Nov 05 2009
French pique
Many people writing to this site do not think Mr Hague has gone far enough in his proposals to wrestle some power back from the EU. Meanwhile a French Minister has resorted to unpleasant language to attack the Conservative position. Expect more of this in the days ahead, as Labour’s friends on the continent are primed to condemn the UK Opposition, and as Eurofederalists on the continent join in a chorus of disapproval of the Conservatives and their anti federal allies.
These people need to be more careful. The UK gets a rotten deal from its membership. Most are now agreed the UK needs to cut public spending. The EU itself has budget guidelines for member states which the UK has blown apart. Top of many people’s list of preferred cuts would be the wasteful and unauthorised expenditure which the EU auditors condemn year after year without the EU taking action to correct. Next on the list would be the marginal programmes part funded by EU cash, which the UK only undertakes because it offers a route of getting some of our contribution money back. French Ministers should remember just how useful it is to have the UK paying a large part of all the bills, and offering such a big market for all those French and German goods.
The Lib Dem and Labour federalist parties in the UK are always urging Conservatives to do more things together with allies in Europe. Then when the Conservatives choose allies who also believe the EU does too much and takes too much power away from national democracies, they cannot stand it and turn to crude political abuse of all involved. They will have to grow up and understand that many people throughout Europe think the EU has too much power, legislates too much,spends too much money and should do less. This is a respectable political view to hold. Attempts to stifle this sound democratic view will just increase the disillusion and dislike of the whole federal project.
47 Responses to “French pique”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
As an electorate, our problem is what to do about these issues.
Many of us don’t trust Mr Camerons assertion that he can improve the situation by years of negotiations with other members of the EU. He has the perfect excuse – “Sorry, nothing I can do, they won’t let me”. As a direct result, there are many blog posts to the effect that if you can’t trust the Tory leadership over Europe, you can only take your vote to UKIP.
It’s not that we don’t believe that Mr Cameron is earnest in his proposal, but that we don’t believe he will succeed. Also, the more negotiation that takes place, more other aspects of the relationship with the EU will be compromised to try and buy co-operation.
So, as Mr Brown has raised the stakes by denying us the promised referendum on Lisbon, Mr Cameron can trump this betrayal by offering his own on the acceptable level of co-operation with the EU. It doesn’t have to be “gesture politics” – there can be a real effect.
If the EU refuses to agree with the result, withdraw all payments to Europe until a satisfactory conclusion has been reached. We are a net contributor, and they want our money more than we need their rules.
John,
I fully understand David Cameron’s position on the Lisbon treaty referendum, indeed I have been trying to explain to people for 6 months why there would not be any point in such a referendum after treaty ratification. Lisbon is now in effect (and will shortly be in practice) European law, hence the only meaningful referendum would be on whether the British people wish to continue to live under EU law. In other words, the referendum would be on whether we wish, as a nation, to stay in the EU or to leave it. Mr. Cameron has apparently stated, however, that he will not support such a referendum. May I ask why? It seems to me a sign that he does not trust the electorate to give the “right” answer to such a question.
This is important, because I believe that many hard core Conservative supporters (such as myself) are considering voting for UKIP in the coming general election. A split Conservative vote along such lines could well leave the Brown One in power – God forbid such an outcome! So why doesn’t David Cameron pre-empt UKIP by promising a referendum on our continued membership of the EU? After all, such a referendum seems to be what the majority of people want, so why deny them the chance to have their say?
Reply: Mr Cameron believes he needs to negotiate powers back ion the next Parliament, using the possibility of a future referendum as part of that negotiation.
A rotten deal indeed. The offensive language used by the French minister says a great deal about the presumption of power and authority at the heart of the Eurocracy. It’s time to call time on the protectionist racket that is the EU. A vigourous external audit would be a refreshing start.
Good God man, are you mad? The comments from Monseur (word left out) are proof that even in the face of decades of national decline and having been subsumed entirely into le grande experimente d’ EU the French have not – as is often claimed – lost their culture. They are still perfectly capable of being gross, obnoxious and ignorant as only the French can be.
Meanwhile from the ’sidelines’ of Europe, we British have completely lost our traditional reputations for fair play and MPs not stealing money from pensioners’ purses.
This is proof if we ever needed it that these EU chapies aren’t all bad eggs.
So, Cameron has attempted his U-turn in a one way street. Has he no advisers? Has he no dignity?
The comment made by the French minister is but a first salvo. Cameron will be marginalised and can do nothing about it. To remind the EU of what benefits the UK brings to its table is pointless: it is a bit like me telling Cameron that as a result of his actions I will give my vote to UKIP; a less than worthless gesture.
David Cameron’s party will be the laughing stock of Europe and he will put the UK at a disadvantage to all others if he achieves power.
Far better had he decided to have a referendum on Europe. A yes would allow him to climb down gracefully and a no would have given him a serious negotiating platform.
Few will see the difference now between David Cameron’s party and Gordon Browns party because it can be seen that you might not be able to slip a fag paper between the two.
I can wait a bit for the David Cameron party to morph back into the Conservative party before I consider it again worth supporting
We have gone from ‘cast iron’ guarantees to Hague’s anodyne proposals. I do not believe for a second that Cameron can, or will, deliver. Nobody has ever wrested anything back from the EU. These proposals are just to shut us up so Cameron can ‘move on’. It’s too late … the Conservative weasel words and broken promises are just the same as those of the other parties. Cameron will have to realise that he has chucked away the election because so many of us will vote UKIP in despair and anger. Only then will he come up with something that is credible and worthy of our attention.
I have noticed that whenever EU articles are published with comments, there are always ’sneering’ foreigners making remarks in a similar vein to the French FM. They call ‘us’ names and put us down, in a Continental fashion that reminds me of the captured German Captain on Dad’s Army who threatens Pike and the others – in otherwords they are actually a pastiche of themselves.
What I want to see is a Government who is prepared to say, 1) the British and particular the English have a rotten deal from the EU and we will take it no longer, demanding fairness. 2) the EU have forced the Lisbon Treaty through in a way many of the world’s tyrants would be proud of. That they have done it this way dooms the EU to failure, because people will never trust ‘them’.
If the project was worthwhile an honest case should have been made. We left Europe in the 1530’s, and until today didn’t look back. We have been dragged into the mire, mugged and raped by the actions of both Conservatives and Labour Governments – and no one is giving us recourse to justice.
If the Conservatives win the next election, and want to start mending the economy they have to see that they need an energetic population with heart and enterprise to help them. We can do it. But only if we feel we are working for ourselves, our families and our countrymen – and can hold our heads us high, masters of our own fate, children of our courageous forefathers. We will not find the will to work for ‘the Elite’ in the EU, when they are living off our backs, and sneering at us – that is slavery.
I have a business and I have been preparing ideas for a time when a Conservative government gives my enterprise the green light and support. I will not work to put money into the EU gravy train, whilst I am bowed down by their regulations and social engineering – I haven’t got the heart to.
If Mr Cameron wants to mend our economy, he is going to have to understand that starts with having pride in ourselves and our country again!! Elizabeth 1 knew this was the only way, and so did the Victorians after Albert’s death. Will the Tories not take the same lesson from history?
Oh, and Cameron can do something ‘quite unpleasant’ with global warming and global poverty and any other of the foolish EU projects. MMGW is a scam, and we cannot help anyone if we are poor and enslaved ourselves!!!!
Let Europe go ahead and anger the British Public. It will only serve to alienate them more from the EU (especially coming from the French).
There will come a point that we will vote for any party who just promises to get us out.
“Lellouche said: “It’s pathetic. It’s just very sad to see Britain, so important in Europe”
Fact is, the EU needs us more than we need them and our withdrawal will save us 57 billion quid and we can get back to a democracy once again.
I do not want to be part of a regime that is not democratic. The EU is a money wasting, totalitarian, gravy train. A Common Market was what we were promised, not Oceania!
I’m afraid Westminster is completely underestimating the levels of dissatisfaction with politicians we, the electorate, have. Now the only rationsl course for any ‘true’ conservative is to vote for UKIP. If we do so in enough numbers we may hold the balance in a hung Parliament.
That is exactly what I intend to do. And from discussions I’ve had with many others today seems to be a movement rapidly gathering momentum. One or two defections from the Tories and/or Labour to UKIP and they’ll easily push the LibDems into fourth or fifth.
Cameron has proved he’s not up to the job and obviously doesn’t even understand the ’self modifying’ nature of the Lisbon Treaty. It’s not possible for him to ‘claw back’ anything once Lisbon is law so why is he dissembling on this issue?
So if Brown can’t do the job, Cameron won’t do the job and the Liberals, well, don’t make me laugh. That leaves UKIP whose website today is receiving unprecedented traffic.
Reply:Vote UKIP, get a federalist.
Yes, can now just imagine the high fives taking place in Government establishments all over Europe.
The bubbly being consumed, the laughter, the banter.
So what of the future.
Given that this so called victory over democracy has now taken place, do we really believe that they (The EU) will agree to negotiate from a position now of absolute strength, to give away some of this hard won power and control.
Do you really believe that the UK, under any leadership, can now renegotiate terms, when it has absolutely no veto rights over anything.
Do you really believe that even the request for renegotiation of parts of a treaty (which we have signed) will be taken seriously by 26 other Countries.
The answer to all of this is:
You had the chance and opportunity to go to the Country to discuss the implications fully, but you chose not to, that is not our problem, we gave you the opportunity.
Your Government (Gordon Brown) chose not to take it.
We are in the same situation as any Member of any Club finds themselves. You pay your subscription, you abide by the rules.
From time to time the rules can be ammended or changed, and this is put to a vote, the majority required for change is usually set at about the 75% mark, and if enough Members vote for a change, then the new rules apply.
The problem with the EU club is that not all Members pay the same subscription, some members pay next to nothing, others it would seem if press reports are to be believed, are actually paid to be Members.
Many Members it would seem have joined for the benefits, without a subscription.
Until this is resolved, any member who disagrees has a choice, they either put up with it, continue to pay their dues, or they resign.
There is absolutely no point in attempting to negotiate, unless you are prepared to take the ultimate step, because if your bluff is called, you will never be taken seriously again.
The point of having representatives is they should represent the peoples views. Its clear to see that many people wanted a commitment from Mr Cameron to hold a referendum on the issue of Lisbon, which is EU power over the UK. Now he and Mr Hague have shown how easily they will betray those people. If they stick with the new policy announced yesterday then who needs them anymore? Better to vote for representatives that offer what you want – UKIP. It might mean no Tory government but at least you stand up and be counted for what you believe to be right.
That way the next general election *is* the referendum. No more promises on the tab for later, they can only be trusted to renege.
The French reaction to Mr Hague’s comments show exactly what the true position is. We pay a huge amount of money into the EU and get little in return, they know it and they know we all know it. They also know that it will not continue indefinately.
The EU cannot afford for us to leave, so they must cajole and drag us along now that the prospect of a more Euroceptic government is on the horizon. The French farmers need their subsidy, and they can’t have it unless we, (and the other nett contributors) pay for it.
I hope that when Mr Hague goes to visit his EU counterparts he makes it clear that no further money will be paid into the EU until the accounts are transparrent and can be signed off officially. He will be on strong legal ground if he does so I believe, as the continuing stuation of the accounts runs contrary to EU law in itself.
Apply pressure where it hurts most: the French Farmer makes an appealing target!
You start with “Many people writing to this site do not think Mr Hague has gone far enough in his proposals to wrestle some power back from the EU.”
Your subsequent excellent comments set out the potential for our making things difficult in the EU because of the “rotten deal” from UK’s membership. You do not say that these measures should be, as against could be, implemented, nor that Mr Hague should state these now as part of Conservative policy.
I regret the way Cameron’s team has handled this issue over the last few years, and regret even more my loss of trust in their future intentions.
Some Brits seem to believe they can just leave the EU, without regard for all the agreements already in place. This is what the UKIP offers, safe in the knowledge they will never be elected and thus their bluff will never be called.
And how would UK PLC exist without the supply and demand of their nearest neighbours? Are they planning to saw it off the continental shelf and tow it westwards?
Let’s be realistic about this. The UK can no longer exist on its own. Sorry folks, but the days of empire have passed and will not return. The most reasonable partners are the siblings next door, in the same time-zone, not the cousins across the pond.
There is plenty of precedent for being partway in the EU. Norway, Turkey and even Switzerland profit greatly from being halfway in, or just having a toehold. They choose the bits they want, free trade or not, free movement of people or not or rationed, Euro or local currency. Obviously it is more difficult to think out each point separately, to argue it and come out with the optimal solution. The kneejerk answer is much easier, In or Out. But Out is not an option anymore, and 100% In is no longer reasonable.
If you look carefully you will see a lot of fine tuning going on in e.g. France and Germany. New EU legislation is not just ratified blindly as in the UK. Illegal or criminal immigrants are on the next plane home (that’s why they try to get to England). Unemployed EU non-nationals do not get social security, they go home. The French can block UK imports anytime they feel like it, and they do, don’t they? It’s not perfect but they work at it.
Have a referendum by all means, but a proper one. I think the population is capable of voting on many points, not just binary In or Out, but:
Euro or Sterling
Free movement or quotas
CAP or free market
and all those other things. You could have a new one every year. You would have to inform people properly what is going on so they can vote in an informed manner.
Of course this is more work than the UKIP solution, but this one is workable.
In Europe we have a couple of thousand years of history behind us. Why, then, do we arrogantly assume that Europe is just England?
For a couple of thousand years, we have been fighting Europe and the Celtic Fringe. There is a history which, of course, has been airbrushed from the history books at schools.
What the British are for is fair play and the Law. We always have been. Oh – and the Protestant Ascendancy. Britons never shall be slaves.
The continent, on the other hand, stands for efficiency, a powerful, centralised state run by experts and a well loved King/president at the top of the pile.
We just don’t fit.
At the moment, things are going smoothly.
I am waiting for the break up of this top heavy alliance. In Nigeria it was caused by religion. In USA it was slavery. In Malaysia it was race. I do not know what it will be here in Europe……
I worked in Credit Derivatives in one of the Global Banks that didn’t take huge risks in the UK (either directly in dodgy mortgage bonds or indirectly using tax payers cash). I think risk management.
So what about the EU – I think there is a strong comparison with the Banks.
During the noughties there was a popular political opinion across that EU and the UK that we were doing well and high banking profits were justified. From my perspective the BIG PROFITS in the financial markets over a long term are FRAGILE and HIGHLY NEGATIVELY GEARED. That is to say profit in the financial markets generally is strongly correlated with risk. So over 5 years most profit simply goes out of the market. So when it stays in the market it’s because the bank is taking a risk. Whilst everything looks hunky-dory on the outside and in the head line figures, catastrophy is waiting round the corner when the economy follows its natural course and turns down.
The EU gives me similar concerns. The analogy is that the profit from the EU is peace and the fragility is that the EU political structure is undemocratically enforcing that peace. From an EU political leaders point of view peace is foremost in their mind and should be in our mind when we try to understand it.
I do think that the positive drive by leaders for a peace dividend in Europe will break down and be replace by a negative power grab by leaders over the next 20 years.
So we have a number of choices : -
(1) Give the UK a better financial deal to keep the political structures stable by ensuring that the UK benefits from the EU.
(2) The EU could become more democratic (which might jepordise the peace) but would mitigate the 3rd option.
(3) Carry on as we are and live with the risk that the EU political structure will become hijacked by a negative agenda.
For me Europe is currently carring a HUGE risk on its shoulders because its lack of democracy could open it to political hijacking. The EU has created stablity but the price of the current set up is a very scary fragility. I think just like the economy there is a natural cycle between peace and aggression – when we forget about peace aggression rises. This natural lifecycle of peace is over lifetimes unlike the economic cycle which is over a generation. My risk management bones feel the same thinking about the EU political structures as they do about the banks holding mortgage backed credit derivatives. A downward natural cycle will come and the EU will become hijacked.
I think the Lisbon treaty is a tactical issue in a strategic situation. I think the EU needs to focus more on financial benefits and not the peace benefit to mitigate the huge risks it is carrying.
We could of course resort to clever name calling of the French minister in question. These comments are irritating and he should be asked how they help European unity and bringing the sceptical British into the EU fold? In future he should keep his mouth shut unless he has some constructive comments to make. If I was him I would have welcomed the no referendum decision on Lisboa.
“Many people writing to this site do not think Mr Hague has gone far enough in his proposals to wrestle some power back from the EU…”
I got this far and gave up. Most people want out of the EU and you are not listening to them. For years I have been saying that your party is the true obstacle to the British people having a voice. Hopefully this issue will tear it assunder.
To Steve Cox:
“…indeed I have been trying to explain to people for 6 months why there would not be any point in such a referendum after treaty ratification”
Well either you’re not very good at explaining things or you have no case – which is it ?
Having read you here I conclude that you have no case. Matters EU are made deliberately esoteric and confusing and I bet you don’t understand it yourself. The chief weapons for this coup are not guns and bullets but tedium, stealth and determination.
The British people are not stupid. They are at a loss as to why five British soldiers were killed trying to install democracy in Afghanistan whilst our own politicians surrender ours to Europe.
An unelected PM with no mandate signed up to this in direct contradiction of his party manifesto.
It is the duty of the Queen and the Opposition to see that we get our referendum.
Dear JR, having read some intelligent posts on the site in the last couple of days on this EU thing. I suspect there may be a little confusion over the pure, simple, benign beauty of EU politics. I think it is down to Redwoodians to explain the matter.
I have decided we should do this by designing a new, A level exam; the framework for question one is as follows.
The Council of Europe. Is this part of the EU or not? Is every member of the EU a member of the Council of Europe?
The European Court of Human Rights. Is this part of the EU or not? Is this part of the Council of Europe (above), or not?
The European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice? Which one is part of the EU?
What is the difference between the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament? Which one is directly elected?
Which of the above has a Congress and a Committee of Ministers but is not part of the EU?
After the Lisbon Treaty is enacted, the European Council will become an official EU institution, rather than an un-official institution; true or false?
The president of the European Commission sits on the European Council; so, the European Council will have two presidents after the Lisbon Treaty is enacted; true or false?
What is the difference between the European Council and the Council of the European Union? Which one has executive powers? Which one will get a president after Lisbon?
What is the difference between the Council of the European Union and the Council of Ministers?
The Council of the European Union already has a presidency. Does this mean that there will be three presidencies after Lisbon (see above)?
Which organisation appoints the president of the European Commission; the European Council or the Council of the European Union?
Will the new, post Lisbon, president of the European Council have similar powers to say the president of the United States?
Would a permanent president of the Council of the European Union be a closer – but un-elected – analogy to the US president?
What were the 2008/09 salary and expenses for all the participants in the above institutions?
You can become a millionaire in five years as a member of the European Parliament; true or false?
(Hattip to Nosemonkey for some of the above)
Steve Cox,
An in/out referendum now would draw in the vast, corrupt, bullying, bribing machine of the EU on the Yes campaign, along with Labour and the LibDems.
If such a referendum were lost (i.e. the result was IN not OUT), you need to consider what the implications for the survival of Britain would be.
Mr Cameron’s “cast iron” promise was that we would have a referendum. If it cannot be done before ratification it must be done after, which means a referndum, at least, on wheter we continue full membership. Promises to bind future governments, without a written constitution, aren’t worth the paper they are written on & neither is another promise of a referendum when this constitreaty already has in it the mechanism to “alter the deal”. We have now been lied to by all 3 major parties on a matter on which they made the most solemn possible promises & which it would have cost them virtually nothing to keep.
Under what possible circumstances can we now trust any promise by them & if that is the case under what circumstances can anybody with any self respect vote for any of them?
I do agree with David Cameron that there is no point rejecting Lisbon once it is in force. We need to think about the kind of EU we want, rather than just cancelling the latest treaty and going back to some earlier position.
I am very disappointed with the kind of EU Cameron says he wants. He says he will…
* introduce a law prohibiting the transfer of further powers without a referendum. This does nothing at all. It doesn’t affect the present situation, where unelected EU officials can override our democracy. It doesn’t affect the future, because a government that wanted to pass more powers to the EU could just repeal it.
* introduce a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill. I assume Cameron means that this Bill will enshrine in law our right to leave. If this is the case, it does nothing at all. No one seriously doubts that we can leave.
It would be more interesting if this Bill provided that EU diktats only took effect when and if they were confirmed by a vote of both Houses. That would be a significant advance. It would be possible that, as a democracy, our country would reject a particular diktat. This would create a conflict with the EU, but we are a democracy, so it is the EU that must give way and not the British people.
* negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation … opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights … return of powers in criminal justice. Cameron would ‘negotiate’ this, yes. And what would he do when he is unable to reach agreement? If this is to succeed, it needs to be backed up by credible threats. Will we stop paying into the EU budget until it is resolved? Will we simply repeal those aspects of the Lisbon treaty? There are various options, but it sounds to me as though the EU will simply tell Cameron to go away, and he will give in.
As I understand it, the Charter binds the EU itself to respect certain rights, but not the member states–so it isn’t meaningful to have an opt-out anyway.
This all sounds like hot air. I’ll have to think about voting UKIP now, not because I don’t want Cameron to win, but because I want him to know what will happen if he doesn’t deal firmly with the EU. It worked when Blair was thinking of taking us into the euro, so perhaps it can concentrate David Cameron’s mind too.
Withdraw from the EU – completely.
Sign a European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA)
Sign a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Re establish trading links with the Commonwealth countries (which we had to give up as dictated by the EU) Australia, Canada etc
Wow – what an economy we would have!
I really love the French, but when ever their politicos support something, you know it’s probably a really, really lousy idea. So we can afford to be seriously relaxed about the views of a few meddlesome French bureaucrats.
John,
Can you please explain what the EU can do exactly if we don’t play ball – all I am reading is isolation etc.
In the increasingly unlikely event that DC makes it to No.10 the comments of Pierre Lellouche reflect the stone wall reception he is going to receive from our European “partners and allies”.
What did certain silly people think that David Cameron was going to stand up & say at 4pm yesterday ? Did they think that he would say that his government would hold a referendum on EU membership and campaign in that referendum to take the UK out of the EU ?
That was never likely to happen in the real world anymore than Andrew Lansley was likely to pledge that the NHS would be turned into a US style medical system under a Conservative government.
The Tory Right need to grasp the fact that if millions of people had wanted the UK to withdraw from the EU then why did the UK Independence Party not win a landslide on a massive turnout in this years European Parliamentary elections ?
Adopting a hard-right agenda on leaving the EU and transforming the NHS into an inequitable US style system would not win many votes but could scare voters back into Brown’s arms.It is alright these people in think-tanks dreaming all this up but they do not have to sell it on the door-steps.A bit like a flat rate income tax that would benefit the rich and take large numbers of poor people out of income tax meaning that there is less democratic control on government spending as fewer people feel the results of big government in their pay-packets.Also a flat rate income tax would hit the middle classes.
No wonder George Osborne wants a flatter tax system but not a pure 100% flat one.
So well done to David Cameron for his recent sound policy statements on Europe and the NHS and for not going for a flat rate income tax even when it was a vogue for a while a few years ago. But it might spike UKIP’s guns if The British Sovereignty Act could be used by Parliament t strike down EU laws.William Hague knows the political price of fighting hard on Europe when the voters want reassurance on economic stability & improving public services. This is the Tory Policy for the general election as far as EU matters are concerned and thankfully it is parked as an issue.While not being perfect it is an improvement on what the Government is proposing.
I did UKIP in this years Euro elections out of disgust over expenses at Westminster & at the arrogance of Brussels lack of democracy.But I will be voting Conservative at the general election on the strength of what David Cameron said about Europe yesterday afternoon.
Treaties normally have a cause under which any party can withdraw, given appropriate notice. Why did any government sign a treaty without such a clause?
My worry is that once Cameron or Hague define how they might withdraw from some of the EU provisions or hold a referendum on any aspect, the Tories will have the whole weight of the European propaganda machine thrown against them and supporting Labour in the general election. We saw this in Ireland over their referendum where the “antis” stood no chance under the barrage of EU propaganda. No doubt the same will happen here, and at our expense.
Having been entertained all day in a bar in Brussels, with friends, by a Conservative MEP who openly took the days bar tab receipt to put on his MEP expenses I think rather more roundly on these issues than many. There are clearly some Conservatives who are happy to run up big unnecessary bills for the European tax payer which ultimately gets picked up by hard working families in the UK and elsewhere.
Reply: How do you know he took the bar bill for expenses? What was the purpose of the trip and the bar visit?
If you look at a relatively recent book ‘Youth in Europe 1′ (Lit Verlag, 2005), you will see survey data that shows what young people of around 16-18 in nine countries think of Europe and its politicians. Interestingly you will see that the typical pro-European is a well educated young women with slightly green opinions who supports human rights and sees Europe as a place where there are plentiful employment opportunities. She may be a linguist and she enjoys travel. The anti-European by contrast is a male who finds foreigners a threat and who distrusts government and bureaucracy. He has a sense of social break-down and distrusts the political classes.
Between these poles are plenty of young people who find politics boring and who turn away from the public sphere to look for meaning in youth culture and relationships.
For myself, I think that has been rightly said that the EU project is an alliance between numerous minorities (e.g. Walloons, Scots, Basques, Luxemburgers, Belgians) and centralising smoothies in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Does David Camerson have the strength of will to threaten to withold our over-generous payments to the EU as a bargaining stick to force renegotiation of Britain’s position in the EU – should he be elected? This is less likely now that he has publically reneged on a promised Lisbon referendum even if some of us understand why he has done so. We lost seats at the last election because of UKIP and we will do so again. It is frustrating but a vote for UKIP makes another Labour Government more likely and a continuation of the EU federal project a certainty – is that what those thinking of jumping ship really want?
I believe we need to get all powers back.
I’m not sure if I will vote UKIP – I’m very interested to hear what Hannan & Carswell say over the months leading up to the election.
I think the Plan is the way to go and I know the leadership have taken bits of it.
I’m not happy with a situation where the other 26 states just shut up shop and we have to wait five years to show them we are very serious.
At the time the Lisbon Treaty passed through the House of Commons, the Lib Dems voted against a referendum on the treaty (and abstained in the Lords), thus ensuring the passage of the bill into law. In the debate they made a statement that we should not have a referendum on Lisbon, but a referendum on weather we are in or out of the EU. This appeared to be a dangerous strategy which had been though up just to ensure they could justify the rejection of referendum on the Lisbon treat, which they wanted passed into law but understood full well that the majority of the British people did not.
I wondered then how long it would take them to brush this idea under the carpet. I think we now know. Not once has Nick Clegg mentioned this proposed referendum since.
Now the Lisbon treaty has been ratified I think it is time for Lib Dems to show if they were honest about the referendum. They should now be on all media outlets calling for an in/out referendum. I suspect, though, they have prove again that referendum pledges are only to get out of tight positions and are not meant to be taken seriously.
Steve Cox: “In other words, the referendum would be on whether we wish, as a nation, to stay in the EU or to leave it. Mr. Cameron has apparently stated, however, that he will not support such a referendum. May I ask why?”
Without wishing to put words in Cameron’s mouth, might I suggest that he doesn’t believe that the people are really ready for an in/out referendum. Not ready in the sense that they clearly do not like Lisbon, but there is no corresponding groundswell of opinion about leaving the EU.
A lot of anger, but also a huge “don’t know” group who don’t consider it the top priority. That huge “don’t know” group would probably coalesce around the status quo: pre-Lisbon, that would mean voting no to Lisbon; on an in/out vote, it could well be “in”.
If there was an in/out referendum and the result was “in” then that would be the matter settled for decades to come, including everything that EU-sceptics (myself included) most dislike.
However I don’t think it is unrealistic to think that public opinion will firm up, one way or another, over the next few years as a result of the negotiations Cameron is proposing to conduct. The direction and success of those negotiations will determine which way that public opinion will move.
Many will say that Cameron will never accept an in/out vote. I have no idea if he will, but I would far prefer that vote be driven by overwhelming popular demand to leave the EU, rather than simply by frustration at the dishonesty of Labour/Lib Dems over the Lisbon Treaty.
Colin D says “No-one has ever wrested anything from the EU”…what nonsense. Margaret Thatcher went in to bat on the question of the UK rebate and WON. This considerable achievement has, of course been handed back by (regular guy) Tony while McCavity Brown avoids all conflicts
If the Conservatives win the forthcoming General Election, they will need a considerable majority to straighten out the mess left by the labourites. Only when this has been achieved will we be in a strong position to return to the table and negotiate. The government will then also have the option to call a referendum on the level of our future involvement in the EU if such a threat is needed. By that time also, we will have had opportunities to observe the reality behind this “Tidying-up Exercise” and will have reflected upon the true effect of the Treaty rather than the hyperbole uttered on both sides as at present
A referendum in face of the current state of the nation would be a pointless diversion from the real challenge before us…since UKIP are a single policy group, they will not have taken this on board
As to the “Cast Iron Guarantee”, I feel some sympathy for the then somewhat naive, though certainly sincere DC having left such a hostage to fortune.
Harold Wilson once said “a week is a long time in politics”…DC made his statement 2 YEARS ago
As people can see from my response to ‘Lisbon Lies’, I would not mind a bust up with Europe at all. Given their cynical and anti-democratic behaviour, the Eurocrats and the French and German governments deserve nothing better.
However, messrs Cameron and Hague have said it isn’t going to happen, and they appear to have thought through their plan B carefully.
I would counsel against people running off to UKIP at the next election. UKIP haven’t enough candidates with ‘bottom’, are perceived as being a one issue party and have no experience of government. Their role at the next election will be as spoilers, sincere though they may be.
The time, if any, to jump ship to UKIP is about a year into the next Conservative government (assuming there is one) if the actions taken by the Conservative government are inadequate.
Let’s keep our powder dry.
Reply: How do you know he took the bar bill for expenses? What was the purpose of the trip and the bar visit?
because he said he would
i was there visiting a friend and we met him randomly at the start of the session and got chatting as you do in bars
nice guy, was actually reasonably impressed by him
only doing what countless other business people do with their expenses
but not what i would be doing if i were an MEP
What a decadent lot we have in Parliament, the troughing, their feeble acceptance of Sharia law here, their desertion of Parliament, last week after listening to the roll call of the 37 troops that have died while they were on their extended break, half of them couldn’t be bothered to stay and hear Gordon Brown’s statement on Afghanistan (no doubt their luncheon appointment was more important), and how casually they disenfranchise us with the EU. It all stems from the fact that the British political establishment have become truly corrupt and decadent. Principle, integrity, honesty are alien concepts in Westminster.
This is the Rotten Parliament.
May be one day we will get a Government that will up hold our constitution, the 1689 Bill of Rights states…
‘I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God”. ‘….
…So we don’t need Dave’s pathetic Sovereignty Law, its there in our constitution already, but Parliament in allowing Brussels law be supreme to ours, and with the Lisbon Treaty giving the EU a legal personality they have contravened OUR Bill of Rights, and that makes this Rotten Parliament, not just decadent, but traitorous as well, and tonight we should be dragging these traitorous MP’s onto the top of our bonfires to burn alongside Guido Fawkes (with a few exceptions John).
We, as a country, must stand by the law – but the EU must be taken on and confronted at every opportunity. They have far more to lose than we do – as John Redwood says, we get a rotten deal for our money and we must be resolute in reversing that situation. In terms of trade we are heavily in deficit and we must use that fact to our political advantage. We have the only real armed service in the whole of the EU which also gives us a strong negotiating position [but we must not ever allow the EU gain control over it].
In all the bad news one has to laugh at such gems as “We should have the EU we want”, oh dear. There is no choice, never has been and never will be. What you see is what you get, non democratic rule by a bunch of clerks mainly brought up on the French attitude of “we are always right and you will do as we say”.
As for the Cameron attitude it defies belief, he must know that there can be no re-negotiation, the system is designed to be as it is, a single state governed by an elite, forget democracy and freedom.
Reading this blog clearly suggests that you also want to go much further than Hague and Cameron. People want to know when a political party is going to listen to what kind of relationship they want with the EU. Successive governments have given away power to the anti-democratic EU without seeking the approval of the people. Our servants have become our masters and treated us with contempt. No one will believe that the next Conservative government will try very hard to “wrestle some power back from the EU”. In fact yesterday Hague seemed to go out of his way to placate the other member states – he seems to have given up before he has even started. I suggest that you tell your colleagues who, regarding MPs’ expenses, feel that they have been treated like s***, to join the club, that is exactly how millions of us feel regarding membership of the EU.
Tony E: “The French farmers need their subsidy, and they can’t have it unless we, (and the other nett contributors) pay for it.”
For the 2008 EU budget, France made a net contribution of around €4 four billion; the UK net contribution was less than €1 (one) billion.
http://euobserver.com/886/28706
Does anyone, either in Britain or Europe, believe that Messrs Hague and Cameron are willing to play hard ball with the EU to the degree that would be necessary to achieve any repatriation of powers? If they were, the first thing they would do is go for a referendum, ratification or no ratification, as it would send a clear statement of intent, both to the British public and the EU.
Voting Conservative in the expectation that there will be any reversal of the EU ratchet would be a triumph of hope over experience of impressive magnitude – a bit like Eddie the Eagle re-entering the winter olympics in the expectation of a medal.
I think if the EU don’t play ball then Cameron will go for a referendum – which the EU definitely don’t want. Remember Thatcher’s demands were met with laughter, but they gave in eventually.
People underestimate our clout – the thing we have which the other countries do not – is that risk of a referendum, and I think Cameron could well use it.
We are not some small country like the czechs, latvia or whoever.
Everyone seems brainwashed into thinking we are all doomed.
Think again, but Cameron’s first priority has to be the economy/afghanistan
Someone wrote that Cameron’s new EU policy is like installing a new burglar alarm after the robbery.
This was meant as a criticism, but actually, it’s the best that can be done. Having a referendum now would be effectively having a vote about whether we’d prefer not to have been burgled.
Well, Cameron hasn’t been in charge of security for these last dozen years, and in fact the present security guards brazenly ushered the burglars in through the open window.
Let intelligent people refrain from being distracted by talk of French politicians words, claw-back of competence, referenda on this or that, trade disparities, the outcome of the next General Election and the effect of voting for UKIP – and return to basic facts.
The European Union is a political construct and Europe is a geographical location.
Our membership of the European Union was engineered by treasonous politicians, confirmed by a referendum based on a lie (that it did not affect our national sovereignty) and maintained by successive governments of both colours. Like many others, I was duped into supporting what I was told was a scheme to improve trade and co-operation between European nations.
The written components of the English Constitution, the 39 Articles of Religion (necessarily subscribed to by every beneficed minister of the Church of England), the oath of loyalty to the Monarch sworn by every person holding any public office in Parliament, Courts and the Armed Forces, the Queen’s Coronation Oath to govern Her people in accordance with their laws and customs – all make abundantly clear that the European Communities Act, as amended by subsequent amending treaties, is unlawful.
Sovereignty does not rest in Parliament. It rests with the people, who give it to the monarch in response to the Coronation Oath and loan it for a term of years to the Crown in Parliament. Parliament has no authority to pass sovereignty to any third party and is specifically forbidden to pass it to a foreign power.
English citizens must not obey treasonous laws or they incur the penalty for misprision of treason (i.e. aiding and abetting treason.) In any case, law based on an illegality does not have the nature of law.
Any purported law or treaty, contrary to the Common Law of England and the English Constitution has no force, unless people voluntarily partake of it’s unlawful nature.
The EU want a new budget settlement in 2010. They don’t get it unless they agree to the Cameron clawbacks. Is this too hard?