David Cameron and Angela Merkel attend a meeting at the EU headquarters in Brussels on March 21, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

It's a myth that Britain is sleepwalking towards Brexit

With the young most in favour of EU membership, euroscepticism faces death by demographics.

Britain is sleepwalking towards Brexit. That's increasingly the verdict of the commentariat, anyway. In today's Times, Dominic Cummings argues that "Voters don’t believe the prime minister when he says he’ll get a better deal for Britain in Europe". Last week, Matthew Parris wrote "Have no doubt. We’re heading for an EU exit". Matthew argued that "Britain is heading for the exit. Something seriously impressive has to be achieved to change our course." 

The rationale is simple. As Vernon Bogdanor warned in a recent lecture“Don’t imagine that Mr Cameron can pull off Harold Wilson’s trick a second time.”

Mr Wilson managed to convince the public that he had secured a triumphant renegotiation before the 1975 referendum, when he had done nothing of the sort. With the political class having never been held in more contempt - and the "Yes" camp in any referendum in 2017 certain not to enjoy the nine-to-one funding advantage that the pro-EU forces did 39 years ago - Mr Cameron would face a much more onerous task. Professor Bogdanor notes a Gallup poll in January 1975 showing a narrow majority in favour of leaving, while 71% said they would prefer to stay “If the Government negotiated new terms for Britain’s membership of the Common Market" - something that closely resembled the final result. "People could be greatly influenced by what the political leaders, in particular the leaders of the Labour Party, said". The implication is that the same is not true today.

But here's the thing: even if Professor Bogdanor is right, it won't matter. The polls tell us that Mr Cameron doesn't need to pull off Mr Wilson's trick. A YouGov survey last week, showed support for remaining in the EU at its highest level under the current government. The public suggest they would still listen to the advice of the government - there is a 35% lead in favour of staying in the EU in the event of Mr Cameron recommending that Britain does so. Yet, even without one, staying in is the preferred option: 44% would vote to remain in the EU, compared to 36% who would sooner leave. 

Even if the public were to ignore Mr Cameron's advice, he has already made his greatest contribution to the pro-EU cause. The near five-year gap between his pledge to hold an in-out referendum and the date when this would be amounts to a bump of several points for the "Yes" camp.

That's because of demographics. The generational divide among voters has never been starker than on Europe. The younger they are, the more Europhile they come. Today. only the over 60s support Brexit. Remaining in has an 8% advantage with 40-59-year-olds (even without a recommendation from the PM) - and it rises to 30% among the under-25s. While Britain has an ageing population, this is not, crudely put, enough to make up for the Eurosceptics who are passing away, because those who have been at university, studied abroad and always remember Britain being part of the EU tend to stubbornly cling onto pro European beliefs.

The upshot is simple. Every day that Britain waits for an referendum on its membership of the EU, remaining in becomes a more likely course. Unless opponents of the EU can locate a message that resonates with the young - nay, make that anyone under 60 - euroscepticism faces defeat by demographics. 

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Stephen Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising space makes him almost as bad as Trump

The physicist's inistence on mankind's expansion risks making him a handmaiden of inequality.

“Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves,” Stephen Hawking has warned. And he’s not just talking about surviving the UK's recent run of record breaking heat. If humanity doesn’t start sending people to Mars soon, then in a few hundred years he says we can all expect to be kaput; there just isn’t enough space for us all.

The theoretical physicist gave his address to the glittering Starmus Festival of science and arts in Norway. According to the BBC, he argued that climate change and the depletion of natural resources help make space travel essential. With this in mind, he would like to see a mission to Mars by 2025 and a new lunar base within 30 years.

He even took a swipe at Donald Trump: “I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, unlike Donald Trump, who may just have taken the most serious, and wrong, decision on climate change this world has seen.”

Yet there are striking similarities between Hawking's statement and the President's bombast. For one thing there was the context in which it was made - an address to a festival dripping with conspicuous consumption, where 18 carat gold OMEGA watches were dished out as prizes.

More importantly there's the inescapable reality that space colonisation is an inherently elitist affair: under Trump you may be able to pay your way out of earthly catastrophe, while for Elon Musk, brawn could be a deciding advantage, given he wants his early settlers on Mars to be able to dredge up buried ice.

Whichever way you divide it up, it is unlikely that everyone will be able to RightMove their way to a less crowded galaxy. Hell, most people can’t even make it to Starmus itself (€800  for a full price ticket), where the line-up of speakers is overwhelmingly white and male.

So while this obsession with space travel has a certain nobility, it also risks elevating earthly inequalities to an interplanetary scale.

And although Hawking is right to call out Trump on climate change, the concern that space travel diverts money from saving earth's ecosystems still stands. 

In a context where the American government is upping NASA’s budget for manned space flights at the same time as it cuts funds for critical work observing the changes on earth, it is imperative that the wider science community stands up against this worrying trend.

Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising the solar system risks playing into the hands of the those who share the President destructive views on the climate, at the expense of the planet underneath us.

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

0800 7318496