To backtrack a bit, we joined in 1972 under Edward Heath's Conservative government. The sequence of events was that we applied to join, negotiated the deal and agreed a date. The House of Commons then put an act in place to allow the UK's laws to fall in line with those of what at that time was called the Common Market - though it was quite clear even then that it was on a trajectory to evolve into a closer union.
The move into Europe was controversial, though initially the opposition came mainly from the left. Barbara Castle and Tony Benn were prominent in their opposition. When the Conservatives lost power to Labour in 1974 there was a lot of pressure from senior Labour Party figures and the party's grass roots members and supporters to undo the act and leave again. This would have been relatively straight forward to do at this time. Business was then, as now, pretty much in favour. So although there were anti-European Conservatives they didn't seem very mainstream.
This all gave the prime minister, Harold Wilson, something of a headache. The referendum of 1975 was his solution. So in many ways, the origin of that referendum was rather similar to that of the 2016 one. It was basically a way for a party leader to shut up a troublesome faction in his own party. I have a feeling that David Cameron probably studied the precedent rather closely. He would be old enough to just about remember it.
But he missed one of the key things about Wilson's strategy. Wilson remained scrupulously neutral about what his position on the issue was. To this day, I am not sure what he really believed. He did manage to make speeches that sounded pretty pro-Europe but always with enough caveats to keep the possibility open that he might want to leave at some point. As a result of this he was able to carry on as PM regardless of which way the country voted. He didn't make the mistake of assuming he knew, and certainly not of making it a personal vote of confidence in himself.
In the short term Wilson's strategy paid off. The left were indeed obliged to shut up and integration into the then EEC continued. But the splits over Europe within Labour couldn't be healed and it was one of a large number of issues that contributed to the breaking away of the SDP. The anti-Europe feeling in the Labour Party had always been more or less a majority so when the split came the party rapidly changed policy to being in favour of leaving the EEC. It was on that basis that the party fought the 1983 election. There was no suggestion of a second referendum. Had Labour won in 1983 then we would have left. The situation was however very different to that of today. For a start it was part of a plan. The Labour Party had been discussing this for years and all the pitfalls had been foreseen. What we don't know, and what never occurred to me at the time, was whether or not there would have been any kind of constitutional issue. I can remember late night discussions about all sorts of things in great detail, but that never came up.
But the 1985 Brexit would have been open to challenge in the courts I now see. It would also have had opposition in the House of Lords - which at the time was also the supreme court. So I wonder if even then we would have got out. It is interesting to consider that the people lining up would have been on almost opposite sides.
So it might be a good idea if we take the opportunity to sort this out once and for all. It seems to me that the ability to take us out of, or indeed into, is something that really ought to be doable by the government of the day. There are compelling reasons why they might want to. We have one on the table right now. The people were offered a referendum and promised their wishes would be acted upon. The promise has to be honoured. MPs might have the right to prevent it as things stand. That is what the court case is about. But natural justice cries out that they should not have that power, and also that they shouldn't be obliged to vote for something they manifestly don't believe in.
Legal matters are often very dependent on precedents, and no doubt a lot of time will be given over to looking at comparable cases in the past. This obviously needs to be done and should be a factor. But the plain fact is that there is only one EU and leaving it and joining it are not going to be things that we ever going to do very often. It seems to me that it is entirely reasonable that the rules that govern it should be unique to this special circumstance. Even if the government doesn't have the power to overrule parliament in general, if it has bound itself to respect a referendum on membership of the EU I don't think it could be considered to be particularly tyrannical to do so in this case.
There are other circumstances under which the executive might need and should have the power to remove us from the European Union. At the moment the EU is benign organisation that confers many benefits on its members and imposes few restrictions and costs. There is no guarantee that this should always be the case. The existence of an elected parliament in Brussels is a strong protection against abuse, but not a foolproof one. If the EU state apparatus came under the control of fascists or communists, we would need to get out pretty quickly. If the EU started developing foreign policies that were against the UK's interests we might well want to get out quick too. I don't fancy getting into a war in the Ukraine.
So much as I don't like being in the company of the headbangers who have been calling the judges enemies of the people, I hope that the court even asserts or establishes that the government does indeed have freedom of action when it comes to membership of the EU. If nothing else, it will make getting back in more straight forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment