« No more Bush-Merkel back-rubs | Main | Maude pulls the plug on Bournemouth after police failures »


I have re done the link for you.


"Pocket the difference with the Tories"

How about David Cameron promoting the idea of us all pocketing the difference between EU membership and non membership.

The historic dilemma for UKIP, is now becoming the Conservative Party's growing headache:

"How to oppose the EU when that organisation is the growing and major source of your party's funds?"

Discuss that, IMHO the conclusion will arrive at hypocrisy.

Of course such was the intent!

take the great opportunities a pro-withdrawal stance offers the party in terms of both new policies and finances, and then move on.

I think you're going to have to "move on" from that position, as I don't believe (and I'm being pragmatic here, not ideological) that withdrawal is on the Conservative policy agenda. For the reasons I've outlined above and elsewhere, I think this is politically prudent. Cameron has put forward a strong agenda on EU reform.

The principles that will govern our european policy approach are here. Given these and the instruction to front-benchers not to join Better Off Out, I think you have to accept that we're joining the mainstream, moderate position on european politics and driving the case for EU reform, not joining a minority party in shouting for immediate withdrawal.

Martin Cole-eh?

That link provided by Richard goes to the EPP-ED website, with its nauseating "ring-of-stars enclosed in a heart" logo. How can anyone say that they believe in "A Europe based on nation states", while they also insist on remaining in a EU Parliamentary grouping which openly states its belief in a European federation?

March 25th will be the 50th anniversary of the original Treaties of Rome, and the plan is that there should be a Berlin Declaration, looking back on the magnificent achievements of the last 50 years and looking forward to a golden future.


No draft of the Declaration has been published yet*, and it's difficult to see how it could be a legally binding document rather than a political statement, but if Blair is tempted to sign us up for a thousand years of perpetual "ever closer union" it will be interesting to see how the Tory leaders (and also Gordon Brown) react.

* Although it could conceivably be based on a Declaration of Berlin produced in October 2004, which starts:

"A. Noting with great satisfaction that after having surmounted multiple obstacles, the last European Council of 17 June in Brussels approved the Constitution, which corresponds to a large extent to the project drafted by the European Convention"

and goes on to request:

"1. the European Constitution be ratified as quickly as possible by the Member States of the EU, leading to a new stage of European political integration,

2. a procedure of revision of the Constitution be drawn up as soon as possible"


Better Off Out will now be key to the future fortunes of the Conservative Party.

The EU is poison for Britain and the vast majority of the voting public recognise this. Membership costs us billions, with no worthwhile gain.

The decent majority of Conservatives have far more in common with UKIP members than they have with the Eurofanatic Ken Clarke left of the party. Interestingly that covers a range of other issues as well, not necessarily official UKIP policies.

What we need is to get rid of the Eurofanatic left and team up with UKIP.

If David Cameron won't buy that, then we'd be better off without him as well.

Team up with UKIP?


I think you have to accept that we're joining the mainstream, moderate position on european politics and driving the case for EU reform

Following which, we will launch the "Change a Leopards Spots" campaign.

Or possibly the "Black is the New White" campaign.

"I think you have to accept that we're joining the mainstream, moderate position on european politics"

Please explain how being pro-eu is (1) mainstream and (2) moderate, given the public opinion demonstrated in the polls quoted.

"And driving the case for EU reform"

What have we [as a country] been trying to do for the last 30-odd years then? It's not going to happen.

John Ainsworth; I belive you are wrong, it is correct that our parliament is sovereign at this time, but the ECJ does not accept that the EU treaties can simply be rewritten at the behest of any parliament.
Without doubt we could repeal any part of any treaty in our parliament but not without breaking the treaties.

"What we need is to get rid of the Eurofanatic left and team up with UKIP."

I suggest they don't start in Plymouth, where the local UKIP branch is on the verge of collapse after the resignation of its chairman and entire committee. Link!

They obviously couldn't cope with the stampede of disgruntled Conservatives seeking to join their pathetic excuse for a political party.

Pamphlet just produced by Open Europe, available on their website:


"The EU in 2007"

"Open Europe has published a pamphlet looking at the likely developments in the EU in 2007. It explores the debate about the return of the European Constitution, looks at the rising tensions within the eurozone, and examines the agenda of the incoming German Presidency of the EU.

European politicians are determined that 2007 will be the year that the European Constitution is resurrected. If they succeed, Gordon Brown’s new government could be under a lot of pressure from day one.

With tensions also building within the eurozone over the high euro, 2007 seems set to be the year that the whole issue of ‘Europe’ comes back up the political agenda."

Please explain how being pro-eu is (1) mainstream and (2) moderate, given the public opinion demonstrated in the polls quoted.

You shouldn't try to paint me as a "europhile" here - I think there's a number of things the EU does that it doesn't do very well and shouldn't do at all. I'd very much like to see an open, flexible, modern Europe of co-operating nation states, without relentless political integration. This is about the issues we campaign on and what image of our Party the messages we put out project.

But let me answer your question by trying to illustrate what the alternative would be (in a spirit of fun, it's been one of those days!). Picture a press conference with DC announcing our new policy in favour of EU withdrawal and a tie-up with that chinless wonder Farage and his rag-tag band of political wierdos:

"Mr Cameron, does this mean that you accept UKIP were right all along? What other right-wing policies are you going to adopt?"
"Mr Cameron, as you've now lurched to the right, are you looking to court other minority parties there too? What about the BNP?!"
"Mr Cameron, are you saying that your members are "fruitcakes and nutters" as well?"
"Mr Cameron, will you be putting William Hague in charge of campaigning to save to pound at the next election?!"

(With apologies to Mr Hague...)

It's really not going to happen, is it?? We've set a direction and I'm pleased to see that for once in recent times we're sticking to it.

Ken Adams is wrong about the powers of the ECJ over Parliament. The ECJ takes its powers in the UK through our Parliament. You really should Ken learn about the different types of Treaties, just as I wish you would at least spell my name correctly. The whole wretched thing of the EU only works in the UK by the will of Parliament. If the EU Treaties were like other Treaties, which they are not, you can resort to the Vienna Convention on Treaties.

But I thought that was what Ken was saying, more or less - that the existing EU treaties are treaties between the governments of the member states, and have no direct effect in British domestic law unless the British Parliament passes an Act to give them such effect, and that Parliament retains its ultimate supremacy and could repeal that Act in part or in whole at any time. Which is also the case for other treaties, such as extradition treaties, which are intended to have an effect within this country but can only do so if Parliament agrees to pass the necessary legislation.

However there are new potential difficulties inherent in the proposed Treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe, which claims that the EU Constitution and law would be superior to our constitution and law, and which could therefore leave British judges with an unprecedented dilemma over where their primary loyalty lies. Or at least, unprecedented during the last three centuries or so.

John Ashworth I am so sorry for misspelling your name, it was an oversight and not intended as a slight please forgive me.

You are of course quite correct at present the EU works through our parliament, but that does not mean Britain can pass legislation that conflicts with EU treaties without being in breach of its treaty obligations, if the UK Government, without consensus of the other members states withdraw unilaterally from a particular EU policy it would be acting in contravention of the 1972 European Communities Act. So the government would have no option other than repealing part or all of the 1972 Act. This in effect, could well be the beginning for our withdrawal from the EU, because the other members are not likely to allow us to just pick and choose or to unilaterally rewrite the treaties.

To suggest otherwise is being disingenuous, yes the British Parliament is at present sovereign, but that sovereignty has been compromised by ratifying the EU treaties, our parliament has agreed to limit its power to pass legislation and that of course undermines the parliamentary gentleman’s agreement that one government may not bind a following parliament. The only way out is to be prepared to repeal the whole 1972 act of accession.

Theoretically each government we elect could chooses which parts of which EU treaties it wishes to obey, but so far nothing like that has ever happened and it is extremely unlikely to ever happen and certainly not without repercussions.

That is why I argue that conservative policy which ignores the EU is pie in the sky.

Thanks Ken - What you have stated is exactly why the Fishing policy has been dumped, and why the present Conservative Party has no intention of taking any powers back from Brussels, even though Cameron has said so on employment and social regulation. The past Fishing policy would have opened the flood gates, that is why we tried for so long to get it established, but the Party will pay a high price for giving up on Fisheries.

The longer Cameron stays the less chance the UK has of making any influence in the EU let alone withdrawal.

He, and his advisors, appear to not know / forget or simply ignore the fact that Conservative policy of changing the EU from within has been policy since 1972. When does, eventually, realization penetrate ? Not with Cameron's lot.

Many of my Conservative friends are no longer Conservatives as daylight dawns on their thinking. More and more are leaving tribal politics and recognizing Country before party.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker