MENU
Your location:

Miliband is fully committed to ever closer union

    So Ed Miliband claims in the FT today that he is against ever close union. He also says that if there is a future Treaty change which leads to a new transfer of power from Britain to the EU, then he will hold an IN/OUT referendum on our EU membership.

    One of the earliest actions taken by this Government was to enact a referendum lock so that any future transfers of power would only happen with the explicit support of the British people in a national vote. It’s not clear if Miliband wants to replace this with an IN/OUT referendum or supplement it. If he wants this to be instead of the existing referendum lock, what happens if people don’t like the Treaty change but want to remain in the EU? Do they still vote to stay in but get lumbered with new EU powers which they detest? Will there be two questions?

    A Treaty change could push for closer union and lead to more powers being stripped from member states and given to the EU. Assuming that Miliband does not disavow everything he believes in, we can safely say that in the event of such a Treaty change Miliband will campaign for an In vote.

    Let’s be clear what this means; if there is a Treaty change, despite his protestations to the contrary, Miliband will campaign for ever closer union.

    Labour needs to be open with the British people about what its EU policy actually is.

    Adam joined the Centre for Policy Studies as Head of Economic Research in January 2014. 

    Centre for Policy Studies will not publish your email address or share it with anyone.

    Please note, for security reasons we read all comments before publishing.


    Comments

    Nick Marshall - About 1291 days ago

    ‘Ever closer union’ was formulated in the aftermath of WW II at a time of shock and continuing and visceral anxiety, when there seemed really nothing to stop us being engulfed yet again in further warfare. People sought an answer in terms of institutional frameworks because it was a more institutional and authoritarian world then.
    In short, an institutional solution to an essentially defensive question.
    The political, economic and emotional climate is very different half a century on. We no longer inhabit that imminent emotional fear of a war breaking out among major European powers from out of the blue.
    So can we afford to relax sufficiently in order to review our emotional situations in the European context? Can we arrive at a formulation to meet our own, more optimistic, futures? One that focuses more on the destiny of individuals than the on structure of institutions. A formulation that is less defensive and more optimistic, touching upon the flourishing of human beings as well as ways to restrain them from slaughtering one another?

    Comment on This

    Centre for Policy Studies will not publish your email address or share it with anyone.

    Please note, for security reasons we read all comments before publishing.