The EU referendum leaflet that will haunt Clegg today

As Clegg stands in for David Cameron at PMQs, Tory MPs will seize the opportunity to remind him of his past promise to hold an in/out EU referendum.

With David Cameron still away in the US, it's Nick Clegg who will man the dispatch box at PMQs today, and we can expect the Tories to take full advantage of the occasion to remind Clegg of the days when he supported an in/out EU referendum. 

The Deputy PM now rejects a vote on Britain's membership as against "the national interest" but as the leaflet below (thought to date from 2008) shows, he was previously calling for a "real referendum" and denouncing Labour and the Tories for not doing the same. The leaflet declared:

It's been over thirty years since the British people last had a vote on Britain's membership of the European Union.

That's why the Liberal Democrats want a real referendum on Europe. Only a real referendum on Britain's membership of the EU will let the people decide our country's future.

But Labour don't want the people to have their say.

The Conservatives only support a limited referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Why won't they give the people a say in a real referendum?

In fairness to Clegg, this pledge was specifically tied to the Lisbon Treaty and, while the Lib Dems' 2010 manifesto repeated the promise of a referendum, it suggested that one should be only held "the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU." Since the UK is currently not negotiating a new treaty, Clegg will argue that the preconditions for a vote have not been met. But in the heat of the Commons, this detail is likely to be lost. Expect Tory MPs to bombard Clegg with questions accusing him of showing "complete disdain" for the British people and of breaking yet another election pledge. 

The Lib Dems are clear that they will not waver on the question of a referendum, with one source telling the Telegraph: "We won’t give up any government time to internal Conservative Party politics." But as Clegg knows all too well, there are few things more toxic for his reputation than his image as a man who never keeps his word. And with the Tories already in election campaign mode, no punches will now be pulled for the sake of their coalition partner's feelings. 

As I noted at the weekend, Michael Gove used his interview on The Andrew Marr Show to portray Clegg as a man too weak to support government policy (in this instance on childcare ratios) due to the internal threats to his leadership. Today, he will be assailed as a hypocrite, a liar and a scoundrel. The "Rose Garden moment" now feels a very long way away indeed. 

Nick Clegg gives a press conference at the EU headquarters in Brussels. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How to think about the EU result if you voted Remain

A belief in democracy means accepting the crowd is wiser than you are as an individual. 

I voted Remain, I feel sick about this result and its implications for what’s to come. But I’m a believer in democracy. This post is about how to reconcile those two things (it’s a bit unstructured because I’m working it out as I go, and I’m not sure I agree with all of it).

Democracy isn’t just fairer than other systems of governance, it’s smarter. It leads to better decisions and better outcomes, on average and over the long run, than countries that are run by autocrats or councils of wise men with jobs for life. It is simply the best way we have yet devised of solving complex problems involving many people. On that topic, if you’re not averse to some rather dense and technical prose, read this post or seek out this book. But the central argument is that democracy is the best way of harnessing ‘cognitive diversity’ — bringing to bear many different perspectives on a problem, each of which are very partial in themselves, but add up to something more than any one wise person.

I don’t think you can truly be a believer in democracy unless you accept that the people, collectively, are smarter than you are. That’s hard. It’s easy to say you believe in the popular will, right up until the popular will does something REALLY STUPID. The hard thing is not just to ‘accept the result’ but to accept that the majority who voted for that result know or understand something better than you. But they do. You are just one person, after all, and try as you might to expand your perspective with reading (and some try harder than others) you can’t see everything. So if a vote goes against you, you need to reflect on the possibility you got it wrong in some way. If I look at the results of past general elections and referendums, for instance, I now see they were all pretty much the right calls, including those where I voted the other way.

One way to think about the vote is that it has forced a slightly more equitable distribution of anxiety and alienation upon the country. After Thursday, I feel more insecure about my future, and that of my family. I also feel like a foreigner in my own country — that there’s this whole massive swathe of people out there who don’t think like me at all and probably don’t like me. I feel like a big decision about my life has been imposed on me by nameless people out there. But of course, this is exactly how many of those very people have been feeling for years, and at a much higher level of intensity. Democracy forces us to try on each other’s clothes. I could have carried on quite happily ignoring the unhappiness of much of the country but I can’t ignore this.

I’m seeing a lot of people on Twitter and in the press bemoaning how ill-informed people were, talking about a ‘post-factual democracy’. Well, maybe, though I think that requires further investigation - democracy has always been a dirty dishonest business. But surely the great thing about Thursday that so many people voted — including many, many people who might have felt disenfranchised from a system that hasn’t been serving them well. I’m not sure you’re truly a democrat if you don’t take at least a tiny bit of delight in seeing people so far from the centres of power tipping the polity upside down and giving it a shake. Would it have been better or worse for the country if Remain had won because only informed middle-class people voted? It might have felt better for people like me, it might actually have been better, economically, for everyone. But it would have indicated a deeper rot in our democracy than do the problems with our national information environment (which I accept are real).

I’m not quite saying ‘the people are always right’ — at least, I don’t think it was wrong to vote to stay in the EU. I still believe we should have Remained and I’m worried about what we’ve got ourselves into by getting out. But I am saying they may have been right to use this opportunity — the only one they were given — to send an unignorable signal to the powers-that-be that things aren’t working. You might say general elections are the place for that, but our particular system isn’t suited to change things on which there is a broad consensus between the two main parties.

Ian Leslie is a writer, author of CURIOUS: The Desire to Know and Why Your Future Depends On It, and writer/presenter of BBC R4's Before They Were Famous.