EU Referendum

Showing posts with label eurosceptics. Show all posts

In the life of any political party, a change of leader is always a milestone – even if some are bigger than others. And we have just seen "one of they", with the resignation of The Lord Pearson as leader of UKIP because, in his own words, he is "not much good at party politics".

At least one must applaud Pearson as a man of honesty and good sense – in this department at least. It is also a wise man who knows his limitations and acts accordingly.

Pearson will be best remembered (by some) as a leader who, during the general election, went out to bat for the other side – much to the dismay and distress of the UKIP candidates who had invested huge amounts of their own money in their campaigns.

Where this now leaves UKIP is anyone's guess. Farage has not ruled out returning as leader and, given the dross left in the higher reaches of the party, he is still able to stand head and shoulder above his own internal opposition and look the best bet.

That, in fact is a measure of both Farage's success and his failure. His success is evident, in turning UKIP into a one-man party and his own personal cash cow. That he has driven out so many people and is left as the only person with any credibility as leader is the other side of the same coin.

But there is something more profound going on here. Farage may have wrecked the only credible anti-EU party, but he has not done it on his own. Euroscepticism is going through its own crisis. It has never developed beyond its anti-Maastricht days, it has never developed into a "movement" and it has never matured.

That Pearson should now depart, therefore, is undoubtedly a milestone, but the fear is that it is also the tombstone – for Euroscepticism. There should be no rejoicing in the establishment though – the replacement will be something they like even less.

COMMENT THREAD

Having written at length about many things stirring in the European debate (and no thanks to the main parties or their outriders) over on Your Freedom and Ours, I felt duty-bound to listne to the BBC programme. As it was Analysis, the only things that is even remotely rational and balanced on the Beeb, it was not bad at all.

Of course, it was still unbalanced, with four europhiliacs a.k.a. people who supported the idea of Britain staying in the EU against two eurosceptics, who wanted to come out. These were Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Daniel Hannan MEP. In all fairness, both put up a credible performance with Lord Pearson specifically demolishing the Common Fisheries Policy as a method of conservation.

It was all very civilized, which is a good thing, as we want to make it clear that this debate needs to be conducted. The two outlined several scenarios that involved gradual withdrawal and subsequent agreements and friendly relations. The other four, specifically Sir Stephen Wall, an arch-europhiliac admitted that nothing disastrous will happen if Britain withdraws though they all worried that people might not realize that somewhere down the line there might be bad consequences, such as loss of influence in the world. How anyone can still say that with a straight face, I do not know. As Daniel Hannan pointed out, tiny Norway has more influence in the world than good-sized, rich and militarily quite strong Britain does as long as the latter remains in the EU.

The stupidest comments came from Professor Simon Hix of the London School of Economics, who appeared to think that once Britain was outside the EU all goodies will disappear from supermarkets and we shall be back to boiled mutton and cabbage with no cheap flights anywhere. Just to state that, as Daniel Hannan said, shows how risible that argument is.

As it was not a debate in the real sense of that word, nobody pulled up Gisela Stuart MP as she produced the usual canard about Norway having to obey those "faxed" directives. The amount of EU legislation that Norway has had to accept is minute compared to the amount Britain has had to accept and much of that is because Norway's trade with the other European countries is proportionately far greater than Britain's.

The Norwegians do not have to accept EU legislation about fish, agriculture or oil; they pass their own legislation on most issues and are in control of their foreign and defence policy though they have always been stalwart members of NATO.

There will be two points that, I suspect, many listeners will remember.

The first is that the arguments against withdrawal have now turned almost entirely into threats. Will the other EU member states punish Britain? Sir Stephen Wall and Gisela Stuart thought probably not, Simon Dix thought probably yes and the Lib-Dim MEP could not make up her mind and just droned on about the beauties of having MEPs, Commissioners and other suchlike personages. In principle, she was in favour of people making decisions about the exact nature of the relationship as it happens in Switzerland but in practice, she did not think it was applicable to Britain. Of course not. Democracy is always for other people.

The second is the particularly important one. The BBC, in the shape of the interviewer, has now formally acknowledged that the debate is not going to go away; that despite no main party and no main publication supporting it 55 per cent of the population is in favour of withdrawal; and that the concept is no longer unthinkable. Though they still prefer to think that the people will come to their senses.

COMMENT THREAD

slave[i-slave]The little Beeboids must be getting a little worried about their favourite construct, enough at least to broadcast a programme called "Divorcing Europe" this evening on BBC Radio 4.

To judge from the publicity blurb, it will be the usual amalgam of "one the one hand, this – on the other, that", without coming to any overt conclusion, although you can bet that the subliminal message will be that it is all too difficult, so we'd better make the most of it.

As always with the Beeb, they go for the usual "talking heads", so – at least from what is on offer in the blurb – there is very little new, or illuminating. We see the same old sound-bites and the same over-rehearsed, tired arguments that we have always heard.

Perhaps, as it does with the EU, the BBC is aiming to bore us to death with the "eurosceptic" argument, making it so dull and deadly that Joe Average simply walks away.

There is nothing, for instance, at least in the blurb, about immigration from the EU, common asylum policies and other such sensitive issues, which would spark a real debate. Therefore, the essence of the Beeb grip – and the hidden bias – is what is not said, rather than what is.

As an example of just this, we have the notorious Europhile, Stephen Wall, who bemoans "a major loss of British influence" with the UK no longer being part of the EU. But he is talking about trade.

"There is no alternative way of advancing the British national interest," he says. In trade negotiations for example "the Americans play hard ball… you have to have the strength to hit them hard where it hurts in response. On our own, it's quite difficult for us to do that".

This is moonshine. As it stands, we have no voice in trade talks, other than through the Council, where we agree a "common position" with the other 26 members, and then are forced to leave the EU to do the negotiations, in which the French agenda invariably predominates.

On the other hand, as an independent nation – and one of the largest food importers in the world – we would have enormous clout, not least if we allied ourselves with the Cairns Group. Under our leadership, this could become a powerful third force in global trade politics, and help to balance out the monolithic blocs of the USA and the EU. In other words, we would have far more influence out than in.

That sort or argument, however, you will not hear from the Beeb, or indeed from the born again eurosceptics. Having discovered "Europe" rather late in the day, with the zeal of the convert, they are rehearsing issues which were being addressed well over ten years ago, with as little success then as they will have now.

We refer, of course, to the TPA (of which my co-editor has some views) – which is bidding for the position of High Priest of euroscepticism. Frankly, they are welcome. But, to focus on the money issue is rather old hat. More than two decades ago, when people were fully aware of the amount of money pouring into the coffers of Brussels (remember Maggie and the rebate argument?), it never gained much political traction.

If there is an issue which will get Joe Average worked up, it is immigration and open borders, but that is not on the TPA agenda. But, more to the point, eurosecpticism, under its new proprietors, seems to be locked into an 80s groove, with very little to offer, and nothing by way of a serious view of how we might look for a way out.

At the heart of the problem is the limited understanding of the way we are governed these days. We, for instance, have written of the role of international quasi-legislative organisations – such as UNECE. In this context, when it comes to the fabled "single market", many of the standards which are promulgated as EU law originate with these organisations.

This actually makes the EU merely the "middle man" translating the standards into law – and we could well do without Brussels, dealing direct and taking part in these international negotiations, as do so many other countries without need the EU to hold their hands.

All that, though, is detail. The real issue is independence – the right of a sovereign people to have their own government and their own legislature, which it can hold accountable for its actions. Without our own government, we have the status of slaves, and the universal cry of freedom has a resonance down the ages. That is, or should be, at the heart of the eurosceptic message.

That is a message you will not hear from the Beeb tonight, although you will hear about the risk of losing cheap flights – which are not so cheap any more, since the "colleagues" started loading taxes on them, with more to come. Should we keep our chains simply to enjoy the embrace of Ryanair – carbon allowances permitting? Tonight, we will not be asked.

COMMENT THREAD

After abandoning plans to hold a referendum on Europe, following last week’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, reports The Daily Telegraph, Mr Hague said the Tories accepted that constitutional reform would not be on the EU agenda for some years.

Until then, he agreed that it would effectively be "business as usual" for Britain within Europe under the Tories.

And there you have it, straight from the horse's xxxx mouth. This is the brave new world of Tory euroscepticism ... "business as usual". And why are we not in the least surprised?

LISBON TREATY THREAD

The Independent on Sunday records a senior Tory MP saying yesterday that Mr Cameron would have to move quickly in the first year and a half of his premiership and had to show "real progress" on his promises.

The MP said: "I don't think a promise of a referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU in more than five years will sit very well. He [Cameron] needs to make progress, within the first 18 months of his premiership. If he does, it will be his crowning glory, but if he doesn't, it will be a thorn in his side."

Another Eurosceptic backbencher said: "We have agreed to keep quiet on this before the election, but if things do not start happening in the first year or so, there will be all-out war for a referendum."

LISBON TREATY THREAD

"Amid all the detailed argument about the Lisbon Treaty and referendums, it is easy to ignore a basic truth about Cameron's EU strategy and the trajectory upon which he is now set. This will be the first unequivocally Eurosceptic government of modern times."

So says Matthew d'Ancona in The Sunday Telegraph. Thus, following in the footsteps of Daniel Finkelstein and Benedict Brogan, he is the third prominent political commentator (to our knowledge) to mark Cameron's "modern" Conservatives as "eurosceptic".

However, all this does is illustrate - as we remarked in our piece on Brogan - that the political claque, living in exactly the same bubble as the politicians, is equally out of touch.

The remarkable thing is that d'Ancona, like his fellow travellers, almost certainly believes that Cameron is a eurosceptic. But, if they cannot distinguish between a europhile and a eurosceptic, they are not equipped to offer sensible comment on one of the most important political issues of our time.

Such men, who so fundamentally lack judgement and understanding, are part of our problem.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

Wise2[i-Wise2]With Tom Wise awaiting sentencing for fraud, after changing his plea to guilty last week, Daniel Foggo in The Sunday Times gives the background to the case. Neither Wise nor UKIP come out well.

Not least, as Daniel is now able to record, UKIP – contrary to its claims – went to great lengths in an attempt to cover-up Wise's criminal activities. This segment from his article makes particularly interesting reading:

In court, the bearded and bespectacled Wise cut a pathetic figure for a man once elected in the name of a party committed to ending the EU "gravy train", though his arrogance remained intact.

It was a quality that had first struck me four years ago when he had attempted to bluster his way through my questions about his employment of Jenkins. Later, when he had been supposedly "exonerated" by the EU payments office, he had pompously said that my "attack on his character" had not deterred him from his important work. Wise even took legal advice on how to sue a political commentator who wrote blogs on the story, paying for it — although he did not proceed — with taxpayers' money from the same fund he was accused of abusing.

Arrogance is a quality that is not in short supply within UKIP; nor is an ability to dissemble and prevaricate. As Wise awaits a possible jail term at his sentencing this week, who knows which politician and which party will enter the dock next.

Those of us – including this blog – who have seen more of the evidence of misconduct within the Party than has so far been revealed are partially vindicated by Foggo's article. But we are aware that there are many other rotten apples still residing in the barrel.

And it is not enough to say that politicians in other parties are just as venal – if not more so. A central part of the UKIP message has always been that its people were not career politicians, and were above the corruption which disfigures politics and the EU. Such is their self-proclaimed image that they were the major beneficiaries of the MPs' expenses scandal, during the EU parliament elections.

We once had high expectations of UKIP. Wise has tarnished its reputation, and there is more to come. The self-serving behaviour of the "rotten apples", however, should not be allowed to detract from the greater cause.

Their actions do not reflect on the ordinary members, many of whom are hard-working, dedicated and sincere in their efforts to rid us of the occupying power that has become our government. Thieves like Wise do not represent eurosceptics. They are simply parasites who have lined their own pockets at our expense.

COMMENT THREAD

Booker+1[i-Booker+1]The EU has achieved the goal it has worked stealthily towards for so long - a supra-national government which is now beyond our recall, writes Booker in his column today.

He finds it appropriate that, as the trap has snapped shut, he politician who finally let the EU get its constitution should have been Klaus, the veteran anti-Communist. It was he that predicted, just before the Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004, that it would mean the end of his country as "an independent sovereign state".

And what a delightful irony, Booker adds, that Pravda, of all newspapers, greeted the news last week with the headline: "Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is now a reincarnation of the Soviet Union".

It will be tomorrow that the EU's leaders gather in Berlin to celebrate the end of that wall, but they will also celebrate the rise of a new one – a wall they have built around themselves, that separates Europe's politicians from all their subject peoples. Bring this forcibly home, Booker then writes:

From December 1, the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. (How long before they give it back its original name, "A Constitution for Europe"?) The EU will at last have the supreme government it has wanted so long – unelected, unaccountable and, as even its own polls show, less popular with those it rules over than ever before. But what do the politicians care? They have the power, and we now have a government we can never dismiss.

Despite Blair and then Brown having been responsible for the surrender, Booker – like this blog – focuses his ire on Cameron. He never wanted a referendum, which would have been a huge embarrassment to him, we are reminded.

His promise of one was a cynical gimmick to curry favour with Eurosceptic voters – a trick he is now repeating with a promise to work for the repatriation of powers which he must know he will never get. To do so would require a new treaty and the agreement of 27 governments to something which, as they are already making abundantly clear, is simply not on offer.

But there is another commonality with Labour and the Lib Dims. Cameron is entirely at one with his counterparts in that none of them must ever admit or explain just how much of Britain's governance has already been given away, leaving Westminster with little more power than a rather grand local council.

None of them will ever discuss this because they all belong to that new Europe-wide political class that governs us from behind its wall, without ever having to ask us for our consent. Booker continues:

In a wistful way it has been amusing to see that former Foreign Office mandarin Sir Christopher Meyer much in evidence of late, bemoaning the way Foreign Office morale has sunk so low because so much of its old power and influence has passed to "other departments in Whitehall". What he means, of course, is that its power has departed not elsewhere in Whitehall but to this amorphous new entity which is even now constructing its own foreign ministry and diplomatic service, with embassies around the world, to replace almost everything of significance our Foreign Office once stood for. This is why the child we now have as our Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, can't wait to be part of it.

Three years ago, when he was in Prague to assist President Klaus in launching a Czech edition of The Great Deception, Booker was intrigued to note that outside every Czech ministry there hung two flags, one Czech, the other the EU's ring of stars. It was an honest recognition of how their country was governed, a practice he suggested the British Government should follow.

The only difference now is that our ministries should cease to fly the Union Jack and hoist instead what is officially known in Brussels as "the Union Flag", that same ring of stars which, from December 1, will symbolise the true government we live under.

And a final thought from Booker: since the EU is to become a government with "legal personality" in its own right, how long will it be before its President, under the constitution, is accorded international precedence over the Queen as our head of state? Like much else in this sorry story, our new rulers will start by denying that they are even thinking of such a thing. But now they have their constitution, it can't be long.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

dave460[i-dave460]There was a sense that the story on "Do-nothing" Dave and his amazing technicolour "Europe” policy was beginning to fizzle out. We've done it to death, although for once we've been addressing our core subject – the one for which this blog was set up.

What now gives it "legs" though is the reaction filtering in from the rest of the member states, which gives us a new and important perspective on the situation.

Unsurprisingly, this comes via The Guardian which, despite its Europhile tendencies, frequently offers depth that you do not find in other newspapers.

What it tells us that, in addition to France – and the obvious reaction from the likes of Elmar Brok – there is real, deeply-entrenched resistance to renegotiating the EU treaties, which will be necessary if Cameron is to achieve the repatriation of any powers.

Up front are the Europe ministers from three member states: Poland, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic. All three are saying that that Cameron would fail to achieve his demand to repatriate social and employment laws to Britain because his plans would need to secure the agreement of all 27 leaders of the EU because they would involve rewriting EU treaties.

And, as Elmar Brok said, "We have had 10 years of institutional debate and now is the time to talk about practical co-operation. We don't need another 10 years of institutional debate."

For the Dutch, Frans Timmermans says that the Tory plans would have a "paralysing effect on Europe". He added: "There is more chance of a snowball surviving hell than the EU restarting debates on treaty change." He adds that no EU leader would want to reopen treaties to accommodate the Tories.

"You can still hear the sigh of relief across Europe that we have finally finished with treaty change," he adds. "Everyone is so relieved that we can finally stop talking about the internal rules of the EU and start doing something about the crisis, something about the climate change issues and something about international affairs." He then adds: "I am sure there is no member state in the EU that wants to put energy into another round of debate about the rules of the game."

Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, the centre-right Polish Europe minister, expands on this, saying treaty change is out of the question. "We have finalised the most difficult and the most lengthy procedure of ratification that we have ever been through in Europe. Nobody wants to negotiate a new treaty."

Then there is Dick Roche, for the Irish. He says: "There is a complete aversion across Europe to the idea of going through the kind of process we have just gone through. If you are talking about areas that touch on free movement or the whole central core trade areas then you are entering into minefields. The only thing that happens to people who enter minefields is they get blown up."

Now, on this blog, both my co-editor and I have been saying this for some time. We are by no means alone in so saying. It was always on the cards – in fact it was a racing certainty – that this would be the reaction. Therefore, the only way there were going to be any treaty negotiations was if Cameron made them the archetypal "offer they couldn't refuse."

Thus, nothing Cameron says or promises by way of repatriating powers has any meaning whatsoever unless he has that "offer", or a very big stick to bring the reluctant "colleagues" to the negotiating table.

link[i-link]From our point of view, what Cameron has on offer, we've heard before. Twenty years ago, Booker, myself and others were talking privately to then senior Tory ministers, all of whom were telling us that they were eurosceptics at heart, and were determined to repatriate powers.

But not any of them – then or now – have been prepared to tells us how they would bring the "colleagues" to the negotiating table, and what they would do if they said "no". That is what makes Cameron's policy more of the same – empty and completely devoid of substance. He has no fall-back to deal with a blank refusal to negotiate. And, not days after the Boy's speech, the "colleagues" are ganging up to say "no".

That leaves us in an interesting position. On the one hand, we can accept that the Tories did not expect such a reaction – which can hardly be likely, since they've been told time and time again that this would happen. On the other, we can conclude that the Tories are not serious. That they have no real intention of pursuing renegotiations.

In fact, that is the inescapable conclusion, from which stems the further conclusion. Cameron's policy is no more than a cynical exercise in deception – a rag-bag of empty promises dressed up to make it look plausible to a gullible media and some of the electorate. It is calculated to be sufficient to take the edge of a "eurosceptic rebellion" and get him past the hurdle of the next election without losing too many votes.

That is the real difference between New Labour and the Tories. At least with New Labour, what you see is what you get – a bunch of unprincipled shits. With Cameron's "modern Conservatives", you still get a bunch of unprincipled shits. But they pretend to be otherwise. That is what really sticks in the craw – the pretence.

At least though, with record speed, the "colleagues" have called Cameron's bluff. His "Europe" policy is dead in the water. If there was any justice, so would be his prospects of becoming prime minister. This brazen cynicism really should not go unpunished.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

village-idiot[i-village-idiot]The point about political correspondents from national newspapers is that they are part of the bubble inhabited by politicians. They have no more idea what is going on in the real world than do the politicians they serve.

Thus do we have Benedict Brogan in The Daily Telegraph op-ed telling us that, yesterday, Mr Cameron "took a difficult but necessary step to restore our trust not in politics but politicians, by promising no more than he can deliver."

To have gone further, blathers Brogan – including any sort of promise of a post-election referendum to strengthen his hand in negotiations with Europe – would have invited ridicule. Instead, he says, we had a thought-through, realistic scheme for stopping the drift to ever greater European integration.

We are also told that, "Those holding out hope for a broader referendum over our relations with Europe will have noted his explicit desire to put them on a 'more permanent footing'."

Percolating the brain of this dim little creature, however, is the sense that all is not well with the world. "This policy will not satisfy everyone," he observes blandly. "But it has the merit of being genuinely Eurosceptic and – for once – achievable."

The man is an unmitigated fool. Like the majority of the political claque, he inhabits a different planet from the rest of us, and lacks the intellect and empathy to realise that his own drivel bears no relation to anything even approaching reality.

"This policy will not satisfy everyone," he writes. He can have no idea of the intensity of hatred invoked by that supine, malign, fatuous, smug, self-serving, smarmy renegade called Cameron, and his europhiliac sell-out. "Eurosceptic"? That is like calling the Pope a rabbi. This banal idiot needs taking out and shooting.

But then, I suppose, if Westminster is a "village", every village needs its idiot. Mind you, there is a hellava lot of competition for the post.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

borgcouncilflag[i-borgcouncilflag]"As long as he [David Cameron] is at the helm of the Conservative Party, there is no hope whatsoever of achieving any progress in the battle against Brussels."

That is what I wrote on 8 June 2006 but I knew it already. The test came on 7 December 2005 when, at the first available opportunity, the newly appointed Tory leader ditched the carefully crafted policy on repatriating the Common Fisheries Policy.

If we had any lingering doubts, from that time on we had none. "Call me Dave" was not, has never been and will never be a eurosceptic. He follows in that long line of faux eurosceptic Tory leaders, who will talk the talk in an attempt at keeping the troops on side, but will never walk the walk.

At that time in December, little Dave did not even have the guts to admit that he had ditched the policy. He simply reshuffled its creator, Owen Paterson, and nothing was said about it at the time. It took six months before there was any official confirmation. That came on 10 June 2006, which we announced in a post entitled "Never trust a Tory".

We were right then, and right now. Not much more can be said about Dave's surrender to the EU, although it isn't really a surrender. What he did yesterday was his direction of travel all along. That the "colleagues" are beside themselves with joy tells its own story. The Boy has done good by them.

Not only that, they are confirming that there is basically no chance of Dave securing opt-outs to core EU law. German MEP Elmar Brok spells it out, saying, "We have had 10 years of institutional debate and now is the time to talk about practical co-operation. We don't need another 10 years of institutional debate."

He need not have any worries. Dave has no intention of securing anything meaningful. His is indeed a "do-nothing" policy, calculated to give the impression of purposeful activity, while achieving precisely nothing of consequence. Mary Ellen Synon on her blog thus compares Cameron with the Vichy leader, calling him "Dave Pétain".

Somewhere in the French archives, she writes, there is a 1942 poster of the Nazi collaborationist Pétain gesturing out to the people of France and saying: "Francais!, vous n'etes ni vendus ni trahis ni abandonnés. Venez a moi avec confiance" - "Frenchmen! You have not been sold, betrayed or abandoned. Come to me with confidence."

That, of course, is Dave's cry, one that has the Tory Boys (of both sexes) calling in his wake: "We have to get rid of Gordon Brown first ... 'Europe' can wait until we've done that deed." That, of course, means some time never, which is not good enough – nowhere near good enough.

The deal stays: "no referendum, no vote". Dave doesn't want my vote, or the votes of the million-plus who share my views. Well Dave, we don't want you either, so I guess we understand each other.

Very light blogging until Tuesday. I'm off to Jersey on business and a bit of R&R. I'll have the laptop with me, so I should manage one post a day – alcohol haze permitting.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

FINAL VERSION

lisbon%2Btreaty[i-lisbon%2Btreaty]David Cameron will promise that an incoming Conservative administration would set up a new constitutional court to protect British sovereignty from encroachment from Europe.

This is according to The Times, which is retailing details of the Boy's briefing to Tory MPs this morning.

He told them that an incoming Conservative administration would immediately seek to pass a Sovereignty Act which would set up a legal body, similar to the German constitutional court, which would rule on future EU proposals.

A senior member of the shadow cabinet told The Times: "Because we don't have a written constitution we have been particularly vulnerable to depredation from Brussels."

This is, of course, total bullshit. We have a written constitution now. It is called the Consolidated Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, which takes precedence over UK law ... and what remains of our constitution.

As for a constitutional court, if this is a measure of what the Boy is going to offer, then he need not bother. What did the German and Czech constitutional courts do, other than roll over?

We also learn that the Boy repeated his promise to seek to repatriate some powers from the EU, but he did not "bow to demands" that he strengthen his negotiating hand by holding a referendum. Nevertheless, fears that the move would precipitate an internal revolt have proved largely groundless.

The Boy was "cheered by his MPs", we are told. But, apparently the Tory whips and key frontbenchers were coordinating the applause. Whether they will still be cheering when the general election results come through is another matter. The loudest cheers might be coming from UKIP.

Howsoever, the Boy geve his press conference at St Steven’s Club, accompanied by William Hague, Liam Fox, George Osborne and Mark Francois. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are to blame for the mess. "Nothing to do with us guv!" says the Boy, but he feels our pain. The betrayal of the promise to hold a referendum (Labour's betrayal) was one of the factors, alongside the expenses crisis, that has caused people to lose their faith in politics.

There is to be no referendum. It would be "a waste of time and money". Instead, the Tories are reverting to a previous promise to close the stable door after the horse has bolted amend the 1972 European Communities Act. This will create a "referendum lock" so that no further powers can be given away without public consent.

Usual Tory fudge, in other words.

And yes, in the door-closing department, we are to get a "UK Sovereignty Bill", to make sure that ultimate authority remains in Westminster. It won't be about striking down EU law. It will just put the UK on a par with Germany, where legislation says the ultimate authority lies with the German parliament. What is this man on?

The Boy also says he will legislate to stop the use of the "ratchet" clauses in the Lisbon treaty that would allow the further transfer of powers without another EU treaty. Again, this is moonshine. The "ratchet" clause already requires parliamentary approval. But, says the Boy, The effect of these changes would be to ensure that a Lisbon situation would happen "never again".

But what about the Lisbon treaty?

Nothing there, it seems, but the Boy is stuck like a cracked gramophone record on repatriating power over social and employment legislation - the so-called "Social Chapter", which no longer exists. He will demand a "proper opt-out" from the charter of fundamental rights. And then, he will seek to limit the ECJ's power over criminal law to pre-Libson levels.

With a quick doffing of the cap to reality, he then admits that these changes would need the agreement of all EU member states. These are "complicated issues", but little Willy is on the case. Success in these negotiations would ensure that EU negotiations do not have to be a "one-way street", he tells us - whatever that means.

These three guarantees are "essential, realistic and deliverable" and the Boy believes "we will be able to negotiate the return of these powers that I have set out." But there is to be no "massive euro bust-up". "We will take our time, negotiate firmly, patiently and respectfully, and aim to achieve the return of the powers I have set out over the lifetime of a parliament." The Boy's priority, if he becomes prime minister, will be the economy.

link[i-link]And if he does not get the opt-outs he requires? Ah! He could return to this at the time of the next election (ie, the one after the 2010). At that point he might discuss a referendum on Britain's relations with the EU.

There it goes ... parked ... he thinks. And thus does the Boy conclude that people are fed up with "endless lies and spin". HE is not going to "treat people like fools" and offer them a referendum that would not have any impact, he says.

Instead, it seems, he is going to treat people like fools in a different way, offering them competely meaningless changes and negotiations that will conclude some time never, with absolutely no indication of how he intends to bring the "colleagues" to the negotiating table.

Asked by Andrew Miller from the Economist asks what "threats" he will use to win back these powers, the Boy confirms his intention to park the issue. He is not trying to win back these powers immediately. But there are treaties coming up - like the Croatian accession treaty - that will provide an opportunity for these issues to be addressed. He thinks.

In any case, his proposals are "practical" - aka meaningless. Thus, he purrs, "there's every chance of achieving these guarantees throughout a parliament".

To the "colleagues", aka "European partners", the Boy says that we do not plan to sabotage the EU with these renegotiations. The idea is "to put Britain's place in Europe on a proper basis that can command the confidence of the British people."

People were told that they were joining a Common Market, but they joined a European Union. The new Conservative policy is a credible policy that voters who have been treated badly can believe in ... he says. And he is convincing who?

Clearly, Ken Clarke is one. He is "fully in support of this policy", says the Boy, which really tells you everything you need to know. However, Clarke is also on record as saying a Sovereignty Bill of the kind proposed by Cameron was "baloney". He is not wrong. "It's a sop, a gesture, worthless and pathetic," says a Tory Boy Blog commentator. He is not wrong either.

And for his closing admission, Cameron says "European leaders" did not like his commitment to a Lisbon referendum. Thus, he was "as frank and clear" with other European leaders as he has been with the people of the UK. Which means they must be as much in the dark as we are.

This is described as "a very clever speech: gradualist Euroscepticism." Lots of vague promises and meaningless fluff. Beef? Forget it. Not just usual Tory fudge - bucket loads. "If this is what he meant by 'will not let it rest, then he's a lying toad," says another Tory Boy Blog commentator. She is not wrong either.

Says Glen Oglaza for Sky News about the Boy's "proposal" to take back power from the EU, "The only problem is that ALL 26 other EU countries would have to agree."

"How likely is that?" he asks. "Well, David Cameron pre-empted the question by asking it himself and offering the answer that these opt-outs would be in the party's manifesto for the election after NEXT - with the promise of a referendum."

"So, basically, this is about buying time and hoping the European problem goes away. Isn't it?" the man concludes. Tim Montgomerie over at Tory Boy Blog agrees. "David Cameron gives every impression of wanting to kick the European issue into the long grass so that he can get on with other things," he says. We could not have put it better ourselves.

Unsurprisingly, Gerald Warner comes to the same conclusion. "Cast-Iron Cameron's latest transparent ploy to kick Europe into the long grass," his piece is headed. All this Tory Euroguff is no more than a device to persuade gullible voters to stay with Dave and his forsworn party. Whether you fall for it or not is a simple intelligence test.

And just to confirm that Boy Dave's "do-nothing" policy on Europe is a busted flush, we have the European Movement welcoming the statement. Peter Luff says, "It makes more sense to deal with the real issues facing Europe right now than to pick an unnecessary and distracting argument with our European partners." Mrs Dale has the answer though. "Those who start spitting about voting UKIP can bugger off and do just that if it makes them feel better," he says.

The full text of the speech is here. The Boy has blown it.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

WF-EU[i-WF-EU]Daniel Finkelstein in The Times recalls the first time he had lunch with David Cameron, when he noticed that he was sporting a pair of EU cufflinks.

This, he says was a striking thing to do in those days, the early 1990s. The Conservative Party was rowing constantly about the EU, and he worked as a special adviser to a eurosceptic cabinet minister.

Naturally, Finkelstein asked him about them. "I don’t think European federalists should have a monopoly on being part of Europe," Cameron replied. And in explaining his choice of cufflinks on that day many years ago, he provided an insight into the position on Europe he has held since. From there, we get Finkelstein's analysis of Cameron's position.

First, he is properly, robustly Eurosceptic while being completely at home with membership of the EU. Second, he has watched as two prime ministers became engulfed by the European issue, which seriously hampered their ability to do anything else. And third, he experienced defeat and policy made for opposition. Now he wants victory and policy that allows him to govern successfully.

It is possible, one assumes, to offer a more facile analysis – but it is difficult to imagine how. From the very start, the idea of a eurosceptic voluntarily wearing the badge of shame is preposterous. That someone also can think of being "part of Europe", while wearing the symbol of the organisation that enslaves "Europe" is equally so. A person who confuses "Europe" with the European Union is not a eurosceptic.

Then, anyone who is "completely at home with membership of the EU" is not a eurosceptic – period. Forget "properly, robustly". They are not eurosceptics.

As for the rest, that tells its own tale. Cameron has seen first-hand the effect of the EU on Conservative Party politics. Now he wants to win an election and is determined not to let "Europe" interfere with his chances of victory.

Cameron is a man without understanding and without principle. He knows nothing about the European Union, and his only interest is in winning. The EU issue is a barrier, a pitfall ... it must be neutralised. That is Cameron's only interest.

And Finkelstein believes he is a eurosceptic? No wonder we find it difficult to make progress. With somebody so unbelievably thick, we are not even past first base.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

UPDATED (5)

place[i-place]Klaus has signed the treaty. This is just short of eight years since the Laeken Declaration on 15 December 2001, when the Europeabn Council adopted a "Declaration on the Future of Europe", which kick-started the whole charade.

"It marks another step on the road to the 'ever closer union' envisaged in the founding document of the EU," says The Daily Telegraph leader.

The Laeken Declaration said the union needed further reform because "its citizens are calling for a clear, open, effective, democratically controlled Community approach". The leaders believed it was essential to tackle the widespread disenchantment about the EU among its people. Yet the manner of the treaty's ratification, certainly here in Britain, has served to worsen, not remove, that sense of disillusion.

As one of our commentators now puts it, the Czech Republic as a sovereign state ceased to exist on November 3rd 2009, 15:00 CET. And so all the member states of the European Union. For the former satellites of the Soviet empire now in the EU, though, this is particularly poignant. Now that they have been subsumed into a new empire, their independence did not even last 20 years.

Now the battle starts, as much with our own side and the enemy within. One notes that The Tory Boy blog has taken to deleting comments. I'm opening up a new comment thread of our own, which I'll keep running, under the heading "Lisbon Treaty". Unlike the freedom-loving Tories, we will not delete posts of which we do not approve.

Talking of "enemies within", it is interesting to see that Reuters is still perpetrating the deceit that this is a "reform" treaty. That is another of those easy lies for which the "colleagues" are notorious, but it is a shame that the news agencies fall in with it.

Barroso, as always, is crowing. "The road has been a marathon of hurdles but the last hurdle is now removed," he says, neglecting of course to say that the main "hurdle" has been the democratic process, which he and his ilk have trampled underfoot.

EU leaders, we are told, can now push ahead full steam with deciding whom to appoint to two jobs outlined in the treaty -- the new post of president of the Council of EU leaders and a foreign policy chief with enhanced powers. There is talk of an ad hoc European Council next week, to fill these new posts. Then we will have faces to the enemy.

Britannia[i-Britannia]This, or course, removes the last possible fig-leaf behind which David Cameron can hide. We are told to expect a policy statement from him tomorrow, and even now there are intensive discussions taking place in the Palace of Westminster.

Barry Legg writes in The Guardian that each step in Cameron's approach towards the EU has been one of shameless contempt for the Eurosceptics who have loyally backed him in a way William Hague could have only dreamt that Ken Clarke, Chris Patten or Michael Heseltine might have behaved.

Despite their best attempts to "park" the issue, "Europe" has come back to bite the Tories, as it always would. With his "dance of the seven veils", however, Cameron has not made it easy for himself, and now he is going to have to come clean. Boy Dave is going to have to grow up and become a man.

That point is not lost on The Times, which has the Tories put "on the spot". Cameron is going to have real trouble with his insistence that he is not reneging on a pledge to give us a referendum. There is no longer a treaty to vote upon, the Tories bleat.

The Independent retails comments from Cameron on London's LBC Radio. Asked whether he had let voters down over the promise of a referendum, he replied: "No, I haven't and I won't."

He adds: "I believe we should have a referendum and we've campaigned for it, we've fought for it, we've put it up front and centre at election campaign after election campaign, we've challenged the Prime Minister about his broken promise in the Commons, we've tried to persuade other European countries not to sign the treaty because we think the British people should be allowed a referendum.

"But if the treaty is signed, if it is implemented, if it is put in place by all 27 countries, then clearly the situation will have changed and we'll have to address that changed situation. It won't be a treaty any more, it will be part of European law. Now, that looks like that is going to happen, I'm very disappointed about that."

And now William Hague has said it was "no longer possible" to put the treaty to a popular vote.

He added: "Now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the president of the European Council, the loss of British national vetoes ... These things will already have happened and a referendum cannot unwind them or prevent them."

HagueonSky[i-HagueonSky]
Reuters takes this as an unequivocal declaration that the Tories have walked away from a Lisbon referendum. Of course, Hague knew that this was going to be his response. But he had to play games all these months, pretending that a referendum was still an option.

That fool, James Forsyth, over on the Spectator clog is ramping up the theme that, "The accusations of betrayal being hurled at David Cameron are ... deeply unfair." The Sun promise of a referendum, he says, was always conditional on the treaty not being ratified by the time Cameron got elected.

He, like the Tory Boy Blog, though, seem to have rather selective memories, forgetting the Boy's speech on 26 May 2009, under the title: "Fixing Broken Politics". We will spell it out again:

"A progressive reform agenda," Dave said, "demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people." He went on:

We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.

On Tory Boy Blog, Jonathan Isaby, who claims to have been a "staunch eurosceptic" since the late 1980s, is lamenting the appearance of UKIP peer Lord Pearson on television. He has been "gloating" about the possibility of robbing 50 Conservative candidates of seats they ought to win next year.

"Therein lies the danger of not getting behind the party leadership on what I trust will be a robust line when he outlines it tomorrow," adds Isaby. And if it isn't a "robust line"? What then? Or will all the Tory Boys be told to believe it is a "robust line" anyway, no matter what they are given?

Gerald Warner is less easy to please. Abandoning the referendum, he writes, is an "historic moment" because it sets a new paradigm in political chicanery: Cameron will become the first British leader to have ratted on his commitments BEFORE even taking office.

It is a measure of the centrifugal force that political deceit has acquired and of the extravagant cynicism of the ruling elite regarding the electorate, Warner adds. Cameron has calculated, possibly correctly, that he can discard a "cast-iron" pledge to the electorate on the most basic issue in politics – the subjection of national sovereignty to foreign powers – and that the mug punters will still turn out and vote him into office. He continues:

Cameron is apparently about to join the historic list of Tory renegades, from Peel to Heath; the difference is, he feels he can rat on his promises even before an election and still win office.

If there is to be any hope for Britain surviving as a sovereign nation true Tories must abandon their Pavlovian voting habits and punish the gang of modernising cuckoos in the Conservative nest. Unless something truly Damascene occurs, Dave is less than 24 hours away from shamelessly declaring himself a forsworn leader. If he does so, the overriding priority in British politics will be to get him out.

That is not an uncommon sentiment, one which we share. With the issue being lead item on Channel 4 News, and the amount of press coverage, reaction has been sharper than we might have anticipated. But this is no longer about "Europe". It is about politicians ratting on promises. And that, to the average punter, is altogether more serious.

LISBON TREATY THREAD

groundhog_day[i-groundhog_day]The great fishing disaster rolls on ... recorded each passing year.

This year Scottish fisheries secretary Richard Lochhead estimates that, during 2007, whitefish worth £60 million was discarded in the North Sea – by the British fleet. "When other European fleets are taken into account the problem is compounded greatly," he says, then adding: "It is an utter disgrace that our fishermen are being forced to dump high quality and marketable fish back into the sea - hundreds of millions of pounds wasted and unnecessary pressure on our stocks due to the crazy rules of the CFP."

And the Tory policy on the CFP is? We know what it was, but that was before the great eurosceptic Dave intervened. All we hear now is the sound of silence.

COMMENT THREAD

Cameron+is+a+Cnut[i-Cameron+is+a+Cnut]The Tories will NOT hold a referendum on Lisbon but seek a 'manifesto mandate' to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU - so says Conservative Home in a shock announcement. And I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.

So where do we go from here? Or to be quite precise, where does the Conservative Party go? According to Tim Montgomerie, there is no point in holding David Cameron to his "cast-iron guarantee" as it was nothing of the kind. Once again, I am shocked, nay, stunned. A politician's cast-iron guarantee means nothing of the kind? Quick, somebody bring my smelling salts.

As it happens, I never believed that guarantee and have always assumed that Cameron would find some way of wriggling out of it. It was, Mr Montgomerie informs us, merely a promise to hold a referendum if the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty had not been ratified. As they did their best to make sure that the ratification went ahead their hoity-toity attitude now is unimpressive.

Nor am I terribly impressed by the implication that it was all the fault of the u-turning Czech President. He withstood a great deal of pressure with very little support from the Conservatives. I don't think he got much in that funny little agreement but that's another story. What happens in Britain does not depend on what the Czech President does or says. Blaming Klaus for Cameron's prevarications is low. I am surprised at Mr Montgomerie who is an honourable man.

What is it the Conservatives will be offering? What is it that makes Mr Montgomerie say that "DAVID CAMERON DESERVES THE CONTINUING SUPPORT OF EUROSCEPTICS"? Well, he took the Conservative Party out of the EPP and withstood the childish taunts produced by David Miliband, which were of no significance whatsoever. That's it. There is nothing else anyone can point to that would make us the people think that this man actually understands either the EU or Britain's role in it or, for that matter, what should be the next step.

Let us not forget that one of his first moves as leader was to drop the carefully worked out fishing policy that would have taken Britain's fisheries out of the devastating CFP and rebuilt the industry.

What they want to do is to get a mandate to repatriate certain powers. This would mean unravelling the Consolidated Treaties, as amended by the Constitutional Lisbon one, rewriting the whole lot and getting all the members to agree. Child's play for people who do not think they can unravel the Lisbon Treaty on its own. Particularly as the ultimate threat is not on the cards.

There is, of course, no need for a referendum about whether to renegotiate the treaties or not. It can be simply put into the manifesto, as one remarkably intelligent (I have low expectations) Tory backbencher told Mr Montgomerie. But simply saying that we shall go to Brussels and negotiate something or other gets us no further forward.

What will be renegotiated? Key powers, apparently. What are they, when at home? Well, errrm, the Social Chapter. That no longer exists, the various articles having been integrated into the treaty. What of the most important issue, the superiority of European over British legislation? So far, Parliament, who made that law can unmake it. What happens after Lisbon? More to the point, what is the Conservative Party's intention over that? Is that one of the key powers to be negotiated?

With whom is Mr Cameron going to negotiate? Does he even know? What he has in mind requires an IGC and unanimous agreement? Does he know that? Do any of them know how an IGC is called and how the negotiations are set up? More importantly, what will the Conservatives do if the colleagues do not want an IGC or, having gathered for one, refuse to accept British ideas? Will they start running around, negotiating, offering deals to the other member states?

So many questions, so few answers. Well, only one, really: you must trust the leader and his wisdom.

COMMENT THREAD

Cameron+ref[i-Cameron+ref]
Paul Waugh in his blog, for the Evening Standard confirms that which we have been long expecting – that the Tory leader is to announce that he will abandon his own pledge for a referendum.

Waugh thus reminds us of the pledge David Cameron gave us, in The Sun in September 2007:

Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM, a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.

Now, of course, that Cameron is being called upon to deliver, he suddenly finds that it is inconvenient to honour his pledge. Instead, we may expect a torrent of extruded verbal material, telling why it is no longer a practical proposition to hold a referendum.

By this means will Cameron demonstrate that he is the consummate politician. His word, his pledge, is meaningless. We will say what is convenient – to him – if he thinks it will buy him votes, and then ditch it as soon as it becomes inconvenient.

He thinks he can capitalise on the wave of loathing for Gordon Brown and the failed New Labour experiment – and that is enough to get him voted into No 10. He is probably right, and on that calculation he feels secure enough to ditch the committed eurosceptic vote. We don't matter to Dave – he can win without us.

So, when Dave stands up for his victory speech, whenever that is, the sub-text will be a message to all of us: "I didn't need you ... you don't matter, and I don't care what you think." In our powerless state, there is very little we can do. But we will not be powerless for ever.

COMMENT THREAD

tony[i-tony]Most papers are running with it, but it is The Times which has it as its lead item – the support of David Miliband for Tony Blair's as yet undeclared candidacy for the position of supreme leader of the European Union (European Council division).

According to Miliband, Blair should be made head of a stronger European Union "that would be able to compete with China and the United States on the world stage". The new EU president needed to be someone who "stopped the traffic" in Washington and Beijing and was guaranteed the highest access to world leaders.

An additional advantage of his appointment would be that it would seriously – to use the technical term – piss off the Tories, who are looking forward to having their own Boy take hold of the reins of power, only to see them slip away, to picked up by that leering face in Brussels, rubbing in to all and sundry that the constitutional Lisbon treaty is just as dangerous as we have maintained all along.

By then, of course, it will be too late, when Boy Dave discovers that the Brown administration was the last government of Britain and the "colleagues" get down to running the show, without the encumbrance of democratically elected politicians throwing their toys out of the pram in the European Council, every time they are faced with something they don't like.

Strangely though, it seems as if the likes of Angela Merkel are warming to the idea of Emperor Blair, precisely because of the anticipated Tory reaction, believing – quite wrongly – that a Cameron administration will be "eurosceptic". His appointment would, says The Times balance a British eurosceptic government in the event of a Tory victory.

One struggles to believe that Merkel could be so naïve as to believe it would actually mattered who took over the local government in Britain, and that she could tolerate the leering face of Blair across the table every time she descended on Brussels. But, the idea has a power of its own, sufficient possibly to sustain the Blair Bandwagon.

More worrying, perhaps – as if the prospect of Emperor Blair wasn't worrying enough – is the Miliband's rationale for his appointment, this stale, outdated paradigm that it would help the EU "compete with China and the United States on the world stage".

Far be it for me to sound alarmist, but as there are signs that the Taleban could be breaking out of its localised tribal base, to become part of the global jihad, far from looking to "compete" – with the United States, in particular – we should be urging the closest possible co-operation to deal with the emerging and ever-more serious threat of militant Islam.

With the threat developing both at home and abroad, the EU's role has – to be as temperate as possible – been dangerously myopic. If with the aid of Blair it continues to expend its energies on play acting on the "world stage" instead of mobilising our resources to deal with a threat to the very fabric of our civilisation (what is left of it), we will have the dubious pleasure of seeing a man who has fatally weakened the UK go on to repeat his fiasco on a global scale.

But then, if Caligua could appoint his horse as a Senator of ancient Rome, it seems appropriate that we should see a horse's arse appointed as Emperor of the new Rome. If we really want failure, it may as well be spectacular.

COMMENT THREAD

Farage[i-Farage]Mixed feelings attend the news that the Nigel Farage Party UKIP has been "stung by a devastating court ruling, which ruled £367,697 of donations were impermissible" and are subject to forfeit.

Farage is now suggesting that the party could collapse because of the case, which is the culmination of a two-year saga. It arose in the first instance when the party accepted 67 separate donations from Alan Bown and his company Nightech Ltd, without checking that Bown's name was on the electoral register.

Originally "fined" in Westminster Magistrates Court a sum of only £18,481, the Electoral Commission appealed the decision, which brought today's ruling which has UKIP "staring at the political abyss."

Those in the know suggest that this is a spectacular "own goal" by Farage who personally intervened to prevent a response to the Electoral Commission which would have kept the issue out of court, more-or-less goading the Commission to take action in what has become a battle of wills – from which there could be only one loser.

For the dwindling membership of UKIP, however, this is a hard and undeserved blow. Up against the might of the established parties, with the tainted record of their leadership making it harder than ever to attract substantial donations, they had been hoping to field up to 550 candidates for the general election.

Although many candidates are expected to pledge their own funds to the campaign, to put up a full slate will require external funding. Unless new donors are forthcoming, today made it just that bit harder.

The primary beneficiary of this will, of course, be Mr Cameron's Modern Conservative Party (whose marketing gurus don't seem to realise what MCP stands for), which otherwise would be battling in the marginals for a share of the decisive eurosceptic vote.

Without a four-letter word (UKIP) to turn to, voters disaffected by Cameron's "Europe" non-policy will be having to consider three letters, either BNP or ABC. In the absence of UKIP, however, the MCP may get a more comfortable ride than it deserves.

COMMENT THREAD

klausAFP[i-klausAFP]Sooner than he might have wanted, David Cameron is facing the prospect of having to "fess up" and admit that a referendum on the constitutional Lisbon treaty is no longer on the cards.

His nemesis is likely to come some time in early November when the Czech constitutional court clears the way for Vaclav Klaus to sign the ratification instrument, the last of 27 EU member state leaders to do so.

And sign it he will, having indicated to the Czech newspaper Lidove noviny that it would be futile to do otherwise. "The train carrying the treaty is going so fast and it's so far that it can't be stopped or returned, no matter how much some of us would want that," he told the newspaper. (However - see health warning on the forum.)

Although some eurosceptic campaigners have been clinging to the hope that he might delay ratification until the election, thus paving the way for a Cameronian referendum, Klaus made his position very clear by adding: "I cannot and will not wait for British elections, unless they hold them in the next few days or weeks."

Booker, in his column, salutes the man whom he calls "Europe's last democrat". In a melancholy way, he writes, it has been vastly entertaining to see the rage provoked in Brussels and Europe's political class by his continuing dalliance.

Now, though, the game is drawing to a close – a treaty which has taken eight years in the making, built on a foundation of lies, deception and bad faith, rejected by the electorates of France, Holland and Ireland, is shortly to come into force. And Mr Cameron is going to have to tell us what he proposes to do about it.

Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, is possibly pointing to a way out for the man who would be prime minister – but in fact will be a satrap of Brussels. He (Davies) says, "If the treaty is fully ratified I have never believed there is any point in having a referendum on it. It would be futile gesture politics." Instead, he wants Cameron to stage a vote on repatriating powers from the EU.

In purely practical terms, Davies is right – but politics is not always about practicalities. Holding a referendum on the treaty would be enormously symbolic, drawing a line between the Labour administration and the Conservatives, and making a powerful statement to Brussels.

Cameron would not, of course, be obliged then to de-ratify the treaty – and nor could he affect its course. By then it would be in force and it would be virtually impossible to unravel the new treaty provisions specifically for the UK.

But, armed with a substantial vote against the treaty, Cameron would have a strong mandate to demand from the other member states an intergovernmental conference (IGC), to which he could present substantive proposals for a new status for Britain, including the repatriation of powers, of which so much has been made.

An alternative course would be for him to set out detailed proposals for dealing with Brussels in the Conservative Party manifesto, with a promise of a referendum to approve whatever deal he manages to negotiate, in the manner of Wilson's 1975 referendum.

Either line, though, is fraught. It is not within Cameron's gift to promise renegotiations. Any substantive changes will require treaty changes and these can only be secured through the medium of an IGC. This requires the "consensus" of the member states, determined if necessary by a vote on which there must be a simple majority in favour.

That, in itself, is a major hurdle. Once an IGC is declared, it is "open house" for any member state to submit their own proposals – many of which have their own agendas and their own publics to satisfy. Given the bruising experience of the Lisbon process, the last thing the "colleagues" will want to is re-open old wounds, and engage in another round of treaty negotiations.

There will, therefore, be massive pressure to refuse Cameron any negotiations. In the face of a "democratic" vote from the other member states (not the EU, but the member states acting – in theory at least – individually), he has no means of forcing the issue, short of invoking the exit provisions of the treaty and taking the UK out of the EU altogether.

Much is made of the ploy of blocking agreement on the multi-annual budget framework, during the forthcoming negotiations. There, parallels are being drawn with the Thatcher "handbag" ploy on the rebate negotiations. But that is a non-starter. Community law simply does not permit treaty changes without an IGC, so Cameron could not trade what we wanted against approval of a new budget framework.

That leaves Cameron with few options. But, if he is prepared to play the exit card, the "colleagues" may well concede an IGC. Even then, there would be massive hurdles. Any changes will have to be agreed unanimously and, once again, the new treaty will have to be ratified by all 27 member states. That will not necessarily be problem-free.

From start to finish, the process could well take several years and one does not have to be a mind reader to see that, from Cameron's point of view, this would be highly undesirable. The last thing he will want is for his first term to be dominated by bickering – and that it would be – over "Europe".

Given also that Cameron's preferred position is active membership of the EU, his position will almost certainly be to seek a de minimis resolution, which can be concluded as fast as possible. Thus, one possibility is that he will offer largely cosmetic changes, sufficient to convince the electorate that he is "doing something" about "Europe".

He could, as a result, try for something like an "Irish option", extracting from the "colleagues" a number of declarations, which could then be incorporated in one of the accession treaties which may come up.

However, he has also to satisfy the "eurosceptic" wing of his party and keep his europhiles on-side, giving him perilously little room for manoeuvre – even less if public hostility to the EU forces him to make more robust changes than he would prefer.

Ideally, Cameron would like to "park" the whole issue – that has been the default tactic of his leadership to date, but in the face of his oft' repeated mantra that, if the treaty is ratified he "won't let matters rest there", he will shortly be forced to make his position clear(er). Even then, he could simply delay the evil day, promising only to set out his plans in his manifesto.

Tory MP Philip Hollobone, though, states the obvious – of which Cameron will be keenly aware. "Everyone will be expecting clarification of what the Conservative position will be," he says, adding ominously, "the issue of Britain's relationship with Europe is not going to go away."

Moreover, Cameron will not get away with a 1975-style Wilsonian fudge. The EU is far more powerful and visible then it was then, the electorate is that much better informed and, of course, there is the internet. "Europe" most definitely is not going to go away, and the prime minister in-waiting has a real problem on his hands.

COMMENT THREAD