Be Excellent To Each Other

So, whilst Queenie's morning routine has been disrupted by having to open Parliament (why is there never a large ribbon and an oversized pair of scissors for this?), most of the press coverage has been about the proposed EU referendum bill.

No doubt the passage through the two Houses will be fun, and then we've the joy of the referendum itself (early bet: 60-40 'IN', no great differences across the UK) but for now, some initial thoughts on what we already know.

The Franchise
I'm happy with those eligible to vote in a general election being allowed to vote in this (plus their Lordships). It's a major constitutional issue.
I'm unconvinced by votes for 16/17 year olds anyway, but wouldn't push the issue.

Quadruple lock
Should each part of the UK have a majority in favour of exit before exiting?
If we had a proper constitution and procedure of editing it (including a senate representing the regions and nations) this would probably be part of the amendment process. Major constitutional change shouldn't be done hastily, and there should be some curbs, but I'm not convinced this is the right model, given the overwhelming dominance of England.
And I don't remember the SNP letting Orkney go their own way on independence, or indeed letting the English vote on whether we agree with the Union too.

Necessity
Yes, long overdue. Should have had one over Lisbon, frankly. For too long the EU has been an elitist project, and the public tend to be excluded and alienated from the communnity. I think the public are smart enough to decide on whether they are happy with the set-up or if we should bid a fond adieu.

Going to be a long two years!

I can't see Scotland every saying 'OUT' so I can't see any real point to holding a referendum with a quadruple lock.

I totally agree there should have been one over Lisbon, I'm not sure I agree about this. Lisbon was basically a case of 'do we let the EU push us into ratifying a load of stuff we don't really think is a good idea', this would be a referendum on the nuclear option of withdrawal, which is something that needs a lot more political handling.

Problem is, none of the other 27 countries really want to reopen the treaties and go through another extended, convoluted reform and ratification process.
I'm not expecting much from Cameron's 'renegotiation' either: like Mr Wilson's, it will probably be very small fry.

Case of 'are we happy with the EU we've got, not the one we want'.

Of course, if the OUTie camp say that we'll get those handsome dark blue hardbacked passports back, they might be on to a winner

I'll quickly chip in at this stage with another Cavey prediction: it's going to be nowhere near 2 years. My money's on next Spring (2016).

Especially if Greece finally goes tits up, which I think will happen also. That can can't be kicked along that road for much longer; the IMF want their pound of flesh.

In terms of whether or not we end up leaving: I reckon ~80% likelihood for 'out' at the moment (and that includes Scotland btw; they won't vote for it but will have to lump it)

Are we 100% in now?

We still keep the pound so we can't be can we?

EU membership and monetary union are totally separate from each other.

I'll take those odds

Labour's Andy Burnham is suggesting that Labour should run its own 'IN!' campaign..

I'm a little disappointed that people think that sharing platforms and working with other parties on issues you agree when that issue's been put to a plebiscite is a bad thing, but then perhaps I don't appreciate the underlying passions.

Second Reading is scheduled for Monday.

I see The Sun is saying we should stay in the EU.

Really? Wow.
As I'm still boycotting it, do you know on what grounds? Would the end of free movement cause a reduction in the importation of page 3 beauties or stories about silly EU regulations?

Dunno, I only saw the headline.

I don't personally think there will be a mainstream 'out' campaign. I can't think of a major group for whom pushing for out would be in their interest.

I, I agree with The Sun on something? I need to address everything I think about anything.

I need a sit down.

And moderates would be revolted by the key figures fronting such a campaign.

I was reading in Sandbrook's 'Seasons in the Sun' that in the 1975 referendum, the 'yes' campaign was led by moderate and popular figures of the major parties, but the exit campaign was fronted by all those considered 'outsiders' such as Enoch Powell and Tony Benn who were likely to deter people.

If the fruitcakes were kept away, a campaign led by, say, the eloquent Giesla Stuart or Dan Hannan might provide the calm reasonableness of the Eurosceptic case, but they'd always risk being tarnished by the actions of the fringe

Course, it might be worth leaving just to annoy the SNP (who oddly were all for an early de facto exit last September... )

These days though, campaigning for a referendum result requires money more than charismatic speakers. And where's the money coming from in an exit vote?

Good question. It would, however, allow them to play the underdog/anti-elite card.

Where does the money for UKIP come from?

Of course, because that's what Rupert Dave wants

According to the Electoral Commission, Rock Services Ltd, Northern & Shell Media Group, and Paul Sykes Group Ltd, plus an assortment of small donors. Impressively large amounts of cash from a really small group of donors. In Q1 UKIP pulled in 1/10th of what the Conservatives did, unsurprisingly.

The Sun also thinks you need to sit down!

In our 2005 eu Constitution referendum all mainparties and unions and media were pro constitution. Still this meant the campaign was so weak and unconvincing. The underdogs saw their chances

They should get Cleggy up as the main pro-EU charismatic speaker. He's ace.

A Eurosceptic acquaintence was dismayed that Farage stayed at UKIP. He felt that if Farage had gone, there was a chance UKIP could mount a reasoned campaign for No in the referendum. But with Farage in place, UKIP can't escape the shadow of the wingnuts, and so cannot hope to court the votes of any moderates. There logic there.

I thought the prevailing theory was that UKIP was only as unwingnutty as it even is right now because of Farage and without him it would collapse into comedy bongo bongo land style nonsense?

Yes, surely the idea that UKIP could be a force for 'No!' only works in a theoretical world where it's possible to make the case intelligently; in reality, the nuts come with the territory, and without Farage to be an acceptable face it'd be like, I don't know, still liking Gary Glitter's music. The latter ought to be possible, the creator is irrelevant, but it's just too embarrassing for anyone to admit to, even to themselves.

Cameron, yesterday, said he'd sack any minister who campaigned for a No vote in the referendum. Today, he walked that back, claiming he was misinterpreted, despite multiple journalist transcripts from the event yesterday showing he was actually very clear.

The reasonable hypothesis is that he doesn't have enough control over his slim majority to enforce any sort of whip on the referendum, which in turn implies a party deeply divided. The hardline Euroskeptic Conservatives for Britain group (50 MPs, and they claim they'll have 50 more soon) have demanded concessions from Europe which Philip Hammond is already calling "unachievable". Going to be some fractious times ahead, I think.

He's definitely in trouble if he doesn't think he can get his ministers to vote the way he wants!

In other European Unity news, the Belgians have issued a two-and-a-half euro coin to remember the bicentennial of an earlier example of multinational co-operation after the French blocked a proper two euro coin.

Would it affect the Ryder Cup?

I think they probably will vote the way he wants. But publicly threatening them to do so is rather hostile.

That said, regardless of your view of evil Tories, it is refreshing to consider that a large group of MPs would vote on personal principal rather than job and career protection grounds.