The lust for "power" - by Richard... Friday, November 06, 2009

The lust for "power" - by Richard... Friday, November 06, 2009

The Tory leadership, we are told is "delighted" at the smooth reception of "Do-nothing" Dave's non-policy on "Europe".

Looking at the Politics Home snap poll on the issue, however, it can be seen that support is polarised, following orthodox political groupings. Amazingly, Conservative supporters support, er ... Dave. Labour supporters, er ... don't.

Thus, Tim Montgomerie notes that, to a very large extent, the party appears to have recovered its once secret weapon: unity. In other words, in their lust for what they think is "power", the Tory faithful is prepared to swallow any old tosh from the Great Leader, in order to present a unified façade.

By no measure, therefore, does this poll represent a vote of confidence in the non-policy. And the "unity" is, or course, skin deep. As we find in Afghanistan, the tribe unites against the common enemy. Once that is neutralised, the in-fighting starts. James Delingpole offers the obvious way out, but little Dave was never interested in that. Mary Ellen Synon, however, is expecting to hearthat patriotic Tories will be found in Conservative Central Office, trying to find the way down to the cellar.

Short of that, the fight for "power" is increasingly a scrap between two bald men fighting over a comb. While Dave postures and prances, power drains away to Brussels. And that, never forget, is what it is all about. Dave might be happy to be a satrap. We would prefer our own government.

And that is all he will be. "The coming into power of the Lisbon Treaty marks the annexation of Europe by Brussels – the expansion of Belgium over an entire continent," says Brussels Journal, and they are not wrong.

It comes to something though when even Pravda notices something amiss. Twenty years ago, one wall came down, but another is being erected - this one between the people and the ruling élites. We are approaching the end game, but all the Tory faithful are interested in is getting their Boy into No 10. Their pitifully limited horizons allow them to see no further.

Yet all they will get is a hollow victory, the trappings of power rather than the substance.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Print ready

Calling his bluff - by Richard...

There was a sense that the story on "Do-nothing" Dave and his amazing technicolour "Europe” policy was beginning to fizzle out. We've done it to death, although for once we've been addressing our core subject – the one for which this blog was set up.

What now gives it "legs" though is the reaction filtering in from the rest of the member states, which gives us a new and important perspective on the situation.

Unsurprisingly, this comes via The Guardian which, despite its Europhile tendencies, frequently offers depth that you do not find in other newspapers.

What it tells us that, in addition to France – and the obvious reaction from the likes of Elmar Brok – there is real, deeply-entrenched resistance to renegotiating the EU treaties, which will be necessary if Cameron is to achieve the repatriation of any powers.

Up front are the Europe ministers from three member states: Poland, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic. All three are saying that that Cameron would fail to achieve his demand to repatriate social and employment laws to Britain because his plans would need to secure the agreement of all 27 leaders of the EU because they would involve rewriting EU treaties.

And, as Elmar Brok said, "We have had 10 years of institutional debate and now is the time to talk about practical co-operation. We don't need another 10 years of institutional debate."

For the Dutch, Frans Timmermans says that the Tory plans would have a "paralysing effect on Europe". He added: "There is more chance of a snowball surviving hell than the EU restarting debates on treaty change." He adds that no EU leader would want to reopen treaties to accommodate the Tories. 

"You can still hear the sigh of relief across Europe that we have finally finished with treaty change," he adds. "Everyone is so relieved that we can finally stop talking about the internal rules of the EU and start doing something about the crisis, something about the climate change issues and something about international affairs." He then adds: "I am sure there is no member state in the EU that wants to put energy into another round of debate about the rules of the game."

Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, the centre-right Polish Europe minister, expands on this, saying treaty change is out of the question. "We have finalised the most difficult and the most lengthy procedure of ratification that we have ever been through in Europe. Nobody wants to negotiate a new treaty."

Then there is Dick Roche, for the Irish. He says: "There is a complete aversion across Europe to the idea of going through the kind of process we have just gone through. If you are talking about areas that touch on free movement or the whole central core trade areas then you are entering into minefields. The only thing that happens to people who enter minefields is they get blown up."

Now, on this blog, both my co-editor and I have been saying this for some time. We are by no means alone in so saying. It was always on the cards – in fact it was a racing certainty – that this would be the reaction. Therefore, the only way there were going to be any treaty negotiations was if Cameron made them the archetypal "offer they couldn't refuse."

Thus, nothing Cameron says or promises by way of repatriating powers has any meaning whatsoever unless he has that "offer", or a very big stick to bring the reluctant "colleagues" to the negotiating table.

From our point of view, what Cameron has on offer, we've heard before. Twenty years ago, Booker, myself and others were talking privately to then senior Tory ministers, all of whom were telling us that they were eurosceptics at heart, and were determined to repatriate powers.

But not any of them – then or now – have been prepared to tells us how they would bring the "colleagues" to the negotiating table, and what they would do if they said "no". That is what makes Cameron's policy more of the same – empty and completely devoid of substance. He has no fall-back to deal with a blank refusal to negotiate. And, not days after the Boy's speech, the "colleagues" are ganging up to say "no".

That leaves us in an interesting position. On the one hand, we can accept that the Tories did not expect such a reaction – which can hardly be likely, since they've been told time and time again that this would happen. On the other, we can conclude that the Tories are not serious. That they have no real intention of pursuing renegotiations. 

In fact, that is the inescapable conclusion, from which stems the further conclusion. Cameron's policy is no more than a cynical exercise in deception – a rag-bag of empty promises dressed up to make it look plausible to a gullible media and some of the electorate. It is calculated to be sufficient to take the edge of a "eurosceptic rebellion" and get him past the hurdle of the next election without losing too many votes.

That is the real difference between New Labour and the Tories. At least with New Labour, what you see is what you get – a bunch of unprincipled shits. With Cameron's "modern Conservatives", you still get a bunch of unprincipled shits. But they pretend to be otherwise. That is what really sticks in the craw – the pretence.

At least though, with record speed, the "colleagues" have called Cameron's bluff. His "Europe" policy is dead in the water. If there was any justice, so would be his prospects of becoming prime minister. This brazen cynicism really should not go unpunished.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Print ready

Wise pleads guilty - by Richard... Thursday, November 05, 2009

So says The Times, having changed his plea. I always knew he was a wrong 'un, from the day I drove him to Strasbourg. The guy had no interest at all in fighting the EU – the only thing he talked about was making money. The paper says he could go to prison.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Surrender monkeys - by Richard...

"Do-nothing" Dave and his "settled" non-policy is coming under a little bit of attack says The Daily Telegraph.

Roger Helmer dismisses Dave's finest hour, declaring: "What we have is an essentially cosmetic policy. We are installing a largely ineffective burglar alarm when the family silver has already been stolen."

He goes on then to say: "But the British people don't want vague promises. They want the family silver back in good order," adding, ".... I can neither justify nor support our new EU policy." 

He has resigned as spokesman for his party in Brussels, as indeed has Daniel Hannan, in order to concentrate on campaigning for a referendum on Europe.

The Lord Tebbit has also weighed in, calling on Mr "Do-nothing" to hold a referendum after he wins "power" to give additional legitimacy to his attempts to repatriate powers from Brussels. I don't think our Norm has quite got it ... Dave has no intention of attempting to repatriate powers.

Nevertheless, the Noble Lord makes a good point. Even if Dave secures 40 percent of the vote in the next general election, low turnout is likely to mean that can claim the active support of no more than about 24 percent of British voters for his European policy.

That, of course, is hardly a strong mandate and, the way it is going., the Boy might even get less. A direct mandate from a referendum would give him added strength ... which is why Mr "Do-nothing" is not going to have a referendum. He wants to park the issue.

On the other side of the coin, we also seem to have some Frog, who goes by the name of Pierre Lellouche, who is describing Dave's policy as "pathetic and autistic" – although not for the same reasons we would. However, it also seems that something has been lost in translation. 

But then Dave is probably quite pleased to have flak from the Frog, on the basis that he can balance one lot of criticism against the other. This is a classic BBC trick – if both "extremes" are complaining, they say, then we must be getting it right. 

With the Daily Mail in full flow, though – proclaiming that Dave's effluvia represents a "desperately sad moment for British democracy and sovereignty", the response is slightly unbalanced. One Frog does not balance out three million dischuffed Mail readers.

However, Lellouche does illustrate the difficulties that would have faced Dave if he was at all serious. The "colleagues" are most definitely not in the mood to hand back powers, which shows that if we ever get a serious politician leading the Tory party, he will have his work cut out.

Meanwhile, if Steven Glover has his way, the new Tory logo should be a white flag. At least then Dave's surrender monkeys (pictured) will have something in common with the Frogs.

LISBON TREATY THREAD