Herding cats

IN MARCH 1975 Margaret Thatcher called referendums “a device of dictators and demagogues”, quoting Clement Attlee, the immediate post-war Labour prime minister. She was criticising the in-out referendum proposed by the Labour prime minister of the day, Harold Wilson. Whether or not referendums are quite as bad as that, recent history shows they are unpredictable. Over the past 25 years, voters in different European countries have repeatedly given the “wrong” answer, even when all political parties have campaigned on the other side. And all too often they have voted not on the issue itself but to punish unpopular governments.

Denmark rejected the EU’s Maastricht treaty in June 1992. It was subsequently offered several opt-outs and reversed its vote a year later. Similarly, the Irish have twice rejected EU treaties, most recently the 2008 Lisbon one, only to be made to vote a second time to ensure a “yes”. However, when the French and the Dutch in 2005 voted down a treaty that sought to establish a draft constitution for the EU, it was unceremoniously dumped (although most of its provisions reappeared in the Lisbon treaty).

The Danes also said no to Europe’s single currency, and the Swedes rejected it in September 2003. More categorically, the Norwegians twice voted against joining the European project in the first place, in 1972 and again in 1994. The Swiss, much given to referendums and citizens’ initiatives, also declined to be part of the EU, and in 1992 even rejected membership of the much looser European Economic Area.

Polls can be misleading. In Britain’s 1975 referendum on continued membership of the European Economic Community they initially suggested that voters would choose to leave, but on the day two-thirds of the voters decided to stay in. Douglas Carswell, UKIP’s only MP, argues that it would take a rise of only nine points in Out supporters to turn round the numbers now. He also notes that during the Scottish independence referendum an initial large lead in favour of union narrowed so much that at one stage the result was too close to call before the unionists regained ground.

One thing most referendums have in common is that they tend to deliver victories for the status quo. In an EU referendum, says Peter Kellner, the boss of YouGov, a pollster, perhaps 25-30% of voters may feel strongly that they want to leave and 20-25% may feel equally strongly that they want to stay. After excluding non-voters, that leaves 35-40% who will be undecided. This middle group is more likely to shift towards staying in because they will feel more comfortable with the devil they know.

Such fears of a status quo win have prompted the Out campaign to object to the proposed rules for the EU referendum. Points in contention have been the question itself (which has been changed to make it sound more neutral), rules restricting government endorsement in the last four weeks of a campaign (which will now be observed), permission for ministers to campaign for Brexit (which will probably be given), money (in fact the Out campaign may spend more than the In one) and votes for 16- and 17-year-olds (which Labour and the Liberal Democrats favour). Some ministers have asked business organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, not to campaign on the In side to avoid undermining Britain’s negotiating position. What seems clear is that, should the Ins win by a narrow margin, the Outs will call foul—and demand a rematch in the future.