U.K. referendum: tough task for campaigners

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33816, 12 April 1975, Page 15

U.K. referendum: tough task for campaigners

I By

RICHARD ROSE,

of “The Times." through N.Z.P.A.)

: LONDON. April 11. If (he verdict of the referendum on June 5 on the issue of continued British membership of the Common Market is to be accepted by the losing side as well as by the winner, it must be considered a fair and full statement of public I opinion. ! The wording of the ballot I question offers no ground 'for a charge of unfairness. The Government proposes to ask the people to respond “yes” or “no” to the simple question: "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community?” To have a full expression of public opinion, the referendum must secure a high turn-out of voters. One as high as in a General Election would not be scorned

I by members of Parliament,'; ; but one at the local election! > (level, of 25 to 40 per cent,; J would be dismissed as fail-! J'ing to represent the views' 1 1 of more than half the elec-' fiterate. s! Campaigners will have a >!much harder job securing a I:full turn-out than for a Gen-i ieral Election, in 1970, the! ! ! last time a June ballot was; Ijheld, the turn-out was 72 ■ I per cent, the lowest since ' 1935. I The bulk of party organt|isati<?ns cannot be counted i'on to hold a nation-wide . canvass of the electorate, or[ ) to send cars around housing i estates, reminding people to I ; be sure to vote. t The absence of a con-; 1; stituency count of the vote; -Imeans that members of Parliament and their con-: i i stituency parties have no in--icentive to show a high turn-1 i (out in the referendum. 5 Whatever decision the - special Labour Party confer-; lienee takes on April 26, the'

i party will remain badly di-| [vided on the E.E.C. issue,] (and Labour’s debilitated con-1 ! stituency organisation will |be further crippled by this. A member may encourage! his supporters to do little,! rather than canvass on opposite sides of the issue during the referendum campaign. J To encourage Minister to ; speak their minds would be to publicise the divisions within the Cabinet on several important issues facing the country, and headlines ! about Labour’s split, would ! | probably confuse some .'Labour voters, and make I them stay at home. ! The pro and anti-Market . pressure groups operate 'under twin handicaps. First ■ of all, voters have no loyalty to these organisations. To organise a doorstep cam-, paign to get people out to] [vote is extremely difficult! (for any ad hoc pressure' [group without a nation-wide mass membership organisa-I I'tion. i

| The trade unions are the' 'best placed to assist the! (anti-market cause — if they l can persuade shop stewards! (to circularise men at the (workbenches with anti-Mar-i (ket leaflets. The Liberals will have! little to contribute, being ex-' hausted from the expense of two elections in 1974. Only in Scotland may! there be a partisan canvass: the Scottish Nationalist Party is committed to campaign against membership, because it is a “British” membership. The Conservatives will have to decide whether to commit their organisational resources, the most substantial of the main parties, in the referendum campaign. To do this would not only; encourage electors to vote,; [but call attention to divi-: (sions within the ranks of; itheir Labour opponents. [ Mr Wilson faces a di-1 (lemma: If he tries to restrict: iappearances on television by'

his senior Ministers, he will, (deflate media coverage in! 'the campaign. By depriving lit of statements from names sure to make news. This, in' . turn, will depress the turn- ■ out and reduce the sign-' jificance of the referendum: ; results. If the Government sticks; to its proposals for a Lon-: idon count of all the ballots in the United Kingdom, the outcome will be clear-cut, in the formal sense that it can only express the verdict of the whole British people. Since the United Kingdom is either all in or all out of the Community, there is justification for such an arrangement, but a single United Kingdom count' would only fuel con-’ j troversies in Scotland, Wales [and Northern Ireland. In the absence of official figures, ;anyone disappointed by the [United Kingdom total could' [claim that 100 per cent of' ;his “nation” had voted the 'opposite of the English.

I A count by administrative; J counties, or their counter-! ; parts elsewhere, would not ; only show how the four pans of the United Kingdom [voted, but make clear differ-; • ences within each area, i: If the final verdict is as clear-cut as the Irish referendum, in which 83 per cent 'voted in favour, of Commun- ] ity membership, the differ-: ( ences would probably reflect degrees of pro-Community! ( sympathy. ■ If the outcome is a rejec-| tion of membership by 53.5 ( to 46.5 per cent, as in Nor-' i' way, more-detailed counts[ ;would undoubtedly show I local or regional majorities: on opposite sides in all ' parts of Britain. If Mr Wilson wishes to end 14 years of uncertainty 1 in Britain and Europe, and ■ almost as many years of dis-: ■ pute within his own party, ' then he will take decisions ( that wili encourage the fullest vote in the referendum -and the most clear-cut (result.