28/12/2015
I am not entirely sure either the media or our esteemed politicians have fully understood what the term "referendum" stands for. They may know what the word means, in principle, but the implications do not seem to have sunk in.
This certainly seems to be illustrated by a story doing the rounds, with the
Guardian version telling us that David Cameron "is facing fresh pressure to grant ministers a free vote during the EU referendum campaign after Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, joined those calling for collective responsibility to be suspended".
One can see the point of the collective responsibility being lifted â this is the route taken by Harold Wilson, when he allowed his Ministers freedom to campaign on either side, once his (sham) negotiations had been completed.
What is tiresome, though, is the obsession with a "free vote". There will in fact be two votes, one the Cabinet vote on the outcome of the "renegotiations". That vote is made in secret and Ministers will be free to vote any way they choose. But then there is the parliamentary vote to approve the renegotiation package, at which point there are calls for the free vote.
The issue is then whether individuals are then bound by collective responsibility or whether they should be free to vote against the package in Parliament and then campaign openly against continued membership of the EU.
However, being a referendum, there is only one vote that matters. This is on the day when we all go to the polls â and Ministers will have exactly the same opportunity to cast a vote as do we all â in secret. At that point, they are free to cast their votes any way that they please.
Interestingly, the
Guardian does not believe that the parliamentary vote is a decisive factor. And out in the real world, there are doubtless many â of which I would count myself as one â who are totally indifferent to how Ministers campaign. A referendum is a matter for the people and the less we hear from politicians the better.
More to the point, we have become used to the extraordinary ignorance of politicians from both sides of the divide. It is unlikely that any of them can contribute usefully to the debate â they are more likely to confuse the issues than add to our enlightenment.
However, this is giving the legacy media something with which to keep the referendum issue bubbling over. Having convinced themselves that there will be a "deal" at the February Council, and a vote in June (or July), they seem anxious to keep a narrative going, milking the London-centric political drama for all that it is worth.
On the timing, the
Independent seems to be hedging its bets, telling us that David Cameron "hopes to seal his renegotiation deal" in February. But, "if he fails", it says, "he will have to wait for the March or June summits and postpone his plan for a summer referendum".
That is the way the media are going to play it. They will ramp up the soap opera, bringing it to a crescendo in February when we will be entertained by a cliff-hanging drama and a last minute failure to secure a deal. The fact that there was never going to be a deal thus will never have to be admitted, leaving the way clear to repeat the drama for an autumn referendum â another one that is never going to happen.
Meanwhile, in a welcome re-emergence, Mr Brexit
entertains us with a comparison between new domestic abuse laws regarding coercive and controlling behaviour and our membership of the EU. He advances the tongue-in-cheek thesis that, if we applied the statutory definition to our EU membership, it would have many of the characteristics of an abusive relationship.
There is also a new entrant to the blogosphere, in the form of
Tommy 1, who is having a look at why Norway is the only leave option for Brexit â a useful exploration of the issues.
That is more than we can say of Hugo Dixon in
The Times, who asserts that many Eurosceptics don't like the Norway option. "No wonder they no longer recommend it", he writes, adding: "The snag is that they haven't spelt out a credible alternative. As a result, quitting would be a leap in the dark".
This, of course, is not true, which leaves these people adopting the ostrich position, determinedly trying to convince themselves that a credible exit plan does not exist. They will cling to this fiction, because they must, aided and abetted by the media which still believe they are the custodians of the debate.
Needless to say, we are not sitting idle on this. Reality may be deferred, but it is not to be denied. My gut instinct tells me that this could be an interesting year for
Flexcit.
