Tories try to hold the line on Europe

Adrian Drummond

Even if the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution becomes law, millions of people across Europe will not recognise it. They may have to abide by any laws that are passed but it will always remain the position that this treaty/constitution lacks democratic legitimacy and will consequently be derided. Until the issue of this democratic deficit is addressed, it is doomed (eventually) to failure.

C

They're not "trying" to hold their line but actually holding it. Much as the media and the left want a big Tory party splits story it's not going to happen. In fact many on the left should be careful of trying to make this too much of an issue because it will come back and bite them badly.

Your reporting, like that across much of the media, is rather one-eyed. The Conservatives are in opposition and, should they get into power, will have to sort out a mess not of their own making. This should not be forgotten and nor is it sensible to constantly assume that Cameron's view of Europe differs from the party he leads or that he hasn't the will to do something about it.

Finally, if the Tories had two policies, one for the status quo (Treaty not ratified) and one for dealing with the Treaty after the event then the media would be all over them for lack of consistency even though these are two distinctly different circumstances.

TGF UKIP

Two v interesting media pieces on Cameron and the Clique this morning.

First, in the FT W'end mag is a detailed 10 page feature on who is inside the concentric circles together with their "sepia" style photos. Included of course is our own dear Fraser Nelson "a protege of Andrew Neil" with the delicious line "The Conservative leadership team will be worried that his editorship will herald a far more hostile approach from what is effectively the party's house magazine." To which all I can say is that so far it is "worried" quite needlessly.

The piece also carries of course a pic of Hilton and with the help of a green crayon the likeness with the original Mekon is absolutely uncanny.

Second, on R4's Beyond Westminster this morning Iain Martin set off to find the real David Cameron helped in part by a panel of Bruce Anderson, Jackie Ashley and, again, our very own Fraser Nelson who managed to even surpass Anderson in his effusiveness.

What does come across quite strikingly from both these features is the degree to which the Cameron/Mekon Tory Party within the Tory Party is not even an English party it is solely a London and Home Counties party with Dave himself being entirely a creature of the M4 corridor.

Also what will really set Maguire, McBride & co out ferreting was the disclosure on the Iain Martin programme that a photo exists somewhere of Dave in the saddle dressed in hunting pinks. Tally ho!

Verity's Downstairs Bathroom

So Dave has driven down the "probable" Tory majority by 50 per cent ... from 146 to 70. Hasn't the party noticed that, despite the direst of straits, the will to vote the Tories in is diminishing every day that Dave is Leader?

We would all come flooding back if they put a Conservative in the post.

Jez

Please correct me if i'm wrong anyone.

But.

A 'Yes' vote in Ireland and the Tories will go with no referendum here.

Is this because the Conservatives would be left high and dry by the media / business people that support them now- but would cripple them if they do as the electorate want- but not as the media / business elite want?

I think that's it, isn't it?

So the Conservatives would quite willingly with a Irish 'Yes' vote, be compliant in;

A centralised EU superstate.

A mandatory unelected Presidential head (Tony Blair?!) taking control of the European Union.

Not even a neutrality clause written into our 'deal' if some future 'club member' tin-pot sh*thead (like the one in Georgia last year) feels it upon himself to delclare war on a superpower, thus dragging us all in.

If so, hang your heads in shame Tories.

Churchill will be rolling in his grave!

Laughing Gravy

This debate has been running on this site for a while now with a lot more heat than light generated. Some salient points: by the time of the next election this Treaty WILL have been ratified by all member states and will be law - both international law and national law. I cannot believe that a British Government would not act within the rule of law, so unilateral abrogation would not be an option (at the very least any attempt at such abrogation would be subject to legal challenge in our courts). If a referendum were held to unratify the treaty in the UK, what would that imply? As far as the EU is concerned the treaty would be in force and would be the governing document of the Union. There could be no going back to the present unratified position. So a referendum on unratification is meaningless. That would leave two options: a referendum on total withdrawal from the EU (the treaty provides for such withdrawal), or a referendum pre, or post, renegotiation of some terms of the Treaty. That would be to obtain further opt outs. This second option could lead then to a referendum on withdrawal if the renegotiations were not successful. What everyone has to accept is that we either accept Lisbon as it is, accept it after renegotiation of terms, or leave the EU. THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES.

Publius

@Jez
"Please correct me if i'm wrong anyone."

It is hard to tell from your post quite what it is that you are asking. Are you asking whether the Tories' current policy is to accept Lisbon if the Irish vote Yes, as they seem to have voted yes?

If that is what you are asking, then you are wrong.

Chris

@Jez

"We must build a kind of United States of Europe." Winston Churchill in a speech in Zurich in September 1946. Don't try to use Churchill to justify anti-Europeanism.

The Laughing Cavalier

As you publish this I have just received an email message from Dave. In it he writes:

"I have said repeatedly that I want us to have a referendum. If the Treaty is not ratified in all Member States and not in force when the election is held, and if we are elected, then we will hold a referendum on it, we will name the date of the referendum in the election campaign, we will lead the campaign for a 'No' vote.
If the Treaty is ratified and in force in all Member States, we have repeatedly said we would not let matters rest there. But we have one policy at a time, and we will set out how we would proceed in those circumstances if, and only if, they happen."

And there you have it, "If the treaty is ratified ... " That's the weasel clause. It is not good enough. There should be a referendum come what may, and if the answer is NO then a Conservative government should repudiate Brown's surreptitious signing of the Lisbon Treaty on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, the referendum to approve it having been denied to the British people by a quisling government reneging on its manifesto commitment.

oldtimer

The choices available, if the Lisbon treaty is adopted before the UK general election and Cameron forms the next government, seem to me to be as follows:
(1) accept it as fait accompli - this won`t wash and I do not believe that Cameron and co would or could do this without extreme grief and woe;
(2) ask UK voters if they are willing to accept the fait accompli or ask the government to seek renegotiation of terms for the UK - if the government has a mandate to renegotiate it puts in a stronger position to attempt this;
(3) if renegotiation is attempted, put the results to the UK voters either to accept the terms then of offer or to exit the EU and establish a new relationship with the EU.

This will all be very messy and time-consuming but, I believe, unavoidable.

Publius

Even supporters of the EU Project can hardly feel comfortable with the way this EU Constitution/Lisbon treaty is being rammed through.

First the duplicitous and bogus "reworking" of the Constitution into the Lisbon treaty; next the subterfuges to avoid further referendums in France, Holland, and elsewhere; and then, finally, the disgraceful bullying of the Irish.

Though Euro-boosters might not like to admit it publicly, surely they cannot feel comfortable that their beloved superstate is grounded in such deceit. Do they really think that such a dishonest edifice can stand?

Jez

I'm afraid i'll do what i want, anytime i feel like it Chris- especially when asking questions on a political blog.

We have little enough free democtratic input regarding the big three global party policy as it is.

That's why people are taking to the streets.

Is that ok with you?

I aren't anti-Europeanism.

I'm very anti sell-out.

It'd be great if we could generate a thread concentrating on what Winston Churchill would actually make of the Madelson / Blair Europa vision-

and whether he'd feel it was important enough to put a British vote on it.

You know, that 'national sovereignty' thing (Those two World wars were all about it. Remember?)

Publius;

From a layman's prospective (and by golly gosh, i am that layman) it genuinly looks as though the Tories are trying to squirm out of honouring (if they even managed to say they would) holding a referedum for the British electorate to vote (either way) regarding the Lisbon treaty.

Peter From Maidstone

The Conservatives have yet to start their conference and the media has been full of Labour and Liberal Democrat spokespeople for the past fortnight. Polls will naturally show a slight bounce for these two parties because they are in people's minds. It will be more interesting to see what the polls say at the end of the week.

Verity

I see that it was Steve Hilton who orchestrated Cameron's moronic and cringe-worthy trip - rigged out in a parka - to the Norwegian glacier.

I realise this is an over-used expression, but what planet do Dave and Steve live on? How dismissive of the Conservative electorate was it to believe that this infantile exercise would resonate with people who have real, everyday concerns on which they will base their allegiance.

The economy was in meltdown even then, there were feral, fatherless children robbing and murdering in the streets, there are millions of primitive illegal aliens infesting whole areas of some big cities, education is going down the tubes, old people are afraid to leave their homes at night ... and Steve Hilton and David Cameron thought Tory voters were going to pour a cup of tea, nibble on a slice of cake and ponder the imminent fantasy disaster of "man made global warming"?

When I first saw that photo, I could hardly believe my eyes. Then I thought, "Well, maybe it's some reference to Monty Python ...".

For anyone in The Clique who'd like to pass the word on to Steve, Mars heats and cools in exactly the same pattern as the Earth, despite there being not a single SUV or old-fashioned light bulb on the entire planet. And no people. Whether the planets heat up slightly or cool down slightly, it's the Sun wot done it.

Simon

What a pathetic figure Cameron cuts as he dithers, sends emails and generally tries to fudge the issue. Why are we lumbered with leaders who have such an aversion to democracy?

Michael

Chris:
"Winston Churchill in a speech in Zurich in September 1946. Don't try to use Churchill to justify anti-Europeanism."
Churchill was for 'europeanism'. But he did NOT see the UK as part of it.

Jez

Read the full speech Chris;

http://www.europa-web.de/europa/02wwswww/202histo/churchil.htm

Churchill is talking about France and Germany leading / being part of a united Europe.

At no point does he mention Britain even being part of it- at all.

He does mention US, USSR, British Commonwealth helping set up / build European co-operation.

To Churchill, the British Commonwealth was looking pretty strong and as he actually says in his speech;

*Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations*, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia-for then indeed all would be well-*must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine*.

They (Churchill, US and *not* the USSR) helped set up the Continental European partnership- after the Suez debacle Westminster retracted from the Commonwealth, sold-out the colonies and started worming their way into Europe.

Chris,

you and the rest of the blinded Europhiles can't even patch together a decent argument with your own evidence (the source is on a Euro website!).

Strewth.

We're in trouble big time!

Claire stewart

What an appalling attempt at a fudge by Cameron on Europe. Voters are daft but not that daft and want to see the democratic deficit of the EU addressed by a potential Tory Government. Little point in voting them in if when they return in triumph to Westminster they find all their policies obstructed by an unaccountable EU.GIve us a vote on our future in Europe and admit that the majority of the population are opposed to our continued membership in it's present form.

Cogito Ergosum

To Jez 4.20pm or thereabouts, re the supposed text of Churchill's speech.

"I am honored to-day..."

Doesn't look like a WSC original to me.

JONNY

'We would all come flooding back if they put a Conservative in the post.'

And the entire Middle England vote would go gurgling out.

John Law

Your evidence is discredited, so you change the subject.
Eurofascists insist on continually misquoting Churchill in support of their undemocratic schemes.

Jez

@Cogito Ergosum;

I don't know what you're getting at.

Please explain.

Jez

Cogito;

The text (if this is what you actually mean) is obviously a translation into English.

The source is from googling exactly this via 'Chris';

"We must build a kind of United States of Europe." Winston Churchill"

This takes you to the page i linked in a later post.

It is a foreign site (maybe Johnny's!) that i suspect is very pro-Euro.

I feel it must be based on fact (even though i first read it this afternoon) as Churchill over emphasises on the 'hun' (e.g. Teutonic aggressor) to over compensate his call for the French to join economic forces with Germany, this only 16 months after the close of WW2 in Europe.

Churchill is under the impression that Britain still enjoy's the 'Big Three' status with Stalin and the US.

Orwell's 1984 was written about this time wasn't it?

If this was a common theme at that time then it ties in quite nicely to the book.

Europa- continental Europe, Northern Africa (Algeria, Morrocco etc)

Oceana- North / South America *with Britain*

Thus in 1946, Churchill and the greater scheme of things *never* really planned on Great Britain actually being a nomark tag-on province within a socialist European superstate after all.

Did they.

Jez

Ey Up!

Has one of those uneducated Northern Monkeys closed this thread down!

Where's the pro sell-out response?

LOL.

Jez

May i apologise for the above comment.

Not really called for, i suppose.

The direct consequence of quite a ridiculous '2 for 1' offer (regarding Shiraz Cabernet) at my local Sainsbury's.