he man really is thick - by Richard... Wednesday, November 04, 2009

he man really is thick - by Richard... Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Daniel Finkelstein in The Times recalls the first time he had lunch with David Cameron, when he noticed that he was sporting a pair of EU cufflinks. 

This, he says was a striking thing to do in those days, the early 1990s. The Conservative Party was rowing constantly about the EU, and he worked as a special adviser to a eurosceptic cabinet minister. 

Naturally, Finkelstein asked him about them. "I don’t think European federalists should have a monopoly on being part of Europe," Cameron replied. And in explaining his choice of cufflinks on that day many years ago, he provided an insight into the position on Europe he has held since. From there, we get Finkelstein's analysis of Cameron's position.

First, he is properly, robustly Eurosceptic while being completely at home with membership of the EU. Second, he has watched as two prime ministers became engulfed by the European issue, which seriously hampered their ability to do anything else. And third, he experienced defeat and policy made for opposition. Now he wants victory and policy that allows him to govern successfully. 

It is possible, one assumes, to offer a more facile analysis – but it is difficult to imagine how. From the very start, the idea of a eurosceptic voluntarily wearing the badge of shame is preposterous. That someone also can think of being "part of Europe", while wearing the symbol of the organisation that enslaves "Europe" is equally so. A person who confuses "Europe" with the European Union is not a eurosceptic.

Then, anyone who is "completely at home with membership of the EU" is not a eurosceptic – period. Forget "properly, robustly". They are not eurosceptics.

As for the rest, that tells its own tale. Cameron has seen first-hand the effect of the EU on Conservative Party politics. Now he wants to win an election and is determined not to let "Europe" interfere with his chances of victory. 

Cameron is a man without understanding and without principle. He knows nothing about the European Union, and his only interest is in winning. The EU issue is a barrier, a pitfall ... it must be neutralised. That is Cameron's only interest. 

And Finkelstein believes he is a eurosceptic? No wonder we find it difficult to make progress. With somebody so unbelievably thick, we are not even past first base.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Print ready

It's over - by Richard... Tuesday, November 03, 2009

UPDATED (5)

Klaus has signed the treaty. This is just short of eight years since the Laeken Declaration on 15 December 2001, when the Europeabn Council adopted a "Declaration on the Future of Europe", which kick-started the whole charade.

"It marks another step on the road to the 'ever closer union' envisaged in the founding document of the EU," says The Daily Telegraph leader.

The Laeken Declaration said the union needed further reform because "its citizens are calling for a clear, open, effective, democratically controlled Community approach". The leaders believed it was essential to tackle the widespread disenchantment about the EU among its people. Yet the manner of the treaty's ratification, certainly here in Britain, has served to worsen, not remove, that sense of disillusion. 

As one of our commentators now puts it, the Czech Republic as a sovereign state ceased to exist on November 3rd 2009, 15:00 CET. And so all the member states of the European Union. For the former satellites of the Soviet empire now in the EU, though, this is particularly poignant. Now that they have been subsumed into a new empire, their independence did not even last 20 years.

Now the battle starts, as much with our own side and the enemy within. One notes that The Tory Boy blog has taken to deleting comments. I'm opening up a new comment thread of our own, which I'll keep running, under the heading "Lisbon Treaty". Unlike the freedom-loving Tories, we will not delete posts of which we no not approve.

Talking of "enemies within", it is interesting to see that Reuters is still perpetrating the deceit that this is a "reform" treaty. That is another of those easy lies for which the "colleagues" are notorious, but it is a shame that the news agencies fall in with it. 

Barroso, as always, is crowing. "The road has been a marathon of hurdles but the last hurdle is now removed," he says, neglecting of course to say that the main "hurdle" has been the democratic process, which he and his ilk have trampled underfoot.

EU leaders, we are told, can now push ahead full steam with deciding whom to appoint to two jobs outlined in the treaty -- the new post of president of the Council of EU leaders and a foreign policy chief with enhanced powers. There is talk of an ad hoc European Council next week, to fill these new posts. Then we will have faces to the enemy.

This, or course, removes the last possible fig-leaf behind which David Cameron can hide. We are told to expect a policy statement from him tomorrow, and even now there are intensive discussions taking place in the Palace of Westminster. 

Barry Legg writes in The Guardian that each step in Cameron's approach towards the EU has been one of shameless contempt for the Eurosceptics who have loyally backed him in a way William Hague could have only dreamt that Ken Clarke, Chris Patten or Michael Heseltine might have behaved.

Despite their best attempts to "park" the issue, "Europe" has come back to bite the Tories, as it always would. With his "dance of the seven veils", however, Cameron has not made it easy for himself, and now he is going to have to come clean. Boy Dave is going to have to grow up and become a man.

That point is not lost on The Times, which has the Tories put "on the spot". Cameron is going to have real trouble with his insistence that he is not reneging on a pledge to give us a referendum. There is no longer a treaty to vote upon, the Tories bleat.

The Independent retails comments from Cameron on London's LBC Radio. Asked whether he had let voters down over the promise of a referendum, he replied: "No, I haven't and I won't."

He adds: "I believe we should have a referendum and we've campaigned for it, we've fought for it, we've put it up front and centre at election campaign after election campaign, we've challenged the Prime Minister about his broken promise in the Commons, we've tried to persuade other European countries not to sign the treaty because we think the British people should be allowed a referendum.

"But if the treaty is signed, if it is implemented, if it is put in place by all 27 countries, then clearly the situation will have changed and we'll have to address that changed situation. It won't be a treaty any more, it will be part of European law. Now, that looks like that is going to happen, I'm very disappointed about that."

And now William Hague has said it was "no longer possible" to put the treaty to a popular vote.

He added: "Now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the president of the European Council, the loss of British national vetoes ... These things will already have happened and a referendum cannot unwind them or prevent them." 


Reuters takes this as an unequivocal declaration that the Tories have walked away from a Lisbon referendum. Of course, Hague knew that this was going to be his response. But he had to play games all these months, pretending that a referendum was still an option.

That fool, James Forsyth, over on the Spectator clog is ramping up the theme that, "The accusations of betrayal being hurled at David Cameron are ... deeply unfair." The Sun promise of a referendum, he says, was always conditional on the treaty not being ratified by the time Cameron got elected. 

He, like the Tory Boy Blog, though, seem to have rather selective memories, forgetting the Boy's speech on 26 May 2009, under the title: "Fixing Broken Politics". We will spell it out again:

"A progressive reform agenda," Dave said, "demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people." He went on:

We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.

On Tory Boy Blog, Jonathan Isaby, who claims to have been a "staunch eurosceptic" since the late 1980s, is lamenting the appearance of UKIP peer Lord Pearson on television. He has been "gloating" about the possibility of robbing 50 Conservative candidates of seats they ought to win next year. 

"Therein lies the danger of not getting behind the party leadership on what I trust will be a robust line when he outlines it tomorrow," adds Isaby. And if it isn't a "robust line"? What then? Or will all the Tory Boys be told to believe it is a "robust line" anyway, no matter what they are given?

Gerald Warner is less easy to please. Abandoning the referendum, he writes, is an "historic moment" because it sets a new paradigm in political chicanery: Cameron will become the first British leader to have ratted on his commitments BEFORE even taking office.

It is a measure of the centrifugal force that political deceit has acquired and of the extravagant cynicism of the ruling elite regarding the electorate, Warner adds. Cameron has calculated, possibly correctly, that he can discard a "cast-iron" pledge to the electorate on the most basic issue in politics – the subjection of national sovereignty to foreign powers – and that the mug punters will still turn out and vote him into office. He continues:

Cameron is apparently about to join the historic list of Tory renegades, from Peel to Heath; the difference is, he feels he can rat on his promises even before an election and still win office. 

If there is to be any hope for Britain surviving as a sovereign nation true Tories must abandon their Pavlovian voting habits and punish the gang of modernising cuckoos in the Conservative nest. Unless something truly Damascene occurs, Dave is less than 24 hours away from shamelessly declaring himself a forsworn leader. If he does so, the overriding priority in British politics will be to get him out.

That is not an uncommon sentiment, one which we share. With the issue being lead item on Channel 4 News, and the amount of press coverage, reaction has been sharper than we might have anticipated. But this is no longer about "Europe". It is about politicians ratting on promises. And that, to the average punter, is altogether more serious.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Print ready

A certain consistency - by Richard...

No one can blame Klaus for not trying. On 22 April 2004, he warned that Czech membership of the EU would signal the end of his country as an independent sovereign state. 

He made his comments to the Mlada Fronta Dnes, one of the leading Czech newspapers. They came less than two weeks before the Czech Republic, along with nine other countries, joined the EU. 

Klaus spoke of more than a thousand years of history that threatened to be subsumed under the rule of Brussels. He urged his fellow countrymen to do everything possible to preserve the integrity of the Czech state.

That, incidentally, was only the third post we ever published on our then new blog. Over five years and nine thousand posts later, we are writing about Klaus in the same context. He was right then and he is right now.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Print ready

A new religion is born - by Richard...

Climate change is now officially a religion. See Archbishop Cranmer for the details. And the heretics shall burn.

Print ready

A different result? - by Richard...

Not for the first time, we find ourselves making a contrast between the UK and Afghanistan, the latter where president Karzai has been formally re-installed after the run-off election had been cancelled. With the initial election mired in fraud, Karzai resumes office, without a mandate and with no legitimacy.

Inasmuch as it is a state, however, Afghanistan is at least nominally independent – albeit shored up with foreign aid – and, even though the process was mired in fraud, their president was elected. It remains ironic, therefore, that the UK, which is no longer an independent state, is expending blood and treasure to shore up this state, against an insurgency of its own peoples.

As to Karzai being elected, this is more than can be said for the president of our state, the European Union. There, the "colleagues" have found the ultimate answer to preventing electoral fraud. They have simply dispensed with the idea of an election.

But there lies a huge trap. In the fullness of time, as the unelected EU president imposes himself on the scene, siren voices will be heard demanding that we have an elected president, to make the EU more "democratic". The colleagues will, of course, be only too keen to oblige, springing the trap shut on the member nations, as an elected president will then claim the "legitimacy" to rule us all.

To see why this will not be a democratic solution, though, all you have to do is look at Afghanistan. It may be a state, but it is not a country. Its population is fragmented into ethnic and tribal components, which have nothing in common but mutual antagonism. 

In the north, you have the Uzbeks, the Tajiks and the Turkamen (amongst others) plus the Aimaks. In the central belt you have the Hazara, and the Pashtuns, who themselves are divided into two rival tribes, the Ghilzai and the Durrani. Then, in the deep south, you have the Balouchi, inhabiting a segment of a formerly independent country which was annexed by Afghanistan in the 19th Century.

The great mistake the "international community" has made, in seeking to impose a democracy on this geographical entity, is to ignore the central requirement, the need for a demos. There is not one in Afghanistan – and there never will be in the foreseeable future. 

Likewise, there is no demos in the European Union. In both instances, the advocates of democracy are confusing process for substance. An election does not a democracy make. No more can the EU be democratic than can Afghanistan.

Belatedly, the "international community" has recognised this in Afghanistan, having effectively appointed Karzai to his position, where he remains only for as long as they allow, effectively kept in place by force of arms, the coalition forces increasingly resembling an army of occupation. 

But, for some strange reason, no one can see the parallels. The result in Afghanistan is already a central government which is manifestly unable to govern by consent, with the civil war growing in intensity, past the point where there is any serious expectation of a resolution.

Yet the "colleagues" are seeking to impose a single state, with a supreme ruler, on the 27 member states of the EU. Without either a demos or consent, do they expect a different result?

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Unsurprising - by Helen...

As we fully expected the Czech Constitutional Court has found that the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is entirely in agreement with the Czech Constitution. What a surprise, eh? As President Klaus has already been given those meaningless promises (here and here) from the EU, the chances are he will sign and claim a victory for the Czech Republic. In this he will be supported by the majority of the Czech people who will eventually find out how little those promises mean.

The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, on the other hand, is unhappy. Klaus, they feel, should have saved them and saved their leader's blushes. For today is the day when the Boy-King of the Conservative Party who is said to be "disappointed" by the Czech court's decision, will set out his party's plans on Europe. It is certain that they will not include a referendum on theConstitutional Lisbon Treaty. It is also likely that they will include a great deal of vague blather that cannot be turned into hard policy. I suppose, I could be surprised for once.

Tim Montgomerie tells his readers that the Conservatives must have a European policy and announce it as soon as possible.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

The sound of silence - by Richard...

The great fishing disaster rolls on ... recorded each passing year.

This year Scottish fisheries secretary Richard Lochhead estimates that, during 2007, whitefish worth £60 million was discarded in the North Sea – by the British fleet. "When other European fleets are taken into account the problem is compounded greatly," he says, then adding: "It is an utter disgrace that our fishermen are being forced to dump high quality and marketable fish back into the sea - hundreds of millions of pounds wasted and unnecessary pressure on our stocks due to the crazy rules of the CFP."

And the Tory policy on the CFP is? We know what it was, but that was before the great eurosceptic Dave intervened. All we hear now is the sound of silence.

COMMENT THREAD