Today's Scotsman is one of a number of newspapers to note Ken Clarke's increasing attempts to nullify the European issue: "Kenneth Clarke yesterday signalled to Tory members that he will not push for Britain to join the euro should he become prime minister - his most significant concession yet to the party's eurosceptic majority." The man who once said it was foolish to say 'never' has said 'never during his (would-be) leadership'. At a fringe event hosted by The Independent yesterday Clarke argued that the Tories must end their "paranoia" over Europe and promised to appoint a shadow cabinet of Eurosceptics. The Indy reports that he received a very warm reception and appeared to be winning converts as a result.
But if Ken Clarke wants Europe to be less of an issue, David Davis and Liam Fox appear determined to raise the issue's salience. Liam Fox has discussed the circumstances under which Britain should leave the EU. His position is enthusiastically welcomed in today's Sun - just like his quit-the-EPP position was embraced by last week's Telegraph. This message may help him to appeal to the Eurosceptic Right of the Tory Party but it is also upsetting some the party's self-styled 'Euro-moderates'. As noted on this blog last week, Dr Fox's message could become very divisive if he became leader. It also endangers the foreign affairs position to which he was appointed in May. One shadow minister told me that his "fawning attitude" to America and "strident" Euro-scepticism made him "unacceptable" as Shadow Foreign Secretary.
Where is Davis "playing up" Europe?
Posted by: greg | 04 October 2005 at 09:04
Fawning attitude to America I can understand as a problem. But a foriegn secretary should represent the UK, which means he should be by definition Eurosceptic.
Posted by: EU Serf | 04 October 2005 at 10:28
Any leader who puts forward a proposal to quit the EU would not only split the party in two it would make it unelectable for a generation.
Europe is just not an issue with the public at present and the more the party goes on about it the more it makes the party look out of touch with the concerns of todys Britain.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 04 October 2005 at 10:52
It might be out of the public mind as an issue, but is still very much an issue in the political worlds. Europe is in a crucial, formative time and we need someone who will deal with that effectively - they don't have to bang on about it to the public to do this.
Posted by: Samuel Coates | 04 October 2005 at 11:38
Jack, you sometimes claim to be a David Cameron supporter,don't you realise he is very eurosceptic too?
Posted by: malcolm | 04 October 2005 at 11:45
In what way is Cameron eurosceptic?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 October 2005 at 12:35
Although it is important, didn't we choose the last 2 leaders before Michael Howard on the basis of their European views? Look where that got us.
Posted by: Midnight Blue | 04 October 2005 at 13:30
No, we chose them on the basis that they weren't
a) Michael Howard or Ken Clarke
b) Ken Clarke or Michael Portillo
Tbe European question was just a factor thereof.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 October 2005 at 13:33
If Ken Clarke had been a eurosceptic he would have beaten IDS in 2001.
That is almost universally accepted.
Therefore IDS was picked on the the back of his views on Europe.
And look where it got us.
For the sake of everything please don't let's fall down the same huge hole again, especially when there is a 100m neon sign telling us it's there!
Posted by: Midnight Blue | 04 October 2005 at 14:22
If Ken Clarke had been a eurosceptic he would have beaten IDS in 2001.
Would he have beaten Michael Portillo?
Posted by: | 04 October 2005 at 14:32
....Therefore IDS was picked on the the back of his views on Europe.
And look where it got us. ....
It got us a referendum on the EU constitution. This led to a French referendum on the constitution. This led to the French & Dutch sticking two fingers up at Brussels.
If we had chosen Ken, he would have cheered TB on as he signed another gross invasion of our sovereignty.
There is no place for a Eurofanatic leader at the head of the Tory party.
Posted by: EU Serf | 04 October 2005 at 14:38
It also kept us out of the single currency.
Posted by: | 04 October 2005 at 14:47
In the normal way James.He was,if I remember correctly the first candidate to break ranks and directly criticise another candidate Clarke for his European views.
I think ,EU Serf,it would be extremely unlikely that the Conservative Party will ever follow a Europhile policy whoever is leader.There are simply not enough Europhiles left in Parliament which is a good thing.
But first we need to get into power, otherwise all these arguments are irrelevant
Posted by: malcolm | 04 October 2005 at 15:00
And well said David Cameron today in paying tribute to Hague and IDS for these achievements which are often overlooked.
Posted by: michael | 04 October 2005 at 15:03
David Cameron may be a eurosceptic but as far as I know he has`nt talked anywhere about pulling us out of the EU or as he talked with the prejudiced many in the party talk about the EU.
We must get away from this idea that evryone should be defined by there views on Europe.
Its about time people started to look on thereselves as Conservatives first and not Eurosceptics or europhiles.
This obsesssion about Europe is unhealthy and will if it goes on much longer destroy all chance of this party ever getting back to power.
Posted by: Jack Stone | 04 October 2005 at 15:40
I'm worried that people like EU serf are totally consumed by the issue of Europe. Hague's election campaign of 2001 was similarly dominated by the issue of Europe and it was a singular disaster. I just do not think it is as huge an issue in the country as some members wish to make out, and for as long as the party continues with its Euro-obsession this will continue to symbolise how out of touch it is with the electorate.
Posted by: mack | 04 October 2005 at 16:21
Hague's election campaign of 2001 was similarly dominated by the issue of Europe and it was a singular disaster.
People agreed with us on the issue Hague campaigned on then, but disagreed that it was a general election issue. Hague said it was our chance to save the pound, but people knew we'd been promised a referendum before entry into the euro. So that doesn't invalidate euroscepticism, but it does invalidate the strategy of trying to force the electorate to share your agenda when the election comes. We need to adopt an agenda that matters to people. Then we'll win.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 October 2005 at 16:26
Greg: At the top of this post you asked a direct question. My answer is a little feeble. I heard the reference on this morning's Today programme but I don't know what the substance for the reference was. Sorry.
In my defence I would say that in his Chatham House speech of ten or so days ago DD was certainly suggesting Europe remained a live issue. He devoted more space in that (excellent) speech to Europe than any other element of foreign policy.
Posted by: Editor | 04 October 2005 at 17:00
"Any leader who puts forward a proposal to quit the EU would not only split the party in two it would make it unelectable for a generation."
But by the same token Clarke would split the party without even having to mention Europe. There are tens of thousands of Conservative party members who would simply leave were Clarke to become leader. Whether or not he is actually being honest about his EU viws at the moment is irrelevant because to many natural Conservatives simply standing still on the EU issue is not an option. As in almost any walk of life standing still actually means falling back and Clarke knows that. If he were leader then he would simply need to take a position of being neutral on the EU issue in order to negate opposition to further integration. Something many of us cannot and will not accept.
Posted by: RIchard Tyndall | 05 October 2005 at 14:18