Should Britain hold a referendum on the EU Constitution?
Written by Steven Everts and Charles Grant , 01 January 2004
Dear Charles,
European leaders are busy drawing up a constitution which will set out what tasks the EU should and should not perform; clarify who is responsible for what; and specify how the EU takes decisions. Once governments have agreed a final text, the question becomes: how should each country ratify the constitution, by parliamentary vote or referendum? Already several member-states have indicated they will hold a referendum.
This group includes big countries like Italy and Spain; small countries like Portugal and Ireland; eurosceptic countries like Denmark; euro-enthusiasts like Luxembourg and even countries that have never previously held a referendum like the Netherlands. The British government, however, has stated categorically that it does not intend to hold a referendum.
This position is predictable but a shame. It makes the government look needlessly arrogant and defensive. According to opinion polls, the vast majority of people in Britain, close to 80 per cent, want a referendum. Interestingly, some prominent pro-Europeans have come out in favour, showing that calling for a referendum is not the preserve of anti-European forces.
Of course few people know what exactly is in the draft constitution. It is also true that the document would not create massive new powers for the EU. But it is hard to argue against giving people a direct say in how the EU is run. Technically the government is right in portraying the constitution as a clarification exercise. But politically this position is tone deaf. As the formal basis for the new European Union of 25 countries, the constitution is rightly seen as a historical document. Moreover, if the constitution is important enough to be subjected to referenda in eight or more other EU member-states, why not in Britain?
It is time for pro-Europeans in Britain to shake off their defensive and defeatist attitude. It is tactically shrewd but strategically flawed always to portray any EU initiative as insignificant polishing. Instead pro-Europeans should acknowledge that EU integration requires a pooling of sovereignty but then make the case why and how Britain benefits. They should not let the government get away with regularly promising 'a great national debate' on Britain's relationship with Europe and then failing to deliver one. Politics and leadership are about changing things, not merely going with the flow. And if successful, a referendum could be cathartic, killing off, once and for all, the canard that the EU is somehow imposed on people against their will.
Yours, Steven.
Dear Steven,
I like representative democracy. We elect people who will use their judgment to take decisions on our behalf, and if we don't like what they do we can vote for a different bunch of people next time. That said, I do believe that fundamental constitutional issues should be put to referenda. Adopting the euro would be a big change for the British people, so they should vote on whether they want it.
If the new constitutional treaty transformed Britain's relationship with the EU, I would support a referendum on it. Although we will not know the final version until the inter-governmental conference (IGC) has concluded, we can be fairly sure that it will alter very little in the way Britain is governed. Most of the constitution simplifies and consolidates the existing treaties and jurisprudence. The biggest innovations, in my view, are the merger of the jobs held by the external relations commissioner and the High Representative for foreign policy; the creation of a full-time 'president', who will enjoy no presidential powers other than to chair the European Council and act as a top-level spokesman for the EU; and the end of the national veto over asylum policy.
The first two are largely technical matters that are of little interest to most voters. Asylum policy has more salience. But it is easy enough to argue that asylum is a problem best tackled through common EU policies even the Sun called for majority voting on asylum policy not so long ago. The Single European Act of 1985 led to a much larger extension of majority voting into most single market issues but we had no referendum then. If the new constitution ended the national veto over taxation, foreign policy or defence, I would call for a referendum. But it will not. However, I share your despair at the British government's failure to argue the case for the constitution. It says it must wait for the end of the IGC but by then the europhobes will have fooled many people into believing that the constitution will create a super-state. With a few honorable exceptions, including the current minister for Europe, ministers have shown themselves to be incapable of and unwilling to explain why Britain is better off in Europe. Until that argument is won there is no hope of persuading the British to vote for the euro.
Yours, Charles.
Dear Charles,
Ultimately, whether you favour a referendum depends on two separate questions: is the constitution important enough to give people a direct say? And, for pro-Europeans, can a referendum be won? My answer to both questions is 'Yes'.
You are right that the constitution will not overhaul completely Britain's relationship with the EU. But majority voting on migration and asylum, a new 'foreign minister' and Council President, an expansion of powers of the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice: these changes matter. The task ahead is to explain why they are useful, not to deny their importance. Moreover, this focus on the technicalities risks missing the bigger picture: people want a vote on 'Europe'. The European cause suffers if it is always associated with elitism and undemocratic practices.
Can we win? Admittedly the polls look bad right now. But remember that when campaigning started in 1975, the No side led by two-to-one. In the end, the referendum passed by the exact reverse margin. If you treat the electorate with respect instead of disdain and, if you explain how well Britain does out of this constitution, there is every chance a majority will agree with us.
Yours, Steven.
Dear Steven,
I think a referendum could be won if Britain were a truly democratic country, with a responsible, fair-minded and honest press. But is it? Many commentators point out that one obstacle to peace in the Middle East is that the Arab press tends to portray Israel in an utterly negative light. But they fail to see the parallel with British reporting on Europe, which distorts the truth, tells outright lies and encourages people to hate the French and the Germans. William Rees-Mogg, the eminent Times columnist, recently wrote that the draft constitution would transfer foreign and defence policy from Britain to the EU. That is factually incorrect but as far as I am aware Rees-Mogg's editors have not admonished him. British journalists face no sanction for getting their facts wrong on the EU. If they did and if you could guarantee that newspapers would give equal space to both sides of the argument I would be happier to have a referendum on the constitution. A few press barons, having poisoned the British debate on Europe, are now campaigning for a referendum as a means of forcing Britain out of the EU. Do not play their game.
Yours, Charles.