The Problem With Referendums

Peter Hitchens writes:

I really don't know why people get diverted into futile demands for referendums on the EU issue, or on anything else for that matter. Referendums have many things wrong with them. They only work in genuine democracies such as Switzerland where the electors, not the authorities, decide what questions should be asked, how and when. And even poor Switzerland is now exhausted by the number of votes it has had to hold.

They don't bind governments to accept them, and can be held again and again until they come up with the answer the government wants. The question can be skewed (just as in opinion polls) to obtain the result the government wants. There are, in Britain, no rules about how they are to be held. In 1975, the Government took sides, and the entire print media were in favour of a 'Yes' vote. You can imagine how the BBC treated it. That referendum was only held to get Harold Wilson off the hook, because his Labour Cabinet was so divided against itself.

In the unlikely event of a 'No' vote, I imagine Mr Wilson would have gone off to Brussels and negotiated a few more empty 'opt-outs' and concessions, and then held the vote again.

No, the only way out of the EU for Britain is the election to government of a party committed in its manifesto to withdraw.

That party needs to accept, and state, that this is an issue of principle. Does this country control its own destiny, or not? It cannot do so in a political structure specifically designed to drain sovereignty from national governments.

An election held with this as a major issue would at last compel the pro-EU factions to explain their intentions or desires, or damage themselves by refusing to do so. It would also make it clear that Britain could easily exist outside the EU, having good relations with it but not subject to Commission directives or the Luxembourg Court.

Only if such a party existed, and was prepared to argue this, would the debate about 'Europe' shift from its present fatuous, babyish level about 'scepticism' and 'negotiating the return of powers'. 'Scepticism' is a meaningless position, summed up as 'opposition to the EU in opposition, support for it in office'. What exactly has become of the 'Sceptic' hero Daniel Hannan MEP during the collapse of the Tory Party policy on Lisbon? As for 'return of powers' it is as likely that the Titanic will be raised, and Mr Cameron knows it. Why do people dare to mouth this drivel?