It’s increasingly
irrelevant though. Both the ‘in’ camp
and the ‘out’ camp are gearing up their campaigns already. The ‘negotiations’ have barely begun, but the
results – if there are any – will have no effect on the make-up of the
campaigns. Cameron’s fig leaf is looking
decidedly dodgy.
In a sense, it’s
not really a bad thing that the debate centres on the principle rather than the
detail; I find it hard to believe that many electors will make up their minds
by looking at the details of any Cameron package and carefully weighing up the
impact. It’s much more likely that they
will be voting on issues such as immigration, or even just a desire to give a
kicking to a government mid term, which all serves to underline the folly of
getting into this position for short term internal party reasons.
I do wonder
though about the strategy of the ‘in’ camp in the names that they’re putting
forward. It looks like the product of
some sort of bubble-think to me. I fear
that an unholy alliance of Blair, Brown, Major and Cameron might actually end
up having quite the opposite effect of that intended.
1 comment:
My first opportunity to vote was the Euro referendum back inthe 1970s. I voted then on the general point of in or out and for the life of me have no recollection of what Harold Wilson renegotiated and I'm sure it was true at the time. Youare quite right it will not be about any renegotiation but the general point. In the 1970s it was about keeping the Labour party together. Today it is about keeping the Tory party together.
Post a Comment