Cameron needs the centre-left to win an EU referendum

Jonathan Lindsell, 12 May 2015

Thanks to last week’s Conservative victory, Britain will have an EU referendum in 2017 or even 2016. The Conservative leadership will probably campaign to stay in on the basis of David Cameron’s renegotiation. If Cameron’s overtures to European leaders are rebuffed though, he may have no choice but to decry Brussels as unreformable and campaign for exit.

Polls this year suggest that ‘in’ has the stronger position, winning in 21/23 studies this year. The election proved that forecasting is less accurate than we believed, however, and 14-25% are still undecided on Europe. It will be unclear until the day whether these are shy Eurosceptics or shy EU supporters.

With this in mind, consider Cameron’s strategy. To win the election he needed just 36.9% of the national vote. Even assuming – for argument’ sake – that all 2015 Tory and Ukip voters would vote ‘out’, their combined share only reaches 49.5%. Eurosceptics cannot rely on the right/centre-right vote in a referendum. Campaigners on both sides will need to sell their case to the centre and left, too.

Some issues apply across the spectrum. Although the right cares more about taxes, few voters are happy to see ever-increasing funds sent to Brussels. Asides a pro-federalists minority, most people are wary of the EU having excessive power over UK law, or parliament having no say. This was a classic concern of Tony Benn, so hardly new territory for Labour. British Future polling showed 85% of Britons are somewhat or very concerned about migration.

However, traditional progressive issues have not really featured in the EU debate. Lobbying is a major concern for those who watch Europe. There are over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels attempting to influence continent-wide rules on key issues like tobacco control, energy regulation, data protection and banking. Last parliament, Cameron tried to clean up Westminster’s own lobbying situation. He could win new friends by pushing the Commission and European Parliament to tighten transparency and lobbying rules, foremost addressing the revolving door: former regulators taking jobs as lobbyists. If he fails, multinational corporations’ EU influence could become another argument for exit.

A second concern is tax acrobatics. A preliminary conclusion from Brussels lawyers alleged that Amazon’s tax deal in Luxembourg amounted to illegal state aid, but the case is not being pushed as hard as it might be. This is partially because it would seriously implicate EC President Jean-Claude Juncker, who was Luxembourg’s Prime Minister through the deal’s timespan. Other prominent cases are Ireland’s tax arrangement with Apple, Luxembourg’s with Fiat, and Holland’s with Starbucks. Of course, Cameron needs to tread carefully here lest he offend potential renegotiation supporters.

Winning reform in these areas would show Britain does have EU influence and can protect normal British citizens’ interests. These area issues Cameron must either address in his reform drive, or see used against him in the referendum. With most of big business and the main parties supporting EU membership, the ‘out’ side could win leftist voters through an anti-corporatist message.