EU Smackdown: Clegg vs. Farage

Clegg vs Farage. Farage vs Clegg. Two marginal political leaders slugging it out in a debate over EU policy, one of the public's most marginal issues. The biggest political fight of 2014 so far will be televised by the BBC on 2nd April, and has naturally attracted a fair bit of attention. But who will come out on top - Nigel or Nick?

At first glance it seems a foregone conclusion. Farage and UKIP have been setting the political agenda on Europe for the last two years, scooping up second place in Westminster by-elections and effectively bouncing David Cameron into holding an EU referendum (which I thought then was a stupid move, and still do). UKIP have displaced the Lib Dems as the protest party of choice, consistently polling around 15-20% to the yellows' 10%. Add to this Farage's ability to connect to the common man by drawing on talk of the 'out-of-touch Westminster elites' and it looks like victory is within spitting distance for Nigel.

Yet for all that, my bet would be that Clegg pulls off a surprise triumph on the night. In a head-to-head TV debate on the EU, Farage's biggest strengths could well turn out to be his greatest weaknesses. The meteoric rise of UKIP as a political force has been accompanied by a disproportionately large share of media coverage. While they have succeeded in getting a referendum on EU membership, the noise in that debate has been almost entirely emanating from the 'Out' camp and UKIP. The 'In' case has barely let out a squeak. What's even more interesting is that despite the one-sided nature of press coverage, the polls have showed a remarkably narrow gap between those in favour of Brexit and those against. Clegg could therefore be well placed to pick up support from a hitherto ignored group.

And bizarrely, perhaps Nick's greatest advantage is Farage's 'man of the people' persona. Nigel Farage is a fantastic performer when giving a speech to a room full of people, banging his fist on the table and damning the EU with one hand, pint glass in the other. But as we have seen, his emotions can sometimes get the better of him - remember his fury when he got trapped in a pub in Edinburgh, or his overreaction to Anna Soubry's suggestion that he had a finger up his bottom.

That's why I think the smart money's on Nick to be declared the winner. All he has to do is make a credible case for EU membership and manage to subtly provoke Nigel into a rage, while remaining polite and reasonable. And if Clegg doesn't win, he can always say sorry.

The Fallacy of an EU Membership Referendum

It seems not a week goes past without some media coverage of some goon somewhere demanding that Britain hold a referendum on EU membership. "In or Out", they cry, "the people deserve, no, demand, a say!". Of course, this has been going on for years, probably since the last referendum in 1975. But  the level of attention paid and the prominence of advocates is unprecedented. That David Cameron is now considering a referendum, when he carefully avoided one for the Lisbon Treaty, is proof of how ingrained the stance has become in the Conservative Party. The question I pose to those who support a referendum is: what the hell is wrong with you?

Daniel Hannan provides the classic argument for an 'In-Out' choice in this article. Similarly, I attended a talk by Iain Martin of the Telegraph on the need for 're-negotiation in good faith' followed by a referendum if that failed. For people like Hannan and Martin, a referendum would lead to withdrawal due to the electorate's hatred of all things EU, and allow Britain to return to its rightful status as a trading nation able to pursue the emerging markets of the Commonwealth and the BRICS. Additionally, the UK would have access to the European market despite being outside the EU because 'they need us more than we need them' when it comes to trade with the Eurozone. A referendum and subsequent withdrawal is therefore a no-brainer.

Only these people advocating withdrawal are living in a world of fantasy, as Radek Sikorski argues. Firstly, there would be no chance of free-riding on the Single Market. Britain would be in the same camp as Norway, paying for access with no say in its running. The cost of access could even be raised as a result of Britain clearly turning its back on its neighbours, especially if we followed Mr Martin's approach of pissing everyone off before leaving (and no doubt an especially appealing option to France, with its traditional love of all things protectionist). Secondly, the arguments for emerging market access are based on a romantic view of Britain's imperial past. The fact is that the contemporary UK needs EU membership to have any say at all in global affairs, with some arguing that we can hope to influence no more than 10 countries even then. Thirdly, given that the previous two points would certainly take centre stage in an 'In-Out' referendum, there is a much diminished chance that the public would vote for withdrawal.

This would leave us with an 'In' vote and all that entails. Once a country has voted that it wants to be a full member of the EU, it has to be a proper member and accept collective decisions. The scope for British opt-outs would be drastically reduced, and the pressure to go along with the Franco-German position of the day overwhelming. "No more obstruction allowed, you've voted in favour of EU decision-making don't forget", etc.

So no matter which way Britain would vote, we would be in a worse situation strategically. Tory MPs
and media pundits who press for a referendum are not pragmatists but fantasists. The traditional British approach to Europe has been remarkably successful until now, with our ability to opt out of key policy areas while benefiting from the global economic and political clout that comes with EU membership. If the EU were to clearly jeopardise British interests, via financial regulation say, then of course we'll be out like a shot. But until such a clear cost-benefit analysis says leave, jockeying for a referendum on membership is pure stupidity.