EU Referendum: BBC Speculate On An April 2016 Poll

Allegra Stratton, Political Editor reported on BBC Newsnight on the 1st September that an early referendum might be possible in April 2016. She begins:

[The] Conservative Party look like they're in a bit of a hurry. I am told that some of David Cameron's advisers are looking at the idea of an early Europe referendum, possibly as early as next April [2016].

Apparently, according to Stratton, the Tories are in a hurry as to try to outmaneuver Corbyn should he win the Labour leadership. Here we can clearly see the BBC is unable to escape from the confines of UK domestic "biff-bam" personality politics over what is the most important and powerful vote the UK public have in their lifetime - membership of a supranational organisation.

Not that we would know it from the BBC but it's a decision that will have enormous ramifications on the UK's economic and political relationships with the rest of the world.

Stratton then continues to justify her 'insider knowledge':

For the government to have a referendum in the middle of April the following elements have to fall into place like absolute clockwork. They have to kickstart the campaign in early February; that allows for the legal minimum of 10 weeks that they have to have for any campaign...That means that this legislation is receiving Royal Assent in early January or mid January... Government insiders believe this very tight schedule is possible but difficult.

We wouldn't dispute the implication that the EU Referendum Bill is unlikely to receive Royal Assent before Christmas. Yet the assertion of allowing for "the legal minimum of 10 weeks that they have to have for any campaign." clearly overlooks the recommendations of the Electoral Commission (EC).

Here we have to look at the EC's report on the Scottish Referendum which we previously noted (my emphasis):

... that in planning for any future referendums, not only in Scotland but also those held across or in other parts of the UK, governments should aim to ensure that legislation (including any secondary legislation) is clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with by campaigners, the Chief Counting Officer, Counting Officers or Electoral Registration Officers.

Thus "a reasonable period" according the Electoral Commission amounts to six months, as it argues to allow for (again my emphasis):

The benefit of this additional time was passed on to campaigners, EROs and COs in preparing for their respective roles at the referendum:

Campaigners were able to engage constructively with the legislative process and had time to develop an understanding of the relevant guidance and rules, before they came into force. EROs and COs benefitted from sufficient time to put robust plans in place for the delivery of their responsibilities under the legislation, from targeted public awareness activity to the booking of polling places and the training of staff.

In addition the Electoral Commission also recommends (again my emphasis):

2.39 Following the 2011 referendum on additional powers for the National Assembly for Wales and the Parliamentary Voting System for the House of Commons, we recommended that for future referendums the detailed rules should be clear at least 28 weeks in advance of polling day, based on a statutory regulated referendum campaign period of 16 weeks.

Stratton fails to take into account the EC's recommendations that six months is required for the designation process - to nominate the official "remains" and "leavers" campaign.

Thus a April 2016 poll is now impossible on the current timescale. It's disappointing to say the least when a highly paid BBC journalist doesn't know the basics and doesn't inform us. Then again this is exactly why the legacy media were caught out when the EC recommended changing the question, despite the EC's reservations being made public in advance.

Thankfully we have the internet...EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum 

EU Referendum: The Cameron Ploy

 

We have noted before the advantages the leavers have over the 1975 referendum campaign. One of course is the internet, another is the Electoral Commission, which has gone some way to ensure that the ballot paper and the question will be relatively neutral which is in contrast to 1975. 

Crucially another advantage we have is a weak opposition general in the form of Cameron. It's clear he did not want a referendum nor does he want to leave the EU. That he has offered a referendum against his wishes was more a reflection of his political weakness at the time not his view that he thinks he's confident that he can win it.

We know this because he has made a serious of political mistakes. His referendum offer was made due to pressure from backbenchers in the belief that such a promise would win help him the 2015 election - and it was an offer made regardless of what concessions Cameron thought he could agree from Brussels. It is very likely he chose 2017 as the UK takes over the Presidency of the Council of the EU rather than any other consideration.

Cameron's fundamentally weak position is exposed by his change of strategy three times since promising a referendum, changes made necessary by the EU not wishing to bend over backwards to accommodate UK demands:

Initially Cameron attempted to hijack a new EU treaty - Fundamental Law - a treaty which was, and still is, necessary to try to resolve the Eurozone crisis. Confident in 2013 that a new treaty was imminently forthcoming, and all the indications at the time suggested it was, Cameron attempted to hijack it with the threat of a UK veto unless demands for reform and repatriation of powers were met. His Bloomberg speech in 2013 made this clear. In response the EU 'parked' the treaty temporarily to nullify the threat.

Rebuffed by the EU on this Cameron had to change tack and attempted to try somewhat limited reform via Article 48. Here he narrowed down "reform" to cover one subject, and one subject only – immigration. The idea being that against all the odds Cameron could pull off a quick treaty and come home in triumph, waving a piece of paper while at the same time shooting UKIP's immigrant fox.

Yet realistically all he could achieve would be minor treaty changes, he knew though that upon bringing his "deal" back from Brussels, we would be waiting to dissect it and tell everyone that it doesn't match his "promise".  Thus the need to remove the purdah period which would give Cameron the opportunity to spring the so-called "deal" on us at the last minute, leaving us little time to scrutinise it.

It's interesting therefore to note the eagerness in recent days with which Cameron has conceded the Electoral Commission's advice on the question and particularly on purdah. This suggests strongly that any kind of Article 48 renegotiation, or indeed any other, before a referendum is no longer a central part of Mr Cameron's strategy. The outcome has become irrelevant:

David Cameron is backing down on his refusal to impose a period of “purdah” in the runup to the EU referendum in a concession to his Eurosceptic backbenchers. It is understood the changes will impose purdah with a few exceptions to allow ministers to carry on with essential business.

This then leaves only Associate Membership, via a new Treaty, which amounts to nothing more than a re-branding of what we already have. Here we have clear indication from Cameron that it will be sold to us as a "looser" relationship:

"I want the European Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it"

A "looser relationship" that would mean a two tier arrangement as noted by the Times without the term Associate Membership being used:

[David] Owen [author of Europe Restructured] argues — surely correctly — that David Cameron’s idea of removing ourselves from a commitment to “ever closer union” should be a much more ambitious proposal. The prime minister should argue for a community restructured into two parts: the eurozone and the single market. Or to put it another way, the Union and the Community.

The eurozone — the Union — would acquire, in addition to the powers the EU already has, much greater fiscal control. And it would gradually develop the democratic institutions necessary to exercise that control with consent.

Owen’s idea of a Community would bring together EU members outside the eurozone, including the UK, with countries such as Norway, Iceland and, he argues, Turkey, in a looser free trade area clearly based on independent nation states.

The ground is being laid therefore for Cameron to pass off Associate Membership as his own idea despite that it's been part of a draft EU Treaty since October 2013. And within in this looser relationship - which would seek to bring in Norway, Iceland and Switzerland thus abolishing EFTA and the EEA - the UK will be seen as a leader in the outer ring, while the inner ring, or inner core, form the eurozone.

In reality this new arrangement will be the B-road rather than the Autobahn to "ever closer union". Yet despite that the journey maybe slower the destination is still the same. And it will be a reality Cameron seeks to hide behind curtains, rather like the Wizard of Oz, pictured above. It may seek to be impressive but Cameron has an extremely weak hand. Pull back the curtains and we're left seeing clearly a little man pretending.

All we need to do is pull back the curtains.
EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum 

EU Referendum Question Is Set To Change

Following on from concerns by the Electoral Commission this morning over the wording of the current yes/no question, Cameron has announced that he is prepared to change the question in line with the advice:

[The EC] said that the question should set out the alternative option of Britain "leaving the European Union", while giving people the option of choosing whether they "leave" or "remain" rather than a simple "Yes/ No".

Within half an hour of the announcement a Downing Street spokesman confirmed that the government will table an amendment changing the question in line with the commission's proposals.

The Electoral Commission has always been consistent, since 2013, on the question it prefers:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

The responses would be ‘Remain a member of the European Union’ / ‘Leave the European Union’.

Research participants found this the most neutral of all the versions tested.

Given the report stage of the Referendum Bill comes up next week where further amendments can be made, the EC's timing also seems perfectly reasonable. 

Interestingly this leaves Arron Banks's pet project, TheKnow.EU, in a rather awkward position. This blog has yet to be impressed with "The Know". Their Twitter account contains misleading and selective quoting of newspaper articles, jingoistic rhetoric, and as Autonomous Mind says: "completely inaccurate assertions about the additional EU budgetary contribution demanded of the UK".

Despite the name it's clear Banks knows nothing about the EU and now it seems he knows nothing about getting the name right for a referendum either. It's entirely his fault - the consequence of being presumptuous by jumping in before the Referendum Bill has even been passed. If they can't get their own name right then there's not much hope for anything else from them.

The jostling for position by Farage, Banks and Mathew Elliot for leading the campaign to leave has only revealed what a low grade position we are currently in. Everything from Farage announcing the launch of a "no" campaign on the day the EC releases its advice to fundamentally misunderstanding the terms of being designated the official campaign to leave shows a complete lack of understanding of even the basics of what a referendum campaign will look like.

The location of amateursville is being determined by a triangulation of egos; Farage, Elliot and Banks. They want it about them not us and if it continues we will lose.
EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum

1975 Referendum Book Scanned

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” 

George Santayana (The Life of Reason, 1905)

The 1975 referendum (on the then EEC) was the first ever nationwide referendum in the UK and so as a consequence there was no real direct experience for campaigners to draw upon. As a result many mistakes by both sides were made, not least in the failure of establishing a coherent message particularly from the anti-marketeers - with the word 'anti' portraying negative connotations. We can somewhat forgive many mistakes if we take the view that a lack of experience hampered the "out" campaign.

Now, with an impending referendum on the UK's membership of the EU due in 2017, there is no such excuse. In contrast we have the opportunity to learn not only from the referendum of 1975 but subsequent ones over AV and Scottish independence, and we can endeavour to try not to repeat mistakes made there.

The mistakes and lessons to be learned is laid bare in the wonderful 1975 Referendum book by David Butler and Uwe W. Kitzinger which with unerring and unintentional accuracy predicted many of the same problems 40 years ahead.

For any serious student of fighting the 2017 referendum this book is a must read. However, and no doubt not a coincidence, the book is becoming increasingly more expensive to purchase from websites such as Amazon.

So with this mind, this blog has scanned the entire book and its contents are now hosted by the kind efforts of EUReferendum.com. If we are to be serious about winning we must learn the lessons of the past. The 1975 Referendum book is as good as place as any to start.

EU Laws Require...

There's some irony to be had, I guess, when logging onto my own anti-EU blog... (click to enlarge)

EFTA And EEA: A Deliberate Deception?

We noted in our previous post regarding an article in Telegraph on the EFTA and EEA that it was not very reassuring when Icelandic and Swiss MPs are themselves seemingly unaware how their own country's agreements are made.

All is not what it seems however and delving in a little further shows that far from ignorance both authors of the piece Thomas Aeschi and Guthlaugur Thor Thordarson must be fully aware of the differences between EFTA and the EEA.

In the picture above second from the left sits Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, as the EEA JPC ( Joint Parliamentary Committee) President. With him are Nora Skaansar, EFTA Secretariat to his right, Pat the Cope Gallagher, EEA JPC Vice President and Tarvo Kungla, European Parliament to his left. It's safe to say that Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson is in the thick of the EFTA/EEA action as it were.

We can see further confirmation of this from his profile on Althing, the Icelandic Parliament's website which lists the committees that he is a member of:

Present committees

• Member of the Icelandic Delegation to the EFTA and EEA Parliamentary Committees since 2013 (Chairman since 2013) and 2003-2007 (Chairman 2005-2007).
• Member of the EU-Iceland joint Parliamentary Committee since 2013 (Chairman since 2013)

Thus it's utterly inconceivable that he would not know that access to the EU market is via EEA agreements (or bilateral treaties) not by EFTA membership alone.

The second author of the piece is Thomas Aeschi of Swiss People's Party. A member of the EFTA Parliamentary Committe and as part of EFTA/ EU Parliaments delegation he is invited as observer to the EEA Joint Parliamentary meetings" (click to enlarge):

Not participants but observers. EFTA's impotence in EU trade relations made clear. In February of this year David Campbell Bannerman MEP hosted a conference on ‘Alternatives to EU membership, where Thomas Aeschi was a speaker (my emphasis):

Ruth Lea, representing Economists for Britain, Heming Olaussen who led the anti-membership campaign in Norway in 1994, Thomas Aeschi of the Swiss People’s Party, and Bill Cash MP all said that the European Economic Area (EEA) is not a good option (democracy by fax, against national sovereignty and so on).  

Clearly then Aeschi knows EEA and EFTA are not the same. A point emphasised further when he argues, in this speech below, that he is not particularly fond of the Swiss bilateral treaties:

Revealing at the end of his speech (14mins 10), Aeschi puts forward his preference for a UK exit - "EEA lite" or "EFTA plus". This is also the preferred option for David Campbell Bannerman, and it is a deeply flawed and unworkable option that Scribblings from Seaham (under his old guise of WfW) took apart last year.

It's understandable to be cynical as to the intentions of this article as Douglas Carter was in a comment on my previous piece. It's apparent that the misleading conflation of EFTA and EEA is very likely not to have been born of ignorance but a less than candid attempt at promoting a free-trade agreement for the UK.

Interestingly Daniel Hannan who has long advocated a position similar, tweeted this:

It's also worth noting that Guthlaugur Thor Thordarson is a member of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (AECR), who argue that the UK should seek a trade-only deal outside of the EU, which could provide the foundations for a greater economic union. And via AECR's official twitter account we see this:

And the secretary-general of AECR is...Daniel Hannan.

We guess international interventions in our referendum are going to be inevitable,and at least with the EU we can see the enemy coming. However with friends like this who confuse the issues and propose unworkable solutions...we will lose the referendum.

EU Referendum: The Difference Between EFTA And The EEA

In Friday's Telegraph we see an article by Icelandic MP Guthlaugur Thor Thordarson and Swiss MP Thomas Aeschi on why Britain can enjoy a better life outside the EU.

It's unfortunate and far from helpful, that despite being MPs, within the piece there is much confusion between EFTA (European Free Trade Area) and European Economic Area (EEA), with a blurring of lines between the Swiss situation and Iceland's:

The clue is in the name: European Free Trade Association. Free trade and national sovereignty turn out to make a pretty good combination. Income per head in EFTA countries is, on average, 56 per cent higher than in the EU. And both our countries export more to the EU, in proportionate terms, than Britain does.

Britain was once the leading EFTA state. It could be again. Come on in: the water’s lovely.

This has led to confusion on social media such as this tweet from executive editor of ConservativeHome and a former campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance Mark Wallace:
 

Perhaps it's not surprising Wallace comes to this conclusion given that Icelandic MP Guthlaugur Thor Thordarson goes onto repeat this mistake on BBC's today programme (2hrs 49mins), a mistake echoed by presenter Mishal Husain.

Not that this is a recent phenomenon, for example here on Conservatives for Liberty they write, (with no mention of the EEA):

The main complaint that constitutes the ‘in’ camp’s only real argument against EFTA membership is that these countries have to follow all the EU’s rules without having any say in how they are made.

The "ruled by fax" argument is one that applies to the EEA not EFTA. And blogger Living in Greece, makes such a hash of describing the contrast between the two settlements that it is completely wrong.

EFTA and the EEA are very different agreements. EFTA membership consists of four countries Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. Of those four, three have EEA agreements, the exception being Switzerland which is a member of EFTA only.

EFTA membership is required for EEA participation and it's the EEA which gives Single Market access for Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein (so-called NIL countries). Given Norway is the biggest county, it's known as the "Norway option" or sometimes the "EEA option".

Conversely EFTA on its own does not confer access to the Single Market - there is no trade relationship with the EU - which is precisely why Switzerland has to have bilateral agreements which are made outside the EFTA framework. Switzerland's EFTA membership is in no way related to its bilateral agreements with the EU.

And such detail matters for UK eurosceptics. Membership of EFTA is not automatic, each existing country has veto regarding the admission of new countries. And in particular both Iceland and Norway have dissatisfaction with the EEA agreement, but they are not powerful enough to force a renegotiation. UK membership of EFTA would therefore be seen as advantageous but only if we sign up to the EEA as well. Without agreeing to the EEA our EFTA membership submission will very likely be vetoed.

In addition we have EU-Swiss relations which are in crisis with the rejection in a referendum by the Swiss of the "free movement" provisions, with the bilateral treaties on the verge of collapse. The deadline for resolution is in February 2017, difficulties which will be high profile during the run-up to our own referendum. That though is a bilateral treaty problem not an EFTA one, but the failure to make such a distinction will lead to misleading interpretations of EFTA.

The above is probably a bit "Janet and John" for regular readers but it's not very reassuring when Icelandic and Swiss MPs are themselves seemingly unaware how their own country's agreements are made.

The two MPs probably meant well but their intervention has done nothing more than muddy the waters to the detriment of the UK's "no" campaign.

The Euro And Greece: The Empty Trojan Horse

It is remarkably curious that Greece, a country of relative insignificance, whose economy is smaller than Volkswagen's, has dominated the UK media agenda with much frenzied anticipation of a eurozone meltdown. Leading economists began predicting 'Grexit' including the economist who is credited with coining the phrase, as did other 'experts';

"Grexit is inevitable, it’s an absolute certainty"

And not just economists, this what Daniel Hannan had to say on July 6th:

It's interesting that with a Greek deal looking increasingly likely when we went to find the above tweet last night we found Hannan has now deleted it. Thanks to the internet though it can be found elsewhere. I guess the deletion speaks for itself.

Among other predictions, such as the 'European project is dying' there has been ill-disguised Anglo-saxon gloating and praise for "little democratic Greece standing up to the bullying EU". Greece though did not vote to leave the Euro or indeed the EU itself. They had instead voted to keep spending Germany's money without the inconvenience of paying it back. It's worth noting that the UK is owed around £10billion by Greece.

Whatever the referendum was, an exercise in democracy it was not. Called at the last minute, the referendum was rushed through with no time to debate the complexities of the bailout package, there was an absence of a proper "yes" or "no" campaign, the government put the "no" option (which it favours) above the "yes" on the ballot paper, the Greek media have been accused of bias and breaking the law leading up to the poll and it now appears that the result has been ignored anyway.

In that sense the referendum cannot be fair, or be considered a reflection of a true democratic decision. Instead it was merely an exercise in trying to bluff the EU using the Greek people as pawns. We can only be grateful in this country that we have an Electoral Commission to help negate government referendum stitch-ups like this.

So rather blow apart the eurozone, instead Greece is capitulating. It has proposed and is accepting a deal far worse than the one which was put to its people in a referendum. It will crawl away with a whimper.

The reason of course, as we noted last month, is that the current crisis, and the Euro in general, has less to do with economics and more to do with politics. The current crisis has not come about because Greece ran out of money - there was a deal on the table - but due to Tsipras deciding to do politics, and he has not come out of this well. It would seem he has been rather naive when dealing with the EU and we venture as far as to say "out of his depth".

He had a much weaker hand than he seemed to think - Greece economically and politically is insignificant - and he played it badly. By calling a referendum he thought he would frighten the EU into a better deal by the threat of political contagion to the likes of Spain et al.

Instead the markets largely shrugged off the referendum result and the only consequence has been that he has annoyed just about every leader in the eurozone. Annoyed to the extent that the ever increasingly robust language coming out of the EU indicates how fed-up they are with Greece. Fed-up to the extent that Greece was given an ultimatum on to agree a bailout package or leave. Tsipras backed himself and Greece into a corner. He's had no choice but to climbdown.

And the reasons are two-fold. For all the gloating by the UK media, they have largely overlooked two key points. They can deal with the economic part of EU membership but uttlery fail to acknowledge the more important political aspect. For Greece to leave would be contrary to "ever closer union". The EU cannot politically afford Greece to leave.They will paper over the cracks until the "English Question" is resolved and then we will have a new treaty.

Secondly, despite "preaching" by British" commentators that Greece would be better of out, their own experience suggests the opposite:

When it comes to money, the Greeks learned a lot of lessons the hard way over many generations. The drachma has always been seen by them as a way for the series of corrupt governments to steal from the people through devaluations and inflation.

This is what monetary theft looks like from the Greek point of view, and why they don’t trust their politicians and central bankers in managing a currency. They’ve learned the hard way and won’t forget the drachma’s 82% devaluation against the euro in two decades.

Greece simply does not want to leave. So ultimately Greece's gestures were empty, they capitulated as we expected they would. If nothing else this saga demonstrates once again how badly served we are by our media which doesn't bode well for our own forthcoming referendum.
EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum

EU: Damned By Their Own Words

We have been carrying out some housekeeping on this blog and have added a whole tranche of new quotes down the right side. The quotes are now separated out into two categories; EU and Euro. For all the europhile arguments that the EU is an economic project, the EU's own words contradict them. It becomes an odd position for europhiles to find themselves in when they contradict the founding father of the very project they're trying to defend.
EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum

EU Referendum: Global Britain

Above is an old Guardian cartoon from the '75 referendum that I've tweaked so that it has more relevance for the 21st century. The original version can be found here. EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU ReferendumEU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum EU Referendum