Miliband promises to keep Cameron's EU referendum lock

Labour leader says he would not reverse measure previously denounced by his party as a "dog's breakfast" and a "political gesture".

Appearing on the Today programme this morning, Ed Miliband was asked the question that will be put to him repeatedly between now and the general election: will you offer the British people a referendum on the EU? He responded by saying that an in/out referendum now would be damaging to the UK's interests but went on to note that the coalition's European Union Bill meant a public vote would be triggered whenever there was a transfer of powers to Brussels. Significantly, for the first time, he said that Labour did not propose "repealing" the legislation. When the bill was debated by parliament in 2011, Labour denounced it as "unnecessary", a "dog's breakfast" and a "political gesture" to appease Tory backbenchers (it subsequently abstained from voting). But Miliband has now accepted that his party is in no position to oppose the measure, designed to safeguard UK sovereignty.

After David Cameron yesterday accused Labour of planning to take Britain into the single currency, Miliband also gave his clearest statement yet on euro membership. "Britain's not going to be joining the euro, it won't be joining the euro if I'm Prime Minister," he said. As Cameron is fond of pointing out, the Labour leader once previously remarked that whether or not the UK joined the euro would depend on "how long I'm Prime Minister for".

Repeatedly asked whether he favoured a "looser European Union", Miliband struggled to offer a satisfactory answer. He said that we were moving to a "more flexible" EU but argued that this was not the same thing as "a looser one". For now, Miliband rightly emphasises that the priority is to move Europe away from austerity and towards growth, but he will need a much more detailed answer before the election.

Intriguingly, then, Miliband said that he was willing to consider restricting benefits for EU immigrants. He told Jim Naughtie: "Of course that's an issue that should be looked at, the length of entitlement to benefits and how quickly can get them. All of these issues should be on the table."

The Tories will hope to use this to begin a political arms race that only one side can win.

 
Labour leader Ed Miliband said that an in/out referendum on the EU would cause dangerous uncertainty. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Leon Neal/ Getty
Show Hide image

“Brexit is based on racism”: Who is protesting outside the Supreme Court and what are they fighting for?

Movement for Justice is challenging the racist potential of Brexit, as the government appeals the High Court's Article 50 decision.

Protestors from the campaign group Movement for Justice are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court for the second day running. They are against the government triggering Article 50 without asking MPs, and are protesting against the Brexit vote in general. They plan to remain outside the Supreme Court for the duration of the case, as the government appeals the recent High Court ruling in favour of Parliament.

Their banners call to "STOP the scapgoating of immigrants", to "Build the movement against austerity & FOR equality", and to "Stop Brexit Fight Racism".

The group led Saturday’s march at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Detention Centre, where a crowd of over 2,000 people stood against the government’s immigration policy, and the management of the centre, which has long been under fire for claims of abuse against detainees.  

Movement for Justice, and its 50 campaigners, were in the company yesterday of people from all walks of pro and anti-Brexit life, including the hangers-on from former Ukip leader Nigel Farage’s postponed march on the Supreme Court.

Antonia Bright, one of the campaign’s lead figures, says: “It is in the interests of our fight for freedom of movement that the Supreme Court blocks May’s attempt to rush through an anti-immigrant deal.”

This sentiment is echoed by campaigners on both sides of the referendum, many of whom believe that Parliament should be involved.

Alongside refuting the royal prerogative, the group criticises the Brexit vote in general. Bright says:

“The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.”

A crucial concern for the group is that the terms of the agreement will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.

This concern isn’t entirely unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58 per cent spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41 per cent increase, compared with the same time the following year.

The subtext of Bright's statement is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a desicion of such momentous consequences. She also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.

This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. Bright insists that this, “is not a democratic process at all”.

“We want to positively say that there does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, not just a rushing through on the royal prerogative,” she adds. “There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.”

For campaigners, the use of royal prerogative is a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters, during the future Brexit negotiations. A ruling in the Supreme Court in favour of a parliamentary vote would present a small but important reassurance against these fears.