Two Years To An EU Referendum

It's been quite a while since I've enjoyed an election like I did last night. There were many highlights; the complete collapse of the unprincipled Lib Dems, Ed Davey losing his seat, Ed Balls losing his, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, that we will lose three party leaders in just one day, and that the pollsters got it completely wrong. For them it's a rerun of 1992. Against all predictions, bar the exception of a couple of bloggers, the Tories have won an outright majority.

The real significance is with a Tory majority Cameron will have to come good on his promise of an EU referendum in 2017. With a tiny majority which give his backbenchers a lot of power there can be no question of him reneging on this promise.

When I began this blog I never dreamed that the opportunity of actually leaving the EU would happen so soon. Thus among all the recriminations from various parties, including from UKIP who managed to lose a seat despite increasing its share of the vote, this for genuine eurosceptics is the real winner from the election results.

We have two years to prepare, the real hard work starts now.

Polling Day: Spoiling The Ballot Paper

We arrive at polling day after what has to be one of the most lacklustre and uneventful election campaigns in recent memory despite that the result is too close to call. Here we agree with Scribblings From Seaham that it has "felt to be an interminable farce of a general election".

With a deep reluctance to deal with issues which matter to voters, a lack of policies of any substance and a largely staged television campaign with a reliance on pointless stupid gimmicks is it any wonder that 1 in 4 voters have yet to make up their minds by polling day.

I'm one of those 1 in 4 and when I began to write this blog piece on why, I realised I was repeating many of the points I had made 5 months ago. Here I wrote:

Voting for the Tories - a party that has consistently betrayed its country, its members and its voters - is somewhat nauseating and is something I've never done before. This blog has never really forgiven the Tories for Maastricht and particularly the membership of the ERM. To vote for them would take a Herculean effort and the intake of industrial quantities of intoxicating substances.

And

Then there's UKIP. Yet it has been increasingly this blog's view that under its current leadership UKIP is detrimental to Eurosceptic cause - a party which has also performed copious u-turns within a very short space of time on the whim of its leader.

More damaging is UKIP remains largely a single issue party but instead of being anti-EU it is now anti-immigrant and is being described as such. By reducing EU membership solely down to an aggressive stance on immigration, toxifies the debate, limits itself to dismissing an exit strategy which could actually win us a referendum and leaves itself very exposed to being outflanked by Cameron on Article 48.  

Perhaps if I lived in a marginal Tory seat then I would have to grit my teeth and vote Tory for the first time to ensure a referendum. But I don't. I live in a seat where Tory PPC/MP "Lazy Vaizey" has his votes weighed not counted. How I vote won't make any difference to the outcome, a situation common among many voters.

With UKIP, despite that my local candidate is very good, I cannot endorse a party which is helping us to lose the eurosceptic argument with YouGov now reporting a 12-point lead for the "inners", up two points since April.

So unable to vote for any of the options available it's for the first time in a General Election that I have spoiled my ballot paper (see above) and I'm not the only one.

I simply can't wait for the whole charade to be out of the way to see if the Tories will win an overall majority. If so we get an EU referendum and then the real work starts.

An Ending

The Lib Dems used, rather ironically, Brian Eno's 'An Ending' music in a party political broadcast five years ago.

I guess given the state of the party going into the 2015 election and the sacking of Jeremy Clarkson, now is as good as time as any to revisit a classic and now relevant Top Gear segment.

EU Referendum: How We Can Win

My previous piece reflected on the free bet that is the offer of a referendum in 2017. It maybe that Cameron doesn’t deliver, and that is of course a risk, but it’s the only offer currently on the table. We should remember that extracting this promise from Cameron has long been UKIP policy. For example in 2011 (2 years after “cast iron”) Farage had this to say:

…Ukip could form an electoral pact with the Conservatives at the next election if David Cameron were to promise a referendum on membership of the European Union. There was "every chance of forcing David Cameron into giving us a referendum", he said. Whether or not to propose an electoral pact with the Conservatives in 2015 would be a "huge decision" for the party, he said. But he had offered the Tories a pact before the 2010 election, he said.

Given Cameron’s track record it’s reasonable not to trust him, though that would imply that other politicians can be trusted. However in my view the question of trust doesn’t come into it. If Cameron wins in 2015, albeit with a small majority, he won’t have any choice but to deliver lest the party give him an offer he can’t refuse. Less a case of trust, more a case of pure political calculation.

If there is to be a referendum in 2017 then another obvious concern is that it will be loaded in favour of staying in. It’s worth noting at this point that exit is very unlikely to ever occur without a referendum being offered and won. The precedent for constitutional change has now been set with the referendum in 1975, Scottish & Welsh devolution, the AV vote and the Scottish independence vote. Nor indeed can we expect ‘perfect conditions’ for one being held.

It’s certainly going to be a challenge to overturn the message of the establishment, media and FUD all of which will be heavily funded. An example of this was during our entry into the then EEC where pro market lobby groups were co-ordinated under the umbrella of the European Movement part funded by the EU Commission to act as an integral part of the government campaign. Efforts were made to bring the media on board particularly the BBC where eurosceptic presenters were dismissed in favour of more sympathetic ones.

However this is not 1975, the world has moved on in 40 years and as a consequence we do have a number of potential advantages over that campaign which can help nullify if not overcome the challenges.

The EU: 
The first advantage is that the EU is no longer just the EEC or a ‘Common Market’. In some 40 years since UK membership the EU has taken ever larger strides towards political union such that its ultimate goal has become much more obvious.

Now it is a ‘European Union’ rather than a ‘Market’. By calling it a “Common Market” meant the 1975 referendum was defined by the terms pro-marketeers and anti-marketeers – membership argued in simple economic terms. Thus in this context Wilson was able to get away with his sham negotiations by reducing it down to the level of import quotas on New Zealand butter and cheese.

40 years on, Cameron could not get away with anything so lightweight. It’s no longer a Market but a Union. Thus there would be demands for a far more substantial return of powers - none of which can be achieved without Treaty change. And that leads us neatly onto the next advantage...

David Cameron:
As has been well documented Cameron did not want a referendum nor does he want to leave the EU. That he has offered a referendum against his wishes is a reflection of his political weakness not his view that he thinks he can win it. We know this because he has made a political mistake. His offer was due to being under pressure from backbenchers who in turn are under pressure from UKIP in the belief that such a promise would win him the next election, and it is an offer made regardless of what concessions Cameron thinks he can spin from Brussels. It is very likely he chose the date as the UK takes over the Presidency of the Council of the EU rather than any other consideration.

The reform option has always been dangerous as it splits the “out” vote to the benefit of those who wish to remain EU members. However Cameron’s promise largely negates the reform option as he can’t possibly hope to have any substantial concessions which he can put to the electorate by 2017. The changes needed to the founding Treaties simply cannot be achieved in time. Thus all he can rely on is what will be unconvincing spin without substance.

And this is where his track record of ‘PR man’, ‘cast iron’ and ‘lack of trust’ becomes an asset to the out campaign. Without Treaty change it will be spin few will believe and it is a mistake we can capitalise on. A mistake that Clegg appears to appreciate very acutely during the Lib Dem conference:

The Lib Dem leader said he was committed to a vote when there was EU treaty reform, but criticised the "arbitrary date" of 2017 set by the Conservatives.

It’s worth noting that the Scottish referendum also had superficial promises of the reform option announced by, among others, Gordon Brown who tried to rewrite the UK constitution on the back of a fag packet in an impassioned speech by offering essentially devo-max to the Scots. Yet the pledge of reform made little difference to the final results which were in line with months of predictions by the polls. Other core substantive issues instead decided the referendum which we will explore later in this piece.

Experience: 
The 1975 referendum was the first ever in the UK, thus there was no real direct experience to draw upon. As a result many mistakes by both sides were made, not least in the failure of establishing a coherent message particularly from the anti-marketeers - with the word 'anti' portraying negative connotations, In contrast we have the opportunity to learn not only from the referendum of 1975 but subsequent ones over AV and Scottish independence, and we can endeavour to try not to repeat mistakes made there.

The Internet:
In 1975 the media and all the newspapers bar one – the communist Morning Star – supported EEC membership. Such support would be similar today, including from the likes of the Daily Mail which in editorials has made it clear it supports EU membership.

However unlike 1975 we now have the internet and everything that comes with it; smartphones, Twitter, Facebook and forums. The establishment no longer has a monopoly on information. Scotland revealed the significance of this development. The independence campaign was a dry run of how an EU referendum would be conducted and it showed comprehensively that unofficial campaigns centered on social media was very powerful.

Indeed the Scottish referendum has revealed that social networking via Twitter and Facebook played a very significant part in the vigorous and intellectual debate to the extent that the “yes” vote remained strong in the final outcome:

The 2008 US election showed how politicians could use it as a campaigning tool, but it wasn't until the Scottish referendum that Britain really caught up.

According to Facebook, more than 10 million interactions were made about the fight in a month. So who won the social media wars - and what can we learn from it? The simple answer is: the Yes campaign was victorious.

The official Twitter account of the Yes campaign has an impressive 103,000 followers compared to 42,000 for Better Together. Alex Salmond boasts 95,000 Twitter followers and Nicola Sturgeon has 66,000 - while Alistair Darling has just 21,000. On Facebook, the Yes campaign page attracted more than 320,000 likes compared to 218,000 for the No.

But debate was not only held on the most well known outlets, there was much passionate debate on forums such as Celtic Football Club’s which ran to an impressive 1674 pages.

It’s also worth noting that during any campaign the URL address http://www.eureferendum.com/ would be much sought after – and this is already registered by Richard North. Typing the words “EU Referendum” into a search engine and links to the country’s premier eurosceptic blog comes top of the search results.

Thus with the internet we can bypass the mainstream media. This is a tactic that was used by Farage in UKIP’s early days. Comprehensively ignored at the time by the media, Farage went under the radar by taking the message direct to people by travelling the country and addressing local meetings. He was to replicate this method in 2013 with the Common Sense tour.

As UKIP proved, such methods can be very effective in getting the message across despite the bias of the legacy media and so it can prove with a referendum in 2017.

There's a strong anti-establishment vote: 
Unlike 1975 where there was more deference to the political system, we now have the obvious decadence of Westminster politics. A decadence which reveals itself by the increasingly lack of quality in MPs, hopeless leadership, the lack of relevance of political parties with membership plummeting, and the electorate itself being treated with contempt and their anger in return.

Revulsion at this decadence and alienation from Westminster is common to both England and Scotland. In England it expresses itself partly in UKIP; in Scotland it helps power the SNP.

Thus unlike 1975, the parties of Westminster campaigning as one in 2017 to stay in the EU could actually prove to be useful as part of an effective anti-establishment campaign which when based around sound exit answers can win over a lot of people, as was shown in Scotland.

The establishment is not always united:
The Scottish referendum illustrated that the establishment campaign epitomised by Better Together was not always united. Although they shared the same aims of keeping the union together the fundamental differences between parties and between themselves could not help coming to the fore. Gordon Brown was sidelined until the last minute, Darling was consistently criticised for running a poor campaign, for example in May 2014:

Alistair Darling has effectively been dumped as head of the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK following crisis cross-party talks.

And naturally there were tensions between the Tories and Labour:

A Labour MSP has criticised his party’s decision to “hold hands” with the Tories in the ‘Better Together’ alliance against Scottish independence and has claimed that the No campaign is now unable to “outline a coherent vision”.

Then arguments over "reform"

The Better Together campaign has been accused of “spiralling into self-destruction” after UK cabinet ministers appeared at odds over enhanced devolution proposals.

And after the vote:

Ed Miliband today publicly snubbed Gordon Brown after thanking every Labour MP who campaigned against Scottish independence – apart from the former Labour leader.

The 'in' campaign is likely to be as split as the 'out' one.

Having a major party on board is not always necessary:
As the SNP found out to its cost, a major party with an official position does not always mean party supporters and members follow suit  - voters in Salmond's own 'backyard' of Aberdeenshire gave independence the thumbs down. Official positions of Labour and the Tories in an EU referendum are likely to be very different to its members when deciding on an EU referendum and there are likely to be splits within.

The question has already been decided:
Should Cameron endeavour to progress with a referendum then it's out of the question that he can manipulate the question. The Electoral Commission has already given its advice to Parliament - the full details of its advice can be found here. In summary it advises:

If Parliament wants to retain the use of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ as response options to the referendum question, then the Commission has recommended that that the question should be amended to:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?'

If Parliament decides not to retain a ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ question, the Commission has recommended the following referendum question:

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

The European Economic Area (EEA):
Unlike in 1975 we have an off-shelf economic model in form of the EEA which can successfully nullify the FUD which will undoubtedly be deployed to portray by fear that leaving would be economically disastrous. The EEA was designed as a ‘stepping stone in’ for reluctant countries such as Norway and this can very easily be used as a ‘stepping stone out’. The economic arguments of 1975 would be made redundant:

Let us be clear about one thing: In or out of the Common Market, it will be tough going for Britain over the next few years.

In or out, we would still have been hit by the oil crisis, by rocketing world prices for food and raw materials.

But we will be in a much stronger position to face the future if we stay inside the Market than if we try to go it alone.

Inside, we can count on more secure supplies of food if world harvests turn out to be bad. And we can help to hold down Market food prices - as we have done since we joined in 1973.

The EEA therefore allows us to sideline the economic arguments effectively and so use the referendum to concentrate on the political aspects of the EU which prove to be so unpalatable for the British people (my emphasis):

Public opinion is divided on the detail of Britain’s role in Europe, however. Around three in ten each would prefer to see ‘Britain’s relationship with Europe remaining broadly the same as at present’ (32%) and ‘Britain returning to being part of an economic community, without political links’ (30%). One in five would like to see ‘Britain leaving the European Union altogether’ (20%), with ‘closer political and economic integration’ with other EU member states the least favoured option (13%).”

The 1970's pessimism has gone:
It's not unreasonable to suggest that the early 1970s provided probably the only window of opportunity to have joined the EEC. The UK was beset by a national lack of self confidence not long after "Great Britain had lost an Empire and had not yet found a role", the Suez crisis, devaluation in the 1960's, a global recession, spiralling inflation, collapse of Britain's traditional manufacturing industries and rising unemployment and industrial unrest.

With this in mind it's easy to understand why the UK sought refuge in the EEC. Yet largely as the result of the Thatcher reforms of the 1980s, the UK escaped from the inward straightjacket of its past. Rather than pessimism overshadowing the next referendum a confident UK will now be able to take advantage, outside the EU, of the dominating factor of trade...

Globalisation:
Nothing illustrates the ever decreasing need for single market access for the UK than the rise of globalisation. This is the EU's redundancy notice, its P45. The EU is a relic of the 20th century, a time when the cold war dominated, when memories of war on the continent were still painfully fresh. Yet during the late 1970s and 1980s we had the emergence of other markets such as Japan.

Fueled by the evolution of technology, improved transport (Containerisation) and the growth of multinational companies and trading blocks globalisation is now the dominating factor. With the growth of China and India, the United States for example is increasingly looking east rather than to the EU in terms of importance of trade.

With globalisation has come the increasing importance of global bodies setting international standards. The Single Market, is a collection of regulation which drives the harmonisation of standards, with a view to not only facilitate trade throughout the Communities but to lead to increasing "political union" in the EU. It has primarily a political objective not an economic one.

However the EU acquis of harmonisation is gradually being replaced by international regulation which does not have the same political overtones. As such the EU loses its European distinctiveness and simply becomes a property shared by all members of the WTO, which they will all use as the basis for international trade. The EU's Single Market thus will become redundant. Gradually it is being replaced by the globalised market.

As it stands, as long as we are in the EU, we have a subordinate position, (only 8% of the vote within the EU) on international bodies and the agreements on international standards are negotiated and approved by the EU on our behalf. 

However EFTA/EEA countries such as Norway are able to negotiate for themselves at the top international table and only after they have agreed them are they then processed into actionable law and passed down to regional trading areas such as the EU. The following graph illustrates how this works:

The early '70's demonstrated the UK's lack of ambition and self-confidence by tying itself to an inward-looking customs union based on the European continent.  A 2017 referendum will give the opportunity to argue instead for a vision which was not available in 1975 - a vision that embraces the globalisation one which the UK can fully participate in.

An Exit Plan:
With the above in mind it is essential then that there is a detailed, workable and credible exit plan. Nothing illustrates this better than what has been very apparent from the Scottish independence referendum. The 'yes' campaign was not undermined by FUD, nor by the closing of ranks by the establishment, nor by a loaded referendum question nor by the lack of funds. Instead what the polls clearly showed is Salmond lost primarily due to not answering the currency question:

Meanwhile so far as the issues are concerned, if the Yes side does lose it will probably have done so not least because it never managed to persuade a majority of Scots that the country would be more prosperous under independence. YouGov find in their latest poll that only 35% think Scotland will be economically better off under independence while as any as 47% reckon it would be worse off.

 And:

Of course, describing the patterns of the kinds of people who were more or less likely to vote Yes or No does no more than give us clues as to why people voted they way they did. What we can note at this stage is that women, older people, those in ABC1 occupations and those born elsewhere in the UK were all, according to YouGov’s final poll for The Times and The Sun, relatively pessimistic about the economic consequences of independence. And as we have repeatedly noted on this site, nothing seemed to matter more to voters in deciding whether to vote Yes or No than their perceptions of the economic consequences of leaving the UK.

In other words Salmond did not have a well thought out exit plan to deal with the basics. And failure to address the core problem of currency if Scotland left the Union then plants further doubts in voters' mind about other issues such as; defence, NHS,oil, immigration, EU membership, the Monarchy, pensions and so on. If Salmond had provided answers to these then it is very likely we would be looking at an independent Scotland.

One of the fatal flaws of the 1975 campaign was its inability to come up with a credible alternative to then EEC membership, a situation replicated by Salmond. With a fully workable exit plan we can avoid that flaw and crucially win...

Eurozone:
This is the joker in the pack. Without yet a resolution to the inherent problems of the Eurozone namely it's still only an economic union without the political union necessary its problems are far from resolved. Given that a referendum is likely to take place in September of 2017 (during the UK Presidency of the Council of the EU) it will be at a time that is traditionally one of market turbulence. We could see a Eurozone crisis right in the middle of a referendum campaign.

In many ways therefore we can see that winning a referendum in 2017 is perfectly possible. Reluctance to take a calculated risk until conditions are just 'perfect' obviously begs the question if not in 2017, then when?

Nick Clegg In Oxford Review

Witterings from Witney and I attended Nick Clegg's debate today in Oxford having unexpectedly been allocated tickets in a ballot. We did wonder whether our allocation had occurred due to a lack of popularity for the event. Having attended this lunchtime our suspicions were confirmed, though there was a reasonable attendance, the hall clearly wasn't full or packed.

Indeed as we entered we were asked to fill in empty seats near the front - no doubt to make it look good for Clegg on television. Needless to say WfW and I ignored such requests and sat where we liked.

The 'comforting' title of "Meet Nick in Oxford" Lib Dem website had noted before the event:

If you are successful [in the ballot for tickets] you will need to arrive at 12.30pm as seats will be limited. The hour-long event is free and you will have to bring photo ID to gain access to the event.

What it didn't state was what time it would start, and nor could anyone at the event give any confirmation. But as it turned out it was 13:00 and even then Clegg was late (an old trick). Then the "hour-long event" suddenly was announced as a 45 minute one. In addition the requested photo ID wasn't asked for on entry (though we suspect that was requested in anticipation of disruption, which indeed happened at the end which we will return to later in the post).

So all in all not a good start. But then we were under no illusions that this would be a proper "robust Q&A" session. We also expected Clegg to insult those who wish to leave the failed anti-democractic project that is the EU, which he duly did on many occasions. However we anticipated that at least there would an opportunity to take Clegg to task during the Q&A session if selected, via a show of hands, to ask a question.

What became quickly apparent was that this was most certainly not going to be a "Meet Nick in Oxford". Despite the Oxford Mail hosting the event and introducing Clegg, the decision to select which members of the audience would ask questions was left to Clegg himself. A situation very different to hustings meeting attended where a Chairman adopts that role to ensure fairness in question selection. Why did the Oxford Mail not adopt this role as it was the host?

It subsequently became rather revealing who was being selected. Despite WfW putting his hand up every time - and myself on a couple of occasions - neither of us were nominated. WfW in particular was quite obviously being ignored. Clegg noticeably avoiding eye contact at every opportunity perhaps sensing that WfW by clearly being a gentleman of much more experience might give Clegg a somewhat difficult time (and he was right).

Instead virtually every audience member chosen to ask was under 30 and mainly they were in their early 20s. They are likely to ask the easiest questions - as an example one question was whether an England World Cup win was more likely than a Liberal Democrat electoral success. This from a hall that had a fair number of Oxford University students in the audience. Is this really the level of our political debate?

Only three men in total were selected, the rest were women. And only one person was selected who was over the age of 30; a lady who turned out to be a local Lib Dem Councillor - to feigned surprise by Clegg. What a coincidence!

After every question Clegg then proceed to waffle on extensively, adopting the technique of filibustering to drag out the 45 minutes - it was like a glorified extended version of "Just A Minute".

Despite the billing that this debate was about Clegg's views on UK in the EU and the opening remarks by himself concentrating on the EU and the forthcoming Euro elections there were no specific questions on the subject. The closest we had was the last question about gay rights which was linked rather tenuously with our membership of the EU.

Largely we felt the whole experience was a waste of time, but as a consolation it did give an acute lesson in the art of stage management and audience manipulation. We were reminded of stage artists such as Sally Morgan who claim they have psychic powers. They don't of course, instead it's a combination of cold reading, educated guesses based on statistics and the use of information provided before the show. With this in mind it's worth noting that the application form to enter the ballot was headed with:

Your question to Nick

Thus giving Clegg advanced warning of questions to come. Doris Stokes would be proud.

On a final point, Clegg made great play about the Liberals historically being a party of democracy, liberty and freedom, but after the session ended a gentleman was rather roughly and physically bundled out of the building after he attempted to present Clegg with what was clearly Lib Dem literature (we're guessing as a protest against broken Lib Dem promises). This we suspect is why the photo ID request was made. And there goes the party of liberty...

In conclusion it was a stark reminder of what we already knew - those in favour of EU membership simply cannot be honest about it and lack the backbone to justify their position.

This piece has been cross-posted with WfW.

Nick Clegg In Oxford

Tomorrow (Tuesday) Nick Clegg will be hosting a debate on ‘Britain’s Place in the EU' in Oxford, as Witterings from Witney noted on his blog on the 12th:

Digressing slightly, Clegg is to hold what is being termed a ‘no holds barred’ Q&A session about ‘matters EU’ in Oxford on Tuesday 20th May. I have applied for a ticket, only to find that being granted one will involve a ‘ballot’ – consequently I am not holding my breath).

To try to increase WfW's chances of winning in the ballot I also applied for tickets via three different names including my own. Well as it happens and rather unexpectedly we've been notified today via email that every application has been approved - so we wonder how popular it will be. Given I've been accepted as well I intend to join WfW tomorrow attending the Q&A with a view to taking Clegg to task over lies regarding the EU in a public meeting.

And we won't be the only ones seeking to hold Clegg to account, the Oxford Activist Network intend to hold a protest against Clegg's presence in Oxford.

Any suggestions from readers on questions to ask Mr Clegg will be very welcome in the comments...

Lib Dems: Liars And Cowards

I suspect to no-one's great surprise the Liberal Democrats reveal that they don't have a principled bone in their body.

As an example, above is a picture illustrated by Clegg of their pledge on students fees which they then heavily reneged on and then, despite a promise to have a referendum on UK membership of the EU, they reversed so quickly the tyre marks are still visible on the tarmac six years later.

Thus, as noted by EUReferendum and Autonomous Mind, in 2003 Clegg revealed that "Probably half of all new legislation now enacted in the UK begins in Brussels". This in complete contrast to his debate with Nigel Farage where he stated that (rounding up from 6.8%) that 7% of laws were made in Brussels.

A complete contradiction for sure on Clegg's behalf, which brings us neatly onto Dan Hodges who resides on the Telegraph. Let's remind ourselves of this article by Dan Hodges, who was hugely critical of Miliband's actions over Syria and as a consequence left the Labour party on 'principle':

I still have no idea whether he really supported or opposed military action against Syria, and now I never will. What I do know is that at every step of the way Ed Miliband’s actions were governed by what was in his own narrow political interests, rather than the national interest. As for the children of Syria, they didn’t even get a look in.

This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too.

Then we are also reminded of this article (as an example):

Lord Rennard sex scandal: Nick Clegg reminds us once again what an idiot he is 

So it is with some astonishment (or maybe not) that we see this today from Dan Hodges...

So that’s why I’ve decided to vote for Nick Clegg. The Lib Dem leader is the only one to have the courage to take a stand against Ukip from the beginning. Yes, there’s obviously an element of political calculation behind his decision.

He knows it’s good for the Lib Dem base – what’s left of it – to see him taking the fight to the anti-European Right. But moments when doing what’s right and what’s politically expedient at the same time don’t come along that often in politics. And when they do they do, those that engineered them deserve to be rewarded.

Which he confirms via his twitter account:

It's not unreasonable to conclude therefore that Dan Hodges has decided to go from one unprincipled leader to another. With this in mind I attempted to take Dan Hodges to task on Twitter over his conflicting views. I didn't expect to receive a response from the chap himself and nor have I as yet.

However my tweet of calling Clegg a liar to Hodges unexpectedly prompted a twitter debate with the Lib Dem MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale and President of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

Mr Farron I strongly suspect was clearly irritated by my accusation of calling his boss a liar (an accusation I fully stand by) but revealingly he sought not to engage with me on those terms, instead we had wonderful straw man tweets, the exchange can be found here.

However as an example when tweeting by myself that Norway has more say over EU law than the UK does, the response received was as follows:

I duly sent such links (via six tweets), many of the themes familiar with readers of this blog - and I was only just warming up as well - I had many more to go. Despite that the response in return was:

One notes during the exchange that I didn't mention "gold plating" once, then after asking for links which detailed my arguments, the Lib Dem President signs off with the following tweet:

Has to go to an event? Says the man who carries on tweeting not long after... Clearly when faced with the facts he can't defend his support for the "project". Which says it all...

All of this begs the question that if the EU project is so wonderful why do those in favour have to be so deceptive about it?

Poll Blow For EU Exit

Ahead of tonight's debate between Farage and Clegg on EU membership broadcast on LBC (7pm) and also shown on Sky News Political Betting has the latest poll from YouGov on EU exit.

We can see quite clearly that those who wish to remain in the EU is 6 points ahead. Factor in the "don't knows" with the status quo effect and the out campaign is in deep trouble. The problem is that those in favour of the EU membership do not have to win the argument, all they have to do is sow enough doubt to keep the status quo. We face an uphill battle.

That's why Richard North's submission was so essential - to nullify that status quo threat. Failing to neutralise the economic argument will mean we lose. Thus tonight Farage has to show he appreciates this massive threat to exit and step up to the plate big time.

Failure to do so and we've all lost...

It's A Trap!

As noted before in the draft the Spinelli Group entitled “A Fundamental Law of the European Union” there is a form of a new construct 'Associate Membership' (page 284 - Protocol No 9 Associate Membership of the Union).

This is proposed as a solution for countries, such as the UK, which cannot go along with the further drive for political integration, but which still wants to remain members of the EU. It is also suggested that it could be suitable for non-members such as Norway and Switzerland. This though would be unlikely as the main sticking point for Norway and Switzerland to join the EU was they did not want to be ruled by a foreign court i.e. the ECJ. The 'Associate' option would require adherence to the ECJ.

The trade-off with the 'Associate’ option means limited participation with EU institutions and the deal itself can also be limited in duration. Therefore what it would clearly mean is the UK would be down-graded to that of a second-class member. Some are calling this option a trap:

I continue to be puzzled why you (and Richard) dismiss the Spinelli Associate Membership proposition as not to be taken seriously. On the contrary it is a huge trap...If you look at the proposed draft treaty, AM can be negotiated behind closed doors to be any type of relationship. This is the perfect way to stitch up a deal in which we basically still have a supranational government, but is then sold to the British public (like Wilson) as the beginnings of a wonderful new relationship – in the EU but not run by it.

A trap or not the first thing to note is the UK won’t have any choice; unless the UK joins the Euro (a very unlikely prospect), if it wants to remain EU members then the Associate Membership is the only option available unless we decide to leave.

But in many ways he’s right, the option is a trap…a trap for Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. All three, who are committed to remaining members, would be reduced to campaigning in a referendum on the new treaty arguing that Britain should become just a second-class member of the EU, excluded from its central counsels (And it's probably unlikely the treaty will even be ratified if it is subjected to a referendum, triggered by the 2011 European Union Act).

At a stroke it would shatter the illusion that we are fully paid up members, that we are at “the EU top table”, that "we’re in Europe, not ruled by it". 40 years of momentum of hanging onto the coat tails of EU integration, albeit reluctantly, will be brought to shuddering halt at ironically the EU's behest. We can imagine a scene of Cameron et al standing on quayside waving hopelessly as the EU integration ship sails off without us.

Concerns that such a membership will be a stitch-up are understandable, but regardless there can be no disguising the UK's downgrade - even the name gives it away; 'Associate'. Our country’s bluff will be called.

The EU is clearly comfortable with being open about the notion of a two-tier EU. This is a sign of confidence even arrogance in their own project. Such flexibility in the past has always been resisted on the basis that it creates a dangerous precedent where other member states start asking for a change in terms and conditions such that the entire project comes crashing down.

What gives the EU confidence is the belief that most members won’t adopt this option - thus leading to the unravelling of the single market - because it has devised the 'Associate' option as the worst of all worlds. As has been alluded to in the above comment, it is a terrible option; neither completely in nor completely out. And deliberately so as to make it a very unattractive option. One is reminded of the principles of the Workhouses in 19th Century:

Life in a workhouse was intended to be harsh, to deter the able-bodied poor and to ensure that only the truly destitute would apply.

However the unattractive nature of the Associate Membership option has the side effect of making leaving for the UK more attractive. Unable to join the Euro and so be an 'intimate' member of the club it reverses momentum away from the EU and instead towards exit, by virute of the option being an EU marker that says either you're with us or you might as well leave. Our country is about to come against, in a transparent way, the true nature of the EU project.

We are about to be dumped in the departure lounge and no amount of protestations and deception by our political class is going to be able to cover that up.

EU's New Treaty - A Great Leap Forward

Christopher Booker writes in his Sunday Telegraph column today:

As our “Little England” politicians continue to squabble over David Cameron’s pie-in-the-sky talk about holding a referendum in 2017 on a new treaty relationship with the EU, the real puzzle is why no one in Britain is talking about the rapidly advancing plans of the EU establishment for another much more important treaty of their own, designed to take the EU a huge step further forward to becoming a fully fledged “Government of Europe”.

And to make the point for him, today we have in the same paper, Chirs Grayling arguing that "Britain needs a completely new relationship with the EU", Tory MPs demanding a veto on EU laws, then Iain Duncan Smith in the Times saying "he wants to change EU law over benefits and migrants, and the Guardian reporting that "President of European parliament says UK has 'no chance of curbing basic principle of free movement'".

No doubt this kind of nonsense about "repatriating powers" will intensify until May in anticipation of UKIP's predicted success in the Euro-elections at the cost of Tory votes.

Yet the real story of the 2014 elections won't be UKIP but instead it will be used as justification for a major treaty which has designs for the next great leap forward in EU integration. EU Commission President Barrosso has called for an EU-wide debate on proposals to deepen Economic and Monetary Union, and to create a legitimate political union. Conveniently 2014 is also the 100 year anniversary of the First World War which the EU will undoubtedly use as justification:

Barroso says next year will be the 100-year anniversary of the First World War, which affected Belgium greatly. The war, however, began in the Balkans – and Barroso believes this underlines the fact you cannot turn inwards and ignore the world around you.

And as with all things EU its desire for further integration is no big secret. The 300 page draft of the new treaty can be found here. Angela Merkel's first speech to Germany’s parliament when she was re-elected made clear the need for a new Treaty:

In the first speech of her third term, German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged European partners to tackle flaws in their currency union by ceding control over economic policy and making politically sensitive changes to the bloc's treaty.

"I know that pushing through treaty changes in the member states can be difficult, but if you want more Europe, you have to be prepared to develop it further. In a world that is constantly changing, we can't stand there and say that at some point we agreed the Lisbon Treaty and there's no need to change it again. This won't work."

With the release in October of the draft we are given a very clear picture of what this treaty might look like. A 300-page draft of the treaty by the Spinelli Group entitled “A Fundamental Law of the European Union” sets out in detail just how the EU can take another huge step towards political integration.

Interestingly at its core it revives former EU Commission’s President Jacques Delors's vision in 1990, when he proposed that the Commission should become the “executive”, the Council of Ministers the “Senate” and the Parliament, given new powers, elected by the people. A plan that was dismissed by Margaret Thatcher's famous “no, no, no” speech which triggered her downfall:



Within the draft are also proposals for much closer integration of foreign, defence and energy policies, more control by Brussels over national finances and budgets, particularly in the eurozone, more power to impose measures “to combat climate change”.

In short, this new treaty –  backed behind the scenes by Delors himself - is designed to complete the task which so humiliatingly fell short when that earlier planned EU “Constitution” was rejected by the voters of France and Holland in 2005, only to be smuggled in again three years later as the Treaty of Lisbon.

The draft even wants to reinstate the European anthem and the EU flag (page 19):

The Fundamental Law brings back the symbols of the Union (the flag and the anthem) which were jettisoned from the Treaty of Lisbon

So while our "Little Englander" media and politicians squabble about reforming little bits of the EU, the EU itself is concerned with getting on with major reforms that have complete different objectives and outcomes. Mr Cameron’s bluff on negotiating a “new settlement” for Britain is about to be called out.

Aside from the fact that a fundamental principle of the EU is powers once given up are never returned, even if they could be, as Richard North consistently notes, Cameron hasn’t got the faintest chance of meeting his 2017 deadline for a referendum anyway:

...if there are changes to the treaty, we have to go through four stages.

First, we have to secure a simple majority. That means that we need to find 14 member state governments who agree with us. We have not started that task and it looks as though we are not going to start it until after the election. Secondly, we have to get a consensus in the necessary convention. The last convention took 18 months. The third stage is that we have to get unanimity in the intergovernmental conference - Maastricht took a year - and the final stage is ratification.

Actually, the last (and only) convention process started with the Laeken declaration in December 2001 and effectively ended the start of the IGC in October 2003 – just two months short of the two years. The IGC then finished in June 2004 – the door-to-door treaty process taking two-and a half years.

Transpose that onto the current situation and assume that David Cameron gets re-elected in May 2015, that brings us to November 2017 on the same timescale. But then there has to be a referendum campaign, bringing us well into 2018.

The EU instead will be entirely focussed on their own, more important treaty, while Cameron dances about on the touchline waving his arms frantically trying to gain attention. Ignoring him the EU will get on playing their much more important game. The UK will be sidelined whether we like it or not.

And this process of sidelining the UK will be given official status under the new Treaty in the form of a new construct “Associate Membership” (page 284 - Protocol No 9 Associate Membership of the Union). Clearly this is offered as a solution for countries which cannot go along with the further drive to create “a country called Europe”, but which still want full trading access to their Single Market; countries like (obviously) the UK but also Ireland and Denmark and also for non-members Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and possibly even Turkey.

What is interesting is such flexibility in the past has always been resisted on the basis that it creates a dangerous precedent where other member states start asking for a change in terms and conditions such that the entire project comes crashing down. Thus the EU must now be very confident that it is now not possible for most member states to take the 'Associate’ option.

However the trade-off with the 'Associate’ option means limited participation with EU institutions and the deal itself can also be limited in duration, for example under Protocol No 9:

Article 1

The agreement will set out the terms, conditions, scope and limits of associate membership and the adjustments to the law of the Union which such association entails. The agreement may be of limited duration.

Article 3.1

The agreement shall specify in which of the Union’s policies and functions the Associate State is to participate, and the terms and conditions, financial and institutional, which shall apply to that participation.

Article 6

An associate membership agreement may be suspended, in whole or in part, in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 133. 

EU membership with limited participation - a new twist on their favourite phrase "government by fax". Thus what it offers Cameron, and indeed Clegg and Miliband is poisonous; a chance to remain part of the EU – which they say they never wish to leave – but only on its outer ring. We would in effect just be a second-class member.

Cameron, and the rest of our political class who are equally adamant that they could not allow Britain to leave the EU, would be reduced to campaigning in a referendum arguing that Britain should become just a second-class member of the EU, excluded from its central counsels. They will be horribly caught out.

Such a confrontation was always inevitable, the UK's 'sort of in, sort of out' position - topped off with lies and deception - was always incompatible with EU membership when it continued to do what it does best - politically integrate. For many decades the UK establishment has embraced the idea of European economic and political co-operation, but has never been able to persuade the UK people about the idea of political integration.

Instead of indulging in empty political gestures and wishful thinking, we are going to be brought sharply down to earth - to decide whether we really wish to become second-class citizens of the EU, or to find a wholly different way forward.

Whether Cameron likes it or not the EU is going to take the next big leap foward in integration with a new Treaty and leave us behind, effectively placing us firmly in the lounge marked "departure." Perhaps we might then have a proper grown-up discussion over the best way forward.

An Internal Dilemma?

For research purposes I'm currently having a read through Hansard regarding the passing of the Lisbon Treaty. As a result I came across this question by Labour MP Gisela Stuart during the debate:

The right hon. Gentleman is a genuinely committed European, and I believe that he would like to take the people with him in his vision of Europe. Does he not think that a referendum would provide a much better opportunity to extol the benefits of, and to make the case for, the European Union, rather than blackmailing people by simply asking, "In or out?"?

Malcolm Bruce Lib Dem MP responded: 

No. Perhaps I should not be surprised by the way in which the hon. Lady’s relationship with, and attitude to, Europe has changed because of her experience of the negotiating process. 

This refers to a pamphlet by Gisela Stuart titled; The Making Of Europe’s Constitution which was heavily critical of the process involved drafting the original EU Constitution - which then became the Lisbon Treaty.

It’s worth reading if only for the chapter on page 23 called, Consensus? What Consensus? The architect of the original draft Valéry Giscard d'Estaing told Alojs Peterle, ’the invitee’ from Slovenia, that “his vote did not count” when he had a casting vote that would affect the consensus.

Malcolm Bruce continues (my emphasis):

I would have thought, however, that she would understand that if the United Kingdom decided now, in the present circumstances, to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and if we failed to ratify the treaty as a result, we would be faced with an internal dilemma, in that two thirds of Parliament would have voted one way, while the people would have voted the other way. That would be a domestic problem, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has articulated.

In a properly functioning democracy of course it would not be 'an internal dilemma'; the people have voted no and that is it. Not to Mr Bruce though, the people voting differently to MPs in Parliament - who are supposed to represent those very people - presents a problem. Not only that he continues:

Also, we would certainly have created a degree of resentment among our European colleagues for having held up a difficult process at a crucial moment. I think that the hon. Lady knows perfectly well that those would be the consequences of such a decision.

Oh dear what a shame we upset our European colleagues. We can't have democracy getting in the way of that. In light of this 'dilemma' he of course knows best:

I am articulating my party’s view, which is that after 35 years, it is appropriate to say to people, “The European Union has been modified by treaties. This is actually a good reforming treaty, which will leave it in better shape than most of the previous ones—certainly Nice and Amsterdam—did,” and to ask them, “Will you vote for Britain to be in Europe, but as a package, on the understanding that that is with the Lisbon treaty?” The Lisbon treaty is not optional. We cannot be in Europe and not ratify the Lisbon treaty.

Not much illustrates our broken democracy more than this arrogant shower.

ID Parade

The picture speaks for itself

Whose Betrayal?

Criticising Nick Clegg is rather like choosing the (very easy) 'village cricket option' mode instead of ‘Test’ in the computer game Brian Lara Cricket when playing with England against the Netherlands – you’re guaranteed to win but it's so easy what's the point.

Yet the utterly completely shameless lying statements from Nick Clegg reported by the Telegraph so defies belief it still, unfortunately, prompts a response. The same man who wriggled so much on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and backtracked on student fees where he lost all respect among a significant sector of his party's support.

Now the former MEP, Nick Clegg accuses UKIP of "unpatriotic" behaviour for wanting to "drive Britain out of Europe":

“I’m relishing the opportunity to make that patriotic case because I think the view represented by Ukip and large parts of the Conservative Party and Paul Sykes is a betrayal of the national interest and an unpatriotic approach,” Mr Clegg told a press conference in London. 

It's odd that Clegg decides to adopt nationalistic language in order to criticise a party which wishes to maintain the nation state. It becomes even more odd when Clegg thinks not being part of the EU is “unpatriotic”. As he is well aware the EU was born out of desire to abolish the nation state and that apparent populist mechanism commonly known as democracy.

The founding father of the EU Jean Monnet disliked intensely the messy business of the nation state and more crucially democracy. He wanted a more “organised world of tomorrow”. This desire to abolish counties is reflected in the EU “colleagues” language of never referring to their country by name but instead “the country I know best”, as Mary Ellon Synon described at a recent Bruges group conference:

You see, the word "country" is almost never used at the commission. About the only time you will come across the word "country" in Brussels is when you are standing by the baggage carousel at arrivals at the airport. There is always at least one suitcase with a sticker that says: "Europe is my country". Exclamation mark.

No, in Brussels one says "member state". You may imagine it means the same thing as country or state, but "member state" does not. Note that adjective. Member modifies state. Like "wooden" modifies "leg". The noun stays the same, but the essence of the thing is gone.

In particular, no one at the podium, from commission president Barroso down, will ever speak of his own country. At the commission, any one in what used to be 28 sovereign states is only ever "a citizen of Europe". Should any eurocrat somehow find he is cornered into referring to his own country, he is trained to refer to it only as "the country I know best".

As a former MEP, Clegg is well aware of this, not least because his own party's MEP's adopt the same langauge, for example Lib Dem MEP Graham Watson (my emphasis):

I salute the efforts of Commissioner Frattini and of the Finnish Presidency in trying to coax and cajole the Member States forward. Mr Rajamäki spoke of breathing new life into the spirit of Tampere. It is desperately needed.

But the fact is that the country I know best threw a spanner into the works when it insisted on having three pillars. Other countries are now blocking the process of repair. Unless we are able to bring in the footbridge - the 'passerelle clause' - we will never have a credible policy in justice and home affairs. We will continue with a policy like a push-bike when what we need is a Ducati.

Member States sit in their medieval fastnesses with the drawbridges firmly up. In the name of national sovereignty they are enhancing global anarchy. Our citizens demand better.

Clegg claims that he "relishes the opportunity" to debate the UK's position within the EU but he obviously means nothing of the sort and it's another example of the unaccountable arrogance. It leaves one pondering that if Clegg et al think the EU project is so wonderful then why do they have to continually lie about it? A project based on a lie by definition is fundamentally flawed.

And it's most revealing that they effectively reveal their desperation to remain members so much that it means they are not arguing with UKIP or Eurosceptics, but end up essentially arguing with the founding father of the EU himself.

Oh the irony!

Quote Of The Day

In an article in the Spectator regarding the Eastleigh by-election I was drawn towards this point...

On a big post-it note in Lib Dem HQ, volunteers write why they have come down to help out. One message stands out, ‘Because Eastleigh is ours’.

Not the voter's constituency, not the people's constituency but apparently it belongs to the Lib Dems. One is reminded of Republican Scott Brown's retort that "it's not Ted Kennedy's seat".

A Stain On Society

Perhaps Cameron thinks this kind of language is clever or helps him connect with us ordinary people - in that patronising tone he likes so much, but in truth it's pathetic, unstatesman-like and fake (my emphasis):

"To me the [coalition] is not a marriage," Cameron said at the launch of their midterm review, which is designed to rejuvenate the government after battles over House of Lords reform and climate change. "It is a Ronseal deal. It does what it says on the tin. We said we would come together, we said we would form a government, we said we would tackle these big problems. That is exactly what we have done."

Doing what it says on the tin is the last attribute that can be applied to this coalition, given cast iron promises, student tuition fees and just bog standard plain lies. Perhaps they think we're all so stupid to notice?

But at least Clegg is not debasing politics further by hosting a radio show in an attempt to "learn what the people really think". You would assume that as a member of the government, and as an MP he should already be aware of that - but apparently not. If not he could at least use the tried and tested "Google is your friend" technique, and take comfort in the fact that it's the only friend he's got.

Meanwhile the rest of us are actually trying to take politics seriously and make this country better.

The Closing Of Ranks Continues

With the real possibility of a referendum on our membership of the EU on the horizon what we're now seeing is the blatant about turn of the likes of allegedly eurosceptic Tories such as most recently; Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson. Pretence of eurosceptisim has been replaced by a self-serving need to protect oneself in the possible event that our exit might actually happen (been caught looking at your payslip Dan?).

This was also demonstrated today by Tory MP Michael Fabricant who in a very ill-disguised way accuses Ukip of racism:

Mr Fabricant, a former Government whip, said there are likely to be closet racists in every party, including the Conservatives. He urged the Prime Minister to think about teaming up with Ukip to gain the Tories more than 20 extra seats.

Ironically, the so-called eurosceptics' real colours are being exposed. Anything...anything to protect our membership of the EU. And so it is also with the supposedly neutral Political Betting website run by Lib Dem Mike Smithson. Despite the self-proclaimed sub-title:

Britain's most-read political blog - and the best resource for betting on politics.

....it's anything but neutral, particularly when it comes to all matters EU. Pro-EU tendencies often infect his posts - dismissing anything EU as not much to worry about. Here's an example:

Has Britain’s membership ceased to be an issue?

Last week my post on the public not really “caring a monkey’s” about the EU caused a little bit of a stir in some places. My argument was simple - we’ve been in the EU for 37 years and Britain’s membership has ceased to be an issue for all but a very small minority on voters.

I quoted the latest MORI issues index where those naming the Europe/EU as the “most important issue facing Britain” simply did not register and did not even rate a one percent figure by the pollster.

There have been times in the past when the response on EU-related matters has been very high but the long-term trend is one of decline to almost zero.
I stick with the point I made. Hardly anybody gives a monkey’s.

Strangely it didn't stop him from temporarily changing his tune when the EU directly affected him and going on a rant:

Why’s the ECJ being so breathtakingly stupid?

Should Britain say it will defy the court?

The story that’s made me most angry today has been the extraordinary decision by the European Court of Justice to stop insurance companies from allowing women to pay smaller car insurance premiums even though they are less likely to have accidents.

This is being stopped on ground of “gender equality”. Andy Cooke on the previous thread had this right:-

What a stupid ruling by the ECJ!

The different premiums aren’t based on sexism, but on demographic differences in propensities to have an accident! Will it be illegal to charge different premiums based on age? Illegal to charge different premiums based on where you live? On how experienced you are? Whether you’ve had accidents or traffic violations in the past?

So millions of teenaged girls will have to pay extra to subsidise teenaged boys. Women will have to subsidise men.

Soon, those of us in their thirties, forties and fifties will have to pay a bit more for the teenaged drivers (otherwise there will be significant age discrimination, surely?)

The ECJ are hardly improving their image - more like reinforcing the stereotype of stupid, out-of-touch politically correct idiots.

Could this be an opportunity for the coalition to have a battle with Europe?

But the march of staying in the EU ideology continues unabated, and Political Betting indulges this by means of its latest post to write an obvious smear of UKIP, despite that political neutrality is surely essential to its advice as a betting site.

This indicates that not only is a referendum coming but that TPTB have sensed it and are closing ranks. They will do anything to rig the result and protect their own. In terms of a referendum on our membership of the EU for eurosceptics the warning has always been there - in essence 'be careful what you wish for'.

Contradictions

The Guardian has a poll showing that the Lib Dems are now the fourth party behind UKIP (my emphasis):

Nick Clegg faced a double blow on Saturday night as one of his closest advisers admitted that the coalition's spending cuts had been too deep and a new poll showed the Liberal Democrats were now the fourth party in British politics behind Ukip.

Odd then that the excuse on this occasion for the Lib Dems is that spending cuts are too deep, when UKIP have a policy of far more robust cuts:

Recognise the dangerous levels of national debt and accept there is no alternative to major cuts in government spending. We do not accept that service improvements require ever-increasing government expenditure, and believe there is substantial waste and inefficiency that can be eliminated while vital front line services remain fully protected. UKIP also believes profligate government spending is killing off the productive activity that provides tax funds, and that easing the burden will be the route to revitalising the economy

Obviously it's now conference season so much manoeuvrings and nonsense on stilts appealing to the party faithful takes place, but it does take a strange distorted twist of logic to argue that the reason the Lib Dems are behind in the polls is because they're cutting too much when the party they are comparing against has policy of doing far more.

That Cameron Project

Above is a clip from the BBC Programme; This Week, which was broadcast last week. The discussion relates to the disgusting grooming case regarding vulnerable young girls in Rochdale which has been widely acknowledged as having a racist motive:

Tory MP Louise Mensch, who takes part in the discussion is a fully paid-up member of the Cameron project, so it is with some amusement to see her discomfort in the clip above (watch her stroppy crossed-arms stance half way through - or even Alan Johnson's discomfort as Louise speaks) as she tries to hold the 'Tory political correct' argument line in the face of the onslaught by Will Self, Alan Johnson and Charles Kennedy.

Clearly Cameron and "Louise (I'm looking forward to climbing the greasy pole) Mensch" have got themselves on the wrong side of public opinion regarding crime and immigration as I noted here. But not that stops Cameron et al....they're far more worried about what the Guardian says than anyone else.

Still, the sight of a Tory being attacked from the right by essentially Labour figures is rather surreal, to say the least.

Weak, Weak, Weak

The Mail has an exclusive interview today with Cameron where he wails that the Lib Dems are holding him back from things he would like to do:

Mr Cameron singled out human rights law, reform of workplace rights and support for marriage as areas where Tory principles are being held in check but urged senior MPs growing tired of coalition not to ‘waste’ the next three years.

And so continues the running theme that beneath that Cameron veneer is a real Tory waiting to emerge if only events didn't conspire against him. If only the Lisbon Treaty wasn't passed before the election he wouldn't have had 'to let matters lie there', if only he had won the election, he could have thrown off the 'cuddly Tory' coat and reveal his inner Thatcher, if only he wasn't 'forced' into a coalition with the Lib Dems, he could have done all those things he wants to do but can't. If only... The joke's wearing a little thin.

However it wasn't the Lib Dems that forced Cameron to detoxify the Tory brand which included aspirations of being the greenest government ever and to stop banging on about Europe. Nor was it them that meant Cameron reneged on a cast iron referendum promise, nor putting a 3-line whip on a petition for an in/out referendum, nor for Cameron to break his party's long-standing commitment to pull Britain out of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy in 2006, nor trying to 'bury the Right' by ditching Tory policies faster than the Lib Dems could list them in 2010.

But apparently he wants us to believe that it's now those pesky Lib Dems - who lost 5 seats in 2010, who only make up 16% of the coalition and who are rather reluctant for an immediate General Election - that are tying poor old Dave's hands. Perhaps Dave thinks 'tail wagging the dog' headlines will make him look Prime Ministerial and statesman-like. It doesn't, it just makes him look weak, shallow and unprincipled - a fitting and accurate epitaph to his Premiership.

UKIP In 3rd Place

The Sun reports:

UKIP has ousted the Lib Dems as the third most popular political party, a Sun poll reveals today.

The anti-EU party led by Nigel Farage has nine per cent support — with Deputy PM Nick Clegg’s lot on just eight.

This anti UKIP 'swivel eyed' rhetoric in the Telegraph recently seems to be going well then, almost as well as Cast-Iron's reforms of the European Court of Human Rights.