The right has little cause for alarm

anne allan

Are you saying that a British Bill of Rights would not be able to include a clause stating that British law over rides European? I thought Germany had sorted that one.
We seem to have gone backwards since 1689.

Vulture

David Blackburn is delusional - no change there in the New Year then.

His piece should better be titled 'whistling in the dark'.
If he really thinks that all's for the best in Coalition land he should up his medication.

Tory MPs are on the verge of mutiny over Dave's supine surrender to the EU tyranny and his cosseting of his Lib Dem pals. As he will see when the Prisoners Voting right and the Europe Bill which Blackburn so adores come to the floor of the House.

Basically the Coalition is a house divided and a house divided cannot stand. When the Lib Dems get thrashed in Old and Sad the writing will be on the wall. When they get thrashed again in the May elections and AV referendum the wall will come tumbling down;
bring it on! Anything to get rid of the Liberal EU-loving neo-socialist Dave plague.

Duyfken

After this shameful piece, I am further confirmed in my belief that "the unashamedly independent voice of the past" has more of the answers than any of the Speccie bloggers.

Yam Yam

Why do supposed intelligent commentators feel the constant need to pussyfoot around the European issue?

If - as William Hague was keen to make out at the last Tory Party conference - Britain remains a sovereign nation where Parliament can reassert its supremacy any time it chooses, then why not simply tell the EU to go take a running jump?

And what applies to Spectator commentators also applies to Conservative politicians,: the time has come to stop saying (under the usual anxious sharp intake of breath) "these EU power grabs are wrong, but..." and proclaim instead "this whole EU project is flawed; the time has arrived for a proverbial sharp exit".

AlanL

Why do people always confuse the EU with the ECHR (and its owner, the Council of Europe).

The EU is a burgeoning super-state, moving toward political union, and we should be asked id this is what we want (hint: we don't).

The CoE is a co-operative body (that we helped found in 1950) - something like we were told the original EEC was.

There are ways to stay signed up to the ECHR, and limit the court's intervention (the other 46 states manage it) - let us pursue this and not confuse it with EU membership.

dg

The Times has come out in support for the Liberal Democrat candidate. The Times! The most loyally Cameroon paper around. The Times! Where Daniel Finkelstein and his David Owen style neo SDP Liberal party dream festers. The Times! Where Matthew Parris writes his articles that are heavily influential to David Cameron. The Times! Owned by Rupert Murdoch who has some sort of deal with Cameron.

Anyone else smell a dirty rat?

Perry

au contraire . . it should read :

The unashamedly independent voice of the FUTURE

normanc

Not a very good article but let's pick the bones of it.

Eric Pickles - agreed, doing an outstanding job, the only one in Cabinet who is. That we only have one of him in Cabinet is the disaster.

Welfare reforms - touted as right wing, but very tentative, a lot of it is a continuation of what Labour had planned to do anyway and other elements have already been backtracked on e.g. Housing Benefit. There is a piece in this months Standpoint demolishing the argument that this is a right wing policy and will lead to success, not sure if it's available free online or not but worth a read.

Schools reform - good idea in theory, let's hope that Cameron has the backbone to take on the Unions and Local Authorities and really push this through. Jury is still out.

Housing reform - I haven't read about this so can't comment, maybe there is an article on here about it I've missed? Certainly been nothing in the weekly magazine

We all know that the rest of the policies, including fiscal, have very little right wing in them, so we are left with Eric Pickles from the positives.

The negatives (progressive, statist policies) of this coalition would far exceed the allowable comment length so for the sanity of anyone who has wandered this far down my comment I won't bother.

David Lindsay

Calling the referendum “a device of demagogues and dictators” was Thatcher’s only ever favourable quotation of a Labour Prime Minister. Yet to those who worship at Thatcher’s altar while wholly ignoring her record on this and so much else, the demand for that deeply flawed and wholly foreign device has become a nervous tick. They honestly cannot see how Pythonesque it is to demand a referendum in the cause of defending parliamentary sovereignty. The Lisbon Treaty is in any case self-amending.

When Parliament reconvenes on Monday, it will soon have to consider the EU Bill. That centres on a meaningless assertion, to no practical effect, of the sovereignty of Parliament, which is falsely described as a Common Law principle, so that it means whatever the judges say that it means, rather than a Statute Law principle, so that its meaning is determined by Parliament.

normanc

I've just read the article and you completely misrepresent Lord Tebbits view. He does not give a lenghty eulogy for the UKIP candidate (indeed, he says he is doomed in a seat he cannot win and doesn't even mention his name).

In fact, he strongly backs the Conservative candidate in most of the piece, and his main complaint, far from being that the government isn't Eurosceptic enough (you must be reading between the lines between the lines to get that conclusion from this article), is that the Party is hanging him out to dry by tacitly backing the Lib Dem.

It is this that has his back up and the friendly UKIP reference you quote has to be seen in this context. He is as good as saying 'If the Cameroons want to openly back the Lib Dems I wouldn't be surprised if they get a taste of their own medicine and conservatives start backing UKIP', not because they are not EU sceptic enough, but because not backing your own man, a good candidate, is criminal.

David Blackburn

Alan L, I don't confuse the 2. Never mind European law, the jurisdiction of the ECHR is total and the scope of rights wide - that's why a Bill of Rights is unworkable.

Publius

Mr Blackburn writes:
"a water-tight referendum lock on future EU treaties"

-- My understanding is that the gov't of the day gets to decide what constitutes a relevant treaty change, and then the judges possibly get to sign it off.

That doesn't sound 'water tight' to me. It sounds like a fudge that is open to abuse. Nay, not only open to abuse, but positively designed for abuse.

You can just hear the words now: "Ah yes, when we said 'treaty change' what we meant was the right sort of treaty change, and this is not the right sort. So sorry, no referendum."

What is your own understanding?

TomTom

Tebbit's article is complemented by the first Comment on the Telegraph Blog....but if you pop over to YouTube and look at the Bye-Election meeting held on Boxing Day you can hear how diversely Cabinet Ministers can now communicate with potential voters

Simon Stephenson

David Blackburn's post is about par for the course in 21st Century communication. Anything goes, as long as it gives the "right" impression to enough people. So portraying a high tax, high spend, big-State nannyocracy as "right-wing" is perfectly OK, notwithstanding that it is completely untrue.

There's no hope for this country.

Biggestaspidistra

nicely on message Mr Blackburn

Bill Brinsmead

David Rennie is spot on when he concludes that Britain achieving most of his objectives on Europe.

The soft diplomacy being pursed by Lidington in building links and alliances with other states, parties and Commission officials matches and bolsters Cameron's approach to the Council of Ministers and key European Leaders. It has two aims; to slow down or halt any more competences being acquired by Europe and to limit the budget settlement to 2020.

A good contrast with Blair's grandstanding and Brown's sour boasting.

Fergus Pickering

dg, your post is incomprehensible to me. Do you mean that David Cameron does everything that Murdoch tells him to? If that's what you mean, then why not say so? As a theory I think it is balls, but is that actually your theory? And do you really think that Rupert Murdoch is the devil incarnate? If I could have Sky telly and no Beeb I'd chose it every time over the Beeb and no Sky.

Tiberius

A rare piece from you, David, in that it doesn't get my hackles up. It's a fair summation.

Lord Tebbitt is rare amongst Cameron's critics in that he doesn't sound as if he's chewing his own fingers off as he pronounces.

Steve S

"Watertight"?? In the words of a famous northern pensioner "You're jeeerrrrkiiing!"

John Bracewell

@David Blackburn
Surely, if a British Bill of Rights states that it takes precedence over both the EU and the ECHR, then the jurisdiction of ECHR is not total!! It just takes the balls to do it, and, not being shackled by the LibDems.

David Blackburn

Publius, Here's the text of the bill, my understanding, such as it is, follows:

'The Government will introduce a Bill which would require that:
(a) any proposed future EU treaty, agreed by all EU Member States’ governments, including the UK government, which sought to transfer areas of power or competence from the United Kingdom to the European Union would be subject to a referendum of the British people; and,
(b) the use of ratchet clauses or passerelles, provisions in the existing EU Treaties, which allow the rules of the EU to be modified or expand without the need for a formal Treaty change, would require an Act of Parliament before the Government could agree to its use.'

The 'ratchet clauses' are a more likely scenario in the present (eg, the financial clauses pertaining to loan defaults in the Lisbon treaty). There is (dare I say it) a cast iron guarantee that those would have to go before the Commons. Crucially, European law could not overide the sovereignty of the Commons at that point. I think that's quite water-tight, but, agreed, nothing is certain when it comes to Europe!

Rhoda Klapp

This is less about finding the right-wing things the govt has done than interpreting everything it has done as right-wing even when it conspicuously is nothing of the kind.

And if Tiberius finds nothing wrong with it, my case is strengthened.

David Lindsay

Vote Lib Dem at Oldham East & Saddleworth, says the newspaper of Matthew Parris, Daniel Finkelstein, Rupert Murdoch and, therefore, David Cameron.

Only Norman Tebbit wants anyone to vote Conservative next Thursday. Old and Sad, indeed. But no wonder that the Whip was not withdrawn from him when he told people to vote UKIP at the European Elections. Cameron himself is now telling people to vote Lib Dem at an election to the House of Commons.

David Blackburn

John Bracewell,

Apologies if I'm being unclear.

The ECHR is a seperate entity from Europe (it just happens to be situated on the Continent). If a nation subscribes to the articles of the convention (written by an Englishman and drawn largely from the 1689 Act), it cedes ultimate jurisdiction to the court. So, we already have a bill of rights protecting us from both the excesses of our own government and the powers that be in Brussels. (For instance, if you wanted to restore imperial measurements, appeal to the ECHR on the grounds of a rights violation, not the European Court as I think occurred.) The 'British Bill of Rights' was a Cameroon vanity project designed to placate critics (at the time of Lisbon) who either don't know or don't accept that EU law and ECHR law are two different entities. It was very cynical politics, but I think every centre right commentator bought it at the time.

My problem with the European Court of Human Rights is that, in its pursuit of pure rights, it gets practical and philosophical decisions wrong, such as prisoners' voting. Governments ought to be able to appeal for a re-trial, but that's probably unworkable.

dg

"Vote Lib Dem at Oldham East & Saddleworth, says the newspaper of Matthew Parris, Daniel Finkelstein, Rupert Murdoch and, therefore, David Cameron."

Too right. Perhaps Fergus Pickering can comprehend this. Why is the newspaper of the Cameron Loyalists supporting the Liberal Democrat Party at this by-election? Here is why:-

"Mr Clegg sees his party’s destiny differently from Paddy Ashdown. His conception of the Lib Dems (not that he would put it like this) is much closer to that of David Owen’s conception of the SDP — a new party, a middle-class revolt against the system, one that appeals to Tories as well as the Left and fuses social liberalism, social justice and economic liberalism.

Behind this vision he has been able to unite some of the party’s brightest MPs — such as the education spokesman David Laws — and some of its best thinkers — people such as Julian Astle, the director of the liberal think-tank CentreForum. But he also has troops. The Lib Dems now have thousands of councillors. They are pragmatists and people of power. They have learnt how to co-operate with others, and this includes Tories."

- Daniel Finkelstein, April 21st 2010 (conspicuously before the 2010 general election)

John Bracewell

David Blackburn.
'If a nation subscribes to the articles of the convention (written by an Englishman and drawn largely from the 1689 Act), it cedes ultimate jurisdiction to the court'

So, if a British Bill of Rights gives all the same rights as the ECHR bill of rights but with exceptions which suit us, the British, and we opt out of the ECHR we have what we want, a Bill of Humman Rights without ceding jurisdiction to anyone or any organisation. That surely is the definition of a sovereign state - one that controls its own destiny and jurisdiction?
The same argument applies to all EU laws and jurisdiction too, if we want our sovereignty back enough then we can do it. It seems that for some reason, it suits the political elite to hide behind ECHR, EU etc so that they do not have to take some decisions, they just say our hands are tied, but they cannot be, ultimately, if our House of Commons can undo or do anything it wants, even what has been done in the past.

Tiberius

Rhoda: you're fast replacing Verity as the most irresistable member of the fair sex.

Sean O'Hare

@David Blackburn

If this is a right wing government them I'm a Dutchman.

They could just repeal the Human Rights Act and tell the ECHR to take a running jump. They aren't going invade us are they?

yank

In terms of the political language of the previous century, this is, incontrovertibly, a right-wing government.

.

Yes, the political class has made quite a hash of the language, hasn't it?

Pity that they're so ably supported by those of the infotainment industry, such as the Spectator's language hashers.

TomTom

"In terms of the political language of the previous century, this is, incontrovertibly, a right-wing government."

It is whatever you want it to be. It is simply not what voters want it to be !

daniel maris

The thought processes underlying this article are as careless as the spelling in the first sentence.

Opposition to the EU is not a right or left matter. There were (and are) plenty on the Left (e.g. Tony Benn) who wanted us to retain our sovereignty. There used to be plenty of centrists who opposed the EU.

There is no economic case for staying in the EU and it is clearly an anti-democratic institution. People who want a European superstate should admit it, and we can look to democratising that state, difficult though it would be.

Edward McLaughlin

The most this government might be reasonably titled is 'post rabidly left wing'. Struggling to make a fist of it amidst the dizzy ravings of a blithely entrenched media establishment.

Charles Martel

Well, i'm beginning to hope The Spectator does vanish behind a paywall, if this is the quality of the output then it won't be missed at all, it adds nothing to the debate and is full of nonsense.

I shall not bother to fisk it as it is not worth my time and others have done a much better job...

But I will say the economic situation in the EU is a symptom of the political situation (i.e. hell with everything we will not let the Euro fail)... that you are unable to understand that says everything we need to know about your analysis.

Archie

Absolute nonsense, Mr. Blackburn! Where to start? The misreading of Lord Tebbitt's words in The Telegraph, to the labelling of this preposterous government as right wing? Wrong, wrong.

Xeelee

The following is an attempt to clarify certain legal issues that pertain to the subject of the posting:

EU membership presupposes being a party to the ECHR and consequently accepting the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court. An EU Member State that withdraws from the ECHR could not realistically stay in the EU.

As long as the UK is an EU Member State the UK parliament is not sovereign, due to the simple fact that EU legislation takes precedence over UK legislation. This is a well-understood consequence of EU membership.

The UK parliament could decide tomorrow to unilaterally withdraw from the EU and the ECHR, thus regaining its full sovereignty. What the UK cannot do, however, is to claim that it is fully sovereign and UK legislation takes precedence over EU law while still benefiting from the rights flowing from EU membership, e.g. the free movement of goods. EU membership cannot be partial: either you are fully in or you are fully out.

The UK government can refuse its consent to the use of Lisbon Treaty 'passerelles' (ratchet clauses), since these clauses can be used only if all Member States agree. Whether the UK government does so or not is a political question.

The 'referendum lock' on the use of passerelles ('ratchet clauses') is effective as long as a future UK parliament does not simply amend the EU Bill - which it can do since no parliament can bind its successors. If it is not amended a future UK government could claim that the measure it consented to was not sufficiently material to trigger a referendum. This assessment would be subject to judicial review. However it is very unclear how a UK court could override the decision of the government on this point and effectively order the government to hold a referendum (especially if the UK government had already signed off on the measure in the EU Council). So the 'referendum lock' is very likely susceptible to lock-picking...

In Germany, EU law takes precedence over German law. This is not in doubt. It is a more difficult question whether EU law in all circumstances takes precedence over the German Constitution. However the issue has very little practical significance (cf the recent 'Honeywell' case.)

Rhoda Klapp

Xeelee, thanks for a useful explanation. Clearly no UK government is ever going to hold a referendum on the EU so long as it cannot live with the results whichever way it turns out. So, never then. And the promise of a referendum is also illusionary, as the trigger in the bill will somehow never be pulled. So we should not be fooled by this bill no matter what its provisions?