Cameron's Euro concerns (2)
Further to ... I note that William Hague talked this morning (listen here) of his promise to form "a new group".
So, another possibility looms.
He could advise his new boss not to break his promise (perish the thought) but to meet it very very slowly. He would announce that the Tory party would leave the EPP and form a new group... in 2009. This would allow dissenting MEPs to say they'd met their promises too. David Cameron would have a row with some Eurosceptics but when you're trying to re-position your party that might be bad thing. And it might be better than a row with Merkel and many of his own MEPs.
Now he wouldn't do that... would he?
I'm 
Comments
It all boils down to your blog yesterday and the ever increasing phenominon of party de -alignment and I am not going to go on about that once again
I note that Hague also promised that a future Tory government would not sign up to further EU integration without holding a referendum. That, of course, should have been the course adopted in 1992 at the time of Maastricht. At that general election it was like living in a one-party state; anyone opposed to signing the treaty had nowhere to cast a vote. John Major could have avoided most of his in-party warfare simply by offering a referendum. I thought having to argue and win your case was the whole point of politics?
The same is now, it seems to me, the answer for Cameron. Promise (and honour the promise) of a referendum on our position in the EU, at which each side can argue their case and then the people at large will decide. Critics (Clark, Heseltine et al) who opposes this course will simply show themselves up for the arrogant, self-absorbed fossils that they are. Democracy means that the people (and not the politicians) should decide how and by whom they are governed, and this would be a great way for Cameron to establish his democratic credentials, wrong-foot New Labour and the Lib Dems, and prevent a split in his own party over Europe.
Or is that too simple?
There's a big party within the EU that has quite a presence and has been overlooked. With all Cameron's recent posturing on the environment, why not put his money where his mouth is and join the Greens?
I'm sure they won't notice the fact that the tories' core vote all drive 4x4s...
There's a big party within the EU that has quite a presence and has been overlooked. With all Cameron's recent posturing on the environment, why not put his money where his mouth is and join the Greens?
I'm sure they won't notice the fact that the tories' core vote all drive 4x4s...
I don't think this will work Nick - the Eurosceptics are already getting itchy. However will they be able to form a new group? Two of the Conservatives major allies for the new group have just had a public bust up. If they can't form a new group then would he be off the hook? No, as his promise was to withdraw from the EPP not to make a new group. That's not difficult. Luckily though for Cameron, talk to anyone outside of politics and at the mention of the word Europe they just put the shutters up. I don’t think the German Chancellor not talking to Conservative Leader will bother the public that much. Merkel couldn’t exactly ignore PM Cameron could she? If anything proving his euroscpetic credentials is a fairly easy way of deflecting the ‘wet’ tag.
Nothing says more about how the Tories have not really changed than the presence of William Hague. Hague looks good now, because he was followed by IDS and because he is very good at cracking jokes.
Everyone in the mainstream of politics worries about the EU, the waste, the pointless directives, the unplanned access to economic migrants from the East(to name but a few). But despite all that the EU is a huge force in bringing peace and stability to Europe.
To stand outside of that is to be with, as you say Nick, Le Pen, Kilroy-Silk and the like. The lunatic fringe. Trouble is that the Tories core support have fairly fringe views.
David Cameron has yet to take on his party in the way that Blair did. Europe may be his 'Clause Four' moment. Can he tell his party that the choice is to be Eurosceptic or be electable? Choosing Hague makes me doubt it!
All this proves Nick, is that Dave Cameron is portraying himself as all things to all people.
He's a would be Prime Minister, who says he is Eurosceptic without doing anything about proving it.
Blair on the other hand is another PM going down in history as doing all of the correct things regarding the EU.
There really is no contest.
Gary
I don't think the choice is as simple as 'in or out'. Pro or anti. If we asume the 'federalist dream' has stumbled and that the EU needs a new future: Britain alone is strong enough (politically and economically and morally) to take the leadership role in defining that future direction. That doesn't necessarily mean working from within (like a bureaucrat) but boldy defining a vision of what the EU COULD be- like Churchill in the 30s- stating our case strongly from the political fringes until the time comes when european opinion sways our way.
If it never sways our way?- well then, we're better staying on the fringes. We may stay there for 50 years but that is better than being complicit in failure or pulled into a future in which we do not believe.
It is simply not possible to be at the centre of any political body but holding a wholly differing vision of the future. Sooner or later you fall out with the others- or become 'corrupted' by them.
Surely Iraq has shown us this political truism. Europe is too important to allow ourselves not to form and hold onto a vision. If that vision is of a primarily economic union (as per the wishes of the British people), then we should not allow ourselves to be pulled further into political union for the sake of 'influence'. Now is our time to be brave.