Richard North: useful idiot or Europhile wolf in Eurosceptic’s clothing?
Commentary by Robert Henderson on Dr Richard North's speech to the Campaign for an Independent Britain meeting 4th May 2013
Dr Richard North: The way forward
His contribution was very odd indeed for someone who is supposedly strongly Eurosceptic. His “way forward” is for the UK to remain entwined in coils of the EU for the foreseeable future. Of course, North does not describe his suggestions as leading to this, but that is the practical consequences of what he advocates.
North’s strategy for the UK’s departure from the EU is this:
“….invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, leading to a negotiated exit based on UK membership of the EFTA/EEA as an interim settlement. To ensure short-term continuity, we would have all EU law repatriated, giving time for examination and selective repeal, and the enactment of replacement legislation as necessary – all over a period of some years.”
He wants the UK to sign up to the type of arrangements Norway and Switzerland have with the EU. This requires them to adopt a large proportion of EU regulations (not least because of the ever broadening bureaucratic demands of the EU obsession with competition and harmonisation ), pay large annual sums to the EU to subsidize the poorer members of the EU and, worst of all, subscribe to the four EU “freedoms”, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour across not only the EU but also the larger European Economic Area (EEA).
That would be bad enough but his naivety over what Article 50 entails is startling. Here is the article in full:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.(http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html).
It is strongly implied in in para 3 of the Article that unilateral withdrawal is possible :
“ The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2”.
However, the clause does not explicitly give the right of unilateral secession and could be interpreted as merely referring to how any agreement might be scheduled to take effect. The other EU members could adopt this interpretation to thwart the UK leaving without declaring UDI.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties cites two legitimate instances where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty which does not make any provision for withdrawal : (1) where all parties recognise an informal right to do so or (2) the situation has changed so substantially that the obligations of a signatory are radically different from that which was originally agreed to. The informal right patently does not apply in the case of the EU. As for radical changes to the obligations of a signatory, that would be difficult to sustain. It is true that the organisation (the EU) the UK belongs to now is radically different from that which they originally joined in 1973 (the EEC), but the UK has signed new treaties to agree to the new circumstances as they have arisen. Hence, there would be no radically changed obligations which had not been taken on formally by the UK.
The only precedent of any sort for withdrawal is Greenland’s secession in 1985 from the European Economic Community (EEC). The was facilitated by the Greenland Treaty. However, it is not an obviously relevant precedent because Greenlanders retain Danish citizenship for Greenland has home rule not full independence from Denmark. They are consequently full EU citizens. Because Greenland is also one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU it is also subject to some EU law and regulations, mainly those relating to the Single Market. .
Even if it is accepted by the other EU members that there is a unilateral right of secession, the fact that it could only take place legally after two years would give the remainder of the EU the opportunity to run the UK ragged before the UK left.
As for getting an agreement which would allow the UK to generally re-establish its sovereignty, especially over the control of its borders, this is most improbable. A Qualified Majority in the European Council is required and even if such a majority is obtained the European Parliament can block the secession. The potential for delay and blackmail by the EU of the UK is considerable. In any event it is likely is that the EU would drive a bargain which is greatly to the UK’s disadvantage because the Eurofederalists would be terrified of creating a precedent for any other EU member which might wish to radically change their relationship with the EU. That would make them demand conditions of the UK which were so unappealing it would deter other member states from following suit. There is also the danger that the Europhile UK political elite would take the opportunity to agree to disadvantageous terms for the UK simply to keep the UK attached to the EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached. The stay-in camp could use Article 50 to argue that whether the British people want to be in or out, the cost of leaving would be too heavy because of this treaty requirement.
The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply by passing an Act of Parliament repealing all the treaties that refer to the EU from the Treaty of Rome onwards. No major UK party could object to this because all three have, at one time or another, declared that Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if it so chooses.
If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the treaty obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise (1) that international law is no law because there is never any means of enforcing it within its jurisdiction if a state rejects it and (2) that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future governments.
The OUT camp should press the major political parties to commit themselves to ignoring Article 50. If a party refuses that can be used against them because it will make them look suspicious.
How much of the vote does UKIP command?
North also addressed the question of UKIP’s share of the vote in the recent council elections. This he represented as trivial because although they took 25% of the vote the turnout was very low (around 30% overall). He ignores one important fact about turnout: if the turnout is shrinking then the potency of those who vote rises. UKIP voters and those willing to vote to come out of the EU at a referendum may be much more inclined to vote than those who want the status quo or at least are not motivated to vote for the UK’s independence.
Based on objective facts North is far too pessimistic about obtaining a vote to leave. There are two great differences between now and the 1975 referendum. In 1975 the British public had only two years’ experience of the EEC which was a vastly less intrusive body than the EU is now. If a referendum is held in the next few years the electorate will have 40 odd years of ever greater interference by Brussels with British politics and in the lives of Britons. To this can be added the growing number of prominent voices, both political and from the media and business , which are calling for either an outright campaign to leave the EU or at least a reshaping of the EU in such a radical fashion that it has no chance of success. Both factors will lend vastly greater potency to the OUT camp campaign now than was the case in 1975.
North’s tactics before a referendum
Much of this was driven by fear, fear that a the British electorate would not vote to come out. The consequence is that North proposes a complex, expensive and above all time consuming schedule of preparatory work before any referendum is held. There are also conflicts between his desired ends and proposed means.
North addressed the subject under five separate heads. I comment separately on each.
Reassurance for business
North argues that because the EU is first and foremost a political construct, business has no right to have a say in whether the UK is in or out of the EU. I have sympathy with that view, but North immediately capsized this position by stating:
“…business has a right to expect a predictable and stable regulatory and trading environment, the status of which is affected by our membership. Therefore, we need to be able to assure the business community that, should we leave the EU, there would be no adverse effects.
“In effect, that would mean "protecting" membership of the Single Market – which could be achieved through EEA membership. And, as long as that membership is assured, business has no locus in the broader debate.”
By taking this position on the Single Market North is effectively granting business a very large say in how we are governed, because continued membership of the Single Market will require at the least subscription to the four “freedoms” and the acceptance of EU laws relating to the Single Market. That will greatly impinge upon the UK’s sovereignty.
An alternative to the EU
North believes that we should not merely take back power from Brussels but also stop the power regained being grabbed by Westminster. He starts from the claim that the UK has never been a democracy. That is true in the sense that there has never been direct democracy – that is no more than a commonplace – but for a century before the UK was signed up to the EEC in 1973 there was a good deal of democratic control because the UK’s politics were national. British politicians then could not routinely hide behind supranational agreements such as those governing the EU to avoid responsibility for unpopular policies or be forced to adopt policies which were in the interest of foreign powers and to the UK’s disadvantage simply because of Treaty arrangements. If the UK leaves the EU utterly and our relationship with the EU becomes the same as we have with any other foreign power British politics will again become national not supranational. That is the most certain way of re-democratising the UK.
What does North want? He is much taken with the Harrogate Agenda (HA) (http://harrogateagenda.com/). This has six demands which are similar in tone to those of the 19th century Chartists and the 17th century Levellers before them. Here are a couple of the demands to give a flavour of the HA:
2. local democracy: the foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government;
4. all legislation subject to consent: no legislation or treaty shall take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that no legislation or treaty shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people;
Whether or not these are practical (which I very much doubt if put forward in this extreme form) , there is irony in the fact that North espouses such ideas because his proposals for a new relationship between the UK and the EU would utterly undermine the thrust of the HA demands for a UK entangled in an EFTA or similar arrangement would still be subject to decisions being made by foreigners with, doubtless, the willing complicity of Westminster politicians. The Europhile British political class is not going to vanish overnight so the only realistic way of making them behave reasonably is to force them to operate within a national context.
A network for dissemination
Here are North’s proposals:
“ Spreading the message is an essential part of any campaign, but reliance on the media is not going to be sufficient. Formal and informal networks will have to be built, some not dissimilar to direct marketing networks. Activities should include formal training and education, as well as more general propagandising.
Many revolutionary organisations have acquired their own newspapers, or news magazines, as a means of better spreading the message.”
Even if all this was possible, which is very doubtful because it would need serious money as well as willing hands, it would take far too long to establish as an effective propaganda tool. A referendum if it comes will not be that far in the future. What is needed is a simple readily understandable message such as “Are we to be masters in our own house” repeated as often as possible through the national and local media. With more and more politicians, mediafolk, businessmen and various celebrities making Anti-EU noises this is not a forlorn hope.
Agitation
North proposes a campaign of civil disobedience, including the late payment for “Council Tax, water bills, BBC license fees and other such fees” and visiting every “agency, every employment office, etc. and remove all information (leaflets, brochures) not in English”. He goes on to say that there are “A very wide range of activities is in fact possible, many entirely risk-free and totally within the law”.
I doubt whether in these politically correct and increasingly authoritarian times that there would be many which are “entirely risk-free and totally within the law”. Late payment of the BBC license could get you a criminal record; removing information leaflets not in English would probably get you investigated for racial harassment because there would not be much point in removing them without running a campaign saying what you were doing and why; failing to pay many official bills on time could result in late payment surcharges. If civil disobedience is urged it is important that the possible consequences are spelt out to prospective candidates for such action.
Nonetheless that is not my main concern with civil disobedience committed in this random fashion. Civil disobedience is only effective if it is (1) focused, (2) publicity worthy (3) does not greatly inconvenience or disgust the general public and (4) does not make the protestors look ridiculous. A good example of a serious single issue campaign blighted by clownish antics is that of Fathers for Justice. Leaving people to engage in acts of civil disobedience (particularly on a local scale) as they choose will not meet those criteria. If it is to be used, civil disobedience must be a national act. The Poll Tax disobedience is the best example in modern British history of such action. A readily understandable single issue: we won’t pay the tax. It was perfect because it blocked up the magistrates courts and brought the everyday system of justice to its knees.
Sovereignty and opposition to immigration are the two strongest cards the OUT camp has to play. If it is used , civil disobedience should be designed to focus public interest on those two issues.
A coalition of allies
North tried to make a distinction between umbrella groups (bad) and coalitions (good). In practice the two are indistinguishable. What determines the unity of purpose of any coalescing groups is not what they are called but the nature of the groups and their leaders.
North’s response to being challenged
During questions from the audience I said that North’s proposals were an excellent recipe for remaining within the EU for the reasons I have already given. North became very animated and spoke at considerable length to refute what I was saying. People only behave in such a manner during debate if they feel their position is under real threat.
The kindest interpretation of North’s position is that he is acting as a useful idiot for the Eurofederalist cause in the mistaken belief that things can be resolved to the UK’s advantage by talking, by being “reasonable”; the unkindest interpretation is that he is a Eurofederalist wolf in Eurosceptic clothing attempting to undermine the campaign to remove the UK from the grip of the EU.
North has condensed the views espoused in his speech into written form on the CIB website - see
http://www.freebritain.org.uk/_blog/Free_Britain/post/an-eu-free-future-for-all-by-dr-richard-north/
And
http://www.freebritain.org.uk/_blog/Free_Britain/post/turnout-by-dr-richard-north/ ).
Telegraph
Spain is officially insolvent: get your money out while you still can
I'd not noticed this until someone drew my attention to it, but the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor, published last month, comes about as close to declaring Spain insolvent as you are ever likely to see in official analysis of this sort. Of course, it doesn't actually say this outright. The IMF is far too diplomatic for such language. But that's the plain meaning of its latest forecasts, which at last have an air of realism about them, rather than being the usual dose of wishful thinking.
Let's take the projected budget deficit first. This is expected to decline quite steeply this year to 6.6 per cent of GDP, but that's mainly because the cost of bailing out the banking sector fell substantially on last year's budget. On a like-for-like basis, there has in fact been very little fall in the underlying deficit. And nor on the present policy mix is there ever likely to be, for that's where the deficit is projected to remain until the end of the IMF's forecasting horizon in 2018.
Next year, the deficit is expected to be 6.9 per cent, the year after 6.6 per cent, and so on with very little further progress thereafter. Remember, all these projections are made on the basis of everything we know about policy so far, so they take account of the latest package of austerity measures announced by the Spanish Government.
The situation looks even worse on a cyclically adjusted basis. What is sometimes called the "structural deficit", or the bit of government borrowing that doesn't go away even after the economy returns to growth (if indeed it ever does), actually deteriorates from an expected 4.2 per cent of GDP this year to 5.7 per cent in 2018. By 2018, Spain has far and away the worst structural deficit of any advanced economy, including other such well known fiscal basket cases as the UK and the US.
So what happens when you carry on borrowing at that sort of rate, year in, year out? Your overall indebtedness rockets, of course, and that's what's going to happen to Spain, where general government gross debt is forecast to rise from 84.1 per cent of GDP last year to 110.6 per cent in 2018. No other advanced economy has such a dramatically worsening outlook. And the tragedy of it all is that Spain is actually making relatively good progress in addressing the "primary balance", that's the deficit before debt servicing costs.
What's projected to occur is essentially what happens in all bankruptcies. Eventually you have to borrow more just to pay the interest on your existing debt. The fiscal compact requires eurozone countries to reduce their deficits to 3 per cent by the end of this year, though Spain among others was recently granted an extension. But on these numbers, there is no chance ever of achieving this target without further austerity measures, which even if they were attempted would very likely be self defeating. IN any case, it seems doubtful an economy where unemployment is already above 25 per cent could take any more.
In the past, the IMF has been guilty of being far too optimistic about Spain, both on the outlook for growth and the public finances, so it's possible it is now committing the reverse mistake of undue pessimism. Yet somehow I doubt it. Spain is chasing its tail down into deflationary oblivion.
All this leads to the conclusion that a big Spanish debt restructuring is inevitable. Spanish sovereign bond yields have fallen sharply since announcement of the European Central Bank's "outright monetary transactions" programme. The ECB has promised to print money without limit to counter the speculators. But in the end, no amount of liquidity can cover up for an underlying problem with solvency.
Europe said that Greece was the first and last such restructuring, but then there was Cyprus. Spain is holding off further recapitalisation of its banks in anticipation of the arrival of Europe's banking union, which it hopes will do the job instead. But if the Cypriot precedent is anything to go by, a heavy price will be demanded by way of recompense. Bank creditors will be widely bailed in. Confiscation of deposits looks all too possible.
I don't advise getting your money out lightly. Indeed, such advise is generally thought grossly irresponsible, for it risks inducing a self reinforcing panic. Yet looking at the IMF projections, it's the only rational thing to do.
PS. I don't include creditors of the British arm of Santander in this warning, who are ring fenced from the mothership back bome in Spain, theoretically at least.
Richard North: useful idiot or Europhile wolf in Eurosceptic’s clothing?
Commentary by Robert Henderson on Dr Richard North's speech to the Campaign for an Independent Britain meeting 4th May 2013
Dr Richard North: The way forward
His contribution was very odd indeed for someone who is supposedly strongly Eurosceptic. His “way forward” is for the UK to remain entwined in coils of the EU for the foreseeable future. Of course, North does not describe his suggestions as leading to this, but that is the practical consequences of what he advocates.
North’s strategy for the UK’s departure from the EU is this:
“….invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, leading to a negotiated exit based on UK membership of the EFTA/EEA as an interim settlement. To ensure short-term continuity, we would have all EU law repatriated, giving time for examination and selective repeal, and the enactment of replacement legislation as necessary – all over a period of some years.”
He wants the UK to sign up to the type of arrangements Norway and Switzerland have with the EU. This requires them to adopt a large proportion of EU regulations (not least because of the ever broadening bureaucratic demands of the EU obsession with competition and harmonisation ), pay large annual sums to the EU to subsidize the poorer members of the EU and, worst of all, subscribe to the four EU “freedoms”, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour across not only the EU but also the larger European Economic Area (EEA).
That would be bad enough but his naivety over what Article 50 entails is startling. Here is the article in full:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.(http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html).
It is strongly implied in in para 3 of the Article that unilateral withdrawal is possible :
“ The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2”.
However, the clause does not explicitly give the right of unilateral secession and could be interpreted as merely referring to how any agreement might be scheduled to take effect. The other EU members could adopt this interpretation to thwart the UK leaving without declaring UDI.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties cites two legitimate instances where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty which does not make any provision for withdrawal : (1) where all parties recognise an informal right to do so or (2) the situation has changed so substantially that the obligations of a signatory are radically different from that which was originally agreed to. The informal right patently does not apply in the case of the EU. As for radical changes to the obligations of a signatory, that would be difficult to sustain. It is true that the organisation (the EU) the UK belongs to now is radically different from that which they originally joined in 1973 (the EEC), but the UK has signed new treaties to agree to the new circumstances as they have arisen. Hence, there would be no radically changed obligations which had not been taken on formally by the UK.
The only precedent of any sort for withdrawal is Greenland’s secession in 1985 from the European Economic Community (EEC). The was facilitated by the Greenland Treaty. However, it is not an obviously relevant precedent because Greenlanders retain Danish citizenship for Greenland has home rule not full independence from Denmark. They are consequently full EU citizens. Because Greenland is also one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU it is also subject to some EU law and regulations, mainly those relating to the Single Market. .
Even if it is accepted by the other EU members that there is a unilateral right of secession, the fact that it could only take place legally after two years would give the remainder of the EU the opportunity to run the UK ragged before the UK left.
As for getting an agreement which would allow the UK to generally re-establish its sovereignty, especially over the control of its borders, this is most improbable. A Qualified Majority in the European Council is required and even if such a majority is obtained the European Parliament can block the secession. The potential for delay and blackmail by the EU of the UK is considerable. In any event it is likely is that the EU would drive a bargain which is greatly to the UK’s disadvantage because the Eurofederalists would be terrified of creating a precedent for any other EU member which might wish to radically change their relationship with the EU. That would make them demand conditions of the UK which were so unappealing it would deter other member states from following suit. There is also the danger that the Europhile UK political elite would take the opportunity to agree to disadvantageous terms for the UK simply to keep the UK attached to the EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached. The stay-in camp could use Article 50 to argue that whether the British people want to be in or out, the cost of leaving would be too heavy because of this treaty requirement.
The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply by passing an Act of Parliament repealing all the treaties that refer to the EU from the Treaty of Rome onwards. No major UK party could object to this because all three have, at one time or another, declared that Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if it so chooses.
If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the treaty obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise (1) that international law is no law because there is never any means of enforcing it within its jurisdiction if a state rejects it and (2) that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future governments.
The OUT camp should press the major political parties to commit themselves to ignoring Article 50. If a party refuses that can be used against them because it will make them look suspicious.
How much of the vote does UKIP command?
North also addressed the question of UKIP’s share of the vote in the recent council elections. This he represented as trivial because although they took 25% of the vote the turnout was very low (around 30% overall). He ignores one important fact about turnout: if the turnout is shrinking then the potency of those who vote rises. UKIP voters and those willing to vote to come out of the EU at a referendum may be much more inclined to vote than those who want the status quo or at least are not motivated to vote for the UK’s independence.
Based on objective facts North is far too pessimistic about obtaining a vote to leave. There are two great differences between now and the 1975 referendum. In 1975 the British public had only two years’ experience of the EEC which was a vastly less intrusive body than the EU is now. If a referendum is held in the next few years the electorate will have 40 odd years of ever greater interference by Brussels with British politics and in the lives of Britons. To this can be added the growing number of prominent voices, both political and from the media and business , which are calling for either an outright campaign to leave the EU or at least a reshaping of the EU in such a radical fashion that it has no chance of success. Both factors will lend vastly greater potency to the OUT camp campaign now than was the case in 1975.
North’s tactics before a referendum
Much of this was driven by fear, fear that a the British electorate would not vote to come out. The consequence is that North proposes a complex, expensive and above all time consuming schedule of preparatory work before any referendum is held. There are also conflicts between his desired ends and proposed means.
North addressed the subject under five separate heads. I comment separately on each.
Reassurance for business
North argues that because the EU is first and foremost a political construct, business has no right to have a say in whether the UK is in or out of the EU. I have sympathy with that view, but North immediately capsized this position by stating:
“…business has a right to expect a predictable and stable regulatory and trading environment, the status of which is affected by our membership. Therefore, we need to be able to assure the business community that, should we leave the EU, there would be no adverse effects.
“In effect, that would mean "protecting" membership of the Single Market – which could be achieved through EEA membership. And, as long as that membership is assured, business has no locus in the broader debate.”
By taking this position on the Single Market North is effectively granting business a very large say in how we are governed, because continued membership of the Single Market will require at the least subscription to the four “freedoms” and the acceptance of EU laws relating to the Single Market. That will greatly impinge upon the UK’s sovereignty.
An alternative to the EU
North believes that we should not merely take back power from Brussels but also stop the power regained being grabbed by Westminster. He starts from the claim that the UK has never been a democracy. That is true in the sense that there has never been direct democracy – that is no more than a commonplace – but for a century before the UK was signed up to the EEC in 1973 there was a good deal of democratic control because the UK’s politics were national. British politicians then could not routinely hide behind supranational agreements such as those governing the EU to avoid responsibility for unpopular policies or be forced to adopt policies which were in the interest of foreign powers and to the UK’s disadvantage simply because of Treaty arrangements. If the UK leaves the EU utterly and our relationship with the EU becomes the same as we have with any other foreign power British politics will again become national not supranational. That is the most certain way of re-democratising the UK.
What does North want? He is much taken with the Harrogate Agenda (HA) (http://harrogateagenda.com/). This has six demands which are similar in tone to those of the 19th century Chartists and the 17th century Levellers before them. Here are a couple of the demands to give a flavour of the HA:
2. local democracy: the foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government;
4. all legislation subject to consent: no legislation or treaty shall take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that no legislation or treaty shall continue to have effect when that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people;
Whether or not these are practical (which I very much doubt if put forward in this extreme form) , there is irony in the fact that North espouses such ideas because his proposals for a new relationship between the UK and the EU would utterly undermine the thrust of the HA demands for a UK entangled in an EFTA or similar arrangement would still be subject to decisions being made by foreigners with, doubtless, the willing complicity of Westminster politicians. The Europhile British political class is not going to vanish overnight so the only realistic way of making them behave reasonably is to force them to operate within a national context.
A network for dissemination
Here are North’s proposals:
“ Spreading the message is an essential part of any campaign, but reliance on the media is not going to be sufficient. Formal and informal networks will have to be built, some not dissimilar to direct marketing networks. Activities should include formal training and education, as well as more general propagandising.
Many revolutionary organisations have acquired their own newspapers, or news magazines, as a means of better spreading the message.”
Even if all this was possible, which is very doubtful because it would need serious money as well as willing hands, it would take far too long to establish as an effective propaganda tool. A referendum if it comes will not be that far in the future. What is needed is a simple readily understandable message such as “Are we to be masters in our own house” repeated as often as possible through the national and local media. With more and more politicians, mediafolk, businessmen and various celebrities making Anti-EU noises this is not a forlorn hope.
Agitation
North proposes a campaign of civil disobedience, including the late payment for “Council Tax, water bills, BBC license fees and other such fees” and visiting every “agency, every employment office, etc. and remove all information (leaflets, brochures) not in English”. He goes on to say that there are “A very wide range of activities is in fact possible, many entirely risk-free and totally within the law”.
I doubt whether in these politically correct and increasingly authoritarian times that there would be many which are “entirely risk-free and totally within the law”. Late payment of the BBC license could get you a criminal record; removing information leaflets not in English would probably get you investigated for racial harassment because there would not be much point in removing them without running a campaign saying what you were doing and why; failing to pay many official bills on time could result in late payment surcharges. If civil disobedience is urged it is important that the possible consequences are spelt out to prospective candidates for such action.
Nonetheless that is not my main concern with civil disobedience committed in this random fashion. Civil disobedience is only effective if it is (1) focused, (2) publicity worthy (3) does not greatly inconvenience or disgust the general public and (4) does not make the protestors look ridiculous. A good example of a serious single issue campaign blighted by clownish antics is that of Fathers for Justice. Leaving people to engage in acts of civil disobedience (particularly on a local scale) as they choose will not meet those criteria. If it is to be used, civil disobedience must be a national act. The Poll Tax disobedience is the best example in modern British history of such action. A readily understandable single issue: we won’t pay the tax. It was perfect because it blocked up the magistrates courts and brought the everyday system of justice to its knees.
Sovereignty and opposition to immigration are the two strongest cards the OUT camp has to play. If it is used , civil disobedience should be designed to focus public interest on those two issues.
A coalition of allies
North tried to make a distinction between umbrella groups (bad) and coalitions (good). In practice the two are indistinguishable. What determines the unity of purpose of any coalescing groups is not what they are called but the nature of the groups and their leaders.
North’s response to being challenged
During questions from the audience I said that North’s proposals were an excellent recipe for remaining within the EU for the reasons I have already given. North became very animated and spoke at considerable length to refute what I was saying. People only behave in such a manner during debate if they feel their position is under real threat.
The kindest interpretation of North’s position is that he is acting as a useful idiot for the Eurofederalist cause in the mistaken belief that things can be resolved to the UK’s advantage by talking, by being “reasonable”; the unkindest interpretation is that he is a Eurofederalist wolf in Eurosceptic clothing attempting to undermine the campaign to remove the UK from the grip of the EU.
North has condensed the views espoused in his speech into written form on the CIB website - see
http://www.freebritain.org.uk/_blog/Free_Britain/post/an-eu-free-future-for-all-by-dr-richard-north/
And
http://www.freebritain.org.uk/_blog/Free_Britain/post/turnout-by-dr-richard-north/ ).
Telegraph
Spain is officially insolvent: get your money out while you still can
I'd not noticed this until someone drew my attention to it, but the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor, published last month, comes about as close to declaring Spain insolvent as you are ever likely to see in official analysis of this sort. Of course, it doesn't actually say this outright. The IMF is far too diplomatic for such language. But that's the plain meaning of its latest forecasts, which at last have an air of realism about them, rather than being the usual dose of wishful thinking.
Let's take the projected budget deficit first. This is expected to decline quite steeply this year to 6.6 per cent of GDP, but that's mainly because the cost of bailing out the banking sector fell substantially on last year's budget. On a like-for-like basis, there has in fact been very little fall in the underlying deficit. And nor on the present policy mix is there ever likely to be, for that's where the deficit is projected to remain until the end of the IMF's forecasting horizon in 2018.
Next year, the deficit is expected to be 6.9 per cent, the year after 6.6 per cent, and so on with very little further progress thereafter. Remember, all these projections are made on the basis of everything we know about policy so far, so they take account of the latest package of austerity measures announced by the Spanish Government.
The situation looks even worse on a cyclically adjusted basis. What is sometimes called the "structural deficit", or the bit of government borrowing that doesn't go away even after the economy returns to growth (if indeed it ever does), actually deteriorates from an expected 4.2 per cent of GDP this year to 5.7 per cent in 2018. By 2018, Spain has far and away the worst structural deficit of any advanced economy, including other such well known fiscal basket cases as the UK and the US.
So what happens when you carry on borrowing at that sort of rate, year in, year out? Your overall indebtedness rockets, of course, and that's what's going to happen to Spain, where general government gross debt is forecast to rise from 84.1 per cent of GDP last year to 110.6 per cent in 2018. No other advanced economy has such a dramatically worsening outlook. And the tragedy of it all is that Spain is actually making relatively good progress in addressing the "primary balance", that's the deficit before debt servicing costs.
What's projected to occur is essentially what happens in all bankruptcies. Eventually you have to borrow more just to pay the interest on your existing debt. The fiscal compact requires eurozone countries to reduce their deficits to 3 per cent by the end of this year, though Spain among others was recently granted an extension. But on these numbers, there is no chance ever of achieving this target without further austerity measures, which even if they were attempted would very likely be self defeating. IN any case, it seems doubtful an economy where unemployment is already above 25 per cent could take any more.
In the past, the IMF has been guilty of being far too optimistic about Spain, both on the outlook for growth and the public finances, so it's possible it is now committing the reverse mistake of undue pessimism. Yet somehow I doubt it. Spain is chasing its tail down into deflationary oblivion.
All this leads to the conclusion that a big Spanish debt restructuring is inevitable. Spanish sovereign bond yields have fallen sharply since announcement of the European Central Bank's "outright monetary transactions" programme. The ECB has promised to print money without limit to counter the speculators. But in the end, no amount of liquidity can cover up for an underlying problem with solvency.
Europe said that Greece was the first and last such restructuring, but then there was Cyprus. Spain is holding off further recapitalisation of its banks in anticipation of the arrival of Europe's banking union, which it hopes will do the job instead. But if the Cypriot precedent is anything to go by, a heavy price will be demanded by way of recompense. Bank creditors will be widely bailed in. Confiscation of deposits looks all too possible.
I don't advise getting your money out lightly. Indeed, such advise is generally thought grossly irresponsible, for it risks inducing a self reinforcing panic. Yet looking at the IMF projections, it's the only rational thing to do.
PS. I don't include creditors of the British arm of Santander in this warning, who are ring fenced from the mothership back bome in Spain, theoretically at least.
Telegraph
Ed Miliband says an EU referendum is 'wrong'
Britain must stay in the European Union, Ed Miliband says today.
Mr Miliband will claim that the success of Ukip demonstrates widespread public disillusionment with mainstream politics Photo: PA
The Labour leader says Tory plans for a referendum on membership of the EU are wrong and threaten to undermine business confidence in Britain as a partner in trade.
His comments come as it emerged that Labour MPs will be ordered to oppose a Commons motion criticising the lack of a referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech.
In his first direct response to the renewed debate on a referendum in the wake of Ukip’s success in last week’s elections, Mr Miliband will say that Labour will “always stand up for the national interest”.
“Our national interest lies in staying in the European Union and working for the changes that will make it work better for Britain,” he will tell the annual conference of Progress, a New Labour pressure group.
“It is wrong now to commit to an in/out referendum and have four years of uncertainty and a ‘closed for business’ sign above our country.”
However, Ukip is a party of protest, he will say, while Labour must be a party “of solutions”.
Labour MPs will be told next week to vote against a motion criticising the Queen’s Speech for failing to mention a Bill allowing a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
More than 100 Conservative MPs including ministers are said to be ready to back the motion. The Prime Minister is said to be “relaxed” about the move and has even indicated that he would consider supporting it, and voting against his own legislative programme as outlined in the Queen’s Speech.
Mr Miliband claims such a move was unprecedented and shows Mr Cameron to be “weak and panicked”.
“I know David Cameron is a man who likes to be known for relaxing - even chillaxing – but, on this occasion, it beggars belief.
“He’s not lying on the sofa, relaxed. He’s hiding behind the sofa, too scared to confront his own MPs.”
In his speech, the Labour leader will say that the policies Labour pursued on immigration while in government were not always right.
A “diverse, multi-ethnic Britain” is “one of things that makes our country great”, he will say.
“But we have to make sure our diversity works for everyone, not just for a few at the top, and that requires government to play its role: in managing the pace of change, preventing exploitation at the workplace and ensuring we integrate as a country.”
Telegraph
Ed Miliband says an EU referendum is 'wrong'
Britain must stay in the European Union, Ed Miliband says today.
Mr Miliband will claim that the success of Ukip demonstrates widespread public disillusionment with mainstream politics Photo: PA
The Labour leader says Tory plans for a referendum on membership of the EU are wrong and threaten to undermine business confidence in Britain as a partner in trade.
His comments come as it emerged that Labour MPs will be ordered to oppose a Commons motion criticising the lack of a referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech.
In his first direct response to the renewed debate on a referendum in the wake of Ukip’s success in last week’s elections, Mr Miliband will say that Labour will “always stand up for the national interest”.
“Our national interest lies in staying in the European Union and working for the changes that will make it work better for Britain,” he will tell the annual conference of Progress, a New Labour pressure group.
“It is wrong now to commit to an in/out referendum and have four years of uncertainty and a ‘closed for business’ sign above our country.”
However, Ukip is a party of protest, he will say, while Labour must be a party “of solutions”.
Labour MPs will be told next week to vote against a motion criticising the Queen’s Speech for failing to mention a Bill allowing a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
More than 100 Conservative MPs including ministers are said to be ready to back the motion. The Prime Minister is said to be “relaxed” about the move and has even indicated that he would consider supporting it, and voting against his own legislative programme as outlined in the Queen’s Speech.
Mr Miliband claims such a move was unprecedented and shows Mr Cameron to be “weak and panicked”.
“I know David Cameron is a man who likes to be known for relaxing - even chillaxing – but, on this occasion, it beggars belief.
“He’s not lying on the sofa, relaxed. He’s hiding behind the sofa, too scared to confront his own MPs.”
In his speech, the Labour leader will say that the policies Labour pursued on immigration while in government were not always right.
A “diverse, multi-ethnic Britain” is “one of things that makes our country great”, he will say.
“But we have to make sure our diversity works for everyone, not just for a few at the top, and that requires government to play its role: in managing the pace of change, preventing exploitation at the workplace and ensuring we integrate as a country.”
Telegraph
Britain’s exit from the EU is inevitable – David Cameron is swimming against the tide of history
The prime minister needs to stand up for British sovereignty
It has been a remarkably bad week for the diminishing band of British supporters of the European Union. A YouGov poll was published on Tuesdaywhich showed that 46 percent of Britons would vote to quit the EU if a referendum were held today, with just 35 percent declaring they would stay in. In addition 53 percent of respondents expressed doubts about the prospects for Britain successfully renegotiating its relationship with the European Union. At the same time, a series of Tory grandees, notably Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont and Michael Portillo, have all called for Britain to leave the European Union, a sentiment that Margaret Thatcher held for many years before her death. And today Boris Johnson declared that if Britain leaves the EU, it will be “a shot in the arm” for British democracy, “because people would suddenly feel, yes, we are running our own destiny again, our politics is entirely independent, British electors can choose the people who are taking decisions that affect their lives.”
Meanwhile, in Brussels, where overpaid and underworked Eurocrats are today celebrating Europe Day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has pledged to drive forward what he calls “intensified political union,” to be outlined in a major treaty change. As Barroso puts it, “we want to put all the elements on the table, in a clear and consistent way, even if some of them may sound like political science fiction today. They will be reality in a few years’ time.” As Barroso’s remarks make crystal clear, in the view of the ruling elites in Brussels, the EU is heading down the path of ever-closer union and a federal Europe.
It is simply delusional to think, as David Cameron argues, that Britain can renegotiate its relationship with the EU, especially as it moves further down the route towards political union. Cameron’s hopes rest upon the active cooperation of Angela Merkel and the German government. But Merkel herself has thrown her backing behind the idea of a European superstate, and in any event, could well be thrown out of office following the German elections in the Autumn, which may result in an even more Eurofederalist, Socialist government in Berlin.
Britain’s exit from the European Union is an inevitability, whether it takes place in 2017 or a decade from now. Public opinion in the UK, and increasingly political opinion as well, is heading in only one direction – out of the EU. There is a simple reason why this is the case. You cannot be a member of the European Union and retain national sovereignty, the essence of freedom for the British people.
The European Project is an anti-democratic anachronism that does not belong in the 21st Century. As Lady Thatcher aptly put it “that such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era.” Once Britain leaves the EU, other countries will undoubtedly follow, which is a key reason why the likes of Jose Manuel Barroso will fight tooth and nail to try to lock Britain in. The drive for self-determination, economic freedom and individual liberty are three of the strongest forces of modern times. The European Project is a barrier to all of them, which is why it is doomed to failure.
Telegraph
Bill Cash MP: 'We simply cannot wait' for an EU referendum after 2015
The Prime Minister is not powerless as some have alleged – he is the Prime Minster. If he wants to change his European policy, he can do it.
Bill Cash MP says: 'If he wants to change his European policy, he can do it. ' Photo: JOHN COBB
4:01PM BST 10 May 2013
42 Comments
Credit where it is due. He has accepted a call and insisted on a reduced EU Budget, he has vetoed a Treaty, and he has announced a referendum with a big but. 2017 is hopelessly too late and the negotiations which might follow, if there was a No vote, would take us up to at least 2020.
He can, if he wants, now introduce a Referendum Bill (not a mere draft) for enactment before the General Election and preferably before the European elections in June 2014. His Bloomberg speech on Europe rightly sets out part of the case for a new relationship for the UK with the EU. In the national interest, resolving the European question, and thereby the question of who governs Britain and the future of our economy, jobs and growth is more important than the Coalition which itself is simply not matching up to its claimed promises.
It has reached the end of the line. It has already survived a rebuttal over House of Lords reform and the Alternative Vote. I warned the Prime Minister about a formal Coalition with the Liberal Democrats in a letter to him on 10 May 2010. The results speak for themselves.
The Coalition itself cannot achieve growth largely because there is no EU growth. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats within the Coalition have been allowed to obstruct, deliberately and specifically, a repatriation policy based on their refusal to fundamentally change our relationship with the EU and prevented us from having a proper Eurorealist, pro-growth policy. This has all been on the back of an electorally devalued 56 votes and the keys to No. 10.
Welcome as some former Cabinet members comments may be, the timing of the referendum remains utterly critical and urgent. We need a referendum this side of the General Election in order to deal with our urgent economic problems, the ‘who governs Britain’ question and our democracy and to prevent ourselves being relegated to the bottom of a second tier German dominated Europe.
The economic situation is now critically urgent and to wait until 2017 will be hopelessly late, as the figures below demonstrate. Furthermore, the EU is crashing ahead with its integrationist policies with or without a Treaty and this will accelerate further after Angela Merkel wins the German elections. We simply cannot wait. Our call for a referendum to fundamentally change our relationship with European into trade and political cooperation only is essential because the relationship as it now exists is patently unacceptable and any prospect of staying in it needs to be put to the British people before negotiations begin.
Otherwise we are likely to witness a smoke and mirrors operation which would belie the principle set out in David Cameron’s Bloomberg speech that our democracy depends on our national Parliaments and hence the electors in General Elections.
On the economy – it’s the EU economy stupid. UK growth from the zero growth EU is impossible – 45% of UK Single Market trade may be with the EU but it is a massive loss to us. Just think about this. In 2011, the UK trade loss with the EU-26 was -£46bn. It has shot up in one year to an astonishing -£70bn in 2012 (ONS figures from House of Commons Library). Meanwhile, Germany’s surplus with the other 26 has gone up from £30bn to £72bn. As for the City of London, Qualified Majority Vote and measures such as the Financial Transaction Tax will destroy the City, adding £4 billion to the cost of issuing UK debt. EU growth is zero.
Our businesses are overburdened from EU Laws – EU red tape costs us about 4% of the EU’s GDP. Actual costs of EU regulation on British business amount to £7.4bn, according to the British Chambers of Commerce. Of course, the EU needs our trade and we will continue trading with the EU in any event and then there is our contribution of £9bn per annum, not to mention the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, etc.
We have all heard the lies about the loss of 3 million jobs. If we left the existing treaties of course we would continue to trade but we would gain more jobs by expanding our trade with the rest of the world. We are also locking ourselves into so-called EU Free Trade Agreements – which will be dominated by European Commission and German political weight – and in which the UK has only 12% of Qualified Majority Votes. With these, we cannot trade freely with emerging markets, Commonwealth countries and the Rest of World, such as USA, Japan and India. Our trade surplus with the rest of the world is now £13bn and could be massively increased without EU restrictions by developing this trade throughout Africa and Asia, particularly with those who have a shared English language, basically the same commercial law and historic ties.
There is also the argument about outflanking our opponents in the national interest. Firstly, Labour. They are responsible for the massive debt we inherited but because of our lack of growth, much of which is because of the failure of our EU trade which they insisted on. The economic and political situation has become intolerable. The Eurozone crisis which is part of the European Union crisis is worsening. Labour will insist with increasing stridency that our policies are undermining our public services. The connection between the argument about cuts is directly connected to the failure of growth in our economy. With reasonable taxation on businesses following fundamental change in our relationship with the EU, we will be able to demonstrate that we can outflank Labour and provide the money for proper public services such as health, education, pensions, and so on, whereas they condemned us to debt and deficit, we will turn this round and take the British economy into a new horizon. The Liberal Democrats European policy is no different to Labour.
To fundamentally change the legal obligations under the European Treaties or to leave them and to have a referendum requires a majority of Members of Parliament. UKIP cannot even pretend to achieve this. Furthermore, the recent clearly show that UKIP will stop the Conservative Party from winning the General Election. Having the General Election before the Referendum on this basis means no Referendum and thereby even undermines UKIP’s own policy to have one at all. We have to appeal to the people of this country demonstrating that it is only the Conservative Party which can free us and grow the economy and that the alternative is an anti-referendum, pro-integrationist Lib-Lab pact. This is why is it is essential to hold the General Election while the Prime Minister is in No. 10, before the General Election, for political reasons irrespective of the Coalition. It is the Coalition which is obstructing our resolution of this great historic question and in the national interest it is the Coalition which must bend or end.
This remains the case whoever votes for our amendment on Wednesday regretting the failure of the Queen’s speech not to include the introduction of a referendum Bill and as so many of us also argue, before the General Election.
The Conservative backbench 1922 Committee elections are coming up next week, as is the vote on the Queen’s speech. My written ultimatum of legal action in May 2010 preserved the capacity of the backbenchers the Conservative Party to send messages to the Leadership in the interests not only of the Conservative Party but also in the national interest. Harold McMillan said it was “Events, dear boy, events” but it is the numbers that matter.
Bill Cash is Conservative MP for Stone and chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee
Telegraph
Sir John Major: the relationship with Europe has poisoned British politics
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major says that the debate over the EU has “come close to destroying the Conservative Party”.
3:46PM GMT 14 Feb 2013
In a speech to think tank, Chatham House, in London Sir John said: “As a principle, I don’t like referenda in a Parliamentary system, but this referendum could heal many old sores and have a cleansing effect on politics.
"It will be healthy to let the electorate re-endorse our membership, or pull us out altogether. At present, we are drifting towards – and possibly through – the European exit.”
He added: “But it is a gamble – for the country and for the Conservative Party. The relationship with Europe has poisoned British politics for too long, distracted Parliament from other issues, and come close to destroying the Conservative Party. It is time to resolve the matter."
Telegraph
EU expansion pushes concern over immigration to highest level since Coalition took power
Concern over immigration has hit the highest level since the Coalition took power, according to new figures.
11:46AM BST 09 May 2013
More than 57 per cent of people surveyed by YouGov said that immigration is one of the three most important issues facing Britain today, a rise of 11 per cent on this time last year.
Immigration was second only to the economy, which has remained Briton's top concern for the last three years.
When asked about what concerned them personally, 51 per cent of people were worried that over the next two years they would lose their jobs to foreign workers.
Experts say the steady rise over the last year is in part down to the expansion of the EU to include Bulgaria and Romania.
It will prevent illegal immigrants from getting driving licences, increase fines for businesses using illegal workers and require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants.
The bill will make it easier to remove people from the UK, limiting the right to appeal against deportation and specifying that all foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes will be removed except in "extraordinary circumstances".
The legislation is also intended to ensure that “foreign nationals who commit serious crimes shall, except in extraordinary circumstances, be deported.”
It follows new guidance issued by the Home Secretary to judges last year – and may lead to a new stand-off between ministers and human-rights courts.
The high-point in concern also comes just days after Ukip made major gains in local elections with a sales pitch that heavily emphasised the need for Britain to reduce immigration and leave the EU. The importance of "Europe", mentioned by 21 per cent of British adults, has remained mostly stable since May 2012, when 19 per cent said it was the most important issue facing Britain.
Joe Twyman, director of political and social research at YouGov, said: "The reason it has grown steadily over the last year and peaked at this all-time high now is to do with the expansion of the EU to include Romania and Bulgaria. They are concerned the influx of foreign nationals will negatively affect the economy and jobs market.
"Immigration is something people perceive to be a problem for the country and is only growing as people perceive the Government as failing to curb the numbers coming to the UK."
Telegraph
Why politicians admit to being Eurosceptic only after leaving office
That was then
First Nigel Lawson argued that Britain would be better off outside the EU. Then Michael Portillo agreed. Now we learn that Margaret Thatcher reached the same view after leaving Downing Street. Hannan's First Law, it seems, is as robust as ever: no party is ever Eurosceptic while in office.
Why not? Mainly because of what Milton Friedman called 'the tyranny of the status quo'. An immense apparat has grown up around the Brussels system. Disbanding it would mean taking on the Foreign Office, the Home Civil Service, the big multinationals, the mega-charities and NGOs (most of which receive EU subsidies) as well, of course, as the Brussels machine itself. It would consume all the energies of an administration for at least a year. Small wonder most ministers, while grumbling at their powerlessness, prefer to leave things as they stand.
Of the three converts, the most interesting is Michael Portillo, whose article this morning is characteristically sincere and penetrating. The poor fellow has been suffering for longer than people realise. A few weeks after he lost his seat in 1997, he spoke to a small number of younger Conservatives at the Institute of Economic Affairs. His speech was all about the need for what he called 'honesty and clarity'. During the question-and-answer session, I mischievously asked him, whether, given the importance of honesty and clarity, he thought Britain should stay in the EU. He paused uncomfortably for a few moments, then said: 'Let me instead answer a different question…'
Part of the problem is that the status quo looks respectable simply because it is the status quo. David Cameron's support for EU membership isn't based on a deep commitment to the European ideal: you will scour his speeches in vain for any such sentiment. It is instead based, I suspect, on the impression he formed in the early 1990s that the people 'banging on about Europe' were disagreeable and eccentric.
In fairness, some of us probably were: any movement that challenges the orthodoxy attracts its share of oddballs. The same was true of, for example, the campaign against prices and incomes policies in the 1970s; or, for that matter, the campaign against the slave trade in the 1790s. Only when something becomes the new consensus do the moderate, sensible, cautious men suddenly remember that they backed it all along.
Try a little thought experiment. Imagine that, instead of joining the EU in 1973, the United Kingdom had had the sense to negotiate a Swiss-style free trade deal. Does anyone seriously suppose that, in such circumstances, any of the main parties would now be arguing that we should join? One answer can be found by looking at Switzerland itself, where 79 per cent of voters now oppose accession, leaving the pro-EU campaign to – well, to a few oddballs.
The status quo will be the Euro-integrationists' strongest card in the event of a referendum. In almost every public vote, there is a swing against the change option in the final weeks: that is why it was so significant that Britain voted on staying in in 1975, rather than on joining in 1972.
Then again, the status quo might not be an option either way. On Tuesday, the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, made clear that what he called the 'intensified political union' necessitated by the euro crisis would apply to all 27 member states, not just to those that had joined the euro. 'This is about the economic and monetary union but for the EU as a whole,' he said, for the avoidance of doubt.
Portillo, for one, grasps the implication:
If we were cowed into voting for continued EU membership, the British Establishment would claim that the issue was settled for all time. Over the following few years, defeatism would run its full course and the political class would deliver Britain into the euro. So the referendum, were it to occur, would not be simply about withdrawing from the EU or going on as we are. It would really be about pulling out, or in due course entering political union.
Indeed. And that's why, despite everything, it can be won. Michael Portillo: I want out of the EU
"To put it mildly, you could not imagine Margaret Thatcher approaching the issue in such an insincere and political way. If senior Conservatives were proved right about the British electorate, and we were cowed into voting for continued EU membership, the British Establishment would claim that the issue was settled for all time. Over the following few years, defeatism would run its full course and the political class would deliver Britain into the euro. So the referendum, were it to occur, would not be simply about withdrawing from the EU or going on as we are. It would really be about pulling out, or in due course entering political union. That is why I would vote “no”." - The Times (£
http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/healey-case-for-leaving-europe-stronger-than-staying/2494
)Michael Crick on PoliticsVisit Michael Crick's page All Channel 4 News blogs
Thursday 09 May 2013
Healey: case for leaving Europe stronger than staying
The former Labour chancellor of the exchequer Denis Healey has joined the fast-growing group of former political heavyweights who have declared against Britain’s continued membership of the European Union.
Lord Healey told me from his home in Sussex tonight:
“I wouldn’t object strongly to leaving the EU. The advantages of being members of the union are not obvious. The disadvantages are very obvious. I can see the case for leaving – the case for leaving is stronger than for staying in.”
Lord Healey, who was chancellor at the time of the last referendum of Europe in 1975, added: “The trouble about Europe is what I call the Olive Line, the line below which people grow olives. North of the Olive Line people pay their taxes and spend public money very cautiously. South of it they fail to pay their taxes at all, but spend a lot of public money.”
But Lord Healey, who will be 96 in August, added that he did not feeling strongly enough about the matter to do an on-camera broadcast interview.
In the last few days the former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson announced he would vote no in the event of of a yes-no referendum, while another former chancellor, Norman Lamont, today said that he, too, would vote no. But Lamont added that, unlike Lawson, he still felt it was still worth making one more effort to try for a fundamental renegotiation of Britain’s membership.
It means that chancellors covering 14 of the 40 years of Britain’s membership of the EU – Denis Healey (Labour, 1974-79), Nigel Lawson (Conservative, 1983-89) and Norman Lamont (Conservative 1990-93) – have now said they think Britian would be better off leaving the European Union.
Telegraph
Tory MPs plotting EU Commons vote
A group of Conservative backbenchers is plotting to engineer a Commons vote on an EU referendum.
Photo: EPA
Eurosceptic MPs have tabled a rebel amendment to the motion welcoming the Queen’s Speech.
The amendment welcomes the Queen’s Speech but expresses regret that it contained no EU referendum Bill.
It is thought they could force a vote on the issue next week. The vote would be a symbolic gesture and would not have any impact on whether there is a future referendum.
The amendment is understood to have been tabled by John Baron, the MP for Basildon and Billericay..
David Cameron has said he is powerless to introduce Government legislation guaranteeing a European Union referendum in the next Parliament.
Mr Cameron’s comments came only days after he dropped a pre-election hint that he was prepared to consider the option.
Senior Conservatives including Lord Lawson, a former Chancellor and Michael Portillo, a former cabinet minister, have both said that Britain should now leave the EU.
Mr Cameron has promised to hold an in/out referendum on the EU if he is re-elected in 2015.
More than 100 MPs have called on Mr Cameron to legislate in this Parliament, in a letter organised by John Baron, the MP for Billericay.
Last Wednesday, the day before the local elections, Mr Cameron said he was prepared to look at “anything we can do” to convince voters about his referendum promise, including Government legislation.
No 10 aides said last week that Mr Cameron was even ready to introduce legislation on a referendum and see it defeated by Labour and the Lib Dems.
But in a reply to Mr Baron dated April 30 – two days before his pre-election comments – Mr Cameron admitted that no such legislation is currently possible.
Nadine Dorries, who has only just been reinstated as a Tory MP following her appearance on reality television, told BBC News that she wants a referendum “as soon as possible”.
Miss Dorries said Mr Cameron should promise a referendum “between now and the next election”.
“I think it’s absolutely right that we should have a referendum as soon as possible,” Miss Dorries said. “The position is that we should be renegotiating but actually people were given a clear choice when they were given the choice to go into the European Union – it was a yes or no to go in and I think people deserve that choice to come out and they deserve it soon.”
She indicated that a significant number of MPs could vote alongside the EU rebels.
In a speech today the Prime Minister attacked Tory "pessimists" who say Britain should leave the EU and insisted that he can negotiate a new relationship for the UK with Europe and then hold a referendum after the 2015 election.
Telegraph
A Commons vote on an EU referendum: will Conservative ministers vote against their own Queen's Speech?
Just how far will David Cameron contort himself and his Government to accommodate growing Conservative unease about Europe?
Next week could see a surprising answer. John Baron and Peter Bone have tabled an amendment to the Commons motion welcoming the Queen's Speech. Their amendment "expresses regret" that the Gracious Speech did not promise legislation providing the post-election referendum that Mr Cameron has promised.
Mr Cameron has said he cannot introduce Government legislation on a referendum because of the Lib Dems, but signalled that he'd be amenable to such legislation.
The Baron-Bone amendment thus raises an intriguing question: how would Conservative ministers vote*?
On the face it, the payroll should surely oppose Baron-Bone. It is, after all, critical of the Government's own Speech.
Yet this afternoon, the mood music from No 10 is that the PM is "relaxed" about how ministers respond to the amendment, which certainly seems to suggest that Tory ministers will be free to vote for it.
Of course, this is a largely symbolic exercise: the success or failure of the amendment would not have any direct impact on whether there will or not be legislation on a referendum.
But even so, the spectacle of Conservative ministers voting for a Commons amendment that effectively criticises a failure of their own Government would be a strange one indeed.
One Coalition party opposing Coalition business isn't wholly unprecedented, of course, and the Coalition Agreement itself creates a number of "safe" areas for managed disagreement. But an unscripted public split would be another thing entirely.
If Tory ministers do indeed back the Baron-Bone amendment next week, it would be the clearest sign yet that issues like Europe are driving the Coalition parties ever further apart.
* – It's worth noting that the amendment isn't certain to come to a vote. Mr Baron is understood to be undecided about whether to force a division on it.
Boris Johnson: leaving Europe a shot in the arm for democracy
British democracy would receive "a shot in the arm" if the UK left the European Union, Boris Johnson has said.
The public would welcome a British exit because people would feel they had won back control over their own lives from Brussels, the Mayor claimed. Photo: AP
Voters would feel they had regained control over their own destiny if Britain became fully independent from Brussels, the Mayor of London said.
Mr Johnson warned that the country must be ready to "walk away" from Europe if David Cameron failed to negotiate better terms of membership.
Mr Johnson's comments will fuel the increasingly fevered debate inside the Conservative Party about European policy, which has flared after the success of Ukip in last week's local elections.
The Mayor's intervention, at a conference of international business leaders in London, followed an attack from the Prime Minister on Right-wing "pessimists" who believed Britain's relations with Europe could never change.
Mr Cameron is under pressure from his backbench MPs to call a vote in the Commons before the 2015 election on a Bill allowing a referendum on EU membership.
While Mr Cameron has said he wants Britain to remain inside the EU, Mr Johnson said quitting would not be "fatal" for Britain.
Speaking to reporters at the Global Investment Conference, Mr Johnson said he remained "narrowly in favour" of staying inside the grouping of 27 member states and supported David Cameron's policy of negotiating a new relationship for Britain in the EU.
But he added: "If that fails then yes, obviously, we should be ready to walk away," he said. "We should be ready to leave."
The public would welcome a British exit because people would feel they had won back control over their own lives from Brussels, the Mayor claimed.
"If we are honest, I think, democratically, it would be a shot in the arm because people would suddenly feel, yes, we are running our own destiny again, our politics is entirely independent, British electors can choose the people who are taking decisions that affect their lives.
"That would be a very important benefit."
However, it would be essential to ensure British businesses did not suffer from losing trade in Europe.
Earlier, Mr Cameron had told the 300 conference delegates that he could negotiate a new relationship for Britain with Europe.
Mr Cameron attacked the "pessimists" who believed he would fail, in a direct rebuke to Tory grandees, such as Michael Portillo and Lord Lawson, who have called for the UK to withdraw from the EU.
"There are some pro European pessimists who say, you have to, in Europe, simply sign up to every single thing that anyone in the EU suggests.
You sign every treaty, you sign everything - there is no alternative.
"I think they are completely wrong," Mr Cameron said.
"The second group of pessimists say there is no prospect of reforming the EU, you simply have to leave. I think they are wrong too.
"I think it is possible to change and reform this organisation and change and reform Britain's relationship with it."
Telegraph
Des Lynam reveals he voted Ukip
Ukip have received a boost as the housewives' favourite Des Lynam revealed he voted for the party in last week’s local elections.
Des Lynam has revealed that he voted Ukip in last weeks local elections Photo: PA
The TV presenter has become the latest famous face to back the Eurosceptics, and has even re-written the lyrics of Send in the Clowns as a retort to Ken Clarke’s description of the party.
Mr Lynam’s announcement comes after Nigel Farage’s party averaged at around 24 per cent of the vote in their best local election results ever.
The news comes just days after Mr Farage boasted to friends that he would soon have another celebrity on his side.
The veteran broadcaster, famous for his unflustered sports presenting skills, said: "I was delighted to cast my vote for Nigel Farage's team in Sussex where I live.
"I feel they have something to offer the country as a whole, and Sussex."
The new version of Send in the Clowns, which Mr Farage has vowed to sing at the next party conference, includes the lines: "We used to be rich, now we are not/ But here at last there's a chance to stop the all rot/ Send in the Clowns".
With another verse adding: “We’ve had the farce/ Their fault I fear/ We know that you want what we want/ No need to fear/ They call us the clowns. So send in the clowns.”
Mr Farage said: "I am delighted at Des's support in these elections. And thank him for his rewrite of the lyrics of Send in the Clowns which we are planning to sing at our South East conference."
Mr Lynam is not the party’s first celebrity backer - it has drawn support from Joan Collins, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the late astronomer Sir Patrick Moore and Stirling Moss.
Former chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk was once a member but left after branding Arabs "suicide bombers, limb-amputators [and] women repressors".
Ukip’s success in the local elections has led to increased calls for an EU referendum.
In 2006 David Cameron described them as a bunch of “fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists”, but after their recent success he has taken them more seriously and vowed to win back the voters.
He said that it was “no good insulting a political party that people have chosen to vote for.”
The rise of the party, which saw them win more than 130 seats, cost the Conservatives three local authorities, although Ukip did not win control of any councils.
Telegraph
Greek youth unemployment hits 64 per cent
Greek youth unemployment shot to a record 64 per cent in February, underscoring the dire state of the recession-hit economy despite signs of improving business sentiment.
Several thousand Greek workers took to the streets to protest the government's austerity measures on May Day Photo: EPA
Repeated doses of austerity under international bailouts have almost tripled Greece's jobless rate since its debt crisis began in 2009, weighing on an economy in its sixth year of recession.
Overall unemployment has risen to an all-time high of 27 per cent, data showed on Thursday, while joblessness in the 15-to-24 age group jumped to 64.2 per cent in February from 59.3 per cent in January.
"I've been looking for a job since 2010 and it has been extremely tough," said Angeliki Zerva, 24, a physiotherapy graduate. "Most employers do the job with interns and don't need to hire anyone."
Greek unemployment is more than twice the average rate in the euro zone, which reached 12.1 per cent in March.
Athens has cut the minimum monthly wage for those under 25 years by 32 per cent to about 500 euros to boost hiring, but the jobless rate among young people has kept rising, even as some indicators suggest the worst of Athens' debt crisis is over.
The IOBE mood index based on consumer confidence and business outlook gauges covering industry, construction, services and retail trade rose to 89.2 points in April from 88.1 in March.
However, the survey showed consumer pessimism worsened slightly in the face of the economic slump aggravated by tax rises and spending cuts demanded by Greece's international lenders, all of which have an impact on jobs.
"I once dreamt that I could work in my field but after three years of searching, I have very little hope that I will get a job, any job. It looks almost impossible," said 23-year old Evanthia Bouza, who has studied English literature.
The country's economic outlook remains uncertain, despite the progress it has made in recent months to cut its budget deficit and push privatisations, ratings agency Moody's said in a note on Thursday.
"Consumption will continue to decline, led by rising unemployment, wage and pension cuts and weak domestic confidence, resulting in a deferral of spending," said Moody's analyst Alpona Banerji, who expects the economy to contract by 5.3 per cent this year.
Edited for Telegraph.co.uk by Barney Henderson
Telegraph
'Eurozone problems have not been cured, merely papered over'
Quilter's Chris Beckett tells Emma Wall about the challenges facing investors - and how to exploit them for profit.
Chris Beckett thinks that stock markets face certain key themes over the coming months, which investors must exploit if they are to make profits.
One of those themes is economic recovery – in both developed and developing markets.
“We expect emerging market company funds to deliver strong returns and are presently being valued at an unjustified discount to developed markets,” he said.
“Emerging markets are benefiting from growing populations, rising incomes and competitive advantages. Investments should be via the best specialist managers with extensive local research capabilities.”
That is not to say he thinks it is all smooth sailing for the emerging economies. One of the challenges facing investors today, in Mr Beckett’s eyes, is a potential Chinese bubble.
He also warns that the eurozone’s problems are far from solved.
“The recent banking crisis in Cyprus has reminded everyone that the problems of the eurozone have not been cured, merely papered over. Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain remain in dangerous territory with finances in a woeful state,” he said.
“While we believe the euro will survive, the possibility of a country choosing to exit is increasing again. Such an action may be in the long-term interests of the country concerned but would seriously devalue peripheral equity markets.”
When it comes to picking a preferred asset class, however, Mr Beckett is clear – shares offer much better value than bonds, regardless of the risks.
“Fixed-interest markets are overvalued but a return to normal yield levels will not be quick or straightforward,” he said.
“Eventually, over the medium term, yields will rise above a normal inflation rate to give a real return to bond investors.”
Telegraph
Italy's stressed-out cabinet plans Tuscan monastery retreat
Italy's new grand coalition cabinet will hold a two-day retreat in a former monastery in Tuscany this weekend as it comes under pressure after less than a month in power, the government said on Thursday.
A month has not passed yet since the new cabinet's first meeting Photo: EPA
Ministers will have to pay their way at what is now a luxurious conference centre near Siena, the Abbazia di Spineto built in the 11th century.
The closed-door consultations, hosted by Prime Minister Enrico Letta with 21 other ministers present, will start on Sunday and wrap up on Monday, the Italian government said in a statement.
Letta said he wanted a "changing room" atmosphere at the retreat – like a football team.
The 46-year-old premier, who is one of the youngest prime ministers in Europe, faces a difficult balancing act in holding together his Democratic Party and its historic rival, Silvio Berlusconi's People of Freedom party.
Ominously, the day the government was inaugurated on April 28 was marred by a shooting by a lone gunman outside the prime minister's office in which three people were injured.
Edited for Telegraph.co.uk by Barney Henderson
Posts
