Why I'm rooting for Labour for a Referendum

Labour for a Referendum has now launched with fanfare and is already making waves in the party. Further, it commands a decent cross-section of support in the party and from many notable figures – Frank Field, Jon Cruddas, Keith Vaz, Owen Jones, John Mills and actor Richard Wilson, among others.

At the Progress annual conference on Saturday, which I greatly enjoyed, Ed Miliband said the following in his keynote address:

“David Cameron may try to out Farage-Farage on Britain’s membership of the European Union. But in all of our decisions we make, we will always stand up for the national interest. And our national interest lies in staying in the EU. And working for the changes that will make it work better for Britain. It is wrong now to commit to an in/out referendum and have four years of uncertainty and a ‘closed for business’ sign above our country. Of course people are frustrated about the EU, but in town centres across the country I heard loud and clear where people see the national interest, what people are most worried about: jobs, living standards, the fate of their small businesses. One Nation Labour will not put them at risk. It is One Nation Labour that will fight for our national interest.”

While I am fully in agreement with him about our economic, political and national interests lying with the EU, I have disagreed for some time with Ed on his opposition to the referendum and still do. His argument about the economic uncertainty caused by a referendum is not one I ignore altogether. It could affect the strength of the pound and business leaders have warned that the uncertainty could effect decisions by multinationals to invest in the UK - Sir Martin Sorrell of the ad firm WPP said that the economic impact over prospective referendum was “at least neutral, it is at worst negative. It can’t be positive.” And these are just the effects of speculation over the possibility of a referendum – they are but a harbinger of what would happen if we were to actually leave. 

But the fact of the matter is that this speculation is not something Labour has started, nor is it something we can finish. Our relationship with the EU has long been difficult, built on a weak democratic foundation, and like it or not, the Tories have now fired the starting gun on the call for a people’s referendum and, if we’re not careful, a full British exit from the EU. An opposition Labour party refusing to engage the debate will not change this or mitigate any negative economic effects it may be having (not to bruise Labour egos, but there's no businessman who ignores the words of the incumbent government and instead bases his investment decisions on what the essentially powerless official opposition says). Likewise, calling for a referendum will not make us culpable for any economic damage. However, there are four harmful effects the continued failure to call for one could well have.

The case for a vote

1)   Labour will look afraid to fight a referendum and like we are not confident in our own pro-European beliefs. This means that the Tories and the Eurosceptic press will continue to hold the floor for the next four years, making ‘Brexit’ much more likely in the event that Tories were to hold on to power and schedule a referendum for 2017, due to the refusal of progressive pro-Europeans to consistently articulate our own side in the preceding years. Only by standing our ground, setting out our stall and proving our willingness to fight and win a referendum can we put away their arguments

2)  Labour may suffer politically in 2015 if we oppose a referendum. I do of course acknowledge what Anthony Wells and others have said about the political salience of the EU potentially being somewhat exaggerated – it is not the top issue, people always want referendums and even UKIP voters do not see Europe as their absolute main concern, so Labour could perhaps still win on an anti-referendum platform if the rest our electoral offer was solid enough. However, Labour is unlikely to have an easy ride in 2015 even on the more pressing issues, on top of which Europe may thus represent an additional and unnecessary complication. At a People’s Pledge debate I saw a few months ago, Owen Jones also articulately warned of how Cameron’s clarity on the EU allows him to position himself as a decisive leader in the Thatcher vein, in contrast to the convoluted line coming from his opposition. Labour needs to spend 2015 and the run-up to it establishing our economic competence, making clear Ed’s readiness to be PM, outlining clear plans for growth and deficit reduction and making the argument for reforms to our NHS and public services, rather than trying to explain away our muddled stance on Europe. And if Europe or anything else does cost Labour the election, this leads us straight back into point (1), in any case. With something this crucial to our national interest, we need to be prepared, come hell or high water

3)   As Jon Cruddas has warned, Britain’s relationship with the EU will continue to be built on apathy, disengagement, suspicion and a democratic deficit. No one under 56 has voted on Europe directly, and those that did voted on something wholly different from what the European project has since developed into. Since the standard of debate in Britain since has also been so poor, few know why we are in it or what benefits it provides us, perhaps even some of those who would want to play it safe and stay in if a vote were to be held tomorrow. As long as this is the case, politicians will continue to duck difficult questions and try and sneak past the electorate on something that is so crucial to our national governance, due to their lack of a core democratic mandate for their activities in Brussels

4)  The disconnect between Westminster politicians and the general public will continue to grow, as even the elected MPs of their supposed ‘people’s party’ condescendingly refuse to honour their rightful wish to finally have another say on Europe. Meanwhile, placing trust in the people on a referendum could help start to heal our broken politics and re-engage people in the decisions that matter

The case for an 'In' vote

If we did have a referendum, I am personally confident that it could be won. First, there are plenty of arguments – economic, geo-political, environmental, democratic, security-related – as to why it would be prudent for Brits to democratically continue to cede part of our governance arrangement to Europe. Let’s start with arguments like this, put forward by University of York International Political Economy lecturer Simon Sweeney:

“What did the EEC/EU ever do for us? Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade; structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline; clean beaches and rivers; cleaner air; lead free petrol; restrictions on landfill dumping; a recycling culture; cheaper mobile charges; cheaper air travel; improved consumer protection and food labelling; a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives; better product safety; single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance; break up of monopolies; Europe-wide patent and copyright protection; no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market; price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone; freedom to travel, live and work across Europe; funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad; access to European health services; labour protection and enhanced social welfare; smoke-free workplaces; equal pay legislation; holiday entitlement; the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime; strongest wildlife protection in the world; improved animal welfare in food production; EU-funded research and industrial collaboration; EU representation in international forums; bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO; EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; European arrest warrant; cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence; European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa; support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond; investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital. All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed. It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980. Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multipolar global future.” - Simon Sweeney, University of York, The Guardian, Jan 2011

Leaving the EU while seeking to remain in its economic area, as advocated by many Eurosceptics, would also worsen our democratic position rather than improve it – Norway’s "fax democracy" is not something to be fetishized, as European Labour Leader Glenis Willmott has explained. The Conservatives will want to renegotiate the employment and social aspects of EU law, potentially the easiest aspect of EU regulation for the British left to defend in an open debate. 

At Progress conference on Saturday at a seminar called ‘the Doorstep challenge: can [Labour] win on crime and immigration?’, one activist issued a ‘doorstep challenge’ of their own to the panel by asking how they would address UKIP’s argument that only by withdrawing can we restrict immigration - former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith replied that we can say that since the prime concern about immigration is the jobs impact, and withdrawing from the EU would have a much worse net effect on jobs, withdrawing from the EU for this reason would make no sense (BritainThinks pollster Zoe Tyndall also backed her on this, stressing the ‘false economy’-type arguments such as this have been shown to be most effective with voters). There is a case waiting to be made, if Britain’s pro-EU advocates can find their voice.

But secondly, even before hearing the full pro-EU argument, the British public are wise, rationally loss-adverse and unlikely to withdraw on a whim. Incumbency is still a boost not a drag for sitting MPs, something that can be hard to reconcile with the grumbling about "career" politicians and demands for change that pervade our public political discourse. In 2009, the public vowed to elect David Cameron with a winning margin of 10-20 percent, so deep was their mid-term disaffection with Gordon Brown at the time, but when faced with a genuine choice in May 2010, they couldn’t truly stomach the thought of an all-out majority Tory government and hedged their bets. When the AV referendum was first called, polls showed support for the idea of reform, but when they considered the matter, the belief that the new system would be complicated and the (wrongful) concern that it would lead to more coalitions led people to play it safe and vote heavily against – and that was on an issue that few cared much about. The Welsh voted against devolution the first time around in 1979, the Scots voted for it by a weak enough margin that it was nullified on a technicality. The North East of England voted no on regional assemblies in 2004, again despite clamour for English devolution and initial support for the idea in opinion polls.

More specific to the EU, though polls now seem to have swung back to the usual trend of a 40-something percent ‘out’ vote, earlier in the year when real debate about an EU referendum and its implications first spiked with Cameron’s initial announcement, the polls showed a marked move against the ‘outs’, demonstrating the difference between people’s reactions when responding to purely hypothetical questions about leaving the EU (in which case they are free to groan about Brussels) and how they respond when the actual prospect of withdrawal becomes even distantly real. And most important of all, the 1975 EC referendum we saw the potential forerunner of what could in fact happen in 2017. Initially, people wanted out. But the leaders of all three parties, much of the mainstream press and the business community stressed the importance of staying in, leaving only the fringe voices of the hard left and hard right in favour of outright withdrawal. A two-to-one preference for withdrawal in early polls evaporated, replaced by a two-to-one vote to stay in on the day.

With this comparison, I do not wish to gloss over how much of a fight such a referendum would be today – the voice for a withdrawal, especially on the right, is much stronger than it was then. 

However, the essential facts would still be the following. The public will still be loss-adverse and will hear a coherent campaign in favour of the EU. The leaders of Labour and the Lib Dems will campaign for an ‘in’ vote, and if Cameron holds on he may too. Other potential Tory leaders, notably Boris, are not 100% dead-set in favour of leaving, and I wonder if they’d quiver even more about doing so if they were actually in the leader’s chair rather than being in the position to simply politick behind Cameron’s back without responsibility as they are free to do at current. Note the difference between Cameron’s ‘cast-iron’ pledge on Lisbon and his actual position once this became too difficult to implement – other potential Tory leaders will not necessarily be more strident, whatever they claim at the moment to please the Tory base (they are politicians, after all). 

Additionally, last I heard among the mainstream press, only The Express is definitively pro-withdrawal in its editorial line – even the Brussels-bashing Mail allows for some wiggle-room here. And while there is a vocal minority in the business community favouring withdrawal, it is still only a minority. Many of the points above were even recognised by Tim Montgomerie in a ConservativeHome post entitled ‘Seven reasons why the Eurosceptic movement faces an uphill battle to win any referendum’. 

It will be a very difficult fight, but on balance, I’d ever so slightly rather be the ‘in’ campaign than the ‘outs’ when it comes down to it. It’s a risk, but a calculated one with potentially great rewards. Meanwhile, the present Labour position has clear downsides as I set out above. Leaders must lead, and Ed Miliband can and should be bold.