Blogs and Briefings
The ‘Ins’ vs. the ‘Outs’
Connect’s James Hawkins gets a glimpse into how a future in/out EU referendum might be framed
1 November
Yesterday the IPPR hosted a timely debate between two Douglases – Carswell and Alexander - on the UK’s relationship with Europe, focusing on the apparent rise of euroscepticism and providing a useful glimpse at what the parameters of any future EU In/Out referendum may be.
IN
Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander suggested that the debate affirming the UK membership of the EU must be about:
- what is good for the UK national interest;
- the place of Europe in a fast changing world where it is better for the UK to be able to draw on the collective power of Europe than to be out in the cold, trying to negotiate with the likes of China, India and America by itself;
- asserting an argument favouring reform of EU institutions rather than withdrawal from them.
He acknowledged that the EU and its institutions were never really going to appeal to the electorate emotionally, but suggested that the passion and intensity of the eurosceptic debate should not be confused with accuracy. He warned that an argument in favour of the UK’s continued membership of the EU must not be one based on defending the status quo. Nor should it be based on previous arguments, such as the peace dividend that the EU can deliver, a specific sentiment of the post Second World War generation, nor the argument put forward in the 1970s that it was all about being ensuring our economic prosperity.
Alexander’s approach appeals to the electorate’s pragmatism, whilst acknowledging the public’s frustrations. It is ‘better the devil you know’ - while you may not love the EU, you are better off within than outside. There may well be something in this. Fellow panellist Ben Page, the chief executive of Ipsos Mori, explained how people typically vote for the status quo (just look at AV for an example of this in practice) and while there are some strong feelings against the EU per se, the same surveys also show that on policy areas such energy and climate change and international trade, the electorate see a role for the UK to be working closely with the EU.
OUT
With opinion polls showing an apparent surge in euroscepticism and a majority in favour of EU withdrawal, it may be assumed that eurosceptic flagbearer Douglas Carswell would be on a good wicket. But any argument in favour of getting out of the UK relies as much on a critique of the EU as it does on there being a credible alternative to membership.
Looking to the waning relative economic power of Europe, Carswell highlighted the fact that in the early 1970s, when the UK joined the then EEC, Europe made up a third of the world’s GDP. Today it is around 15 per cent. He claimed that the UK had shackled itself to an “economic corpse”, and argued that the central reason why the electorate across Europe is turning against the EU is because they dislike attempts to impose elitist centralising top-down policy designs, whether they be in areas such as agriculture, fisheries or a single currency. The alternative he put forward was free trade, with the UK not needing to rely on the supposed collective strength of the EU because it will benefit through the gains to be made through international free trade, agreeing bilateral arrangements with trading partners, including the EU.
He went on to observe that European industrialisation, or the economic rise of China, happened not because of a central deliberate policy but due to its absence. He drew the conclusion that, in order to prosper, societies need to decentralise power outwards and downwards and that innovations such as the internet will make this dispersal of power inevitable.
However, Carswell’s alternative is based on a particular political agenda centred around the decentralisation of power and the attributes of free trade. They are good arguments, but appeal to a particular strand of current political thinking, especially to those on the right. As such they will not appeal to all. Even to those who might politically sympathise with decentralisation and free trade arguments, they are based on theory and not current experience – not the devil we know. The problem for the eurosceptic side is that others will also present alternative solutions to what life may be like outside the EU and risk confusing voters.
A referendum?
Of course none of this matters if there is no referendum. The reality of the situation is that none of the political party leaders particularly want an In/Out referendum. All the leaders are also on record saying that they wish to maintain the UK’s membership and one can easily envisage that their argument in favour would coalesce more or less around Douglas Alexander’s position. Despite the opinion polls, it is therefore ironic that it is the position of the ‘Out’ camp that is harder to define. The current eurozone debacle easily gives the ‘Out’ side of the argument a stick to beat the EU with, but it cannot just present a critique of the EU. Douglas Carswell’s free trade alternative is not one that everyone across the political spectrum will support and with competing ‘alternatives’, the electorate is less likely to readily take what will be termed by the ‘Ins’ as a leap into the dark.
