Labour understandably want to make hay from a diplomatic disaster that has split the coalition. This is harder than it looks when the disaster is very popular and you don't have an easy answer to the "what would you have done" question. In a fit of vainglory, I presume to advise my leader.
When Ed Miliband stands up in the House of Commons, with roars of approval from the Tory Benches for their Prime Minister turning swiftly to jeers of derision for the opposition leader, he has a very tricky job.
He will know that the result of the Brussels summit has been a disaster for our relationships with key international partners. He will know it has split the coalition. He will have a ready source of lines to mock Nick Clegg, withering quotes from European leaders about the conduct of the Prime Minister's negotiating strategy. An open goal?
No. A political and rhetorical trap.
There are two issues for Miliband. First, the initial polling suggests that the up-yours delors school of EU negotiating is overwhelmingly popular. It might not deliver what the country needs in economic terms, but when lofty politico's talk about what the country needs, we should remember the voters might prefer the good five cent cigar of being able to tell johnny foreigner where to get off and then departing with a little more swagger in our step..
Second, as John Rentoul points out, the Leader of the opposition cannot argue he would have signed up the draft. He wouldn't. Partly this is political expediency. No politician like to get on the wrong side of a 60-14 split, unless he consciously seeks to be a Tiresias, rather than a King of Thebes.* But there's an issue of policy here too, Labour wants a rebalanced economy, but rebalancing is one thing, hobbling our financial services sector quite another.
So every rhetorical sally the opposition leader might make will be greeted with the taunt – so what would you have do? To put it in terms former Prime Minister's have used, the PM will use his No, No, No, to portray Ed Miliband as Weak, Weak ,Weak.
So how should Miliband approach this?
The key is to realise what the political objective is. It is not to change minds about the treaty. It is to change minds about Cameron. we aren't trying to tell people they're wrong to dislike this treaty, we're trying to get them to blame Cameron for screwing up so badly he had to reject an awful treaty.
Ed Miliband's challenge is to destroy Cameron's triumph, to remind him at his moment of Tory adulation that he is mortal. So he should be patient, and methodical and clinical. He should avoid windy rhetoric, leaving that for the other side. He should be cool, clinical and factual. He should, most of all, avoid his own regular soundbites. No "Out of touch". No "up and down the country".
This isn't knockabout. this is deadly serious. The PM has in his overconfidence, put our national future at hazard in a great gamble. Miliband should portray Cameron, not as a conquering hero, but as a man whose arrogance and overconfidence has led him to bet the nation on a risky, dangerous proposition.
First. Miliband should focus on the real failure. It wasn't the rejection of the treaty, but the fact the rejection was ever needed. No British PM has had to reject a deal this bad, because every other British PM was smart enough and worked hard enough to get a better one. So it is that paths no taken , the offers rejected, the past overtures brushed aside that should raised.
Update: Miliband should be clear that whe wouldn't have signed, and nor would anyone else. There will be Tory jeers at that point, but Miliband should go with them.
"I wish to Congratulate the Prime Minister. He has managed to unite the house. Every member of this house, from Bermondsey to Wokingham, from Berwick to Twickenham, would have rejected that treaty. (Tory cheers)
I know the members opposite are delighted with this outcome. I hope they enjoy their exuberant moment.
But if they thought for a moment, they would realise that if everyone would reject this deal, the question isn't why we refused a bad deal, it's why a bad deal was the only one we could get.
The unity of the house in rejecting this treaty isn't a sign of the Prime Minister's success, it's the very stamp of his failure. The Prime Minister gambled that the rest of the EU wouldn't go ahead without him. His gamble puts jobs, and businesses and growth at risk. Members opposite may cheer and pop champagne corks today, but it is the country who will be saddled with their hangover. We rejected a bad treaty, but a wise Prime Minister would not celebrate rejecting the bad, and instead regreat the lack of something better"
Second, Miliband should use Clegg smartly. Not to endorse his view on the treaty, but on the process before it. To build a picture of a government asleep at the wheel, too busy congratulating itself on their willingness to say No to work out they'd been tricked into a stupid, damaging choice because of their No-aphillia.
This means Miliband should resist the urge to make Clegg a human pinata this time, but he shouldn't endorse his analysis of the treaty. Miliband should be saying that it is the incompetence of the whole government that has led us here, to the PM phoning his deputy at 4am to tell him his life's political project was finished, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats rolling over and going back to his usual indifferent slumber.
Third, Miliband should focus on the costs and risks of the PM's decision. Emphasise the fact that this choice has not been greeted by joy in the city, and that the summit has not solved the core issue, but has left Britain on the outside when the next round of decisions are taken.
The mood on the Tory benches will be elation and self-confidence. Miliband should puncture that skeptical delusion with a poniard of steely reality. A "triumph"? Well, says who, exactly?
Finally, Miliband should use the jubilation of the Tories against them. All the wrong people are cheering. Contrast the excitement from the Cash's and the Hannan's and the Reckless's with the fears of the banks and the businesses and exporters.
So when the Tories yell and shout with joy, When Cameron strikes a pose of strange machismo, Miliband should emphasise it, play with it, turn it. Name those who are most delighted and contrast their delirium with the fears of those who have jobs and businesses at stake. Undermine the posture of the politician with the nagging doubt of the real wealth creators.
David Cameron has chosen to become a reckless gambler with our countries future, backed by a hystrerical enthusiam of the wild eyed and the reckless.
Miliband should say this is no time for a gambler.
*Which is no bad choice, when you consider what happened to most Kings of Thebes.
I awoke to hear the end of brother David's interview with Mr Humphrys on the wireless at approx 7:25 this morning. He was rather good. I wonder if Ed was listening…
"David Cameron has chosen to become a reckless gambler with our countries future"
Should read "country's" I think. Other than that it's flawless.
Can you not find a way to proffer this advice more discreetly? When you do this sort of post – which you always do well – I envisage someone in the leader's office trying to work out how to follow the advice but in a way that does't lead to a 'Ed takes strategy lessons from Labour wannabe blogger" headline. And that's not meant in any derogatory sense by the way – really hope that's clear!
Hate to be pedantic but I think Hopi's correct on "countries'". I presume the ever prescient Mr Sen is referring to it being bad for each of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland!
Mmmm… not sure – were that the case shouldn't it have read countries' (i.e. a trailing apostrophe)?
Regardless I'm no expert so will happily bow to those more knowledgeable than I!
I don`t know why you are so sure Milliband would not have agreed this deal or even a worse one . What is that assertion based on ? He is more pro Euro, less concerned with the purely National interest , pro taxes and anti banks and financial services . I can`t really think of anything that makes sense here including the idea that a weaker and more Euro clubbable bloke would have got a better deal. Do you mean as a reward for being good ? Phnaw
Hopi, you are not living in the real world. No, you're not even living in this universe.
Firstly, you assume Miliband has the rhetorical skills and punch to pull off what you suggest (he clearly does not), and secondly, you mock the natural euroscepticism of the British public with all the snide, patronising arrogance that oozes from a typical left wing liberal elitist.
Miliband is not JFK. Indeed, he is not even IDS. He is a tepid lightweight cosseted by the relative comfort of Opposition.
Trying to sell Europhilia to the British public is similar to hawking pork at a Bar Mitzvah.
Finally, the public are usually right when they elect governments (and only Labour's in-built electoral advantage saved them from annihilation at the last election, and stopped Cameron getting a majority) – and their instincts are correct when it comes to Europe.
It is you and the dreadful Miliband who are arrogant, Hopi – not Cameron and the majority of the public.
Out of interest, Bert, what makes Euroscepticism natural? Isn't it a bit more patronising to suggest British voters are merely acting out some national identity mandated conpulsion rather than making a cooly rational assessment of national and personal interest, which will vary according to time, risk and circumstance?
Hopi, you can't always intellectualise your way out of every situation. There's nothing patronising about stating the fact that, generally, the majority of the British (or certainly the English) are eurosceptic. If you don't believe that, because it doesn't suit your analytical style, then bad for you.
The public also know a loser when they see one, Hopi – Ed Miliband.
He will know that the result of the Brussels summit has been a disaster for our relationships with key international partners.
Why is this a disaster? Is it because you expect our "key international partners" to plot against us the moment they have a meeting without us?
What does that imply?
It's a disaster because it means that our European partners think they're better off without us as they try to find a way to recovery. What does that suggest they think about us? We might want to engineer a division with Europe, but it seems odd to deny we've done so.
But we were already divided. They were all in the euro or wanting to do so, and we aren't and don't want to.
However much British politicans twitter on about "leading europe", the fact remains that they do not want to go the same way as we do. So we can only follow them blindly, or head off alone. Which is why the go-it-alone tendancy has been growing over the last generation or so.
Hopi,
Isn't it equally possible that the 'risk' of which you speak can also pan-out with the euro crumbling, its members cedeing their membership of the EU, and the buffoon Cameron being hailed as the lone visionary that saw it coming and wanted no part of it for Britain? Not an unlikely scenario, actually. That'll do labour's chances a power of good come the next election right enough?
Those who support the EU have no-one but themselves to blame for this whole, sorry mess. As has been commented upon often enough, the electorate aren't stupid. They know that they have, time and time again, been denied their democratic vote on EU treaties because the government of the day feared defeat. The argument that government spoke on behalf of their people never held up when the people knew it was a diversion from the reality. The resentment has been growing steadily as a result. Why, why, why did they not listen?
So resentful, in fact, that a disorderly, chaotic and even damaging end to our membership, if that is what it takes, appears to be what is being contemplated as an acceptable outcome in some quarters. That smacks of desperation of those who have been denied a voice, not irresponsibilty. And that is why it has come to this.
Today, and I literally mean today, the EU looks very ugly indeed. the whole edifice is creaking under the weight of centralisation, closer integration, wealth inequality between North and South, unsustainable debt and an unsustainable methodology to tackle it. In case anyone is still under any misapprehension, attempting to fight debt by adding to it doesn't actually work…it just increases the debt.
The real beauty of each European country is not its membership of the EU but its magnificent diversity, its wealth of cultures and its instantly recogniseable individual characteristics. All now appparently doomed by the promise of more and more centralisation, integration and subserviance to the biggest hitters in the club.
When I read comments from MPs about getting stuck in and making the EU work I often wonder why our political establishment dont often sound quite as passionate about making Britain, not Europe, work? It's as though Europe is all they can see. As if, in fact, their reliance on the decisions made in the EU have exceeded their own confidence to make the right decisions to deal with the problems affecting the UK. This effectively undermines the mandate given to them in good faith by the British electorate.
I also wish they were actually alarmed by the fact that British exports to the EU stand at around 40%. Instead, they use it as an argument in favour of talking up the EU. There is actually a much, much bigger worldwide market staring us in the face…we appear not to be aware of it.
I make no apologies for sounding like an eccentric, out-of-step labour member. I say what I think, always, and believe that in their apparent horror at Cameron's antics last week those who support the EU aren't seeing the whole picture, and they never really did.
This is a reasonable analysis. He needed a convincing answer to the "What would you have done?" question. He didn't have one. He is useless.
Does anyone have any remaining faith in Ed Miliband? His brother's occasional recent appearances have emphasised how useless he is.
Cameron is a second-rater. Easily beatable. Unfortunately, Ed Miliband is third rate.
No amount of sophistry can compensate for Ed M being on the losing side of the argument. For once internal party political pressure and no doubt judicious amounts of lobbying have forced a Prime Minister to say no to our European partners and represent himself as a PM who listens to the clearly expressed majority view of the kind of folks who have opinions on this kind of thing. We the people wanted it and against expectations he delivered. That's the fact that matters. All the rest id for the future and we don't care about it…a bit like PFI and unsustainable levels of state debt. We don't care now, we may care later but we expect some bright spark to think of a cunning plan before that happens.
It feels like Cameron has accidentally and against his own sensibilities, found himself in a populist position. Even the more centerist part of his party didn't want any part of a treaty because they have so little dancing room left around the whole cast iron EU referendum issue. Cameron's squirming around the treaty = referendum problem was painful. The perception of democratic defecit in Brussels is getting traction and here comes a new treaty with the aim of raising more taxes to shore up years of budget skullduggery under the guise of ever closer fiscal union. This has been read correctly as a grab for cash from one of the few industries we have left. Let Greece and Spain leave the Euro and we'll all go on holiday there and give them the money in exchange for cheap beer and tapas. Much more fun than having it extracted at source from our bank accounts and pensions.
I don't see a good answer for Ed against this posh boy version of can't pay won't pay.
Good analysis, but the most striking thing I take from the whole episode is that Cameron is a 'lucky' PM, able to profit even from his worst screw-ups. It's possible to wonder how long his luck will hold, but with the wrong Miliband elected by Labour and the Lib Dems forced to stick with the coalition, regardless of how many principles they have to swallow, it's hard to see it not lasting till beyond the 2015 election.
How's it going, not caring whether being right or wrong is as important as the impression you're giving on being right or wrong?
As an aside, I thought Cameron's 'naive' slap to Miliband Ma. would have been it for those who honestly think Miliban Ma. would have been doing better ceteris paribus than Miliban Mi. Except, of course, that nobody <i>honestly</i> thinks that.
Out of interest, Bert, what makes Euroscepticism natural? Isn't it a bit more patronising to suggest British voters are merely acting out some national identity mandated conpulsion rather than making a cooly rational assessment of national and personal interest, which will vary according to time, risk and circumstance?
Interesting remark that , I was once pro Euro and it seemed equally a natural way to be . Who wouldn`t want to be modern, free market and indeed anything that was not the losers hell hole the Unions had turned this place into.
For Conservatives ,and at the time I was not very conservative , there was an internal as well as political rift. The Nation is an institution any conservative should value with or without self interested reasons , up to a point . For Conservatives the realisation that the EU was leftwing , inward looking sclerotic protectuionist and expensive joined the two parts of the whole. It has become the holy enemy of Nation business prosperity democracy and freedom.One regards Europhiles with much the same disdain as late supporters of the USSR
Interesting to note that Nationalism was once an emblem of progressive politics rather than Conservatism this is true up to Mussolini.
So both Hopi I do not think loyalty is inferior to cooly rational self interest but when both are combined there is a quite a bit of umph to the loathing
Peter C Johnson
December 12, 2011
"In case anyone is still under any misapprehension, attempting to fight debt by adding to it doesn't actually work…it just increases the debt."
Delete "debt", insert "unemployment"