by the 15 year rule.

Posted in referendum, reflections | Tagged , | Leave a comment

What’s The Point Of The Referendum?

Posted on June 8, 2015

David Cameron is a short term thinker and a risk-taker; characteristics also shared by investment bankers.  We can only understand his strange and shifting positions on the EU referendum if we understand this.

Cameron has blown hot and cold on the referendum, sometimes dismissive of the need for a referendum, and when faced with the prospect of defections of Tory MPs and voters to UKIP, changing his mind and inventing reasons to support a referendum.  During the recent election campaign many of his calculations were less about UKIP than about damaging the Opposition when it looked like Labour was at more risk from UKIP than the Tories.  Now his position seems to be changing again. With an election win under his belt he’s decided to use the referendum to crack down hard on his Eurosceptic wing, whilst playing a charade of ‘tough negotiations with Merkel and others’ in order to win a campaign as a national saviour who faced down twenty seven other countries and won.  That’s the narrative he’s trying to establish.

We know that as a spinner of narratives, Cameron’s a shoe-in for a Booker nomination, should he ever write a novel. Tall tales with a straight face? That man can tell ’em.

But what if the plot isn’t quite the one he expects?  The press will do much as Cameron wants, and most likely the bulk of his party will go along with him, too. Even the EU leaders against whom much of his party rails will play nice and help him out. After all, they’ve got some real issues to deal with, from Greece to the migrant catastrophe in the Med. The Cameron sideshow’s scarcely more than a distraction, assuming that Britain won’t leave the EU anyway. What Cameron doesn’t control is the messy potential of the referendum campaign to come off the tramlines along which he wants it to run.

This is where things might be fun.  After all, Cameron is using the referendum as a narrow political instrument, but it has the potential to be much more than that.

The Scottish referendum showed that an apparently dry constitutional issue, if presented in an attractive, optimistic way, can engage people who had previously seemed unresponsive to politics.  I was often irritated during the independence referendum because people seemed to be talking about issues which were utterly irrelevant to the question on the ballot paper. But Europe quite genuinely opens up the possibility of talking about issues which do matter to people in a very immediate way.

We’ve heard a lot about the ‘business case’ for the EU. The importance of the single market. A certain amount of coughing when it comes to the free movement of labour, though that’s integral to the business case, too.  But we haven’t heard enough about the ‘people’s case’ for Europe.

Battered by ‘austerity’, British people have felt insecure for years.  Wages have scarcely risen, hanging on to a job has often come with worsening conditions of service, housing is some of the smallest, meanest and most expensive in the world. Catastrophic floods and other extreme weather events.  Food safety scares. Is anything safe?

Well, yes.  The Conservative-led coalition government made access to Employment Tribunals more difficult and expensive; something that has hit women especially hard.  Thank goodness the EU ensures that rights on working hours, or against discrimination in the workplace can’t be removed altogether.

Worried about the food your kids are eating? Cash-strapped councils who’ve already lost 40% of their budgets may find it difficult to enforce safety standards, but whilst we are in the EU there remain rules and obligations around food safety. When something like the ‘donkey lasagne’ scandal comes along, there’s cross-border cooperation to hunt down the culprits and enforce the law, whether they’re on a farm in Romania, or an abattoir in Mid-Wales.

Are your kids safe at the seaside?  Those EU rules let you know the water quality, and whether the sea is fit for swimming.  Are your kids safe online? Child sexual exploitation is a real fear.  Thank goodness there’s European cooperation on this issue, with a specialist unit based in Amsterdam.  After all, we might be able to pull out of the EU, but we can’t pull out of the internet.

If all this seems a bit vague, do a bit of lazy Googling. I just did. With one click I came up with almost £300 million of EU investment into my city alone into everything from the usual business development and educational programmes, to help for carers, artists and transport. Even the city’s annual Frankfurt Market boosts the city’s economy by £85 million (2012 figures).

In any case, we are culturally all Europeans now.  We expect to travel freely, to get waved through passport control with a wave of that precious burgundy travel document.  Our footballers have the accents and names of Europe.  We sit at outdoor cafe tables, drink wine with our meals, devour Danish box sets on nights in.  It’s who we are.

So don’t let Cameron and big business ‘own’ the referendum campaign. Why not use the campaign to import a bit of EU optimism and hope? Inspire people to think ‘Europe’ every time they sip an espresso, bite into a Danish pastry, down a glass of Merlot, toss some chorizo into a sizzling pan, watch a football match, lust after a BMW, buy a frock from Zara…..

Reproduced from Yasmin Ali’s own blog –  All Human Life Is Hereabouts

Posted in referendum, reflections | Tagged , | Leave a comment

David Cameron ” would expect any minister who planned to campaign for Britain to leave the EU to resign.”

A piece from Jon Danzig quoted from the New Europeans Facebook group

→ David Cameron’s EU ultimatum – please share

PM: LEAVE THE GOVERNMENT IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE THE EU

In an ultimatum to his ministers that could result in an ugly show-down just one month after winning power, UK PM David Cameron warned his ministers today that they would have to back him on Europe or go, reportsJon Danzig.

Downing Street sources confirmed to the Telegraph this evening that Mr Cameron would expect any minister who planned to campaign for Britain to leave the EU to resign.

The Telegraph claimed that at least five ministers are known to believe that Britain should vote to leave the EU if the Prime Minister is unable to secure major reforms from Brussels. The newspaper also claimed that the Prime Minister had “rebuked” over 50 Tory MPs who have formed a group that, “will plot to take Britain out of the EU if members do not think his planned renegotiation is successful.”

Asked about the group, the Prime Minister told The Telegraph: “In the end, people have to make up their own mind. But it’ll be the public, it’ll be the people that decide, not one group of MPs or another group of MPs.”

Anger on this issue may spill over in the Tory backbenchers in the House of Commons tomorrow when there will be a debate on the EU referendum Bill.

• Read more in The Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/…/david-cameron-cabinet-ultimatum-eu-re…

___________________________________________
• For updates, please click ‘likes’ on the banner of New Europeans News:www.facebook.com/NewEuropeansNews
__________________________________________

Posted in pro-EU campaign, referendum | Tagged | Leave a comment

The UK’s EU Referendum: Winning the Yes vote is not enough!

Scott Hannon published this in his Postage Stamp Philosophy Blog on 19th May. Many thanks to him for allowing us to reproduce it here

The UK’s EU Referendum: Lessons from the Scottish Independence Debate

With an in-out referendum on the UK’s EU membership inevitable following the dramatic election victory of the Conservatives, last year’s vote on Scottish independence offers valuable insights into how a successful campaign can be run. This is not so much in terms of how the Better Together argument came out on top but more in the way the Yes side managed to take the contest to the wire.  Then there is the small matter of how the Scottish Nationalists have emerged from defeat stronger than ever.

 

Winning is Not Enough

One immediate lesson to learn is that there is no room for complacency in the event that the British people decide to remain part of the EU. Winning the vote will not kill the issue stone dead and, in the event of a close call, may even galvanise those on the other side.  In Scotland, the narrow margin of victory has only encouraged those who believe in independence, the feeling being that they are only one final push away from their ultimate goal.

Therefore, for the UK to play any significant role in the EU, a resounding victory is needed, though it would be naive to think that this in itself will be enough, illustrated by the aftermath of the 1975 European referendum.  Back then, 67% of voters favoured continuing British membership of what was then referred to as the Common Market.  Only 8 years later, Labour were committed to withdrawing the UK as part of its ill-fated 1983 election campaign.

To counter this type of scenario, then, those committed to the EU must continue to make themselves heard after the vote, victory being only the beginning of a longer process.

A Positive Vision is Needed

Another aspect of the debate is likely to centre around the economic costs of a British exit.  It is only correct that these are highlighted and looking at the Scottish referendum, the Better Together campaign was effective at keeping such aspects high on the agenda.  By bombarding the electorate with worst case scenarios day after day, the Yes side was constantly pushed onto the defensive and this no doubt helped shape the outcome as people thought with their wallets.

At the same time, though, a clear positive image of the EU, and the UK’s place within it, also need to be projected.  For this was one way independence campaigners were successful, offering hope in the future with talk of building a better society.  On the opposing side, this was not so apparent, though the likes of Sir Menzies Campbell and Gordon Brown did their best to outline how Scotland could thrive in a newly reformed UK.  This proved the exception, however, and meant that the pro-Union campaign came across as overwhelmingly negative, generating no great enthusiasm.

Given that as wide a margin of victory as possible is needed, this is something the pro-European campaign needs to avoid, meaning it must be positive and enthusiastic on the whole whilst clear in what can be achieved by staying within the EU.

The Importance of Having a Strong Visual Presence

This links to the last point which characterised the Yes campaign in the Scottish debate: its high-visibility.  Anyone who passed through Scotland in the build up to the referendum would no doubt have been struck by the sheer volume of people proudly proclaiming their support for independence.  Undoubtedly, this helped generate a sense of momentum which resulted in a much closer outcome than had been expected at the start of the process.  Such a strong grassroots movement has remained engaged, helping to propel the Scottish Nationalists to unprecedented success in a British election.

Put simply, the case for Europe needs to be taken to the streets with as many people as possible encouraged to get involved.  By doing so, it will have a strong psychological effect and make the cause more effective.

All of this, of course, will be hard to achieve but it is absolutely necessary to make sure that the UK not only remains in the EU but that it then goes on to play a key role moving forward.  At the moment, there is too much focus on the pragmatic whereby the risk is that voters will not be properly engaged.  This is in contrast to the opposing side whose emotive rhetoric, even if it is based on false premises, is likely to stir more people into action.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An EU Neverendum: Should the UK keep voting on its EU membership?

Steve Peers published this on the EU Law Analysis blog today (1st June 2015), many thanks for letting us reproduce it here.

A recent press story suggested that supporters of the ‘Out’ side in the upcoming referendum are already planning to argue, in the event of an ‘In’ vote, that a further referendum must be held again within a few years. At first sight, it looks as if at least these ‘Out’ supporters expect to lose the referendum, and are planning to be sore losers at that. I wonder if that is a helpful message for them to send – but then it’s not my role to advise the ‘Out’ side on strategy.

But is it intrinsically outrageous to suggest that there should be a further referendum on the issue? The ‘Out’ side can reasonably argue that they are only copying the strategy of pro-EU politicians, who pushed for fresh votes in Denmark and Ireland after three referenda in those states voted down the Treaties of Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon, and repackaged the Constitutional Treaty after it was defeated in the French and Dutch referenda. In principle, that’s a fair point to make: but if the ‘Out’ side are going to make it, they can no longer criticise the pro-EU side for being ‘undemocratic’ when it pushed for repeat referenda. In fact, the anti-EU side already have form on this issue themselves – since they went back to the Czech Constitutional Court to challenge the Lisbon Treaty a second time, when they didn’t like the first court ruling. The judges weren’t impressed.

Repeated referenda are not unheard of in other contexts or countries: Ireland has had several referenda on divorce and abortion, and Quebec has twice voted on separation. Many Scottish nationalists also aspire to a second independence referendum in the foreseeable future. So I don’t think one can simply argue that referenda should never be repeated. But I do think that they should only be held in certain circumstances.

What circumstances are these? In my view, there are two: a significant change in circumstances, and the conditional nature of the vote. These two criteria may well be present at the same time. The first of these criteria justifies having a new vote on the UK’s membership now, given the changes that have occurred since the last vote in 1975: five major Treaty amendments and five enlargements of the EU, leading to much greater ‘immigration’ of EU citizens to the UK. The second Quebec separation vote was justified on the basis of the second criterion: Quebeckers voted ‘no’ to independence in 1980 on the premise that the Canadian constitution would be amended to address their grievances. Two attempts to agree such amendments then failed, and that was the rationale for having another independence vote in 1995. Some Scots argue similarly that promises of greater devolution to Scotland made in the 2014 independence referendum are being broken; and many Scots believe that if the UK votes to leave the EU while Scotland votes to stay, the first criterion would be satisfied.

How do we apply these criteria to the EU referenda? In all the cases where a second referendum was held, there were intervening changes in circumstances. There were Decisions and Declarations by the EU which directly addressed those concerns of the Irish and Danish voters who had voted ‘No’. The Constitutional Treaty was scrapped as such, and replaced by the Lisbon Treaty, which contained most of the same substantive text, but without the ‘constitutional’ trappings of the failed treaty which had outraged the anti-EU side so much at the time.

Applying these rules to the UK’s planned EU referendum, there would be a case for a new vote if there were intervening changes in circumstances, which directly refuted the basis for voting ‘In’.  Equally there would be a case for a fresh vote, if most or all of the case for the ‘In’ side was based on conditional promises of EU reform which then did not take place.

Of course, two can play this game. It must equally follow that in the event of an Out vote, there would be an argument for holding a fresh referendum on the basis of the same two criteria. Article 50 TEU, the ‘withdrawal’ clause, expressly provides that a State can apply to rejoin the EU if it leaves. It’s also arguable that a State can cancel its withdrawal request, although Article 50 is not clear on this point either way. Certainly it’s possible to suspend a withdrawal request de facto, by delaying the withdrawal date indefinitely. (See further my discussion of Article 50 here).

What would this mean in practice? Applying the first criterion, it’s possible that the remaining EU would be upset at the prospect of UK withdrawal so much that it offered a new renegotiation package before it happened. Or imagine that in the longer term, the EU changed profoundly, allowing for more restrictions on the movement of people and a greater number of vetoes for national governments and parliaments. There would then be a good case for holding a vote on rejoining. Applying the second criterion, there would be a case for a second referendum if the conditions set by the Out side were not satisfied in practice: for instance, if there were no satisfactory trade deals with the remaining EU and many third States, or if the UK still had to pay a price in return for trade access (contributions to the EU budget, acceptance of EU regulation, the full free movement of people) which the Out side had claimed that it would not have to pay.

Posted in eulawanalysis, referendum | Tagged | 1 Comment

10 tips for Britain’s Yes campaign

  • There is no contradiction between being pro-EU and a proud Brit, Scot, Welsh or northern Irish

Be patriotic

Don’t allow the ‘No’ campaign to turn the European Union referendum vote into a Britain versus Europe thing. Being a member of the EU is in Britain’s national interest and there is no contradiction between being pro-EU and a proud Brit, Scot, Welsh or northern Irish. So drape yourself in the Union Jack, Welsh Dragon or St George or Andrew’s Cross and avoid flying the European flag – which almost nobody has any emotional attachment to. Invoke great Britons like Winston Churchill, one of the EU’s founding fathers who was in favour of what he called a United States of Europe. And never disparage doubters as ‘Little Englanders.’ Most of them are not and you won’t win them over by insulting them and their national pride.

Trumpet British successes

Britain is a force for good in the EU. It has championed some of the EU’s biggest success stories – such as a single market that has made trade cheaper and easier, the smashing of state monopolies that have brought cheaper flights and energy prices and the enlargement of the EU to extend the Union’s zone of peace and prosperity eastwards. It has also successfully fended off pie-in-the-sky proposals – such as common taxation rates and the creation of an EU army – that will never work.

Be positive

Make the positive, patriotic case for British membership of the EU – we are a stronger, cleaner, richer and more influential country in Europe than out – rather than leading a negative, whiny campaign based on finger-wagging, scaremongering and doomsday scenarios. That didn’t work particularly well in the Scottish independence referendum and it won’t work in 2016 or 2017. Nobody seriously believes the British economy would collapse and its society fall-apart if we left the Union. After all, non-EU countries like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are hardly Hobbesian hellholes wracked by poverty and conflict.

Show me the money

Brits may not feel a strong emotional attachment to the EU but they are pragmatic people. So don’t waste voters’ time by harping on about issues most either can’t relate to (the war), don’t care about (treaty changes) or don’t gain from (roaming charges). Instead, show how Britons directly benefit from EU membership in their daily lives – cheaper, safer holidays and products; cleaner air, rivers and beaches; funding for new roads, bridges and schools; retirement with pensions and healthcare in sunnier EU climes etc. Hammer home the point that Britain is better off as a full member of the world’s biggest trade club and economic power – a point frequently made by our closest ally, the United States.

Embrace Reform

Don’t feel like you have to justify every stupid EU policy – like the euro or the Common Agricultural Policy. Instead, criticise the EU for its failings, admit it has made mistakes but then argue that it has changed for the better – less money on farm subsidies, fewer unnecessary laws – largely as a result of British membership. Insist on a radical reform of the EU – not as a sop to the UK but because the Union needs to change to survive. Polls show that a vast majority of Brits would vote to stay in a reformed EU so grit your teeth and back David Cameron’s efforts to achieve this.

EU ≠ Superstate

Don’t exaggerate the importance of the EU – as Viviane Reding, Martin Schulz and Jacques Delors have all done in the past, claiming 70-80% of national laws stem from Brussels (the true figure in Britain is less than 15%). Emphasise that the vast majority of decisions that matter to people – whether on schools, hospitals, tax levels or sending soldiers to war – are taken by British politicians in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast not by MEPs or ministers in Belgium.

Not the usual suspects

If you work for the EU, make money feeding off it or profit from trading within a single market, it stands to reason you will be in favour of British membership. That’s why the ‘Yes’ campaign should be wary of stuffing its staff with the usual suspects – think tankers, business leaders, former diplomats, ministers and officials and other professional Europeans. At present, over a third of the Advisory Board of British Influence – a pro-EU lobby group – are Lords, Baronesses, Sirs or Dames. It might help to have some spokespeople who are not starry-eyed EU cheerleaders but simply believe that, on balance, UK membership of the Union is a good thing.

Zip it Jean-Claude

The best contribution the European Commission, parliament and other Brussels institutions can make to the campaign is to make a Trappist vow of silence. Nothing Jean-Claude Juncker or Martin Schulz says will convince Brits to stay in the EU. Indeed it is likely to have the opposite effect. The only comment EU officials should have on the referendum is ‘It’s for the British people to decide,’ not “I don’t understand why someone would want to leave EU” as Commissioner Jyrki Katainen tweeted this week.

Don’t get cocky

Polls currently show a healthy majority in favour of staying in the EU. But they are the highest they have been for over a decade and are likely to narrow as the day of destiny approaches. Remember that at the start of the French referendum campaign on the EU constitution 10 years ago this month, over 70% supported the treaty changes. By the end, 55% voted against, leaving the constitutional project dead in the water.

Hold your nose

You may not support holding an EU referendum. Tough luck. It’s happening. So embrace the chance to have a debate and let people have their say on such an important issue. You also may not like some of the folk campaigning for a “Yes’ vote with you – Cameron, for example. If that’s the case, hold your nose. You can get back to bashing the hell out of each other once the campaign is won.

Gareth Harding is Managing Director of Clear Europe, a communications company. He also runs the Missouri School of Journalism’s Brussels Programme. Follow him on Twitter @garethharding.

Posted in referendum, reflections | Tagged | Leave a comment