The Conservative backbench Bill before Parliament to grant a referendum on membership of the EU has as its question:
“Do you think that the UK should be a member of the EU?”
Voters have the right to vote Yes, or No.
The Electoral Commission have now considered this draft question. They have asked is it clear enough? Is it fairly weighted? They have considered other possible wordings.
They have come up with two versions which they prefer. The first is inviting the same Yes/No answer. It is
” Should the UK remain a member of the EU?”
This is shorter than the Bill proposal. It also makes clear should anyone be in any doubt that the UK is currently a member of the EU.
The second version requires a longer supplied answer: It is
“Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?
Voters can tick a box to say “Remain a member of the EU” or a box saying “Leave the EU”
I am happy with the wording in the current Bill. Anyone voting in the referendum will understand we are currently in the EU, and will also understand that voting No means leaving. Of the two Electoral Commission versions I prefer the shorter one.
Any amendment to the Bill slows down its passage, so has to be weighed carefully. What do you think?
PS The Electoral Commission amended the Scottish referendum question to “Should Scotland be an independent country?”. This question does not tell people in Scotland that they are not currently an independent country, and gives to the “out of the union” camp the advantage of answer Yes. Yet when it comes to the EU the Electoral Commission does wish to explain the UK is in the EU, and give Yes to those who want to stay in, not to those who want to some out. Their approach seems variable.
November 1, 2013
“Anyone voting in the referendum will understand we are currently in the EU, and will also understand that voting No means leaving”.
Your Electoral Commission found out that this is simply not true and that some people don’t know that the UK is currently an EU member. That shouldn’t surprise us, many people don’t take a daily interest in politics. Any of the proposed alternatives are better.
November 1, 2013
The excellent journalist Charles Moore pointed out at the time that the highly loaded Scottish referendum question was chosen, that (for the Outs) a useful precedent had been established, and that the correct wording for the EU referendum is: ‘Should the UK be an independent country?’
November 1, 2013
Richard–Except that I have very little doubt that the lawyers would say that technically the UK is already right now independent. What we are trying to do is not become independent, for we already are, but rather free from the web of Treaties our daft Governments have signed.
November 2, 2013
What JR always seems to fail to mention is that Cameron will never deliver what he, and other Eurosceptics, want to achieve. Therefore he needs to change the leadership of the Tory party or change party to achieve his goal.
November 1, 2013
Charles Moore is indeed a good journalist though of late he always seems to be drifting to the irrational left somewhat, perhaps his religious conversion does not help in this after all he in not that old yet!
Should the UK return to being an independent & democratic country? A
or Should it remain an undemocratic region controlled by unelected
EU bureaucrats, who cannot ever be removed peacefully? B
That seems fairly much a straight & unbiased question to me.
I see Cameron is no to let the Welsh government have borrowing and taxing powers. Just what the UK needs like a hole in the head, more state sector tax borrow and waste and more government still!
November 1, 2013
The key question for Welsh (or Scottish or N Irish) borrowing is will UK tax payers be on the hook for it? If the answer is yes then its a nonsense and should be tightly controlled or forbidden altogether like any other local authority. If its really the case that welsh taxpayers will have to stand behind the borrowing through taxes, and investors recognize that if they don’t then they will lose money (like US states) then fine.
November 1, 2013
It’s clear that your question is heavily biased towards leaving the EU, something that will effectively render the whole referendum moot.
Your question would also be rejected because it’s factually inaccurate as EU bureaucrats such as the MEP, European Councillors, and even European Commissioners can all be removed.
November 2, 2013
Why don’t you spend some time listing EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT the EU has brought to the UK in the past 40 years, so that we can have a proper debate?
November 2, 2013
Not by any citizen who votes in the UK. (MEP being an exception). Once more, sophistry and socialist rubbish.
November 2, 2013
The officers and bureaucrats are not chosen by the voters and cannot be removed by them. The MEPs have very little real power at all. Even if the UK voted 100% UKIP they would still be totally powerless.
November 2, 2013
@lifelogic: I’m sorry but how can anybody possibly take you serious after your claim that this is an unbiased question???
November 2, 2013
Well that is just how it is, that is surely what the real choice for the voters is.
November 1, 2013
@Richard: the problem here is that many people and the EU would argue that Britain already ISan independent country (both independent and interdependent). Winning the referendum wouldn’t make the UK leave the EU.
November 2, 2013
One of the highlighted defects of Wharton’s Bill is that it says nothing about what would happen after the referendum if the answer to his question was “no”.
Reply The UK would leave the EU
November 2, 2013
The Bill says nothing about what would happen; it could say that in the event of a “no” vote the government must put in a formal notice of our intention to leave under Article 50 TEU within a certain time period, but it doesn’t say anything.
Contrast that with the Act for the AV referendum, which had a section 8 saying that if the answer was “yes” then:
“The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”)”
November 2, 2013
I doubt if, even then, they would leave.
There would surely be another renegotiation and voters would be told to think again. Just as in France and Ireland -until they come to the “right” answer.
November 2, 2013
No the UK is not. Heath had included the word” Essential” before sovereignty and independence.. so he would not be accused of lying to the public. However most ordinary people were deceived by his choice of words because they do not possess his finesse of English language which under scrutiny was clearly intended to con the British public. FCO paper 30/1048 makes it clear there was deceit behind the con. What people thought they were joing is far different to what actually happened.
November 2, 2013
As Nigel Lawson has pointed out eloquently, it is very rare that in any big issue of public policy a question is black or white. Its a question of the balance of advantage. The danger for the EU is that it has become so big-statist, and driven so much by the failed policies of the Euro and forcing high energy costs that many previously pro-EEC / EU voters (such as me) now think there is a real question to answer.
November 1, 2013
Surely it matters not whether people are aware or not: the case for membership still needs to be made and put to the people.
It seems that Europhiles fear losing any advantage of inertia.
November 2, 2013
@matthu: i f they did, the europhiles would make sure the question to be: “do you want to leave the EU”, in which case intertia would ensure an overwhelming “no”.
November 2, 2013
A overwhelming yes to leave the EU. Opinion polls showing a steady but sure increase across the board. Even Borrosso accepts changes need to be made, he sees the writing in the wall.
November 1, 2013
To be or not to be. Alternatively, to remain or not to remain. Which should be the question? The EUphiles obviously want “remain” in order to suggest the status quo, and the sceptics want “be” to avoid such connotation. The question should be neutral, without weighting, and “be” meets that requirement.
November 1, 2013
I agree. The Electoral Commission’s questions play on the fact that many people naturally dislike change and will therefore not vote for a change. The original question purely asks what is preferred. This is a much fairer question that does not play on people’s natural conservatism.
November 1, 2013
Anyone who do not know we are members of the EU should not vote!!!!!
November 2, 2013
Freedom includes the freedom to be ignorant.
November 3, 2013
@StevenL
Which is why so much effort has been made to dumb down the UK population.
Feeble minds are easy to manipulate, which takes power from the people and places it into the hands of politicians.
The Heath deception is a case in point.
November 1, 2013
How many languages will the ballot paper be written in? The
EUGovernment must make completely sure that any immigrants with a vote can read the “right” answer.November 1, 2013
“Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”
Should the result be to stay can the fantasists explain to me how this is the wrong wording and weasel words designed to mislead. Not the voting advertising or the BBC coverage of this referendum or the foolishness of the voters who of course do not understand, but specifically how the wording came to fail to come up with the correct result. For example it mentions the EU twice and has the word remain in? it contains ‘a member of the EU’? ‘Contains the word should? UK and EU is used in the same sentence. As the population do not understand the issues and the need for more right wing ideas to help them, by people not effected like the EU there should be no referendum and we should just leave to help the population make the right decision?
Obviously the best thing to do is leave and put large corporations in its place, so wording needs to be wrote to ensure this., viz.
‘How should big business be put in place of the EU to ensure the future competitiveness of Britain in world markets and ensure living standards for all?’
That should do it. Better versions could be wrote I’m sure.
Ram it.
November 1, 2013
If people are in full possession of the FACTS and then vote to stay in, so be it. That is a proper democratic decision, arrived at democratically. Those of us who are against the EU might disagree with it, and might also have good grounds to do so, but the people would have spoken.
That isn’t what happened last time. We were never told of the consequences of staying in. We never once voted for what we have now!
So you whingers can squawk as long as you like, we were done out of our democratic rights by being lied to. And if the pro-EU camp intend to do the same again, they too can ram it!
November 1, 2013
Just because the no lobby failed to convey their case in the 1975 referendum doesn’t mean the referendum was invalid. A referendum also isn’t invalid simply because the EU changed, especially when the UK agreed to these changed.
November 2, 2013
“A referendum also isn’t invalid simply because the EU changed”
Indeed not, it just means that the electorate has never been directly asked to consent to any of those radical changes.
So having consented to remain in a so-called “Common Market” where according to the government’s official pamphlet delivered to every household at public expense:
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
“The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.”
we are now in an EU where it has become the norm that decisions are made by transnational majority voting and it is far from the truth that “The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal”.
November 2, 2013
Had this from the Get Britain Out campaign a little earlier:
Dear Tad Davison,
Are you sitting comfortably?
Emblazoned on the wall in the EU Parliament’s Visitors Centre are these words: “National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our times… The only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil of our time is a federal union of the peoples…”.
When you are encouraging your friends and colleagues to support Get Britain Out’s campaign, show them this quote and they will appreciate the kind of people we are fighting.
Thank you,
Leo McKinstry
So when did we sign up to that then? I don’t recall seeing that in any of the 1975 ‘Yes’ campaign literature!
November 1, 2013
Strange logic Baz seeing how it is the largest multi national corporations who want us to stay in the EU the most.
November 1, 2013
E2, seems our Baz is pro-big business!
Tad
November 1, 2013
Feeling better now dear?
November 2, 2013
Unable to answer the question sister?
November 1, 2013
Bazzy once again displaying your lack of connection to reality.
Dear boy its big business, multinationals and mega banks that own and control the EU.
so your question would actually be
Do you wish to be controlled by big business and banks via the EU or do you prefer freedom
November 1, 2013
Libertarian given that big business, multinationals and mega banks own and control the UK by your logic that leaving the EU won’t result in the UK becoming more free.
November 2, 2013
Plus one of the main reasons for the fantasists wanting to leave the EU is to erode workers right even further and the EU is currently preventing this. It’s strange how they throw big business at me when many are very much in favour of big business defending them to the hilt in many cases and having faith in them to do the best thing in a free market. This is real Tory stuff deeply engrained in their psyche instead of a lord of the manor to uphold their rights and living standards they now have faith in big business which as they say is often EU state owned companies. You can see this in many Tories in council house that when given the right to but often at much reduced market rates cannot step out side of rental citing maintenance costs as the main one, but have no problem paying rent which far outstrips these costs. Not for the like of us. We know our place etc. Modern day serfs by choice. Ram it.
November 3, 2013
Workers rights are being destroyed right now by your beloved EU Baz, with unemployment levels not seen since the depression in the Thirties.
Over 12% average in the EU and over 25% in some member States.
Oh sorry, when its good, its the EU when its bad its the fault of the individual nations.
November 2, 2013
Uanime5
To some extent true. However in the UK we do have the power every 5 years to vote out corporatist control whilst with the EU we do not
November 1, 2013
Perhaps a fairer question would be:
Please tick box A or B
Should the UK leave the EU and retake control of its own affairs and democracy through elected UK MPs – A
Or
Should the UK continue to further pool its sovereignty and government with approximately 500 Million of others living in the EU (the majority of whom have never been to the UK and do not speak English). With England to be divided into nine regions, all under EU control. This while continuing with the current EU system of elections and government, where the UK can only elect about 10% of MEPs and these MEPs have very limited powers.
Nearly all of the power remaining with very well paid and pensioned EU bureaucrats who (together with the MEPs) have special tax rules just for themselves and cannot be removed or even influenced by the electorate – B
November 1, 2013
If anyone is not aware that the UK is a member of the EU should they really be allowed to vote? In fact should they be walking the streets on their own? Talk about dumbing down.
November 1, 2013
The dim voters hopefully cancel themselves out, but with the BBC propaganda line one cannot be sure of this alas.
November 1, 2013
I’d imagine that there are plenty of people living in the UK who don’t know what the EU is, let alone whether the UK is in it. They would probably struggle to explain the difference between the UK and Great Britain too.
November 2, 2013
Does that make them dim? I think your answer is actually very profound. And what it is all about. An uneducated mass who don’t care.
November 1, 2013
The shorter version ” Should the UK remain a member of the EU?” is unambiguous and should be the one used in the referendum. Assuming that we ever get one, of course which I have to say seems unlikely at the moment. It might even save a lot of money and wasted paper, because it would easily fit onto an A5 sheet with suitable header/footer and traceability marks.
November 1, 2013
I don’t think one should assume too much about what people know, else, if it is all so obvious, why not just “EU – In or Out?”? This would allow people to make what they will of the question, which is perhaps best.
November 1, 2013
Anyone unable to understand any of the three questions should not be allowed to vote.
The first alternative, “Should the UK remain a member of the EU”, has the greater clarity.
I suspect that Cameron will duck, dive and dodge for as long as he can to avoid any referendum, should the UK electorate be naïve enough to vote him and his anti democratic party back in.
November 1, 2013
Rather unlikely to be re-elected. Vote Cameron as I am not quite as bad as Miliband, you know you can trust (the IHT and EU ratter) Cameron are not a very good electoral pitches. Anyway he could not even beat Brown last time.
November 1, 2013
In my opinion there should be no room for confusion on this issue so I prefer the third option. ‘Leave the EU ‘ is a pretty clear box to tick if this is what one wants.
November 1, 2013
I agree
November 1, 2013
I agree too.
November 1, 2013
The original question is Ok with me, although I prefer the the shorter version of the two options, because it is absolutely clear what is being asked.
So we are now near to a question, but have we set a date yet for the referendum.
How near are we to our re-negotiation list, and what deadline date are we going to give them before we call a halt to negotiations.
Essential if we are to stand a chance of getting anything and concentrationg the minds of all concerned.
November 1, 2013
Our re-negotiation list? No chance of that until Cameron is within his last few months as PM in 2015, but rightly no one will believe a word the man says. Let see what happens after the Tories come third in May 2014 one assumes Cameron will just sling out more fruit cake & racist party slurs at UKIP.
November 1, 2013
I think Parliament should follow the advice of the Electoral Commission.
It is not, in my opinion, desirable that Parliament should set up a referendum and then pose a biased or unclear question to the electorate. The Electoral Commission’s report gives what I think are clear explanations of why the question suggested by Parliament is not a good way to determine the views of the electorate.
November 1, 2013
So just 18 Conservatives and 11 Labour MPs voted against a new high speed line. Well I suppose it is slightly better than the five who voted against the absurd Climate change act.
How can our MPs be so dim (or perhaps dishonest), so out of touch and so totally at odds with logic, real economics, science, engineering and the views of the electorate? Do they just want a slightly quicker expenses and tax payer paid journey back to their constituency? Or perhaps do they just follow the foolish Cameron like sheep or are some getting so called “consultancy” fees or other personal benefits in some way?
Why else would they vote this way? Surely they cannot all be so dim as to think the project makes any economic or transport sense can they?
November 1, 2013
Even with that wording the BBC and the party leaders would unbalance the debate hugely towards the stay in vote. One assumes that is why Lord Patten was appointed to chair the trustees by Cameron.
Of topic – Why on earth do we have the new proposal to have GCSE marked 9-1 in the reverse order. Surely what is needed is something to stop the exam boards endlessly dumbing down the exams so hugely to attract entrants. Just publish the percentile the applicant mark was in. Grade one for the top 1% of entrants and grade 100 for the 100th percentile. Or perhaps just 20 grades for the 5% divisions if 100 is too many graduations. Then all is very clear and they cannot dumb down the grades – you are just measured against your peers.
As for the obsession with spelling, who cares? Fair enough perhaps to mark someone down in a spelling GCSC but to mark them down in all subject for not remembering the absurd and irrational English spellings is bonkers (will US spellers be penalized for color and honor and all the ized. Indeed will it not be racist for people with English as a second language?). One “right” spelling is a socialist, government knows best and a rather evil concept that prevents any improvements in spelling.
Next it will be a one pronunciation is right dictionary and I will be forced to say glarse, arse and grarse instead of the far preferable glass, ass and grass. And forced by the EU to call Paris, Paree and Riems, Rance.
Of far more concern is that our children are now taught (in Physics) about absurd totally unscientific concepts like “renewable” energy. This seems to be rather undefined yet to be energy from Nuclear fusion on the sun that is then radiated to earth collected and used within about one hundred years or so (but not longer as then it becomes evil fossil fuel). Nuclear energy on earth (as opposed to the sun) it seems is not “renewable”. Yet strangely tidal and wind which slow down the earth’s rotation are as is geothermal which cools down the earth’s core.
How do we expect children to learn to think when this drivel is pushed at them Mr Gove?
November 1, 2013
Lifelogic
Like you I cannot understand the logic or thinking of the new proposed grading system either.
You go to University to aim to get a first degree, but to get there you need a 9 as a first is a fail.
Complete and utter bloody nonesense.
Like you, I do not know what is wrong with percentage scores, and like you if you must have numbers, rate them from one downwards.
With one being top.
After all what does the statement, “first class” represent !!!
1= 95-100%
2-90-95%
Rate down to 50% after that its a fail.
Its so simple.
Only a fool or a complete acedemic may think otherwise
November 2, 2013
Indeed or just rate down to 20 the bottom 5% and do not have pass or fail. Then standards cannot be mucked about with. You were in the x percentile relative to the others who sat the exam.
November 1, 2013
This seems to be rather undefined yet to be energy from Nuclear fusion on the sun that is then radiated to earth collected and used within about one hundred years or so (but not longer as then it becomes evil fossil fuel).
Are you claiming that radioactive isotopes are radioactive because of sunlight? Care to explain why uranium is found deep underground rather than on the planet’s surface.
Nuclear energy on earth (as opposed to the sun) it seems is not “renewable”.
Well once the radioactive isotopes go through 5-6 half lives they’re essentially useless and there is a limited number of heavy radioactive elements that can decompose into the ones we can get power from.
Yet strangely tidal and wind which slow down the earth’s rotation
Care to provide any evidence that wind or tidal power has any noticeable effect on the earth’s rotation. Also
geothermal which cools down the earth’s core.
Care to provide any evidence that geothermal is cooling down the earth’s core. Evidence showing that it cools the earth’s mantle doesn’t count as the mantle isn’t the core.
November 2, 2013
If you were taking part in a TV quiz and the next topic was “Science” I think your team would be well advised to choose somebody else to attempt to answer those questions.
November 2, 2013
uanime5: “Care to provide any evidence that geothermal is cooling down the earth’s core.”
Really uanime5, just think about it for two or three seconds.
Heat is leaving a confined closed hot system. What is left behind is cooler. Please, do yourself a favor, occasionally think before you post.
Mind you, ignorance is all pervasive in modern society. I once had an argument with a fellow who denied that leaving the lights of your car on during a journey would affect fuel consumption.
It’s sad, but this is the end of times after all. We live in a technological society and hardly anyone has the first inkling about how anything works.
November 3, 2013
Indeed, just as car lights on clearly uses more petrol, it is interesting to see how poor ranges of the (government pushed for some daft reason) electric cars can be when they need substantial heating on in winter. Heat in a petrol/diesel car being there anyway as a byproduct.
I am not sure I would want to run out of electricity in one when it was minus 10 or so for the night in a remote snow drift.
November 10, 2013
Lifelogic: “I am not sure I would want to run out of electricity in one when it was minus 10 or so for the night in a remote snow drift.”
It is not all that infrequent that you see motorways blocked by snow with motorists stranded in their cars. While they may not be able to move because of the snow, they can still burn petrol to keep the interior of the car warm.
I’d give your electric car battery about 5o minutes in sub zero temperatures before all charge had been exhausted. Result – dead passengers.
November 2, 2013
Clearly geothermal cools the earth centre down and clearly tidal and slows down earths rotation. That is where the energy comes from. In what scientific sense are they remotely renewable? This is not science it is politics.
How can fusion on the sun be renewable yet fusion or nuclear fission on earth is not?
Yes man made (and other) CO2 has an influence on temperature as do countless other things. No one sensible ever disputes this.
November 1, 2013
Given that the IPCC’s report was written by scientists and they stated that man made CO2 was causing global warming it seems that the Climate Change Act has been written in accordance with the scientific evidence.
November 2, 2013
uanime5: “Given that the IPCC’s report was written by scientists .. ”
Your first ‘given’ is false, therefore your conclusion is false.
November 3, 2013
And would be wrong anyway, scientists are not always right. But good, unbiased and honest ones usually are.
November 2, 2013
Drivel
November 1, 2013
If voters cannot cope with the question per the draft Bill, how can they cope with the extra complexity of making up their minds? – or navigating themselves to the polling booth? Broken Britain after years of education x 3!
November 1, 2013
The Electoral Commission is an unelected unaccountable inefficient organisation that arrogated to itself the right to challenge elected representatives, and its suggestions should be treated accordingly.
November 3, 2013
Section 104(2) Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides:
The [Electoral] Commission shall consider the wording of the referendum question, and shall publish a statement of any views of the Commission as to the intelligibility of that question […]” [1]
The Electoral Commission has merely discharged the duty given to them by our elected representatives in relation to Wharton’s proposed EU referendum.[2]
[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/104
[2] http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/electoral-commission-gives-its-advice-to-parliament-on-the-european-union-referendum-question
November 1, 2013
Neither question is much good as it is too simple, for even the most ill informed of people, and the Government knows this, and more importantly, it does not address the issue and plays to peoples desire to maintain the status quo as a general human trait.
A better question would be, “Should the UK Government have complete primacy over the EU with UK affairs?”
Not as simple, but today, where a referendum means a majority of those who vote, or who bother to vote, a better and more relevant question……but I suspect the Government knows this and would like to avoid such a question that invites real confrontation with the EU as it is far more likely to succeed than a simple in out question.
November 1, 2013
I prefer the shorter Electoral Commission wording. It is crystal clear and leaves no room for doubt.
November 1, 2013
The second wording is meaningless, in logical terms; it is asking “Should we (do A or do B)?”.
Put more clearly, should we do either of these two options, when these options are all that are possible? The answer quite clearly is “Yes”, since “No” is meaningless.
November 1, 2013
This intervention by the electoral commission looks like spoiler tactics.
They must know that putting the question in doubt will create an opportunity for those looking to talk the bill out. Yes, I know it’s meant to be independent but everyone has a view on this issue and the establishment and civil service are largely in favour of remaining in.
Is it possible that anyone that will actually take the trouble to go and vote in the referendum would not know that the UK is a member of the EU ?
Seems inconceivable, doesn’t it ?
November 1, 2013
In preference I would see the second version as more acceptable since it implies in open literal terms that ‘leaving’ is a legitimate choice being offered. In the shorter version, that option is not clearly implicit. However, for aesthetic/emotive reasons I’d prefer the term ‘withdraw from’ as opposed to ‘leave’. However in terms of simplicity and brevity I can see the attraction of the first version.
However, the recent story that the Electoral Commission found that a large number of people questioned did not seem to be already aware we were a member of the EU should be cause for ancillary concern.
If the Electoral Commission were sufficiently exercised by that notion they felt they were compelled to modify their original intent in wording, you have to ask them to consider the legitimacy of forty-odd years of UK General Elections. Did sufficient numbers of the electorate know they were endorsing a candidate who was possessed of fewer powers and competences after each successive election? If the wider electorate truly have no conscious concept of Acquis communautaire then it’s not unreasonable to consider they’ve been misrepresented by large numbers of their candidates for entirely too long?
November 1, 2013
I think the Commission’s first suggestion: ‘Should the UK remain a member of the EU’: is the most clear.
November 1, 2013
The actual wording of the question is of no importance because in the unlikely event of a referendum being held the 3 main parties being strongly europhile will deploy a huge amount of propaganda to frighten the electorate into voting to stay in the EU.
That is what happened in 1975
November 1, 2013
Indeed that is what will happen and with the BBC propaganda too, if indeed a referendum ever does go ahead.
November 1, 2013
@TGod
The funding for pro and anti campaigns should be equalised and closely monitored to avoid EU interference in our internal affairs.
November 1, 2013
No chance of that whatsoever!
November 2, 2013
What has happened in other countries during past EU referendum campaigns exposes the unfortunate reality is that if you have a government which strongly favours one referendum result over the other then there is little chance that it will even be punctilious about the law being observed during the campaign, let alone try to ensure equality of arms for the two sides. And I’m not just referring to countries which have still not completely freed themselves from their recent histories of totalitarianism and attendant political corruption, I’m referring to the Irish Republic where it has been repeatedly found that the government is prepared to turn a blind eye to illegalities during referendum campaigns.
November 3, 2013
Indeed.
November 1, 2013
Mr Cameron describes Mr Miliband’s energy price freeze as a con.
Mr Cameron’s intention to renegotiate substantial changes to our relationship with the EU or else ‘leave it’ is also a con.
He has no intention of doing anything other than keep us in.
As to the suggested referendum question – should we remain a member etc is by far the better one as it clearly asks a Yes/No question.
It was recently reported that a substantial minority did not know that we were already members of the EU.
Worrying!
November 1, 2013
Correct it is a con. Just as his Cast Iron Promise was a clear con and his IHT thresholds were a con.
November 1, 2013
Stick with the original wording the meaning of which is perfectly clear and does the trick.
November 1, 2013
Clarity of thought and expression is not something I would have thought had a place in the HoC . Saying “this” or saying “that” on the question of are we “in” or “out” of the EU is cheese paring ; we all – including MPs , know jolly well where we stand . Voting a simple “No” is the most expedient way of getting us “out” and representing the will of the people .
November 1, 2013
Anyone who doesn’t know that the UK is an EU member should not be allowed to vote (obviously).
The question should be:
Do you want to leave the EU? Yes [x] No [ ]
How about some other questions such as squandering borrowed money on HS2 or the climate change act? Let’s get our money’s worth from the exercise.
November 1, 2013
Indeed we could have had all these extra questions already with the absurdly pointless Libdum/AV referendum – for nothing.
November 1, 2013
Bob– Couldn’t agree more. The fewer decisions made by people just because they are elected (perhaps because they are good looking, these days) the better. Switzerland, despite Cameron’s psychotically disparaging comments about that wonderful country, manages just fine with referenda all over the place. Back to the Question, I am more bothered about the Answer. Thus I don’t like anything with a Yes/No in it, given that many people will not understand the question (any question) and may or may not be feeling positive on the day (there is an ‘always say Yes” tendency). I have already today suggested In/Out boxes but perhaps better still would be boxes saying Leave/Stay, with Question to match of course. Nobody could misunderstand that.
November 1, 2013
Postscript–Perhaps Exit/Stay? better yet–Hardly need a Question at all then.
November 1, 2013
Cameron, Clegg and the other servants of the EU will do anything they can to hinder this process. Resist everything.
November 1, 2013
The question currently in the bill asks to choose between two different conditions: In or Out.
Both alternative questions ask to choose between two different activities: to do nothing or to embark on a process of leaving.
To any clear-thinking reasonable person the differences are irrelevant. But this is not an issue of clear thinking nor of reasonableness, so the wording probably does matter.
The fact that the Electoral Commission have come up with two alternatives of essentially the same meaning indicates their analysis on this matter is weak.
I prefer the current wording.
November 1, 2013
I share your view, namely stay with the current wording. Of the Electoral Commission versions I, too, prefer the shorter question.
November 1, 2013
Easy – Yes or No!
But this time, unlike 1975, people need to be made aware of the facts. That is to say, what a yes vote (to stay in) will actually mean, and what it would cost the tax-payer. The one and only referendum put before the British people did not make it clear that as a consequence of staying in, we would slowly be drawn into a system of political unity where our rights and national identity would be gradually eroded to the point where we had no effective control over our own destiny.
There also needs to be a proper discussion about the so-called ‘benefits’ of membership. I hear so many lies and distortions by those who want the EU at any price, intended to deceive gullible people as there can be no other reason for such blatant nonsense.
I often wonder how much more evidence they need that the EU doesn’t work, than is out there already?
For the past forty years, the UK has been bled dry. We can’t control immigration, we’re told when and where we can spend our own money, what laws we might pass, we’re net contributors to the EU budget – paying for the mismanagement and profligacy of other nations, we have a massive trade deficit, and the list is endless.
Yet we were never told about these things all those years ago. On the BBC’s Question Time programme broadcast in November 1999, Edward Heath finally admitted that he knew Britain’s accession to a ‘common market’ would eventually lead to full political unity. This time, we want the truth, not bare-faced lies!
Tad Davison
Cambridge
November 1, 2013
I think that it doesn’t matter too much because the Bill is basically a PR exercise to give the public the impression that the Tory party is united on the EU and hopefully show up both Labour and the Liberal Democrats as being opposed to letting the people have any kind of direct say on it, and in reality it has very little chance of becoming law.
So far they’ve refrained from openly voting it down, but if they can’t get it stopped in the Commons then they’ll try to do so in the Lords. If that meant openly blocking it through one of the votes rather than talking it out, they could have the excuse that the peers are wise independent-minded folk and it was their carefully considered judgement that the Bill should not pass.
I don’t object to a Tory PR exercise to try to show up Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but on the other hand I don’t think the Bill should be misrepresented as a serious attempt to legislate for an EU referendum.
And if it should pass, by some miracle, and it became an Act on receipt of Royal Assent, the next government could amend it or entirely repeal it; in the unlikely case that it was amendment rather than complete repeal, the prescribed question could be amended at that point, at the same time as various defects in the Act were rectified.
Reply Conservatives do wish to see this legislation passed. As you rightly point out, it is vulnerable to Lab/Lib blockages in both the Commons and the Lords. It is more than a PR exercise.
November 3, 2013
It is more than a PR exercise. Perhaps very slightly, but it will amount to nothing in the end.
November 1, 2013
The Bill’s wording is the only correct one. According to Conservative Party policy the referendum will only occur on having negotiated substantial changes to the UK’s relationship (or the England/Wales/NI relationship?) with the rest of the EU.
So there will be no choice offered for remaining in the old relationship.
The choice on offer will be either yes to an amended membership relationship or no membership.
The Electoral Commission choices are tendentious, presuming there is a choice to retain the old relationship, and would not give a fair vote on the actuality.
November 1, 2013
I’m not so concerned about the actual question but I am concerned that the EU will pump millions of taxpayers’ money into pro-EU propaganda. They can’t afford to let Britain leave and will do everything that they can to prevent an “out” vote.
November 1, 2013
They will indeed spend vast amounts of tax payers money to try to indoctrinate/brainwash the voters. The voter thus have their own money used to try to buy their votes. Is this a reasonable use of tax revenues, the brainwashing by the BBC and the likes of the electorate?
November 1, 2013
No wonder it takes years for anything to happen around here. They can’t even decide on the wording of the question.
Personally, I think a simple YES/NO contains potential for error (some people really are hard of reading) and would prefer the format:
Leave the EU
Remain in the
The most important thing is that a referendum actually takes place, though.
November 1, 2013
The use of ‘remain’ and ‘leave’ allows scope for bias either way. However explicity saying ‘leave the EU’ will bind Cameron’s hands…
November 1, 2013
I do not care what the wording of question is. All I want is an In/Out referendum.
However you have asked about the wording of the question and so I would suggest:
Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union? Yes / No
November 1, 2013
Q. “Do you think that the UK should be a member of the EU?”
A. I thought we were a member of the EU already, is this a trick question?
Q. ” Should the UK remain a member of the EU?”
A. I suppose so, don’t really know; better the devil you know, eh.
Q. “Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”
A. What do you mean “leave”; not be a member anymore?
Go with what you got JR, it will make bugger all difference, we ain’t leaving the EU any time soon. Your Earl Grey Tea Party, wouldn’t get an out vote, even if you had an election joint ticket with UKIP. It is not a winner on the doorsteps, hence UKIP is not getting any traction with it either.
November 1, 2013
Preferable would be. Should the UK remain in the EU and cede sovereignty to Brussels or leave but remain a trading partner like Norway. Then even those ignorant of affairs political would understand exactly what the referendum is all about.
November 1, 2013
Perhaps:- Should the UK be far richer and independent and self governing like Norway and Switzerland or the opposite?
November 1, 2013
Norway has to obey almost all EU law but has not influence over this law. So those who are of political affairs will need to be told exact what each option means.
November 2, 2013
You have been corrected on this before, and on more than one occasion.
November 2, 2013
This is what I mean by obstinacy and intransigence Denis. This one says they are familiar with the law, but it seems they won’t accept a verdict even when it is proven.
Tad
November 1, 2013
It should be noted that Canada is now a trading partner of the EU and the USA is about to negotiate them also becoming one. Although the French I believe will not countenance that as they fear the competition and have already made moves to thwart it the spying allegations is one excuse being used by them not to even start talks. In a film an American General said “war is like France you only want to go there once. After having lived there for a number of years I wholeheartedly agree with him.
November 1, 2013
A recent video posted on the web showed the European Parliament voting on amendments to an amendment.
An British MEP stood on a point of order and asked the Chair how the members could vote realistically when none had either read nor studied the amendments being voted on.
‘Because that is how we do things here..’ was the reply
And a majority of our MP’s think the EU is a Democracy?
Even more worrying!
November 1, 2013
Given that Labour are going to win the next election the wording of a question that will never be asked is entirely pointless
November 1, 2013
By all means let us expend our energies on arguing about the wording of a referendum which will only take place if the duplicitous Mr. Cameron wins the 2015 election, doesn’t rat on the commitment afterwards, is not subject to a massive propaganda exercise funded by the E.U. and is not ruled out of order under the terms of a self-correcting Lisbon Treaty.
Audrey Hepburn had it right in her song in “My Fair Lady” – “Don’t talk of love … show me NOW”
If you love Britannia, do something about it NOW!
John Wrake
November 1, 2013
Indeed.
November 1, 2013
The right way to resolve this question is surely to test the question with a random group of potential voters.
Right now however it should be voted through unchanged.
November 1, 2013
The Electoral Commission’s approved question in the Scottish referendum is “Should Scotland be an independent country ?”. Leaving aside the fact, based on their advice on the UK wording, that this could be confusing for people who don’t know whether Scotland is currently an independent country or not, it is a wording which could usefully be applied to the UK question too.
November 1, 2013
If I did not know that the Electoral Commission is non-partisan, I would suspect that they were trying to queer the pitch, if I am allowed that phrase.
Nothing wrong with the proposal as it is.
November 1, 2013
The short in/ out question is better for EU membership.
I agree with a previous respondent that the administrative opportunity should be taken to present a multi topic referendum with simple yes/ no answers on foreign aid, immigration, abolition of taxes to support the green project, continuance of stamp duty, inheritance tax etc etc.
No chance of this I guess to get true democracy.
We should be concerned about the proposed devolution of some taxes to the Welsh Parliament as well as granting them the power to borrow. The English taxpayer will be the Bank of last resort to this borrowing because no English Politician will dare allow the Welsh Govt to default. By giving the Welsh Parliament from Stamp duty, you are cementing in this an iniquitous tax into the system.
November 1, 2013
The question is immaterial because it isn’t going to happen, the Cameron clique are hell bent on committing electoral suicide hoping beyond hope they can muster enough for another coalition to give them continued cover for the march to the social democrat lowlands. Cameron is so committed to the EU it is becoming more and more obvious his commitment extends to deliberately throwing the election to guarantee, in his mind, our continued membership. The only way to have any effect on this is the kind of definite action that you and most of your colleagues seem to be afraid of, or unwilling to take. Given the way things are going then there needs to be an alternative to a Lib/Con coalition, start working on a con /UKIP coalition, first of course Cameron must go, there are enough of you, write to the 22 committee and demand his sacking do it, and do it now while you can.
November 1, 2013
“Cameron is so committed to the EU it is becoming more and more obvious his commitment extends to deliberately throwing the election to guarantee, in his mind, our continued membership.”
Indeed a Cast Iron Ratter of the first order – well he threw the last one away did he not?
November 1, 2013
How about :-
Do you think that the conditions of membership to the EU should be controlled by the UK.?
Sorry it is out of the box.
November 1, 2013
Judging by Cameron’s contempt for England, I’m surprised he doesn’t just ask Scotland, Wales & NI if they want to leave the EU and let the United Kingdom Government decide what’s best for England as it does on everything else.
We hear that Cameron has gone running off to Wales this morning to offer them yet another referendum on their future and how they wish to be governed. What will that be, the fourth time they have been asked? Scotland will get it’s referendum next year making it the third time it’s been asked. How many times have the English been asked anything about their Governance by the British Establishment – NEVER, not once. Does Cameron and the Tory party really think they can get away with offering Scotland & Wales even greater autonomy whist blatantlycontinuing to ignore England and refusing to consult her just once on whether she would like some of the same home rule and self determination that the other nations already enjoy.
Cameron and the Tories have stuck their two fingers up at England this morning with this announcement and they expect us to believe they will really consult England on it’s membership of the EU. They are no better than Labour and the duplicitous Lib Dems in the contempt they continue to show to the people of England and the undemocratic manner in which they are governed and which this Tory led Government who owe their very existance to England refuse to do anything about.
And they wonder why we lifelong Tories are turning to UKIP, the only party willing to both take us out of the EU and consult England on it’s governance.
November 2, 2013
“Does Cameron and the Tory party really think they can get away with offering Scotland & Wales even greater autonomy whist blatantly continuing to ignore England and refusing to consult her just once on whether she would like some of the same home rule and self determination that the other nations already enjoy.”
Apparently they do think that, and it’s long overdue for the English to decide to put them right on that.
November 1, 2013
The question should be simple, Do you think the UK should leave the UK now?
YES is of course a positive and so ‘yes campaigns’ have a psychological and ‘moral’ advantage of voting FOR something, not being a gainsayer and negative.
That is why Cameron (aided and abetted no doubt his Little Nudgers) chose to make exit a NO campaign. He has the psychological advantage because his will be a YES campaign.
What is surprising is nobody has spotted this and instead are arguing over a word and more idiotically over a single question that can have either a yes or no answer.
In my many years flying the answer to the Cabin Crew question to a passenger, Tea or Coffee? invariably and inevitably returned the answer, Yes.
Wake up Mr Redwood, you are being played by the Bullington Boys.
November 1, 2013
If yes has an advantage then the second version will remove this advantage because it’s not a yes/no question.
November 1, 2013
On the topic of the last thread, this has just arrived in my Inbox:
http://euobserver.com/justice/121959
“National parliaments opposed to creating an EU-wide prosecutor want the European Commission to rework its flagship proposal, but EU officials say it is likely to go ahead.
Chambers in 11 national parliaments got enough votes to trigger a so-called “yellow card” procedure when they filed their complaints to Brussels earlier this week.
They are against the creation of a new European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), saying that national authorities or existing EU bodies, such as the Olaf anti-fraud agency or the joint judicial office, Eurojust, are sufficient.
The yellow card has only been triggered once before, on posted workers’ rights.
It requires the commission to review the proposal and to decide whether to maintain, amend or withdraw it.
It takes at least 18 out of 56 votes in member states’ upper and lower houses of parliament, but in the policy areas of freedom, security and justice, just 14 votes are needed.
The EPPO card got 19.
An EU official told this website that: “Formally, the number of votes was reached to trigger the yellow card procedure.”
But they added: “It is the commission that decides if there has been a yellow card or not and what would be the consequences.””
As I replied to Peter van Leeuwen on that previous thread:
“If the UK Parliament could have directed the UK government to exercise a national veto the whole proposal would now be dead, irrespective of whether there were ten other national parliaments agreeing with the UK Parliament or none at all.”
And in another comment:
“The UK Parliament should be able to exercise a national veto on this and every other EU proposal; nothing less than that will do.”
Which was, after all, what we were promised at the time of the 1975 referendum.
November 1, 2013
That is why none of the questions is correct insofar as they imply as did that asked in 1975 that the EU is a static entity in terms of its areas of competance or its physical extent: would many answering any of the questions proposed, even if they were aware of how EU laws have changed our country and increased our taxes and costs of living, be aware also of this EU proposal on justice as part of a continuous ratchet drawing out our independence towards Brussels or the ambition of some in the EU to expand it yet further afield to include countries which by any reasonable definition are not even European?
November 1, 2013
If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that events within the EU will overtake any concerns about wording for a vote in the UK. Probably, for the time being, energy will be better expended kicking away at the rotten edifice from the inside as UKIP do.
November 1, 2013
elections? whats the point? when did they last change anything?
November 1, 2013
Either of the Commission’s questions are preferable, the existing question is ambiguous, some say deliberately so. In the interests of democracy, clarity is vital.
November 1, 2013
“Should the UK remain a member of the EU?” Given that we are already a member of the EU, surely this is the right question to ask. If we were outside the EU and are being asked whether or not we should join then the original question would be the right one to use. Ideally the question should be “Should we govern ourselves as a sovereign nation or pay the EU billions of pounds to do it for us?” Maybe that is a little biased.
November 1, 2013
Either of the two alternatives is preferable. They leave no room for argument that the question is biased or confusing.
Things must not only be done properly, they must be seen to be done properly.
November 1, 2013
I prefer the second one because it makes it clearer what the person is voting for.
November 1, 2013
… Anyone voting in the referendum will understand we are currently in the EU …
Absolutely not true. And it proves that a Member of Parliament is so wrapped up in politics that he has no concept that some people do not know we are ‘in the EU’.
My sons are young adults. I asked them today ….
‘What is the European Union?’ They had no real idea.
‘Do you know we are members?’ No idea.
‘Do you understand our membership allows for the free movement of people within the EU’ What?
‘Do you know that many rules, regulations and laws that our government passes, are done to comply with EU legislation?’ Blank looks all round.
I’d bet my house that none of my sons’ friends have the faintest idea what the EU is etc.
November 2, 2013
Anything question that identifies the status quo is dangerous, because many British are deferential and easily led; these will tend to vote for the status quo.
I think that the Electoral Commission knows this only too well. So we have to ask a few questions:
(1) How are the personnel of the Electoral Commission appointed?
(2) Does the Electoral Commission receive funding from any European sources?
(3) Do members of the Electoral Commission meet their European counterparts at jointly organised ‘jollies’?
These days, you cannot trust any Committee or Commission to be neutral. Does anybody recall asking the Electoral Commission for its opinion?
November 2, 2013
My experience of the Electoral Commission in Scotland has been good so far and I have been impressed by their professionalism. They are helpful and co-operative and appear to show no partiality. I would not expect the Electoral Commission to volunteer opinions.
Two related institutions that I have serious reservations about are the Crown Prosecution Service and its counterpart in Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal service. It is vital that these legal organisations appear impartial and unconnected to other groups. (unsubstantiated allegation removed ed)
November 4, 2013
Reply to reply: I have to object to the editing this time. I stated a fact, not an allegation. The substance of this fact is easily available for all to see on the internet.
November 2, 2013
I have overheard people arguing about whether the UK is in the EU. I forbore to intervene, fearing that I might be tied up for the rest of the day. The fact that we do not have the euro was cited as evidence that we are not in the EU. The Bill question (Do you think that the UK should be a member of the EU?) could be taken by many people to be about adopting the euro. ‘Remain’ is therefore clearer.
November 2, 2013
Scary stuff Ww. These people have our destiny in their hands. They are obviously so out of touch, and thus, so easy to con.
We’ve got a massive problem in this country. Who benefits the most by giving people the mushroom treatment (you know, keeping them in the dark, and feeding them excrement)?
Try as we might, the truth will never come out as long as people want to believe something else of our political representatives, but just look how much the EU has cost us so far!
It’s crippling us!
Tad
November 2, 2013
Frankly John if there are people out there who don’t understand that we are in the EU right now then they are too stupid to be voting anyway and should be excluded from the referendum.
Why should my informed opinion vote be countered at the ballox box by some moron who doesn’t even know or care what the EU is?
We should use the question to weed out these morons and remove the vote from them. In fact anyone that stupid should not be allowed to vote on anything else either. I would suggest a unique opportunity to improve the quality of the electorate is presenting itself!