Lib Dems should not ditch the in/out referendum pledge

Ming Campbell has indicated on The Daily Politics today that the Lib Dems may be moving away from their pledge on an in/out referendum for the EU. If this is true then I think this is a mistake.

I have been a bit back and forth on the Lib Dem's approach to the Lisbon treaty. I tried to sum up my views in a blogpost early last month:

I think that the EU hugely over complicates these treaties and makes it difficult for non-technocrats to understand them. I certainly haven't the time or inclination to wade through it. I don't really understand why they can't keep it simple. Something like the US constitution is clear, concise and simple enough to be understood by schoolchildren - indeed it is taught to them in schools. Does anyone seriously think that say the Maastricht Treaty or Lisbon could be taught in a similar way?

Unfortunately, that is not how these things are done in Europe (perhaps more learned people than me could explain why in the comments) so because it is so complicated, it was not a good idea to pledge a referendum. How many people would read and fully understand it before voting? That is where parliament should earn its money by debating the treaty and voting on it.

However the Lib Dems and Labour did pledge a referendum and because I think parties should honour their pledges, we should not have gone back on this. I know both parties had their arguments: "It's no longer a constitution" in the case of Labour, "The real question is in or out" in the case of the Lib Dems but to most people it seems like a reneging on pre-election promises. I find it very hard to argue against that.

Now that we have done though, I actually think our current policy is more sensible than our original one. The ongoing saga of Europe needs to be settled. The last referendum was 35 years ago and on a completely different question.

I genuinely think that a referendum on in/out would be close and may go "out". I would not want to see this outcome but I am a democrat and we need to allow the public to make up their minds on this in order to settle this issue at least for the next political generation.

So my conclusion was that I would not have got to where are via the same route but that an in/out referendum was the correct policy. It is genuinely brave for a pro-EU as there is a real risk of losing but it is also principled and won or lost would settle the question which has dogged our politics for many years.

I also think it is a vote winner. Both the Conservatives and Labour are not offering anything like it as they both fear the consequences of an "out" vote. Having it as one of our policies makes it easier for people who may like some or lots of our other policies but may not agree with our pro-EU approach to vote for us as they know they would ultimately be given the choice by us anyway.

So the idea that we now might be ditching this policy seems odd to me. Even more odd is Ming's comment that there is "no public appetite" for a vote. That really does not seem to tally with the views of a decent chunk of the electorate in polls that I have seen. There may be little appetite amongst our political classes but that is a very different thing.

I very much hope that Ming was just flying a flag and that we keep this policy.

BBC Question Time Live Chat - 14th May 2009

The Live Chat for BBC's Question Time will start here from 10:30pm this evening.

I suspect there will be at least one question about my Member of Parliament and it will be interesting to see how Ming deals with the inevitable questions about his claims too.

Now finished. It was a very intense episode and an interesting chat. Thanks to all who attended. Please pop by every Thursday when QT is on for more Live Chats.

How PMQs appears to most people

I was struck by this post by Ol from Cardiff Student Lib Dems who has written about a trip him and his fellow members took to the commons yesterday to watch PMQs as a guest of Jenny Willot.

He relates how a fellow student described the "baying crowds" of MPs as "so rude". Shouting down others and laughing, talking during questions and "essentially showing the worst elements of humanity". He also makes a very valuable point about how the government and parliament on the one hand wish to try and influence younger people to have respect for one other and society and yet on the other hand behave like the most juvenile pack of imbeclies.

This is something I used to think myself but over the years I have become so inured to the way PMQs and parliament in general works that I don't really even think about it any more. Indeed occasionally I have found myself chuckling at some of the jokes bandied across the despatch box and generally gettiing a bit too into it. I am not proud of this to be honest. This is no way for a modern democratic chamber to behave and it is sad that it takes a young student to point out what should be obvious to all in politics, that the behaviour of MPs in the chamber falls well short of what is should be.

The treatment of Ming Campbell when he was Lib Dem leader by the house during PMQs was appaling. It seems that he made a slightly misjudged comment on his first outing and after that, every time he stood up it was to a chorus of howling trying to drown him out and humiliate him. This is one of the reasons he ended up resigning as he could not get his points across properly in the chamber. This behaviour by MPs is absolutely reprehensible and yet you do not often hear or read any commentators condemning it and calling for change.

Sadly, I can't really imagine it changing any time soon as the protagonists like it this way. Cameron claimed when he first became Tory leader that he wanted an end to "Punch and Judy politics" but alas he is now as bad as the rest of them.

MPs will however eventually reap what they sew and the disengagement of the general population with politics will sadly continue fuelled by these sort of anachronistic displays in the chamber. Remember this the next time you hear a senior politician bemoan the general lack of engagement with politics - the systems they support cause it!