How to win a second referendum.. and nothing else
So recently the Financial Times published a piece called 'How Remain can win a second referendum', setting out seven ways to help pro-EU campaigners do better than in 2016. The advice isn't bad in itself but it does have some major issues. Ultimately it might work but it would be a classic example of tactics over strategy. You might win the referendum, but that's it.
First, the article suggests that Remainers should admit to having overlooked the issues in the country that encourage people to vote Leave. This is okay for high profile current and former politicians, because they would actually be responsible in this area. But let's be clear, it should not be the position of the campaign itself. Most people involved in the campaign and most supporters are not guilty of this and many Remain voters are themselves the victims of the great injustices that exist in the UK. The piece is concerned with not reinforcing the divides of 'Remainers' and 'Leavers', while ignoring that for the campaign itself to be made to 'say sorry' would reinforce the narrative that Remain are the campaign of the privileged elite while Leave are the campaign of the left behind masses. This is a narrative that is at odds with reality and should not be indulged in any sense. Plus let's not forget that when we talk about the pains and injustices in this country, these have often been the result of the politics of austerity, pushed for by many high profile Brexit campaigners. The idea that Remain is particularly tied to these issues, caused by previous governments, more than Leave is absurd. One of the later suggestions is to run an anti-elitist insurgent campaign. This is a good idea but you won't succeed if you set yourself up as responsible for the actions of the political elite from the start. Recognise the pains that exist, yes, but don't apologise.
The next piece of advice is to make the case for a second referendum being democratic. This is obviously a good idea but also fairly obvious and a very active part of the current campaign for a second referendum. I'm not sure it would make much difference to the campaign itself - by that point you would have either convinced people or not and you won't have time to win the abstract case that the referendum you are already campaigning in is democratic.
Next we are told that the campaign should be about domestic issues, not the EU, because that is what people actually care about. This is the part of the biggest problem with. First, the real conclusion from this insight is that MPs should revoke Article 50 and hold a snap general election to debate on domestic policy and give the public a say in what should be done. What we absolutely should not be doing is hijacking a debate on this country's position in Europe in order to talk about domestic issues. A pro-EU campaign can explain that the real issues are domestic and that leaving the EU won't help but it shouldn't campaign on promises of change to domestic policy. Why? Because that is exactly the kind of dishonest tactic that the Leave campaign used in 2016. It is partly why our democratic system has been so paralysed since the referendum result. Leave promised great things for the UK in terms of domestic policy but because it was a referendum campaign, not a political party, there has been absolutely no accountability for these promises. The same would be true of a pro-EU campaign. It could promise mass devolution in England or a financial transactions tax but it would not be in any place to deliver on those promises. Instead it would rely on parties choosing to take up these ideas in their manifestos, where they would be placed alongisde a number of other policies that people may or may not like, and then would need to be endorsed in a general election. That's a scenario that no campaign on either side can actually guarantee. Indeed, imagine that the pro-EU side did promise a financial transactions tax - the reality is that this could happen even if they lost a second referendum or it may not happen even if they won. Therefore rather than repeating the unethical tactics of the 2016 Leave campaign, any future pro-EU campaign should avoid this, focus on the issue at hand (membership of the EU, and actively and loudly call out Brexiteers trying to repeat this trick for being dishonest with the public and treating them like fools.
The author then adds a brief attack on Hilary Clinton's excessive focus on factual arguments as leading to her loss, which is weird given that winning the popular vote would work just fine for a UK referendum.
The following point however is very good - letting ordinary people be at the forefront of the campaign. They should still be good campaigners and should be given some media training and support but overall there's no reason not to do this. There's also a mention here of the need to 'confront the topic of immigration'. That's ambiguous language but so long as it means a full-throated defence of Freedom of Movement as an essential right and freedom for Brits themselves then yes that's a good idea too. If it means trying to push misleading info about how the UK can simply enforce the existing rules to deport EU citizens (easier said than done) or can stay in the EU and drastically scale back Freedom of Movement (not going to happen), then that's a surefire way to lose the campaign.
There's also a point about the next campaign needing to be 'fun'. It seems unlikely it would matter either way but I would say that only the youth wing of the campaign can really do this, it will be seen as trying too hard coming from older campaigners.
The final piece of advice - running different perspectives for different audiences - is completely fine so long as you can execute it correctly. The risk is that your campaign ends up being muddled and contradictory, producing a worse result than if you had stuck to a single, clear message for everyone. The author also adds a somewhat peculiar accusation that Remain has not been as patriotic as Leave and that 'it must present the UK as a European power, not a sorry victim of Europe'. For myself I have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote this. The only people I've ever seen portray the UK as 'a victim of Europe' are the Brexiteers.
The hint towards a campaign based on British exceptionalism, however, does bring me to my concluding remarks. A lot of the ideas put forward in the article are good for winning a campaign. But they risk making things worse in the time that comes afterwards. Making domestic policy promises that can't be kept or promoting an exceptionalist view of the UK's place in Europe, these are things that can win a second referendum but they are not things that can produce a long-term consensus in favour of EU membership. Sure, you'll get the pro-EU campaign across the line but then what? A campaign that consciously avoids addressing European integration and convincing the public that it is generally a good thing is one that can look forward to another decade or more of europhobic headlines in the right-wing press, regular attacks on EU citizens and populist nationalist incitement from the mainstream right. Instead, we can pre-empt all of this. Run a positive campaign about Europe and about Europe as freedom, as sovereignty, as security. A second referendum will be about the UK participating in European integration, let's make it our baseline assumption that the public is mature enough and understands enough about the situation to handle that debate.
Image via Flickr
First, the article suggests that Remainers should admit to having overlooked the issues in the country that encourage people to vote Leave. This is okay for high profile current and former politicians, because they would actually be responsible in this area. But let's be clear, it should not be the position of the campaign itself. Most people involved in the campaign and most supporters are not guilty of this and many Remain voters are themselves the victims of the great injustices that exist in the UK. The piece is concerned with not reinforcing the divides of 'Remainers' and 'Leavers', while ignoring that for the campaign itself to be made to 'say sorry' would reinforce the narrative that Remain are the campaign of the privileged elite while Leave are the campaign of the left behind masses. This is a narrative that is at odds with reality and should not be indulged in any sense. Plus let's not forget that when we talk about the pains and injustices in this country, these have often been the result of the politics of austerity, pushed for by many high profile Brexit campaigners. The idea that Remain is particularly tied to these issues, caused by previous governments, more than Leave is absurd. One of the later suggestions is to run an anti-elitist insurgent campaign. This is a good idea but you won't succeed if you set yourself up as responsible for the actions of the political elite from the start. Recognise the pains that exist, yes, but don't apologise.
The next piece of advice is to make the case for a second referendum being democratic. This is obviously a good idea but also fairly obvious and a very active part of the current campaign for a second referendum. I'm not sure it would make much difference to the campaign itself - by that point you would have either convinced people or not and you won't have time to win the abstract case that the referendum you are already campaigning in is democratic.
Next we are told that the campaign should be about domestic issues, not the EU, because that is what people actually care about. This is the part of the biggest problem with. First, the real conclusion from this insight is that MPs should revoke Article 50 and hold a snap general election to debate on domestic policy and give the public a say in what should be done. What we absolutely should not be doing is hijacking a debate on this country's position in Europe in order to talk about domestic issues. A pro-EU campaign can explain that the real issues are domestic and that leaving the EU won't help but it shouldn't campaign on promises of change to domestic policy. Why? Because that is exactly the kind of dishonest tactic that the Leave campaign used in 2016. It is partly why our democratic system has been so paralysed since the referendum result. Leave promised great things for the UK in terms of domestic policy but because it was a referendum campaign, not a political party, there has been absolutely no accountability for these promises. The same would be true of a pro-EU campaign. It could promise mass devolution in England or a financial transactions tax but it would not be in any place to deliver on those promises. Instead it would rely on parties choosing to take up these ideas in their manifestos, where they would be placed alongisde a number of other policies that people may or may not like, and then would need to be endorsed in a general election. That's a scenario that no campaign on either side can actually guarantee. Indeed, imagine that the pro-EU side did promise a financial transactions tax - the reality is that this could happen even if they lost a second referendum or it may not happen even if they won. Therefore rather than repeating the unethical tactics of the 2016 Leave campaign, any future pro-EU campaign should avoid this, focus on the issue at hand (membership of the EU, and actively and loudly call out Brexiteers trying to repeat this trick for being dishonest with the public and treating them like fools.
The author then adds a brief attack on Hilary Clinton's excessive focus on factual arguments as leading to her loss, which is weird given that winning the popular vote would work just fine for a UK referendum.
The following point however is very good - letting ordinary people be at the forefront of the campaign. They should still be good campaigners and should be given some media training and support but overall there's no reason not to do this. There's also a mention here of the need to 'confront the topic of immigration'. That's ambiguous language but so long as it means a full-throated defence of Freedom of Movement as an essential right and freedom for Brits themselves then yes that's a good idea too. If it means trying to push misleading info about how the UK can simply enforce the existing rules to deport EU citizens (easier said than done) or can stay in the EU and drastically scale back Freedom of Movement (not going to happen), then that's a surefire way to lose the campaign.
There's also a point about the next campaign needing to be 'fun'. It seems unlikely it would matter either way but I would say that only the youth wing of the campaign can really do this, it will be seen as trying too hard coming from older campaigners.
The final piece of advice - running different perspectives for different audiences - is completely fine so long as you can execute it correctly. The risk is that your campaign ends up being muddled and contradictory, producing a worse result than if you had stuck to a single, clear message for everyone. The author also adds a somewhat peculiar accusation that Remain has not been as patriotic as Leave and that 'it must present the UK as a European power, not a sorry victim of Europe'. For myself I have no idea what the author had in mind when he wrote this. The only people I've ever seen portray the UK as 'a victim of Europe' are the Brexiteers.
The hint towards a campaign based on British exceptionalism, however, does bring me to my concluding remarks. A lot of the ideas put forward in the article are good for winning a campaign. But they risk making things worse in the time that comes afterwards. Making domestic policy promises that can't be kept or promoting an exceptionalist view of the UK's place in Europe, these are things that can win a second referendum but they are not things that can produce a long-term consensus in favour of EU membership. Sure, you'll get the pro-EU campaign across the line but then what? A campaign that consciously avoids addressing European integration and convincing the public that it is generally a good thing is one that can look forward to another decade or more of europhobic headlines in the right-wing press, regular attacks on EU citizens and populist nationalist incitement from the mainstream right. Instead, we can pre-empt all of this. Run a positive campaign about Europe and about Europe as freedom, as sovereignty, as security. A second referendum will be about the UK participating in European integration, let's make it our baseline assumption that the public is mature enough and understands enough about the situation to handle that debate.
Image via Flickr
Comments
Post a Comment