One of the more charming aspects of politics is the way politician’s attack lines usually end up being used against them. Think of Tony Blair’s attack on the corruption of the Major era conservative party or the irony of Margaret Thatcher’s “Labour isn’t working” as unemployment topped three million.
Now David Cameron, having generated a great deal of political capital by contrasting his leadership with the dithering, calculating, positioning politics of our Prime Minister, finds himself dithering over a referendum, calculating exactly how eurosceptic he needs to be to satisfy his party and carefully trying to position himself for any future negotiation over Europe.
It’s all rather delicious, made even more so that the example he seems to be following, almost to the letter, is that of the master tactician, ditherer and calaculator, Harold Wilson.
However, before getting on with the pointing and the laughing, a few words of caution for my Labour brethren. Watching David Cameron squirm upon this hook is amusing, but it will not change a great deal. Whenever William Hague or IDS or Michael Howard launched some withering Euroceptic attack on the government, we would comfort ourself with the thought that Europe was not a priority for the British people.The same is true today.
The broad sweep of British public opinion is mildly anti-Brussels, but not passionately so. That scepical apathy won’t change if David Cameron makes himself look stupid over the issue of Lisbon. I can’t quite see how the Tory leader struggling with technicalities over referenda over arcane treaties will make a huge difference to that opinion.
For what David Cameron is dithering over is how to achieve two objectives. The first is to retain the benefits of membership of the EU – influence, trade, business confidence and partnerships with other powerful nations – while ensuring our nation state makes key decisions. To do this he needs to show that he is at least a reasonably constructive partner in Europe, even if he wishes to change some of the balance of power in Brussels. This is an entirely noble aim.
The second problem he faces the steps that would be needed to convince our allies of his goodwill and reasonable intentions – steps that would help him achieve his goal of a different relationship within Europe – would be loudly and angrily denounced as a sell out by many of his party. The most obvious of these steps is to allow ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Now, David Cameron thinks that if Lisbon is ratified, he can’t then tear it up by calling a referendum. Why do I claim that David Cameron thinks this? For the simple reason that if he didn’t, then promising a referendum on Lisbon post ratification would be an easy win.
Unfortunately, to have a post ratification vote would be tantamount to spitting in the faces of France and Germany. The rest of the EU would be very tempted to say “very well, if you vote No – out you go”. In that situation, David Cameron would be in a very awkward position.
So what will he do? It seems obvious. Before the election he quietly signals to Europe that he won’t hold a referendum, while trying to keep Eurosceptics on side by promising to “fight Britain’s corner” in other ways. This is where we are now.
Post election he will try to negotiate some package of reform with our European partners, then present whatever he gets as a diplomatic triumph and perhaps hold a referendum on that, which he will be able to endorse. In other words, he would follow the Harold Wilson playbook.
In 1974/5 Wilson led a party that was very sceptical about a European treaty signed by an opponent. Yet to tear up the treaty would be economically and diplomatically very dangerous. So instead he promised to renegotiate that treaty and vote on that. Mr Wilson went to Europe with the implied threat that if they did not give him concessions superior to that offered to Mr Heath, he would be forced, sadly and with great regret, to recommend a “no” vote, in the referendum he had promised. On that basis, he asked for change.
He got small change. Does anyone now remember the concessions Europe offered Wilson? Still, it served. Wilson was able to win the referendum, having claimed to have got a better deal than Heath. Cameron will do little better, for the same reason. His ultimate position would be a bluff. He would not wish to leave the EU, and his negotiating partners know it because if he did wish to leave he would not be negotiating. Against that background, the only question the negotiations would answer is “How much would other nations give up to allow David Cameron to save face”.
I suggest that it would not be a very great deal.
My final point about this controversy is one that will be less comforting for Labour.
Mr WIlson won his election, despite his dithering, his prevarication and his calculation.
Oh please. Were we not sold down the river by the current shower there would be no treaty. That’s why, we-the people, where not given a say. The left intrinsically fears democracy in case we get it wrong
“Unfortunately, to have a post ratification vote would be tantamount to spitting in the faces of France and Germany. The rest of the EU would be very tempted to say “very well, if you vote No – out you go”"
and the blame will be attached to the current administration were that to be the case. They won’t tho.
“the left intrinsically fears Democracy”
Intrinsically? I write a whole post about Wilson’s ’75 Euro referendum, and it’s parallels today, and you say the left “intrinsically” fears democracy?
If you’d said, politicians intrinsically fear the popular will- except when it favours their political interests, you’d have an argument, but that comment is just laughable.
Don’t panic, the 1974 analogy doesn’t stretch very far – life was far more exciting back then! We had miners strikes, three day weeks, petrol almost having to be rationed, inflation around 30% and Grocer Heath on the telly telling us to go to our austere beds at 10 to save the country.
Heath fought the election on a “who runs Britain?” ticket , the electorate’s response was “probably not you mate” and a hung parliament resulted.
It took Heath a while to fail to get an agreement with the Libs and Wilson was left leading a minority government until he called another election later in the year.
In those innocent days you could walk from St James’s Park through to Whitehall along Downing Street. I did so on the Sunday afternoon after the election when the soon to be ex-PM was still dithering inside Number Ten. Apart from the policeman a couple of cameramen and a few jokers by the door wearing terrifying Ted Heath masks, there was hardly anyone about.
Times change…
Fair enough that it’s not something to get excited about, but the potential collateral damage caused by the Dan Hannans of this world chucking their toys out of the pram and demanding concessions and ice-cream to make up for it… will probably not be that much actually. I don’t suppose anyone really cares anymore about asking how much Cameron controls his party.
I shouldn’t be so cynical.
One of your very best posts Hopi informative and much better for having more balance than the usual skilful cheerleader stuff . I spoke to my father about it today ( a Ken Clarke –ite Euro loon ) and we agreed it was difficult but what exactly is the problem with that if the Party does not fall apart which it certainly will not . There are things to be weighed beyond tactics . The Conservative Party are in love with the country , Labour far less so , it is addicted to Parliament and Common Law , Labour less so , it is profoundly concerned with prosperity free trade and democracy .It is also deeply pragmatic and aghast at radical anything ( important that) …..Europe therefore is bound to be a problem . Labour can be unreservedly pro Europe for reasons that are not necessarily attractive to the electorate.
On Lisbon the sensible view is that its too late again a tactical victor y but not one likely to endear New Labour to voters ,”Look how effectively we lied ! “…super …
Your comparison to Wilson is really interesting but on one sense at least not perfect. At that time I would have been on the other side as would a broad sweep of centre right opinion . This is not the same question at all today and while you are right the country is mildly apathetic , so it is on most things.
You’ve called it right there Hopi. Dave has, in attempting to prevaricate, given his opposition just the ammuntion they were after. I hope he will be the first to admit his error and provide some clarity, accepting that you can’t please all, the people…etc. (in this inst. for people read party)
But it does not augur well for his premiership, were that to be the case of course, and the bounce that Labour were looking for last week may come from a deflation this week.
‘Think of Tony Blair’s attack on the corruption of the Major era conservative party or the irony of Margaret Thatcher’s “Labour isn’t working” as unemployment topped three million.’
Well it’s certainly a first with New Labour who have managed to deliver all of the above plus record debt,quite an achievement by anyone’s standards.
Hopefully they will get another first next year in terms of the worst ever election defeat,what was it that NL patsy said about grinding the bastards into the dust.
Think of the lies and broken pledge of Blair and Brown over the Lisbon Treaty. That is how the predicament was created.
Note also that the LibDems had a referendum in their manifesto but sat perched on the fence when the debate was held in Parliament. Another broken pledge.
The Lib Dems supported the lie in the Lords when no-one was looking . I think that is a very giood point , it is difficult for the Conservative Party if the deed is done why not admit that.
This difficulty is caused by the historic and unforgivable betrayal perpetrated by the Labour Party on many of their own supporters as well as Conservatives. I would beware of keeping Europe in the News