Andrew Grice: Cameron is raising great expectations that may lead to a very bleak House
Inside Politics: Mr Cameron said he would not let matters rest if the Lisbon Treaty became law, he is doing just that
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
On the eve of Guy Fawkes Day, David Cameron produced a typically impressive firework display as he explained his new policy on Europe at a press conference.
When he performed the same show for Tory MPs earlier, even hardened Eurosceptics were dazzled by his promises to repatriate powers from Brussels if he becomes prime minister, ensure that British courts are not overriden by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and call a referendum before any future treaty transfers powers to the EU. It seemed fair compensation for his inevitable retreat from a referendum on the now-ratified Lisbon Treaty.
Four days on, many sceptics fear the new policy is a damp squib. Although some European politicians reacted with horror to the demands a Cameron government would make, they also made clear it would have little chance of success. Britain's EU partners should be celebrating, not moaning. The Tory leader's most important statements were that his government would have far more important things than Europe to worry about – the economy, stupid – and that he did not want a "massive Euro-bust-up".
His proposed "guarantees" of British sovereignty may prove worthless. European law takes precedence over British law under the 1972 Act which took us into the EU. Sceptics believe that, unless Britain is prepared to threaten to pull out, it would have no chance of winning the Tories' proposed opt-outs on employment law and criminal justice or persuading the other 26 EU members that British courts could ignore ECJ judgements.
Tory Europhobes thought they were close to getting the government of their dreams. They were sure that Mr Cameron was "one of us". By instinct, he is. But he also wants to be a successful prime minister and does not want his administration dominated by a pitched battle with Europe, which would leave most voters bemused.
Sceptics were delighted he pulled Tory MEPs out of the mainstream centre-right European People's Party in the European Parliament, which includes the parties of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. But this diversion allowed them to take their eyes off the main ball – Tory policy. Mr Cameron pledged repeatedly he would "not let matters rest" if the Lisbon Treaty became law, but now seems to be doing just that. One depressed Europhobe MP told me: "We have won every battle in the last 10 years. Yet we have somehow managed to lose the war."
How did it happen? Ten years ago, an effective Eurosceptic campaign group was set up, well-funded by businessmen. The No campaign enjoyed several different lives – it successfully opposed Britain joining the single currency (with a bit of help from Gordon Brown) and then helped see off the grandiose European constitution (forerunner of the Lisbon Treaty). The campaign guarded its independence from the Tory machine but provided the party's MPs with valuable ammunition, acting as a rallying point and outrider for the sceptics' cause.
When it turned into Open Europe in 2005, it became more of a thinktank. Rodney Leach, who chaired the No campaign, was made a Tory peer. Critics say the group became a way for the Tory leadership to usefully herd the "sceps" into one pen and keep them under the party's control. Some Europhobic MPs regret the "deliberate dismantling" of the original campaign, admitting they are a bit lost without it.
Mr Cameron holds the whip hand – for now. Most Tory MPs, however bruised, don't want to rock the party's boat and be accused of jeopardising its first election victory for 18 years. But there is tension not far beneath the surface, and not only among the usual backbench suspects. Some Shadow Cabinet members are seething they were not told about the new policy until Tuesday, two days after it started leaking out.
Some feel let down by William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, who has a reputation as a Europhobe but has loyally backed Mr Cameron's decision to relegate Europe down the Tory pecking order. Some colleagues suspect Dominic Grieve, the shadow Justice Secretary, has led Mr Cameron up the garden path by advising that his proposed Sovereignty Act would ensure the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. Similarly, they fear the Tories' proposed British Bill of Rights will not stop terrorists being freed under the European Convention of Human Rights.
There is a pattern here. Some shadow ministers are worried that Mr Cameron is raising dangerously high expectations he will be unable to fulfil. He decided to toss the sceptics a few bones rather than starve them to death now. But he may be looking for a "third way" on Europe that does not exist.
If Mr Cameron becomes a popular prime minister, his MPs probably won't kick up too much on Europe. But if the EU pledges he announced this week did not amount to a row of French beans, and if a Tory Government became unpopular as it cut public spending, he would need all the backbench support he could muster. It is then that he may find he has few friends among the Eurosceptics who dominate his backbenches, who will no longer regard him as "one of us". And that will spell big trouble.
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
Also in this section
- Andrew Grice: Enough of the high-flown philosophy, Mr Cameron. Where are the policies?
- Andrew Grice: Blair beaten, but a coup for Brown nonetheless
- Andrew Grice: A belated attempt to force the hand of the Tory 'gamblers'
- Andrew Grice: Whisper it, but Whitehall is already preparing for a change at No 10
Comments
Without a written constitution, an independent judiciary and an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms - a sovereignty bill will be less than useless.
As to getting back social and employment opt outs? Forget it. Not one of 26 other EU leaders is going to open up a decade's work. Time to move on.
The obsessive compulsive anti-europeans have lost. In five years time no one will care what it was all about. Who cares about Maastricht these days? Who remembers the single market?
Gordon Brown did more for the Euro-sceptics than any Tory in 30 years when he put a stop on joining the Euro and balked at the Schengen Agreement.
It's game over on Europe's internal operating structures. Time to move on. Time for Little Englander poujadistes to lighten up. 3 million jobs depend on Britain's £367 billion trade with the EU. It's the economy stupid.
Meanwhile, we can move around Europe and work and holiday there with much greater ease than when I was young. We enjoy European food and culture. The only inconvenience is we have to change pounds in euros whenever we cross the Channel but once there a change of national boundary doesn't mean a trip to the bureau de change in most cases.
I for one believe a lot of ordinary people have benefitted from EU social and employment law and to repatriate those powers would be a retrograde step, as the Tories always favour the bosses. European law has often upheld civil liberties when British law has tried to override freedoms we once took for granted. Quite simply, a lot of Tories don't like Europe because it doesn't pander to their rather reactionary views on employment and the law.
I'm glad the Lisbon Treaty is now a done deal and we can move on. If the Tories try and turn back the clock they will end up like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Personally, I loath the thought of a Tory government as much as I despise New Labour. My vote will be for a party that is realistic about our membership of the EU and is willing to engage constructively in promoting British interests in Europe.
Time to move on, not only from Lisbon, but also from Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
There are certain things about which very many people are very unhappy, seriously unhappy. But it's galling to hear the usual expressions about "moving on", "putting things behind us", "drawing a line under it", etc.
Those expressions are mainly used by politicians who have been rumbled (like the expenses scandal) or failed sports managers and sportspeople.
I see it as a decidely defeatist attitude. The Aussies have the expression, "but what can you do about it?" It's another way of just accepting a defeat, rather than a setback.
Well, for the defeatists out there, there is always something you can do about it - like getting off your butt, speaking out, putting pressure on MPs (particularly those in marginal seats), blogging, etc.
For all the benefits claimed, there are also claimed costs.
If a Tory government could not possibly achieve some changes, then the logic implies that Britain does indeed no longer have any say on important matters - it would barely be sovereign anymore - just another Euro-appendage. Does a majority of Britons really accept that? Would they vote for that?
We all know the answer is "no", but Blair and Brown denied a referendum - they know the answer... but they're Bilderbergers, through and through.
Throw in the fact that the EU is a declining scelerotic protectionist entity which prevents us from trading freely with the fast growing economic powers eg. India , China if we get out our exports ( and cheaper imports than the EU can offer ) will grow by leaps and bounds.
In the meantime the economic benefits of getting out will be of help to our struggling economy
So sorry to disappoint, but two polls published yesterday show no damage to the Tory lead whatever. Indeed in YOU GOV the Tories were up one point. Before you clutch at any more straw, the referendum story had broken and been reported on in both cases. So its NO EXPECTATIONS MR MICAWBER - BROWN.
With regard to your last paragraph, some interesting data which points to the EU needing us a lot more than we need them. First an interesting quote:
"(III) Trade deficit with EU means 700,000 fewer UK jobs
The UK Government claims that "[over] three million British jobs are linked to EU exports"2 (i.e. exports to the EU). If British exports of goods & services to the EU do indeed sustain 3 million UK jobs, by the same reasoning EU exports to the UK displace 3.7 million UK jobs (Table 4).
The net impact on the UK economy is therefore unequivocally NEGATIVE, the UK trade deficit with the EU resulting in 700,000 fewer UK jobs than would have been the case had British trade with the EU been in balance."
http://www.global-vision.net/facts/fact
But then again I'm sure, the people at Global Vision must surely be "Little Englander poujadistes" because their views are not aligned with yours.
The Lisbon Treaty is a self amending Treaty so the elctirate wil never ever need to be consulted again andas for his promises about repatriating powers this requires the agreeementof the other 26 countries which effectively iss impossible.
The economy may be the biggest problem for the electorate but as they become more aware of the hugh and ever increasing cost of the EU e. g the £50 billion to be spent over the next 4 years to develope the EU's diplomatic service they will appreciate the great economic benefits of getting out.
I am getting tired of attacking this leftie lie but here goes. David Cameron had the rug pulled from under his feet regarding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as well you know. It was not a direct lie like Blair/Brown. They could have honoured their referendum pledge but chose to break it. Cameron wanted a referendum but events over took him. You can argue that he might have seen it coming and therefore not committed so strongly, perhaps but he did not lie like the gruesome twosome.
You like the idea of a United States of Europe, that is you right. A large number of the British people do not, that is their right. Get used to it, because a bunch of Guardian/Independent reading leftie school teachers are not going to change the peoples minds.
Did you actually read my posting see my final words " they will appreciate the great economic benefits of getting out."
Cameron knew full well when he gave his cast iron commitment to a referendum that he would not be able to keep his word which is exactly what UKIP said at the time.
He now says ( to precis his comments )that by the way it was not a cast iron promise because I did mention in the small print that there might be circumstances when it would be pointless having a referendum.
He is now doing exactly the same thing he is making pledges which are meaningless , it is a simple con trick to keep the eurosceptics in his Party on the leash until after the election.
P.S interesting choice of name why a Communist ?
A similar sentiment was expressed Lord Justice Laws in the Thoburn v Sunderland City Council 2002 case, when he said, "...there is nothing in the European Communities Act which allows the European Court, or any other institution of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom...That being so, the legislative and judicial institutions of the EU cannot intrude upon those conditions."
At the very least this would suggest that were a future Conservative government to pass a British Sovereignty Act we would be entering uncharted legal territory. Never before has parliament passed legislation deliberately at variance with European law. It is therefore quite wrong for this article to blithely assert that such an at would not be worth the paper it is written on, as there is evidence to suggest that this is not the case.
As for whether we can choose to ignore the obligations of this treaty, whilst remaining a party to ti, it didn't seem to be the case in the major case involving a conflict between EU law and British Statute. In the Factortame case our parliament was ordered by Europe to strike out it's legislation (The Spanish Fishermen's Case) and I'm sure you are fully aware of this when you give your one sided opinion on the matter.
The reality is that the UK does not need to be part of the EU in order to prosper economically, our trade deficit with the EU is the proof of that plus the Budget Contributions soon to reach 7.8 billion courtesy of Mr Blair show that.
EU countries do not trade with us, EU based companies do and couldn't care a fig whether we are in or out, you are hardly likely to see a dearth of VWs, Audis, BMWs, Mercedes, Fiats, Citroens, French or Spanish wines if the UK was outside of the EU are you ? Trade is not sentimental and if EU companies buy British goods and services it is only because they are good value for money not because they feel they "have to".
There are in fact three economic choices: Accept being in the EU as is, go for a "Trade Only Association" or just leave. The first is not really acceptable, it interferes far too much unnecessarily in British Law. The Trade only option is worse, you still pay Dane Geld to the EU and have no say in decisions. The only real choice for the UK is to leave altogether because then the EU has to negotiate openly and without back door deals. Heavens, we might be able to save the fish stocks around these islands.
"...if a Tory Government became unpopular as it cut public spending, he would need all the backbench support he could muster. It is then that he may find he has few friends among the Eurosceptics who dominate his backbenches, who will no longer regard him as "one of us". And that will spell big trouble." By your own words are you confounded Grice because having sketched out the situation, you have failed to make the connection.
Cameron has said, quite calmly to the EU, actually France and Germany, "These are the things I want achieved over the next 5 years and we won't have a row about any of it because I am too busy sorting out the UK economy on which so much of YOUR Trade relies. Deliver these things and I can keep the UK in the EU and the anti-EU Lobby under control against a background where I will not be leading the most popular Government because of our Austerity Programme.
Fail to deliver and the campaign for a straight IN or OUT Referendum will come unstoppable and I will be forced to promote the OUT Campaign."
David Cameron isn't stupid. Once the Lisbon Treaty was fully ratified, the rug was pulled from under him on that but Plan B is quite clever, not perfect but a very efficient use of conflicting forces, the rest will be down to 'events', my money is on him. We have seen this man "learn on the job" since becoming Tory Leader, he may yet become one of the most significant post WWII PMs, he's on track to be so.
Wrong, David Cameron, present leader of the Conservative Party, has this week proved that if he belongs to any group at all, it is the Platonic, self-perpetuating, non-democrat, elitist group that will control the post-Lisbon EU.
Brown and Blair and their Labour Party cronies may not like it, but it is they who have contrived Cameron's victory.
The people of Britain can hope to forestall such an disaster, only by voting for the non-big-three -parties in the next General Election. First, however, those smaller parties must, before final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, register their non-acceptance of the legality of the Lisbon Treaty.
Withdrawal under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty is an economic non-starter unless we can convince a voting majority of other countries to withdraw at the same time. A long haul!
There are many grounds within both our constitution and the International Law of Treaties to make a legal case for the invalidity of the Lisbon Treaty.
If the Tories had a patriotic leadership it would be that avenue that they would now explore.