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.

Show Hide image

Boris Johnson isn't risking his political life over Heathrow

The anti-Heathrow campaigner was never a committed environmentalist. 

A government announcement on expanding London’s airports is expected today, and while opposition forces have been rallying against the expected outcome - a third runway at Heathrow - the decision could also be a divisive one for the ruling Conservative party. A long consultation period will allow these divisions to fester. 

Reports suggest that up to 60 Conservative MPs are against expansion at the Heathrow site. The Prime Minister’s own constituents are threatening legal action, and the former London mayoral candidate, Zac Goldsmith, has promised to step down as MP for Richmond rather than let the airport develop.

But what of Boris Johnson? The politician long synonymous with Heathrow opposition - including a threat to lie down “in front of those bulldozers” - is expected to call the decision a mistake. But for a man unafraid to dangle from a zipwire, he has become unusually reticent on the subject.

The reticence has partly been imposed upon him. In a letter to her cabinet ministers, Theresa May has granted them freedom from the usual rules of collective responsibility (under which cabinet ministers are required to support government positions). But she has also requested that they refrain from speaking out in the Commons, from “actively” campaigning against her position, and from calling “into question the decision making process itself”.  

Johnson is not about to start cheering for Heathrow. But unlike Goldsmith, he is no committed environmentalist - and he's certainly a committed politician.  

Boris’s objections to the expansion at Heathrow have all too often only extended as far as the lives of his London constituents. These local impacts are not to be belittled – in his role of mayor of London, he rightly pointed to the extreme health risks of increased noise and air pollution. And his charisma and profile have also boosted community campaigns around these issues. 

But when it comes to reducing emissions, Johnson is complacent. He may have come a long way since a 2013 Telegraph article in which he questioned whether global warming was real. Yet his plan to build an alternative “hub” airport in the Thames Estuary would have left the question of cutting UK aviation emissions worryingly un-resolved. This lack of curiosity is alarming considering his current job as foreign secretary. 

And there are reasons to be concerned. According to Cait Hewitt at the Aviation Environment Federation, the UK fails to meet its targets for CO2 reduction. And the recent UN deal on aviation emission mitigation doesn’t even meet the commitments of the UK’s own Climate Change Act, let alone the more stringent demands of the Paris Agreement. “Deciding that we’re going to do something that we know is going to make a problem worse, before we’ve got an answer, is the wrong move”, said Hewitt.

There is a local environmental argument too. Donnachadh McCarthy, a spokesperson from the activist group “Rising Up”, says the pollution could affect Londoners' health: "With 70 per cent of flights taken just by 15 per cent of the UK's population... this is just not acceptable in a civilised democracy.”

The way Johnson tells it, his reason for staying in government is a pragmatic one. “I think I'd be better off staying in parliament to fight the case, frankly," he told LBC Radio in 2015. And he's right that, whatever the government’s position, the new “national policy statement” to authorise the project will likely face a year-long public consultation before a parliamentary vote in late 2017 or early 2018. Even then the application will still face a lengthy planning policy stage and possible judicial review. 

But if the foreign secretary does fight this quietly, in the back rooms of power, it is not just a loss to his constituents. It means the wider inconsistencies of his position can be brushed aside - rather than exposed and explored, and safely brought down to ground. 

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.