UKIP: The Wheels Come Off?

I didn't particularly want to write another piece about UKIP as this blog prefers to concentrate on campaigning trying to exit from the EU - we have much bigger fish to fry. However following on from our piece regarding the Mail on Sunday headlines, we note an understandable determination of the legacy media this week to probe further Farage's "claims".

The Mirror reports that Farage's car was not part of a widely publicised recall:

A Volvo spokesman later said: "I can confirm that Mr Farage’s car was not part of that recall, so no such work was required."

The Mirror was following up the story and despite clearing Farage of ignoring a possible recall the story as published by the Mail still has significant question marks hanging over it. With this in mind we see that the Times reports (I quote a substantial part of it as it's behind a paywall):

[Farage's] version was challenged by the prosecution service in Dunkirk, which said that a police report said it was an accident and made no mention of sabotage. A spokesman said that prosecutors would have started a criminal investigation if there had been any suspicion of foul play. They did not.

Farage, who was not hurt, said that he chose not to file a lawsuit following the crash. The prosecution service in Boulogne-sur-Mer said: “In France, prosecutors can investigate even without the victim’s agreement.”

The Ukip leader said that the mechanic called to repair the car had told him that the nuts had been unscrewed deliberately.

Philippe Marquis, a garage owner, told Libération that he had said nothing of the sort. He told the newspaper that the nuts were loose but that he believed that this was because of shoddy repair work. He added that he had been unable to communicate with Mr Farage because neither spoke the other’s language: “We only spoke with our hands.”

Farage's account is now being directly contradicted by reports in the Times.

And it's no surprise there is scrutiny. To make an accusation of an assassination attempt is a very serious charge. One that should not be made without substantial evidence. That the French police failed to investigate and Farage never made an official compliant calls into significant doubts over the claim.

However oddities of the story could also be due to the case that UKIP has now split in two, albeit unofficially, so reports of "Farage assassination" may reflect that split and may not be what they seem.

Not that it matters anymore. If we are to win an EU referendum it's going to be the people who matter, not the internal politics of a party supposedly dedicated to EU exit.

We have more pressing issues to deal with...

Hattip for image scribblingsfromseaham

 

Blocked By Carswell!

On this blog we have followed Douglas Carswell on Twitter for many years; when he was a Conservative MP and now as a UKIP MP. However recently (not long after he has joined UKIP) we are now blocked from seeing his twitter feed as the above screenprint illustrates clearly.

To block our Twitter account is obviously his prerogative, but it confuses us why... Our Twitter account rarely uses bad language, never insults nor is gratuitously offensive. In fact our Twitter exchanges with Douglas Carswell have been minimal to say the least.

Yes, this blog has not always been complimentary about Carswell, but given his inconsistent position on aspects of EU membership among other matters then as an elected MP he should expect a degree of scrutiny and questioning.

It's thus strange from the same chap who argued for more internet interaction in politics as per the Plan page 24:

Analogue politics in a digital age.

Never has the expectations gap been so wide. when we book a holiday or buy a DVD we expect choice and immediacy. we browse the internet for options, we click a couple of buttons, and we get what we came for.

Compare this to the experience of applying for a driving licence, or getting planning permission – let alone trying to get a child into a particular school. The technological advances of the past decade have empowered consumers in everything except their dealings with the state.

Previous generations were much readier to accept that what they wanted might not be available and that, even when it was, they would have to queue for it.

But the internet has created almost unlimited capacity, eliminating storage costs and reducing barriers to entry. whatever we want, the chances are that someone somewhere will be selling it. And it is now more feasible than ever to deal with that someone – unless that someone is a government agency.

Odd again when we consider this from page 27 from the Plan:

The web has made it possible, as never before, for a politician to come from outside, appealing directly to voters over the heads of party bigwigs.

Even more odd behaviour when we see this from Carswell's blog in 2013:

Twitter is killing spin

Twitter is a great detector of bull. It is changing the way that news is managed fundamentally. And for the better.

We guess though we shouldn't expect any different. Like every other politician what Carswell says is not what he does. He advocates open primaries as per page 23 of the Plan:

Many of the peculiar features of American democracy – the election of public officials, from the school board to the Sheriff; the fiscal and legislative autonomy of the 50 states; the use of open primaries to select candidates; term limits and recall procedures to control politicians; open congressional hearings for big appointments; local and state-wide referendums – are designed to prevent law-makers from becoming remote.

Yet when he defected to UKIP he was made the UKIP candidate in Clacton with no open primaries and as result of trampling all over UKIP party rules to the detriment of the hard work by Roger Lord.

Presumably UKIP is supposed to be the new anti-establishment politics, but for the life of me I can't see the difference.

Total Recall

One possible positive that may be garnered out of the debate yesterday on the Recall of MPs Bill is the fact that the debate is even happening at all is tacit acknowledgment within the Westminster that something has gone wrong with the system.

But it was of no surprise that Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith's proposals, which would have excluded Parliament's standards committee from any role in determining whether errant MPs should face re-election, was defeated - it is entirely within character that MPs would be somewhat reluctant to support reducing their powers with enthusiasm. It therefore was of some amusement the naive astonishment shown in some quarters on social media at MPs unwilling to give up powers.

All of this though misses the point. The debate regarding the recall of MPs is Westminster talking to itself - the proposal nothing more than a tinkering around the edges while in effect maintaining the status quo. Very much a politician's solution then...

Unwittingly Zac Goldsmith betrays this view in his arguments in favour of his proposals by trying to persuade MPs and Ministers that they have nothing to fear from recall decided by the people because it would very rarely be used:

The third concern relates to the fear that Members would face endless recall attempts, amounting almost to a form of harassment, an issue raised several times in last week’s debate. I see no need for a limit, as the experience of recall around the world shows that its use is extremely rare and that it is used only in extreme circumstances. In 100 years of recall in the United States, where there are virtually no financial controls or controls on broadcasters and so on, it has happened only 20 times. There have been 40 recall referendums...

This argument has the backing of Douglas Carswell:

Far from leading to a flood of vexatious attempts to remove sitting MPs, this second stage makes it almost impossible to oust a sitting MP on partisan grounds. Note how few recall attempts have ever been successful in California. 

In other words, vote for this measure because it won't make any difference at all. It's a ... er ... curious argument to make for a democratic device to say the least.

It's safe to assume that the great expenses scandal of 2009/10 is a cloud hanging over the recall debate, with examples such as Labour MP Margaret Moran going into hiding leaving her constituents unrepresented and they having no means to force a by-election.

Yet it is with some irony that the expenses scandal actually show up the ineffectiveness recall would have. While there was a lot of public anger, further provoked by MPs’ attempts to prevent disclosure under Freedom of Information, voters did not punish them electorally in 2010.

Many MPs (and over 50% sought re-election) who were embroiled in the financial scandal were still re-elected in the 2010 election. Take Alistair Darling for example, who abused taxpayer's money by 'flipping' his two houses four times was re-elected in 2010 with an increased majority.

As this report from 2011 finds, titled "Electoral Accountability and the UK Parliamentary Expenses Scandal: Did Voters Punish Corrupt MPs?" the expenses scandal came low down voters' priorities. This chimes with my own experience as a PPC in 2010 when the subject was never raised once on the doorstep nor in hustings.

The report finds instead that there was only a modest 1.5% voting impact on MPs implicated:

We find that implicated MPs received a vote share about 1.5 percentage points lower than non-implicated MPs (after controlling for incumbency, region, and previous constituency results). Intriguingly, we do not nd an association between vote share and either the amount the MP claimed in expenses or the amount an MP was required to repay...

The findings may not be so surprising when we consider that the representative ballot is a blunt instrument to deal with the complexities of voters' concerns such as the economy, immigration and of course partisan competition. Thus the report comes to an interesting conclusion:

The degree to which voters punished individual MPs for expenses abuses (a drop in vote share of about 1.5% on average) is modest in comparison to voters' responses to corruption in the US and other settings, but the lower magnitude seems reasonable given the fact that most British MPs have few individual powers and British voters have no other opportunity to express a party preference at the national level.

The findings thus illustrate the fact that the degree to which electoral accountability can constrain individual politicians depends on political institutions including the electoral system, separation of powers, and legislative organization.

A better example of why recall won't work would be hard to find and further demonstration that something far more radical is need to grap MPs by their goolies - The Harrogate Agenda.

Carswell Defects To UKIP

"[The Tory] Parliamentary majority was slashed from a healthy 100 to a - by comparison - fairly feebly twenty. If the truth be told, John Major and the rest of us were relieved to achieve even that result. It was a workable majority, or so the PM thought. The debates on the Maastricht Treaty would prove otherwise. With a majority of 100 a rebellion would have been futile. But with twenty, a group of determined backbenchers can change government policies. The government can no longer allow itself the luxury of doing just as it likes"

Teresa Gorman MP, "The Bastards".

In news that has seemingly come out of the 'blue', Douglas Carswell has defected to UKIP. In some ways this is not really surprising. His political views have increasingly been at odds with the party he represents. It maybe more a factor that the party has left him not that he has left the party. As we remember he is one of the few Tory MPs to vote against EU measures.

However we also remember that Carswell has not been entirely consistent in EU views, often clearly putting his party first above his 'principles'. He has backed Cameron when it is readily apparent that Cameron is not only a Europhile but has no intention of being a Prime Minister that leads the UK out of the EU. Despite Cameron's clear deception on the issue Carswell noted in January 2014 he was wrong to rebel against the party line:

“What is it we now want, guys? We’re going to face a reckoning with the electorate in just over a year’s time. We’re two points behind the Labour Party. We can do this – we really can do this. If we lack discipline, we’re going to have five or six appalling years in opposition to dwell on it”

The Spectator concludes as a result of the interview:

Here’s a sneak preview of what was supposed to be a debate about the wisdom of rebelling – but ended up being Carswell explaining why he believes his colleagues should now stop defying the government, and support the PM.

And this was the same man who in 2012 that claimed (my emphasis):

One of the reasons I backed David Cameron to be party leader early on in his leadership campaign was because I wanted to see a different kind of Conservatism. I still do – and I’d vote for him to deliver it if there was a leadership contest tomorrow. 

Even though there is obvious evidence that Cameron is not...

...a secret patriot waiting for the chance to rip off his expensive tailoring and reveal his inner Thatcher. He is exactly what he looks like, an unprincipled chancer with limited skills in public relations".

So with this in mind we have a couple of observations or more accurately a number of questions regarding Carswell's motives.

The first is why defect? As it currently stands (and currently is the operative word) the Tories are the only party in a position to possibly win the next General Election who offers an in/out referendum on membership of the EU. Labour have chosen not to unless there's a new Treaty and the Lib Dems... well they, to no-one's surprise, have no intention of doing so.

As we have noted on here before Cameron has categorically promised a referendum in 2017 and one in circumstances which are most favourable to the "outers":

Thus the EU is in a mess, Cameron has been shown up publicly that he cannot deliver on reform or influence and he almost certainly cannot recommend an "in" vote in 2017. Add to that his general incompetence and it's difficult to envisage a better framework for the 'outers' to win a referendum. The chances of winning a referendum has improved significantly.

Understandably there is much scepticism of Cameron's promises given the "cast iron" one over Lisbon - which turned out to be one of Cameron's greatest mistakes and which more than likely cost him the 2010 election.

However political reality suggests that he won't have much choice to attempt to try the same again. Poll ratings, Labour bias in the electoral system and Labour's superior ability to manipulate the postal vote means if the Tories do win the next election any majority they gain will be relatively small in number.

With this in mind we refer to Teresa Gorman's quote above that a small majority gives the backbenchers far more power over the government - "the government can no longer allow itself the luxury of doing just as it likes". Nothing illustrates this better than the constant rebellions over current coalition government policies such as the EU rebellions over an EU referendum.

In other words, with a small majority the political reality would be that Cameron will be forced to hold a referendum on terms which will be the most favourable possible for the 'out' camp. This is reflected in the fact that Cameron only promised an EU referendum precisely because he is "unprincipled chancer". He will do what ever his party tells him particularly with a small majority.

Of course we are under no illusions of the Tory track record on the EU or that party positions might change in the meantime, but as it stands:

• A vote for Labour is EU membership
  
  
• A vote for UKIP is EU membership by virtue of they can't possibly get enough MPs based on current poll ratings
  
  
• A vote for Lib Dems is EU membership
   
• A vote for Tories is a possible referendum we can win.

We wonder therefore why Carswell has jumped ship, just under a year away from a General Election, when statistically a Tory win might give him the EU exit he craves?

We appreciate that we're in the middle of silly season and crucially the news is understandably being dominated by the appalling deficiency of Rotherham Council and Police. So why would Carswell defect when he maybe unable to guarantee dominate coverage to ensure Cameron is fully embarrassed? The answer may lie in the fact that the Tory party conference is taking place towards the end of September which is four weeks away. If the by-election is moved quickly it will occur just in time for the result to be the main discussion point at the Tory conference.

In addition intriguingly via a by-election Carswell might ensure that by winning he would become the first elected UKIP MP - UKIP defections have occurred before of course but not with an electoral mandate. Carswell winning a by-election would pose a problem for Farage, if not a threat. For a man who has made UKIP his own party it could be that the first elected UKIP MP would not be himself - "let's make history" Farage's latest email says:

Last night I was selected by local party members to stand as UKIP's Thanet South candidate for the upcoming general election.

With recent polling showing that UKIP can win the Thanet South seat in May, I look forward to the forthcoming campaign where we can set out a positive vision, for a free and independent Britain outside of the EU.

Farage calls 'Carswell's' move "brave" but we wonder whether that for Farage himself this is a "be careful what you wish for" moment. Another question is where does this leave Daniel Hannan, who co-authored the Plan. Hannan seems reluctant to make the same jump.

Perhaps rather cynically we might consider if this is attempt of a coup d'etat of UKIP by the Tory party just before an election. Its consequences mean there will be splits in the eurosceptic camp - to the convenience of the establishment. A Labour government in 2015 will result in 5 more years of EU membership.

There is no ulterior motive on this blog, apart for campaigning for EU exit. We make no suggestions apart from the fact that as it currently stands Carswell's defection actually makes EU exit less likely not more, and he is not a man to be entirely trusted. Split parties do not win elections.

The ultimate question is what do Eurosceptics want? Destruction of the Tory party or EU exit?

Acting The (Judas) Goat

On Monday in the EU-supporting Telegraph, we have Douglas Carswell in his regular blog arguing that Britain should leave the Ukraine alone. He states:

What should we do? Take great care, for a start.
At the time of the Schleswig-Holstein question, when Britain was the world’s hyperpower, we avoided wading in. We would be wise to be cautious now.

Maybe, just maybe, this desire to be in the thick of things comes less from a sense of our strength, and more from a fear of our weakness.  Perhaps after Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, a certain kind of British official feels that this is what one does.

British diplomats might want to be doing the deals and laying down the terms of the UN resolutions. But since when was the amour-propre of British diplomats the yardstick by which we measure the national interest?

In his anticipation of the motives of British diplomats, what seems to have escaped Carswell's notice is that the UK does not have a choice in the matter. We are members of the EU and as a consequence we cannot have a separate national foreign policy on nations who have Association Agreements with the EU and are undergoing a European Neighbourhood Policy which applies to Ukraine.

Such matters are now a European External Action Service (EEAS) competence so our foreign policy is whatever President Barosso and Baroness Ashton decides it is. It doesn't matter what the UK wants - we are up to our necks in the Ukrainian mess because of our EU membership.

The increasing importance, or 'encroachment' of the EEAS regarding the UK is demonstrated by its continuing expansion at same time the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is declining. For example since 2006-7, staffing has been cut from 7,005 to 4,450 and it is planned to fall further to 4,285 by 2014-15 (page 31).

Yet strangely not once is the EU or the EEAS mentioned in Carswell's blog. And it's not as if Carswell is unaware of the EEAS given that he voted against its establishment in July 2010 while most of his colleagues voted for it, and in October of the same year he said this to the House:

I remind Members that the European External Action Service is the EU's diplomatic corps. It already has about 20 times the budget of our Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

So one wonders why the silence now, Carswell?

Update: I've just spotted that Autonomous Mind has just written a piece on a similar theme regarding the silence on the EEAS from Con Coughlin in the Telegraph.

Carswell Goes Native

On 17th April 2012 Douglas Carswell was interviewed by the BBC regarding his criticism of the government's decision to tax charitable donations. At around 01:19mins in Mr Carswell was asked the following question by a BBC presenter:

"But this is your Government, would you vote against it, if you had a chance?"

Carswell in reply says:

I point out that I'm not a member of this Government...I sit on the backbenches, I'm a member of the Legislature, my job is to hold this Government to account.

We are tempted to be stirred by such sentiments especially as Mr Carswell's commitment to reform and holding the government to account is so 'genuine' he co-wrote with Dan Hannan The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain which proposed electoral reforms arguing:

I want the voters to have the ability to sack lazy, self-serving MPs by triggering by-elections. I want the people to help set the Commons agenda, and veto politicians and their endless folly. But I still think you need a legislature.

Once you’ve made the Commons properly accountable to the voter - and government properly answerable to the Commons – good luck to any MP who ignored what their local voters thought.

So an impression is made of a man committed not only to EU exit but also significant political reform. Yet fast forward on nearly 2 years (as we get ever nearer to an election) and what a difference. In an interview with the Spectator he has this to say in contrast:

“What is it we now want, guys? We’re going to face a reckoning with the electorate in just over a year’s time. We’re two points behind the Labour Party. We can do this – we really can do this. If we lack discipline, we’re going to have five or six appalling years in opposition to dwell on it”

The Spectator concludes as a result of the interview:

Here’s a sneak preview of what was supposed to be a debate about the wisdom of rebelling – but ended up being Carswell explaining why he believes his colleagues should now stop defying the government, and support the PM.

Thus it becomes clear that when faced with the prospect of the Conservative party losing the next election, Mr Carswell reverts back to type and becomes a loyal party member worried about losing his seat, losing power and the Tories not being in government. "Holding this Government to account" on behalf of his constituents - which he admits is his job - now becomes a 'luxury' he cannot afford. He complains of our "rotten political system" but then as his interview illustrates neatly he has become part of it.

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised, after all this was the same man who stated in 2012 (my emphasis):

One of the reasons I backed David Cameron to be party leader early on in his leadership campaign was because I wanted to see a different kind of Conservatism. I still do – and I’d vote for him to deliver it if there was a leadership contest tomorrow.

The same man who signed a letter proposing for a national veto on EU laws despite that such an idea is a complete non-starter, the same man Witterings from Witney identified as a hypocrite in 2011 and the same man in the Spectator's podcast (6 mins in) who argues that Cameron will give us a referendum in 2017, despite that the timetable is completely impossible to meet.

So rather than being "a member of the Legislature, [whose] job is to hold this Government to account", Carswell merely demonstrates clearly the lack of separation of powers within Parliament, whereby loyalty to a party overrides proper scrutiny of a government.

We need the Six Demands:

3. Separation of powers: the executive shall be separated from the legislature. To that effect, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they shall appoint their own ministers, with the approval of parliament, to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly.

Euro Nutters

The Mail on Sunday has a piece outlining the "political guerrilla warfare tactics" used over Cameron's defeat on the EU budget last week:

A rebel Tory MP had secret talks with Ed Balls as part of the plot to defeat David Cameron in Wednesday's shock Commons vote on the EU budget crisis.

Harwich MP Douglas Carswell discussed the rebellion with a member of Shadow Chancellor Mr Balls's entourage to make sure the rebel Tory-Labour ambush was carried out with deadly effect.

Not much there comes as a massive surprise, but at the end of the article is this quote from a Labour MP:

'The warm glow of defeating Cameron won't last long.

'To see us trashing everything we have ever said and done on Europe for a few good headlines was not edifying.

'Walking through the voting lobbies with a bunch of wild-eyed Tory Euro nutters was a repulsive experience.

'It would never have happened in Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson's day – and I won't be doing it again.'

This on a vote by Parliament of how much more (or less) of our money should go to the EU. When reading the above quote note the words missing; "taxpayer", "constituents"...

How Appropriate...

Today is the Queen's speech, on the same day as Europe Day - a coincidence I'm sure. Anyway to celebrate Europe Day, EU Council President Van Rompuy will take your questions.

Update: Just seen, Richard North compares the different issues being proposed between the UK Parliament and the EU one.

Picture nicked from Douglas Carswell 

Douglas "Judas Goat" Carswell

Carswell writes on his blog

One of the reasons I backed David Cameron to be party leader early on in his leadership campaign was because I wanted to see a different kind of Conservatism. I still do – and I’d vote for him to deliver it if there was a leadership contest tomorrow.

Even though Cameron is not:

...a secret patriot waiting for the chance to rip off his expensive tailoring and reveal his inner Thatcher. He is exactly what he looks like, an unprincipled chancer with limited skills in public relations".

Her Majesty's Government

Criticising usually is the easy part, and working out how to resolve a problem the hard part. But when it comes to our constitution the former seems to take on a difficultly as well when trying to get it right.

It's understandable that Americans may not fully understand our subtleties and nuances of centuries of changes but less excusable when it's our own Prime Minister and those who are charged with holding our system of government to account. The BBC interviewed with Douglas Carswell last Thursday. At around 01:19mins in Mr Carswell was asked the following question by a BBC presenter:

"But this is your Government, would you vote against it, if you had a chance?"

Carswell rightly corrects him:

I point out that I'm not a member of this Government...I sit on the backbenches, I'm a member of the Legislature, my job is to hold this Government to account.

Is it any wonder the media fail so miserably in their supposed role as the fourth estate when they can't even get the basics right?

Douglas Carswell U-Turns On EU Exit?

Witterings from Witney alerts me to this latest post from Douglas Carswell:

It's encouraging to see so many of the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs recognising the hopelessness of "throwing good money after bad" in the Eurozone bailouts with a letter to the Financial Times today. Many of them also voted to stop the bailouts in the division lobby.

They are surely right. Bravo.

Not only is Carswell agreeing with proposals that are anything but a radical reform of the EU despite his previous well known assertions, astonishingly Carswell then links to a ConHome page that contradicts his claim that 'many of them voted to stop the bailouts' - as I blogged here, only one of the fourteen signatories did. (or am I missing something?) *

Carswell then finishes his blog with this :

That makes it all the better to see Members of Parliament demanding a radical overhaul of our approach to Europe – and, let it be whispered softly, perhaps even some kind of meaningful democratic oversight over Britain’s EU deal making.

Ahh, the classic - democratic oversight rather than out. In other words 'in Europe not ruled by it'. A Judas goat indeed.

*Exactly 50% of those Tories who voted against the bailout were new intakes - 15 Tory MPs out of 30. Plus the number of new intake Tory MPs in 2010 was 148. So where has Mr Carswell got his 'many' from?

The Withdrawal Method

The Daily Express continues today in fine form with its crusade to leave the EU, however there's one article I would query:

BRITAIN could quit the European Union virtually overnight to herald a new era of independence and freedom, campaigners declared yesterday.

Quoting Douglas Carswell:

They poured scorn on Britain is now so tied in, departure is impossible. Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: “It would be relatively straightforward. The idea it would be a hugely complex process is just not true.”

New rules attempting to stop nations quitting the EU were introduced three years ago under the controversial Lisbon Treaty. A new two-year departure process was introduced in a bid to discourage any bolt for the exit door as support for the union sank across Europe.

...once the parliamentary procedure was complete, EU bosses could do little to stand in Britain’s way.

The Express article makes it seem as if it's a simple case of repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Before Lisbon that was true, however the ratification of Lisbon changes that position significantly. It's no longer that easy and here's why.

Countries exiting international organizations are covered by the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties. Article 56(1) states (my emphasis):

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
a) it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

So if there's no specific provision for exit then members states can be free to leave by terminating the treaty, and as no EU treaties have had any such provision before Lisbon, then previously we could have simply repealed the ECA and it's bye bye EU.

However, Lisbon is different because it does have a provision for exit via Article 50:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Therefore it's covered by Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties (my emphasis):

The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place:
(a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or
(b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States.

We are bound therefore by international law to follow the method laid out in Lisbon. Either by negotiating our exit with the agreement of the other 26 member states (unlikely) or failing that enduring a 2 year 'cooling-off' period during which, as Lisbon Treaty Article 50(4) above makes clear, we would have no participation in EU affairs at all although still technically a member state. The EU, could then during that period (out of spite) pass all sorts of financial, and other, penalties on us.

Our exit is likely to be costly and painful. We were stitched up by the French, twice over, on the way in and undoubtedly we will be stitched up on the way out.

Quote Of The Day

Douglas Carswell MP, agrees with Dr Richard North:

"Sooner or later we'll reach the tipping point."

UK Budget Now Under EU Scrunity

Douglas Carswell et al lost their vote tonight (surprise surprise) to reject EU scrutiny of the UK budget via point 34:

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 40.

Mr Hoban, who put forward the original motion in support of a Treaty change, argues:

I have listened carefully to hon. Members’ concerns tonight, and I want to state yet again that the proposals from the Van Rompuy taskforce strengthen an existing framework, crucially without encroaching on fiscal and economic sovereignty. There is much more work to be done on this, but let me assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government are committed to securing the best outcome from the proposals, to defending Britain’s interests and to protecting this Parliament’s right to set and scrutinise our fiscal policy. Anything less would not be acceptable.

I shall deal with some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. Does the fact that the EU, along with other organisations, undertakes surveillance mean that we will be subject to sanctions? No, it does not. Does the measure mean that we will need to follow any of the recommendations made? No. Will we have to present our Budget to Europe before we present it to this House? No. Will we have to give the EU information that has not been presented to this House first? No. Will the provision of information erode our sovereignty? No. Perhaps more importantly, will any powers over our Budget be transferred from Westminster to Brussels? Again, no. I hope that I have been clear and explicit on those points, and it is for those reasons that I ask Members to support the motion tonight.

Point 34 says this:

"a new legal framework .... applying to all EU Member States".

What Mr Hoban says is not technically inaccurate...at the moment, but it will be. Point 34 lays the foundation for further encroachment in the future. That's how the EU works. I'm not called the Boiling Frog for nothing.

Round-Up

Blimey, we're being inundated by EU news today. The budget in particular is dominating the newspapers and even BBC Breakfast led with Cameron and the budget this morning (though in part that was an opportunity to rehearse the old Tories are split agenda).

Summary of the budget row so far is; the EU parliament thought of a figure they wanted as an increase, then doubled it. Tories condemn it as unacceptable, at a time of domestic cuts. Cameron plays the tough 'best deal for Britain' card, will probably negotiate the budget down to circa 2.9% by agreeing to treaty changes without a promised referendum. Then Chamberlain Cameron will claim a victory. In reality far more will be given away than was won, as Witterings From Witney spots here. It's all well worn Tory rhetoric, though the tone of the coverage suggests the 'victory for Britain' bit might not being going as well as hoped.

The Telegraph editorial has this corker:

At this week's EU summit, our most instinctively Eurosceptic Prime Minister for 20 years faces a tricky set of challenges.

Hilarious. Cameron is euroscpetic in the same way that I'm a professional footballer (and no that's not me). The comments underneath don't seem convinced either.

Then aside from the budget, the Telegraph has this:

MEPs last week voted for rules that would extend maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay and introduce a compulsory, fully-paid fortnight off for new fathers. Conservative MEPS voted against the plan, which the Government has promised to oppose.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph today, business groups representing thousands of British firms urge the Prime Minister to fight the introduction of the rules, which they say would cost Britain £2.5 billion and stop them hiring new staff.

And then this (hattip England Expects)*

The EU has been accused of trying to "hijack" Remembrance Sunday with a £4.7 million plan to put euro-branded commemorative plaques marking "European integration" on war cemeteries and memorials.

MEPs approved plans for "European Heritage Label" to mark sites with "a symbolic European value" that "have played a key role in the history and/or the building of EU".

Given the EU flag already defaces our castles, so it's no surprise they want to move onto war memorials. Apparently you'll be able to send in designs:

The plaques, to be designed by an open competition next year, aim "to strengthen European citizens' sense of belonging to the EU".

Somehow I don't think my entries will win. Then there's two stories which don't mention the EU but are affected by our membership:

Maternity leave, paternity leave, health and safety, PAYE, sex discrimination, ageism, flexible working, parental leave, tougher employment tribunals, a new Equalities Act.

It’s amazing that Britain has any entrepreneurs left at all, given the mountain of red tape that businessmen must cope with — and that’s before they can get on with creating jobs.

And:

Highly skilled migrants have been told to expect much tougher restrictions on coming to the UK without a job offer after Home Office research showed many recent arrivals have ended up in unskilled jobs in Britain.

The report showed that as many as three out of 10 people who were given so-called “Tier 1” visas, which are awarded to high flyers from outside the European Union, ended up doing menial jobs such as shop assistants, security guards and supermarket cashiers.

I'm sure there's more I've missed. Meanwhile here's Douglas Carswell on last night's BBC Newsnight (23 mins in):

*Update: The Telegraph story has drawn an angry response by the EU:

You claim that the EU wants to ‘hijack’ Remembrance Sunday with a plan to put euro-branded commemorative plaques marking “European integration” on war cemeteries and memorials in the UK (27 October). This is nonsense and a serious distortion of the facts, which were explained in some detail to your correspondent.

Under our proposal, which was backed by the European Parliament this week, it will be up to national governments to nominate sites for the award, if they want to. The sites might include places of remembrance. An independent expert panel will assess the nominations it receives from national governments and decide which of them merits the heritage label.

If the panel receives no nominations from the UK, no sites in the UK would display the European Heritage Label.

The EU cannot unilaterally impose the heritage label on anyone.

Though the Telegraph didn't actually say the EU has hijacked Remembrance Sunday, it said; 'The EU has been accused' which might be true if a reporter popped into the nearest pub and ask someone at random what they thought of the proposals.

Push Me Pull You

You know Cameron's 'don't-mention-Europe' stance is in trouble when even the BBC political editor gets it.

Desperate not to mention the EU issue, and hope it goes away, Cameron is finding out that it doesn't - it comes back for more and more. As I blogged back in June:

Much as the Tories want the EU to go away it won't. We cannot continue much longer with a 'half in and half out' policy. It's either one or the other; a decision made by a referendum. There are so many more issues about to erupt during this parliament that the 'ostrich-non-bust-up-with-Europe' strategy simply won't work. Either they grasp the nettle or it will be done for them.

Desperate to wriggle out of his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, Cameron gave all sorts of assurances on a 'referendum lock' to appease certain aspects of his party and a large proportion of his grassroots support. But as is becoming clear the coalition, particularly the Tories, are showing a pattern where attention to detail is not a strong point. Thus this 'lock' promise (yet to see the light of day as a bill) is coming back to bite. As Nick Robinson writes:

The problem is that when the prime minister calls Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy and President Van Rompuy today he'll be reminded that France and Germany don't want to stand still - they never do. They believe that Europe's institutions need strengthening...

Like a shark that has to keep on swimming to stay alive so the EU has to keep on integrating for the same reason. It is its raison d'etre. However, as is becoming clear, questions regarding the EU in the UK are becoming more frequent, causing awkwardness for our europhile PM:

...when the PM answers questions today or in the tearooms afterwards, he'll be told by his backbenchers that they too don't want the EU to stand still. They want its budget cut and its powers reduced.

So what will Cast-Iron do:

He'll advise his fellow leaders to find ways to strengthen the eurozone without a treaty change which will lead to demands for a referendum here and an unpredictable parliamentary vote. Or, if they insist on a new treaty, he'll insist that it doesn't give Brussels fresh powers over British policy...Thus he will seek to convince all parts of his coalition - within Parliament and beyond it - that Britain is not moving closer to, or further from, the heart of Europe.

In other words, as per Carswell's 5 rules, Cameron will attempt to 'fudge it'. But the more the EU asks - and gets - the less wriggle room there is and the less successful the' staying still and pretending' strategy becomes. Of that Robinson is no doubt:

The moral of the story is, however, that it is only in fairy stories that nothing changes year in,year out. One day the push-me-pull-you will have to go one way or the other and, when he does, there'll be trouble.

We need to grasp the EU membership nettle now, we need a referendum.

Carswell Rules

Yesterday I linked to Douglas Carswell's 5 rules on how a referendum on a new EU treaty for economic governance will be broken.

Well lo and behold up pops Mr Redwood who does the decent thing today by fulfilling at least 3 of the rules in this relatively short post, finishing with:

It will be a good test of the UK government’s negotiating skills, and a chance for them to show how determined they are in wishing to cut back on central controls and high spending budgets in Brussels.

And rule number 5 was:

5. Anyhow, look how tough we've been, getting Europe to mug us for a little less with a slightly reduced budget increase!

It's beyond parody.

More Cast Iron Promises Go AWOL

Exhibit A:

As I blogged here, the Tory 'promise' of a cap on non-EU immigration is under threat. Eurogoblin rightly points out that the Free Trade Agreement with India requires unanimity in the Council - in effect we have a veto*. But it's clear that the Tories, not wanting to be isolated in Europe, are looking to drop their election promise, not exercise our veto and we are being softened up for the eventual announcement:

David Cameron has hinted that the coalition's controversial proposals for capping non-EU immigration may be watered down.

Perpetually unable to keep his word, should Cameron's wife be getting worried?

Personally I don't agree with an arbitrary cap, but it has come about, ironically because we don't fully control our own borders. The key to a successful immigration policy is enough flexibility to respond to economic circumstances and also to voter concerns. Immigration was the number one issue at the last election.

So faced with relentless complaints by the electorate yet impotent to control immigration from the EU , successive governments have responded in the only way possible - ever more draconian measures on the only area we have control over - non-EU citizens in order to look like they were doing something. But not only is the cap hugely damaging to British business it creates the wholly unfair situation where Commonwealth countries who have regularly provided soldiers to protect our nation have far fewer rights to enter our country, than, say, those from Estonia.

However what Cameron may found out soon enough, while he's showing contempt for voters, is that a weak economy combined with job losses, public sector cuts and uncontrolled immigration makes for a very toxic mix.

Exhibit B:

A post by Douglas Carswell on how another referendum promise will broken:

Now there could well be a new EU treaty, without any referendum - despite what we were promised.

Prepare for the government spin, which will likely say:

1. This new agreement involving France and Germany etc is not really a new treaty.

2. It doesn't involve giving the EU new powers in new areas. Just transfers in existing areas. And when we promised a referendum on any further transfer of new powers, we meant in new transfers of power within new areas. Obviously.

3. Besides, this is not a significant transfer of power. We were careful to say there'd be a referendum only when there were significant transfers. And we don't think this is significant. So there.

4. This new thingy, which isn't really a treaty, doesn't involve us, as we're not in the Euro. Despite what the small print might say.

5. Anyhow, look how tough we've been, getting Europe to mug us for a little less with a slightly reduced budget increase!

By Friday, there's a fair chance you'll have been fed variants of all five of the above....

Indeed Cameron will follow in Labour's footsteps in wriggling out of a commitment on a technicality (i.e. the rejected Constitution abolished previous EU treaties, but Lisbon reformed them; same outcome but different treaty etc).

It's like an election has never happened.

*Update: EuroGoblin is partly right. FTAs can be 'mixed' agreements (include political stuff) and therefore it would require unanimity by member states - in effect creating a veto. This is what happened with South Korea and Columbia. However the EU in general has exclusive competence on FTAs under Lisbon article 188c (formally 133) so any agreement would be subjected to QMV which means no veto for the UK, therefore Cameron could do little about it.

I'm not sure whether 'India' is a mixed agreement. Will update if I find out.

Eurogoblin in the comments confirms that India is a mixed agreement, therefore Cameron has a veto.

A Team Of Carswells

Douglas Carswell demonstrates again why he's a man of principle who has a desire to try to (as best he can*) take his role of backbencher seriously:

“How dare you keep us late this evening, Carswell!” demanded an old-school front-bench colleague.

My crime?

Together with thirty four other Conservative MPs – including many from the 2010 intake - I’ve tabled a motion suggesting that the government might not like to increase our EU budget contribution by almost £2 Billion. Under government proposals, the UK’s net transfer to EU institutions is set to rise from £6.4 Billion to £8.3 Billion, or almost 30 percent.

With the government poised to cut spending on public services, how can that be right? It means we’d be cutting UK public services, and then spending a large chunk of the “savings” on Eurocrats.

If selected, my motion could mean MPs having to debate the EU budget contribution until 10pm. By staying on a couple of hours extra, MPs could save £2 billion – or £15,833,000 per minute. Or enough to fund half a dozen nurses or police officers each second. Worth hanging around in the tea rooms for a little longer, surely?

We often hear people talk about the “new politics”. Well here it is. MPs doing their job holding government to account for how it spends our money.

Again and again Carswell appreciates why he is elected, he openly admits that he would rather sacrifice a ministerial career in order to hold the executive to account.

To paraphrase a famous Liverpool song; "We all dream of a team of Carswells", Politics would be much better for it.

*Note: It's worth pointing out that through no fault of his own Carswell's hands are tied, the UK has no veto over EU budget increases, the MEPs are likely to vote for it. But they may back down if there is a direct EU tax, though it won't be called that:

One thing is clear however, says Mr Lamassoure. "It must not be called a 'European tax'. Once you mix the words 'Europe' and 'tax' in the same sentence it becomes explosive."

EU Referendum Lock Worthless...

...so says Douglas Carswell, here's his post in full:

The government is offering us a referendum "lock", which will guarantee any new EU treaty will require a plebiscite.

Do ministers take us for fools?

This “lock” is worthless – and ministers must know it. Under the Lisbon Treaty (no referendum), the EU doesn't need any more treaties to give itself more powers. That, Mr Hague and Mr Liddington, was kind of the point of offering a referendum in the first place ....

Incidentally, since we promised this “lock”, the EU has 1) established a diplomatic corps, which we voted through the Commons, 2) given Eurocrats control over the City, 3) extended the EU arrest warrant, and 4) agreed to an inflation-busting EU budget increase. We've hardly stopped give the EU more powers since May, have we?

The idea this referendum "lock" stops Brussels from continuing to assume more powers, usually with ministerial acquiesce, is balls. We might have had a changed ministers at the Foreign Office this year, but I can see no evidence of any change in EU integrationist policy.

Absolutely right, but one has to wonder why he remains in the Tory party.