(From the archives) Originally posted on January 24, 2013 by markdowe
EUROPEAN REFERENDUM
Argument For:-
…At last, voters are trusted to choose Britain’s future. David Cameron has given Britain a far better chance of securing a satisfactory settlement with the European Union
David Cameron cannot have imagined when he became Prime Minister that he could conceivably preside over both the break-up of the United Kingdom and its exit from the European Union. The likelihood must be that neither will happen; but the possibility has been raised that both might. Almost out of nowhere, we have an epochal moment in British politics.
The referendum on Scottish independence will take place next year, but the plebiscite on Europe is contingent on a Tory victory at the next election. That, indeed, was one of the principal aims of the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday: not just to address the vexed question of Britain’s position in Europe, but to woo the voters by promising them something they have long wanted, but have not been given since 1975.
Not for the first time, Mr Cameron has shown a capacity to surprise whenever the pressure is greatest. Even though his speech was long-awaited and vigorously debated in advance, it lost none of its impact. It was well judged, elegantly phrased, persuasively argued and expertly delivered. No one should doubt its importance both for domestic politics and for Britain’s foreign policy, which for decades has been based on retaining a central role within the European project. Indeed, despite his criticisms of the current arrangements, Mr Cameron made clear that this remains not just Government policy, but his overwhelming personal preference: he explicitly ruled out the halfway house of a looser association on the Norwegian or Swiss model. Still, while his aim is to campaign to stay within a reformed EU, he proposes that it will be the country, not its politicians, that makes the choice – and has the option to leave.
Politically, the speech was an immediate success. Conservative MPs, who have been agitating for just such a statement, were delighted. Ideally, they will now give their leader some breathing space while the shape of his plans becomes clear, ending the rows that have done much to destabilise the party. Ukip, while outwardly pleased to have the debate finally conducted on its territory, must privately fear that it will now be marginalised. Labour found itself boxed in, with many asking how Ed Miliband can sustain his bizarre position, adopted at Prime Minister’s Questions, that voters should not be offered an in-out referendum, even when so much about Europe is changing so rapidly. For their part, the Liberal Democrats now oppose the very referendum that they promised in their most recent manifesto. Then again, it is a characteristic of the most ardent proponents of the European venture that they consider it dangerous to ask the people what they think.
Rather than listing particular goals, Mr Cameron sought to frame his argument in a wider philosophical context. He argued, entirely correctly, that it would benefit Europe as a whole if its institutions were less bureaucratic and more competitive. He made a powerful case for a more flexible, adaptable and open EU – and observed that we are not alone in Europe in holding such ambitions (hence the cautious welcome that his words received from many on the Continent, including Angela Merkel). Yet if this is not forthcoming, Mr Cameron warned, “we need to safeguard our interests”.
Ultimately, what matters most to Britain is what is best for Britain. Indeed, only when this country is involved does defence of the national interest become something to be sneered at. In Berlin earlier this week, Mrs Merkel and François Hollande celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, which set the seal on the post-war reconciliation between France and Germany. Ever since, Europe has developed very much in the way decreed by these two countries. As Mrs Merkel said in Berlin, in order to underpin monetary union, the next move will involve greater economic and fiscal integration. That, as Mr Cameron argued, must inevitably change this country’s relationship with the eurozone nations.
Although the UK signed up 40 years ago to the “ever closer union” envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, our leaders have, for much of that time, tried to stop it happening. But the forward momentum has been relentless. Monetary union, the removal of internal borders under the Schengen deal, the proposed harmonisation of justice and home affairs under the Lisbon Treaty, and now the intended fiscal federation in the eurozone, mean Europe is very different from the institution we joined.
Yesterday, David Cameron set out a different vision. He may not be able to bring enough other leaders to share it, but the leverage granted by the prospect of a referendum will give us a far better chance of securing a settlement we can live with. Indeed, many of the arguments in yesterday’s speech were made in another keynote address, delivered by Margaret Thatcher in Bruges in 1988. She, too, bemoaned Europe’s insularity, its lack of accountability, its drift towards federalism, all of which have accelerated since. What even she did not offer, however, was to let the people decide whether they wanted to stay in. In proposing that they should, Mr Cameron has taken an audacious and momentous step, and one deserving of the highest praise.
