Tweedlelibdem and Tweedlelibdum both rule out EU referendum

Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne were interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning and they both ruled out a referendum on the EU Treaty.  It appears that it's not only Gordon Brown who can't keep a promise.

The unwillingness to trust the people on this important constitutional change underlines one of the big gaps between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.  Both of these former MEPs are fully signed up to the further loss of British powers to the European Union (see this essay from Lee Rotherham).

Other big differences between the two parties were discussed earlier this year on ConservativeHome's Platform pages:

• Peter Franklin warned that LibDem europhilia - and associated support for the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy - was bad for the environment;
• David Dundas attacks the LibDems' blanket opposition to nuclear power;
• Jeremy Brier highlighted the LibDems' weak approach to the war on terror;
• Martin Sewell focused on the third party's soft approach to drugs;
• Robert Colville analysed the LibDems' inadequate understanding of localism; and
• William Norton wrote about the party's belief in proportional misrepresentation.

Nick Clegg used his Marr interview to reject the popular, and not unfounded idea, that he's on the right of the Liberal Democrats.  He attacked Thatcherism as "soulless".  He was "appalled" by it, he said, and the former Prime Minister's famous (and grossly misrepresented) 'There is no such thing as society' ethos.  He represented Sheffield, he continued, and will never forget the "ravages" imposed on the city by Thatcherism.

Danny Finkelstein has encouraged Conservatives not to get too worried by Mr Clegg.  Danny highlighted the LibDem Home Affairs spokesman's position on an illegal immigration amnesty:

"Now it's quite possible that we never hear of this policy again and that it changes nothing. The Tories may run scared of it (though I doubt Labour would).  But it is also very possible that this policy becomes a massive problem for the Lib Dems during an early election campaign.  It's one of the very few proposals they could have come up with that has the potential to cut-through. And if it does it would be a disaster for them in quite a number of seats."

I couldn't agree more.

PS William Hague was also on Andrew Marr.  He said that the party still hadn't decided what it would do if the EU Treaty does become law.  All Tory efforts were focused on defeating the Treaty and he highlighted the possibility that the Lords might yet frustrate Gordon Brown's ambitions to pass the slightly-altered Constitution.  The Shadow Foreign Secretary reiterated his pledge to change the law so that any further transfers of powers to the EU would automatically require a referendum.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

I agree with Danny Finkelstein that the so-called threat from the Liberals is vastly overstated. The re-branded Liberals are more likely to suck in votes from disaffected Labour voters. The Conservative party just needs to focus on marginals where the Liberals are strong. Nick Clegg is vastly overrated and is being portrayed in the media as being an intellectual powerhouse. However I don't see any original thinking coming from Nick Clegg, just the same old poll-parrot cliches. The Liberals can never be a force in this country because they don't stand for anything. The politics of the protest vote cannot be translated into the politics of government.

[Matthew Barker]

While i would not wish to associate myself with the lib dems, or defend them, they did at the very least imply a need for a referendum today. They favour one on membership, not the treaty, which is a position Ming first took . This seems sensible , as we all know that the real question we want answered is what proportion of people are in favour of and against are being part of the EU. Furthermore, their argument that the reason we want a treaty referendum , even though wrong, is perfectly plausible : it has tatical advantage over the straightforward in/out question.

We've got to accept that there is an element of tatics in what we are demanding a vote on. Why? We would look honest, and also then be able , not to criticise, but to point out that there is tactics involved in the lib dem position. By asking the big question they hope to scare people from giving a eurosceptic response. They know an "out please" answer would go further against the status quo, than a "slow down please" or "Thats quite enough thankyou" response, and that that frightens people. Their hope is people will stick to the status quo rather than take the risk of a more radical move than the question we would pose involves.

So. We can then say: yes, we ask for this question partly because its more likely to give us a eurosceptic vote, but mainly because we trust the electorate to look and think about the detail and the huge powers this is giving away ( making the point that just because maastritch may have given away more , the smaller amount this treaty gives a way gets us far more dangerously close to a european superstate). We should then point out that th lib dems favour the other question because it will more likey give a pro-EU outcome, so are at least as tatical as us. Finally we must make it clear that, while it is perhaps more admirable to ask the "real question", the lib dem position shows they are not interested in any change or defending our already limited rights to govern ourself.

We then show honesty, in admitting we have a tatical agenda to an extent; maturity, in accepting there is a strong theoretical argument for the other question; but also convition in that we want change, and that this should be a valued commodity because the lib dems clearly do not.

[Paul Kennedy]

Did Mr Clegg live in Sheffield during the period 1979 - 1990 then. Thanks to Thatcherism, Sheffield woke up to the industrial realities of the time, and became a modern and prosperous 21st century city.

[Moral minority]

"William Hague... said that the party still hadn't decided what it would do if the EU Treaty does become law." Hague is being dishonest and knows that this Treaty finally puts an end to the "In Europe, Not Run By Europe" myth. The Conservative Party has had months to consider this issue but will not face up to it.

The Lib Dems have said that they will support the Government and vote for the amending Treaty in the House. At least the Lib Dems are honest enough, unlike the Tories, to admit that the country must choose between the EU Super-state and withdrawal.

The Conservatives must also commit to referendum on EU membership to keep my vote in a Lib Dem target seat. Our Parliamentary democracy is at stake and that is more important than party loyalties. Under the EU Super-State who lives in 10 Downing Street will be irrelevant because we will be governed by the Brussels bEUrocrats.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Excellent point by Paul Kennedy at 12:10.

[Conservative Homer]

So when they say theyre the 'party of local government', what they actually mean is 'we're the party of half a billion people from Turkey to Ireland having their laws dictated from the same un-transparent place by the same unaccountable beaureacrats.'

Liberal indeed. Its things like this which will ensure the loony dimwits remain a protest vote party only, their base maintained by a bunch of compost heap dwelling beardy old cranks.

Oh, and Clegg comes across as a pencilnecked paper-pushing career politician, and Huhne 'ive done business, me' is the embodiment of smarm, so i doubt theyll do much better than the geriatric one, neither being very likeable characters.

[Conservative Homer]

"Did Mr Clegg live in Sheffield during the period 1979 - 1990 then. Thanks to Thatcherism, Sheffield woke up to the industrial realities of the time, and became a modern and prosperous 21st century city."

Never let facts get in the way of a good argument! The LDs have proved very consistent in Ignoring facts.

[Chris Howell]

When asked about similarities to David Cameron, Clegg somehow forgot the stockbroker belt upbringing, the posh public school and Oxbridge education. Nothing wrong with that of course, but in the as yet purely hypothetical situation that any BBC interviewer would ever want to ask a Lib Dem some searching questions, it would certainly put the dishonest recollections and fake outrage about Thatcherism into a different light.

[Inamicus]

I think it's pretty apparent neither Mr Kennedy or Mr Hinchliffe lived in Sheffield during this time. Astoundingly foolish comments like this only serve to prove why the Tories are not trusted in the North.

[Paul Kennedy]

No Inamicus, it is you who is the foolish one, and so lacking in the courage of your own convictions that you dare not even post in your own name. I lived in Chesterfield and worked in Sheffield.......for some of the time in a foundry, from 1978 to 1987, and prior and subsequently to that period have been a frequent visitor. Again, working in Sheffield in 1999.

I absolutely stand by my original comments!

[Paul Kennedy]

The following is from Mr Clegg's website:

"Nick Clegg is MP for Sheffield Hallam and Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary.

He was born in 1967 and studied at three universities: Cambridge, Minnesota and College D'Europe.

Nick began his professional career as a journalist, training at the US magazine The Nation and winning a national prize for first time writers at the Financial Times. He then worked as a development aid and trade expert in the European Union, including managing aid projects in the poorest parts of the former Soviet Union and overseeing the EU's side in negotiations for China and Russia to join the World Trade Organisation.

Nick was elected as a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands in 1999. As Trade and Industry spokesman for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe he led the move to open up the domestic telecoms market, allowing consumers to pick their telephone provider for the first time and advocated trade measures against illegally logged timber. He was also a co-founder of the Campaign for Parliamentary Reform, which argued for more transparency and accountability in the European Parliament.

Throughout his time as an MEP, Nick wrote many essays on public policy issues including greening the WTO, secondary education policy, and reform of the EU's decision making procedures. For several years he was also a columnist for Guardian Unlimited.

Nick stood down from the European Parliament in 2004 and lectured part time at Sheffield and Cambridge Universities. He was elected as MP for Sheffield Hallam in 2005, succeeding Richard Allan with a majority of 8,682. Charles Kennedy appointed him as Europe spokesperson, acting as deputy to Sir Menzies Campbell. When Campbell won the 2006 leadership election, he appointed Nick as Shadow Home Secretary.

Nick has spearheaded the Liberal Democrats' defence of civil liberties, proposing a Freedom Bill to repeal unnecessary and illiberal legislation, campaigning against Identity Cards and the retention of innocent people's DNA, and arguing against excessive counter-terrorism legislation. He has campaigned for prison reform, a liberal approach to immigration, and defended the Human Rights Act against ongoing attacks from across the political spectrum.

In January 2007 he launched the Liberal Democrat's We Can Cut Crime campaign, widely welcomed by local campaigners as a new and successful way for the party to campaign effectively on crime.

In Sheffield, Nick has campaigned on local transport, recycling, housing development, and health. He has close links with both of the city's universities and has opposed the closure of local services including fire stations and post offices. He is also Treasurer and Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group on National Parks, a particular interest given Sheffield's proximity to the Peak District National Park.

Nick is married to Miriam Gonzalez Durantez and has two young sons."

[Conservative Homer]

"When asked about similarities to David Cameron, Clegg somehow forgot the stockbroker belt upbringing, the posh public school and Oxbridge education. Nothing wrong with that of course, but in the as yet purely hypothetical situation that any BBC interviewer would ever want to ask a Lib Dem some searching questions, it would certainly put the dishonest recollections and fake outrage about Thatcherism into a different light."

Indeed. For all the name calling against Thatcherism, How many serious Lib-dem, or labour MPs for that matter would reverse what Thatcher actually did.

Has labour Reversed the Labour/union acts passed by the Thatcher government? Are the lib-dems planning to. The answer is essentially no.

Has labour changed the basic income tax structure, or reversed the bias towards consumption taxes. Again, generally no, if anything there is more bias to consumption taxes. The lib-dems 50% tax rate seemed to be rather short lived.

Has labour undone the privatizations of the 80s and 90s? Are the lib-dems promising to? Again No.

It seems either the Leftists in this country dont have the courage of their convictions to reverse thatcherism, are in denial, or apply the double standard of supporting the structural economic changes of the 80s while denouncing those who forged the changes.
People like Clegg and Huhne have no conscience and lord knows how they live with themselves. Maybe Gordon Brown couldnt, hence his invitation to the Great lady.

[John Leonard]

I was relieved to see Clegg's surprising performance and am further surprised that no one else has yet picked up on his political 'hero' comments.

Does anyone consider it credible to name a cab driver who refused to show his ID card in 1953 because 'Liberals Don't Do That' as their political hero? What else don't Liberals do I wonder?

Take serious issues such as ID cards seriously?

Whether, smug, flippant or serious how can someone consider Clegg credible as a leader of one of our major political parties intent on creating a Government after such a petty and immature response.

If he is inspired by civil disobedience and thinks that this is representative of the liberal message what else can the country expect from him?

I'm sure he thought he was being witty and clever but does it show he is capable of persuading the public that the Libdems can run the country?

Will his first act as Libdem leader be to order a sit-in at Westminster against the MP's new privilege to queue-jump the canteen lines whilst the EU debate is going on?

It says to me it will be a long time before Clegg is ready to be a serious politician in a serious party that is ready for Government. After all, could you see him making the decision to go to Parliament and recommend going to war based on that comment?

I think not.

Of course he started in a very tired, tedious and unimaginative way by dragging up the increasingly distant past of the Thatcherism and inferred that he had first hand knowledge of the difficulties then. As Paul Kennedy points out he was nowhere near Sheffield until the late 1990's.

Perhaps he would have been better pointing out Labour's failure to address issues in the area over the last 10 years? Flood defences might have been a good place to start.

His approach was presumably to display his socialist credentials but to do so in such a transparent manner hardly speaks highly of his intellect and public persona.

If this is the best he can do either Huhne is not going to have to work to get the Libdem leadership or the Libdems will be in serious trouble! For Mr Clegg - Nil point!

As for Huhne at least he showed he is a credible MP although this sickly luv-in on the sofa hardly promotes him either as a serious leader of a serious political party.

If I was Huhne I would in future insist on being interviewed alone and only face Clegg in debates on policy issues. Being associated with him may not be advantageous. For Huhne - trois points!

As for the EU link. Well no surprises there. Both Huhne and Clegg are products of the undemocratic EU centralist gravy train.

The one thing that is certain is that there will not be a referendum on withdrawal from the EU for many years. As ever the Libdems can happily continue whistling in the wind while Labour and the Conservatives get about the business of deciding the future of this country. The battle over the freedom of Britain from Europe will continue. What we know is that the Libdems will not be serious players in it.

If there was a serious point from this morning TV political shows for the Conservatives to watch then perhaps it was that the Labour pundits started wooing the Libdems again with the idea of a centre left consensus again. Has Gordon given the go ahead to start schmoozing the Libdems early in case he loses his majority in 2009/10?

Or as I suspect do Labour just want to use the Libdems to have a go at the Conservatives in the two years or so prior to the election?

Of course we know how the last Lib-Lab luv-in ended up and who put an end to it. One Gordon Brown (according to Paddy Ashdown anyway). So Libdems be wary....

[Derek]

Hague, in his interview this morning, said the EU had gone too far and that we would have to find ways of rolling it back. He did not want to be drawn into how this would be done, but was clear that employment and social policy should be brought back under national control. He said we must concentrate on fighting for a referendum and not be deflected into hypothetical questions.

I thought he was very clear and I liked what he said.

[Tony Makara]

Conservative Homer, although I agree that many good things came out of the 1980s, do you not think it was a mistake that our manufacturing industry was allowed to die?

Manufacturing was allowed to die deliberately to destroy union power but now as a consequence we are saddled with unsolvable mass unemployment. Do you not think that it turned out to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

I'm certainly not in favour of a nationalized manufacturing industry, but believe everything should have been done to preserve a privately owned, union-free manufacturing base.

The service sector cannot create enough jobs for a nation of our size, although it seems that was a point missed during the early 1980s.

[Comstock]

Which is Tweedlelibdem and which is Tweedlelibdum?

[John Leonard]

Comstock:

Based on my post I think Clegg is Tweedlelibdum!

[John Leonard]

Tony Makara

Manufacturing was allowed to die deliberately to destroy union power but now as a consequence we are saddled with unsolvable mass unemployment. Do you not think that it turned out to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

If I remember correctly in both the case of the coal or steel industries, neither domestic industry could compete with cheap imports. This was exacerbated by the unreliability of supply as a result of trade union action in search of unrealistic pay demands.

So before blaming Conservative ideology for this you might want to provide a more balanced picture?

In anycase as I suggested before this happened a long time ago and Governments have had 15 years to make things better. The most pertinent question is why haven't they?

For example, why is it that if Labour have allowed manufacturing to further decline?

The simple fact is we can no longer compete with the Far East and South America unless British people's standard of living falls dramatically and nobody will vote for that.

It was true of coal and steel in the 80's and it is true of other manufacturing areas now.

[Tony Makara]

John Leonard, if our country had a policy selective tariffs we wouldn't be losing jobs to foreign imports. We need to develop a home market economic strategy, that is import what we cannot produce ourselves, sugar, coffee etc and produce and supply our domestic market with the goods that we can produce ourselves such as electrical goods, transport and so on.

The Conservative party has been too quick to embrace the orthodoxy of totally open trade. Most Conservatives are afraid to question the merits of competing in a global market in which coolie labour costs in Asia undermine British competitiveness. Conservatives often accuse the left of being welded to ideology but many on the right are also blinded by the ideology of completely open trade.

If the problem of our country being dependent on imports is not addressed we will pay for it in the long run. We need a home-market economic strategy and we should not allow our domestic market to be punctured by coolie labour from the east. We are at a permanent disadvantage while we continue to blindly subscribe to totally open trade.

[Tony Makara]

"For example, why is it that if Labour have allowed manufacturing to further decline?"

John Leonard, Labour's stragegy is to have a thirty hour week/job sharing economy backed up by tax credits. Labour believe we can exist entirely on imports which is part of the reason why Gordon Brown has such faith in the strong pound. However once sterling declines, as it must, this madcap policy with unravel very quickly as prices hit the roof. Labour do not believe in manufacturing.

[David Parker]

There was a time when the Lib/Dems had a clearly defined agenda that, whilst as a party they were the most europhile of all, a referendum about further integration (in which they would campaign for a Yes vote) was a fundamental plank of their policy.

However, the moment they felt that they might be required to walk that plank they recanted faster than most heretics faced with dying for their faith.

It would certainly therefore be very foolish to rely upon any honour or honesty from the Lib/Dems during the forthcoming Parliamentary "debate" over the penultimate surrender of British sovereignty to the new European Government.

Unfortunately, however, neither can the British people any longer rely upon the Conservative party to represent their interests in this respect. At this moment it is quite clear that Cameron and his cronies regard our EU relationship as a political pawn, from which they may be able to win votes, rather than as one of the most vital issues facing the future of Britain.

All the cant about 'trying to reform the EU from within' or negotiating a new relationship between Britain and the EU, are merely Tory euphemisms which insult the intelligence of would be supporters, who have already seen through the dishonest platitudes of 'Hague the Vague.'

There is, indeed, a possibility of a renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the EU, but this` will never come to anything unless it is backed by a genuine determination (and political committment) by a British Government to withdraw from the EU unless (and only then subject to suitable terms, agreed by a national referendum) they are able negotiate a totally new British/EU Agreement.

This is Cameron's great chance but, has he got the guts which Brown lacks?

[Edison Smith]

I used to have a lot of respect for Nick Clegg, but ever since he's declared his candidacy he's lost it.

He's so pro-European, and his ideas about immigrant amnesties are now undisputibly his own (rather than thrown into his lap, which I initially suspected) - two things at least that will not appeal to Tory voters one little bit.

His 'borrowing' of soundbites from Blair and Cameron and Brown at his campaign launch - as highlighted by Michael Crick on Newsnight - and his excuse for this ('I haven't had a lot of time to prepare') shows he's a bit of an empty suit.

His assertion that Cameron is 'Clegg-lite' was laughable too. And both he and Huhne can't criticse DC for his background like Campbell could - both Westminster school and Oxford indeed.

I truly don't think we have anything to fear from these two political dwarves - Clegg or Huhne.

[John Leonard]

Tony Makara:

I don't disagree with some of your observations and do not think protectionist measures are necessarily a bad thing. However, I do think it might compound the current situation if we reintroduced import restrictions having deregulated some years before.

Considering what you suggest have you how would you address the potential risks to short to medium term inflation and employment.

Could investment be encouraged to set up domestic manufacturing when considering issues such as the minimum wage and HSE?

Where would the skills be found to work in these factories?

Could this lead to certain current foreign interests leaving the UK and causing further unemployment?

Much as there maybe some good arguments in favour of protectionism, I have the feeling that this is a case of trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

If we had maintained our own tariffs in certain areas it may have allowed us to continue manufacturing but having deregulated it will be difficult to go back until such time as wage demands around the world start to equalise.

Then we will be able to compete again and then investors will be more interested in investing. That being the case it will be a long while before that it is likely to happen.

[Matt Wright]

If we concentrate on what we believe and get on with strongly oppossing Labour and presenting an alternative vision, then Clegg and Huhne are irrelevent,

Matt

[Oscar Miller]

I've also been surprised at how badly Clegg has come across since announcing his leadership bid. I did think he was better than that. Didn't stop Marr from conducting a ludicrously biased interview favouring Clegg this morning. Huhne was actually a stronger speaker but was hardly given a look in. Labour seem to be taking voters for fools again. Do they really think people will vote for Clegg because he supposedly looks a bit like Cameron - 'Mmmm I was going to vote for that pleasant looking Mr Cameron but now the LibDems are being led by someone who looks a bit like him, I think I'll vote for them instead.' It's pitiful.

[Oliver J. S. McMullen]

This is surreal, you are seriously discussing these two irrelevant mediocrities? Meanwhile the only individual talking sense on the issue that matters is the one calling himself (?) "Moral Minority". The Tories are in the last of the last chance saloons, but they have plugged their ears and closed their eyes to reality. There is no question of "reform" this is not a possibility it never was. Resile from this "reform treaty" and you take us out of the EU, accept it and sacrifice the remaining shreds of independence this country has. That is the choice there is no third way. William Hague has no credibility, his talk of repatriating powers without any clear explanation of the mechanism by which this might be achieved is just is just empty verbiage.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Paul Kennedy @ 12.10 - Regarding your first post, I was also watching Clegg on AM, and his comments on 'Thatcherism' seemed unnecessarily harsh, but as I have never been to Sheffield, I was left feeling 'well maybe he is right'. So thank you for all the subsequent posts with more information! Unfortunately a lot of other people watching the programme will have come to the same conclusion, but quite possibly decided he/Clegg must be right! But then I suppose that is politics.

[Conservative Homer]

"Conservative Homer, although I agree that many good things came out of the 1980s, do you not think it was a mistake that our manufacturing industry was allowed to die?

Manufacturing was allowed to die deliberately to destroy union power but now as a consequence we are saddled with unsolvable mass unemployment. Do you not think that it turned out to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"

I just dont think its governments duty to be involved in the direction of the economy. Japan and France seem to have mastered it to some extent, and given Germanys position as one of the worlds largest exporters, its certainly possible that we can have a healthy manufacturing sector - until 1997 manufacturing indeed recovered a fair extent.

The mass unemployment issue is ambigious IMO, i dont doubt unemployment is in reality little different now to what it was in the mid 80s, but there seem to be tonnes of jobs free to be filled with eastern europeans - Around here, thousands of polish people work on farms, picking strawberries etc, about as primary sector as its possible to get, jobs that British people simply seem unwilling to do (or unhappy to forfeit their benefits to do - i remember reading recently for people coming off benefits into minimum wages jobs the effective rate of tax is 85%) Take away their benefits and i wonder how quickly the 'economically inactive' numbers will fall.

In all honesty i think the FDI inflows liberal/flexible labour laws and union restrictions have created have been far more beneficial than propping up the likes of British Leyland and other union dominated industries - ie in attracting companies like Nissan and Honda. Thats not to say 20 or 30 years down the line manufacturing wont again play a major part of the economy, as we have to compete directly with China.

[Tony Makara]

John Leonard, in answer to your questions:

Considering what you suggest have you how would you address the potential risks to short to medium term inflation and employment.

(Inflation is caused by too much demand over supply, therefore the economy would have to be allowed to operate at equilibrium, not through a rigid prices and incomes policy but through the market. If either demand or supply were to outstrip each other they would eventually have to fall into sync. Inflation is a greater danger for a nation dependent on imports, especially if the national currency depreciates in value)

Could investment be encouraged to set up domestic manufacturing when considering issues such as the minimum wage and HSE?

(The minimum wage would have to go. The government of the day should offer substantial tax cuts to entrepreneurs who invest in manufacturing. If British manufacturers are protected from the likes of China undercutting their prices and Labour costs they will be more confident about investing.)

Where would the skills be found to work in these factories?

(The unemployed and others could receive on-the-job training. This would be real work and not workfare. Schools could begin a regime of training in blue collar skills in the final two years of education.)

Could this lead to certain current foreign interests leaving the UK and causing further unemployment?

( No, if we are to create a home-market economy we would no longer need such investment. We should make it impossible for companies here to hire coolie labour abroad. Trading in Britain would require a pro-British contract to be signed. If people want to make money in Britain they will need to hire British workers first. Of course existing agreements with the EU on free movement of labour would have to be reviewed.)

[Michael Hewlett]

A very confident performance by Hague yesterday. It is good for our future electoral success to show we have strength in depth.

This was followed by a very confident and assured performance from Chris Grayling on the politics show. His grasp of the incapacity benefit system was impressive.

It is good to see the Shadow Cabinet on prime time TV showing we have a strong TEAM

[Torygirl]

It appears the Tories have no plan B if this Treaty is ratified at Westminster.

I personally have no faith in the leadership when they say "We must stay in the EU at all costs". It is still "In Europe, not run by Europe" as far as they are concerned.

It is about time they woke up to the fact that over 30 years Britain has never succeeded in rolling back anything in the EU. Cameron should be bold and say "If we do not get what we want, we will put it to the people that we would be better off out and negotiate a new Trade Agreement". Even Kinnock admitted in an interview that if Britain left, we would carry on trading as usual.

These lefties infer that France and Germany etc would refuse to trade with us if we left, which is ridiculous. We import far more from them than we export. It is largely forgotten that, as we are in the EU, everything which is exported from England to Wales is counted as exporting to the EU.

Come on Cameron, what is your Plan B? Or haven't you got one.

[William Norton]

Tony Makara: No, if we are to create a home-market economy we would no longer need such investment.
It's lucky we wouldn't "need" foreign investment, since your plan would ensure we wouldn't be getting any of it. Or trade, apparently. In fact, you're advocating a siege economy. Your plan reminds me very much of those people who say that because children's teeth were so much better in the 1940s, we should bring back sugar rationing.

We should make it impossible for companies here to hire coolie labour abroad.
Not sure how that would work in practice, presumably a law requiring UK companies to pay the same rate across all subsidiaries to all countries, if UK wages are higher, they have to pay that rate to their non-UK workers? Ignoring exchange rate/purchasing power issues, in practice what will happen is either (a) UK companies will export their HQ functions to become non-UK companies and fall outside your law but still qualify under your next point discussed below about trading to the UK; or (b) UK companies would stop expanding globally and thus reduce profits and earnings [It will make a great film, Tony: Honey, I shrunk the economy]

Trading in Britain would require a pro-British contract to be signed. If people want to make money in Britain they will need to hire British workers first.
Suppose I'm a Caribbean banana exporter. I can't hire British banana workers because bananas don't grow in Britain. Does that mean I can't trade with the UK, in which case the British have to stop eating bananas? Can I get away with hiring one UK person to lock-up my warehouse each evening, or do I have to run a welfare scheme for a minimum number of unemployable jobsworths? [Subsidiary point: so much for Thatcherism cutting back the over-manning of the 1970s.]

Of course existing agreements with the EU on free movement of labour would have to be reviewed.
In fact, you've just withdrawn from the EU. Not a bad aim in itself, but converting the UK into a third world basket case is a rather extreme way of getting there. North Korea does not strike me as being the model of the future.

[Edward Huxley]

Some interesting comments, but hasn`t the time come to ban the use of a nom de plume? Local and national papers refuse, quite rightly, to print letters from people who do not give their names and addresses. Just names only are needed here. These anonymous comments from people wishing to preserve their identity carry no weight.

[Londoner]

Re noms de plume, I can only assume that Edward Huxley either has no visibility in any (other) sphere of life or would not mind if his posts on this blog were mixed up with, say, professional references to him as an academic, barrister, investment banker, businessman etc etc. People use search engines to research such people all the time and most of us would not want our political thoughts on here all mixed up with that (and nor would our employers).

Comments can be judged by their worth. My only thought on this Lib Dem thing is that it must be jolly nice to have such a distinctive choice of backgrounds. Magdalene, Oxford (nice College, wrong University) versus Robinson, Cambridge (right University, College with en suite bathrooms) must present a real dilemma for discerning academically-inclined snobs such as myself. And no-one has said whether either of then boarded at Westminster - that must be the smarter option than being a day boy presumably?

And the above comment would be equally facetious if I had posted it under my own name.

[Tony Makara]

William Norton, I am not advocating autarchy just economic self-sufficiency. On the subject of Europe, can you think of one thing that we import from Europe that we couldn't produce for ourselves? We need trade with our old friends from the commonwealth more. Unless we do something about import dependency we are heading for a major crisis eventually. If we do not rebuild a manufacturing base unemployment will continue to grow as the service sector cannot provide enough jobs for a nation of our size. We should review all trade and free movement of labour agreements country by country. Of course some lands provide stuff that we need, like bananas, and special trade arrangements would be made nation by nation. We would also need to look at the way our currency operates. It is no coincidence that the end of Bretton Woods happened at the same time that British industry fell into decline.

[Yet Another Anon]

when they say theyre the 'party of local government'
They have been more successful in Local Elections than in other elections, but they remain the third party of Local Elections and their position has been slipping, they will make more losses in Local Government in coming years - losing control of a lot of councils to Labour and the Conservatives, indeed I gather that the Liberal Democrats have been losing council seats to the Liberal Party that was reformed in 1989 by Michael Meadowcroft. I think that their Westminster position will fall back and they will lose seats in the GLA. They may hold their position in the next EU Elections though simply because they remained low in those.

[Yet Another Anon]

On the subject of Europe, can you think of one thing that we import from Europe that we couldn't produce for ourselves?
Rice, Cous Cous, Port, Chick Peas and some fruits from parts of Southern Europe.

It's not just the EU though, the UK is heavily dependant on imports from China including clothing - the EU stops China bringing in those items and there are clothing shortages in the UK.

The UK needs to cut public spending and cut taxes, scrap the Minimum Wage, scrap all restrictions on working hours and all holiday legislation and abolish all restrictions on trading at particular times of the year or of the day or the week, scrap most Health & Safety regulation and Employment regulations and go for pure Free Trade.