We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Patrick Crozier says it will definitely be No

Personally I do not know what to make of the referendum we are now promised about the EU constitution. Will the forces of darkness triumph, or will it be: NO!?

Patrick Crozier has no such doubts. In 1975, the verdict was Yes, but this time, he says, it will be different:

  1. We know what the EU is like.
  2. Then all the main political parties were in favour. Now they are not.
  3. Then most of the papers were in favour. Now most of them are not.
  4. Then, our economy was a laughing stock. Now it is the rest of Europe that has the problem
  5. Then, most businessmen were in favour. Now things are much closer.
  6. Although I don’t know what it was like then, now there are plenty of celebs prepared to endorse a “No” campaign.

Setting aside the matter of why he thinks Blair has decided to hold this referendum (and here is another explanation), is Patrick right? I want to believe him, but do I?

I have the feeling that the people writing this blog are not quite so confident, or why would they bother?

13 comments to Patrick Crozier says it will definitely be No

  • Sam Roony

    1975 was different. I was a lot younger, for a start. But the question was different: do we quit from a two year old deal that had taken nearly fifteen years to set up? That was easily presented as the risky option. And at that time, the “establishment” (in the Danny Morrison sense) were roaring in favour of the status quo.

    Now it’s different, a vote for the constitution – whatever that turns out to be – is going to be a vote for change. The status quo’s will have the advantage, again.

  • La Marquise

    I have been hoping that TB’s sudden conversion to holding a referendum on Europe was due entirely to his realisation that it would give Chirac a bit of a nasty turn. Perhaps the blissful possibilityof riling cher Jacques (UNctuous defender of Oil for Hypocrisy) is worth the embarrassment, the ghastly vision of Gordon Brown at No 10 etc (but I expect it’s childish to want politics to be so deliciously human ….)

  • Guy Herbert

    A yes vote can also be framed as a status quo vote, and this may be part of the plan as Blair has sequenced things: (1) Constitution agreed between EU governments, (2) Parliamentary vote (in favour), (3) Referendum: Do you want to set aside what’s been agreed by the whole of Europe and by Parliament?

  • Alan Peakall

    IMO there is a more subtle elaboration of point 4 in making the comparison between 1975 and today. In the early 1970s EEC membership was portrayed as a way of tackling the UK’s domestic economic problems by autopilot – a means whereby a government could claim that unpopular measures were being forced upon it. European integration therefore secured the support of economic liberals impatient with the constraints imposed by democratic politics.

    The experience of UK governments in the 1970s and early 1980s showed that this effect was marginal. Though Mrs Thatcher’s claim of TINA (There Is No Alternative) was always articulated in terms of fundamentals rather than the constraints of EU membership, the idea still survived in the clamour for ERM membership. With the policy of direct inflation targeting outside the ERM that has been in place from mid-Oct 92 proving to deliver macro-economic stability at least comparable with that of the Eurozone, the notion is now completely dead.

    This experience means that those in favour of closer European integration have a deficit in credibility when they find problems outside the economic to which they point and claim that Europe is the answer.

  • Verity

    La Marquise – Dream on. The last person in the world that Tony Blair wants to offend is Jacques Chirac. The second last person is Gerhardt Schroeder. He is dependent on their good will to push him forward for the (unelected) presidency of the EU. Blair’s personal ambition for himself in Europe, with possibly a nice little earner on the side for Imelda – Procurateur-General of the entire EU, say – has been what has driven his seven failed years in office in Britain.

  • Sam Roony

    Do the deal, drill it through parliament, and challenge the electorate to upset the cart (Guy’s scenario). Blair ’97 up to Blair ’02 might have pulled it off, but not Blair ’04/05″. This won’t just be a vote against Europe, but a chance to vote against Blair. It’ll be personal (I hope).

  • Rob Read

    Verity how about this…

    Blair has given up with any thought of an EU role after Iraq.

    Bush has offered him first pick role as head of a reformed DNA (Democratic Nations Alliance) which will replace the UN.

    Blair thinks it’s time to have some fun…

  • Rob Read

    I think you could be onto something with that. Blair is a man of very strong beliefs, but also with a willingness to duck and weave, with quite a lot of low cunning. So, yes, I think he has given up on becoming the Head Boy of Europe (mainly because Europe would not now stomach this), but he has not given up on being one of the World’s Head Boys, even grander than he is now.

    Are there any other reasons to think that this DNA project is a goer? Separating it from the question of Blair’s future, I mean.

    To answer my own question, I have picked up some Global Elite vibes to exactly this effect. My friend Tim Evans, who seems now to have reached the rank of Person Who Takes Out The Rubbish Once Every Two Months for the Bilderberg Commission, says that The Elite have been asking (i.e. asking him at mysterioso weekend seminars) about the future of the UN. Keep it? Change it? Bin it? Etc. Your DNA has definitely surfaced as a focus of support at such gatherings.

    Could all be wishful thinking, of course. But interesting, I think.

  • Guy Herbert

    No, not “challenge the electorate to upset the cart”. Challenging electorates is a dangerous business. They are Scooby-doo-ish creatures that, if they think you are asking them to be brave, tend to run the other way.

    [Heath: Who rules Britain?

    Electorate: Sorry, were you talking to us? Er, couldn’t really say…]

    I was thinking more along the lines of making it easy for the Electorate to say “yes” by way of endorsement, to avoid any sense of conflict. The people prefers its politics without conflict, so the object of the exercise is to paint the “no” side as rancourous. There might be a suggestion that, since it had already elected a Labour government that supported the policy, the Electorate would simply be endorsing what it had already agreed to, and that other people than Tony were challenging it by asking it to be decisive and change its mind. Inertia is a very powerful factor in politics.

  • More and more, I wonder how prescient Peter Preston was. Has anyone read 51st State?

  • Sam Roony

    Interesting thought Guy. “Who rules Britain” was the Heath question in February 1974, and the answer was:- “Arthur Scargill maybe, but not you pal”. The electorate opted for a deal and bought the NUM argument, because it was – maybe – “fair”. But, contrarily, the winners of that election put the Europe in-or-out question in May 1975, and got the “wrong” answer. In light of what happened later, the pro-NUM and pro-Europe cases were both weak. but the voters bought them both. Depressing, innit!

  • Sean

    It’s clearly Bush’s fault! He has Blair in his pocket and is using him to shaft Chirac and Schroeder. I WISH!

  • Verity

    Rob Read, in a word, no. Blair is set on being the god-king of the EU. He believes he deserves it because of how wonderful he is and how much everyone adores him. He has not given up. No, no and no!

    Blair was walking on both sides of the street over Iraq. Whether motivated by any real belief in the war or not (I do not believe he was driven to create democracy in Iraq at the same time as stifling it in Britain), he knew Chirac and Schroeder were counting on him to tamp Bush down. This Blair tried very hard to do, by persuading Mr Bush to string along with the UN for six whole months. He was reporting back to Jacques and Gerhardt every step of the way.

    Chirac and Schroeder were aware that he had pulled as hard as he could – while at the same time enjoying, as always, the international limelight. In fact, to be honest, and I don’t mean this hurtfully or cynically to Americans at all, since 9/11, Blair has been acting out a two year job interview for president of Europe.

    “Hi Jacques and Gerhardt! Did you see my latest photos? This is me being presidential in the Rose Garden with a real president — oops! I meant an president elected by the electorate! Oh, look, here’s one of me boarding Airforce One and waving! I seem to look very presidential – but then I would say that, wouldn’t I? Oh, here’s one of me addressing the American Congress!

    “Oh look here I am shaking hands with various world leaders! Did you notice my power handshake? It’s dignified and presidential, yet friendly.”

    And on and on. I have said before, Blair did his best to play both sides of the fence over Iraq.

    The presidency of this rackety, Mickey Mouse outfit the EU will come about this year. The DNA, if it happens, won’t happen for another four or five years. Blair can’t afford to wait for five years, even if other leaders were stupid enough to vote for Kofi Au Lait to play the Kofi Anan role. He’ll be yesterday’s man within five years and many of his more damaging, anti-democratic projects will have been reversed.