Referendum: no longer under control Wednesday 4 July 2012  When a subject generates high levels of media traffic, the closed loop effect starts to take over. The politicians may have started the meme running, but the media responds, the politicians react, media then reacts to that, and so on and on. There then comes a point when story develops a life of its own and it continues running without much new input. Generally, these sorts of stories then tend to keep running until the issue is resolved, one way or another, and there is some sort of closure. So far, we are in the high traffic phase, where every Tom, Dick and Crawford piles in, with derivative "noise" which adds very little to the sum of human wisdom, other than Crawford, however, wishes to make a point: "Now is not the time to commit to an EU referendum", he says. "We don't know what we want". What is interesting is that the egregious Peter Mandelson who, a mere two months ago was calling for a referendum, is saying the same thing. He has decided that, although he still wants one, he doesn't want it just yet. Yet it is impossible to disagree with the man when he suggests that it is not a good idea to hold a referendum as a short-term expedient to keep the lid on the anti-EU hardliners on the Tory backbenches and as a panicky response to the rise of UKIP. To be even-handed, he also suggests that it is not a good idea for Labour to attempt to try to drive a wedge in the Tory party. This would not be in the national interest and "is only a way of managing — or exacerbating — the intolerable pressures inside the Conservative Party". It would turn an issue of genuine principle into one of short-term politics. Ever the optimist, Mandelson then postulates that, should the eurozone repair itself and become "the core of a much more politically integrated Europe", Britain will have to make a "profound choice" about its own future in Europe. Says the former commissioner, staying outside this "federal Europe" would have "potentially far-reaching consequences for our country: in trade, in governance, in global influence. We would have to make the decision to exclude or include ourselves only after a serious national debate". As to a referendum, therefore, it is hard to see, he says, how else Britain could make such a huge step with the necessary legitimacy. But this is not a case for a referendum tomorrow, but five to ten years from now, when the future direction of the EU is clear, and when we have a genuine choice to make. This is a man who does not seem to be up to speed, considering that he is a former commissioner. The kind of referendum he is considering might be upon us sooner than he imagines. But what is really interesting here is that Mandelson, after being so keen, so recently, on a referendum, really does not want one. No one envies David Cameron's position, he says, but he should not embark on the same road taken by Hague, fighting a general election on EU issues. Cameron should concentrate on digging his government out of its omnishambles and rediscover the sense of direction and competence he demonstrated at the beginning of his term. He cannot afford any further vote-losing distractions, European or otherwise. So, what has changed that has caused the man to change his mind so dramatically? What does he know that we don't? Or what doesn't he know that we do? Finding clues is not easy, although it is interesting to see that Spiegel has also caught the referendum bug, publishing a long piece with the contentious title: "Better Off Outside?" The magazine concludes of Britain that "exit seems more likely than ever", stating that many leading British politicians from all sides of the spectrum now believe that a referendum on EU membership is unavoidable. It is entirely possible, it says, that the British could indeed vote in favour of leaving the EU. But there are echoes of the Mandelson theme, with us being told that Cameron "hopes to postpone the referendum issue for a few years". A vote only makes sense when it is clear what is being voted on, he says: but that is impossible to predict, given the current developments in the eurozone. So it is that we are seeing an increasingly number of people who really do not want a referendum any time soon. All the same, right up to press, Cameron does not seem to know what he is letting himself in for. To the Commons Liaison Committee yesterday, he insisted: "If the 17 countries of the eurozone bring about a banking union for themselves - which I frankly think they need to do in a single currency - if they do that at the level of the 17 and we can get proper safeguards in place, then that wouldn't be a fundamental change for us". "So", he adds, "I don't think that would in and of itself trigger a massive change for us in the EU". Here, there, is another man who either does not know what is going on, or chooses not to reveal what he knows. Most close observers are fully aware that a banking union requires fiscal union which requires political union. If Cameron does know this, he is treating his audience with contempt. If he does not know, he is dangerously ill-informed. The truth, though – as the political claque on the Telegraph is beginning to realise – is that Cameron's EU policy is "a puny vessel at the mercy of a tempest". Slowly but relentlessly, he is being driven towards the referendum commitment he would rather avoid. He has no choice in the matter. And that is why this issue is going to run and run. Many of the commentators, who know little of the issues, can smell the fear. They are attracted to it as a moth is to a flame. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 04/07/2012 |
The Great Euro Swindle Tuesday 3 July 2012  The euro crisis, we are told, is a story of fraud and deception - all members, even the Germans, are implicated. According to our informant, it shows that Bundesbank (Tietmeyer, Issing) warned Kohl and Waigel that Italy and Belgium were not in compliance with the rules of EMU. Also Regling as director general in the EU commission knew about this. There were interviews with those bitter old men. When Greek wanted to join the euro, the analysts Bundesbank could see that the data were apparently falsified. One member of the Bundesbank board went public but, as a result, got a severe dressing down from Hans Eichel. Then Eichel and Schröder decided that Germany also would be in non compliance with the rules. Senior officials in Bundesbank and the leading politicians thus deliberately told lies to the population, who now must foot the bill. A programme of this nature should have been dynamite in the German political debate, except for the fact that it was broadcast late, between 22.45-23.30 local time. Today's newspapers have not (so far) commented on programme. If there are any public-spirited German speakers out there, we could really use a translation of the key parts, to give this wider circulation, not least to make the contrast with Peston's weak documentary. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 03/07/2012 |
It's started – get rid of the fudge Tuesday 3 July 2012  With referendum fever rampant, the Independent is already up and running with arguments for staying in the EU, offered by Ben Chu. The points made are all very predictable, and have been made before to the point of tedium. We can counter them with ease. However, this is not the ground on which the battle will be fought. As the situation develops, the chances are that we will have to face not one but two referendums. Addressing the scenario posed in my earlier piece, we face the prospect of a treaty referendum some time in 2015, close to or coinciding with the general election – should the EU survive that long. The chances are that this will not be an in/out referendum, but one in which asks whether we approve a new treaty which gives considerably more power to the EU. Like as not, the UK will have negotiated multiple opt-outs, and the pressure will be on to approve the treaty on the basis that refusal would crash the euro. However, in that scenario, an affirmative would put the UK in the second tier of a two-tier EU which had been transformed into a United States of Europe, centred around remaining eurozone countries. Thus, there must be linkage between a "yes" vote to the treaty and an in/out poll, the former conditional on being given the latter. Putting clothes on this, what we might see is Cameron confronting us with a treaty referendum beforethe general election, with him campaigning for a "yes" vote on the promise of an in/out referendumafter the election. This, in effect, was what Cameron was saying in the Commons yesterday. The status quo in Europe was "unacceptable", he said, adding: "I believe we should show strategic and tactical patience in this". What he wanted to see was "a fresh settlement that we seek fresh consent for". Then came the crux of the matter: "The right time to determine questions about referendums and the rest of it is after we have that fresh settlement. That is what we should do". This scenario would pus Labour and the Lib-Dems on the spot, and possibly give the Conservatives the breakthrough differentiation that they needed to win. It would also blow UKIP out of the water. Then, and only then, would come the job of fighting the real referendum but, in the new environment, that would be eminently winnable – providing the "outers" get their act together, and start thinking through their campaign now. In the first instance, I would propose we lose the titles eurosceptic and eurorealist – and anything similar. I suggest we go for "outer", as opposed to "inner", making the battle lines clear. That is where Philip Johnston tries to go this morning, and he is partially right. There's only one question, he says, "Are we in or out? ". But then he adds, "Any effort to renegotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU is just a smokescreen". There, I differ slightly, and this assertion cannot be allowed to take hold as it stands. De facto and de jure, withdrawal involves negotiation, and the proposed settlement between the EU and UK must define the battleground. Most if not all the points raised by Ben Chu can be resolved in exit negotiations, under Article 50. We need to get past the idea that leaving is "sudden death". However, Johnston is completely right about one thing. Any attempt to sell renegotiation before we leave would be a fraud. We need to get rid of the fudge. Forget renegotiation. The issue to decide is indeed in or out. Then, and only then, do we start talking with the "colleagues". COMMENT THREAD Richard North 03/07/2012 |
Crimes against the state Tuesday 3 July 2012 Via Witterings from Witney, we learn of British Constitution Group Chairman Roger Hayes having been arrested and imprisoned. His great "crime" was refusing to pay his Council Tax. Roger, is no stranger to the law, having added to his crime by taking the mick out of the system with his "lawful rebellion" movement. However, we've been there as well, and I don't think Roger does himself any great favours dressing his campaign up in quasi-legal language, offering multiple and rather dubious justifications for non-payment. His case is strong enough on its own merits. In this country, we are not free. We buy an annual license in order to stay out of jail. The Man calls it Council Tax, but it is our "freedom tax". Refuse to pay and you go to jail – automatically, without anything resembling a trial, and without remission. We have no say in how much is demanded and virtually none on how it is spent. This turns us into serfs. The Police are the tax gatherers. Their main concern is not the protection of public safety. It is revenue protection. The Man must be paid or you go to jail. Simples - and wrong. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 03/07/2012 |
Posts
