So he has finally found the venue where he is prepared to have a camera pointed at him. The curtains behind the lectern at the Dutch venue was too far to travel when he was busy; the curtains behind his desk in Downing Street, addressing the British public directly, were dismissed for unknown reasons; he finally settled on a camera pointed at the curtains behind the lectern at Bloombergs to agree to speak to camera. Who knew that curtains were so important to him?
We have now heard in the Prime Minister’s very own voice – or was he lip synching like Beyonce? – the contents of the speech that has been leaked to every major news outlet every day since last week. Never was a nation so underwhelmed.
How did he keep a straight face delivering lines like ‘referendum promised but not delivered’ and make it sound as though it was nothing to do with him. British comedy is not dead yet. ‘National parliaments instill fear and respect in politicians’ was another personal favourite. We have had first hand experience of how much fear and respect our parliament instills in our politicians…
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament. And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether. It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative Government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.
Have we got it now? We will have a referendum in 2017 so long as we re-elect Cameron, so long as he has renegotiated our treaty with Europe, and that will be enshrined in draft legislation – which is not binding on an incoming politician of any hue. This is quite different from the referendum we were promised in the Conservative manifesto which is not binding on politicians once elected. As the meerkat advert would say, draft legislation/manifesto, they are spelt differently…
He has already asked the British public what they think – it was called an election. That’s how he got to choose which curtains to deign to appear before.
They want a referendum.
Not a promise of a promise of a promise which isn’t binding.
Ms Raccoon lives in the Monbazillac area of South West France, renowned for its fine wines and gourmet food, so she frequently finds better things to do than sit in front of a computer all morning. She is liable to take off traveling at a moment's notice. Consequently this blog only gets updated these days when it is raining - and it doesn't rain very often round here...
{ 39 comments }
Thought so.
He fudged it.
UKIP or nothing now.
Lets see the polls go up for them, except YouGov of course, which is practically part of the EU apparatus.
Count on it!
‘…The sure sign of a halfwit is someone who believes a politician’s promise’.
Smoke and mirrors…
“And we are so confident in the innate commonsense of the British people that – should this referendum inexplicably produce the wrong result – I pledge to propose that a future manifesto will mention that a future Conservative Government will discuss the possibility of offering further opportunities to GET IT RIGHT every 5 or so years.”
And at least two of the assembled hacks asked the key question – ‘will you campaign for a ‘No’ if you fail to get anything from the Europeans?’ Answer came there none! Why am I not surprised?
It is only the electoral mathematics of the growing UKIP vote which brought about that desperate non-speech. And it won’t change a thing – hopefully, when the 2014 Euro Election delivers massive UKIP support, they (and that’s all of them, not just Cameron) might finally get the message.
The EU needs Britain far more than Britain needs the EU, always has done and we’ve always known that, we’re just starting to shout it out loud enough for them to start hearing. Exit can’t happen soon enough.
Didnt think it was much of a speech. The usual all things to all men platitudes. Blah blah blah…
I was shocked by the Beyonce lip synch affair. Turns out she is just a “beautiful liar”.
With a little help from Shakira and the Freemasons (who’d a thunk it – obviously branching out down at The Lodge…)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vstT-sYykbg
A faux song for a faux President. What could be more appropriate?
Faux more years…
Bravo Saul
“…The usual all things to all men platitudes. Blah blah blah…”
As politics is the art of replying to a question without answering it, who, other than the terminally naive, would have expected anything different
Indeeed, TT!
And if we don’t give them the right answer we will be asked again, and again, and again until we do.
All smokescreen and mirrors
Sorry – could I just do Sub Ed work ‘This is quite different from the referendum we were promised in the Conservative referendum which is not binding on politicians once elected’ – do you mean Conservative Manifesto?
Fully agree though, not so much bollox as that would require some sort of angst fuelled energy, more of a snort, a meh, a rolling of the eyes and maybe a gallic trump!
Our democracy is blessed with politicians who seek the views of citizens whenever it is necessary to line up a scapegoat for a done deal, should it go wrong.
Thanks for the summary, Anna. Lifted, & e-mailed to my (Tory-ish) MP.
“This is quite different from the referendum we were promised in the Conservative referendum …… ” “…..manifesto”, surely?
Don’t think the poor old thing had many options really, with MEP elections coming up, but I don’t think many sceptics will be fooled for a moment.
As you say Anna, all ‘if and when’.
The sceptics have built up a lot pressure given their minimal resources compared to the forces ranged against them, not least the BBC, but I don’t think we’ve even begun to see the weight of those forces yet.
Perhaps it’s a campaign of get the eu opposition to expose itself the more decisively to destroy it.
Probably a sign I’ve been indoors too long today, but there’s a beautiful green woodpecker drilling my garden…..
It’s all a smokescreen – there are no EU mechanisms for renegotiation. The only option is withdrawal under Article 50. So it seems Cameron thinks he’ll get away with this blatant lie (or ignorance).
Anna, given that you made the decision to move to France and since must have made a considerable financial and emotional investment over there, I think you’ve made a brave post. There really is little doubt now that the UK would not be part of the EU had key 1970s UK politicians spelt out clearly the nature of their long-term political objectives. They lied to us. We, the British public, were not the only ones duped however, dozens of dopey MPs also fell into a trap set by Heath, Wilson and Co. I’ve no faith in the present government to set things right. The history books will still be written however.
Is to much to hope that our brave overpaid ‘journalists’ might one day put the direct question to our Political Pygmies, “Are you in favour of an ever closer political union, ultimately leading to a European state?”, and insist on a direct answer?
The EU is a cul-de-sac of over-regulation and diminishing returns. The future is the rest of the world and trade with it. Little seems to have been made of the news this January that Honda are laying off 200 workers as a result of poor sales in Europe while Land-Rover are taking on 200 as a result of expanding sales to China. A diminishing market of 250 million or an expanding market of 2 billion, please give us the choice!
Cameron has (I think) done sufficient to dish UKIP in respect of the next general election (if not the next EU election). What you didn’t and will never hear from the BBC or any of the paper press (except perhaps Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph) reporting/commenting on this one is 1. there is definitively no prospect of any meaningful “renegotiation” of our relationship with the EU and 2. UKIP’s demand for an immediate “in-out” referendum is either naive or wilfully obtuse.
Re 1. there is no mechanism (outside the Article 50 process) by which powers can be “returned” to us absent a unanimous agreement of the EU members (how likely is that?)
Re 2. UKIP’s publicity all but ignores the Article 50 process which involves (a) notice to the EU that we’re leaving and (b) a negotiation to agree the terms of our exit (which could incorporate a genuine “free trade” agreement with the EU a la NAFTA).
Accordingly, an “out” referendum result would precipitate an Article 50 negotiation not, as UKIP implies, an immediate unconditional withdrawal.
As can be seen, the issues are already being shrouded in lies and distortion: it’ll get worse!
“Accordingly, an “out” referendum result would precipitate an Article 50 negotiation not, as UKIP implies, an immediate unconditional withdrawal.”
As one firmly in the UKIP camp, I accept that immediate withdrawal without going through an Article 50 negotiation is not in Britain’s best interests. There would be too many unanswered questions. However, despite what our EU masters would prefer, no British parliament can pass legislation that cannot be repealed by a successive parliament. Therefore it would be quite in order for us to have a referendum and if it is in favour of immediate withdrawal, repeal all EU legislation on the EU statute books. Some transitional legislation may be required where EU legislation covered areas deemed necessary by the British parliament, but that would be all.
Another alternative would be to unilaterally withdraw from European institutions (not necessarily EU ones) which are mandatory for all EU members, this should theoretically trigger an automatic expulsion from the EU, but as with all of these things the EU would probably fudge it if it thought it was necessary.
Regardless of the success or otherwise of Article 50 negotiations, two years after formal notification of withdrawal it would be effective unless the UK and EU jointly decided to extent the negotiations.
Two years is a relatively short time to finalize how Britain’s future relations with the EU would operate (bi-lateral trade, foreign affairs, etc.), I think even the most ardent Euro-sceptic would be prepared to live with that. Equally, once one major EU country secedes, it makes it easier for the rest to do so as well. I’ll be surprised if anything exists to celebrate an EU centenary in 2050 or whenever, as the EU simply isn’t sustainable as anything more than a free-trade zone.
I am not anti-UKIP. The purpose of my comment was to highlight that:
1. Cameron, in offering a refendum (albeit an “offer” which is highly nuanced and mired in dishonesty), has undercut UKIP’s principal raison d’etre;
2. the process of withdrawal is not as simple as repealing some legislation: UKIP does not make this clear nor does it AFAIAA lay down a roadmap involving the article 50 process.
3. the media, as well as more or less ignoring the article 50 escape route, refuses to inform their readers/viewers/listeners as to what is required. What is required is that before effective negotiations on a new relationship or withdrawal even begin, the UK has to give notice to the EU that it intends to withdraw from the present arrangements. Accordingly, there should probably be a referendum before renegotiaion (to justify the article 50 “notice”) and another one after the renegotiation to confirm the outcome of the withdrawal/new relationship agreement. This is not diffult to understand nor, in principle, to carry out. It’s that the political class (EUnutters to a wo/man) don’t want the electorate to know and would rather obfuscate the process and the issues.
Surely the immediately significant thing to be watching is what the Labour response to this is.
According to all the polls, short of Scottish devolution before the next election, the odds are that Labour will be the next government of the UK.
It would be ridiculous of Cameron to try to railroad something through quickly that would then be simply abandoned by the incoming regime and the debate ended for evermore, coupled with an inevitable need to appease the Commissioners. Besides which, I think Cameron’s approach all along has been to allow the economic crisis between the members of the Euro to achieve far more than any political posturing by him could ever achieve.
The French socialists have already started a new war to take the Frenchie’s minds off things closer to home, and even more blood and treasure will now be squandered. Eventually the pigeons will have roosted for so long the Eurocrats will be knee-deep in guano and sooner or later the stink will; get too much for the Germans.
Regardless of treaty restrictions it’s difficult to imagine who could credibly formulate and negotiate beneficial changes on our behalf; so why would DC’s imaginary referendum ever become real? Some face saving miniscule adjustments more likely.
So it all still looks like skirmishes on the way to the full eu democracy lite socialist paradise protecting us all from the world beyond Europe’s borders.
The Brits are are just taking longer to get on board.
I do hope I’m wrong.
It could have been so much better.
The electoral maths is too hard to call at this stage. We have several factors at play. Labour well and truly screwed the economy and everyone knows it. Generally its the economy stupid. Unemployment continues to fall. It is only a matter of time until people are confident enough to start spending again. The only people buying spending cuts (and global warmism for that matter) are the ministry of Propaganda at Broadcasting House. Miliband, the brother stabbing Labour leader has an awful voice. When he is on telly every night he’ll be like a young Michael Foot. Electoral suicide.
The Libdems will be punished for the coalition. That is why the SNP got a majority in Scotland, the Libdem vote collapsed. So their votes are up for grabs – and their diehards may well stay at home. That has unpredictable consequences for voting patterns in many parts of the UK. Depending upon whether the SNP win ( which I doubt anyway ) the I/P referendum will have dramatic effects on the Scottish Westminster result the following year. The post referendum outcome in Scotland is not really predictable.
Cameron is being cynical in saying what he did today. Any votes he stands a chance of getting are UKIP votes. He cannot move on immigration because the ethnics are the largest growing demographic – and if not 2015, then surely before long, his party needs to woo them. He is hoping to neutralise the anti EU element and shore up support knowing full well that he has promised only jam tomorrow, and when in any event he already has croissants per fruhstuk himself. Even if he wins a landslide I’d wager England will still be in the EU on much the same terms it is now in 2020.
Anyone who thinks there will ever be a referendum with a yes/no vote, is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Depressing, but I fear you may be right. So it’s out onto the streets with the riots…
If you want to leave the EEC then you have to be certain you will win the vote before you have a referendum. Last I read, the best poll for those who wish to get out, suggested those in favour of leaving was… 49% …. Seems like a nobrainer to me.
The ones running scared here are the Lib Dems, having lost all credibilty they will be lucky to fill a taxi in the next General Election.
That didn’t take long…….
“Ed Miliband rules out support for in-or-out EU referendum”
“Labour leader hardens party’s position against referendum”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/23/ed-miliband-in-out-eu-referendum
If Cameron could renegotiate the entire EU setup such that it became a free trade area based on independent nation states co-operating, that would probably be acceptable. Any political union closer than that would not be (to me, anyway). That would mean tearing up the Lisbon Treaty, the Maastricht Treaty and probably much else.
I suspect the chances of this happening are somewhere close to zero. It would not suit the comfortable, publicly-funded lives of those currently driving the EU (the unelected Commissioners and their many overpaid minions) to be effectively voted out of existence, so they won’t allow it. It wouldn’t suit those countries currently in net receipt of EU funds to lose them, so they won’t be keen either.
If, at the end of this negotiation process, we do get our referendum (oh, look – a pig fluttering past!) the chances are that British public disillusion with the whole EU setup would deliver an ‘out’ verdict. So they won’t allow that, either….
Keep the pressure on, UKIP. You seem to be about the only political party advocating any sort of genuine democratic representation and accountability in the whole of Europe at the moment.
Agree entirely but just can’t see any way forward.
Like the euro, things are too far along to unravel without a lot of pain.
Alone it’s bit like trying to get one egg back out of an omelette.
So we’ll just have to hope that when it falls apart it doesn’t destroy us.
Referendum promise? I think this will end up like all of “Cast iron” Dave’s promises.
About time most of your commentators began to realise that their dreams of having any actual impact on things is kindly speaking minimal. Hopes may indeed be dreams, but dupes are generally liars.
I despair for the formerly educated classes of England. Chesterton rise again.
An online poll in France’s centre-right newspaper Le Figaro suggested many French people would be happy to see Britain leave.
With more than 15,500 votes cast, 70% favoured the UK leaving over 30% who disagreed.
Mr Cameron’s name was trending among French users of Twitter as of Wednesday afternoon.
While it appeared not to rank high among German tweeters, a phone poll by German broadcaster n-tv on whether Britain should leave the EU found 80% of viewers in favour of exit, to 20% who disagreed.
The French are always been happy to see Britain leave. However, I can think of a few times they’ve been happy to see the British Tommies return. We shouldn’t really get too upset by the voting record of the French.
Post the two wars, which were both of their own making, things have now worked out well for the Germans. They now dominate Europe whilst managing to look like the good guys. If they truly want to be the good guys and putting the argument another way: They managed to keep the eastern hordes out of their country for ten long years whilst Britain soaked up the first mad rush of immigrants. So, on the basis of little more than fair-play, why doesn’t our wretched leader ask their wretched leader if Germany will agree to absorb the mad rush that’s soon to come our way? Why not give Britain a ten year break in which to recover from the first deluge?
Seems fair to me but it’s not going to happen – not ever. The EU commissars will send tanks through the tunnel first (only in order to mop up we British dissidents of course).
Before anyone thinks to pour scorn on the notion, please first read a few books on 20th century European History.
Anyone who would give my mother, or anyone who actually pays to get a copy of the Daily Mail, a vote on a matter of such profound importance, is a twat.
Comments on this entry are closed.