A referendum on Europe
Two very similar new polls about the European Union in advance of the newly negotiated EU treaty - ICM for Open Europe and YouGov for Paul Sykes’s Speak Out campaign.
Both polls show around half the public think that the EU already has too much power (in slightly differently worded questions YouGov found 59% thought the EU had too much power, ICM found 49%). Few people (6% in YouGov’s poll and 15% in ICM’s) thought the EU should have greater powers.
Both also found an overwhelming majority in favour of a referendum if the new treaty gives extra powers to the EU - 78% in YouGov’s poll and 86% in ICM’s.
ICM asked how people would vote in a referendum on a treaty that “gives more powers to the EU” - 65% said they would vote against, with only 26% voting in favour. YouGov’s question was slightly more subtle - only 4% said they would vote in favour, 40% said they would vote against, 45% said it would depend upon the exact details of the treaty. This is actually an interesting result, and one that shows the difficulty facing the government in trying to win any such referendum: 40% of people say they will vote against a European treaty almost regardless of what the actual contents are. To win a referendum, the government would need to win over the vast majority of the 45% of people who say their vote would depend on what was actually in the treaty and, presumably, are open to pursuasion.
Finally ICM asked whether it would make people less likely to vote Labour if Gordon Brown ratified the treaty without allowing a referendum. 21% of people said it wouldn’t make them less likely to vote Labour, 74% said it would. As regular readers will know, I’m not a fan of questions like this and prefer the format YouGov sometimes use were people are given the option of saying “No difference - I’ll vote Labour anyway” and “No difference - I wouldn’t vote Labour anyway”. A lot of the people answering this question and saying it would make them less likely to vote Labour wouldn’t vote Labour if hell froze over. 86% of Tory identifiers, for example, say it would make them less likely to vote Labour. In this case though, it doesn’t seem to be just Tories expressing concern - 43% of Labour identifiers also say it would “definitely” make them less likely to vote Labour. Of course, saying that to a pollster to send a message is different to actually changing your vote, but it’s worth remembering that Europe isn’t an issue that only worries Tory voters in the shires.
Filed under: Europe, ICM, YouGov
Of course, saying that to a pollster to send a message is different to actually changing your vote, but it’s worth remembering that Europe isn’t an issue that only worries Tory voters in the shires. ”
Indeed not. UKIP got some quite high votes (for a minor party) in South Yorkshire and the West Midlands in 2005.
Sean,
Europe has historically always been an issue. The Tories took us in and Labour reinforced it through the leadership backing the referendum of 1975.
I’m no fan of the EU, although I suspect for different reasons (in terms of the erosion of employment rights). But what now is the alternative? With British manufacturing weakened who would want to be our global partner? The USA? That seems remote? A reinvigorated Commonwealth? Unlikely.
I think the EU is great. And we should not have referendum on it at all. Referendums are for matters of principle, not detail. Previous EU referendums were yes/ no to being in, not fine details. Scotland’s devolution referendum was yes/ no to the principle, not to the words used in the Scottish Devolution Act as put to parliament.
Put simply all referendums will fail when concerned with detailed wordage as people wont care enough; the people decide on the principle, not the detail which is the role of parliament. Of course this is why many are arguing for a refernedum when there has been no equivalent in UK history.
For those interested read the front page of today’s Independent for a fine showing of why ew need the EU constitution.
Basically most English have not yet understood that the day of the nation state is long over (baar for the odd sporting clash); with global business and global crime we need to have much more integration. Or are those against the EU also wanting us to withdarw from the UN, interpol and all bi-lateral treaties as all of these have required sharing with others. Persoanlly I think two issues are key- since the EU there has been no European wars and secondly the EU (especially with the new ‘treaty’) will provide the only human rights we have which could not be taken away from us by Brown or Cameron whenever they play the next terrorist card to scare us.
And what nation state are we talking about- Scotland with the Nationalist in power? Wales with Plaid Cymru nearly in power? NI with Sinn Fein in power? Hmm, perhaps there isn’t much of a nation left? Basically the anti-EU lot are basically UKIP in spirit who somehow believe the world owes England a living. But that is why England is viewed by much of the rest of the world as a country that has not yet understood how to manage its decline from the dominant world power to what it is now- an historic theme park where people can not change anything even when it is visibly broken.
Well, it’s probably off-topic in terms of this site, but I don’t see it in terms of either/or. Why not trade with as many countries as possible, rather than assume one has to be part of a much bigger State.
As a matter of interest, are you the Tim Sandle who used to be on Hertsmere Borough Council?
Sean, further to your very first post on this topic, I don’t think Europe’s just an issue that worries Tories in the shires AND/OR UKIP voters in more working class areas - there are loads of Labour voters for whom UKIP is simply unappealing (and who that Party isn’t appealing for votes to either, for that matter) who may still plump for Labour in the end, but who are closer to the Tory message on this issue than the Labour one.
I’m more interested in the discrepancy between YouGov and ICM; appreciate questions and methodologies differ but a 10% gap over whether the EU has too much power; and an 8% difference over whether there should be a referendum.
Let me float something controversial: I know both polls were commissioned by “Euro-sceptic” organisations, but ICM is of course the Guardian’s pollster, and also the pollster that gives the absurdly pro-European Lib Dems their highest poll shares; now it’s producing markedly less euro-sceptic results too.
Given the revelations on political betting a couple of days ago about how many more Guardian readers ICM (over) samples my contention is that ICM is going off the rails in its methodology at the moment. Mike Smithson argues that it’s actually the others(singling out YouGov who apparently just don’t have many Guardian-reading panel members) who are under sampling Guardian-ites - I suspect it’s t’other way round - ICM is under sampling tabloid buyers and hence getting a more small “l” liberal result.
Jack, I suppose you think the public should be grateful that they get a vote at all, at election time.
Good points from Jack and Sean Fear.
Labour have historically been much more open and honest about Europe, after all they gave a referendum in 1975 and an offer of a referendum (made redundant because of the treaty was rejected by other EU countries).
The Tories on the other hand have been very cavalier when in power, taking us into the EU with Heath’s Treaty of Rome, Thatcher’s Single European Act and Major’s Maastricht Treaty; not once offering a referendum, the Tories must have thought that the public should be grateful that they get a vote at all.
I have no problem at all with democratic voting, unlike the Adam Smith Institutue’s support for Bryan Caplan’s “The Myth of the Rational Voter” who believes that their should be less democracy. People vote in an elction for an impression, not a legalistic set of words. Do try and answer the actual argument presented, not respond in Tabloid press headlines.
But you haven’t presented a rational argument. You’ve presented a set of assertions.
What I find interesting about polls on the EU is that they show that working-class people are more Eurosceptic than middle-class people.
Nicholas - they would, wouldn’t they, simply because the middle classes (and there now follow some sweeping generalisations) are more likely to have the means and the inclination to travel to Europe, to sample other cultures and are concerned about issues that require pan-national co-operation to resolve: the environment, international development, Iraq etc.
More sweeping generalisations but working classes who holiday abroad tend to go to areas with large ex-pat communities that are as similar to their home as possible…just warmer. If you don’t interact with other nationalities and cultures at all you’re going to be much more hostile to ideas of federal power - it’s effectively a forced marriage to a partner you don’t even get to see.
Hi Sean,
Yes, I used to be on Hertsmere Borough Council. How are things with you?
Tim