So instead of calm nerves, there is a sense of urgency — and not a little panic — to the debate being held in the party. Should Mr Cameron pursue the radical strategy which apparently saved him at Blackpool? Or should the party tread softly, wary of disturbing its best opinion-poll ratings in 15 years? How far should it promise to devolve power, moving to this ‘post-bureaucratic era’ Mr Cameron has mentioned in recent speeches? Should it develop a muscular approach to Europe, or work within the status quo?
The astonishing turnaround in opinion polls has served only to unsettle emotions further. ‘How could approval switch so quickly from a Prime Minister without vision to an untested shadow Cabinet which has yet to articulate what it stands for?’ asks one shadow minister. ‘Are things really that fickle? We are being suspended by a strapless bra. We’re back into the politics of mystery, and it means anything is now possible.’
The idea that boldness is back in vogue has energised the previously muzzled Euro-sceptics who are once again urging Mr Cameron to adopt an openly confrontational stance towards the EU. The argument is fairly simple. Rules are observed by the British, but are regarded as merely advisory in the countries like France and Italy (as anyone who has driven in either country will attest). Ditto EU law. If the French wish to impose a ban on British beef, as they did in 1999, they will do so — and to hell with Brussels. If Italy wants to expel Romanians, as its Cabinet ruled a fortnight ago, it will do so.
Faced with such a muscular approach, the EU either takes years to rule something illegal (as it did with the French) or cave in (as it did fairly quickly with the Italians). Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has been struck by how the action of the Italian government has reassured its people over immigration. She has asked her officials to provide more information about the Italian scheme, and whether it could work here. Tory Eurosceptics feel the ground is shifting, and want Mr Cameron to lead the way.
The problem in Britain is the judiciary, which can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights — and this takes us to the root canal of the current Tory toothache. Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, would like a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities which would terminate the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. But this goes further than official policy. The proposed Tory Bill of Rights, as currently drafted, would still be subordinate to Strasbourg’s edicts. Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, has made clear that the adoption of Mr Herbert’s much more radical proposal would result in his resignation.
More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
The Spectator on the difficulties engulfing the Government
Tony Parsons visits Tokyo
Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics
Tamzin Lightwater's unique take on the week
Dot Wordsworth continues her look at BBC booklets on pronunciation published in the 1930s
Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics
Fraser Nelson reviews the week in politics
Matthew d'Ancona reviews the week in politics
Spectator readers respond to recent articles
Fraser Nelson on the coming political week
Sky TV & free broadband packages available from £16 a month. Choose from a standard free sky box, sky plus or sky hd.
Sky TV & free broadband packages available from £16 a month. Choose from a standard free sky box, sky plus...
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Kirsty, Merseyside
November 14th, 2007 8:49pmWould anyone really care if Dominic Grieve resigned, it would be no great loss to the shadow cabinet in my opinion. On the issue of the human rights agenda it seems to be increasingly obvious that it is not europe (as we have previously been led to believe)that is causing all these problems regarding deportations and bizarre rulings, that seem to go against national interest and common sense, but the judiciary in this country and their peverse interpretation of EU law. This seems to be becoming increasingly obvious as we see Italy doing something that would be absolutley impossibe in Britain because of the judges. I agree with the Tory policy of elected police chiefs but I think they should go a step further and have an elected judiciary as well, this would be far more radical.
Everyone Muddles 'Em Up
November 15th, 2007 8:03amThose European Courts explained: European Court Of Human Rights: based in Strasbourg; nothing to do with the EU, it is a body of the unrelated Council Of Europe. European Court Of Justice: based in Luxembourg; the supreme court of all EU members; it serves to enforce EU law (not including the 'Human Rights Act', which is a construct of the Council Of Europe - see above) such as that covering the free movement of peoples in the EU27, which Italy is currently ignoring. International Court Of Justice: based in The Hague; a UN body.
tim duckworth
November 15th, 2007 1:23pmAny shadow Minister - a person by definition being currently without responsibility - who threatens to resign should be displaced immediately. We do not have time for people who wish to throw their teddy out of the pram. Either achieve acceptance of ideas or leave. Threats are always the mark of the weak in such situations.
John Bull
November 15th, 2007 1:57pmOliver Letwin & Dominic Grieve are doing us all a favour by exposing the barely concealed irrational thinking still dominating the "Conservatives". Cameron needs to decide whether he is prepared to prove he can be trusted ( not at all likely ) or get back into bed with his green labourites. If the Cameron machine cannot yet detect the crass failings of their blowing-in-the-wind policies by now, then it's high time they were all sacked and the money spent on Oxfam. What happened to the "real" 1922 Committee ?
John Corfield
November 16th, 2007 6:02pmLove your articles,you are such a pellucid writer but when you appear on TV what language do you speak in ? I cannot understand a word you say, are you a Balt or a Slav?
Janice Small
November 17th, 2007 11:14amNick Herbert is absolutely right and will have the backing of the majority of the grass roots membership and I believe the majority of the public. I have been holding Pro Referendum Action Days across the south east. Around 70% of the public who signed our petitions want a referendum on In or Out, not just on the Reform Treaty. The majority of our 2005 intake are believers in direct democracy or localism as it is often known as. Cameron is adopting many of their proposals and is known as the most EU sceptic leader we have had. I don't understand the argument that Grieve puts forward. What is wrong with re-negotiating our position? Were we not against Labour signing away our judicial rights in 1997? We should listen to the people.
Keith McBurney
November 18th, 2007 12:13pmThe key is recognising that it is the people - individually and severally - who are sovereign and not parliaments where our sovereignty should be upheld and returned undeminished from the Union and EU. The state we are in is because of the State we are in - an unrepresentative dictatorship of, by and for parties not people. Along with declining membership, no party polled more than 20% of the total electorate at the last General Election in 2005. Does no to a General Election, no to the EU Constitution Treaty Referendum and no to completing PR nationally and locally sound like listening, let alone the scant real progress on long overdue constitutional reform. Party power or people power? Top down or bottom up? Toppling over or standing firm? What would get your vote?
W thompson
November 19th, 2007 4:45pmOportunistic and shallow, it seems to me,sums up the current tory leadership.Europe is a huge unpalatable issue that continues to haunt the present and and any future leadership contenders. The Diversionary tactics currently being pursued by the current leadership will count for nought in a future general election.
John Farthing
November 20th, 2007 5:36amI agree with the previous comment. The central issue is the EU, always has been and always will be while it erodes our ability to control our politics and politicians, and it won't go away. We need to resecure our borders and get back the primacy of our law courts as a first step. This has to go back to ECA 1972 and wholesale modification of our terms of engagement, or whether we need to be engaged at all. If the Tories have finally realised that that's a vote winner then it's time to hang out the flags and bin the UKIP dalliance - but this must be real and very plain for all to see. It's been a long time coming and if they don't do something soon I predict violence on the streets as protest goes underground. They have got to tap into that huge feeling of discontent out there and reconnect with an electorate sick to the back teeth of government by political elites who have no common sense or historical perspective. Yes old stuff, but it is central to building a new centre-right concensus. and I agree with doing things Green - but this has to come first.