HMG is being high-handed, undemocratic and arrogant. That is the view of the British tabloid newspaper The Daily Mail on the refusal by the government to put the issues of the EU constitution and joining the single currency to the British public in a referendum.
In response, they have been running a campaign in the form of a ‘People’s Referendum’ which gives members of the public an opportunity to let HMG know how they feel and demand a formal, legally-binding referendum of these issues. The campaign ends at midnight tonight.
Whilst I can wholly sympathise with the sense of outrage and injustice that has driven this ‘voxpop’ campaign, I have chosen not to participate because, strange as it may sound, I do not want a referendum.
I do not wish to be too harsh on the organisers of this campaign or the proprietors of the Daily Mail. They are being far more proactive in advancing the debate in this country than just about any other organ of the fourth estate and, to the extent that the eventual result provides a bellweather of public opinion, it may prove useful in terms of boosting moral. But, tactically, to demand a referendum on these issues is to play right into the hands of the enemy.
I say this because with a government which is committed to the EU project, coupled with the ability to write out a blank cheque to enable them to realise their vision, a referendum is anything but the level playing-field that too many people fondly imagine it to be. There are loads of ways that the result can be pre-determined and HMG is almost certain to employ every single one them.
First off, the ‘yes’ campaign will have access to unlimited tax-payer funds while the ‘no’ campaign will have to rely on voluntary donations from their supporters. The (state-owned) BBC propoganda machine will be put into overdrive and current sceptical non-state media sources will be bought off or bullied into switching sides. Organised indepenence campaigns will be infiltrated with people who will start making nazi-type noises to the press at the right moment, thus giving the impression that the ‘no’ campaign is merely a fig-leaf for a scarey national socialist movement and, every day of the campaign will see dark, ominous op-eds in various established media outlets warning of the ‘dire economic consequences’ of a ‘no’ vote.
Added to all this, of course, is the distinct possibility that the actual voting figures themselves will be diddled. I wouldn’t put it past them. Even if that were not the case and, by some miracle, the ‘no’ campaign won a slim majority, we all know what happens next. Yes, that’s right, just as in Denmark and Ireland, we would have to endure another referendum in order to get the ‘right’ result.
In short, the referendum on the Euro and the Constitution will be as rigged as an 18th Century tea clipper. If the independence movement has put all its eggs in the referendum basket, then where does it go from there? The answer is nowhere. Having been spiked by the appearance of a ‘democratic consensus’ we will have no choice but to watch helplessly while Mr.Blair abolishes our country with a flourish of moral authority.
That is why I will not join in the voices calling for a referendum. I choose, intead, to demand complete British withdrawal from the EU and not to settle for any less. It is the only position which cannot be bargained away, compromised or outflanked.
Neither this nor any other government has the right to sign away the sovereignty of the British people and I do not accept as legitimate any show of hands which purports to provide it with the authority to do so. I demand independence and I will accept no substitutes.
Yes, I think that about sums it up, David.
The 1970s “Well, we’re in the EEC now, so shouldn’t we make the best of it?” referendum was heavily loaded in favour of friendly, positive YES.
All that Verdi and Bach, ah, I remember it well…..
David, you’ve pulled the tiredest loser’s argument out of the hat this time: “I don’t want a referendum because the baddies will rig it. I’m not playing, and I’m taking the ball away too.” Don’t you any faith in the British people to come to their own conclusions? Isn’t exactly this faith in the British people’s independence of mind that is stopping Blair from having a referendum on the euro – i.e., because he knows he’ll lose it? Pre-EU campaigners may have the support of the government, but the anti-EU campaigners have some very strong supporters in the press. I’d say it was a pretty even playing field. Stop blubbing “not fair” and face up to the fact that, while the majority of people in the UK may be suspicious of the EU, the majority also do not want to leave it.
So you want immediate withdrawal without asking the opinion of the British people. How very autocratic of you.
Ah, but public opinion is moving the other way, Becky. Fully a third (and growing) want out completely now. When the tide turns (as tides always do), will you feel the same about raw democracy when majority opinion stands in opposition to your own?
“When the tide turns (as tides always do), will you feel the same about raw democracy when majority opinion stands in opposition to your own?”
Yes, Mr Weasel, I will. This government and the last have done plenty of things I disagree with, but I think elected government is the least worst style of governance. Personally, I’m leaning in favour of Britain joining the euro. I also think there should be a referendum on it now, and I also think the pro-euro campaign would lose. Unlike David, I value “raw democracy” over my own personal predelictions.
Elected government is emphatically not the same thing as raw democracy. If it were so, the UK would still have the death penalty, which still polls a majority.
Elected government is emphatically not the same thing as raw democracy. If it were so, the UK would have the death penalty, which still polls a majority.
I think you’re right that this issue shouldn’t even be open to a referendum.
But I also think the British people would vote a clear “No” and that, if there were a referendum, we should certainly join them rather than turning our noses up at the democratic process.
Becky’s back with more invaluable thoughts from the Loony Left Bank. Fast forward.
David, actually, you said it. A referendum would be rigged because it is in the nature of this “government” to rig and spin and lie and diddle in favour of itself. Again, you are correct: a ‘No’ vote would only result in another referendum a year or so later. Ad infinitum. Tony Blair sees his role as the first unelected “president” of an artificial, non-country- Europe – and no sacrifice by the British people will be judged too much for the furtherance of this end. (Personally, I think the job’s already been sewn up, no matter how many Gallic nods and winks ol’ Tone’s received – so secure in his own wonderfulness that he wots not of doubt – and that the first unelected president of “Europe” will be our old friend of the nuanced hair, Dominique de Villepin. There are promises, and then there are promises, mon vieux …”.) I am now persuaded that we’re better off campaigning for a clean break. Divorces are so gratifyingly final. Both parties walk away freeeeee!!
Becky:
You haven’t addressed David’s concerns about repeated referenda like they’ve had in Ireland and Denmark. Basically, if the people of Britain *do* vote “NO!”, they’ll be subjected to another referendum in two or three years’ time until they vote “correctly”.
The poor people of Quebec have had to endure the same thing wrt separation. The PQ failed badly in the 1980 referendum, tried again in 1995, and even though the 1995 referendum failed, kept at it until they were voted out of power.
In the USA, California is big on referendums. That’s one reason (but hardly the only reason) it’s such a fucked-up state.
David, I agree with eventhing you said. I marvel that seemingly none of the Tory press perceives the trap they’re falling into.
So you want immediate withdrawal without asking the opinion of the British people. How very autocratic of you.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I find Becky’s trust in our Leaders so charmingly naive, she sounds as though she still believes they really do have our best interests at heart. (You know Dear, that Father Christmas isn’t real, dont you?.)
Then she thinks that democracy is about ‘the peoples choice’, – maybe in the days before spin, and a biased media, (either way).
Democracy is the buzz word when it is election time, but when the election is over, it’s back to the old system of ‘do what we tell you’.
Becky, does democracy require our elected leaders to pro-active, or re-active?. If it is the latter, then our representatives fail miserably, they do just what the Whip dictates, and ‘blow you Jack’, with no regard for their constituents. If it is the former, then that just ain’t democracy, it’s doing just what our supposed betters think is best for us.
Whatever form or philosophy of Government you favour, – and none stand out as being that good – they all seem to deteriorate into sleazy corruption.
The EU has a jump start – it starts off as sleazy and corrupt.
The moral of this rant is, that you cannot, under any circumstance trust a government to remain true to it’s principles without having the most rigorous checks on it’s operational behaviour.
Unfortunately, the EU does not have any such controls, and has proved that the maggot of corruption is already comfortably ensconced.
The real danger we are facing is a” super referendum” which in effect asks us “do we go fully into Europe – into the Euro and wholeheartedly into the new European constitution- or do we leave the EU” Even without the advantages David describes as being held by the “Pro’s”, that would be a very difficult one for the Anti’s to win.In reality it would be no contest.
This is where I think Blair is heading.He knows he has no chance on a straight Euro-yes or no? – referendum, but if he can turn it into The EU- yes or no?- it is a whole new ball game.
It is entirely possible that the Daily Mail campaign will backfire in this way and that Blair will eventually turn round and say”OK,let’s have a referendum.Europe ,Euro and constitution included or withdrawal”
I too am coming round to thinking we need out.But this is not the time and-particularly- this is not the government to do it.We must keep the 2 issues -Euro and Constitution-separate for the moment and fight each on its own merits,keeping inertia and peoples natural wariness of change on our side.
I think it is far better that the government is forced to show its undemocratic, skullduggeristic colours than not at all. At least that way, large numbers of people will know what they’re up against.
And you never know: maybe there won’t be any dirty tricks and maybe we will win and maybe they’ll never be able to answer the same question twice.
With reference to the euro and Britain’s acceptance of said currency, I’m reminded of something I saw in the Spectator recently. The gist of this was the following question: What (British) PROBLEM is it that the euro is supposed to SOLVE? Good question, it seems.
Janet Daley, in the Telegraph-online today, elaborates on this. What she said (I see her column has already been replaced by tomorrow’s)…what she said, or asked, is: When is somebody from HMG going to explain to their countrymen why European integration (in general) and the euro (in particular) are so very much in the interests of Britain?
I’ll confess to being only an ignorant American, but it seems that Britain’s inevitable incorporation into a US of Europe is being promoted implicitly, and as if any bleeding idiot could see it as an obvious GOOD. But where is the explanation as to why this is so? I read about Britain every day, and so far that explanation has escaped me.
I agree with David and I am fan of referendums. They are good way of answering specific, but contentious questions. However, they are not good ways of answering large nebulous questions. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt almost guarantees a no vote irrespective of the issue.
So, a referendum on the question ‘Should the UK leave the EU at the earliest opportunity?’ would certainly fail.
Whereas, a referendum on the question ‘Should the soveriegnty of the UK take precedence over EU institutions?’ would probably pass.
Right, Phil. It all depends on how the (referendum) question is posed. And who is it that that will be deciding that? Correct.
We’re being a bit harsh on Becky calling David autocratic, but the point about repeating referendums until the ‘desired’ result is achieved as in Ireland and Denmark is one she doesn’t address.
Also, Dave Fordwych’s warning about referendums being fused so as to blur what is being decided, is very serious. These are the instincts of Blair and government manipulators in general. I would be much happier about referendums if they were instituted and worded by a group separate from the government.
In some legal systems can’t a group collecting sufficient signatures force a referendum with a wording and a timing they get to choose?
One comment from an American – “HMG” says all you need to know. Its not yours, its someone elses.
David,
Drink your soma like a good boy, and snooze your way into that long good night.
Or remember the great Sir Winston:
“Never give in. Never! Never! Never! Never!”
Let them call for 100 referenda — as long as you keep the faith, THEY will be the ones who lose.
It used to be called the “British bulldog spirit” — don’t let the unworthy Left usurp it.
The gist of this was the following question: What (British) PROBLEM is it that the euro is supposed to SOLVE? Good question, it seems.
Yes, a very good question. I suspect the answer lies with the problem that the playground that our politicians play in is not big enough for the little tinkers. I mean, we can still see them from the fences and can still yank them off home for a good telling off when need be.
I suspect that Dave Fordwych has put his finger on the greatest danger here – that the weasel Blair will stage a petulant ‘in or out’ referendum.
That, I fear, we may not win, due to the scare tactics used by the Eurotraitors.
Just to pick up another point, like George Peery I was glad to read Janet Daley’s piece asking the one question that these androids never answer: Just what is it that Britain stands to *gain* from all this?
“One comment from an American – “HMG” says all you need to know. Its not yours, its someone elses.”
Very interesting observation, Tom. Can I expect that you British will henceforth refrain from expressing an opinion about issues that most vitally affect the USA?
Tom Kince,
It wasn’t always like this. Years ago there were more checks and balances on the power of the executive. Contrary to popular belief (on both sides of the Pond) we do actually have a constitution and there was a time when it worked well to limit the power of the politicians.
However, that constitution has been worn down to a nub and many of the checks and balances disassembled.