“It was the people who made the decision, and we as a country have to live with that,” declared Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland following Norway’s second referendum in 1994 on whether to join the EU. Following a bitter debate, the “No” campaign triumphed with 52.2% of the vote on a mammoth 88.6% turnout. Brundtland had led the “Yes” campaign while desperately trying to prevent her Centre Party from bifurcating over the issue.
In its voting patterns and arguments, the referendum mirrored Norway’s first plebiscite on EU membership in 1972. In both cases, Oslo and its suburbs voted “Yes” while the rural north overwhelmingly voted “No” by a margin of 8-2. Pro-EU advocates put all their eggs in the basket of economic growth, but ultimately the outcome of the referendum turned on the issue of sovereignty.
The parallels with the UK referendum are so striking that it’s tempting to imagine that the UK, too, will eventually hold a second referendum. But there is a crucial difference: while Norway opted (twice) for the status quo, Britain has voted for change. To make enough Brexiteers change their minds, the rest of the EU would presumably have to make fundamental concessions that strike at the heart of European integration. Because Europe wasn’t pleading with Norway to stay, it didn’t even have to consider compromising its principles.
What other lessons are there from Europe’s recent history with repeat referendums? Denmark and Ireland (twice) have each held second votes to “correct” the mistakes they made initially in rejecting European treaties.
In 1992 the Danes rejected the Maastricht treaty on economic and monetary union by a slender margin of 50.7%, fearing the loss of sovereignty, currency and citizenship. Copenhagen promptly negotiated opt-outs from the euro and common defence, called a new plebiscite and brandished the sharp stick of expulsion from the EU in the event of another “No” vote. At the second time of asking, Danes comfortably ratified the treaty.
The Irish story is analogous. In campaigns to ratify the Nice constitutional treaty in 2001 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008, opponents argued that Ireland would be robbed of its sovereignty and abortion laws and forced to abandon its military neutrality. As with Denmark, Ireland’s EU partners cooperated to soothe voters with tweaks to the wording. Second referendums were held and the treaties were ratified.
Given the kindness shown to Copenhagen and Dublin, surely the EU can make an effort to win round Brexiteers and pave the way for a second referendum that could keep us in the EU? There are three reasons why, at least at present, this scenario is extremely unlikely. First, most British politicians agree it would be unacceptable to ignore the clear verdict of the referendum and seek a re-run. Second, Denmark and Ireland were impeding treaties that were important to the rest of the EU, which therefore had an incentive to offer concessions. This time round, Britain is the demandeur, not the EU. Brexit may be a blow to the EU, but it is primarily an unprecedented case of self-harm. Third, the changes Britain might hypothetically seek in order to stay in the EU are not trivial or tangential (as they were perceived by the rest of the EU in the case of Denmark and Ireland) but central to the European project. Watering down freedom of movement to placate the Brits would be an invitation to any other EU government with passing political difficulties to demand far-reaching concessions in whatever was their sphere of national interest. Cherry-picking the club’s core rules would quickly cause the EU to unravel.
Because freedom of movement – aka immigration – is such a hot topic for the UK, the 2014 Swiss referendum is most instructive for gauging Britain’s chances of negotiating a bespoke deal that just might pave the way for a second referendum. The omens are not propitious.
The Swiss narrowly voted for immigration quotas in February 2014 in a referendum proposed by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party. Though not an EU member, Switzerland boasts over 100 bilateral agreements with the EU, including one on free movement. Since all the pacts are interlinked, Brussels has warned they will cease to be valid if Switzerland impedes free movement. Switzerland would therefore lose access to the single market. With a constitutional deadline to introduce the quotas by 2017, Swiss diplomats are frantically seeking a compromise. But with the EU hanging tough, citizens have amassed the 100,000 signatures needed to call a second plebiscite. In the meantime, Swiss universities have felt reprisals: their research grants have been blocked and their access to the EU’s Erasmus student exchange programme suspended.
Switzerland’s experience suggests talk of a compromise by Brussels on the free movement of people is wishful thinking. Yet attitudes can change. An economic slowdown and some concessions from the EU could burnish the appeal of makeshift solutions such as a seven-year emergency brake on immigration. Ladbrokes are offering 3:1 odds on another UK referendum before 2020. Those odds might well come down.
Edited by Alan Wheatley
Please, just go. For more than 30 years the UK behave like a angry subborn child, crying “gimme all the sweets i want or i’ll run away”. Now finally the child ran away, is still crying for the sweets but nobody is there to listen. We won’t miss this child a lot.
But don’t you think that the possibility of non-renewal of its EU agreements will lead the Swiss to vote by a majority in a second referendum to accept free movement?
And won’t this be instructive for the UK?
I sympathise with your irritation with us Andreas, but please recognise that the 52/48% split of those who voted (or more significantly, the 37 in favour and 63% either against/ or didnt vote at all) shows how badly split we are over this. it is not a firm basis for making such a big decision and many of us are pushing for a vote on the ‘actual Brexit deal’ – on the safe grounds that it will be nothing like as rosy as the ideas dangled before the electorate in the referendum. I have never seen such a dishonest and misleading political campaign. Even the Electoral Reform Society has said the EU referendum debate was dominated by “glaring democratic deficiencies” that left voters disengaged and confused about contrasting claims. please be patient and we will ( I hope) see sense.