EU Referendum: playing it long
Tuesday 9 October 2012
 But with Merkel due to visit Athens later today, something else is afoot. Says Süddeutsche Zeitung, when several thousand police are needed for one EU leader to meet another one, then this "devastating impression" at least helps to break up the sometimes very one-sided fixation on the financial aspects of the crisis. The question of money, debt, bailouts, loans, guarantees and such conditions, says the paper, are important. They are really hard to solve, but they are ultimately solvable. It is a question of political will. However, it says, the European idea – that uniquely successful cohesion that has lasted for decades - "could suffer irreparable damage". It may have something there. I guess the media (the mainland blatts, at any rate) and the markets have decided the euro is fixable, in the short term. That may be why Merkel is in Athens. She certainly isn't there for her health, or the scintillating company. Think Marshal Plan, thinkSonderwirtschaftszonen. Either way, the crisis is certainly is off the boil and the panic on hold. But the damage to the political construct may be more severe. No one will ever look at the EU the same way as they were doing a few years back, before the crises started. Despite our earlier emphasis and hopes, the politics now may be the pinch point. There, of course, we must look to the German general election of next November – another reason why there won't be any formal negotiation on a new treaty – and the possibly of an adverse reaction from the electorate. Merkel has to settle the Greek issue before her voters go to the polls. Only then can she really start talking seriously about a new treaty. All this, though, reinforces the view that the eurosceptics, including the Tory faction, are going to have to rethink their game. Fringe meetings there are aplenty in Manchester, demanding an immediate referendum, but we are not going to get one. The "colleagues" have decided to play it long, so we are not in control of the timetable. However, we should welcome the idea of a referendum in five or six year's time. If we start planning now, we might just have got a winning strategy in place by then. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 09/10/2012 |
Defence: nothing changes
Monday 8 October 2012
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I recall a story saved for posterity by the late Sir Austen Chamberlain of a minute written before the War by the head of the Treasury, Sir George Murray, on a proposal to construct an underground shelter for the War Office in case of air attack. Sir George Murray wrote: "This may be safely turned down. No sane enemy acquainted with our institutions would destroy the War Office".
From a debate in the House of Commons on 1 June 1938. The "War" to which reference is made is, of course, the First World War. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/10/2012 |
Media: a case of galloping self-importance
Monday 8 October 2012
The self-importance of the Daily Mail knows no bounds, as it grandly tells us that: "In an article seen by the Daily Mail, Right-wing grandee Bernard Jenkin today warns that failure to re-negotiate with Brussels before 2015 would be a 'disaster' for Britain that would reduce the Tories to 'paralysis'".
Yet this is actually in the September issue ofCrossBow, the magazine of the Tory think-tank the Bow Group. It has been up on the website for over a week, but has so far languished (rightly) in obscurity. Such is the desperate need for cut-and-paste copy though, that the Daily Mail has raided the edition for comment, then presenting it as "today's news", even though it was stale, out-of-date and inaccurate before it even went up on the Bow Group site on 1 October. Jenkin's view is that Cameron's putative post-election negotiation will be too late since the key negotiations "will be presented before the next European elections in 2014". He thinks that an intergovernmental conference to draft a new treaty will be convened by the EU "summit" in December – something that seemed possibile in the summer, but is no longer the case. Events have moved on. Merkel is confining herself to a "forum" as opposed to a convention that was otherwise mooted (which has to be convened, rather than an IGC), while Barroso has committed to treaty proposals in the Sping of 2014, just before the euro-elections. This means that there cannot (and will not) be a convention before the autumn of 2014, and there cannot be an IGC before 2015-16. Jenkin, therefore, is completely wrong (as you might expect), thus giving the Mail a bum steer, which it dutifully publishes. This, generally, is entirely what one comes to expect of the British media, but one cannot help but smile at how earnestly journalists Tim Shipman and Jason Groves attempt to mislead their readers. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/10/2012 |
EU politics: the tease goes on
Monday 8 October 2012
 Predictably, David Cameron is going to indulge in some flag-waving over the EU's multi-annual budget settlement, but the wooden spoon goes to Teresa May, who is claiming that border controls "could be introduced to block European immigrants flocking to Britain". This "dramatic proposal", we are told, "will be seen as a direct challenge to one of the central principles of the European Union", as the "freedom of movement directive - which allows 500 million people to move freely between member states - is under now review as part of a study into Britain’s relationship with Brussels". These are the words offered by the Mail, but it is unlikely that they invented them. Most probably, they come from a Conservative Party briefing note or press release, issued on behalf of May by her policy wonks. However, a minor problem emerges here. There isn't a "freedom of movement directive". It doesn't exist. Freedom of movement is one of the four freedoms, enshrined in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, currently Title IV). Furthermore, not only is that a fundamental treaty obligation, it forms the basis of the single market framework, alongside the free movement of goods, services and capital, which Mr Cameron has pledged to uphold. So basic is this that even The Guardian understands it, although it notes that Theresa May's idea of limiting the free movement of people through the EU "can only be achieved in full by rewriting the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the founding treaty". Actually, it means rewriting the TFEU (as amended by Lisbon). The point this paper seems to be trying to make is that these "four freedoms" were actually in the founding treaty. In that context, it is quite possible that there are Conservative Party members around who don't know that freedom of movement is a treaty obligation. Certainly, Matt Chorley, the Mail's political editor doesn't seem to know, so this must be possible. But one dreads the thought that the Home Secretary doesn't know. Never in a million years, therefore, is Mrs May voluntarily, or with knowledge of forethought, going to abrogate the treaty. And that is what she would have to do in order to limit freedom of movement. So, one must assume, this is all part of the tease. With each passing second, though, there is a diminishing number of people who are either entertained or impressed by this type of ploy. Even the loyal party apparatchiks are getting a little tired of it, and are more likely to be irritated than amused. And therein lies a conundrum. No political party should be going out of its way to irritate its members and supporters. So what does Mrs May really think she is trying to achieve? COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/10/2012 |
Posts
