New campaign groups fill vacuum left by Tories

If the Tories won't talk about immigration at least we have MigrationWatch... if the Tories are afraid of making the case for lower taxation at least we have The TaxPayers' Alliance... and now, with David Cameron reluctant to even mention Europe in his address to Party Conference, we have the launch of a £10m campaign to put  Britain's relationship with the EU back at the centre of national debate.

The Speak Out campaign will - says The Daily Telegraph - launch next Monday with a series of newspaper advertisements.  The campaign will seek a referendum on repatriating seven sets of powers transferred to Brussels.  The campaign is the brainchild of Yorkshire businessman Paul Sykes - who used to bankroll UKIP.  Mr Sykes told The Telegraph:

"Our MPs have betrayed us. They have given away powers that were not theirs to give," say the advertisements. More than half our laws — some people say as much as 80 per cent — originate not in the debating chambers of our elected Parliament but behind closed doors in Brussels... This is an outbreak of the truth. Every man, woman and child will get to know what our relationship with the EU is."

ConservativeHome.com believes that small 'c' conservatives have relied too heavily on the Conservative Party for the advancement of their beliefs.  The emergence of stronger and stronger campaigning groups like the Centre for Social Justice and Direct Democracy - which have longer time horizons than the need to win the next General Election - is good news.  The Tories should only be seen as the political arm of a wider conservative movement that is engaged in a long-term reshaping of public attitudes.   Conservative business people have put too big a share of their money into the Tory Party.  Investment in the success of these wider movement groups can only be in the long-term interests of big and little 'c' conservatism.

Related link: Ed Vaizey MP reacts to this post.

Comments

['None of the above will do']

One of the reasons that the Tories are not further ahead of New Labour is that the attacks seem to focus on personalities (cf. Brown) or mismanagement (cf. Home Office). Good old fashioned Punch'n'Judy tribalism...

Could the fact that the Tories seem reticent on opposing many of Labour's policies stem from the fact that they are often EU obligations? The Cabinet Office website admitted that in 1999 that a European dimension was being put into policymaking at all levels of government.

EU membership forbids law-making that conflicts with the EU obligations that Blair has expanded since 1997.

So long as 'Dave's advisers are blinkered that EU membership is a sacred cow, the four million voters that the party must regain will stay home or be tempted by protest parties...

[Chad]

"The Tories should only be seen as the political arm of a wider conservative movement"

I agree with almost all of this, except that key word. That is simply wrong, and is just how you personally would like it to develop.

In truth, the statement should read:
"The Tories should only be seen as a political arm of a wider conservative movement"

This growing movement that you acknowledge is growing in many ways and that includes different political channels to deliver the policies.

The Tory Party is the largest but not the only delivery mechanism for this growing conservative movement.

[Ben Redsell]

Sorry Chad but you are wrong. The only way we will get rid of this amoral and socially bankrupt Government is by supporting the Conservative Party. It is the only effective delivery mechanism for a conservative Government. Support for any other party in an election undermines the removal of this dreadful Labour government.

[tapestry]

It's good to see Sykes back in action. But we need very single eurosceptic to become active, not just campaigning with Better Off Out, or Speak Out - but also to ensure that their MP or PPC is not a europhile.

If your MP or PPC is europhile you should be campaigning and building support within the Consituency to deselect the MP or PPC and have them replaced with some one who will faithfully represent your views.

Many members of Bromley, and Battersea where europhiles have been selected should be campaigning for their deselection. I cannot believe they are happy with the situation, so why are they not acting? The battle must be fought at Constituency level as well as in the media, in Brussels and in the higher echelons of the party.

The A List might feed a few europhiles in, and Open Primaries might select them, especially if Labour activists attend as they did at Battersea. So what should you do about it?

There is no bloody point in going UKIPPER. That ensures more europhiles get into Parliament. If you think you're a patriot and want Britain to regain her independence, don't just Speak Out, or say Better Off Out. You have the power to Kick Out.

If you are in a seat housing a europhile, you should be using that power. It will get the Conservative Party working for you as you want it.

Eurosceptics have to activate if they want to win.

[Chad]

Hi Ben,

No I was factually correct. Tim's article is about the growing conservative movement outside the Tory Party, and the Tory Party is not the only party seeking to tap into this movement. That is a simple statement of fact.

I acknowledged your point that the Tory party is clearly, currently, by far the largest of these parties, but it is not the only one, as UKIP,and other small parties are seeking appeal to those who support this movement.

For example, you say:
"It is the only effective delivery mechanism for a conservative Government"
76% of the public and 81% of members here oppose the big government nature of state funding and the natural conservative would reject this as shown here.

However, Cameron has proposed and supported extending state funding, but UKIP have picked up the conservative view on this issue and opposed.

This is a growing movement, and there is simply no hurry to win the next election, if we can build a foundation for decades for the elections after next and so on.

[Beware Tykes Bearing Gifts]

A word of caution about Paul Sykes. He is certainly a very rich man but it is debatable how much of that wealth he's actually spent on Eurosceptic causes over the years.

There's a familiar modus operandi with Sykes - one he has deployed with the Referendum Party, Conserevative Party, the Democracy Movement and UKIP. He approaches an organisation and dangles the prospect of vast contributions. He is then feted by the bigwigs of these organisations who dance attendance upon him - usually making many trips to the Sykes HQ in Harrogate - and listen for hours to his half-baked theories.

His involvement with said organisation is then trumpeted to the media - and always with the same irresistable hook ("I'm going to spending £10 million").

Invariably, far, far less money ever materialises. Everyone is left feeling short changed.

Why does Sykes do it? Ego, pure and simple. He likes having all these 'clever' politician running around after him and taking his bar room opinions seriously. And, of course, he loves seeing his name in the papers as the bluff, no nonsense Yorkshire patriot.

He's a one-trick pony and, having run out of other groups to blind with his dosh, he's started his own operation. Let's see how much is eventually spent. A few grand on newspaper adverts is my bet.

[Jack Stone]

I agree with the above. There as been many stories of Mr Sykes over the years. I am afraid it does seem that he is not as generous with his money as his reputation implies.

[James Maskell]

This 80% figure appears here so frequently and yet no ones given a source for it...could someone please explain where that figure has come from?

[Chad]

Hi James, the 81% figure was from a ConHome members survey.

[passing leftie]

I'd like to thank the majority of you for showing why the Tories are still unelectable. While the anti-European Empire clan keep banging away, Cameron will never be believable. More power to you. Keep up your anti-immgration, tax-selfish anti-green agenda in the public eye, and you don't stand a chance.

[JimJam]

Chad,

Shouldn't you be more worried about Richard Suchorzewski's resignation letter ?

[Chad]

No, I'm glad to see the back of him JimJam.

[JimJam]

Chad, Why ?

[Chad]

>>off topic JimJam<< Mail me if you want to discuss this - this thread is about the conservative movement.

[UK Daily Pundit]

Eurosceptic bloggers »

[Geoff]

MigrationWatch sent out a press release on Home Office estimates showing the cost of immigration in the last few years claiming it showed a huge amount of benefit dependency. Which was odd, since it showed a honking great surplus of £10bn over the last few years.

They're fairly uninformed racists.

Also, am I not a Tory because I'm a Europhile?

[James Maskell]

Chad, the 80% of British law being made in the EU statistic.

[Peter Harrison]

I don't know where the 80% figure comes from James. And I have no idea why Chad thinks it comes from a ConservativeHome members survey - that would hardly be a reliable way of producing a figure for the proportion of new UK legislation that derives from EU law!

An independent report by Robin Bellis for the FCO in November 2003 came up with a figure of 60%. I can't find any other authoritative figures. I'm not saying this figure is correct (and, of course, it may well have gone up over the last 3 years), just that it is the best I can find.

[James Maskell]

To Chad's defence here I think he didnt realise which one I meant. I wasnt very clear.

[James Hellyer]

I don't know where the 80% figure comes from

It was published on the Cabinet Office website in 2004.

[michael mcgough]

The 80% I believe refers to a question made of the German Parliament who gave the response that that proportion of it's laws were from Brussels.There is no reason to believe our proportion is different.

Vey interesting that the Syke's Speak Out story was pulled after the first edition of the Telegraph------WHY?

[TaxCutter]

These groups are most of all an indicator of the inability of the Conservative Party to effectively campaign on issues where the mainstream of UK public opinion is actually right-wing. Sadly there seems no intent from the current party leadership to rectify this.

[.Chad]

Sorry James, you're right I thought you were referring to the stat of conservatives opposed to the extension to state funding of political parties

[George Hinton]

At last an organisation that will represent a cross party section of the electorate who are anti-EU and anti-Federalism, and are presently ignored.
The comments in the leader are right, where the Tories decide to ignore a contentitious issue a pressure group or blogger pops up to take up the slack and give vox populi.
To be cynical, one has to question the need for Dave and the rest of the party if they are going to ignore the members and not take account of the structural issues that are at the core.

[platonist]

Could somebody - anybody - please please point me in the direction of an explanation of why it's good for us to be in the EU. Seriously, I just don't get why I am branded a nutter. It seems to me that everyone who wants to stay in is stark staring mad.

[Tim Aker]

Tapestry 9.33 is absolutely right.

We need something like a real Bluelist or Torywatch back to find out which MP's are committed to the EU and 'ever closer union' and get members in associations to either hold them to account and, if necessary, deselect them in favour of a candidate who wants a sovereign, independent Britain free from the EU. UKIP are a waste of time, and the real battles are fought over candidate selection. They'd have more influence in the tory party than outside it agitating from the fringe.

[malcolm]

Whilst Migrationwatch and the TPA do put in a lot of good work I fear they are still pretty much unkown by the general public and their messages can be distorted by the media. If changes to either immigration or our tax system are going to made then those changes are only going to be made by the Conservative party or noone. I hope that both Migrationwatch and the TPA are both aware of this and devote all their energies to lobbying and influencing the Conservative party at the highest levels possible.

[Richard ROBINSON]

In 2001 Nirj Deva MEP wrote a booklet for the Bow Group entitled “Who Governs Britain?” which estimate that 55% of British laws originated from EU Directives. (http://www.bowgroup.org/harriercollectionitems/ebow_whogovernsbritain.pdf)

On 29 April 2005, in response to a written question from CDU/CSU MP Johannes Singhammer, the German Ministry of Justice stated that between 1998 and 2004 of 23,167 legal acts adopted in Germany 18,917 (82%) originated from the EU.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Platonist 14.20. I must admit I am stumped.

Why don't you try asking www.labourhome.org or www.libdemvoice.org? Maybe they know.

[Adam]

campaign groups are a good thing for our party otherwise we'll allow as we have done in the last 3 elections to be pigeon holed by two or three policies eg immigration, tax, crime which means we end up losing as its the public have many other concerns.

Already under Cameron we have more focus on the environment, social justice, nhs etc which are areas we should be setting the agenda on and which will help us win elections.

[Angelo Basu]

I think that characterising the debate as one between people who actively want us to be in the EU versus those who actively want us to be out of it is simplistic and misses the practical "third way" (sorry!).

This is not an appealing position, but it stirkes me as most likely to be the real one. It goes along these lines. We accept that really all the UK wants is to be part of the Common Market initially joined and to have this limited in its scope. The UKIP way of looking at this I think is to replace EU membership with EFTA membership as part of the EEA. This would at a stroke mean that the social chapter and a lot of recent legislation relying on articles inserted in the Treaty of Rome by subsequent Treaties were no longer part of the jurisprudence of the UK and were returned to sole UK sovereignty. At the same time we would get the benefits of an open market, without nasty things like CAP (albeit that that is an original part of the EU we joined) so having a lower level of contribution to make. However, in practice, the problem is that this would be unworkable in a number of respects. First, there is little chance that EFTA membership could be had at the low subscription that Iceland et al have it, so like Switzerland we'd end up paying through the nose in any event. Then there would be the huge short-run compliance cost of introducing new legislation to cover the areas where we'd be proposing to remove the existing EU based laws. Of course we could keep them in place and replace them slowly, but there would be an issue of legal certainty (when the ECJ no longer has any authority how should the Courts interpret orphaned legislation?) as well as the political issue "why leave if we're going to keep those laws we said had no legitimacy because we didn't make them?". As the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act Unit found over a decade ago, getting rid of regulations is hard regulatory work which ironically, itself gives rise to substantial short term compliance costs.

So, in practice, even if in theory leaving the EU would be attractive, it would in practice lead to at least a single term of legislative chaos while all the EU-law wheeels were being reinvented or discarded. If the financial case failed and that EFTA membership was barely cheaper than EU membership, it would be an even bigger corpus of law that would need replacing, not to mention the amount of time that would need to be spent negotiating bilateral agreements with a number of countries who might not be diplomatically inclined to assist the project because of the damage it had done to their own ambitions within the EU.

I don't know how the figure of 80% or whatever of our laws being EU-law originated is calculated but I suspect that it is an unsophisticated guesss by volume rather than a real reflection of the laws actually in force. EU-based laws have definitely expanded their scope over the past 10-15 years and there is obviously support from the arch federalists for it to go even further in that direction. However, as a practising lawyer, I know that much much more than 20% of the law that my colleagues practice is not EU in origin (leaving aside the separate issue of implementation of the ECHR whether by means of the HRA or through our earlier ratification of the Convention).

The 80% figure is more likely to come from an estimate of the volume of SIs that HMG makes under the European Communities Act to give effect to rights and obligations created by EC Directives requiring implementation.

Nevertheless, there is a substantial enough body of EU-derived law for the question of how to replace it in the event of not being in the EU to be a real headache.

[James Maskell]

Thanks Richard.

[Annabel Herriott]

Agree with Jack and Beware Tykes.... What Paul Sykes likes to do, is to promise to bankroll you, as in the Tories in previous years, where he could be seen at the YTV bash with an adoring group round him, puttin g forth the P. Sykes theory of running a party/election. I fully expect him to move on, as our own dear Chad does, but without the vast funds acquired when he sold Meadow Hall in Sheffield, the big shopping mall. Nice enough guy, but he always has to have his own way.

[Richard]

"MigrationWatch sent out a press release on Home Office estimates showing the cost of immigration in the last few years claiming it showed a huge amount of benefit dependency"

I think this was based on the calculation that you have to earn over £27,000 to be a net gain to the treasury. Much of the recent immigration has involved Eastern Europeans working in low-wage jobs. If they make use of public services such as health and education then that would make them a net drain.

[Old Hack]

I wonder if the wonks running the Party's campaign grasp the assymetrical nature of modern politics can bite them on the bum as well as enable these outflanking ops on New Labour?

[Mark Wadsworth]

Angelo Basu 16.08. Very interesting. Where do you get the impression that membership of EFTA would cost us as much as membership of EU? Do we know how much Switzerland pays?

Would the UK not get a bulk discount, seeing as our population is about four times the population of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland?

[Andrew Woodman]

We can argue all we like whether it's 50,60,79 or 80% or our laws deriving from the EU. Surely the fact that just one law for this country is founded by an unelected quango based outside the realm is bad enough, never mind thousands.

I think a bit of praise is due to the birthday boy btw, for allowing backbenchers to set up and sign up to Better Off Out.

[Philip]

tapestry at 09:33 has a point, but where an open primary has been held to select the candidate surely it will be difficult for activists to campaign for their deselection against the wider democratic choice - imagine the field day the liberal/left media and BBC will have saying the Party hasn't changed! It may be Labour and Lib Dems attend to vote for a Europhile candidate to stir up trouble in the future for the Party. In my local constituency, members have been invited to a meeting merely (if I understand the procedure correctly) to "ratify" the candidate chosen by the Primary - I feel it will be difficult for members to go against the wider democratic vote.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

The Republican & Democrat Party work perfectly fine in the US with assorted lobby/single issue/think tanks campaigning on their side of the fence either with or against them depending on what their issue is. Why would it be a problem in the UK?

Considering how broke both parties are one thinks they might welcome good research from outside the party.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Platonist 14.20

Benefits of EU membership outlined in glowing technicolour here ...

http://www.labourhome.org/story/2006/10/9/1076/07625

two insults and an endorsement that can hardly be described as ringing.

[Drew SW London]

A Yorkshireman. Giving money to someone else.

In the words of St Jerome of Paxo... Yerrrrs.

Slow news day, Editor?

[Ben Redsell]

Why would some people who call themselves Conservatives prefer to be ideologically pure but in opposition? Rather than accepting something that the vast majority of Conservatives support (the current leadership) and return to power?

BTW Tim, and apologies if it's gone up but I can't find it, where's the post about our sudden renewal of policy! Where's all the stuff about the NHS?!!!

[James Maskell]

Ben Redsell, look at the thread called "NHS, NHS, NHS". I posted the link to the speeches. Theres certainly more meat than was expected but a lot of it is conditional and subject to change.

[christina speight]

Mark - "Where do you get the impression that membership of EFTA would cost us as much as membership of EU? Do we know how much Switzerland pays? "

Eurofacts did an analysis of this on 22/9 and the conclusions were that the annual costs to Switzerland for 2007-2013 work out like this (Sw:Fr: million) / INDEX

=Continue bilateral agreements 557m =100
=Join EEA 737m = 132
=Join EU (NET) 3400m = 610
=Join EU (gross) 4940m =886

Source: Swiss Government

And the 80% figure of laws has come from the Foreign Office, the German government, the Finnish government etc. The figures vary slightly but all in the 75-80% range. It cannot be a precise mrasurement as it fluctuates and there is a question of definition too. It's reliable ballpark stuff

[Mark Fulford]

Two observations on today’s discussions:

1. Somebody asked why Europe is important and good. The pro- argument is one of expanding peace and conscience, which I have made on previous threads. We can’t go through it every time that Europe comes up as an issue.

2. Yes, the decisions behind most of our laws are negotiated in Brussels by our ministers with their European counterparts. However, that is a good thing – it is a sign of the close cooperation which makes the EU so stable. As to 80%, I can’t find such a document on either the FCO or Cabinet Office web sites. I can tell you that in the DTI’s 1994 Review of the implementation and enforcement of EC law in the UK, EC law accounted for between 1% (DfES) and 50% (DEFRA), with most in the 20% to 25% range. That’s obviously old data, but I think we have to treat all estimates sceptically and, instead, ask the more important question: what percentage of EU derived law is bad? We then have to honestly compare the answer to the same question asked of home-grown law.

3. I listen to the vitriolic anti-Europe arguments and think to myself I don’t want to be like them.

[Mark Fulford]

Sorry, being a "rabid Europhile" I can't count to 3 ;-)

[Geoff]

The pro-argument is one of expanding peace and conscience...We can’t go through it every time that Europe comes up as an issue.

Or you don't want to 'go through it' because every time we do it is exposed as a complete nonsense.

Anyway, the money we would save by leaving the EU would buy a lot of warships and bombers which are a better way of ensuring "expanding peace" than regulating the shape of bananas.

Rabid Europhile? Yes, you said it. Don't worry. EU accountants can't do maths either.

On the wider topic, I agree with Andrew Ian Dodge (18:14). We should welcome independent think tanks and pressure groups bringing us new ideas that we can choose to take or leave. It's if the process becomes corrupted and discredited, as in the US, that we have gone too far.

(Not the Geoff who posted at 11:53 by the way. Maybe time to shift to full-name postings.)

[Mark Fulford]

Anyway, the money we would save by leaving the EU would buy a lot of warships and bombers which are a better way of ensuring "expanding peace" than regulating the shape of bananas.

1. You're making the assumption that leaving the world's largest internal market we'd be economically better off. Seems unlikely to me.

2. I don't think there's any evidence that bombers and warships spread peace. America, with its vast military might, is only able to influence other countries for as long as it threats or bribes. By contrast, Europe's influence is one of genuine transformation.

3. The EU does not legislate for the shape of bananas.

So if I’m writing “complete nonsense” then you’re writing...

[Geoff]

The world's largest internal market? If we moved to NAFTA then we would be joining a free-trade organisation with no political aspirations to 'ever closer union'. Sounds like something that was sold to us in the 1970's maybe? They all seem to be at peace as well. Strange that they don't need a common police force to not attack each other.

Your side of the argument seem to worry that our European enemies would pull a big plug and flood the Channel Tunnel - then position submarines in the English Channel to stop our freighters carrying any goods to mainland Europe. No. They can't do without our trade. It's called economic realism.

I can't see much benefit that EU 'influence' is bringing with attempts to rein in Iran's nuclear plans or any one of a score of other forays at international dabbling. Wouldn't have done us much good in the Falklands either, would it.

As for bananas we both have our sources. I've always quoted that one as the most balanced and accurate that I've seen. So I'd be grateful if you'd withdraw the insult hidden behind your "..." as that is not a very dignified way to debate.

[Mark Fulford]

So I'd be grateful if you'd withdraw the insult hidden behind your "..." as that is not a very dignified way to debate.

Rather than withdraw it, I'll complete it:

you're writing complete nonsense too.

I can't see how that's any more insulting or less dignified than what you wrote.

[tapestry]

We would not be leaving the largest internal market at all, Mark Fulford. We would be selling to it and buying from it as openly as we do now. We would though not be governed from Brussels but Westminster, and have the ability to trade freely with the rest of the world saving £40 billion a year on manufactures and foodstuffs. VAT could be abolished, and local councils could then raise their own taxes.

Vitriolic enough for you?

[Geoff]

Mark, I didn't accuse you of writing nonsense - I actually said that argument used by Europhiles was complete nonsense. Don't take things so personally. Please re-read my original post more carefully. I may have strongly-held personal opinions but I like to think that I always play the ball not the man.

Your earlier comment what percentage of EU derived law is bad? We then have to honestly compare the answer to the same question asked of home-grown law.

The answer is simple. EU 100% bad. UK 100% good. Why? Because whether you like the individual law or loathe it you know that it was voted by Westminster MP's that WE directly elected to OUR Parliament and that WE can vote out at the next election.

Anyway, I'm in the office and now need to do some work so you've got an open goal if you want to come back at me. I'll catch up at 5pm-ish your time tomorrow.

[christina speight]

Mark - You ignore evidence when it's presented to you when you say "You're making the assumption that leaving the world's largest internal market we'd be economically better off. Seems unlikely to me."

The Swiss gave you their calculations 9see posting above at 2006. It is SIX TIMES as expensive to be IN the EU as to make bilateral deals with the EU.

YES you are "writing “complete nonsense”

[Given Up]

Switzerland is a great example, as they have had time to look at the beast, been subjected to massive bien pensant pressure to join, but having looked, a clear majority wants no part.

So there they are, the richest per capita country in Europe, with the most active voter participation, bang slap in the middle and they don't want to know....yet basket cases like Bulgaria want in.

[christina speight]

Before those on this blog get the impression that the party does not want to "bang on" about Europe they should read this report from a Conservative Councillor on the fringe meetings in Bournemouth:-- - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: 08/10/2006 18:39:20
To: zzzzzzzz
Subject: MESSAGE FROM A VISITOR TO THE BETTER OFF OUT WEB SITE.

Not only was Better Off Out fringe packed, but every other Anti EU fringe was packed, too. Open Europe was also very well attended and the soft party leadership line roundly denounced with calls for those of feeble attitudes to the EU to get a brick implant in their spines. The Bruges Group was so full, people were trying to listen outside the door. In other words, Conservative members are seriously interested in our relationship with the EU. Most seem very concerned by it. Dave's dictum that "banging on about Europe was taking the party to the margins of debate" does not seem to be reflected by the grass roots.Other fringe meetings on other subjects didn't stop members saying we should get out whenever an appropriate moment arose.
Hague's insistence on sticking with the ludicrous slogan "In Europe, but not run by Europe" shows that the party bosses are either totally ignorant of the destination of the European Project, or are assuming the posture of the ostrich, or are happy to see our country disolved into an EU Superstate like sugar into a cup of coffee. The destination of the EU Project is clearly to annihilate the nations of Europe and to reduce their parliaments to Regional Assemblies. The "acquis Communautaire" is designed to ensure the ratchet clicks one way. There is no reverse gear. Unless we get another referendum soon on our relationship with the EU, it will be too late. We need to think how we can bring that about. At the moment, there is no possibility that the Conservative Party leadership is going to oblige. They are heading for a bust up with grass roots members, in my opinion.There is no point in Conservatives gaining power unless there is a guarantee of a referendum within 12 months.
Cllr.xxxx yyyyyyy
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[Mark Wadsworth]

Chaps! Let us not argue and bicker over the EU; let's see what the cream of the Labour blogosphere has to say in the EU's defence, well, not much really ...

http://www.labourhome.org/story/2006/10/9/1076/07625#9

If those are the arguments IN FAVOUR then it's hardly worth bothering making the arguments against.

[Peter]

Mark its more important to talk about it know as quite clearly back in 75 people took their eyes of the ball and allowed the yes campaign to completely changed peoples views within only a few months.

[Umbongo]

mark fulford

"3. The EU does not legislate for the shape of bananas."

You're wrong

Please refer to Commission Regulation 2257/94 http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31994R2257&model=guichett

As you will see, in the quality standards applicable, bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature".

[Roger Helmer MEP]

Mark Fulford suggests that we'd be worse off if we left the EU. But only today Commissioner Verheugen estimates the cost of red tape (EU wide) at €680 billion, while the estimated benefits of the single market amount to around €160 bn. QED.

But remember we could have the benefits of the single market through a bilateral free trade deal without the costs. We could have the cake and eat it. Clearly we'd be Better Off Out.

[Gareth]

Mr Helmer,

Since you make no bones about disapproving of our party's settled policy on such an important matter, why not do the decent thing and join a party that does agree with your views?

[tapestry]

David Cameron is quite happy for Backbenchers to speak against party policy on the EU, join BOO etc and represent the views of their constituents in Parliament which are largely eurosceptic. Only Frontbenchers have to conform to 'In Europe but Not Run By Europe'.

Roger Helmer MEP stood on a eurosceptic ticket, and he is right to represent the views of the people who elected him.

[Mark Fulford]

But only today Commissioner Verheugen estimates the cost of red tape (EU wide) at €680 billion, while the estimated benefits of the single market amount to around €160 bn. QED.

You really think the EU equation is so simple that you can pluck two figures and say they don't balance?

€680 billion... that's over how long?

€160 billion... what's included in this number? How have you valued the intangible benefits?

I notice you don't put a cost of not being in the EU. Are you suggesting that Norway's 'outsider' position has no cost?

[malcolm]

I would love this country's position to be that of Norway Mark.If they wanted to join they could.Quite sensibly they don't.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I notice you don't put a cost of not being in the EU. Are you suggesting that Norway's 'outsider' position has no cost?"

The same Norway that has the highest standard of living in the world?

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

If any individual wishes to assess the net loss of leaving the EU, then I would suggest that they obtain a copy of the House of Lords report "What is the point of the European Union?" Oct 2004 which concludes that their is no single benefit, financial or otherwise, to our continued membership.

It also gives very clear rebukes to the scaremongering that Mr Fulford and others like to purvey.

This thread in itself should prove to Cameron why Europe is an issue he should be addressing. We 'bang on' about it because whenever we raise it we get the same patronising attitude that a nanny gives to a three year-old that's just asked an embarrassing question.

It's quite surprising how heated this discussion is getting. If we were to believe the Cameroonian spin, this sort of thing doesn't go on in the new post-modernist sunshine conservative party. This is almost as bloody as a Geraint Jones v. Chris Read debate on the TMS website. Now that is nasty...

[Mark Fulford]

The same Norway that has the highest standard of living in the world?

Norway’s economy was in a bad way until it became a big winner in the fossil-fuel lottery. In fact, so bad it was, Norway took 26 years of oil revenue to pay off their foreign debts. Its government sensibly squirrels away oil income for a rainy day but, even so, its economy is a one-trick pony.

Now compare Norway and Ireland, two countries with roughly the same population, but imagine Norway didn’t strike black-gold. It’s hard to see how Norway would have achieved Ireland’s transformation.

And if Norway was in such an idyllic situation, you’d imagine it would be happy with its lot. Why then its internal debate about which course of action Norway should take: to leave the EEA or join the EU? Could it be that many Norwegians want to join the EU, but the farming lobby doesn’t want to see its subsidies cut to CAP levels?

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

I love this expression " farming lobby ".

Why shouldn't their concerns be of over-riding importance? HOW THE HELL ELSE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO EAT???

[Mark Fulford]

I would suggest that they obtain a copy of the House of Lords report "What is the point of the European Union?" Oct 2004

Are you sure that you don't mean Lord Pearson's 2004 essay?

And, for those hacks who like to use CH as a barometer of Conservative opinion, Emma represents UKIP views (Somerset CC elections, May 2005). BTW, can you lose your deposit in a CC election?

[Mark Fulford]

HOW THE HELL ELSE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO EAT???

Isn't that the pro-CAP argument? WWII and the Cold War provoked EU members to ensure a stable (read subsidised) farming base so that food supplies couldn't be threatened.

You might like to ponder this: I can grow a potato in my garden, but I didn't have much luck making a car (OK, I was 5 at the time, but I remember it clearly).

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

Ooohh!!!

I've been googled!!!

I don't usually have any cause to quote John Major, but I think it was him that came up with the expression "sneer & smear". In the same way perhaps that one might avoid debating policy and facts by starting an answer " To be honest, their just a bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists..."

Indeed, Mr Fulford may feel he has exposed a UKIP infultrater: in fact, I use my real name knowing full well that most serious Tories in Somerton & Frome will know who I am...I used to be one. I went to school with a lot of them. I canvassed with Jonathan Marland. And all of the members of S&F UKIP used to be Tories aswell.

And if it makes Mr Fulford feel any more pleased with himself, then he can inform the local CA that I am registered to vote at the S&F Primary being held on Thursday.

BTW, as I am sure you are well aware, local elections do not require deposits.

[Mark Fulford]

In the same way perhaps that one might avoid debating policy and facts...

Yet you write 6 paras without answering either of my points:

1. By HoL Report did you mean Lord Pearson's essay? If so, you're grossly exaggerating.

2. You objected to "the farming lobby doesn’t want to see its subsidies cut to CAP levels". Do you approve of CAP subsidies?

If these questions are sneering, I apologise in advance.

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

Congratulations on your potato-growing skills. I had a good crop of Runner beans this year and the Leeks are coming on lovely.

What I originally found amusing though was that a Tory (or conservative?) is using the social envy tone favoured by the Left: "it's those greedy rich farmers again". The original ideology of the CAP is all twee and lovely, but you make no mention of the modern reality. As I fear, the city-centric view seems to be leading the party at the moment (I can grow a potato in my garden attitude - thank you, I now have a new expression to use) and ignoring the fact that easy tory seats in rural areas are yellow (inc S&F) when they should be blue. The more H.O. focuses on winning over inner cities, the more likely we are to suffer another term of Labour.

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

Incidentally, by the time I had written and posted 6 paragraphs, and made my cocoa - it's getting late, your CAP post had appeared.

Please do not apologise for the sneering: it is the predictable, sub-conscious tone adopted by men when they know it is a female they are having a losing argument with.

If that statement is patronising, I apologise in advance.

What you are sneering at though it would seem is Lord Pearson of Rannoch: please do enlighten.

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

Oh dear, seems I'm the only one still up.

I'll go and make another cocoa - this one's wearing off.

Goodnight!

[Mark Fulford]

Emma, if you read previous posts from me, you’ll find that I’m equally scornful of all UKIPers who post such rubbish. My tone has nothing to do with your sex and everything to do with your argument, or lack of it.

You told us that the House of Lords published a report damning the EU. I bet that sounds good on the doorstep, but it’s just not true. Lord Pearson has gravitas, but the House of Lords has 750 times more.

is using the social envy tone favoured by the Left: "it's those greedy rich farmers again"

No, I said that Norwegian farmers would have to accept a drop in subsidies to join the EU. Even Europhiles will agree that the CAP just needs an R in it, so yes, there is an irony that Norway subsidises farmers more than the EU’s biggest bugbear. Any other tone you read into it was up to you.

ignoring the fact that easy tory seats in rural areas are yellow

Indeed the seat that you fought turned yellow on a majority of just 11. You must be really pleased that your 149 votes had such a constructive result. It occurs to me that UKIP candidates can be on first-name terms with all their supporters – that must be nice.

I can’t post more so, unlikely on CH I know, I hope somebody else will take up the pro EU argument.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Now compare Norway and Ireland, two countries with roughly the same population, but imagine Norway didn’t strike black-gold. It’s hard to see how Norway would have achieved Ireland’s transformation."

Well Ireland does officially have the eighth highest standard of living in the world (although I suspect its actual ranking may be a bit lower due to the absence of wealthy non-EU countries like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco and San Marino from the rankings), behind 5 non-EU countries, one non-Eurozone EU country and Luxembourg.

I certainly wouldn't dispute that EU membership has been good for Ireland, given that the 'transformation' that you and others have frequently alluded to can largely be attributed to being on the receiving end of vast wads of European taxpayers' cash, allowing the Irish government to build an artificially low corporate tax regime.

The subsequent attraction of a handful of blue-chip companies and a swarm of wealthy tax-dodging businessmen to Irish shores disguises the fact that the agricultural sector retains a significant presence in the Irish economy, which continues to be propped up by generous EU handouts.

Norway exploited its natural resources and talented, hard-working population to achieve the highest standard of living in the world; Ireland achieved the eighth highest standard of living in the world on the back of generous handouts from the EU - some would see that as an argument for the benefits of EU membership, however I see Norway's achievement of economic success and exemplary living standards through self-sufficiency as the more laudable achievement.

[Mark Fulford]

Norway's wealth lasts as long as their oil - 2050 by current estimates. Ireland is expected to become a net contributor to the EU budget by 0.7% of its GNP in 2007. One country transformed, the other won the lottery.

Rather than rehash the Norway argument, can I direct you towards True Blue’s April 20, 2006 18:25 post?

[Gareth]

It's simply impossible to 'calculate' the net benefit or not of being in the EU. How can one 'calculate' which companies were attracted to the UK partly because we are members? Similarly, how can one calculate how many other companies might have come here had we not been in the EU and, as the sceptic argument goes, had lower taxes?

Is not a better argument that really only Norway has had the option of joining the EU and not done so? There's never been an attempt by any country to leave (and looks like being no such attempt) and there is a considerable clamour to join. Unless all these countries are extraordinarily selfless, there does seem to be a collective view that membership is, overall, beneficial.

Even in the tory party the sceptic high tide is receding. 'BOO' after all has a parliamentary membership in single digits, does it not? And UKIP aren't exactly preparing for government are they? In fact, the one time a mainstream party put this policy to the electorate, they got their worst ever general election result.

I'm unsure where this issue stands in the voters' 'top ten' of hot topics these days, but would be amazed if it even made the top five.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Rather than rehash the Norway argument, can I direct you towards True Blue’s April 20, 2006 18:25 post?"

Yes, sorry, I wasn't trying to rehash that old argument, I was merely responding to your earlier point asking if it could be said that there was no cost to Norway of not being in the EU.

The point I was trying to make (clumsily) is that such costs (if any) have clearly not prevented Norway from achieving the highest living standards in the world, and so are not significant enough to warrant concern or a warning as to the dangers of not being in the EU.

Thanks for drawing my attention to that thread btw - TB's demolition of a mutual friend's arguments was particularly delicious.

[Umbongo]

Highly significant (I humbly consider) that mark fulford has ignored my post of 17:45 yesterday which tracks the Commission Regulation disproving mf's unequivocal statement that the EU makes no regulations re the shape of bananas. Of course, his leader also made an unequivocal undertaking about leaving the EPP which was found . . er . . wanting.

[Mark Fulford]

Nobody I know thinks that the EU doesn’t do some daft things. My argument is that we should remain in the EU despite its faults.

Umbongo, I concede that the 1994 regulation did define that bananas must be 90% free from abnormal curvature. I ignored your original post because the specific question of bananas is just too trivial to the greater issue of whether we should remain in the EU.

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

Maybe I have caught Mr Fulford on a bad day, or two, but he does seem to epitomize the humorless europhile who, evidently, gets riled at the slightest ribbing.

Maybe if I had put a few exclamation marks after my comment about male condescension, you might have taken it as the light hearted quip that it is. As with the TMS Messageboard, using a female name ensures that your comments are roundly dismissed without debate, whereas a neutral name will get a full, equal terms debate and a less derisory tone. My above comment is not personal, merely a jovial quip based on observation and experience.

Mr Fulford might also consider that the earlier exchange about 'sneer and smear' was an acknowledgement of the unquestioning scornfulness you refer to.

As for the "Indeed the seat that you fought turned yellow on a majority of just 11" suggestion, you might like to digest this statistic, as this accusation turns me rather uncharacteristically humorless:
I managed to reduce, yes REDUCE, the UKIP majority in this seat. If the conservatives got off of their magenta, fence-marked derrieres and came up with something worth voting for, they wouldn't be whinging over 11 seats. Who's to say those UKIP voters would have voted conservative anyway? Blaming UKIP for Tory inadequacies is a lazy excuse from a party which seems to think it should inherit power on the back of government unpopularity without bothering to offer people something they want.

Your argument over the CAP seems to be wavering aswell: Norwegian farmers are oversubsidised hence they are blocking popular support for joining? The implication, read clearly by others as well, that this is bad, that they should have the perfectly reasonable CAP levels that have so benefitted the Irish and the Spanish. Then you dismiss the CAP as rubbish and one of the faults of the EU. So the farmers in Norway are perfectly justified in their opposition to membership? So why indicate that they are the obstacle to a popular movement if they have every reason to be? I'm afraid that, whatever you suggest that sentence reads, many of us would see that as hostile to the farmers' position on the EU.

As for Ireland, I presume you are trumpeting the invigorated economy as a demonstration for being in the EU, and an example as to why leaving it would not be viable. Therefore, presumably, you agree with the funding that has gone into it to prop up an otherwise un-viable economy. Is this showing support for a redistribution programme? Isn't this rather un-conservative? Should we be financing economies that would otherwise not stand-up by themselves? Should other countries have to finance us if we were in the same poistion? Is this a good investment? If Norway were part of the EU and their 'black gold' was contributing to its finances, wouldn't that have meant a relatively lower standard of living in Norway? Doesn't the EU merely standardise a continent to the lowest common denominator? Why shouldn't Norway benefit from its natural resources. Suggesting that Norway has suceeded merely because of its gas is akinned to saying that Britain was only successful because of its ingenuity during the industrial revolution, or that China is only making unprecedented economic success because of the sheer number of relatively cheap workers it can provide because of its population size. Where does all wealth come from in the first place? I'm not surprised Norway doesn't want to disadvantage their own people by propping up other less fortunate/industrious states.

Can't talk any longer: I've got to be off to a certain primary in Castle Cary so I can heckle an A-Lister.

[Mark Fulford]

Emma, today I’m adding “humourless” and “bananas” to my list of faults.

Now, did you notice that I conceded to Umbongo that I was wrong about bananas? I don't think it's your style but perhaps you’d like to concede some of the errors you have made on this thread.

As for male condescension, I think it’s quite a nasty thing to accuse somebody of. I couldn’t take the chance that you were joking about it and, at the time, I’m not sure you were. Some people that work for me go online under male names for the exact reasons you mention.

I managed to reduce, yes REDUCE, the UKIP majority in this seat.

Huh? For a start, the seat wasn’t UKIP, it was Conservative, but are you saying that your secret plan was to reduce UKIP’s vote so that Conservatives would benefit? Also, not pandering to the 3% UKIP vote is not an inadequacy.

many of us would see that as hostile to the farmers' position on the EU.

You are the most confusing person I have ever argued with. You want out of Europe right? But you want EU farm subsidies too? I’m afraid that I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say about CAP.

My point is straightforward: Norwegian farmers don’t want the EU because they’d lose subsidies. Considering that we dislike the CAP because of its high levels of subsidies, that is an ironic situation.

Therefore, presumably, you agree with the funding that has gone into it to prop up an otherwise un-viable economy.

The evidence is that the Irish economy is now viable. EU funding is about transformation, not delaying the inevitable. It is entirely Conservative that you spend money to make money. We are now doing the same in the new accession countries and, in years to come, they will be ever more prosperous and ever more able to trade with us and buy our goods and services.

Why shouldn't Norway benefit from its natural resources.
Of course Norway should benefit from its natural resources. The point is that their economic strength isn’t from sound investments and decision making: it’s a stroke of luck. They discovered a savings account in the ground that they are gradually spending. Once that account runs out they will be reliant on their wit, like everyone else. Fortunately Norway is foresighted and will make sure that its Petroleum Fund is invested into diverse ventures.

Suggesting that Norway has suceeded merely because of its gas is akinned to saying that… China is only making unprecedented economic success because of the sheer number of relatively cheap workers it can provide…

Well why else is China succeeding?

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

Good afternoon Mr Fulford!

Bananas? I haven't mentioned bananas. I don't even like the things: take that up with the relevent contributors and not me.

As for conceding errors, I thought you were complaining that I was not arguing about facts? Therefore, where are the errors? Or is it just my opinion that you find (mutually) erroneous?

I will correct 'majority' however: please read 'vote' or 'percentage': I was in a hurry yesterday.

As for the local UKIP debate;

The Castle Cary Result (for those uninitiated in this hoo-ha):

HOBHOUSE (Lib Dem):2270
LITTLE (Con):2259
VENDOME TAYLOR (UKIP):149

"Indeed the seat that you fought turned yellow on a majority of just 11. You must be really pleased that your 149 votes had such a constructive result." (OK, I'll concede this much: that was an attempt at humour)

I presume you are suggesting that, had I not stood, the Conservative would have won? Is that confused?

My defence then was that I had achieved less votes than my predecessor; if the Conservatives won the seat when more people voted UKIP, then how did they manage to lose it when less people voted UKIP? With both 'right wing' parties losing voters, doesn't that in fact suggest a local shift away from the right in that election?

To suggest I was trying to 'secretly' reduce the UKIP vote in favour of the Conservatives is a somewhat warped and intentionally devious interpretation.

It is also very clear from my post that the 'inadequacies' refer to the Tory policy exclusive of Europe. If the Tories had demonstrably good, attractive policies as a whole, then they would be winning with clear majorities and not quibbling over a hundred or so votes. Try twisting something a little more obscure next time and you might get away with it.

As for those Norwegian farmers, the post you found confusing was the one that was tracing the meanderings of your own posts: glad to see you find your own argument confusing.

As for Ireland:

"We are now doing the same in the new accession countries and, in years to come, they will be ever more prosperous and ever more able to trade with us and buy our goods and services."

Er...no. We don't have a choice in trading with anyone else anymore. We are paying to make them prosperous and paying for competition. That is a redistributive policy, not a Conservative one.

"Well why else is China succeeding?"

Well, exactly. We're just spreading out or forfeiting what we can make a success out of and suffering in the meantime. We should be an independent economy and not a charitable foundation.

"As for male condescension...I couldn’t take the chance that you were joking about it"

ohhh pleeeease....

As Geoff said earlier on: "don't take things so personally."

[Mark Fulford]

Emma dearie, we're clearly incapable of arguing more than one point at a time so I'll keep things simple. When you wrote:

"obtain a copy of the House of Lords report "What is the point of the European Union?" Oct 2004 which concludes that their is no single benefit, financial or otherwise, to our continued membership."

did you in fact mean Lord Pearson's 2004 essay?

Once you have answered that point I will move on to the next.

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

With a comment that starts like that, it is 'ironic' that you are soooo offended by the male condescension comment. Incidentally, as I do not know you, nor you me, I always address you as Mr Fulford. I find 'Emma' a bit personal, let alone with an attached, condescending 'dearie', but I suppose that is an attempt to lighten up and seem less humourless. For future reference, it's Miss., Mr Fulford.

By saying that I don't understand why you have an apparently sneering tone towards Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I thought it would be obvious that it is his essay I was referring to. You have yet to respond fully to this comment, by which I mean, in case you're confused, what is your objection to Pearson's essay?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

To be fair to Mark, Miss Vendome Taylor, your argument has been all over the place.

I feel slightly embarrassed that you piggybacked on the points I raised about Norway and Ireland to try and obfuscate your way out of answering his question too.

[Emma Vendome Taylor]

Piggybacking on your argument Mr Vince-Archer?

I was merely irritated at the tone Mr Fulford seemed to be taking towards the Norwegian farmers. I wasn't expecting a reply to that very short post, let alone to be involved in a debate on the subject.

Still no one has answered as to why they are sneering at my reference to Lord Pearson's report.

[Mark Fulford]

Miss Vendome Taylor, I have not sneered at Lord Pearson. I said that he has gravitas.

My objection is that, to substantiate your argument, you claimed there was a House of Lords Report "'What is the point of the European Union?' Oct 2004 which concludes that their is no single benefit, financial or otherwise, to our continued membership."

There is no such report by the House of Lords. I simply want you admit that fact and then we can move on.