Ian McKenzie, communications director of The People's Pledge campaign for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, has announced that the campaign has appointed a new director, and it is he.

This is the man, a europhile to his core, who believes there should be an in-out referendum in the next parliament. "If it were held", he tells the pompous John Rentoul, "the European cause would win, and the sceptics would lose all purchase on British politics for a generation".

View full article here

In the Open Forum I have tried to make the withdrawalist's case for not having an in-out referendum:

http://tinyurl.com/433h459 (short version)

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1009111 (longer version)

"1975 was a disaster – why repeat it?" (very short version)

In case anyone's confused (a couple of people were last year), here's why Dr North's position on an in-out referendum is not at odds with the name of his blog: this blog was formed to force a vote on the EU Constitution (later trading as the Lisbon Treaty), not to campaign for an in-out vote on membership. Dr North knew better than anyone that a vote was needed and that it would be won if granted. Referendums are good for consolidating the status quo: Dr North knew that, however much pressure was applied by the elites, the populace would vote against a new-fangled EU constitution, just as he knows that now the punters could be bullied into staying in the EU ("British jobs depend on free trade [sic] with EU", blah blah blah).

Brian Mulroney, with the support of the governments of all 10 Canadian Provinces the two major Canadian federal opposition parties, the national media and most of the country's intellectual and business elites. thought that it would be easy to win a referendum on the Charlottetown Accord (that would implement changes to the Canadian Constitution). He reckoned without his own unpopularity and the anti-establshment mood of many Canadians, and subsequently lost the referendum.

Voters who are capable of electing George Galloway are more than capable of sticking two fingers up at the political classes - which is why there won't be an in-or-out referendum any time soon.

We the people actually get an invite to the discussion, where we talk and they don't listen and do what they want anyway. But at least we get to vote once every five years, so we must be a democracy.

We invitate people to a party with an invite??

Effing moron, where that the case we would have had a referendum ystdy and two last week.

The visceral hatred of all things EU seemingly trumps the slenderest grasp of reality, hereabouts.

A straight in-out should win easily for the PTB and their big guns. Qualitatively similar to Cameron's relative enthusiasm for that single question, north of the border, and Salmond's reluctance.

I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make.

Firstly, although the establishment (including the main political parties, media, & especially the biased BBC) would probably pull out all the stops to win a stay-in motion, there's no proof that the status-quo group would actually win. Nor is there any proof that if they did win, that their's would be a big win. And even if they do win, that's no reason why British EU-rejectionists shouldn't continue fighting hard. After all, little's being achieved at present under the quislings Cameron & Osborne anyway - despite a theoretically mainly euro-sceptic Tory backbench. Although that could, of course, change if there's a PM leadership change, but that can't be counted on till it happens, & nor unfortunately can it be counted on to be much of an improvement either - until it actually proves to be so.

Whatever happens when there actually is an EU in-or-out referendum, the question(s) should be framed by an impartial group of judges (like a Supreme Court), which Cameron carefully left out of his faux Referendum Lock Act of last year. Another requirement should be that if the votes are close, that there should be a re-run within 6 months to a year. Certainly the government would want that if it lost, so why shouldn't that be part of the deal anyway? And as the EU has such a major impact on UK democracy, surely there should also be such a referendum every parliament (just like there should be at least one FULL strategic review, not just a hurried & messy cost-cutting quarter-version of one as happened in 2010).

Finally: one in-out question, or a range of them? For example, a 3rd choice - of an opt-out on most EU matters - would probably prove a winner. But this would require an official referee, eg a Supreme Court, which would then need to be empowered to insist on the government of the day then following the referendum's wishes. No sign of the current 3 main party leaderships agreeing to that kind of thing at present!

Watchet

Sorry, deleted, because of accidental duplication.
Watchet

Yes, and then we'd be really stuffed. As Dr North put it (see penultimate para): http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2011 ... ebate.html

If an in-out vote were held, the sceptic vote would be split by exactly that sort of reasonable-sounding but entirely illusory third option of "renegotiation". The "in" crowd would get perhaps 30%; withdrawalists perhaps 30%; and the plausible but chimerical "renegotiation" would burst through the middle with 40%.