A British Referendum

Why a Referendum?

What Makes a Fair Referendum?

The 1975 Common Market Referendum

Was the 1975 referendum Conducted Fairly?

Will the Next Referendum be Conducted Fairly?

Unlimited Spending by the European Union?

Media Bias

WHY A REFERENDUM?

In 1996 the Labour leader Tony Blair promised the British people a referendum on joining the European Single Currency as an inducement to the voters in the run-up to the 1997 general election.  Mr Blair, was fully aware of the unpopularity of the euro with the British electorate and he needed to reassure them that he would not take the country into the euro without first consulting them.  Promising a referendum was the price Mr. Blair had to pay to win the election.  After winning the June 2001 general election, Mr Blair has signaled his intention of holding a referendum on the euro during the government's present term of office.  The  referendum could therefore be held as early the first half of  2002.    The decision of the British people in a referendum is not legally binding on the government but it is most unlikely that they would not abide by the result.  The decision of the referendum will be decided by a simply majority.

WHAT MAKES A FAIR REFERENDUM?

The decision to join the euro or not will be the most far-reaching and important constitutional, political, and economic decision that British people have ever been asked to make.  Every effort should be made to explain the constitutional, political and economic implications.  For a referendum to be conducted fairly then certain rules would need to apply. 

• An independent body should adjudicate the nature of the question to be asked so that it cannot be biased in favour of a particular answer.

• Both sides of the argument should have equal funding and equal access to airtime on the television and radio.

• Organizations outside of Britain should be prevented from taking part or spending money to influence the result (e.g. the European Union).

• Strictly legally enforceable rules on fair and un-biased coverage should be laid down for the mass media to abide by.

THE 1975 COMMON MARKET REFERENDUM.

The last time that Britain held a referendum on Europe was in 1975.  The Conservative party led by Edward Heath won the election of 1970 with only the commitment to negotiate Britain's terms of entry to the 'Common Market'.  Mr Heath had promised that the "full-hearted consent of parliament and people" was required before a decision to join would be made.   Many people took this to mean that a referendum would be held, but this never happened and Mr. Heath never did seek the electorate's 'full hearted consent' before signing the Treaty of Rome and passing the European Communities Act in parliament, which took Britain into the European Economic Community on 1^st January 1973.

The Labour Government of Harold Wilson won the next general election on a promise to 'fundamentally renegotiate' the terms of Britain's membership and the promise of a referendum to decide the issue.    The renegotiated terms turned out to be a few minor and cosmetic changes.  However the Labour government sent a leaflet to every household in Britain saying: "There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union.  This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs as risk.  This threat has been removed".   Thus reassured that the economic threat of monetary union had been removed, and that the 'Common Market' was only about 'free-trade', the British electorate voted by a two-thirds majority to accept Mr. Wilson's renegotiated terms and for Britain to stay a member of the European Economic Community.

WAS THE 1975 REFERENDUM CONDUCTED FAIRLY?

No.  First of all the British people were lied to about the true political nature of the 'Common Market' (as they have been lied to time and time again since ) and about the removal of the threat of monetary union.  The EU had hoped to achieve monetary union as early as 1980 but economic and political difficulties delayed the project by twenty years.

It has been estimated that about twenty times the amount of money was available to the 'Yes' campaign as was available to the 'No' campaign.  The BBC was heavily biased in favour of a 'yes' vote, both before and during the campaign.   

Most startling of all is the revelation that the 'Yes' campaign was generously funded by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).  Why should the USA secret service have been meddling in UK domestic politics?  The answer is that US foreign policy wanted to see the growth of one unified political entity in Europe as preferable to the US having to deal with a number of different, independent, and unpredictable nation states.  The nation that likes to trumpet its own democratic ideals had no scruples about undermining the democratic system of its greatest ally.

WILL THE NEXT REFERENDUM BE CONDUCTED FAIRLY?

Probably not.  The government will not even hold a referendum unless it is confident of gaining the result it wants.   This will depend on the timing of the referendum in relation to the performance of the euro, possibly other political factors; and the success of the pro-EU media in softening up public opinion with scare stories about the dangers of not joining.   The government is very unlikely to adopt fair rules as outlined above in 'What Makes a Fair Referendum'.  The 'Pro-Euro' campaign will be organized by the government with all its resources, while the 'Pro-Pound' campaign on the other hand will have to be organized and funded by private individuals and groups.   It is difficult to see then how a referendum campaign will be organized on a truly fair basis when the body organizing it (the government) wants a particular outcome. 

UNLIMITED SPENDING BY THE EUROPEAN UNION?

The labour government passed legislation in November 2000 that limits the amount of money that political parties can spend in election campaigns and referendums.  However the European Commission is exempt from such spending limits.  'European institutions' are free to spend as much as they like on promoting the euro.  The EU's  immunity stems from 'various protocols' negotiated in the past.  The European Union would therefore be free to influence the vote in a British referendum by spending any amount of money it chose to promote the euro.   The European Central Bank has already decided to spend a reported  £48 million on a campaign in the twelve euro-zone countries to prepare their citizens for the transition to the euro in the run-up to 2002. So a shortage of funds is unlikely to be a problem.

MEDIA BIAS

The role of the media in informing public opinion during a referendum campaign will be crucial.  The newspapers tend to have fairly predictable standpoints, everyone knows that they represent the vested interests and opinions of their owners at any one time, but television and radio news and current affairs coverage is a different matter.  Within the licences of the public broadcasters comes the obligation to provide unbiased and fair coverage of politics and current affairs. 

The BBC's coverage of the whole European issue is, in the judgment of many observers, heavily biased in favour of the EU.   They are seen by many to be very uncritical of the EU and make no effort to examine the basic premises behind the arguments used to promote the European Union and European integration.   The informed viewer and listener might long ago have formed the opinion that the broadcasting companies, and the BBC in particular, were heavily biased in favour of European integration and the euro.  There is much reason to believe, based on past performance, that television and media coverage in a euro referendum campaign would not be fair or unbiased.

NEXT                    CONTENTS