[Comment] Has Prime Minister Blair run out of choices?
HELEN SZAMUELY
21.04.2004 @ 17:41 CET
EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - The British media could not resist the pun. "Blair does an EU-turn" screamed the headlines.
But what is Blair doing?
For months he insisted that a referendum was out of the question. It is not, we were told, democratic or part of the British political tradition (except when it appeared to be convenient to the New Labour project).
The main problem with a referendum is that, faced with one, relatively simple question, the people may not vote as expected and, recently, referendums to do with the "European project" have not gone well from the federalists' point of view.
Blair’s distaste for the idea was clear when he made the statement in Parliament. Much to everyone’s amusement he could not bring himself to use the word referendum but described it in every possible other way. In theory, at least, he could still turn round and explain that this was not what he meant by "consulting the people". Unfortunately, the days when he appeared to be able to walk on water are long gone.
Blair has strengthened his hand in negotiating
It is being argued that by calling a referendum Blair has strengthened his hand in negotiating concessions with his partners.
The problem is that it is not clear what those concessions are likely to be. The famous "red lines" have long been forgotten by everyone and fighting a referendum on detailed analysis of the constitution would not be particularly astute if the "no" campaign can present a coherent bigger picture.
Poland and Spain, the two countries that generated difficulties in December have half-indicated that they are willing to take a softer line - but the Spanish Foreign Minister has said that Spain will emerge from these negotiations with a better deal than the one they secured in Nice. That means some very hard bargaining.
Removing Europe from the electoral campaign
If all the rocks are avoided successfully and the constitution is agreed in June, it has to be negotiated through Parliament, which will not be easy. But there will be no referendum until that process is completed.
If Blair is very lucky, one of the other countries will vote the constitution out during that time and he may be able to abandon the idea with a relieved sigh. But if he is not let off the hook, the parliamentary process will take the best part of next year and run into pre-election fever. If it is completed in time, the referendum will have to be called after the election, whose results, at present, cannot be forecast.
But, at least, Blair can hope to remove Europe from the electoral campaign. In fact, given the growing fear of European integration, he is not likely to succeed in that. The Conservatives, who are opposing the constitution will, presumably, make as much political hay as possible.
Big split in the "no" campaign
Blair’s greatest strength is the big split in the "no" campaign between those who merely oppose whatever happens to be on the agenda – euro, constitution, change in the voting arrangements – but refuse to look at the whole vast question of Britain’s membership and, indeed, the EU’s existence, and those who think that the problem is insoluble and the sooner it is abandoned, the better.
At times of crisis, such as a referendum, the two sides come together but the tensions remain, and, undoubtedly, the "yes" side and the government will work hard to exacerbate them.
The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has already said that a no vote will not be a resignation issue for the Prime Minister. Strictly speaking that is true: other no votes in referendums on EU related subjects have not usually resulted in resignations. In Blair’s case there will be a difference because of his deeply personal style of leadership. Every issue becomes a moral one; every issue is a vote of confidence in him.
Handing over a poisoned chalice
Whether he can survive a rejection of something that is so crucial to his political world view remains to be seen. Then again, he might not want to. There have been many rumours about an imminent resignation. The assumption is that Gordon Brown will be the successor and, given certain problems between those two, it is not impossible that Blair may wish to hand over a poisoned chalice. In fact, the Labour Party will have to elect a leader and that is not a foregone conclusion at all.
For the "yes" side the referendum will not be crucial but very important. If they lose, the constitution will die, though probably only temporarily. That may, in fact happen, if one of the other countries votes no. This will not destroy the European project and the push for integration will carry on as it has done for decades: through a slow, accumulative process.
On the other hand, much of the project depends on a lack of opposition to it, if not necessarily active support. In the last ten years or so there has been a gradually growing perception that the EU is not popular with the people in Europe, who have gone along with it without realising its implications and not really seeing any alternative.
The infamous democratic deficit will become even greater with a no vote in any member state, and particularly in Britain. There is something to the theory that European integration has to keep moving to stay upright: every time it wobbles, its ability to reach the final destination becomes more doubtful.
The "no" side cannot afford to lose the referendum but even if it wins, it will have gained little.
It was summed up best by one eurosceptic writer, who said that if they lose the referendum they have lost the war, if they win, they have won a battle. The no-side needs to produce alternatives for a post-EU Europe.
Either way, European politics is likely to be more interesting in the next few years.
Helen Szamuely is a writer and researcher on political affairs, based in London
