What Cameron should now say about Europe

Publius

Mr Forsyth writes:
"So it is imperative that tomorrow, David Cameron makes clear that he believes that the European Union already has too much power and that he will negotiate the return of powers"

-- And he will immediately be asked: "But what will you do if they give you the finger?"

-- At which point, presumably, we will get the same old "I'm not going to talk about hypotheticals" line.

Rhoda Klapp

I see, this time a UK Prime Minister will go to Brussels with a lot of political capital from being elected, and THIS TIME he won't discover that that counts for nothing among the colleagues, that what he and possibly his country thinks means absolutely nothing, that he will be sidelined like all the previous ones. This time.

Chris

Hear, hear. No doubt this view will be vastly outnumbered by comments screaming and ranting about betrayal.

Danny Finkelstein says that demands for a referendum will come from 'a surprisingly limited number of people.' On the basis of comments on this blog, I have suggested that he means 'a suprising number of limited people.'

Vulture

Yet again, James you fail to get the point. As you are an intelligent man I know you are not being obtuse but disingenuous. So I will spell it out in simple terms.

Under Lisbon Dave will have no power to return powers from Brussels without the agreement of all 27 member states : that is an impossibility.

Since its inception the EU has been a one-way street, steadily stripping its members of their sovereignity and handing them to an unelected 'Commission' of bureaucrats. This process is irreversible and leads ineluctably to the 'ever closer union' of a post-democratic superstate and the end of Britain as a free and independent nation.

To pretend otherwise is to take us all for fools. Therefore the logical step must be an
'In' or 'Out' referendum - otherwise Europe will poison a Dave Govt as it poisoned John Major's. Keeping quiet about this is no longer an option.

Irene

You can bet your life Labour won't let him go back to talking about policy (especially the banks)
They are all lining up, Mandy now says that Cameron has not been entirely honest with the british people!
Can you believe it, coming from him.

DavidDP

"a point that the Tories should be shouting from the rooftops"

We are trying, but as you'll see from comments on other threads, the wilfully ignorant continually scream otherwise.

Chris

It's imperative that Cameron do no such thing, unless he wants to taste the levels of electoral success achieved by Michael Foot and William Hague. It's imperative that Cameron now tell the Europhobes to sod off to UKIP.

David Phipps

James,

What is it that you do not understand about 'renegotiation' and 'return of powers'? Either course of action would require the agreement of the other 26 members of the EU, which is not going to happen!

Why not 'cut to the chase' and provide us with a referendum on 'In' or'Out' and if the latter then an application to rejoin EFTA.

You talk about 'other issues'. How can anyone 'govern' this country when adherence to rules imposed from Brussels limits that ability? That is what this entire question is about - who governs this country? If you are unable to realise this then I regret to say you have no right to the title 'journalist', passing comments such as you just have.

Simon Denis

The fact is he can do no other. I do wish that the sceptics would live up to their name and think twice - especially before giving comfort to the Eurofanatic lib-left, for that is the effect their words and actions have.

Were Cameron to do as they suggest, he would split, marginalise and ruin the Tory party. Let's get him into government first and at least prevent worse than him from gaining or regaining power. Then something might be achieved; something might be salvaged. We can all see that Labour has performed a double shuffle over to the left since its apparent conversion to centrism circa 1997. The conservatives should be given the chance to slide gradually over to the right, which may well include a loosening of ties to the Euro-bureau nightmare. This slight chance is the only one available; it is profoundly stupid to cast it away.

I urge all my fellow right wingers, therefore, to play the long game. As the lady said, there is no alternative. We shoulc never imagine, moreover, that in politics perfection or Utopia are on offer.

Colin

I don't think it's unfair for people to feel let down and for them to express this. After all, Cameron and co must have known that their pseudo cryptic equivocation on the Lisbon treaty would have led many people to conclude that they would take a robust stance.

All that's happened here is that some New Labour style political obfuscation has taken place in an attempt to buy the Tories breathing space and deflect difficult questions. Sadly, this approach has backfired.

Cameron and Hague should have kept their mouths shut, with regard to not letting things rest, etc. and repeatedly pointed to the deceit of labour and the liberals.

A poor show all round and perhaps an insight into how incompetent a Cameron government might be. As I've said before, I wouldn't blame the electorate for taking a "better the devil you know" approach.

Alan Douglas

The reason DC gets blasted for "reneging" is that

a) despite Lab's best efforts to smear all politicians as the same, and
b) not even being in power,

is that we DID expect better of him, and HE, not the Irish or Klaus, represented OUR last hope.

Let's hope he knows this as he prepares tomorrow's announcement. With this one speech he CAN "seal the deal" (what a stupid phrase) with the UK population.

I won't give up hope until I hear his speech, and who knows, maybe not even then ....

Alan Douglas

anne allan

I say it again:
If we refuse to co-operate, will Europe invade us?
I still haven't had a reply or an opinion.

JONNY

These columns have become the Tower of Babel.
What ever happened to rational adult argument?

David Lindsay

Jump for joy. No month of the BBC telling everyone to vote Yes. No Yes vote as the last word on the EU for a generation or even for ever, so that all future treaties must be agreed to by Government and Parliament. In other words, no situation desired by David Cameron and his Svengali, Michael Heseltine. Jump for joy. Go on. I am doing so as I type.

Then get on with finding parliamentarians whom no government would dare present with this sort of thing in the first place, so that any question of a referendum would simply never arise.

J H Holloway

We need Norway's deal.

Free trade zone and Nato, no MEPs just a mission made up of 50 people or so. Norway only implements EU law that relates to free trade. The EU wouldn't stop us, because we're foot draggers and the coming 10 years of Tory government will only make that worse.

I hope that Dave can come up with a convincing line tomorrow and then hit the electorate with an 'in the EU or go for associate membership' referendum once we're in the General Election campaign.

JONNY

We're can all work ourselves up into one hell of a froth.
But the rest of the UK will look on in bemusement and mutter to themselves
"that's the Tories for you."
Only one per cent of voters think it has any importance for them at all.
For them it's the biggest of non-events.
Read today's PB and take a tranquilliser.

TomTom

So Cameron gets elected and is a Member of The European Council building The New Europe....why should we vote for him rather than anyone else to have this job ?

Paul

From the BBC News website:
"Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: "So much for David Cameron's cast-iron guarantee to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.""
The chutzpah! So much for his manifesto commitment to a referendum!

Alan Phillips

Brown and Co should be tried for treason. Something so important as this should be put to the people. I am 44 years old and have never had a chance to have my say on Europe, disgraceful.

I am so angry about this, manifesto promises should I believe, particularly in light of this disgraceful event, be subject to court action on the wilful disregard both in fact and perceived spirit of policies and agreements. Britain has been misled by NuLiebour, they came to power on a promise and have lied to its people. I hope that the Labour Party dies, I hope the Liberals become the official opposition and that Brown not only goes down in history as the worst PM ever, but he's barred from holding any position in public life, be it a seat in the Lords, to a cleaner in a public toilet.

Am I mad? Yes, but not as mad as the cretins who voted for Liebour and gave up this countries heritage without so much as a "halt, who goes there?" Our fighting forefathers deserve much more than this, I'll never be ashamed to be British, but I'll never be proud to be European without having the collective will of my fellow Brits having not their say.

2trueblue

I love the idea that Mandleson can throw anything at Cameron. Mandelson was brought back from Brussels to ensure that Labour stayed intact and in power until the treaty was ratified. That done let us now watch where he wants to go. This is a man that we got rid of twice, and Labour have foisted back on us.

The media have to get a grip, Labour denied us the referendum they promised, and they are the ones the electorate saw fit to re-elect. Labour have renaged on the promise, it was not in Camerons gift to give us a referendum unless he got into power before the EU pushed it through in their usual undemocratic way.

Camerons mistake so far has been not to flesh out what can be done should he be at the helm next year. The media are soing a grand job of misrepresenting the facts and probably ensuring a hung parliment. Do we have the stomach for that?

General Zod

Sadly, Jonny, Bill Cash and the loonies here have learned nothing from the history of the last two decades of the Tory party.

When the Tories obsess about Europe, they lose votes and elections. a quarter of the electorate cares about Europe. The rest either like Europe or don't understand enough to care and will never make the effort to understand.

strapworld

Guido has the Ukip poster showing a two faced Cameron! quick off the marks.

I think Cameron had better move quickly. He HAS to attack Brown and the Labour Party for effectively selling this country down the river.

But he surely has got something fathomed out. He must have read the runes. I am quite amazed that Hague has capitulated so quickly. I feel he has lost the fire and could well stand down himself.

Cameron cannot allow that mammoth bore Bill Cash pontificate and must silence him and others and give hope to those , like me, who see our country being sucked into a totalitarian, undemocratic regime. George Orwell was out by fifteen years!

Cameron has, though, proved my assessment of him correct. A weak man with no backbone. I watched the excellent programme on Churchill last evening. Just consider if Cameron, Brown or Blair had been PM when Germany declared war on Poland! We would have lost! As it is we won the battle but lost the war!

TGF UKIP

Long past the time the house magazine hacks should have faced up to the reality that their hero Dave is nowt more than an instinctive temporizer.

Anything to avoid avoid a confrontation whether it be over Labour's tax and spend, Labour's swamping immigration ploy or Europe, Dave will always seek a way to delay or slide away from taking a stand.

When this country so sorely needs a Churchill or a Thatcher it is faced with the utterly dire choice of a Brown of a Cameron.

Poor, poor Britannia!

Athesius the Facilitator

The media is a bit different today than when them great old bruisers of yesteryear trod the stage. Cameron has a problem now as everything he says will be analysed to the enth degree.

We will seew hat happens when he speaks tomorrow'

Whatever happens I will still lend him my vote at the next election just to get rid of this bunch of 'numpty's'. However if he turns out like that pair of 'fibbers' that have shared the premiership for the last thirteen years then I will be off to UKIP for good and Gollocks to the lot of em'.

Mirtha Tidville

For Bliar read Cameron.......no wonder this country is in terminal decline.

Watt T

had a peek at order-order.com at strapworlds behest. Posters are flocking from Dave to UKIP in droves over there.

AndyLeeds

The problem is the treaty is ratified - it is now law. 'Unratifying' it is not an easy matter.

I think there are two points to make here. The first is that UKIP are insane to attack the Tories, unless they actually want 5 more years of Labour. The Tory benches in the next Parliament will be almost fully Eurosecptic, so the more such MPs you have the greater the chance of actually getting what you want.

The second point is when Cameron goes to Brussels the other 26 may very well tell him to get stuffed. He needs a lever and only we the people can give him that.

At the end of the day it is heading towards the day when the UK will have to decide if we actually want to remain in this union. I think on balance the view of the people will be no we don't.

thedarknight

I agree entirely. Let's get behind Cameron, get some power back and we will have set precedent. The public isn't going to become less eurosceptic. Why are the sceptics seemingly incapale of thinking strategically?

Nick

It is betrayal.

Just because Labour broke their promise doesn't mean that the Tories haven't.

The Tories promised a referenda, and they have reneged on that.

It is a matter of trust.

They can't be trusted on their expenses. None of the thieves who've paid back cash have paid any interest on what is an interest free loan.

They can't be trusted on referenda.

Basically, they can't be trusted on anything

Snowman

When you all had a cold shower and stopped shouting will you please think abit. Our Dave and his merry men must be mightily relieved that Klaus signed up. The Tories never truly wanted a referendum, because they had no idea what to do after the British people said ‘no’ to Lisbon. Have they had a plan, a vision of Europe lest Lisbon in place, they would have come out with it, shouted about it from the rooftops because it would have won them the next year election hands down.

HairyNoddy

'I urge all my fellow right wingers, therefore, to play the long game. As the lady said, there is no alternative.'

Alternatively, if Euro sceptics vote for UKIP in sufficient numbers, UKIP could then dangle the coalition carrot in front of Camoron's nose, on condition of withdrawal from the EU of course.

David Roberts

So he will negotiate the return of powers...so what! I want to leave the EU not stay in it. Give us a vote you, promised one...but don't fudge it with some useless question that will not end this debate once and for all.
I am a UKIP voter now not just in the local/EU elections but the one that really counts. I don't trust him anymore and why should anyone else all three of the parties are LIARS and if I ever get my wish to become dictator I will put them all in the tower for the traitors that they are.

JohnAnt

"a point that the Tories should be shouting from the rooftops."
Indeed yes, not simply 'should be' but 'should have been'. So why have Cameron and Hague been so studiously reticent on this very point?

Frank P

It is now irrelevant who will the next Prime Minister of Britain. He will be able to do diddly squat for the British. What remained of our sovereignty leached away to Brussels today. So after having an unelected traitor for two years, we now have the prospect of a token Premier. And where does that leave HM QE II?

Queen of Ruebrittania.

On with the motley.

Herbert Thornton

I very much disagree with the opinions of some people that it is now "impossible" to unilaterally withdraw from being governed under the Lisbon Treaty.

The grounds for their saying this seem to be that it would be "unlawful" or that "the other members would not all agree to it".

That seems, to me to be no more realistic than to insist that it is "impossible" to drive faster than whatever speed limit applies on a road.

In the case of unilateral withdrawal, the realistic answer to assertions that it hasn't happened because it's unlawful & thus can't have happened would, surely be, to put it politely, 'fait accompli'?

General Zod

Herbert, you disagree on what grounds? Your autodidact knowledge of EU law?

We can renegotiate the terms of our membership of the EU or negotiate withdrawal. The Treaty has been ratified and it can no more be unratified than Gordon Brown can be unborn.

Herbert Thornton

General -

You are free to claim a better understanding of reality than me if you like. Is it based on your being a lawyer?

R King

Alan Phillips 6:44pm
"Brown and Co should be tried for treason."

Along with Traitor Blair!!

On newsnight tonight it was suggested that there will be so much disarray in a few years time over the EU in a few years time that it will crumble. Bring it on now.... give us back our powers or we quit........... withold our contributions.......... defy the EU at every possibility.

It's the only language they are likely to understand.

JONNY

Thank you AndyLeeds.
My point of view exactly.
Get the Election fixed and then move on from there.

Mark

Brown is vile and has betrayed us, but we know Labour are slimy dictators that never can be trusted and have sold us out, however Cameron has betrayed us as well. I certainly will not be voting Tory. There is No reason why Cameron cannot put it to the vote. We are supposed to be a free country so stuff European law and just break it. I and millions of others will Vote BNP now after voting Tory since i was 18. I expect there will be some unrest now, remember the Poll tax riots. Here we go again

General Zod

Let's say I were; would you accept the correction?

Justicia

@Herbert:
Unilaterally withdrawing will be illegal under EU law. This would lead to a very interesting constitutional crisis over how to resolve that with the supremacy EC law has over us, and in all honesty it would resolve itself politically with us getting out. The consequences, in so far as us becoming the Pariah of Europe (and the rest of the international community) would do us severe economic and political damage.

As stupid as he was to make a 'cast iron' promise, Cameron genuinely has no choice to make. Lisbon is an executing treaty; on the 1st of January next year it will not itself become law, but will amend the treaties we have been signatories to for the past 30 years, ie. the ones that make us part of the EU.

He can negotiate, try and 'repatriate' 'sovereign' powers (powers which, under the Lisbon treaty, are actually harder to be imposed on the UK without its consent than they were pre treaty), but doing so would be wholly unconstructive, and would be absolutely nothing more than a publicity stunt at the expense of our prosperity. How un-burkian.

Herbert Thornton

General -

No, because I find it hard to believe that you can have paid full attention to what I wrote, and that is something expected of a lawyer.

To sum it up, you seem to be confused.

Law and reality are not the same thing.

John Jones

He's lost my vote.

Herbert Thornton

Justicia - Of course it would be "illegal under EU law", but I believe your assessment of the consequences of unilateral withdrawal (or, for that matter, of refusal to implement some of the treaty's requirements) is too pessimistic.

Becoming "the Pariah of Europe and the rest of the international community" as you put it - and by which I assume you mean the United Nations (and what is their esteem worth?) - would be a very small price to pay, for example, if Britain was required by the treaty to continue to admit undesirable immigrants at anything like the rate that they have been encouraged to enter over recent years; or even if refused, contrary to the treaty requirements, to admit any whatsoever; or if Britain took the wise step of actually deporting all the illegal immigrants and that were contrary to EU law.

The niceties of International Law and Treaties are all very well, but what matters in the end is – as Stalin once said of the Vatican – how many divisions of soldiers are available to enforce – or defy them.

Fergus Pickering

General Zod, it doesn't matter whether you are a lawyer or not. Do you believe, like Publius, that if Cameron acts unlawfully, vis a vis the Lisbon Treaty, that British policemen will drag him to durance vile? Anyway, if what was lawful and what was not were always plain, what would lawyers do to earn their honest crusts? Meanwhile, where did I put that spliff?

Herbert Thornton

My first response to Justicia seems, like my response to General Zod – despite the display of the box giving an assurance that they would appear in a few moments - to have gone astray or not been accepted, so here is my second, combined effort.

General – No, because I find it hard to believe that you can have paid full attention to what I wrote, and that is something expected of a lawyer. You seem to be confused.
Law and reality are not the same thing.

Justicia - Of course it would be "illegal under EU law", but a constitutional crisis is not the end of the world and I believe that your assessment of the consequences of unilateral withdrawal (or, for that matter, of refusal to implement some of the treaty's requirements) is too pessimistic. I am moreover disappointed that you should call Edmund Burke in aid of your evident enthusiasm for Britain’s gerrymandered subjection to the E.U., that has been effected by subterfuge and deceit. I think it was out of place and dishonours Burke.

Becoming "the Pariah of Europe and the rest of the international community" as you put it - and by which I assume you mean the United Nations (and what is their esteem worth?) - will be a very small price to pay, for example, if Britain is required, pursuant to the treaties to continue to admit undesirable immigrants at anything like the rate that they have been encouraged to enter over recent years; or Britain refuses, contrary to treaty requirements, to admit any new immigrants whatsoever; or if Britain takes the wise step of actually deporting all the illegal immigrants and doing it is contrary to EU law.

The niceties of International Law and Treaties are all very well, but what matters in the end is – as Stalin once said in relation to the Vatican – how many divisions of soldiers are available to enforce – or defy them.

Verity

Newcomer Justicia, or just one of the old lags flying under the radar - no government can bind a successor government under our ancient laws, so getting out is the stroke of a pen. Except Dave has such a stake in this ... although, again, Dave will never have the power to say 'yea' or 'nay' because he will never be elected.

Euphorbia Bean

It would seem to me that now is the time for David Davis to challenge the leadership of the Conservative Party or to leave the Party and join UKIP. I would vote for him wherever he was.

Peter

Question. The UK government passed a law ratifying a treaty. The UK government is sovereign in that it can annul any act of legislation it passes. Therefore why cannot a new government table a motion to annul the legislation? There could be a proper debate unlike the debate the present government curtailed last time. It might not pass but at least it would be the only democratic option we have at our disposal to undo the mire into which labour have dropped us.

Holding a referndum would be expensive and achieve little more than we already know. But the result could not be acted upon.

The Gateless Gate

Curtains for the Tories forming a majority government next year. Shame.

Yam Yam

Noting how it's not just the British people whom this Government wants to keep tabs on, CentreRight has run a story this morning about the requirement for every single sheep in Britain to be electronically tagged so that its' precise movements can be tracked - the cost of which must be be borne entirely by an already pummelled British farming industry.

Even the Europhile minister who is piloting this measure through the House of Lords admits that the huge costs involved probably vastly outweigh the potential benefits. Besides, haven't farmers always used a dab of coloured paint to mark out whose sheep belongs to who?

However, Lord Tunnicliffe's lame excuse is that "the introduction of electronic identification is an EU obligation, which must be implemented... This is part of being in the club called the European Union, of which I am proud to be a member citizen."

THIS IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF MADNESS WHICH ABSOLUTELY BEGS DAVID CAMERON TO PUT IT TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE WHETHER THEY WANT TO CONTINUE BEING A PART OF SUCH AN INTRUSIVE, OVER-BEARING EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE.

I'm told the thinking in Conservative HQ is that if the Tories avoid seeking open war with the EU then it will free up ministerial attention for tackling the deficit, schools and the NHS. However, this is wishful thinking. These 'sheep tags' are just one example of where - if Cameron is serious in his desire to see Britain governed less, but better - he will pretty soon finds the EU comes seeking war with him.

Peter

Herbert Thornton is one of the few contributors making any sense in these posts.

I believe we have to adopt an aggressive approach. Our citizens did not and do not want this treaty. Close on 50% of the citizens of the other 26 members do not want this treaty. The EU is an undemocratic, unnaccountable, body which deserves to be treated with in the same manner.

What will they do if we are uncooperative and obstructive? I hope whichever government is in power next Summer argues fiercely on our behalf for the new budget round and does not, a la I-want-to-be-your-friend-Blair, give away yet more of our money.

The EU is like the old Soviet Union - it appreciates strength not weakness. And our relationship with Brussels for the last 12 years has been that of a lackey dog. We now need to return to being a cross between a terrier and a bulldog.

The Gateless Gate

The problem with Cameron and the Cameroonians is that they believe all the self-serving hype about a mythical centre-ground of British politics - their attempts to position themselves there securely will only make the fringes all the more attractive.

Dennis Churchill

Countries unilaterally abrogate treaties all the time.
What some posters seem to be suggesting is that a government could bind future administrations by simply signing a treaty. That would make democracy meaningless.
What would their reaction be if a future government signed a treaty that abolished trial by jury and brought all countries in the EU under the French legal system? Would a future government be bound by it? What about a treaty abolishing the secret ballot?
Someone might like to list a few treaties that individual countries abrogated just as an exercise.

Treaties are just agreements but as “International Law” is more a concept than a reality there are few or no consequences for breaking them.
Lisbon has no legitimacy as it has been brought in by deceit.

Justicia

@Verity
Its still an unknown factor as far as the courts are concerned. Keep in mind the primacy of Community law (of which the ability to unilaterally leave is forbidden); its a mused upon question of how the EC Act could be repealed within the ECJ framework without a constitutional crisis. As I said above, it would resolve itself politically and the courts would certainly follow Parliament (though if you have read the fox hunting case, this does not seem to be an obligation for them in all cases anymore).

@Herbert
With respect, the suggestion that just because we won't face military action, or even economic sanctions means that becoming internationally reviled as treaty breakers is absolutely ludicrous. Our bargaining power is the world is simply not what it was. We are no longer, if we ever were, the US's special interest, and on a quite fundamental level, nations would rather trade with the EU than they would with us.

A disgraceful exit from the EU, and us invoking its collective wrath, would inevitably see them make our negotiating position in the world nothing.

Unless those who clamour for unilateral reform also harken back to the days of complete isolationism and managed decline of this country, they must seriously reappraise their positions.

Justicia

@Peter:

The Lisbon treaty is an executing treaty, once it activates, it will amend other treaties, then extinguish itself as a legal document. The only three options to address it as I can see are

Agreeing with the other member states to change the terms (utterly, utterly impossible)

Negotiate opt-outs (not going to happen until 2011, by which point the political stupidity over this will hopefully have passed

Unilaterally leave by repealing the EC Act, which would be illegal under international law (which makes us look bad) and EC law (which is part of our law and would trigger a constitutional crisis.

Ping Pong Schnitzel

No to EU Ping Pong. No to EU Schnitzel.

Ping Pong's coming back home!

JONNY

UP YOURS
declares the good old Sun
with consummate sagesse
and with great regrets to all the many Cameron detractors on these pages
it ain't his.

Publius

Today I offer you a cast-iron guarantee... er... well.. a rock-bottom pledge... written in water.. that I will ask our masters for a few crumbs from the table... and I give you my solemn pledge that I really will ask... I really will... really....

As for Justicia above, a sign of what's to come.

Publius

@Jonny

Yes, quite. EU to the British people: Screw you!

Vulture

Justicia, Jonny etc@ Let me get this straight. Your positoon is that its perfectly OK for the EU to impose a crooked and dishonest Treaty on Europe without our say-so, but if we want to withdraw from it we would be terribly naughty and no-one would ever trust us again?

From your nom-de-plume, Just, it would seem that you are one of several lawyers infesting this site, and in my experience m'learned friends have an exaggerated respect for legalism, but somehow overlook the fact that the EU acts illegally on a massive scale - not having their fraudulent accounts signed off for 13 years in succession for example.

The French routinely break EU laws every day before even slurping their morning cafe au lait. It's time the British saw their way to doing the same.

ChrisP

SUrely this is just good politics from Cameron. Rather than the old guard of ranting europhobes frothing at the mouth, he has proposed that Europe has too much power (which the public agree with according to poles) and he will negotiate to try to repatriate powers.

As already noted this will require agreemnt of the other 26 states, and will be virtually impossible.

When this occurs he will be able to put it to a referendum with proof that the new structure is not in the best interest of Britain with proof.

I have to admit I am a supporter of a common market for goods and services, but I do not agree with a federalist superstate, loss of sovereignty etc, and I believe Cameron should be negotiating for a 2 tier Europe. Some who want to give up their own decision making powers, and meld into some sort of Euorpia with a common currency and policies on defence, tax etc, and those who wish to trade within a large block of countries and be in association with them, but retaining their own identity.

JONNY

Sorry Publius. Sorry Vulture.
Labour negotiated the Treaty. Conceded much of our sovreignty in it. Signed it. Forced it through parliament. Broke its Manifesto promise to hold a Referendum (which being in government, only it could do).
And now you try to throw the entire blame and shame on Cameron.
What you wish is for UKIP to split the Tory vote. Thus ensuring a Lib-Dem or Labour victory in key constituences.
Thus completing the Great European Federal State.
You may not know it but surely you are Labour pawns.

Publius

@JONNY
What do you think Cameron should do now? What do you think a possible future Tory govt should do? What is your own position? You will have seen the comments that renegotiated titbits is a non-starter. You have seen how the EU gerrymanders and bullies in order to secure what the elite want. You have seen how promises to consult the people have been made a mockery of.

You suggest that I am a UKIP supporter. Let me put you right. I ended up voting UKIP in the European election because I wanted my voice to be heard loud and clear on the question of the EU. Many others, I believe, did the same. But up to now my intention has been to vote for Mr Cameron in a GE. With that in mind I intend to analyse carefully whatever he has to say today, and then read as much informed comment on his words as I can. Thereafter I will decide whether to give him my vote.

So far I have gone along with various Cameron policies I feel uncomfortable with – e.g., vagueness on academic selection; populist green nonsense; silly nods to the left-wing identity politics brigade. But selling out to the superstate (which is what I believe it inevitably must be) is not something I can just push to one side. It is fundamental – even if, as you and others like to point out, the majority as reflected in opinion polls don’t see it or don’t care.

It may be that the Tories’ EU position is not that important for you. It may be that you want the ever-closer union that is the project. But it is important for me, for reasons I feel I can justify. And if I feel the Tory party does not reflect my views on what is, for me, a central and crucial question, then I shall note vote for them.

Publius

@JONNY
I want to add that I am not overly bothered about who's to blame. We all know who's to blame. What I want to know is: who's going to fix it, and how.

Justicia

@Vulture:
I don't think its a very salient argument to make when you compare the illegal actions of leaving the EU with the political dissent to a treaty that is of stiflingly underwhelming significance constitutionally (at least in the non-legal constitutional sense). Also, the EU hasn't imposed it, Labour has.

Yes, there may be a flood of lawyer types debating the merits of Lisbon, but that is precisely because Lisbon is almost wholly a maintenance treaty. Sovereignty has not been ceded, and the bulk of the treaty (as indeed was the constitution) is consolidation and a redressal of State grievances over the current setup.

Finally, while you are quite right to highlight the disgusting failure of the Commission with its finances, just because one organ of the EU has committed wrongs does not justify our entire nation breaking obligation.

Peter

Justicia - or

4. Be uncooperative and obstructive. Refuse contributions until the accounts are signed off. Fail to adhere to regulations we don't like. What will happen. Months of arguing, imposition of fines which won't be paid etc etc. And you never know, we might get kicked out!!

2trueblue

Lets all hope that Cameron has something to add that can still some of our worst fears. We all lived in hope that Klaus would manage the miracle.

We were well and truely stuffed by Labour and lets not forget that. Better to keep our eye on the ball, otherwise we might wind up with Balls. Now that would be a balls up.If we get a hung parliment..... who knows what we could ge stuck with.

Verity

Chris and other illiterates: Before you style people who want us to be the independent, important nation we were a mere twenty years ago "europhobes", here's a word for you to ponder:

1. A phobia is an irrational fear, not a dislike.

2. I suspect that all the people here who have fought against our ceding our ancient sovereignty to Brussels are people who like Europe very much and have their own favourite countries there that they visit often. Many will have second homes there, or will have retired there.

I doubt if a single person posting here is a Europhobe. But the majority of us are, unlike you, EUSSR-haters. (I will not say EUSSRphobes, because, as noted above, a phobia is an irrational fear.)

Vulture

Justiciar@ As you clearly know, EU law is made up on the hoof as it goes along for the convenience of the tiny elite who run it.

The European constitution is rejected by the French and Dutch people? No matter, let's re-package it and push it through without asking them again.

That might be legal to you, Justiciar - to me it is an outrage and has no moral force.

Your backing of the EU seems to have one findamental flaw: it is entirely based on your reading of European law - little things like democracy and sovereignity seem to concern you not at all.

I would remind you of the fundamental principle of English law that the law is made for man, not the other way around.

If we don't like a law, please God through Parliament we can make another. But in your view because it would be 'illegal' to leave the EU we're stuck. That cannot, surely, be right.

Dennis Churchill

In a secular society laws are merely rules that in the prevailing circumstances suit the society. In a liberal democracy they should not be used to enslave the population by being treated as if they are not changeable.
As for what Cameron should do, he should announce that a Royal Commission will be set up to consider the costs and benefits of the UK belonging to the EU.At the end of that exercise the electorate should be given the choice to leave the European Union if that is what the majority want.

egh

Hmm. Whoever this poseuse is, she doesn't know anything about justice. All she knows is how to use big iron boots and shoot anybody who believes in freedom and independence.

I sense Lord Haw Haw at work: misinformation, disinformation, indirection, .... name your poison. The euSSR is on the job.

Herbert Thornton

In light of Justicia's repetitions of the notion that Britain can’t do anything contrary to E.U. law, we should keep in mind that law is, in the end, a tenuous thing compared to the people’s will.

If no constitutional change can take place unless it is accomplished in accordance with existing law, then the existence of the United States of America is unlawful because their Declaration of Independence was unlawful, and the present Russian Federation would be even more unlawful because the break-up of the Soviet Union was contrary to Soviet law and the existence of the Soviet Union itself was in turn unlawful because it’s creation contravened Tsarist law. Those examples demonstrate that the idea is nonsense.

Where there is sufficient manifestation of a people’s will, unlawfulness is not an inflexible veto on constitutional change. Indeed, International Law uses the expression de facto to characterize governments that are established successfully but contrary to existing law, and in those situations, common sense usually prevails so that the de facto status evolves into that of being de jure.

As for the consequences of Britain unilaterally withdrawing from the Lisbon Treaty being international disapproval, the greater likelihood is that the people of several other nations will take heart from it, and compel their governments to follow suit.

No doubt cooperation with Europe in matters of trade is desirable but the arrangements that apply in the case of Norway are better than the dangerous entanglement and subjugation flowing from the Lisbon Treaty. I have never been a fan of General De Gaulle, nor am I entirely clear about what he meant by “Europe des Patries’, but on this issue he may have been fundamentally wise because the expression does not sound compatible with the kind of continental bureaucratic fascism that is being foisted on E.U. members.

Herbert Thornton

There are some other statements in Justicia’s posts that so far no-one seems to have challenged. I think many of the other posters would be interested to learn exactly what they mean. So I am repeating them –

“Lisbon is an executing treaty; on the 1st of January next year it will not itself become law, but will amend the treaties we have been signatories to for the past 30 years, i.e. the ones that make us part of the EU.”

“The Lisbon treaty is an executing treaty, once it activates, it will amend other treaties, then extinguish itself as a legal document.”

“………a treaty that is of stiflingly underwhelming significance constitutionally (at least in the non-legal constitutional sense)”

“Lisbon is almost wholly a maintenance treaty.”

And there is a similar use of words in Fraser Nelson’s blog headed There is only question that frightens Brussels where he writes –

“But the whole point of Lisbon is that it is a self-amending treaty: it will allow the EU to take on more powers without such referenda.”

So to sum up these descriptions of the Lisbon Treaty – it is an executing treaty; it will extinguish itself; it is of stiflingly underwhelming significance constitutionally at least in the constitutional sense; it is almost wholly a maintenance treaty; and – per Fraser Nelson – it is a self-amending treaty. What on earth does all that actually mean and why is it significant?

I’m especially fascinated to learn that it is self-amending. Does it mean that the Treaty walks on legs to a typewriter and types a new version of itself? And as for it being an “executing treaty, which, once it activates will amend other treaties, then extinguish itself as a legal document” it sounds more like some kind of suicide bomber. Does it have a built-in timer?

All these words are, I suggest, no more than jargon, intended to confuse and thus intimidate people into concluding that if they ask what it all means they will look foolish.

So, Justicia – please explain to us all exactly what they do mean. But – even more importantly – please tell us how they are the basis for any sound reason for the British people being deprived of their centuries old right to govern themselves as they see fit instead of being dictated to by bureaucratic, semi-fascist government from Europe.

General Zod

"General -

No, because I find it hard to believe that you can have paid full attention to what I wrote, and that is something expected of a lawyer.

To sum it up, you seem to be confused.

Law and reality are not the same thing"

Are these words supposed to mean something?

Herbert Thornton

General -

So, you are not only incapable of reading with any degree of comprehension, but you can't distinguish between law and reality.

It doesn't surprise me.

egh

Thank you, Herbert Thornton! I couldn't agree more. Well put, and you let the 'shut up and do as you're told' brigade know that we see through their logical fallacies! And they are applying a choice range - from circular reasoning through false cause, false analogy, slippery slope, and 'on the bandwagon'!

Scott

What is astonishing in many of these posts is the belief that Cameron and the Tories have any intention of not complying fully with the Lisbon Treaty. In the main it is the Tories that have taken us into Europe signing a succession of treaties that have transferred powers to Europe, starting with the Treaty of Rome, The Bruges Agreement, The Maastricht Agreement, The Single European Act, in each case they have they have lied to and misled the public. Cameron and the current Tories come from the same stable on the subject of Europe as do The Labour Party and the Liberals. The promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was a sham from the beginning. This was a stitch up by the political class and has been for decades. No surprise that Blair had the treason act repealed in 1999, if it was a century ago he and many others would be swinging from the gallows.