Hubbry Logo
Referendum PartyReferendum PartyMain
Open search
Referendum Party
Community hub
Referendum Party
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Referendum Party
Referendum Party
Referendum Party
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Referendum Party was a Eurosceptic, single-issue political party that was active in the United Kingdom from 1994 to 1997. The party's sole objective was for a referendum to be held on the nature of the UK's membership of the European Union (EU). Specifically, it called for a referendum on whether the British electorate wanted to be part of a federal European state or to revert to being a sovereign nation that was part of a European free-trade bloc without wider political functions.

Key Information

The Referendum Party was founded by the Anglo-French multi-millionaire businessman and politician James Goldsmith in November 1994. A Eurosceptic who had previously had close links to the UK's governing Conservative Party, he was also an elected Member of the European Parliament for the Movement for France party. He used his financial resources and contacts to promote the new venture, in which he was assisted by other former Conservatives. The party's structure was centralised and hierarchical, giving Goldsmith near-total control over its operations. Although not offering party membership, it claimed to have 160,000 registered "supporters", a number that was probably an exaggeration. The party gained a Member of Parliament (MP) for two weeks in 1997, when George Gardiner, the MP for Reigate, defected to it from the Conservatives shortly before that year's general election.

In the build-up to the May 1997 general election, the Referendum Party spent more on press advertising than either the incumbent Conservatives or their main rival, the Labour Party. It stood candidates in 547 of the 659 constituencies, more than any minor party had ever fielded in a UK election. Ultimately the party gained 811,827 votes, representing 2.6% of the national total; it failed to win any seats in the House of Commons. Support was strongest in southern and eastern England, and weakest in inner London, northern England, and Scotland. Following the election, psephologists argued that the impact of the Referendum Party deprived Conservative candidates of victory in somewhere between four and sixteen parliamentary seats. In the months following the election, the party renamed itself the Referendum Movement. Goldsmith died in July 1997, and the party disbanded shortly afterward. Some of its supporters reformed as a Eurosceptic pressure group called the Democracy Movement while many others joined Eurosceptic political parties like the UK Independence Party and the Democratic Party.

Formation

[edit]

Background and ideology

[edit]
A map of Europe with various countries shaded in dark blue.
The European Union as it existed in 1995, a year after the Referendum Party's formation

The United Kingdom joined the European Communities (EC) in 1973. Following the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 the EC became the European Union.The UK's ratification of the treaty in 1992, followed by its passing of the European Communities (Finance) Act in 1994–95, generated much controversy and infighting within the UK's Conservative Party, which was then in government under Prime Minister John Major.[1] This caused considerable damage to Major's administration, which was increasingly unpopular among the British population.[2] Various British newspapers, among them The Sun, The Daily Telegraph and The Times, had adopted a consistently Eurosceptic position.[2] Opinion polls suggested growing opposition to aspects of the EU in the UK.[2] More widely, the acceleration of the EU's integration process had resulted in the growth of Eurosceptic parties across many of its member states.[3]

The Anglo-French businessman James Goldsmith announced the formation of the Referendum Party on 27 November 1994.[4][5] Goldsmith had once been a strong supporter of the EC but had grown disenchanted with it during the early 1990s, becoming particularly concerned that it was forming into a superstate governed by centralised institutions in Brussels.[6] He opposed the Maastricht Treaty, believing that it resulted in increased German dominance in Europe.[6] As an economic protectionist, he was also critical of the EU's signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, believing that global free trade would damage both the EU's economy and his own business interests.[6]

Goldsmith had prior political experience, having been elected as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in France as part of the Eurosceptic Movement for France coalition in June 1994.[4] Although his father had been a Member of Parliament representing Britain's Conservative Party, and he had personally had a close relationship to the party when it was led by Margaret Thatcher, Goldsmith wanted to launch his campaign independently of the Conservatives, hoping that it could draw on cross-party concerns about the direction of the EU.[2] At the time of the party's formation, Goldsmith had an estimated personal wealth of £800 million,[7] and promised to put £20 million into the party.[2] He pledged to spend at least £10 million on campaigning for the next general election, to ensure that his party was funded to the same extent as the country's larger political parties.[8] Goldsmith's intervention in British politics has been compared with that of the multi-millionaires Ross Perot in the United States and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.[6]

"Let me make just one promise, just one vow. We the rabble army, we in the Referendum Party, we will strive with all our strength to obtain for the people of these islands the right to decide whether or not Britain should remain a nation."

— James Goldsmith, 1994[7]

According to the political scientists Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford, the Referendum Party was "a classic single-issue party".[7] Similarly, the political scientists Neil Carter, Mark Evans, Keith Alderman, and Simon Gorham described it as a "single-issue movement" that had attributes of both a political party and a pressure group.[9] While it took part in elections, it focused on a single issue and stated that if it got Members of Parliament (MP) elected their sole aim would be to secure a referendum.[9] It also claimed that on achieving its main aim, the party would disband, unlike most political parties;[9] as Goldsmith put in his October 1995 "Statement of Aims": "This is a single-issue biodegradable party which will be dissolved once we have achieved our aim."[6]

The referendum question which the party proposed was announced on 28 November 1996: "Do you want the United Kingdom to be part of a federal Europe or do you want the United Kingdom to return to an association of sovereign nations that are part of a common trading market?"[10][11] The political scientists David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh noted that this question was often mocked for its "unrealistic ambiguity",[12] and some journalists referred to Goldsmith's venture as the "Referendum Only Party".[13] Goldsmith did not position the party as explicitly opposed to the EU, instead stating that it was "wholly agnostic" about EU membership and just wanted to secure a referendum on the issue.[14] The wording of the party's main question led one group of political scientists to note that it "clearly revealed Goldsmith's Eurosceptic colours" and that the wider pronouncements of the party became increasingly Eurosceptic as time went on.[15]

Establishment and growth

[edit]

In its first year, the Referendum Party had little established organisation and largely remained a concept with limited concrete presence.[15] Goldsmith's finances had allowed its appearance to be accompanied with mass publicity but it lacked the standard machinery of a political party, such as a mass membership or politically experienced personnel.[16] To counter this problem, Goldsmith sought to create a sophisticated administrative centre and to secure the expertise to carry out a political campaign,[16] establishing his headquarters in London.[13] By October 1995, the party had established a hierarchical structure consisting of three tiers: the centre, region and constituency.[16] Operating the centre was Goldsmith and a cabinet whose membership included Lord McAlpine, who was a former treasurer of the Conservative Party, and two former members of the Conservative Central Office staff.[16] The centre had around 50 staff, who relayed Goldsmith's instructions through to the ten regional co-ordinators, who in turn transmitted them to the prospective candidates in the constituencies.[16] This top-down and undemocratic structure concentrated decision making with Goldsmith and the centre and provided little autonomy for the regions and constituencies, although this was deemed necessary to ensure efficiency in its campaign.[17]

Rather than having members who paid a joining fee, the Referendum Party had "supporters" who could voluntarily donate money if they wished.[16] By February 1997, the party claimed that it had 160,000 registered supporters, although some of these individuals had only requested information about it and had not actively registered as "supporters".[16] The party issued a newspaper, News from the Referendum Party, to attract wider attention to its aims and broaden its support.[18] One issue, published in February 1996, was delivered to 24 million households at an estimated cost of £2 million.[19]

The party also sought to attract the support of prominent figures from business, the arts, and academia, inviting them to its major events.[18] In October 1996, it held a national conference in Brighton, in which forty speakers addressed an audience of 5,000.[20] Among the speakers were the actor Edward Fox, the ecologist David Bellamy, the politician George Thomas, and the zookeeper John Aspinall.[21] The conference had been staged largely to impress the media, at a cost of £750,000, although unsympathetic media outlets were reportedly banned from attending.[22] By the time of the conference, the party was increasingly reflecting its Eurosceptic intentions, particularly with the use of slogans like "No Surrender to Brussels".[21]

Early supporters fell largely into three types: committed Eurosceptics, disaffected Conservatives, and those who—though not necessarily being Eurosceptic—strongly believed that the British population deserved a referendum on EU membership.[23] At the time the new party was largely seen as a threat to the governing Conservative Party, which was experiencing high levels of mid-term unpopularity.[18] In September 1995, the party began recruiting candidates to contest the next general election.[24] Goldsmith was also able to obtain celebrity endorsements.[13] Despite Goldsmith's longstanding criticism of the mainstream media—he had previously stated that "reporting in England is a load of filth"—the party used its finances to promote its message in the media.[25] It hired Ian Beaumont, who had formerly been the press officer to Thatcher's government, to work for it.[26] The party paid for many full-page and some double-page advertisement in the UK's national newspapers,[19] as well as two cinema advertisements.[19] This generated criticism from those who accused it of "cheque-book politics" in the manner of Perot in the US.[19] This financial backing and infrastructure contrasted with that of another single-issue Eurosceptic Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which was operating with little finances and a skeleton organisation at the time.[13]

Although the party had faced criticism and mockery, it gained much media exposure.[22] Two months before the 1997 election, the party gained an MP in the House of Commons when George Gardiner, the Conservative MP for Reigate, switched allegiance to the Referendum Party after his local Conservative branch deselected him due to critical comments that he had made about Major.[27][28]

1997 general election

[edit]
Main article: Referendum Party election results
A map of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which each parliamentary constituency is shaded a different colour.
The Referendum Party contested the 1997 general election. This image depicts the results by constituency: blue for a Conservative victory, red for Labour, gold for the Liberal Democrats, green for Plaid Cymru, and yellow for the Scottish National Party. The Referendum Party failed to secure any seats. In Northern Ireland, where it did not stand, domestic parties took all of the seats.

By the time of the 1997 general election, polls suggested that Eurosceptic sentiment was running high in the UK, and the question of the country's ongoing membership of the EU was a topic of regular discussion in the media.[29] Much of this press coverage took a negative stance toward the EU, with mainstream newspapers like the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Times promoting Eurosceptic sentiment.[30] Such debates were influenced by the UK's recent signing of the Maastricht Treaty and the looming possibility that the country would adopt the euro currency.[29]

Campaign

[edit]

The Referendum Party did not contest any of the by-elections in 1996 and 1997.[31] For the 1997 general election, it hurried its selection of candidates,[18] who had only one interview—and no background checks or screening—before acceptance.[18] The funding for each candidate's official campaign was supplied entirely by the party centre.[18] Candidates were brought to a training day at a Manchester hotel in February 1997, where they were presented with several hours of speeches and given a handbook. Many felt that the event had been a public relations exercise rather than a concerted effort to train candidates.[18]

Goldsmith's party was the biggest spender on press advertising in the 1997 campaign;[32] it spent three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on press adverts.[7] Its media profile greatly eclipsed that of UKIP.[29] Goldsmith also used his financial resources to deliver a videocassette to five million UK households in March 1997.[33] This was a novel strategy in British politics, and was conceived as a way of reaching the electorate while bypassing the mass media.[34] The packaging of the videocassette did not specify that it was produced by the Referendum Party but rather carried several slogans: "The most important video you'll ever watch", "The story the politicians don't want you to hear", and "If you care about Britain, please pass this video on."[34] The 12-minute film, presented by the former That's Life! presenter Gavin Campbell, warned of a coming "federal European super-state".[35] In his analysis of the video, scholar David Hass argued that the film was deliberately designed to elicit fear in the viewer, something achieved through "eerie sound effects", the image of a blue stain spreading across a map of Europe, and slow-motion shots of German Chancellor Helmut Kohl striding towards the screen.[36] In Hass' view, the film "manifestly reduced that complex issue of Europe to the lowest common denominator, and aimed to shock."[37]

The BBC also permitted the party one five-minute party political broadcast because it was fielding over 50 candidates. The party insisted that it should have three such broadcasts, but the BBC claimed that this was disproportionate for a smaller, new party with no elected representation. The party took the issue to the High Court of Justice, which sided with the BBC.[38] The broadcast featured Goldsmith talking directly to the camera, arguing for a referendum.[39] Goldsmith implied that the BBC had a pro-EU agenda by referring to it as the "Brussels News Corporation", also claiming that there was a "conspiracy of silence" negatively impacting the coverage received by his party.[40]

A balding, white middle aged male wearing a grey suit sitting on an armchair facing the viewer
Goldsmith appeared in the Referendum Party's election broadcast, screened on the BBC.

In 1996, both the Conservative and Labour Parties committed to the idea that they would require a referendum on any proposed economic and monetary union with the EU; the Liberal Democrats had already committed to this idea.[30] It is difficult to quantify what role the Referendum Party had on the adoption of this position.[30] Goldsmith condemned the Conservatives' pledge as an "empty gesture".[41] Concerned that they would lose votes to the Referendum Party, many in the Conservative Party were pressing Major to enter talks with Goldsmith, although the Prime Minister refused to engage in any formal dialogue.[42] The electoral threat posed by Goldsmith's party was taken seriously among the Conservatives,[42] with senior party figures like Major, Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Brian Mawhinney and Michael Heseltine launching vitriolic and often personal criticisms of Goldsmith and his group.[42] Hurd declared that "the government's policy must not be put at the mercy of millionaires who play with British politics as a hobby or as a boost to newspaper sales".[42]

In the general election, candidates for the Referendum Party stood in 547 constituencies, the most that any minor party had ever fielded in a UK election.[43] None of these candidates were in Northern Ireland. This was because Goldsmith had made an agreement with Northern Ireland's Ulster Unionist Party that he would not field any candidates against them if their one MEP joined his Europe of Nations grouping in the European Parliament, something that ensured that the grouping remained large enough to retain its Parliamentary funding.[21] It also avoided putting up candidates in constituencies where the leading candidate (65 of them Conservatives, 26 Labour and 2 Liberal Democrats) was considered sympathetic to the Referendum Party's call for a referendum.[44] Goldsmith appeared to acknowledge that it was unlikely to win any of the contested seats, stating that the party's success would be "judged solely by its total number of votes".[21] The party officially launched its electoral campaign on 9 April 1997 at Newlyn in Cornwall, where Goldsmith sought to whip up Eurosceptic sentiment among fishermen who were angry with the restrictions imposed by EU fishing quotas.[45]

Results

[edit]

In the election, which took place on 1 May 1997, the Referendum Party polled 811,849 votes.[46] This represented 2.6% of the national total,[47] and the party averaged 3.1% in the seats which it contested.[48] 42 of the party's candidates gained over 5% of the vote and thus saw the return of their deposits,[49] which were then priced at £500 each;[50] 505 deposits were lost.[51] The party gained over 7% in four constituencies[52] including John Aspinall in Folkestone and Hythe who received 8% of the vote.[53] Much media attention was focused on the seat of Putney, where Goldsmith had stood as the Referendum candidate against incumbent Conservative MP David Mellor; Goldsmith secured 3.5% of the votes, losing his deposit, and the seat was won by the Labour candidate.[52] Although it failed to win any seats, the party exhibited the strongest performance of a minor party in recent UK political history.[54] Support had been strongest in the south and east of England, in particular in areas with high elderly populations and high rates of agricultural employment.[55] Support for the party was considerably weaker in Inner London, Northern England, and Scotland;[56] it secured only 1.1% of the Scottish vote.[57] This may have reflected greater pro-EU sentiment in Scotland or a perception that the Referendum Party's Euroscepticism was a form of English nationalism rather than British nationalism.[58] The Referendum Party had proved more electorally successful than its Eurosceptic rival, UKIP, which averaged 1.2% of the vote in the 194 constituencies that it contested.[59]

"It would be wrong wholly to dismiss the impact of the Referendum Party—which may be seen in two ways. First, it helped promote Europe on the political agenda and added to the pressure which eventuated in the three major parties promising a referendum on the specific issue of EMU membership. Second, although the party had no effect on the outcome of the [1997 general] election, it did attract a respectable level of support and its presence contributed to the Conservative's dismal electoral performance."

— Carter, Evans, Alderman, and Gorham, 1998[30]

The general election resulted in a victory for Tony Blair's Labour Party, which adopted a pro-EU stance.[30] Labour's victory was considered a landslide, thus making the Referendum Party's role in the election fairly irrelevant.[49] The Conservatives had gained only 30.7% of the vote, a drop from the 41.9% they had attained in 1992 and the lowest vote share that they had received since the establishment of modern British party politics in 1832.[60] Their representation in the House of Commons fell by over half, from 343 to 165; their lowest representation in the House since 1906.[60] The reasons for their electoral decline were many and the impact of the Referendum Party was not a major factor.[60]

The Referendum Party nevertheless may have cost the Conservatives certain seats.[61] Many Conservatives themselves believed that this was the case.[62] As noted by Anthony Heath, Roger Jowell, Bridget Taylor, and Katarina Thomson from their analysis of polling data, "voters for the Referendum Party were certainly not a cross-section of the electorate. They were predominantly people who had voted Conservative (and, to a lesser extent, Liberal Democrat) in 1992. Hardly anyone who had voted Labour in 1992 supported Goldsmith's party."[63] Their evidence indicated that just under two-thirds of those who voted for the Referendum Party in 1997 had voted for the Conservatives in 1992, although the analysis also suggested that many of these people were dissatisfied with the Conservative government and would not have voted for them even had the Referendum Party not existed.[64] Heath et al noted that "voters for the Referendum Party were remarkably Eurosceptic but were unremarkable in most other respects. They show no sign of being right-wing on the economic issues of the left-right dimension and they were not consistently right-wing ideologues."[65] Those who voted for the party held a diversity of ideological positions, the only shared factor being their Euroscepticism.[66]

According to analysis by the political scientist John Curtice and psephologist Michael Steed, "only a handful of the Conservatives' losses of seats can be blamed on the intervention of the Referendum Party".[67] Their estimate was that only four seats would have been Conservative without the Referendum Party standing.[67] For this reason, Butler and Kavanagh stated that the Referendum Party "had only a limited effect on the Conservatives' fortunes".[32] On employing aggregate constituency data, Ian McAllister and Donley T. Studlar disagreed, arguing that the Referendum Party had a greater impact on the Conservatives than previous research suggested. They argued that the Referendum Party cost the Conservatives an average of 3.4% of the vote.[68] Their analysis further suggested that there were 16 seats where the involvement of the Referendum Party directly cost the Conservative candidate their victory, and a further three where it was a contributing factor to the Conservatives' failure.[69]

Dissolution and legacy

[edit]
A photograph of a middle-aged white man with grey hair. His mouth is open and his arms are raised, near to his shoulders, suggesting that he is giving a public speech. He is wearing a black suit jacket with alight blue shirt and mauve tie. A purple and yellow UKIP rosette is attached to his jacket.
UKIP Chairman Nigel Farage recruited many former Referendum Party candidates to his own party.

Immediately after the election, the Referendum Party renamed itself the Referendum Movement.[70] Goldsmith had been suffering from pancreatic cancer, and had been warned that competing in the election would shorten his life.[71] He died in Benahavis, Spain, on 18 July 1997,[71] and the party disbanded shortly afterwards.[66] Some of its members transformed into the Democracy Movement, a pressure group closely associated with the former Conservative supporter and multi-millionaire businessman Paul Sykes.[70] The Eurosceptic cause was weakened; with Blair's firmly pro-EU government in power, by 1998 the possibility of a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU was considered as distant as it had been in 1995.[30]

Under the direction of UKIP's leader Michael Holmes, UKIP's chairman Nigel Farage began recruiting former Referendum Party members to their own group; according to Farage, around 160 of the Referendum Party's candidates joined UKIP.[72] Among those who did so was Jeffrey Titford, who later became one of UKIP's first MEPs.[73] Other former members of the Referendum Party joined the Democratic Party, a small Eurosceptic group founded in 1998.[74] In the 1999 Kensington and Chelsea by-election, one candidate stood under the banner of the now-defunct "Referendum Party"; they came eleventh, with 57 votes.[75] In the 2001 general election, much of the support that had previously gone to the Referendum Party went not to UKIP but to the Conservatives, whose leader William Hague had employed Eurosceptic rhetoric throughout his campaign.[76]

Rupert Lowe, one of the Referendum Party's candidates in the 1997 general election, was elected as the Brexit Party's lead candidate for the West Midlands constituency in the 2019 European Parliament elections and was later elected MP for Reform UK for the constituency of Great Yarmouth.[77] James Glancy, another of the Brexit Party's MEPs, has compared the Brexit Party to the Referendum Party, being a "united and diverse group of people from different political backgrounds".[78]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Referendum Party

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

The Referendum Party was a Eurosceptic, single-issue political party in the United Kingdom, established in 1994 by Anglo-French billionaire and financier Sir James Goldsmith to campaign exclusively for a national referendum on continued membership in the European Union, particularly in response to the Maastricht Treaty. The party, funded largely by Goldsmith's personal investment of around £20 million, fielded candidates in 547 constituencies during the 1997 general election, securing 811,849 votes (2.6% of the national vote) but failing to win any seats in Parliament. Goldsmith himself contested the Putney seat, polling 3.5% and contributing to the defeat of a pro-EU cabinet minister. Despite its lack of electoral success, the party's pressure on major parties helped elevate the referendum demand in political discourse, influencing subsequent commitments to public votes on EU matters and laying groundwork for later Eurosceptic movements. The party ceased operations following the 1997 election and Goldsmith's death in July of that year.

Historical Context and Formation

Eurosceptic Sentiments in 1990s Britain

The signing of the on 7 February 1992 marked a pivotal escalation in , establishing the , advancing (EMU), and introducing elements of , which fueled apprehensions in Britain over the erosion of national sovereignty. In the , John Major's Conservative government encountered fierce internal resistance during , with approximately 20-30 backbench MPs, dubbed "," repeatedly voting against the legislation due to fears that it subordinated British parliamentary authority to supranational EU institutions. Major ultimately secured passage by linking to a confidence vote on 23 July 1993, which passed 339 to 301, but the episode exposed deep fissures within the party, as rebels argued the treaty's provisions, including qualified majority voting expansions, diminished Britain's veto powers on key issues. Public sentiment mirrored these elite divisions, with surveys indicating growing disquiet over EU federalist ambitions; a 1992 poll revealed only 38% of Britons viewed membership positively, while ambivalence or negativity hovered around 50-60%, particularly regarding the prospective single currency and perceived threats to economic independence. Fears intensified around regulatory overreach, as the treaty's social protocol— from which Major secured an —signaled potential mandates on labor markets and welfare that could override domestic policy, with polls like a 1993 ICM survey showing 55% opposition to deeper integration if it entailed "loss of control" over British laws.) This unease was compounded by Denmark's initial rejection of the treaty in a June 1992 (by 50.7%), prompting British Eurosceptics to demand a similar public vote, which the government rejected, amplifying perceptions of elite detachment from voter concerns. Eurosceptic sentiments had roots in longstanding Conservative skepticism, traceable to Margaret Thatcher's 1988 Bruges speech decrying a "European super-state," which galvanized a faction viewing the EU as antithetical to British exceptionalism and traditions. Figures such as and later backbenchers like voiced opposition to as early as the 1975 aftermath, but by the early 1990s, these voices remained fragmented within the Tories and minor groups like the , lacking a cohesive push for a binding on EU membership or treaty terms. The absence of such unified advocacy from major parties left a vacuum, as Labour largely supported and the Liberal Democrats favored integration, allowing critiques to simmer without electoral outlet until single-issue mobilization emerged.

James Goldsmith's Founding Role

Sir , a British-French financier who amassed a fortune through corporate takeovers and investments, transitioned from business to politics in the early amid growing concerns over . Having retired from active commerce, Goldsmith was elected as a in June 1994, representing a French constituency on an anti-Maastricht Treaty platform that secured significant support. His experiences in the EP, coupled with critiques of EU centralization outlined in his 1993 book Le Piège (published in English as The Trap in November 1994), motivated him to address British sovereignty directly by forming a dedicated political vehicle. Goldsmith announced the formation of the Referendum Party in November 1994 as a single-issue entity focused solely on compelling a national on the United Kingdom's continued membership in the . The party's strategy was to contest elections only in constituencies held by Members of who refused to pledge support for such a , thereby pressuring pro-integration incumbents without broadly challenging Eurosceptic representatives. This targeted approach aimed to highlight divisions within major parties on EU policy. Self-funded by Goldsmith's personal wealth, estimated in the billions from his business ventures, the party received an initial injection of approximately £20 million to support organizational efforts and candidate . This financial backing enabled rapid establishment and attracted media coverage, positioning the party as a credible challenge despite its narrow focus. Early activities emphasized public awareness campaigns and drives to build a network capable of nationwide participation in the upcoming general election.

Ideology and Policy Positions

Core Demand for a Referendum

The 's central and singular policy objective was to compel the British government to hold a national on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the , positioning this as essential for restoring democratic legitimacy to decisions on national sovereignty. Founded by financier Sir , the party maintained that major EU treaties, particularly the 1992 —which established the EU framework and expanded supranational powers—had transferred substantial legislative authority from Westminster to without direct public approval, thereby undermining accumulated over centuries. Goldsmith contended that such profound constitutional shifts, involving binding commitments on areas like , justice, and economic governance, required explicit voter consent rather than ratification by elites, echoing first-principles of where ultimate authority resides with the electorate. Party candidates were bound by a strict pledge: if elected, they would withhold parliamentary support from any or refusing to commit to the and would abstain from post-election coalitions or arrangements with major parties unless such a commitment was secured. This tactic aimed not to seize power but to act as a pressure mechanism, with the party dissolving after achieving its goal and allowing supporters to revert to traditional affiliations. Unlike advocacy for withdrawal or retention, the emphasized procedural , arguing that the absence of a vote since the European left ongoing integration—accelerated by —lacking retrospective validation from those bearing its consequences. Public opinion data from the mid-1990s substantiated the viability of this position, with surveys revealing widespread backing for a plebiscite on matters amid growing unease over integration. A May 1996 poll commissioned by found a of respondents favored holding a on Britain's European future, reflecting skepticism toward unchecked expansions. Pro- figures and media outlets, often aligned with supranational integration, dismissed the call as destabilizing and a spoiler to mainstream campaigns, yet empirical polling contradicted claims of fringe status by demonstrating the issue's resonance beyond Eurosceptic circles. This demand highlighted a causal disconnect between elite-driven and popular mandate, prioritizing empirical democratic deficits over institutional continuity.

Arguments on Sovereignty and EU Integration

The Referendum Party contended that the 's supranational structure, particularly through institutions like the and the (ECJ), systematically undermined British parliamentary sovereignty by enforcing directives and rulings that overrode domestic legislation. , the party's founder, argued in his 1994 book The Trap that this process created a causal chain where unelected EU bodies initiated policies, such as the (CFP), which the ECJ then upheld as superior to national law, effectively bypassing Westminster's authority. A prominent empirical example was the 1991 Factortame case, where the ECJ ruled that courts must disapply sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—intended to reserve fishing quotas for British vessels— to comply with EU law allowing Spanish trawlers access to waters, thereby suspending parliamentary intent in favor of supranational precedence. This decision illustrated the party's first-principles critique: sovereignty resides in accountable national legislatures, yet EU primacy transferred causal control over policy implementation to distant, less democratic entities. Regarding border controls, the party highlighted how EU integration eroded national autonomy over immigration and security, even with UK opt-outs from Schengen, as treaties progressively harmonized external policies that constrained unilateral action. Goldsmith rejected the federalist trajectory outlined in the Maastricht Treaty (1992), which expanded qualified majority voting and introduced EU citizenship, viewing these as undemocratic transfers of power from elected parliaments to a bureaucratic elite, diminishing the UK's ability to veto decisions on core competencies like fisheries and justice. The subsequent Amsterdam Treaty (1997) exacerbated this by consolidating supranational oversight in areas such as visa policies, further privileging empirical instances of lost control—such as enforced adherence to EU-wide standards overriding UK-specific border measures—over abstract federalist ideals of shared governance. Pro-integration advocates countered that pooling through interdependence amplified national influence in a globalized world, enabling on issues like trade where individual states would falter. However, the Referendum Party rebutted this by emphasizing causal evidence of erosion: between 1973 and 1997, the transposed over 3,000 directives into domestic , many via secondary with minimal parliamentary , stifling Westminster's capacity for independent regulatory adaptation and rendering abstract benefits illusory against tangible losses in . Goldsmith's analysis in The Trap underscored that such mechanisms favored supranational rigidity, where empirical outcomes showed smaller or dissenting members, including the , compelled to conform without recourse, undermining the democratic legitimacy derived from direct voter .

Economic Critiques of European Union

The Referendum Party contended that the United Kingdom's membership in the imposed substantial net financial burdens, with projections estimating annual contributions of £3-5 billion by the mid-1990s after for receipts, diverting resources from national investments in and welfare. These outflows stemmed primarily from the EU's budget structure, where the UK, as a relatively prosperous non-agricultural , subsidized less developed members and inefficient programs. Party founder emphasized that such transfers exemplified causal failures in supranational redistribution, lacking democratic accountability and yielding minimal returns in for contributors like the UK. A core objection targeted the (), which consumed over 50% of the budget in the early 1990s and generated inefficiencies through price supports that encouraged overproduction and surpluses, elevating by an estimated 10-20% above world levels and imposing indirect costs exceeding £2 billion annually via distorted markets and taxpayer subsidies. argued in The Trap (1994) that the 's rigid interventions ignored comparative advantages, fostering dependency in recipient states while penalizing efficient importers like the , where agricultural output represented less than 2% of GDP yet funded continental farm protections that stifled broader trade liberalization. Empirical evidence from commodity mountains—stockpiles of , , and grains costing billions to store and dispose—underscored these opportunity costs, as funds could have addressed domestic , which hovered around 10% in the during this period. The party warned that adopting the would exacerbate these issues by eroding monetary sovereignty, subjecting the to a one-size-fits-all policy dominated by Germany's Bundesbank-influenced priorities, potentially inflating bubbles in peripheral economies while constraining 's flexible options historically used to boost exports. Goldsmith's highlighted causal risks in the European Monetary Union precursors, noting that without fiscal transfers—politically unfeasible—divergent productivity growth rates (e.g., Germany's 2-3% annual gains versus 's stagnation) would amplify imbalances, as evidenced by early ERM crises like the 1992 sterling exit. While acknowledging access as a prospective benefit for volumes, the party countered that burgeoning non-tariff barriers, such as harmonized regulations and standards compliance, imposed bureaucratic drags equivalent to 4-5% of GDP in compliance costs, hindering innovation and SME growth per Goldsmith's assessments of continental models. These critiques prioritized empirical fiscal leakages over ideological integration, positing that structures systematically favored larger states' agendas over peripheral prosperity.

Party Organization and Operations

Leadership Structure

The Referendum Party's leadership was highly centralized around its founder, Sir James Goldsmith, who assumed the role of leader upon establishing the party in November 1994 and retained unchallenged authority until its closure following the 1997 general election. Goldsmith's personal charisma, financial resources, and entrepreneurial style drove the organization's direction, positioning it as a focused on executing a singular objective without the bureaucratic layers typical of established political entities. Lord Alistair McAlpine, formerly treasurer of the Conservative Party, served as chairman from 1996, contributing strategic advice informed by his Eurosceptic leanings and prior political experience; he notably chaired the party's October 1996 conference after defecting from the Conservatives. No formal deputy leader was designated, underscoring the party's , top-down model tailored to Goldsmith's vision rather than fostering internal hierarchies or succession planning. Decision-making remained concentrated with Goldsmith and a close circle of advisors from business and Eurosceptic networks to preserve message discipline and enable swift operational scaling, such as fielding over 550 candidates by May 1997. This structure diverged from the , member-driven models of traditional British parties, prioritizing efficiency for a time-bound, single-issue intervention amid the impending deadlines over democratic internal processes or broad . The approach facilitated rapid resource deployment but drew criticism for its perceived lack of organizational depth and reliance on inexperienced operatives.

Funding and Candidate Selection

The Referendum Party was primarily self-financed by its founder, Sir James Goldsmith, who pledged approximately £20 million from his personal fortune to support the party's operations and 1997 general election campaign. This substantial investment, equivalent to over $33 million at the time, allowed the party to operate independently of small individual donations, contributions, or corporate , minimizing external influences on its single-issue focus. Goldsmith's approach emphasized financial autonomy, enabling rapid nationwide expansion without the fundraising constraints typical of emerging parties. Candidate selection prioritized individuals committed to the party's core pledge for a binding on continued EU membership, with a strategic emphasis on challenging incumbent Members of Parliament from both the Conservative and Labour parties who had previously voted against referendum proposals on British sovereignty. High-profile defectors from major parties were recruited where possible to leverage name recognition and credibility, alongside local volunteers demonstrating strong Eurosceptic convictions; however, the process often involved "parachuting" candidates into constituencies lacking deep local ties, a pragmatic choice to maximize pressure on targeted seats rather than build loyalty. This targeted approach supported fielding candidates in 547 constituencies, coordinated through a volunteer-driven organization that distributed campaign materials and mobilized supporters efficiently.

1997 General Election Involvement

Campaign Tactics and Messaging

The Referendum Party's 1997 general election campaign centered on high-impact media dissemination to demand a public vote on European Union membership, distributing approximately five million copies of a VHS video titled "The Most Important Video You'll Ever Watch" to households nationwide. In this production, featuring Sir James Goldsmith in a direct address, the party portrayed EU integration as a covert shift toward a federal "European superstate" dominated by unelected elites, eroding national sovereignty without voter input. Complementing this, the party aired a Party Election Broadcast on 15 April 1997, where Goldsmith reiterated the call for a referendum, emphasizing the deception by EU institutions that had misrepresented the bloc as merely a common market rather than a supranational entity. Campaign messaging framed the EU as an existential threat to democratic self-rule, with slogans urging "Referendum Now" to restore public consent on sovereignty transfer. Posters deployed in a national rollout launched in central London highlighted regulatory burdens, claiming over 100 new EU rules imposed weekly on Britain, positioning integration as an elite-driven imposition detached from popular will. The party invested £7.2 million in press advertising from 1996 to 1997, including full-page ads in broadsheet newspapers that critiqued the federal trajectory while advocating a "multi-optional" referendum to choose between sovereign trading partnerships and deeper political union. To maintain single-issue discipline, tactics avoided expansive policy platforms, instead targeting over 200 sitting Members of Parliament who refused pledges for a through localized leaflets detailing EU economic costs, such as burdens estimated in the billions annually for British businesses. Goldsmith's personal appearances, including public speeches and constituency visits, reinforced this by accusing political opponents of subverting , with candidates selected solely to challenge incumbents denying voters a voice on EU matters. Proponents of EU membership countered that integration fostered economic stability and global influence, yet the party rebutted with evidence of inherent democratic deficits, citing chronically low turnout in European Parliament elections—such as 36.4% in the 1994 UK vote—as indicative of public apathy toward distant, unaccountable institutions. This causal link underscored the messaging's emphasis on restoring direct via , eschewing broader ideological debates to spotlight procedural illegitimacy in EU expansion.

Electoral Performance and Outcomes

The Referendum Party contested 542 constituencies in the 1 May 1997 , receiving a total of 811,878 votes, which represented 2.6% of the national vote. Despite this, the party secured no parliamentary seats, with its candidates averaging approximately 3% of the vote per constituency. Deposits were forfeited in nearly all contests, as vote shares fell below the 5% threshold required for retention in most cases, including Sir James Goldsmith's bid in where he garnered 1,518 votes. The party's strongest performances occurred in affluent southern English seats, reflecting support among wealthier, Eurosceptic voters disillusioned with the Conservative Party's stance on . Analyses of the indicate that the Referendum Party's vote was disproportionately drawn from former Conservative supporters, contributing to a modest vote-splitting effect in marginal constituencies. However, the impact on Conservative losses was limited, with estimates suggesting shifts of only 1-2% in key seats, while broader data reveal primary defections from Tories to Labour driven by domestic issues rather than EU concerns alone. Turnout declines and abstentions among traditional Conservative voters further eroded the incumbent party's base, overshadowing the Referendum Party's role in the overall Tory defeat. The party's intervention elevated the EU referendum demand in public discourse, pressuring major parties to address sovereignty questions, though neither Labour nor Conservatives committed to a binding plebiscite on membership in their 1997 manifestos. Proponents hailed it as a catalyst for Eurosceptic momentum within the Conservatives, while critics, including defeated candidates, dismissed it as a vanity effort that fragmented the anti-federalist vote without strategic gain. Empirical outcomes underscored the challenges for single-issue parties under the UK's first-past-the-post system, limiting viability despite notable vote aggregation in targeted demographics.

Dissolution and Immediate Aftermath

Post-Election Challenges

Following the 1997 general election, the Referendum Party encountered immediate structural and strategic obstacles that underscored its precarious position in British politics. Despite polling 811,849 votes nationwide—equivalent to 2.6% of the total—the party secured zero seats in , a outcome emblematic of the first-past-the-post electoral system's tendency to marginalize parties with dispersed support below a critical threshold. This disparity highlighted causal barriers inherent to the system, where concentrated majorities in individual constituencies are required for representation, rendering national protest votes largely symbolic and rendering the party nationally impotent absent broader alliances or policy concessions. The party's unwavering commitment to its singular demand—a binding on the extent of integration and the preservation of —precluded any pragmatic accommodation with the victorious Labour government. Tony Blair's administration, while initially cautious on immediate euro adoption, advanced pro-integration measures such as the Amsterdam Treaty without pledging the demanded public vote, positioning the Referendum Party in isolation as it refused endorsement or cooperation without such a commitment. This stance, rooted in maintaining ideological purity, amplified internal pressures to either persist as a pressure group or evolve beyond its narrow platform, though leader prioritized the former to avoid diluting the core message amid Blair's unyielding EU orientation. Empirically, the election results served as a benchmark for Eurosceptic discontent, with the vote tally signaling potential influence on fringe groups but exposing the limitations of single-issue under prevailing institutional constraints. Modest efforts to leverage the outcome for localized engagement yielded negligible traction, further entrenching the party's post-election irrelevance at the national level while debates simmered over versus steadfastness.

James Goldsmith's Death and Party Closure

Sir , the founder and leader of the Referendum Party, died on July 18, 1997, at the age of 64 from a heart attack precipitated by , which he had been battling since 1993. His death occurred at his home in Benahavís, . Goldsmith's passing created an immediate , as he had been the party's driving force, providing both its ideological direction and substantial personal funding—estimated at over £20 million for the 1997 general election campaign alone. Without his financial backing and charismatic presence, the party lacked the resources and structure to sustain operations or mount revival efforts. The Referendum Party effectively ceased activities in the months following Goldsmith's , marking its dissolution by late 1997; remaining assets were not repurposed into a direct successor organization, reflecting the party's dependence on its founder's singular commitment. No formal attempts to reconstitute the party emerged, underscoring the absence of alternative leadership capable of replicating Goldsmith's role.

Legacy and Long-Term Impact

Influence on Conservative Euroscepticism

The Referendum Party's campaign in the 1997 general election targeted over 500 Conservative-held constituencies, amplifying existing divisions within the party over European Monetary Union and forcing Prime Minister John Major to adopt a more cautious stance on integration to mitigate vote erosion. By securing 810,860 votes—predominantly from former Conservative supporters in southern English heartlands—the party achieved shares exceeding 10% in several safe Tory seats, such as Newbury and Devizes, correlating with localized discontent over the Maastricht Treaty's implications and the perceived ambiguity in Major's "wait and see" policy on the euro. This electoral incursion contributed to the Conservative manifesto's omission of any firm commitment to the single currency, prioritizing economic tests instead, as internal Eurosceptic pressure, heightened by the Referendum Party's threat, risked further fracturing the party's base. Post-election, under William Hague's leadership from June 1997, the Conservatives shifted toward explicit Eurosceptic rhetoric to reclaim voters alienated by the , including Hague's advocacy for a on euro entry conditioned on five economic tests, a departure from Major's that reflected the need to neutralize single-issue challenges. The party's activities also spurred the formation of affiliated advocacy groups like the , established in the late 1990s to push for public votes on EU treaty changes, which lobbied Tory MPs and embedded demands into party discourse by the early . Pro-integration Conservatives, including figures like , viewed the Referendum Party as a transient protest vehicle with minimal causal impact on the defeat, attributing losses primarily to domestic scandals and economic fatigue rather than European splits. Yet, this assessment was challenged by persistent parliamentary rebellions, such as the 20-30 MPs opposing Labour's 1998-2001 legislative pushes toward closer EU alignment, which validated the Referendum Party's role in legitimizing grassroots and shifting the party's centre of gravity away from .

Role in Paving the Way for

The Referendum Party's insistence on a binding public vote to affirm or reject further introduced the as a viable tool for resolving fundamental questions of national sovereignty, shifting discourse from parliamentary deference to direct democratic input on EU matters. This positioned the party as a precursor to later Eurosceptic demands, culminating in Cameron's 2013 commitment to an in-out on EU membership by the end of 2017 if the Conservatives won the 2015 —a pledge extracted amid electoral pressure from UKIP, which inherited and expanded the Referendum Party's voter base after its 1997 dissolution. James Goldsmith's campaigns highlighted the EU's evolution toward federal structures, including the erosion of national veto powers under the and the push for , arguments that anticipated sovereignty deficits realized in subsequent treaties like in 2009 and which resonated in diagnostics emphasizing democratic disconnection from unelected supranational bodies. These 1990s critiques debunked pro-integration narratives of inexorable progress, fostering a persistent that indirect analyses link to the 2016 referendum's focus on regaining control over laws, borders, and budgets. Electoral patterns reveal continuity in Eurosceptic mobilization, with the party's 810,860 votes in —concentrated in constituencies later showing strong Leave support—overlapping demographically with 2016 voters, including older, less-educated, and rural demographics wary of globalization's impacts. This amplification, rather than , sustained pressure on mainstream parties, enabling the referendum's eventual realization as a response to accumulated public discontent rather than transient .

Achievements, Criticisms, and Alternative Viewpoints

The Referendum Party achieved notable success in mobilizing public sentiment against further , securing 810,860 votes—approximately 2.6% of the total—in the 1997 general election, the largest share for any single-issue party in modern British history up to that point. This performance, concentrated in constituencies with high Conservative support, underscored widespread unease with the and subsequent EU developments, forcing mainstream parties to acknowledge Eurosceptic concerns. The party's sophisticated media strategy, including Goldsmith's widely distributed videos critiquing supranational , amplified first-hand accounts of erosion and contributed to a causal shift in political discourse, evidenced by the Conservative Party's subsequent pledge under for a referendum on the proposed EU Constitution in June 2004. Critics contended that the party's narrow focus on an EU referendum inherently limited its viability under the first-past-the-post system, resulting in zero parliamentary seats despite the vote tally and highlighting the risks of single-issue campaigns in multi-party contests. Its intervention is said to have fragmented the right-leaning electorate, siphoning an estimated 2-3% from Eurosceptic Conservative candidates in marginal seats, thereby aiding Labour's 418-seat by enabling tactical voting dynamics that favored the opposition. Furthermore, detractors, particularly in left-leaning outlets, derided the party as elitist, pointing to Goldsmith's self-financed operation—expending £20-30 million personally—and its roster of high-profile, affluent candidates as evidence of detachment from ordinary voters, potentially undermining broader coalitions against EU policies. Alternative viewpoints emphasize the party's prophetic role in identifying causal risks of unchecked EU expansion, such as regulatory overreach and democratic deficits, which later manifested in events like the Eurozone crisis and migration surges—issues that propelled UKIP to 2.5 million votes (16.5%) in the 2004 elections and foreshadowed the 2016 referendum. While sources aligned with establishment institutions often marginalized it as a transient , empirical on persistent anti-integration refute this, showing the party's vote base correlating with regions that delivered 52% Leave in 2016; right-leaning analyses, conversely, credit it with injecting urgency into debates, arguably pressuring Conservatives to adopt harder lines on EU opt-outs post-1997. This duality reflects source biases, with academic and media critiques underweighting long-term discursive impacts in favor of immediate electoral metrics.

References

  1. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/referendum-party-19351
  2. https://www.worldpr.org/2020/06/05/sir-james-goldsmith-and-the-referendum-party/
  3. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP01-38/RP01-38.pdf
  4. https://www.sirjamesgoldsmith.com/politician/
  5. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/mei/news-and-opinion/items/major-clean-bowled-the-maastricht-confidence-motion-30-years-on.html
  6. https://johnmajorarchive.org.uk/1993/07/22/mr-majors-commons-statement-on-the-maastricht-treaty-social-policy-protocol-22-july-1993/
  7. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/euroscepticism-before-the-referendum/
  8. https://johnmajorarchive.org.uk/1992/06/03/mr-majors-commons-statement-on-the-maastricht-treaty-danish-referendum-3-june-1992/
  9. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/05/09/delusions-and-meddling-30-years-of-tory-euroscepticism-are-coming-to-the-fore/
  10. https://sites.google.com/site/thepoliticsteacherorg/case-study-john-major
  11. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/873
  12. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/2213/JIMMY_GOLDSMITH/history/4
  13. https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/publications/europe-goldsmith-and-the-referendum-party
  14. https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1997/05/goldsmith199705
  15. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-20-me-14698-story.html
  16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1997/07/20/financier-sir-james-goldsmith-dies-at-64/cedcf112-a2e0-4ed9-86b5-33dff99c8913/
  17. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP97-10/RP97-10.pdf
  18. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/attitudes-eu
  19. https://www.sirjamesgoldsmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Trap-Sir-James-Goldsmith.pdf
  20. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/mar/29/landmarks-in-law-the-90s-fishing-case-that-stoked-uk-euroscepticism
  21. https://www.sirjamesgoldsmith.com/thinker/politics-economics/europe/
  22. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/common-agricultural-policy/
  23. https://airmail.news/issues/2024-11-2/the-billionaire-and-the-rabble-army
  24. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/19/lord-mcalpine-of-west-green
  25. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/07/0719/obit.shtml
  26. https://www.sirjamesgoldsmith.com/goldsmith-offers-20-million-for-anti-europe-election-fight/
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228426041_Assessing_the_Political_Impact_of_Candidate_Selection_Rules_Britain_in_the_1990s
  28. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/10/14/the-most-important-video-youll-ever-watch-the-1997-roots-of-british-euroscepticism/
  29. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dxZ1MoyXNA
  30. https://www.alamy.com/a-1997-referendum-party-general-election-campaign-poster-london-uk-approximate-date-4-apr-1997-image605454341.html
  31. https://academic.oup.com/pa/article-abstract/51/3/470/1414063
  32. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/05/0501/goldsmith.shtml
  33. https://cps.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/111027150340-LeftHome1998.pdf
  34. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m15.pdf
  35. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%257CA21100008&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00312290&p=AONE&sw=w
  36. https://academic.oup.com/pa/article-pdf/51/3/470/4216974/51-3-470.pdf
  37. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/20/world/sir-james-goldsmith-financier-dies-at-64.html
  38. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/07/0719/goldsmith.shtml
  39. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354068800006003006
  40. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge97con.shtml
  41. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13689889808413007
  42. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-15390884
  43. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/08/05/brexit-will-not-mean-an-end-to-tory-divisions-on-europe/
  44. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/09/tories-europe-eternal-battleground
  45. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-david-cameron-called-the-2016-referendum/
  46. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1235624/nigel-farage-news-brexit-latest-brexit-day-referendum-party-james-goldsmith-spt
  47. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/the-deep-history-of-brexit-cn7ctfsfn
  48. https://www.jrf.org.uk/public-attitudes/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-of-opportunities
  49. https://researchportalplus.anu.edu.au/en/publications/conservative-euroscepticism-and-the-referendum-party-in-the-1997-/
  50. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/14/the-guardian-view-on-the-leave-campaign-anatomy-of-another-elite
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.