Ed Miliband has clearly grasped that the temptation to match David Cameron's EU referendum offer was a lethal trap
Ed Miliband faces the prospect of a tight election. Even so he has proved that he is looking beyond it – and grappling with how he can secure a serious crack at governing.
When David Cameron promised an in/out EU referendum last year, the Labour leader quickly grasped that the temptation to match this eye-catching offer was a lethal trap. Most voters always say they would favour a referendum on Europe (or on anything else for that matter), and the EU is undoubtedly in the throes of a crisis of legitimacy. Yet questioning membership jeopardises international relations, trade and – a particular concern of former energy secretary Miliband – hopes of tackling climate change. Worse, whereas a Conservative prime minister might be able to build an "in" alliance of the centre, that would be harder to do for a Labour PM who would probably be ranged against a Tory party traumatised by defeat, and agitating for Britain to quit. Trying to avert an "out" vote would drain all energy from anything else a Miliband government might want to do; enduring one would sink it entirely.
The force of this logic is as plain as the flippancy of the Cameron proposal for 27 sovereign nations to fall into line with what amounts to a party management plan. Even if all 27 acquiesced, this plan would soon come unstuck, with Tory irreconcilables denouncing any deal, irrespective of content, and campaigning for the "out", which was for them always the referendum's real point. Mr Miliband's instinct was evident in the Commons last year, where he rejected the PM's playboy pledge as a dangerous "gamble". But hours later, after some colleagues panicked, came a "clarification": Labour now merely rejected the Cameron pre-commitment to rolling the dice at this particular time.
Leaving "options open" is seductive in politics, but had things continued to drift into the pre-election spring of 2015, the ambiguity would have encouraged a Europhobic campaign of irresistible force, and all options but capitulation would have disappeared. Aided by Douglas Alexander, Mr Miliband slowly built the strength and the argument to do what he'd always wanted to do, and in a speech yesterday ruled out a purely arbitrary plebiscite, while committing to one only in the event of treaty changes, which – with commendable honesty – he conceded were most "unlikely".
Ardent pro-Europeans may fear that even this gives too much ground, and contributes to Europe's general sclerosis. Barring the anomaly of the 1975 referendum, itself a political fix, popular consent for treaties is supposed to come through representative rather than direct democracy. But such constitutional purities ignore many realities, including the fact that the coalition has already legislated for referendums on future transfers of power. The Miliband tweak is simply that this would no longer be a vote on the treaty specifics, but a higher-stakes – and more winnable – in/out vote. Besides, there is indeed an urgent need to inject more direct people power into Europe; it is just that arbitrary snap votes in stagnant economic times are doomed to become vents for frustration on other matters, and so will fail to deliver on this. Without any imminent prospect of deepening Europe-wide democracy, Mr Miliband's hopes of strengthening certain roles for national parliaments represents a decent second best here.
Yesterday's announcement is not an immediate vote-winner, although – since few British citizens are Euro-obsessives – it will not lose much support either. It should build Labour a few useful bridges into the business community, and – much more than that – it reveals something about the character of a prospective prime minister, something that should earn respect in the end. From breaking with his brother over Iraq in the leadership election to opposing military intervention Syria, Mr Miliband has a habit of hesitating before doing the right thing. By finally getting there in relation to Britain's future in Europe, he emerges as a more plausible candidate to lead it. Reported by guardian.co.uk 40 minutes ago.
Ed Miliband faces the prospect of a tight election. Even so he has proved that he is looking beyond it – and grappling with how he can secure a serious crack at governing.
When David Cameron promised an in/out EU referendum last year, the Labour leader quickly grasped that the temptation to match this eye-catching offer was a lethal trap. Most voters always say they would favour a referendum on Europe (or on anything else for that matter), and the EU is undoubtedly in the throes of a crisis of legitimacy. Yet questioning membership jeopardises international relations, trade and – a particular concern of former energy secretary Miliband – hopes of tackling climate change. Worse, whereas a Conservative prime minister might be able to build an "in" alliance of the centre, that would be harder to do for a Labour PM who would probably be ranged against a Tory party traumatised by defeat, and agitating for Britain to quit. Trying to avert an "out" vote would drain all energy from anything else a Miliband government might want to do; enduring one would sink it entirely.
The force of this logic is as plain as the flippancy of the Cameron proposal for 27 sovereign nations to fall into line with what amounts to a party management plan. Even if all 27 acquiesced, this plan would soon come unstuck, with Tory irreconcilables denouncing any deal, irrespective of content, and campaigning for the "out", which was for them always the referendum's real point. Mr Miliband's instinct was evident in the Commons last year, where he rejected the PM's playboy pledge as a dangerous "gamble". But hours later, after some colleagues panicked, came a "clarification": Labour now merely rejected the Cameron pre-commitment to rolling the dice at this particular time.
Leaving "options open" is seductive in politics, but had things continued to drift into the pre-election spring of 2015, the ambiguity would have encouraged a Europhobic campaign of irresistible force, and all options but capitulation would have disappeared. Aided by Douglas Alexander, Mr Miliband slowly built the strength and the argument to do what he'd always wanted to do, and in a speech yesterday ruled out a purely arbitrary plebiscite, while committing to one only in the event of treaty changes, which – with commendable honesty – he conceded were most "unlikely".
Ardent pro-Europeans may fear that even this gives too much ground, and contributes to Europe's general sclerosis. Barring the anomaly of the 1975 referendum, itself a political fix, popular consent for treaties is supposed to come through representative rather than direct democracy. But such constitutional purities ignore many realities, including the fact that the coalition has already legislated for referendums on future transfers of power. The Miliband tweak is simply that this would no longer be a vote on the treaty specifics, but a higher-stakes – and more winnable – in/out vote. Besides, there is indeed an urgent need to inject more direct people power into Europe; it is just that arbitrary snap votes in stagnant economic times are doomed to become vents for frustration on other matters, and so will fail to deliver on this. Without any imminent prospect of deepening Europe-wide democracy, Mr Miliband's hopes of strengthening certain roles for national parliaments represents a decent second best here.
Yesterday's announcement is not an immediate vote-winner, although – since few British citizens are Euro-obsessives – it will not lose much support either. It should build Labour a few useful bridges into the business community, and – much more than that – it reveals something about the character of a prospective prime minister, something that should earn respect in the end. From breaking with his brother over Iraq in the leadership election to opposing military intervention Syria, Mr Miliband has a habit of hesitating before doing the right thing. By finally getting there in relation to Britain's future in Europe, he emerges as a more plausible candidate to lead it. Reported by guardian.co.uk 40 minutes ago.