Three sources have told me that David Cameron performed 'well enough' at tonight's '92 hustings. He certainly suffered no 'blow' of the kind that his rivals had hoped for.
Angela Watkinson did raise the issue of drugs and his position on the legal status of ecstasy. Mrs Watkinson served with him on the Home Affairs Select Committee when he adopted liberal policy positions. Mr Cameron said that he acted on the best scientific advice of the time and he now appreciated that that advice had changed.
Mr Cameron made very Eurosceptic pledges. Like Liam Fox he promised to take Tory MEPs out of the EPP. He also said that he would consider writing the supremacy of the British parliament into law. What this means will have to be revisited but is potentially very significant.
The least clear position, he adopted, was (reportedly) on how his support for increased university access would be funded.
Interesting stuff from Cameron on the enshrining of parliamentary supremacy. Looks like he is trying to get across some depth and gives a poser to members of Cornerstone as he has already come out in favour of backing marriage through the tax system. This contest gets more interesting by the day.
Posted by: James Burdett | 12 October 2005 at 18:10
Any 'Cornerstoners' who got into bed with Cameron, Duncan et al, would regret it. Mark my words.
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 12 October 2005 at 18:18
"He also said that he would consider writing the supremacy of the British parliament into law."
In practical terms what would this actually require?
Posted by: AnotherNick | 12 October 2005 at 18:28
Yeah - Cameron's spinners are going round the lobby telling everyone about all these Eurosceptics they have on board, 'because Davis is such a Sceptic himself'. It's not convincing many people. "Gave us a name" is the usual response.
Posted by: Saul Yellow | 12 October 2005 at 18:29
"In practical terms what would this actually require?"
A one line amendment to the European Communties Act. Oh, and a complete renegotiation of our terms of membership of the EU.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 12 October 2005 at 18:30
But James, you surely don;t mean to suggest that David Cameron would say something simply because it sounded plausible, even though he had no intention of whatsoever of trying to deliver on it? Surely not? Not the David Cameron we've all come to love and admire after his four very impressive years in the House of Commons. I am torn between his work in drawing up the last manifesto, or his performance as shadow education secretary has been the most impressive.
Posted by: Lewis Wright | 12 October 2005 at 18:35
Love the last post, Lewis. How true.
Posted by: Adrian Sherman | 12 October 2005 at 18:41
James, surely all Eurosceptic politics are dogged by the same problem.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 12 October 2005 at 18:43
Mark, I'm, if anything, pro-Clarke, being something of a positive European - but why do you say that David Cameron is a 'Eurosceptic'. He's never done anything Eurosceptic in the time he's been in parliament, or, as far as I can tell, has he hung out with Bill Cash and people like that. If anything, the people round David Cameron can be fairly tough on Eurosceptics (you should have heard them at Confernece about Bill Cash). You seem to know a bit about Cameron's campaign, so sorry for treating you as some sort of unofficial spokesman - but why do you call him a Eurosceptic?
Posted by: Henry Mackintosh | 12 October 2005 at 18:49
James, surely all Eurosceptic politics are dogged by the same problem.
No they aren't, Mark. Pledges like Cameron's in this instance (or Davis's pledge of a multi-speed Europe in his Chatham House speech) are meaningless. They are promises that if acted on unravel the whole system. People who make those promises who aren't actually arguing for withdrawal are either stupid or insincere.
What we can hope to do, on a case-by-case basis, is to work with the new members to reform the E.U. and redefine its role (which is precisely what Dr Fox has advocated). But there is not a hope in hell of persuading France and Germany to abandon their beloved acquis communautaire.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 12 October 2005 at 18:50
To be fair to Davis, his speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs was arguing for a case by case approach to winning back sovereignty. Arguments like Cmaeron's on the other hand *are* just insultingly dishonest - it says a lot about the man's arrogance that he expects garbage like this to fool anyone. though I suppose it might earn him the description of 'right wing Eurosceptic' from the BBC.
Posted by: Henry Mackintosh | 12 October 2005 at 18:57
When doase this end?when is the cornerstone announcement expected?
Posted by: Andyh | 12 October 2005 at 19:23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4335760.stm
Fox gets 15 more MPs apparently
Posted by: Samuel Coates | 12 October 2005 at 19:38
My understanding of the legal situation regarding British sovereignty is that EU law legally is soverign over British law. Therefore Cameron is suggesting he would pull Britain out of the EU?
Posted by: James Maskell | 12 October 2005 at 20:03
Henry, I have no special knowledge of Cameron's campaign and don't particularly think of him as a Eurosceptic either. My question to James was very genuine (he has encyclopaedic political knowledge) and I'm interested by the answer - although I think that Fox's hope for the unity of new members is quite optimistic.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 12 October 2005 at 20:31
Henry, I was thinking specifically of Davis's pledge to
"create a structure in the European Union in which it is possible for member states to choose to take back powers", as an example of this wibble. His recent Telegraph assertion that he would "take powers back" is another such example.
James said:
"My understanding of the legal situation regarding British sovereignty is that EU law legally is soverign over British law. Therefore Cameron is suggesting he would pull Britain out of the EU?"
Interesting question. The answer is no. David Cameron's position appears to be that membership of the EU and the Single Market is beneficial to Britain. He therefore accepts surrendering some sovereignty (let's not forget that true eurosceptics think you either have sovereignty or you don't). He would however like some powers back.
Here's his thinking:
http://www.candidlist.demon.co.uk/thelist/camerond.htm
Problem is that his proposal to reassert Parliamentary sovereignty would directly contravene our Treaty obligations. We would have to renegotiate our EU membership from scratch. I don't believe he intends that or is a puller-outer...
And Mark:
"I'm interested by the answer - although I think that Fox's hope for the unity of new members is quite optimistic."
One side effect of increasing the numbers of member states is increased conflict of interests and less unanimity among members. This should make it easy to make common cause with new members who are disadvantaged by the Franco-German status quo.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 12 October 2005 at 20:46
"My understanding of the legal situation regarding British sovereignty is that EU law legally is soverign over British law."
Actually, that's not quite right.
Warning: long post.
In a political sense, we have of course ceded sovereignty to the EU. Legally, that's not the case. The various EU Treaties have no independent legal force in either English or Scots law, but have force due only to the Act of Parliament that enacts them.
Similarly, when European laws take "direct [legal] effect", they do so only because there is provision for them to do so in the European Communities Act as amended. Giving another body the right to legislate does not cede legal sovereignty, it merely delegates a responsibility. Ministers make law via statutory instrument all the time. For a bigger example, consider the Scottish Parliament. Or your local council, for that matter.
Where subsequent Acts can be read as contradicting a pre-existing EU law, they have been interpreted by the judiciary in a way that assumes this wasn't the intent. On occasion, this has required some judicial creativity. Crucially, the courts do this because they assume if Parliament intended to repeal, say, a Directive, it would say so explicitly. If Parliament ever did say so explicitly, then the courts would be bound to apply this. Of course, there would be hell to pay in Europe, but that's a political issue. This is the legal position. We need to distinguish between the legal supremacy of laws, and the legal supremacy of institutions with legislative powers. The "supremacy" of EU law just ranks the hierarchy of different kind of laws; it does not legally abridge the legal "supremacy" or "sovereignty" of Parliament.
Finally, the touchstone of parliamentary sovereignty is that a parliament cannot bind its successors. For example, future parliaments can legislate with legal force on a devolved matter in Scotland, despite delegating the responsibility to the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Act. This has actually happened, with and without a corresponding Sewel Motion at Holyrood. And Parliament could take the UK out of the EU just by repealing the European Communities Act.
Therefore, in a *strictly legal* sense, Parliament cannot "give away" its sovereignty. (Political sovereignty is another matter.) So adding a clause to the European Communities Act like "nothing in this Act shall limit the absolute sovereignty of Parliament" would not materially change UK law at all.
In fact, wouldn't it be a nice statement of principles?
Posted by: Bob | 12 October 2005 at 20:52
So Cameron's statement is merely a case of explicitly affirming that which is the case already, whilst simultaneously giving hard-core sceptics the impression that he is more ultra than he is. Clever, extremely clever!!!
Posted by: James Burdett | 12 October 2005 at 21:05
Well, I guess hes sticking to his views of 5 years ago...at least hes consistant on this issue...
Posted by: James Maskell | 12 October 2005 at 21:09
The "enshrining British parliamentary supremacy" is a glossy piece of rhetoric, but a political minefield if actually touched in practice. It is a pretty much settled point of European law that EU law overrides "ordinary" law but it is questionable whether it can override a national constitution. However, needless to say, British does not have a written constitution, and to make one which is in any way binding on future Parliaments, as bob rightly points out, is dubious as Parliament cannot bind its successors.
The European Court of Justice have long held that riding roughshod over the Articles of the Treaty (of Rome) is essentially incompatible with membership of the EU. Basically, for Cameron to have any credibility in this proposal, he'd have to serious threaten withdrawal, and if I were the ECJ I'd be half-minded to call his bluff, since allowing the UK to "enshrine" its own national sovereignty could lead to a constitutional precedent (i.e. the others could follow suit) which would be ultimately destructive. As a moderate Eurosceptic who believes in renegotiating not withdrawal, I would find a Tory party all but advocating withdrawal a bit hard to stomach.
Frankly, I think it's more evidence of Cameron being cynical and trying to play both sides of the party without being committed to one or the other.
Posted by: alexw | 12 October 2005 at 21:24
"But James, you surely don;t mean to suggest that David Cameron would say something simply because it sounded plausible, even though he had no intention of whatsoever of trying to deliver on it? Surely not? Not the David Cameron we've all come to love and admire after his four very impressive years in the House of Commons. I am torn between his work in drawing up the last manifesto, or his performance as shadow education secretary has been the most impressive."
Lewis, you really ought to take a look at the summary of Caviar Cameron's glittering political record provided at http://stopcameron.blogspot.com/ - then you'll be really impressed, particularly when you see how it shines in comparison with the rather thin records of the other candidates!
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 12 October 2005 at 21:26
Daniel, at least when James lays into Cameron he has the intellectual weight to back it up.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 12 October 2005 at 21:49
"Daniel, at least when James lays into Cameron he has the intellectual weight to back it up."
Thank you for your kind words Mark. I would respond in kind but questioning a person's intelligence/intellect because I happen to disagree with them is not my style.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 12 October 2005 at 21:59
The legal position is quite clear. Parliament can repeal the European Communities Act 1972; Parliament can amend it without reference to any other body, and Parliament can explicitly legislate to override any legislation which has been introduced pursuant to it.
The European Court of Justice and rule that any decisions of that nature by Parliament conflict with EU Law, and that EU Law has priority.
However, EU law cannot, in practice, be enforce, unless Parliament allows it to be enforced. The EU has no law enforcement agency which is answerable to it in this country.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 12 October 2005 at 22:14
I'm certainly not insulting you because I disagree with you. When you repeatedly write beloved phrases such as "caviar-conservative" and "caviar Cameron", do you think you are adding to the debate? That's roughly how I judge people.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 12 October 2005 at 22:43