By PETER OBORNE Although David Cameron now seems certain to lead the Tories back into power at the next general election, the problem of sleaze still exists (as shown by MPs' scandalous expenses claims) - as do difficulties concerning Europe. Over the past few weeks a very dangerous division has emerged in the most senior reaches of the party. David Cameron is close to open warfare with two of his most respected colleagues, Shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke and Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague. Non-aggressive pact? Tony Blair is being lined up as EU first president, a move which David Cameron has not contested Tory strategists are keenly aware that, but for the Commons expenses scandal, this outbreak of Conservative infighting over Europe would now be dominating the headlines. Indeed, those people with long memories are now wondering how a suicidal internecine war - similar to those in the 1990s - can be avoided. The split was evident on BBC1's Question Time on Thursday night when, in an open display of treachery, Clarke made no secret of his contempt for Cameron's position over Europe. The former Tory Chancellor mocked his boss's decision to order his MEPs out of the European People's Party (the alliance of mainstream Centre-Right parties at Brussels) because it is too federalist for Cameron's tastes. But this decision has led the Tories to be accused of forming an alternative alliance with unsavoury Far Right groups of MEPs from Eastern Europe. Although unlikely bedfellows (because Hague is a well-known Eurosceptic and Clarke is a long-time Euro- enthusiast) these two Tory heavyweights have linked up over the issue. While Hague thinks the idea of pulling out of the European People's Party is too drastic, Clarke also thinks the alliance should continue because he wants the British Tories to keep strong ties in Brussels. Unlikely bedfellows: Euro-enthusiast Ken Clarke and Eurosceptic William Hague However, despite agreement on this issue, Hague and Clarke are at loggerheads over another problem involving Europe - what to do about the Lisbon Treaty. This is the document which, if ratified by all EU member countries, will extend Brussels' powers. The treaty's next major milestone comes when Ireland, which rejected it once, puts the treaty again to a referendum later this year. If Irish voters say 'yes', then the Lisbon Treaty - and the prospect of an all-powerful EU - would appear to have been saved. However, Cameron has said that even if the Irish give approval, he 'would not let matters rest there'. This comment was seen by pro-Europeans as a sign that he was prepared to do battle with the rest of the EU to try to unravel some of the institutional changes in the treaty. This position, though, was ridiculed last week by Clarke when he appeared on BBC1's Politics Show. He implied that the Tories would not try to dismantle the treaty if they gain power because it would be impossible to reverse the legislation if all 27 states had signed up to the treaty. With Blair's backing some believe Brown's leadership could recover On top of this, there is a third issue of contention involving Europe - and this, I believe, is potentially the most divisive. It concerns the plan, which has been backed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to appoint Tony Blair as the EU first president. Giving this dazzling international role to the former Labour prime minister would not only be highly controversial but it would also disgust many loyal Conservatives, who regard Blair with profound contempt. William Hague spoke out for these Tories last week when he said: 'We haven't spent ten years opposing Tony Blair as Prime Minister of Britain to agree to him becoming President of the European Union.' However, Cameron has been silent on the Blair candidacy. Many Conservatives fear that this is because a deeply cynical deal has been struck. It works like this: Cameron has pledged to do nothing that would damage Blair's chances; while Blair himself has agreed not to speak out and join the Labour campaign to prevent Cameron getting into Downing Street. This remarkable non-aggression pact has advantages for both sides. Cameron strategists-believe that Labour has a better chance of recovery if Blair comes out and supports his embattled successor. Instead, they want to keep him out of the fray and see Brown struggle on - and lose - on his own. As for Blair, he is acutely aware that his chances of becoming European President would be torpedoed if David Cameron, seen by all European leaders as the next British prime minister, sent out strong signals that his presidency would be unacceptable to a Tory government. Support: Nicolas Sarkozy has backed Blair to be EU first president For David Cameron, this quiet compact with a man he has long admired looks like sensible politics which enhances his chances of winning the next election. But there are many Tory voters who sell any Blair/Cameron axis as a squalid pact that sells out British interests. Unless David Cameron comes clean on all this - as well as bringing Ken Clarke and William Hague back in line - Labour will be able rightly to claim that a Tory government would mark a return to the Cabinet feuding and acrimony of the 1990s. Why Speaker George would be a disaster Young: Complicit The odds on Old Etonian Sir George Young winning the Commons Speakership on Monday have shortened, mainly because it has finally dawned on MPs that most of the other leading candidates are expenses cheats. However, Sir George's own record is also questionable. He is a Tory grandee who chairs the Standards And Privileges Committee, which has failed to guard the integrity of Parliament. For example, Labour MP John Mann complained to Sir George's committee about how MPs were abusing taxpayers' money by holding fund-raising dinners in the Commons. Even though the complaint was easily proven, Sir George decided that no one should be punished. More shaming still, the Standards And Privileges Committee loftily rebuked Mann for making the complaint in the first place. Equally disturbing is the case of the Worcester MP Mike Foster (who has been exposed as one of the expenses cheats). He used taxpayers' money to pay for party political campaigning, in a flagrant breach of Commons rules. Incredibly, Sir George's committee turned a blind eye on the grounds that other backbenchers were doing the same. Almost two years ago, I sent Sir George a copy of my Channel 4 Dispatches documentary, Nice Work If You Can Get It, which tackled Commons abuses. I urged him to take action about the scandal of parliamentary allowances. In his reply, Sir George told me the film was 'unfair' and insinuated it was biased. He added: 'In my experience, most MPs don't "demand special treatment" or "systematically abuse taxpayers' money".' I do not believe that Sir George Young is personally corrupt - certainly not in comparison with his fellow parliamentarians. But he was deeply complicit in the old, bent system and would therefore be a disaster as Commons Speaker. Flip-flop Jack is now a figure of ridicule Changed his tune: Jack Straw People occasionally ask me why I regard Jack Straw as a third-rate politician who has done grave harm to British public life over a long period. The perfect answer comes in his attitude towards the Human Rights Act. As Home Secretary, ten years ago, it was Straw who pioneered the Bill into law. Yet some months ago he gave an interview to the Mail in which he repeatedly criticised the Act. He labelled it a 'villains' charter', laid into what he called 'ambulance-chasing lawyers', promised to wage war against the compensation culture that it had spawned and attacked judges for being 'too nervous' about deporting terrorist suspects. He concluded that the Act had been such a travesty that he planned to rebalance it with a 'declaration of responsibilities'. Last Saturday, however, Straw attended a conference arranged by Liberty, which campaigns (very honourably) for civil rights and is one of the fiercest supporters of the Human Rights Act. Yes, Straw changed his tune again. He told this fashionable, metropolitan audience that the act was 'one of my proudest achievements'. Such pathetic U-turns go right to the heart of the crisis of trust in British politics. Voters would respect politicians more if they held genuine convictions rather than revealing an oleaginous desire to ingratiate themselves with whatever audience they happen to be talking to at the time.Europe and a squalid Blair, Cameron pact that could tear the Tories apart again
Last updated at 3:23 AM on 20th June 2009
Explore more:
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Posts
