On Thursday, June 5, 1975, the United Kingdom held its only, referendum on Europe. This was to endorse the British membership of the European Community, which had already been ratified by Parliament in 1971; the treaty of accession had been signed on January 22, 1972.
The referendum put the question in this form: “Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the common market)?” It has since been objected that this formulation was biased in two ways: by referring to “staying in”, it put the public preference for the status quo on the side of a “yes” vote; by referring to the “common market”, it implied that this was all that Britain was joining. The merger of the European institutions had taken place as far back as 1967. There has never been a referendum on joining the European Union. That body was created only in 1993, under the Maastricht treaty.
The result of the referendum in 1975 was decisive. England recorded a 68.7 per cent “yes” vote, on a 65 per cent turnout. Scotland had a 58.4 per cent “yes” vote; Wales 64.8 per cent. The only negative votes were in the Scottish fringes, with the Western Isles voting “no” by 70.5 per cent.
However, all this is a long time ago. The parents and grandparents of the present generation voted to stay in the common market 32 years ago; that does not tell us much about public attitudes to constitutional changes in the European Union in 2007. No one now aged less than 50 could have had a vote in 1975.
At the 2005 general election all three leading parties promised to hold a referendum before ratification of the European constitutional treaty. The precise terms of the Labour Party commitment were: “It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a ‘yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe.”
This week Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, will propose at the European summit in Berlin a new draft treaty of amendment that will contain most of the legal substance of the constitutional treaty, with some cosmetic changes to make it more acceptable. Plainly, the referendum commitment should follow the substance of the constitutional treaty.
The German proposals are expected to include a longer-term presidency for the EU Council, a foreign minister, new voting weights, more majority voting including justice and home affairs, and the reintroduction of the charter of fundamental rights.
At the summit Britain will be represented by Tony Blair, who has said that he does not think that the new treaty will require a referendum. He has therefore withdrawn from his commitment to the Labour Party manifesto, on which he was elected.
Mrs Merkel hopes that the summit will reach agreement on the principles for a new treaty, and that detailed discussions will follow in the autumn. These discussions would be conducted by the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He is said to be worried that Mr Blair will agree to proposals that are unacceptable to him. However, nothing can be binding until the details have been settled. It was irresponsible of Mr Blair to postpone his retirement so that he, rather than Mr Brown, would represent Britain at this week’s talks.
We cannot be sure what will come out of the meeting. The whole new treaty might collapse. Britain is not the only country to have anxieties. The French and Dutch referendums rejected the original constitutional treaty. The Poles strongly resist the proposed changes in voting weights. For a number of countries — but not for Mrs Merkel — by far the best result would be no treaty at all.
If a new treaty is successfully negotiated, we can be sure that it will move Europe nearer to a federal constitution. That will not be acceptable to British public opinion. Such a treaty would give new powers to the centre, backed by a new European President and a new foreign minister. That is what Mrs Merkel wants; but the British would hate it.
The Conservatives have said that they would demand a referendum if there were any transfer of powers to Europe from Britain. That is entirely reasonable, since all parties promised a referendum at the last election. Conservative policy is to draw back powers that have been lost to Europe, not to give still more power to the European bureaucracy. The main right-wing parties in Germany and Britain are in direct conflict.
Yet Mr Brown himself is in the most difficult position. He is not in control of this week’s negotiations, because Mr Blair has outstayed his welcome. Mr Brown has not said that he would repudiate Labour’s commitment to a referendum. If there were no treaty, he would not have to decide on that, one way or the other.
If Mrs Merkel’s treaty is agreed this week, Mr Brown will have no way of avoiding the decision on a referendum. If he is forced to have a referendum, Labour will probably lose it. Yet if he tears up the manifesto commitment, he will inherit all of Mr Blair’s legacy of public mistrust.
Any treaty along the lines of Mrs Merkel’s draft could trigger a fundamental rethinking of British policy. Like many other of Europe’s electorates, the British want to get back powers to their own democracy. In the constitutional treaty itself every change moved power away from national democracy towards the bureaucratic centre.
Such a Europe could not be made to function in a competitive world. The British electorate, if not our politicians, might feel they would be better off out of such a federalised Europe, dominated by the Franco-German alliance. Apparently, the German draft treaty will include an exit clause; that could open the way to the renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with Europe. The British have, I think, decided against the federal Europe that Germany wants. It seems equally unlikely that the Germans will abandon their federal ideal, or that the British will cease to prefer economic and political freedom.
William Rees-Mogg