Referendum: How the Government rigged the Question-Without being Noticed!

eurofacts - March 11^th 2005-03-21

Vol 10 No 11

The outcome of the referendum on the [New European] Constitution could depend on the readiness of eurosceptic politicians to admit they were wrong.

“We do accept the question”, Michael Howard, Reuters 26^th February 2005.

“it certainly seems a fair question” Theresa May, Today programme 26^th February 2005.

“The question seems straight forward” Michael Ancram, The Independent 27^th February 2005.

“I think that sounds a very neutral, balanced question to me. It enables the argument to be enjoined fairly and squarely on both sides”, Charles Kennedy, The Independent, 27^th February 2005.

“EU realists may justifiably breath a sigh of relief that the question to be asked in the 2006 referendum will be a fair one”, Jeffrey Titford MEP UKIP. Letter to The Times 27^th February 2005.

“The Leader of the UK, Independence Party today said that the referendum question on the EU Constitution was apparently benign, but masked the consequences of a ‘No’ vote. Roger Khapman MEP said that while the question was neutrally worded, it simply raised another question-what does a ‘No’ vote mean? UKIP Press Statement, 27^th February, 2005.

“It must be acknowledged the question is neutral”, Daily Telegraph, 27th February 2005.

How can so many people who ought to have been on their guard have been so wrong? In articles in our two previous recent issues we suggested that the question chosen by the Government hands a huge advantage to the “Yes” campaign.

We explained why we believed this to be the case and pointed out that when the pollsters put it to voters the result was a tiny majority against the Constitution while the polls, which employed a genuinely neutral question, produced a majority against the Constitution of around two to one.

However, at the time we were not aware of a poll carried out by ICM on behalf of the ‘NO’ Campaign, whose findings (see below) demonstrate even more clearly how cleverly the question has been skewed to get the result the Government wants.

The poll shows that if the Government’s preferred wording was put to the electorate the responses would be evenly split between those for and against, while the neutrally worded question produces a massive majority against.

Q1. Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?

Yes ----------------------- 39%

No ------------------------ 39%

Don’t know --------------- 22%

Q2. If there was a referendum tomorrow would you vote for Britain to sign up to the EU Constitution or not?

Vote to join------------------26%

Vote not to join--------------54%

Don’t know-------------------20%

Quite how the Government succeeded in both rigging the question while convincing others that it had done no such thing is now a little clearer.

On 20^th January 2005 the Financial Times, perhaps the paper closest to the Blair government reported that the Government was likely to produce a question that was blatantly biased to the ‘Yes’ vote. Elsewhere in the Press, there was speculation that the question would contain a reference to the Constitution’s endorsement by Parliament-with the aim of influencing voters.

When on 25^th January 2005, the Government published the European Union Bill containing the actual referendum question

-“Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?”- there was an audible sign of relief. Perhaps-s this was because none of the cruder methods for rigging referendums had been used.

True, the use of the “yea-saying” phenomenon is quite explicit, and this should have been immediately apparent but otherwise those who drafted the question have been subtle.

Many eurosceptics consequently concluded that the question was fair, or at the least, that it was a lot better than might be expected from a Government well-versed in spin and media manipulation - and they expressed their satisfaction with it.

More apparently they did not notice that the title of the Treaty: -

“Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe “-

has been changed to:

“Treaty

Establishing a Constitution for the European Union”

Or indeed, that this formulation is a reflection of the Government’s strategy. After all, a constitution, which governs the European Union, has very different connotations from one, which controls the political life of Europe.

Meanwhile Mr Straw was busy on the Today programme assuring listeners that the Constitution was indeed a way of halting the runaway tendencies of European Federalism and that was its great virtue.

On 26^th February the Daily Telegraph, which apparently did not notice the modification of the Treaty title, declared in an editorial:

“It must be acknowledged that the question is neutral.”

This may go some way to explain why the entire Tory Front bench has taken the same view. Extraordinary though it seems, no one on the Tory benches or the Conservative Research Department and no one in the leadership of UKIP seems to have examined the wording of the question with the intense scrutiny that it undoubtedly warrants.

[Well! with the Conservatives(?) there is no excuse - all they had to do was ask Kenneth Clarke and chums -I’m sure they were not in the dark over this jiggery -pockery by the Pro-EU constitution enthusiasts in all the Parties at Westminster-YES!- ALL -New Labour- Conservatives- but we reserve our opinion on the LibDems for now.

While mentioning the LibDems we must correct our previous observation that the LibDems were for a compromise on the suspension of our rights and liberties from Magna Carta. We now understand that they in fact fought to the end to save our liberties and did not consent to the traitorous compromise antics of the New Labour and the Conservatives (?) It is a great tragedy that the LibDems with their passion for ‘Liberty’ are not fighting for the ‘No’ campaign on the EU Constitution and for withdrawal. Many of their great statesmen of the past must wonder what had happened to TRUE Liberal Principles.]

To continue:

Five days later on 3^rd March-the Electoral Commission gave the question their blessing - despite the fact that the wording breaches its own guidelines. (See our Bulletin Board for details.)

When the Electoral Commission was asked to justify its conduct by eurofacts and by others it either refused to reply or failed to keep its promise to do so at a later date.

[The Electoral Commission is a Public Body answerable to the General Public and more so than most because of their important status as a watchman to protect the integrity of Elections on behalf of the People.]

How, precisely the Government came up with the wording of the question remains something of a mystery. It seems inconceivable that a government that has put spin and the manipulation of opinion at the heart of its programme did not roadtest the referendum question as one of a number of possible questions.

We know it was not devised by the Electoral Commission and that the Government did not consult Opposition parties or the ‘No’ Campaign -despite the obvious need to build confidence in the referendum arrangements.

But we do not know what professional advice, focus group or polling techniques it employed. A series of questions put down by eurosceptic Labour MP Ian Davidson on these matters has produced a Government denial that it used polling data in formulating the wording.

In our last issue we suggested that the government’s referendum question is open to criticism on three grounds:

It exploits the ‘Yea-saying phenomenon’

It distorts the title of the treaty in order to create the impression that its purpose is to control EU institutions.

In the absence of an objective summary or the mailing of the Treaty Text to voters-it is unintelligible.

Neil O’Brien, campaign director of the ‘NO’ Campaign has suggested a further criticism, which should be taken seriously:

That the Government’s wording gives the impression that the Treaty is already in place.

Since the publication of the European Union Bill the Dutch Government has published the question it will ask in a referendum. Despite the europhile convictions of Dutch Ministers and the major Dutch political parties this is infinitely fairer than the question chosen by the British Government.

It reads:

“Are you for or against The Netherlands agreeing to the treaty to establish a constitution for Europe.”?

Many of the points made above were made in our two previous issues. We repeat them because it seems unlikely that the passage of the European Union Bill will have been completed before a General Election is called and that the Bill will therefore have to be reintroduced in the autumn.

It is devoutly to be hoped that by then those politicians who gave the question their blessing when they should have known better will emerge from their collective stupor and revisit the issue of the referendum question. Britain’s political future may depend on their readiness to admit they were wrong.

* * *

[Font altered-bolding &underlining used-comments in brackets]

See our Bulletin Board for further details:

Under latest bulletins for March 2005

03/05

‘Electoral Commission violates its own fair rules on referendum Question with faulty wording.’

And

Biased Referendum Question needs a change of words as it will decide whether we will be Free or Slave.’

* * *

MARCH/05

www.eutruth.org.uk

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk