Iain Duncan Smith achieved two things as Leader of the Conservative Party. He adopted social justice as a Tory cause and he managed to persuade people to shut up about Europe. David Cameron has followed IDS's lead on the first, but so far failed on the second. Indeed, from events this week, things seem to be getting slightly out of control. It's now time for the leadership to assert itself.
As I have written previously, these problems all stem back from the promise David Cameron made to withdraw from the EPP. The failure to deliver (yet) has left die-hard Eurosceptics foaming with vengeance and Europhiles like Quentin Davies making vituperative speeches threatening all sorts of things if the split does eventually happen..
The formation of the BETTER OFF OUT group has upped the stakes further and given a louder voice to those few MPs who want the Party to withdraw from the EU altogether. David Cameron has said that anyone advocating EU withdrawal will never be given a front bench position.
Yesterday, Graham Brady (who is a friend, and used to work with me) told a seminar in Westminster: "Can Britain afford to remain in an EU that is pulling up the drawbridge? No we can't." It's a view I have some sympathy with, but it's been picked up by the media this morning and reported as a Tory split. I suspect it's been quoted totally out of context, but it highlights the tightrope that has to be walked on this subject.
Of coyrse the Party has got to develop its policy on Europe, but there are great dangers for us if we have internal debates on this issue in public. Look where it got us under Major and Hague. It's time the Party took IDS's lead and went 'quiet' on Europe.
33 comments:
No it's time Dave delivered on his promise and got us out of the EPP. Would be the first positive thing he has done. When Dave has a policy, then we can stop the debate. If the Europhiles don't like it, then that is tough. Clarity is essential here.
More gossip, less commentary, thank you.
If, as I believe, David Cameron keeps to his EPP promise, then I as a rabid Eurosceptic will support the idea, that our side should go quiet (at least we shouldn't give the competition ammo)
We need to concentrate our efforts on pointing out the EU's weaknesses, rather than shouting "lets leave" every two minutes.
I do think that as the Party (and country) has become more eurosceptic, the europhiles have become shriller.
I have a feeling that this time they may be the source of trouble.
Quiet in words - yes. But not quiet in actions. Leave the EPP. Say not a word, and I'm with you.
APPEASEMENT doesn't work. Remember what happened the last time, when appeasement was UK policy in Europe.
"We................ and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognising that the question of ..............relations is of the first importance for .............. for Europe.
We regard the agreement signed last night ........... as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.
"We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe".
PIECE OF HIM IN OUR GOOD TIME
Power at any price, eh? I think many conservatives (small c) are prepared to accept any amount of grandstanding of soppy media stances by the Tory party if it helps get them elected but the failure to have a robust and defendable policy on the EU is not acceptable. So far we have seen "Dave" make only one pledge on the Eu, and fail to keep it. If we can't believe or know what he intends to with the EU, which is the big political issue, how do we know whether to support him or not?
The froth of gossip is great fun but it is symptomatic that despite Prescott being a failure, and a dangerous expensive failure at that, the only headway the Tories have made against him is when a few bloggers big up his tawdry escapades.
Fluffy soundbites go so far but the Tories need to make hard choices and commit to a position on the big issues.
If Mr Cameron fails to honour his pledge to withdraw Conservative MEPs from the avowedly federalist EPP, he will automatically lose the trust (and probably votes) of all who care for the continued existence of this country, whether it remains Great Britain, or whether England secedes. Recall the Bromley by-election. Had Cameron made good on his pledge, Bob Neill might just have got those 2347 votes that went to UKIP. Some of us have long memories, and we will neither forgive nor forget Ken Clarke's words: "I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe" (International Review, 1996, Vol.23 No4).
I think not. It is time for the Party to have a big debate on all the serious issues and come up with some intellectually coherent ideas. Enough with the John Major era already.
UKIP has to be folded into the Party which means coming out of the EU "if it pulls the drawbridge up" - actually quite a brilliant formulation.
Have some sympathy for you view Iain.On the other hand it might be a good idea to have this debate now which will inevitably be vitriolic and resolve the issue well before thje next election.
The trouble with our great party is that the overwhelming majority would quite happily see our exit from the EU but fails entirely to select PPCs who reflect that position.
Why don't we have a referendum of members once and for all (except the fact that it is fuel for the MSM's fire)? It would take the knees out of UKIP's threat overnight!
The problem with having internal discussions in private is that non-member supporters feel left out. There is a significant part of the conservative support base that is eu-sceptic to some degree or other (I suspect maybe even a majority).
By having "grown ups only" discussions this chunk of the party's supporters is further alienated (or at least made to feel so) and thus more likely to abstain in future elections or switch their allegiance to UKIP.
My sense of the public mood is that it is tired of an isolated political elite (of whatever colour) making decisions without reference to what people really think.
Painful as this nettle will be to grasp, I personally think DC needs to allow open honest debate on the eu. And I think he needs to be prepared to follow whatever lead the debate gives. Anything less simply brands him as another out of touch politician deciding what's best for "the children".
As for continued membership of the EPP? Well, Dave did promise to get out. Mayhap that was a foolish promise to have made, but DC's credibility as an honest breath of fresh air is on the line here.
If the Conservative Party are to make any real headway and decisively kick the socialists out of office they have to demonstrate that they are not the same as the sleazy, incompetent, self-serving government that we currently have. Sticking to one's public promises is one way of doing this. It might also begin to teach politicians to think more carefully about what they promise in the future.
Anyway, that's my twopennyworth.
RM
You write as someone looking after the Conservative party's interests, rather than those of the nation. The country needs a debate about the way in which Europe is developing, whether it is in Britain's interest to support or oppose enlargement, what to do about the governance of the European Union and so on. The Conservative party refusing to address those issues would be doing the nation a disservice.
Erm, no. The problem with Major was he rammed through an unpopular and controversial treaty and you had the likes of Chancellor Ken saying nice things about it without having read it. In other words, the brakes were off, there was a democratic deficit, and everyone knew it.
The problem with Hague was that there were ambitious people who were openly knifing him even on the eve of the General Election. I think Iain you might know one or two of them!
The "Europe issue" is one that covers up to 70% of our legislation. To simply keep schtum about it - particularly in a phase of policy development - is like dropping all conversation about tax cuts, the status of Scottish MPs, civil rights vs the war on terror, Afghanistan, Iraq, levels and mechanisms of immigration, sleaze, you name it.
If you're not interested in the question of who governs Britain, or how it's done, I don't understand how you can be involved in politics (outside of the Welsh Assembly). Of course the debate can be done civilly, but it has to take place. Otherwise we turn into one of those interesting European countries where only the extremists raise the tricky issues, and they get swathes of the general vote as a result. It's not big, and it's not clever.
Sorry, Iain, but that is becoming increasing difficult - and probably counter-productive too.
The EU is so busy claiming ultimate authority in so many areas that many believe should be decided at national level that there're few major policy areas that the Brussels mob aren't claiming as an area of their competance. Tax, immigration, defence, agriculture and fisheries, environment, trade, you name it and they're there in the background busy trying to remove the final vestiges of national independence/choice.
There are a couple of exceptions - education and health. Maybe that's why Blair was so keen to concentrate on "Education, education, education," and the "Schools 'n hospitals" agenda, it was a way of not drawing attention to the elephant in the corner.
No more smoke-filled-room type policy-making please. We need to bring the question of basic sovereignity and our relationship with Europe out into the open. Apart from anything else, it's the only way that the public can feel assured that they're not about to be stitched up again.
PS It's not radical to suggest the UK could at one point leave the EU. Ask yourself rather this question: at what philosophical point does the balance tip? And then ask, how far are we away from that point?
And if you prefer to keep the EU link, then ask, what can we do to keep that slide from happening? And again: is this realistically going to happen?
And finally, ponder on whether if we do leave it would be disastrous, or could we end up turning it to our advantage? Are there other countries out there with arrangements we could match?
These are all legitimate questions. NOT to ask them would be political ignorance. To reflect upon them is legitimate. It's about time the Treasury ran a cost-benefit analysis itself, rather than leaving it to Professor Minford (edited by myself in 1996), Hindley/Howe (IEA, 1996 and subsequent), Ian Milne (civitas 2004) and others.
Quite right Iain; Brady is correct to say we cannot afford to stay in a Europe that raises the drawbridge; equally, however, we cannot afford to stay in the moat next to it. The only solution, therefore, is to stick around and push Europe in the right direction. Withdrawal is an admission that we are unable to influence or persuade our neighbours; it is a surrender, not a victory.
Hate to say it, but I totally disagree Iain.
Europe (or rather our relationship with the EU organisation) is an issue that has to be resolved.
The EUrophiles will certainly use it as a weapon if we let them - if the issue becomes one that dare not be mentioned for fear of being branded "xenophobic" or "little Englander" then surely that's the worst possible situation, and the federalists win.
For what it's worth, I think the Conservatives should simply offer a referendum on membership of the EU and leave it at that.
Pretty hard to argue against that.
The whole thing on europe is irrelavant. I cannot believe their are people so foolish on the centre right that go on and on about it. It is an intangeble irrelievance to most. The laws that maybe imposed are not seen as coming from the EU and the fact that the government and its predecesors signed up for it just means to the individual who is not politically motivated that a law has been passed and they are not aware from where it has come from. There are many laws that i would find difficulty off the top of my head in relation to suggesting provinence.
Britain will not join the euro - the common agriculture policy is dead & affects a minority directly.
Whats the problem with europe? Who cares!!!
No, it's time that Cameron signed up to the Better Off Out campaign himself.
the common agriculture policy is dead
Actually, the victims of the CAP are dead. It is still very much alive and kicking.
Tax is off the agenda. Immigration is off the agenda. And now Europe too. So what's left? Carbon Emissions.
Admittedly the enviroment might win us some rich friends who come in handy when we fancy a cheap night out at Annabelle's or the Ministry of Sound but it won't win us Liverpool and Manchester and Newcastle........
Better Off Out. You know it makes sense.
If the Great British People hate Europe as much as frothing Tory activists insist, how come EasyJet is collecting money hand-over-fist taking them all there for holidays? (bumper profits this morning)
I appreciate those inside the party can focus on little else, but do the people with the pencils and ballots really care about the minutiae of EPP? Doubt it, frankly.
Does anyone actually have the wording of Cameron's pledge on the EPP? I was always under the impression that the pledge is to transfer from the EPP to a new grouping. However if the new grouping is proving impossible to create (given the spats between the Czechs and Poles) then how on earth can anyone deliver such a pledge when it's physically impossible?
MEPs pledging to "implement" either "Cameron's pledge" (and sit as independents out of the EPP, even though this wasn't the pledge) or some other pledge to stay in the EPP even if it means leaving the Conservative group do the party no favours whatsoever. All it does is allow otherwise anonymous politicians the opportunity to get their name in the newspapers and undermine party unity.
Frankly the whole EPP row reminds me of the person who got on the wrong train and then spent all his time worrying about where to sit on it. And talk of "Cameron breaking his pledge" misses the point - that's like expecting a train service over a route that hasn't yet been built and then whining that the train driver isn't taking the train down it.
anony-rodent: Do you honestly believe the 2347 UKIP voters were influenced by whereabouts the Conservative Party sits in a Parliament that UKIP, most Conservatives, most voters and the media are all united in not giving a damn about?
antifrank: All the Conservative rows over Europe have ever achieved is to put a Europhile New Labour in power. Voter after voter deserted us in the 1990s because they saw their jobs go, negative equity increase, the country go rot - and turned on their television to see two Conservatives rowing about an issue they didn't see the importance of.
Don Jameson:
Please note:
Europe = geographical area, includes lots of interesting languages and cultures and nice places to go on holiday.
EU = political project
Hostility to the latter, and a belief that we would be better off out of it does not imply hostility to the former. Nor does the holding of such a belief necessary entail "frothing".
And on the subject of what should be an area for public debate, I see Dave has now ruled discussion of the West Lothian Question out of order:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/65487.html
Tim Roll-Pickering, you assume that I am unhappy with the general thrust of the Government's position on Europe. That is not a safe assumption. But you miss my basic point: the European Union is far too big a subject for one of the major parties to simply stay schtum about, and the Conservatives will be unfit for office unless they are able to articulate a broad view on where they are.
There you go Iain, you post "Shut up about the EU" & get 30, mostly rather long, posts, more than most other threads. Just about sums up the unlikelihood of the stupidest parts of the stupid party doing anything of the sort.
Leaving the EPP is the only honourable step for Cameron. To remain would be to defraud the huge majority of party members, who are implacably opposed to federal ambitions, and took his promise at face value last autumn.
The Roll-Pickering (3.34pm) attitude, in all its disingenuous glory, is thankfully held by very few.
Leaving EPP is step 1; a bit of forward momentum, though, and we will shot of the whole ruddy shooting match by, um... how about 2015, to coincide with the Waterloo celebrations?
Leave the EU and condemn the workers to a life of isolation from human rights.
They do not deserve human rights for they are less than human.
They are slaves of the weak,and should learn to serve those of us that are strong, STRONG and GROWING STRONGER BY THE MINUTE AND EVERY DAY!
DESTROY THE EU. DESTROY THE SOCIAL CHARTER. DESTROY EVERYTHING. DESTROY. DESTROY. EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE!
CONSERVATIVES ARE BORN TO RULE THE UNDERCLASS!
Og: Thank you for proving my point that no-one actually seems to have the wording of this pledge. The way everyone goes on about it you would think it was to leave the EPP immediately. If that were the case then sure we would have upped and left?
What everyone who is claiming betrayal seems to be missing is that the pledge, as I remember it was reported as, was was contingent on being able to find new allies. Now those who were fiercely advocating withdrawal claimed at the time that such allies would materialise overnight - where are they now?
And your own post seems to somewhat agree with me that this is frankly a debate about where we sit on the wrong train.
This pledge is not as easy to implement as some would pretend. When was the pledge ever "if it comes down to sitting in the EPP and sitting as independents we will sit as independents"? Perhaps one of the people crying "betrayal" would like to produce a verifiable source for the pledge. If they can, I will eat my words.
But, tr-p, no attempt has been made to correct this misunderstanding (if your contention is in fact correct and it has been generally misinterpreted).
To wait months before claiming that this pledge is actually contingent on other factors would make the man look like a typical lying, slimy, political arsehole.
Now he wouldn't want that, would he?
Did you not see William Hague going off to Europe to search for allies? It's been pretty clear throughout that we were searching for allies to form a new grouping and every action on this has been in accord. Also scanning through the archives of Conservativehome it was clear that this wasn't an overnight pledge. If after all that people are still under the impression that the pledge was purely about leaving the EPP and everything else is window dressing then frankly they are going to think that come what may. The reason this has come up is the "out of EPP at all costs" brigade has decided that Cameron pledged a simple "we will leave the EPP" line. Actions (or in this case inactions) speak louder than words and everything Cameron has done and tried to do on this is totally consistent with a pledge to transfer to a viable new grouping once it can be formed.
Shut up over Europe.
errrrr NO!
Gary
Looking for allies?
No point in looking for allies until you have a defined and decided policy that putative allies can agree with.
So tell me - just what *is* Dave's EU policy?
Seems to me that he's looking more like a stray cat asking for someone, anyone, to take him in rather than a leader with an agenda.
Delusions of adequacy, perhaps?
Post a Comment