Adrian Hamilton: Cameron, Europe and pure waffle
Tone, as Tony Blair found, only works for so long once you’re in government
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Is Europe David Cameron's Clause IV moment – the point at which he faces down his own party and, using the prospect of power, simply overrides their most deep-seated prejudices? It would be wonderful to think so. It might even make a man out of the putative Prime Minister, who still appears a being in progress, trying to find not just power but what he really believes in.
But of course it won't happen – isn't happening indeed. Cameron is not a confrontationalist by nature nor a politician for the grand gesture. He seeks modernisation by tone not by policy. Europe isn't quite a Clause IV issue for the Tory Party, although it shares with that issue the role of a litmus test of the party's most basic beliefs. Nor is it viewed by the public in the way that the Labour Party's commitment to nationalisation came to appear as a symbol of the party's inability to break from a redundant past.
Neil Kinnock forged the way to a modernised party by tilting at the nationalisation windmill and Tony Blair followed him by forcing the pace on a whole host of other commitments, from tax to education. There was nothing that the leader of New Labour enjoyed more than having a battle with his own party to show how much more in tune with the electorate and the right wing press he was. The Tories he feared, almost obsessively. His own backbenchers he came to take entirely for granted.
David Cameron is the opposite. He isn't frightened of the ruling party. He enjoys lashing them. But he is still nervous – and with good reason – of a backbench that has consistently torn his party apart on the issue of Europe and turned on its leaders whenever they appeared to be going native on the Continent.
How else do you explain Cameron's extraordinary decision to pull out of the European People's Party grouping in the European parliament and to try and construct instead a coven of non-federalist right-wingers – a pursuit that has brought him into disrepute across Europe, lost him putative friends amongst the centre right leaders of France, Germany and the smaller countries on the fringe, and looked just plain barmy to the ordinary members of the British public who took any notice at all?
How else, too, to explain the "cast iron" guarantee to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, a hostage to fortune which was bound to be taken at face value for all the Jesuitical efforts to explain it away now that the treaty has been signed by all 27 EU members? Cameron made the gesture to look tough on Europe. He can hardly complain now if people took him at his word.
It's not that he has particularly strong views on the subject. Those who know him say he is instinctively a eurosceptic. But in so far as it is ever possible to discern anything that the Tory leader is prepared to go to the wall for, it is not Europe. If anything he seems just disinterested in the issue, treating Europe as a distraction which he wishes would go away.
It won't, of course. His immediate problem is how to deal with the run-up to the general election. On that score, his statement yesterday, while hardly imposing, is a carefully-choreographed display of skating on thin ice. It won't convince anyone. But a Tory party this close to power is not going to derail the engine. And it may, at a stretch, enable him to bat back the accusations of pusillanimity from the government by replying that Labour too has reneged on its promises to hold a referendum and that the Conservatives are at least committed to row back on the powers it has given away to Brussels and will pass a bill making sure that never again can a treaty be passed without a referendum.
The government may scoff at such suggestions, pointing out – quite correctly – that on Europe the Tory king has no clothes. But given the British public's suspicion of Brussels, it is not an assault that can be pressed too far without risking the counter-claim that Labour is not only weak as far as the EU is concerned but that it actually wants to give up national competence in key areas.
That may get Cameron through to the election but it won't wash once he comes to power. Then (if it happens) Cameron will have to explain to his fellow European leaders as well as the public just what he means by all this talk of "legal locks," a "sovereignty Bill", a "British mandate" and "British Guarantees".
It's not that a policy of reclaiming jurisdiction and competence is impossible. As Cameron himself pointed out yesterday, this is essentially what the Germans have done through the ruling on Lisbon of their constitutional court. A British government could do it by amending the European communities court. In a Europe of 27 at a time of economic recession, every country is pursuing its national interests at the moment. The argument, too often put about by Euro-enthusiasts, that Europe is a federalist train gathering speed which we must board or be left behind bears little relationship to the realities on the ground. The EU, after the Lisbon Treaty, will start to move, but in precisely what direction remains an unresolved question for all its members, not just Britain.
But then for a politician such as David Cameron for whom tone is all, the tone yesterday was being used to confuse intention not define it. Most of Britain's partners will be reassured by what he didn't do – threaten to overthrow Lisbon or even leave the EU. The eurosceptics in his party will not be reassured for precisely the same reason. The public at large won't know what to make of it – and are not meant to – other than a tough-sounding approach.
Yesterday was just waffle. After an election, if victorious, Cameron will have to react to events. If he keeps up a stance of straight hostility to the EU, however gestural, he will find himself and the country sidelined. If he does not, he will store up trouble with his backbenchers. Tone, as Tony Blair found, only works so long in government. Sooner or later David Cameron is going to have to have his Clause IV moment on Europe and then we may see the measure of the man.
a.hamilton@independent.co.uk
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
There is little hope of a successful conclusion of the Afghan war without additional
fighting troops from our EEC allies. Why is Mr Cameron placing the Neanderthal policies of
the Tory party ahead of our national interests ? He should respond to the demands
of the Tory foes of the Lisbon Treaty , by quoting Voltaire on his death bed who said when
asked to denounce the works of the devil " This is no time to make enemies".
By the way, the EEC has not existed for some time. Try calling it the EU.
Interestingly, our best support has come from two of the smaller EU countries and NATO members, the Danes and the Dutch, both have fought alongside our troops. Because the Italians had been paying off the Taliban and neglected to tell the French who took over the sector, a French column was ambushed and 10 soldiers killed, their bodies mutilated and the pictures shown on French TV so, no chance there then.
In fact, those French troops went out on that patrol, so sure it was a quiet area that each man had only 100 rounds and they had no heavy machine guns, they fought well but survivors were rescued by American forces operating in the next sector.
I always love the "principle trading partner" argument, yes maybe except if 3 million jobs in the UK rely on EU membership, likely +6 million jobs on the mainland rely on UK consumers and industry. The car scrapping scheme has benefited German, French, Italian and Spanish manufacturers far more than it has the British car plants and therefore, British jobs.
Watch the up-coming scrap in Germany over Opel and realise that the German Government and Unions will see both Vauxhall plants in the UK closed before they will accept a single redundancy in Germany. As Germany has 4 plants and 20,000 workers, guess where the 10,000 redundancies are going to start to happen ?
I have never understood the "don't upset the EU" argument as if them trading with us was a big favour on their part, it really isn't, its all down to hard headed commercial interests. I cannot imagine the Germans saying, "That's it, we are upset so no more VWs, Audis, Mercs or BMWs for you ungrateful British !"
Right now because of currency movements and tax increases in the UK, French wine growers are having a tough time and even selling product at very cheap prices, just to keep a foothold in the UK market because it is the most important EU market for them and they face big competition from "new World" producers. There is no sentiment in these matters, it is purely commercial with no favours contemplated.
I beg your pardon???
France has 3,000 troops in Afghanistan as we speak. Most of them are on the front line too.
If you must know, French fighter pilots flying the Mirage (and Rafale) are with US enduring freedom fighting pilots.
To say that France does not provide combat troops is downright nonsense.
"There is little hope of a successful conclusion of the Afghan war without additional
fighting troops from our EEC allies."
But in a broader context, of course I acknowledge that there are already troops deployed there from quite a number of nations including outside of the EU countries.
Besides which, I cast no doubts upon the courage of these troops and if you read what I wrote, my specific point was that "...there is not a snowballs chance in Hell that France, Germany, Italy and Spain will provide any combat troops at any time for Afghanistan, there is no political will or the public support to do so, you will recall what happened after the Madrid Bombings ?"
In other words, deploying troops for any country relies upon broad public support to do so whether it is in the USA or the UK, it is often said that the Vietnam War was lost on the Campuses of the USA. There is no appetite in Germany or France to see their troops in harms way and a constant stream of body bags coming home unless you want to argue there is (?).
So just to explain it to you in simple terms, you can call any formation "Combat Troops" but in reality and unless directly engaged in operations, they are just troops.
That's why we've started the European Participation Party, with the exclusive aim of using the European Elections to push for an increase in citizen initiative and participation on a more regular basis, rather than this YES to the whole thing or NO to the whole thing. Europeans are the most educated and intellectual people on the planet. Sure they are victims of marketing like anyone else but the Obama style fireworks to the music of Rocky films strategy is not likelly to work as effectivelly in Europe. It's time the people of Europe show that they can be trusted to make sensible and nuanced decisions and to show that they are demanding a bigger role in Europe.
That's why we created the European Participation Party. If you step up to the plate and give us a voice, that's exactly what we intend to do with it. Visit us at:
.
http://www.eurpeanpp.wordpress.com
.
It's a true grassroots movement, it's not a radical fringe thing.
Also, for any and all "noises off", even this writer must twig what really happened over the Lisbon Treaty, surely ?
After 8 years of messing around and based upon all 27 countries having to ratify it, apart from Ireland which had to have a Referendum for Constitutional reasons and could be bullied easily, the thrust was to ensure that no Referendums were held following what the French and Dutch had done to the ill fated "European Constitution".
As all three British Political Parties had promised a Referendum on the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty was just the scrambled eggs version of it, what was Brown and Blair heavily involved in the background, offered in return for no Referendum ?
If it was a Blair Presidency, that isn't going to happen and as the Labour Party's star has waned, they no longer have to be "accommodated" so what was the deal ? Likely David Cameron will be pushing at an open door over concessions and opt outs because that was the deal. None will happen overnight, there will be the usual Pantomime performances that are essential for any EU Summit, if only to make it look important but, over the 5 year period, David Cameron will achieve all his objectives because they need the UK more than the UK needs the EU.
Actually the best first move would be to remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights which although not an EU Body would start the process of once again making UK Courts supreme in the UK. This then combined with EU opt outs will make a modified Human Rights Act function better and more sensibly, not being able to deport illegal immigrants is a total nonsense that doesn't help genuine refugees or this Country.
Europe was never going to be Cameron's "Clause Four moment" because Cameron and the vast bulk of his party are of one mind on this issue. He is not in the position of having to "face down" a Euro-sceptic faction within his party, as he himself is a Euro-sceptic.
So yesterday was just waffle Adrian? You might want to tell the French Minister for Europe that. As for your belief expressed in your final paragraph that Cameron is going to eventually have to act in government in way not to his parties liking; well if that hope keeps Euro-enthusiasts warm at night then so be it. However I am pretty sure that Cameron would sooner have a confrontation with the EU, however large, than preside over a re-run of the Tory administration of the mid 1990s.
I totally concur with your comments KW. One expects it in the Guardian but really, how "Independent" is some of this stuff. If oil was discovered in Watford and Cameron (as PM) said, "everyone with assets of less than £1million
gets £50,000 tax free" it would be a Tory trick to fleece the poor. I enjoy politics, but when you look at the bunch they have been supporting, God help us.
Once upon a time a dad called Gordon said to his little son, "we are going to the rugby" but Gordon went to the
economics conference instead. He lied.
Once upon a time a dad named Dave said to his little son, "we are going to the cinema" but Mum said no its closed down, "its the economic climate". Dave did not lie, the rug was pulled from under him.
Cameron did not misrepresent his position - he has been clear and concise throughout that a referendum on the treaty could only be held if all 27 member states had not ratified it. Where have you been and why are you trying to mislead any readers you have? Yesterday's speech was realistic, considered and depite the obvious concerns of many who may say they will vote UKIP, will over time be seen to be the only way forward. At the very least it is much more in tune with the public mood than the treacherous Labour Party and the Lib Dems (who at least have been consistent).
A silly article attempting to misrepresent a truth.