The EU Treaty presents David Cameron with a great opportunity

"Not all the details are clear or finalised but we now know the basis of the new EU Treaty and it is clear that large parts of the EU Constitution are repackaged but back.

Blair and Brown have signed up to major shifts of power from Britain to the EU and major changes in the way the EU works.  The EU would now be able to sign treaties in its own right and, despite any 'opt- ins', the European Commission and Court of Justice would now have new powers over criminal law. The EU Treaty would also set up a new EU president and diplomatic service. These are just some of the fundamental changes that were in the Constitution and are now set to be in this new Treaty.

Given their manifesto commitment to a referendum on the EU Constitution, the Government have absolutely no democratic mandate to introduce these major changes without letting the British people have the final decision in a referendum."

- William Hague MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary

William Hague's statement that large parts of the EU Constitution are repackaged but back" is something of an understatement as Open Europe's analysis of the new Treaty makes clear.  Where Mr Hague is right, of course, is that we are seeing more transfers of power to Europe and that Tony Blair has reneged on his 2005 manifesto promise to give the British people a referendum on the EU Constitution.  Open Europe's Neil O'Brien said that the detail of what Blair et al have signed up to "is just the old EU Constitution in everything but name.”  There is something darkly appropriate that Tony Blair's last serious act as Prime Minister (his 47th EU summit!) was what Neil describes as "an exercise in massive spin and deception":

"The Government has tried to whip up totally non-existent row about tax policy.  Its red lines have been so vague that it is literally impossible for them not to be met.  Meanwhile the UK Government is signing up to a whole raft of proposals it previously opposed. Blair and Brown will claim victory, but it rings utterly hollow.  The Government promised again and again that the Charter would not be legally binding.  Now they say it will be. To save face they have agreed a fudge which they hope will stop EU judges from changing our national laws.  But EU judges have already said that it will change our laws despite this.”

David Cameron, who has recently experienced some difficulties in his relationship with large sections of his grassroots, should seize this opportunity to reassert his leadership and regain some much-needed affection.  He needs to adopt the attitude of The Sun and The Mail on this agenda.  Today's Sun describes the proposed loss of British vetoes on "energy, agriculture and fisheries, transport, culture, tourism and even immigration policy" as a "shabby surrender of British power."  The Mail's Ben Brogan notes that British powers are being lost in fifty-two areas.  52! 

This is not a time for William Hague to be (however ably) leading the Conservative attack on this "shabby surrender".  Forget Michael Portillo's advice that this issue will only encourage the Tory party's "wild-eyed" Eurosceptics.  This is a great opportunity for Mr Cameron to champion the vast majority of British people who have had enough of the relentless drive towards a European superstate and the way the EU's politicians ignore referendum results.

3pm: John Redwood explains why we deserve a referendum

Comments

[Adam Tugwell]

Spot on. Where's DC when we need him?

[Frank McGarry]

British Parliamentary Democracy - R.I.P.

[chrisblore]

I agree. It's all very well Cameron creating and perpetuating the image of a new "cudly" Conservative Party but he needs to show the grass roots of the party that he still shares their values. There is a legitimate opportunity here to do this and he is missing a trick by remaining silent. Come on Dave, show the party you are one of them!

[John]

Its now being said that this is a 'mandate' for a treaty that has been signed. Not the treaty itself which will be signed later this year.

[TomTom]

I think Cameron should encourage his Backbenchers to sound out Labour Backbenchers and let them push a Commons campaign for immediate Referendum

[bluepatriot]

This is bad advice. William Hague is the perfect spokesman to lead on this. Portillo is right. Cameron must not be seen as a wild-eyed Eurosceptic. He needs to focus on issues of importance to centrist voters.

[Alan S]

Brown won't enjoy a long honeymoon with the Mail and Sun if he says no to a referendum. TeeHee.

[John]

Alan S:

Don't count on the Daily Mail it seems to be changing sides!

[cleo]

The difficulty is that the Conservative Party when in government did not offer referenda on European treaties. Yes the polls say voters want a referendum but the party should now be careful not to become too obsessed about the issue as it has appeared to be in the past. Europe might be a defining issue for Conservative grassroots but voters at large are far more concerned about public services, the environment, crime and I don't think that at the next election Europe will be at the forefront of their minds.

[Paul D]

Can we count on the Telegraph either with today's editorial "How Brown can win over our readers"?

[Richard North]

Sigh! It is not a treaty, it is a mandate for a treaty - a recommendation addressed to the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) which will convene its first meeting in July. Therefore, the negotiations have not finished - they have yet to start.

The timetable is for a substantive, proposed treaty to be submitted to an IGC summit in October or November, when we have this theatre to go through all over again.

[Tory T]

"Where's DC when we need him?"

"he is missing a trick by remaining silent"

Er.....

David Cameron in the Telegraph yesterday:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/06/22/do2201.xml

"In 2005 two countries in Europe that were permitted a popular vote on the proposed constitution rejected it. I am positive that, if Britain had had the opportunity, we too would have voted no. Perhaps that would have proved once and for all that the constitution was dead.

Certainly, any attempt to bring it back without a popular mandate would lack democratic legitimacy. But that is what is happening under the guise of a "treaty" that many leaders hope will not require ratification by referendum. I am clear that if a new treaty transfers powers from Britain to the EU, the British people must have the final say in a referendum."

[George Hinton]

One wonders which part of NO does B-Liar not understand.
Surely we have a fail-safe mechanism through Westminster that whatever B-Liar has signed up to can be renounced? He didn't have a mandate and has stripped the people of this country of democracy and choice.
Legacy? his legacy will be, that single handedly he has unwound 800 years of our freedoms, our legal system, our Parliamentary system. He has achieved what many French kings tried, Napoleon tried, the Kaiser tried, Hitler tried, the unions and Moscow tried, he has subverted this country and handed it to outsiders to govern. No doubt he will hang around expecting to receive his Quisling's role and silver.
ALL the Tories need to gang up and make a great noise about this indecent act, not just Hague and not just DC. As for Portillo's comments, as a eurosceptic i take great exception to them. All i want is the democratic choice, if i'm outvoted, sobeit, but i don't have to like it, but i want the referenda, the electorate have the right to choose not one man, B-liar clearly feels he governs alone.

[Editor]

Thanks for the clarification, Richard!

cleo: "Europe might be a defining issue for Conservative grassroots but voters at large are far more concerned about public services, the environment, crime and I don't think that at the next election Europe will be at the forefront of their minds."

You're largely right, I think, but voters won't like the denial of a say that this backroom dealmaking involves. That may leave a nasty taste in their mouths about the straight-forwardness of Brown'n'Blair.

[sell up, move out]

Since 1997, Blair has had a pre-meeting misdirection spin on "red lines" which Tories and eurosceptics go on about allowing him to declare victory afterwards. Yet again, we have been beaten by the spin because CCHQ and euroscpetic organisations are incompetent.

Open Europe has had two years to prepare for this week. What have they done? O'Brien has spent two years trying to become an MP; the rest of the office has collected cheques for nothing; Leach has got his peerage and is happy to have a non-active front organisation to absorb eurosceptic money while doing nothing and keeping Cameron happy etc.

The Eurosceptic cause has gone backwards since the French/Dutch No votes. Money and time wasted and no agenda for WHAT WE SHOULD DO INSTEAD OF THE EU.

Forget the Tories doing anything useful - they are about to be smashed by Brown.

What to do? Get your money out of the UK and short Tories on Betfair...

[cleo]

I think the important point is to have the right balance. Voters do not like obsessions of any nature and the party should be careful for Europe not to be the defining issue and that there is a balance of what it campaigns about and what voters see the party to be about through media, interviews etc.

[ToMTom]

The difficulty is that the Conservative Party when in government did not offer referenda on European treaties.

Maude

While he is largely excused for signing the Maastricht treaty, he is also remembered for his temerity in the Commons in 1991, when telling Thatcher to her face that there would be no referendum on the treaty he had negotiated.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199911150015

[tapestry]

Cameron cannot stop this without support from Labour backbenchers, and maybe Lib Dem MPs too.

Labour MPs will be willing to revolt over this issue. According to the Democracy Movement - over 50 labour MP's are ready to rebel against their Whips. Cameron is right to be going slow and not posturing too much, ensuring Brown hooks himself good and proper on this Con-Treaty before he strikes.

When he strikes, Cameron will want to keep the hook in the fish's mouth and land him in his net. He will need to prepare his ground with opposition forces supporting him, if he is to win.

[Chris]

ToMTom,
Blair is always harking back to "Since 1997..." during PMQs. What happened in the past shouldn't always happen in the future, in trying to hide behind an excuse like this, Labour are admitting that they know they're in the wrong.

[Editor]

Are Labour MPs really going to rebel against their new leader, tapestry?

[Richard North]

Thanks for the clarification, Richard!

cleo: "Europe might be a defining issue for Conservative grassroots but voters at large are far more concerned about public services, the environment, crime and I don't think that at the next election Europe will be at the forefront of their minds."

You're largely right, I think, but voters won't like the denial of a say that this backroom dealmaking involves. That may leave a nasty taste in their mouths about the straight-forwardness of Brown'n'Blair.

Welcome. The thing to watch in this "not a treaty" is not so much in the Annex itself, but in the European Council resolution, where there is a naked attempt to prevent any further negotiation, and to ensure that the Annex text is taken "as is".

The general presumption is that Brown has room to negotiate at the IGC and to change or "water down" some of the proposed amendments - or to add his own provisions. However, the way the EC resolution is framed, this freedom has been heavily circumscribed.

Alongside addressing the detail of the Annex, therefore, there is an urgent need to clarify the role and the powers of the IGC, to ensure that this attempted coup does not succeed.

[John]

George Hinton:

I agree with you this cannot just be left up to David Cameron and Co. Brown has a majority so he can disregard anything the opposition say especially as the LibDems are all for giving power away.

He is less able to resist a public clamour for something to be done.

So the question is what can we the public do?

Any Ideas?

[601]

"I don't think that at the next election Europe will be at the forefront of their minds."

It will be if Brown hold it at the same time as the Euro elections!

[James]

Can't believe some of the useless pinkos who comment on this site: who cares if this is only a prelude to more EU negotiation? Who cares if the Conservatives would look "extreme" by objecting - this is another step on the inevitable road to an EU superstate. Read the Open Europe document if in any doubt about this. As per usual, our government sells us off to the EU on issues that we were assured just a few years ago were powers they would never surrender.

These salami tactics are great if your federalist; but not so great if you believe in the (ever shakier) concept of British national sovereignty. When will this so called 'conservative' party have the guts to say enough is enough, we want out.

[Ted]

Brown played this well - the Murdoch press and Mail can see he called up Blair to over-rule the decision to give away fair competition, plus he said he would consider a referendum if the agreement went too far (he decides what too far means). So he's gained points with them. So he'll get away with no referendum

Cameron and Hague though played the lead up badly allowing Blair to set out the Red Lines. What were Cameron's? What were the particular things that if Blair gave way would have supported a call for a referendum? The Tories let Blair decide what "victory" would mean, they gave away the agenda.

I'm very pessimistic about the ability of the Tories to have any success on this - the arguments have been settled and Brown has no real reason to re-open the discussion; the opposite in fact he can go into the discussions as a supportive chap working in concert with Sarkozy and Merkel, not having to win an argument but just to keep what's been agreed and let what's been given away remain given away. The Tories can be presented as "headbangers" arguing about inconsequentials.

[tapestry]

Editor - that's the trillion euro question.

Frank Field, Austin Mitchell would probably do so and the handful of those who have declared their support for a review of the EU's costs and benfits. Whether the large numbers will do so at this stage is hard to judge.

Labour MPs have shown themselves willing to rebel against Blair and they might transfer their rebelliousness over to the new regime - especially as Gordon is moving with so little caution to pull in outsiders to replace Labour ministers.

Labour MPs might on the other hand be most unwilling to hand a party political victory to Cameron. Maybe that's why Cameron is proceeding cautiously, so that the issue remains as much as possible a cross party one.

The EEEYEW has cleverly landed this right at the front end of a suposed Brown honeymoon. But on the evidence so far, many labour MPs might prefer to let Gordon now that their support and his power is only conditional. The Brown arrogance needs reigning in, from anybody's viewpoint.

[Denis Cooper]

John @ 11:26 - "So the question is what can we the public do? Any Ideas?"

Here's one from the Democracy Movement:

http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/main/press/070621.html

But while waiting for their campaign materials to become available next month:

a) Sign up as a supporter to be kept informed about the campaign.

b) Write a brief letter to your local newspaper, pointing out that the referendum promise was not just Blair's promise, it was a promise which all the Labour MPs made to their own constituents in 2005, without which many of them would not now be in the House of Commons - and if they can't be trusted to keep their word on something as straightforward as this, then nothing they say in the future about any issue can ever be trusted.

c) If you have a Labour MP, contact him and say the same thing as in b).

d) Contact David Cameron, copy to your local MP if he is a Tory, and ask why the Tories haven't yet said that if Brown reneges on his promise and refuses to hold a referendum then the next Tory government would hold that referendum.

[tapestry]

In support of my contention, read John McDonnell (Labou) MP's website this morning -

'For all those who still had any illusions about Gordon Brown's accession to the Labour Party throne being a move back to Labour's mainstream, tonight's intervention by Brown into the EU summit should certainly clear matters up.

The Brown spin doctors are briefing that Brown demeaningly ordered Blair back to the summit negotiating table to hold the line on a key issue.

What was this critical issue which so alarmed Brown?

Was it concern over the EU attempting to prevent a Labour government intervening in the economy to protect jobs or protect public services or extend trade union rights?

No, true to his neo liberal philosophy, the reason Brown demanded Blair go back into the negotiating room and dig his heals in was because he was fearful that the French were undemining the free market. He was angry that Sarkozy of all people was seeking to "dilute" the operation of free competition in the EU market.

Many in the Labour Party and trade unions, especially those who nominated him, just don't get it about Brown and where he is coming from.

Brown is deeply ideological and his ideology is solidly neo liberal, with an absolute dedication to the operation of the free market. Hence his obsessions with privatisation, flexible labour, pay restraint for workers, tax cuts for businesses and restrictions on trade union rights.

If Brown's starting point is to the right of Sarkozy, I warn you, we haven't seen anything yet.

It seems that Labour MPs might be even angrier with Gordon Brown than Conservatives. There is a lot of nuclear dust flying around the atmosphere. It will take time to settle, and it looks likely that Brown will find that the discovery that it is him that is the neo-liberal and not Blair, will enfuriate the Labour Party. Brown has postured as a left winger held back by Blair's Conservatism. Now the truth is coming out.

An alliance between the left of the Labour Party and the right of the Conservative Party is not imossible in these new and unusual times to stop the arrogance of Gordon Brown.

[TomTom]

Labour are admitting that they know they're in the wrong.

That is not the issue in Politics - smokescreens are just that. What matters is getting results - it is simply that Maude is not the person to push for a referendum - but Duncan Smith could - or Backbenchers could - that is the point.

The Conservative leadership should not be the moving force - the backbenchers should be

[tapestry]

There is also an entry about the Lib Dem invitations Brown is making, and distress at Brown's overriding of democratic procedure. It's worth a visit to get a flavour as to how many labour MPs are already feeling about Brown's arrogant style of leadership.

For the sake of saving British democracy, Cameron should propose a cross party alliance to labour MPs to stop the Merkel contrick, and enforce either a proper leadership contest within Labour's ranks or if necessary a general election.

http://www.john4leader.org.uk/

Or Gordon will wake to the looming threat to his leadership and quickly call a referendum to head off the rebellion he would be facing - which would probably overwhelm him.

[tapestry]

OK Tom Tom, but it would be stronger coming from Cameron in alliance with a leading Labour Party backbencher.

[John]

Denis Cooper: Thanks for the suggestions.

I've looked and nobody seems to have raised this.

It seems to be accepted that Sarkozy tried to stitch-up the UK and others on the free-market.

But did he? What were all those discussions between Sarkozy, Blair & Brown about?

Was this really yet another carefully choreographed diversion to take the focus off the 52 furthers powers that are now proposed to be transferred to the EU?

[jorgen]

Denis: that if Brown reneges on his promise and refuses to hold a referendum then the next Tory government would hold that referendum.

1) Is that possible?
2) Would it matter much: the EU has been slicing powers for years and will continue to do so.

[Denis Cooper]

1) Yes.
2) Counsel of despair, surely?

[voreas06]

There is no doubt this entire red lines, Blair cross-bearing, Brown saving the day was very well choreographed. However the language used to oppose this outright deception is important.

It would be silly to point to europe/brussels as the cause of this and indeed all the Germans, French etc are doing is protecting their own national interest. The response must be solely focussed on the Labour party and what a shambles it makes of Brown's argument of cleaning up politics, decentralisation of power, Britishness etc.

I would now like to see Conservative MPs/Shadow Ministers who appear on television showing real disgust at how easily lies trip off the tongues of Government Ministers and Prime ministers and passion about the real potential affect on peoples everyday lives if this treaty goes through.

[RodS]

"He is less able to resist a public clamour for something to be done.

So the question is what can we the public do?

Any Ideas?"

If ever there was a line in the sand - then the demand for a Referendum must be it. Can you think of a better reason for Civil Disruption on a massive scale. What did the Petrol Tax Rebels do ? What do the French Farmers always do ?

With our increasingly gridlocked Motorway system (mainly with Lithuanian Lorries) it would only take a few hundred cars to 'break down' at key points to bring the country to a halt. Blockade the Junctions I say - but then that wouldn't be British !!

[jorgen]

Thanks, Denis, I am relieved.

[Denis Cooper]

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=359

"The poll is also mentioned on the Spectator blog, and in Le Figaro, which notes the result that 43% of Labour voters will be “definitely less likely” to vote for Gordon Brown if he does not hold a referendum. It quotes Denis MacShane saying, “The Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats now and 30 or so Labour MPs are in favour of a referendum.” "

The question is this: will Cameron go along with those around him who would prefer the outcome which would be most favourable to the Tory party (not to have the referendum, have the treaty, have 43% of Labour voters less likely to vote for Gordon Brown, and then leave the treaty in place as yet another federalist fait accompli) or will he insist on the outcome which would be most favourable for the British people, and when it comes down to it for people across the rest of EU (have a referendum, see the treaty rejected again, and force the EU political elite to go back to the drawing board and come up with some genuine reforms).

[Mark Wallace]

Bluepatriot @10:31
"Cameron must not be seen as a wild-eyed Eurosceptic. He needs to focus on issues of importance to centrist voters."

I cannot emphasise enough that we must not let this kind of underhand argument be used to kick the issue into the long grass or downgrade it.

A referendum is supported by the right, the left, the centre and the floating voters in Britain - it's not an extreme or wild-eyed idea in any way, and it would be disgraceful if we allowed the Constitution's supporters to smear it as such.

The latest ICM poll shows this unequivocally
(http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/constitutionpoll.pdf):

86% of voters want a referendum.

That includes:
83% of Labour voters.
88% of Conservative voters.
88% of Lib Dem voters.
81% of voters who gave no party preference.

If we don't get a referendum under Brown, there is a perfectly viable policy open to Cameron. He has aready pledged that ID cards will be revoked come the next Tory Govt. If there has been no referendum come the next Conservative Government, then we should hold a referendum on the Constitution then.

[Traditional Tory]

bluepatriot - Cameron must not be seen as a wild-eyed Eurosceptic. He needs to focus on issues of importance to centrist voters.

Isn't our major problem that this view - contemptible as it is - exactly represents the image that Cameron has chosen to present to the world?

It's a major reason why an increasing number of Tories are becoming sceptical about Cameron's ability to achieve anything worthwhile in the fight for British liberty.

[Scotty]

We have got to avoid falling into the trap set by Brown who is hoping that we end up fighting and becoming obsessed by Europe again with the appropriate damaging newspaper headlines. We could end up being stitched up yet again as we were in 2001, we ended up being proved right but Labour won the battle in spite of this. As a result we are back with the constitution which most voters do not want, and this time it will go through with the usually caveat of a promised referendum which won't materialise.
We have to be canny in the way we fight this and winning should be the objective, not headlines on being split and obsessed with Europe to the exclusion of all else. We can only fight effectively as a team, and that means the leadership, MP's and MEP's working together AND not going off on individual crusades which end up with them attacking each other which does not win over public opinion.

Brown will now be effectively campaigning to push the argument that a referendum is not needed because nothing major has changed, and today's headlines were the start of this and he will be pleased at how successful his briefings were yesterday. We have to get the message home that this government has lied and reneged on a promise. But we need to do it in a wider context pulling in other issues where we have been deceived by this government. What about the last manifesto and how much of a mandate does Brown as an unelected midterm PM have to push this through parliament?
An unwillingness to give us a referendum could be used to highlight Brown's lack of courage in allowing contests or debates?

[Scotty]

Should have added that I suspect that the reasoning behind the briefings which resulted in today's headlines was to portray Brown as being a tough negotiator who will put Britain's interests first, and therefore he can be relied upon and trusted. If that sticks with the public then this could neutralize widespread support for a referendum.

[Felicity Mountjoy]

It is vital that David Cameron does not undo the last 18 months by starting to go on about Europe again. This Treaty is a tidying up exercise. A good relationship with Merkel and Sarkozy is more important than a good relationship with a few crazy Eurosceptics who will only want "More! More!" however much they are given.

[tapestry]

Mark Wallace. it would probably be too late by the next election. It might be three years away.

If Dennis McShane admits there are 30 or so Labour MP's in favour of a referendum, call that 60. Other sources are saying there are over 50.

If the Lib Dems and the Conservatives want a referendum, there is almost certainly a majority in the house for one. Cameron should not move without Lib Dem support, and the rebel Labour support in place - but move they all must in a cross party demand for a referendum.

There is no need to phrase this in anti European terms. It is not. It is pro-European to stop this. There is a major deception taking place. If British MPs don't stop in its tracks, the world, let alone Britain will be a poorer place, and generations will pay the price of permitting rule by coordinated deception, not just people living today.

[John]

Felicity Mountjoy:

This treaty is a tidying up exercise?

52 powers tranferred to Brussels. More than Maastrict or Nice

What would you call a constitution then? The immediate dethronment of the monarchy and the annexation of the country to Brussels. I am trying to be moderate on this but one thing I am sure on is that this is NOT a tidying up exercise.

[HF]

The Mail seems to have bought the Brown line.

[Frank McGarry]

Thank you Mark Wallace for reminding us of the recent ICM poll showing that 86% of voters want a referendum.

These 86% must be the "wild-eyed" eurosceptics that Portillo refers to. They are clearly "obsessed with Europe".

Or is it the europhile Blair supporters who are obsessed? So obsessed, that they are willing to destroy our democracy and sacrifice our right to self-determination?

Blair's legacy is a legacy of lies.

[John,]

As Mark Wallace points out the vast majority do want the referendum.

David Cameron must make sure that the question of a referendum continues to be asked. If the treaty is so acceptable why can't the government trust the people to judge it for itself? Brown must be made to answer this.

However, Cameron must not be seen to obsess about this. The party has a lot of policy positions to come out in the next few months which will be of more interest to the electorate than Europe will.

Cameron needs to keep the European pot simmering, not boiling, until the right time and then he needs to turn the heat up.

[Denis Cooper]

Cameron only needs to make one speech on this topic - the speech in which he says very clearly that if Brown doesn't give the British people the referendum that they were promised and that they want, then as Prime Minister he would do so.

[tapestry]

Given the 86% of the public, and the likely majority of MPs are in favour of a referendum, it seems unlikely that Gordon Brown will risk ratifying the Con Treaty through the Commons with a referendum. It would be political suicide.

The motions of the deception plan are still being gone through. The media's doing its bit to deceive, but the story seems to be at this stage that no one's buying the scam.

The balance of opinion in the Commons and the reaction of public opinion to the balatant attempt to deceive, will be reported in polling shortly. It seems most unlikely that Brown will dare not to call a referendum, once he can see how unpopular such a move would be, and jeopardising his position.

He will no doubt then try to resort to more stealthy ways to impose the Constitution, as is his trademark.

Cameron could use the opening caused by this whole saga to launch his backing for Lord Pearson's Bill currently in the Lords, and about to arrive in the Commons. This Bill proposes a cost/benefit analysis of Britain's membership of the EU. From there, a positive statement of the kind of Europe that we want can be constructed.

The current manipulative and deceptive EU is shameful and dangerous. If Brown tries much longer to bluff his way through, the anger he stirs up will open up the poltical opportunity to get people to start questioning what Europe is all about, take an interest and redefine what kind of future relationship they want.

The next week will be fascinating to watch, as the various plays unfold.

[Traditional Tory]

Felicity Mountjoy - It is vital that David Cameron does not undo the last 18 months by starting to go on about Europe again. This Treaty is a tidying up exercise.

There speaks a true Cameroon.

90% of the Conservative Party is solidly Eurosceptic. Sadly we are now back to a position where the tail is wagging the dog.

[tapestry]

TT.

If Felicity's the tail, you're the dog.

Cameron's made clear statements and Hague in favour of a referendum. The ranks are closing fast in the Conservative Party, from the head to the tail. Events are moving too fast for you.

[Philip]

“Europe might be a defining issue for Conservative grassroots but voters at large are far more concerned about public services, the environment, crime and I don't think that at the next election Europe will be at the forefront of their minds.” (Cleo 1045).

This may be true, but surely someone with the leadership and communication skills DC has can call the country to wake up to the importance of this issue, and to the need to regain our sovereignty as a free nation. Perhaps there is little point in being concerned about public services, the environment, and so on, when so much of our law originates in Brussels.

Not sure which interests people like Felicity Mountjoy (1429) and Portillo represent. Britain, or those whose ideal are for us to be part of a European Superstate? As for Portillo, he seems to be used by elements in the liberal media wishing to stir trouble for any Conservative leadership wanting to stand for British interests and reassert the sovereignty of our Parliament. I do not see why such importance should be given to his views as representing anything like those of mainstream Conservative opinion.

[Traditional Tory]

Events are moving too fast for you

I hope you're right, Tapestry.

But I haven't yet forgotten how the Fifth Column rats turned on Maggie in her hour of need.

Why is the party still carrying a dead weight of people who still blatantly proclaim their commitment to a United Europe?

It's as if in 1940 Churchill had 'done a Brown' and invited Sir Oswald Mosley to join his cabinet.

[Optimist]

I'm profoundly suspicious of comments like this one from someone calling himself 'Ted': "I'm very pessimistic about the ability of the Tories to have any success on this - the arguments have been settled and Brown has no real reason to re-open the discussion; the opposite in fact he can go into the discussions as a supportive chap working in concert with Sarkozy and Merkel, not having to win an argument but just to keep what's been agreed and let what's been given away remain given away. The Tories can be presented as "headbangers" arguing about inconsequentials."

Really, Ted? That strikes me as a very, very pessimistic analysis. Or perhaps you are being disingenuous and trying to spread doom and gloom...

[Mark Wallace]

Tapestry: "it would probably be too late by the next election. It might be three years away."

Not too late for a referendum on whether to revoke the treaty, though - that was of course what the Common Market referendum was about back in 1975.

I think it is important that this is played sensibly. It would not be sensible to pretend the EU is the only issue, nor would it be sensible to pretend it is not an issue at all.

Cameron should say a mature party should not be obsessed with or terrified of an issue - it should be dealt with clearly, calmly and publicy, not hidden away.

[tapestry]

I agree that it was the europhiles that did for Maggie in 1990, TT. If in doubt read Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech.

But how many europhiles are left in Conservative ranks in the Commons today? 5-10 at most.

There are certainly still some dubious characters in the 'Tory' Press and on TV.

But the media are not the final arbiters.

If the House of Commons wants a referendum on this Constitution/Treaty, there will be one. Hague and Cameron are out in public backing one. I read that backing one too do the Lib Dems, and around 50 Labour MPs.

The House of Commons majority did not see any danger from backing the EU 1n 1990, when it saw fit to dump Maggie. The majority of MPs now are for the first time since maybe 1973 aware that our relationship with the EU needs a reassessment, and they are winding up to reimpose their authority.

There is a potential cross party movement motivated by differing notions as to what is wrong with the EU. The Left Wing are troubled by Sarkozy's emphasis on competition. The right by loss of control over our armed forces and foreign relations. But what MPs from all sides have in common is a desire not to become increasingly irrelevant. Even Ken Clarke is bemoaning the loss of authoprity in Parliament. The penny is dropping - late in the day for many - but this is the moment of no return for Parliament.

Keep your chin up.

[TomTOm]

Not too late for a referendum on whether to revoke the treaty, though - that was of course what the Common Market referendum was about back in 1975.

No it was not.

Wilson derided Heath's terms when in Opposition and pledged to renegotiate. The Referendum related directly to the renegotiations not to Heath's original package.

Unless the Conservatives say they will renegotiate the Treaty they will find it hard to have a referendum after it has come into force in 2010-11.

[passing leftie]

This is what my crystal ball tells me.

There will be no referendum. There will not be a significant rebellion. The treaty will be ratified in parliament. If Cameron gets in he will not revoke the treaty, or hold a referendum on it. Nothing anyone does or says here will make any difference to these facts.

Cameron might be able to make a little political capital out of it, but the idea he could foment a Labour rebellion is risible.

Once again, Tory Eurospectics are pissing in the wind. I think you should look to UKIP if you want a referendum. You'll probably feel more at home there.

[Denis Cooper]

TomTom @ 16:55 -

"Unless the Conservatives say they will renegotiate the Treaty they will find it hard to have a referendum after it has come into force in 2010-11."

Not at all. The Crown in Parliament remains the supreme authority for the United Kingdom, and if Parliament passes a Bill ordering a referendum and the Crown assents then that referendum will take place. The question could be whether we were content with the treaty which had been ratified by the previous Parliament without a referendum, or we wanted that ratification either suspended or revoked, or better it could be whether we wanted the government to open negotiations for an alternative treaty which would then in its turn be put to a referendum. Either way there is nothing the EU collectively, or the other member states individually, or any other external entity, could do to prevent that referendum being held, or to prevent Parliament amending or entirely repealing the Act passed by the previous Parliament, while leaving the present Acts relating to EU treaties untouched.

[Gadfly]

There is another important point to emerge from the last few days - The BBC. Throughout Friday and Saturday Mark Mardell and others followed the Labour briefing. He even went as far as to summarise On friday evening that Blair looked like succeeding in his negotiations over his red lines, which made it difficult for the Tories as there now wasn't a great case for a referendum. It was a classic case of the BBCs European bias masquerading as news. He made no effort to explain what else was in the treaty, just Blairs red lines. The worrying thing is that the British people will get their read out of this teraty from that unhelpfull commentary. Perhaps it is time for Conservative Home to let the BBC know it is on its case. We will never persuade the British people that the referendum is required while the Beeb is so blatently biased.

[Editor]

Sky wasn't much better Gadfly - its coverage celebrated Blair maintaining his artificial redlines.

[Tapestry]

Gordon Brown is assuming the biased media coverage will overpower all potential opposition to the Treaty. That's where he'll get the mood wrong, and open himself up.

No doubt there will be some polls next confirming that 54% or thereabouts of Britons approve of Blair's negotiation on our behalf. The old tricks will be used of course. The public don't trust the media nearly as much as they used to do, and the majority opposition to the CON Treaty will be hard to erode. It'll take more than a few news bulletins from the usual ranks of paid-off liars.

[John]

Editor:

At least William Hague has been getting decent coverage on the BBC this afternoon.

Also I have found this petition on the 10 Downing Street Website.

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted a binding referendum on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU "constitution" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature'

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/

Brown won't go for it but if the numbers signing are bog enough it could help. It can do any harm. Perhaps you might want to advertise it?

[John]

Er apologies typo 'big' not 'bog'

[Steve]

Having read the excellent EU referendum blog on the treaty it is simply time to stand up and be counted. BBC24 showed the Brown interview from tomorrows politics show and he simply avoided answering the question on a referendum because he knows he will be forced to hold one if the public realise what is in it.

As with his last budget he is spinning like a top in the hope the truth doesnt come out. It is time to call his bluff, promise to revoke this shameful agreement if elected and stick with it. The public know Brown is a liar, from a government of liars and they want a change. What they do not want is more of the same.

[Scotty]

Gadfly and Tim, I am convinced that the Labour campaign strategy is in full throttle and the aim is to neutralize the demand for a referendum in much the same way they promised a referendum to take the sting out of negotiations over the last EU constitution.
I hope someone at CCHQ has got a cunning strategy in place to deal with this. We have to be totally united and working off the same script from the leadership to the grass roots.

[TomTom]

Not at all. The Crown in Parliament remains the supreme authority for the United Kingdom, and if Parliament passes a Bill ordering a referendum and the Crown assents then that referendum will take place.

Actually Denis if you go back to a Kelsen-Norm Parliament's power rests purely upon events on 30th January, 1649.

That was when The Executive was humbled before The Legislature and everything else - whether 1688 or whatever - was ecided in fear of repeating events of 1649.

It is only when The Executive feels frightened that you can get concessions - but at present they are using Terrorism rather as Lord Liverpool used The Six Acts.

This deal in Brussels is simply another building block to expand yet further the accretion of power - the niceties of Parliament and your Sovereignty are rather akin to saying we can make India a colony again by repealing the Independence of India Act 1947.

Sovereignty has in that event passed since we cannot change facts on the ground. The legalisms are fine but unless you can effect them it is pointless.

The only mechanism to effect change is to cease payments to the EU - simply to stop transfers from The Treasury and to act outside the EU treaties.

[carlile]

I was one of those who voted for DC, but with some misgivings at the time. I was rather unhappy and puzzled by his emphasise on "downplaying" the EU threat. Puzzled because this is one issue on which nearly all the public are with us.
Now I feel he's hesitant and dragging his heels. He's looking weak on Europe and frankly Im wondering whether he's strong enough to face up to the bullies of Europe.

[Pete]

If Dave doesn't get serious about the EU situation the voters will have realised that the Conservative Party will only be pretending to have policies at the next election. The public are starting to see that >80% of 'natinal' legislation is no such thing. It's time Dave acknowledged this.

[Daniel]

This treaty, if the IGC doesn't change it, represents the end of our national sovereignty.

Never before has our sovereignty be so undermined as this. This treaty isn't just the constitution, it goes much futher. It transforms the ECJ into a EU Supreme Court.

In a sense, Blair has committed treason.

Check out the link for Richard Norths great analysis of this EU coup d'etat.

This must be stopped at all costs. We are better off out. Now more than ever before. Let's regain sovereignty over our laws, our fisheries, our agriculture etc...

[Daniel]

the URL is this:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Daniel, Milton Keynes

[Denis Cooper]

TomTom @ 18:28 - as this has nothing to do with re-establishing the British raj the India Act 1947 is irrelevant. Even ministers have admitted that Parliament can repeal the whole of the ECA72 and take back full control over the UK at any time, and here we're only talking about the later amending Act which would be required to implement the revised version of the EU constitutional treaty.

[Tim Williamson]

We must repeatedly and forcefully make the public aware that successive EU deals do not take away the government's powers at all. They take away OUR rights as a people to decide who makes those decisions -- and what those decisions are. They are OUR rights and we must fight for them.
If this party isn't prepared to make this crystal clear and take a very firm stand, then what the hell is the point of voting Conservative?

[Ted]

Optimist - I'm pessimistic because I do not believe the agreement signed yesterday was in the long term interests of this country but neither do I believe the general public will care enough to demand a referendum . Its depressing that Merkel and Sarkozy and Blair et al are so dismissive of public opinion and that there is so little anyone can do about it.

We were only promised a referendum check a possible Conservative advantage in the 2005 election. Labour don't need to do this now because there won't be another election before Treaty is put to parliament and if Brown sticks out another 2 or three years it'll be history by the next GE.

Labour has the votes, supported by the LDS, to push this through. I hope Cameron and Hague camn make mileage without becoming a one issue party again but I can't see a refrendum being on the table.

Hopefully the Dutch will decide that a referedum is required and as this is "not the constitution" the other countries that have to have refereda will have to run them because its a different treaty so the previous yeses don't count - and some country will reject the treaty.

[Tim Williamson]

You could be right Ted -- come the next election, if that still looks the case, there's nothing to lose by voting UKIP!

[Nikki C]

Ted is right. Things are looking bad for Britain and Cameron seemes to be doing little or nothing about it.

Although I will not leave the Conservative Party because I have too many friends and social interests I think I may vote UKIP as a protest.

I also like Nigel Farage. Unlike Cameron who is almost asexual he is very appealing to women!!! ;)

[tapestry]

Cameron has to be a chameleon. He was required to be Blair like - youthful, charming, amusing and not too forceful. Now he's required to be tough, uncompromising, statesmanlike and in vogue with the new regime.

[TomTom]

Optimist - I'm pessimistic because I do not believe the agreement signed yesterday was in the long term interests of this country.

German TV reports that the agreement has been described in Warsaw as a Diktat from Germany

Things should get lively

[Opinicus]

There is no political downside to the Conservative's demanding a referendum on the new Treaty. There are no votes to be lost, except possibly ken Clarke's, in calling for a referendum and IMHO the nation is desperate for a show of spine. If today's bounce continues, the election will be in October and none of the policy panels will be ready by then. He will need a cry. If Cameron does not call for a referendum, like Cato for the end of Carthage, then he is a fool and will deserve to lose many votes, including mine.

[nony]

Felicity Mountjoy:

"This treaty is a tidying up exercise"

It must be that delusional thing that Dave bangs on about!

[tapestry]

Jonathan. He has done. To win though, he will need backing from all parties. Lib Dem and Labour MPs. He must undercut Gordon Brown while allying with his MPs. It's a subtle game that needs playing. If Conservatives try to gain party position over this, they might break the coalition they need to build.

[TomTom]

Even ministers have admitted that Parliament can repeal the whole of the ECA72

This site suggests it would require repeal of several Acts of Parliament not simply the ECA

Acts

Sovereignty

[Patrick Harris]

This morning Ken Clarke (head of the Tory Democracy Task Force), stated that the UK is a Parliamentary democracy and dismissed the idea of a referendum on any issue. It would seem that Dave has his bollocks in a vice which is being tightened from the left, the right and the centre, There is a need for someone, with the necessary reproductive organs, to come forward and promise, as did every labour MP, a referendum that will once and for all put to rest this matter and allow the country to move forward either with, or without, the baggage of the EU. I would prefer to travel light. On the subject of Blair not understanding the meaning of "NO", DC needs reminding that the only reason for the existence of "Regional Assemblies" is that they are propped up and run by Tory Councillors. Stones... glass houses...

[Daniel]

Time to purge Clarke, Heseltine and the other Quislings from our party.

If Dave doesn't forcefully demand a referendum I shan't vote Conservative in the next election.

I do not vote for those who commit or approve treason.

[Steve]

agreed, I will not vote for a Conservative leader who will not stand up for the country, the views of its members and public opinion on an issue like this.

[Tapestry]

Clarke and Heseltine cannot be thrown out. They are quite old men now, and have illustrious careers behind them. They need handling with care, or their health might be impaired. Maybe a long cruise would be appropriate paid for from Conservative funds by a grateful and admiring Party. They mustn't suffer any stress, so no phones, internet or TV allowed. Just nature, rest and composure.

Ken Clarke obviously suffers from some kind of stress reaction nervous condition, which compels him to chnage his story every few weeks. It's embarrassing to see it after so much good work in the past. Help him in his dotage. It comes to us all one day.

[Fed Up]

Let's face it, it's becoming clear that Cameron is a disaster and it's time for him to go.
Why does he not follow Tony Blair and go and cheer most of us up!