Yesterday I suggested that Europe may well end up destroying David Cameron's ministry and that, consequently, some of this week's maneouvering has been designed to delay that until a putative second term. So, it's interesting to see James reporting that:
In other words, they're quite happy to bide their time before destroying their own Prime Minister. Then again, for the sceptics everything is a tactic on the road towards their blessed "In or Out?" referendum and it seems perfectly possible, perhaps even probable, that even if Cameron "succeeds" (however you decide upon defining that success) it won't be enough for the euro-sceptics. Because, in the end, deep-down they either don't really want Cameron to succeed or believe that he can't. Either way, they move towards their referendum and the destruction of another Tory Prime Minister on the Matter of Europe.The Euro-sceptics are quietly confident. The overwhelming mood among those I have spoken to is that Cameron either has to get the powers back he said he would and show that his measure to prevent any further transfers of sovereignty are effective or there will have to be at some point after 2014 an in or out referendum.
Well, crikey, that's something to look forward to, right? Or not, as the case may be.
UPDATE: Sunder Katwala, on the other hand, has a different take. He thinks it may have been a pretty bad week for the euro-sceptics.
Filed under: Cameron (51 more articles) , Europe (94 more articles) , Tories (84 more articles)
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (15)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Andrew Sullivan
Ben Smith
Charles Crawford
Chris Dillow
Claudia Massie
Dan Drezner
Daniel Larison
Dave Weigel
Ezra Klein
French Politics
Global Guerrilas (John Robb)
Henry Porter
James Fallows
Julian Sanchez
Kerry Howley
Kevin Drum
League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Marc Ambinder
Matt Zeitlin
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
More than Mind Games
Mr Eugenides
Norm Geras
Our Kingdom
Outside the Beltway
Radley Balko
Reason: Hit&Run
Rod Dreher
Samizdata
Scottish Unionist
SNP Tactical Voting
The American Scene
The Plank
Tim Worstall
Toby Harnden
Will Wilkinson
Charlotte Gore
Iain Martin
Hopi Sen
Liberal Vision
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
DavidDP
November 6th, 2009 7:19pm Report this commentAnd of course, if the succeed in destroying Cameron, the result will be a more pro-European Labour government.
ndm
November 6th, 2009 7:36pm Report this commentPerhaps there should be a supplementary question on whether or not all maps should have most of the World coloured pink.
ndm
November 6th, 2009 8:09pm Report this commentAndrew Sullivan had some interesting thoughts brought on by the Fort Hood shooting. While focussed on America they could with little effort be edited to refer to the Eurosceptic, Islamophobic British right:
DavidDP
November 6th, 2009 8:13pm Report this commentAs a point, Euroscepticism and Islamophobia are not connected. I am the former, I am not the latter.
ndm
November 6th, 2009 8:40pm Report this commentEuroscepticism and Islamophobia are not connected
Sadly, they often appear to be. They both represent fear of something foreign.
DavidDP
November 6th, 2009 9:28pm Report this commentI think if you misrepresent Euroscepticism that way, you'll never be able to adequately argue against it.
Vern
November 6th, 2009 10:31pm Report this commentBy that feeble reasoning ndm you may as well also argue that 'Islamophobia' and a distaste for Sushi are connected.
Sigh.
Fergus Pickering
November 7th, 2009 4:07am Report this commentWhat's wrong with fearing things that are foreign? Sounds very logical to me. You like what you know. You fear what you don't know. Then, when you get to know it, you may like it. Or, as with Sushi and Islam in my case, you may not.
egh
November 7th, 2009 5:56am Report this commentVern, quite; thank you. I fail to see why we're imagined to be in abject fear and terror of everything we dislike - even if the dictionary definitions are interchangeable.
daniel maris
November 7th, 2009 10:14am Report this commentIf Islamophobia is supposed to mean "an irrational fear of Islam" then it is not the sort of word that should be used in debate. Islamic groups have been responsible for something like 14000 terror attacks worldwide since 9-11 with hundreds of thousands, certainly, maybe more than a million, maimed or killed.
To be fearful of a movement that can give rise to such violence is hardly irrational. If Buddhists had wreaked such havoc over the last decade it would be perfectly reasonable to be "Buddhaphobic" and to inquire into the religious underpinnings of such actions. However, last time I looked, Buddhists hadn't been on a global terror rampage.
Are a rational critique of Islam and a rational critique of the EU connected? Yes, of course they. The common theme is the threat to a meaningful democracy and free speech.
Amadeus Plonquer
November 7th, 2009 2:27pm Report this commentWhy does this writer insist on a phraseological style that suggests the eurosceptics are a small minority? Poll after poll published in and refered to by this very same magazine clearly demonstrate that 61% of the British people believe the EU to be a waste of time and money. Yet here 61% is somehow just an annoying minority.
Sorry. We're not buying it. Either stop spinning for whoever's paying you and start reporting for we who are reading you or you won't have any readers left.
Do you take us for fools? That is what is known as a rhetorical question.
Peter From Maidstone
November 7th, 2009 11:26pm Report this commentIt need hardly be a rhetorical question since Spectator staff writers have ben quite happy to openly describe the readership as idiots.
Mr Thompson
November 8th, 2009 10:17am Report this commentThe last thing we want are political candidates promising to do something at some time in the future to prevent further erosion of power. That's a sick joke. There's almost nothing left to erode!
I bet UKIP will be the next lot to "do a Cameron" on us. Our written constitution is already robust enough to prevent EU membership. We just need to assert it. Political parties don't want to hear about this. Hence all the misinformation about the constitution. How many times have you heard that it's unwritten? Well is written and the important bits cannot be altered by parliament, ever! Check it out.
The parties have ALL got a pro-EU agenda, although their grassroots supporters may not be privy to it.
Check out the British Constitution Group for a different approach.
Perry De Havilland
November 8th, 2009 4:34pm Report this commentThe solution is really simple: the Tory Leader take a euro-hostile position and sticks to it, and the issue of euro-sceptics trying to destroy leaders who expect their support without giving them what they want goes away.
For a Euro-toady to expect support and loyalty from people who hate the EU is irrational. Which bit of that is so hard to grasp? Personally I will just support UKIP for as long as the Tory party is run by the Quisling Right.
Laban Tall
November 9th, 2009 10:46am Report this commentI can see what Alex is against - mostly the unreconstructed types who clog up the Speccie comments boxes with their whinges about immigration and the Tory back benches with their whinges about Lisbon.
I'm hoping one of these days to find out what he's in favour of.
Back to top