David Cameron calls for EU referendum

[garbon]

My eyes were bleeding today after reading every page of the daily mail. Should have brought a non-electronic book with me.

[Martinus]

Going back on topic, I am just wondering what Cameron's end game is. It is quite clear that Europe a la carte will not work, and it's unlikely France and Germany will agree to any substantial power repatriation by all the members. So either he is playing the age old game of destroying any continental unity or he is bluffing - in which case he may end up with this blowing up in his face quite spectacularly.

[Fate]

More specifically, the directive is that over a certain period - I think two months - you must not average over 48 hours a week.

One has to wonder how the Nordic states and Germany do so well in "competitiveness" (God, how I hate that word) under the same regulations, and without all the opt outs, than the UK does. And yet the Tories think waving the magic wand of deregulation, when we already have the most liberal laws in the EU on these thing, is all we need to unleash that entrepreneurial magma we have sitting beneath us. :

I wonder how many people actually work more than 48 hours on average anyway. A normal full-time employee works an average of 42.7 hours in the UK. I would assume that the big majority of British workers works less than the 48 hours that are allowed.

Doctors over here in the US usually work in the 50-60 hour range. During residency training in surgical fields you will work right up to the 80 hour cap.

I'd imagine lawyers put in similar hours.

[Zanza]

Doctors here usually work more than 48 hours as well, especially when doing a residency training. That is possible because a lot of their time, especially night and weekend shifts count as being on call which does not count against the limit. I guess my brother works at least 60 hours in a typical week as a surgeon.

[mongers]

Fog in Channel, Europe Unaware Britain Cut Off. 

[The Brain]

I remember 40 h weeks.

[Sheilbh]

Here's a column from the Observer I think gets it right. As the recent leadership rumours seem to demonstrate the lunatic wing of the Tory party is larger than anyone suspected:

David Cameron's great leap into the dark on Europe may prove fatal for him
The Tory party's cheering now, but the prime minister's speech on Europe will prove disastrous for him and them

Andrew Rawnsley
The Observer, Sunday 27 January 2013
Jump to comments (552)

At the Labour conference of 1962, Hugh Gaitskell made a supposedly definitive speech declaring that if Britain joined Europe it would mean the "end of a thousand years of history". Basking in the applause, he delightedly remarked to his wife: "Look how many people are clapping." To which she deflatingly replied: "Yes, dear. But it's the wrong people who are clapping."

There has been much applause for David Cameron from his party and its newspapers in the wake of his speech on Europe. In some quarters, the reception has been so adulatory that you could have been fooled into thinking that he had won himself a place alongside Abraham Lincoln in the pantheon of great orators and the Gettysburg Address now had a rival in the Bloomberg Speech. In the Commons, his MPs gave him a hero's welcome. But I wonder if the prime minister noted that the most jubilant people on the benches behind him were his enemies. Those most delighted by his promise of an in-out referendum are the visceral Euro-haters for whom he has just fired the starting gun on a five-year campaign to leave Europe whatever he comes back with from any renegotiation. If Mr Cameron is serious when he says his "heart and soul" wants Britain to remain a member of the EU, then, from his point of view, the wrong people were clapping.

This was a speech made at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, proclaiming a policy he never originally intended, with a pledge he had previously resisted on an issue that excites his party but not that many of the public. At the superficial level of short-term party management, it has been a success. The Conservative party has looked united and pleased with its leader, sights so rare these days as to be worth remarking upon. Ukip's Nigel Farage has not been his usual bouncy self. I am not sure his fox has been as shot and stuffed as Tory strategists are hoping, but it was certainly limping badly in the immediate aftermath of the speech. Labour and the Lib Dems have squirmed a bit explaining why they are against having a vote on EU membership. "I won't consult the people" is never a terribly good look for a politician, even when the position comes with sensible arguments. Mr Cameron's poll numbers may enjoy a bouncette.

But on any time horizon further away than a few weeks, the speech will prove to be a terrible mistake, quite possibly the fatal error of his premiership. David Cameron has taken a great leap into the dark, which would not be so serious if he were not making his country jump with him.

Here are a few of the important things that he doesn't know and neither does anyone else. He can't yet be sure whether he can persuade other member states to get around the table to discuss his plan to reform the European Union and repatriate some as yet unspecified powers. He can't even know with whom he might be negotiating since there are a lot of elections between now and 2017, including a crucial one in Germany this autumn. Other European leaders agree that deeper integration within the eurozone will require a new settlement at some point, including rules to govern the relationship between those who are in the single currency and those who aren't. But yet another thing that Mr Cameron can't know is whether his timetable – renegotiation in the first half of the next parliament, followed by a referendum some time around 2017 – will be a fit with events and the interests of other players.

One thing he might be expected to know is what he would like the negotiation to be about. Yet only one example was given in his speech and that was the working time directive. If all he demands is the right for Britain's junior doctors to be allowed to treat patients when they are half asleep at the end of a 100-hour week, the rest of Europe may not be too resistant to granting us that dubious privilege. Presumably the prime minister has more ambitious goals than that. The party that was cheering him will skin him alive if he hasn't. But he dare not say what they are, so he is currently hiding behind the Foreign Office's protracted consultation about what the EU does and how this has an impact on Britain, a review that is designed to be published in slow instalments.

At some point, Mr Cameron will have to specify his demands. If they are on the maximalist end of the spectrum, other European leaders will respond that he is asking for the impossible. If he produces a shopping list that might be more realistic as a basis for negotiation, he will be denounced from within his party for seeking too little. His fundamental problem is the unbridgeable gap between what the rest of Europe might be prepared to swallow to prevent Britain from sliding out of the EU and the price for staying in demanded by a large section of the Tory party. The gap is as wide as it ever was and David Cameron is still wobbling on a tightrope strung across the chasm, but now without the benefit of any safety net.

To his circle, he has expressed a hope that the Conservative party will now shut up about Europe and talk about other things that are far more important to most voters, such as jobs and living standards. If he is fortunate, the referendum pledge may cool down his party for a time, but I doubt it will be for a terribly long time. Men such as Douglas Carswell, Bill Cash and Mark Reckless have devoted entire careers to talking about Europe. They are not going to fall silent on the subject for the next two and a half years and suddenly develop an interest in botany or some other harmless hobby. As one of Mr Cameron's most loyal ministers puts it: "The great danger is that David has aroused an appetite that he will never be able to satisfy."

For the most hardcore Europhobes, the renegotiation-then-referendum pledge does not resolve the debate. It is just the beginning of an argument they want to conclude with Britain out of the EU. This guarantees that Mr Cameron's party will go into the next election even more divided on Europe. Some Tory candidates will proudly issue personal manifestos pledging themselves to vote no in a referendum. Others will come under enormous pressure to follow suit to avoid a Ukip challenge. I expect Nigel Farage will soon get his wind back. To Eurosceptic voters, he can say that referendum pledges have been betrayed before and the only way to be sure it is delivered is to keep Mr Cameron's feet to the fire by voting Ukip at all possible opportunities.

The referendum pledge may anyway turn out to be a phantom since it is entirely contingent on Mr Cameron still being in Downing Street after 2015. As I've pointed out before, no Conservative prime minister has improved his party's share of the vote since Anthony Eden in rather special circumstances in 1955. If the next parliament is also hung, and the Lib Dems again hold the keys to Number 10, Mr Cameron has said acceptance of his plan will be a deal-breaker. Yet the Lib Dems have already repudiated it as a betrayal of the national interest and could not put him back into Number 10 if there were any risk he would lead a campaign to exit the EU. While proclaiming the virtues of flexibility in Europe, he has glued himself into a position that reduces his chances of remaining as prime minister.

Then imagine a scenario in which Mr Cameron is in a position to pursue a renegotiation in the next parliament. Another thing he cannot say is what he would regard as a success. Would getting 80% of what he asked for be sufficient for him to recommend a Yes vote? 60%? Would he settle for 50%? He himself can't know yet. But this we can be sure about. He could come back with everything that he had demanded and a significant element of his party would still not be satisfied. They are not interested in securing a "better deal". For them, the point of a referendum is to get out. For going on 20 years, the Conservative party has been regularly convulsed by its destructive passions about Europe, but it has just about stayed together. A referendum campaign would turn those divisions into a bitter and formal split between Yes and No Tories. One of the prime minister's motives was to try to forestall his party from eviscerating itself as it did over the Corn Laws in the 19th century and free trade in the early part of the 20th century. Yet what he has done makes such a split more possible.

In a way, it is a breathtaking achievement. With one speech that he never wanted to make, Mr Cameron has unleashed several years of uncertainty about whether Britain will remain a member of the world's most powerful political and trading bloc, made it less likely that he will remain as prime minister after the next election, and more likely that his party will ultimately come apart altogether over Europe. That's a high price to pay for one day of cheers on a wintry Wednesday. With the wrong people clapping.

Incidentally Marti here's an influential conservative writer on what should be renegotiated - judge how mad you think it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/renegotiate-stay-in-the-eu-european-union?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2Frss+(Comment+is+free)

From the mid-1990s until 2010 I argued for a renegotiation of our position within the EU, in the genuine belief that this could be done. Even in 2011 I was still producing lists of what should come back. To remind you of my last list:

• We must pass a proper "Sovereignty Act" (not this worthless "referendum lock" nonsense) that asserts that, in respect of the UK, conclusions of the European court of justice do not have independent legal force. They constitute only an arbitration over whether we are or are not in violation of our treaty obligations. Thus, a British bureaucrat or minister is not acting against the law, and hence potentially subject to malfeasance, if she acts in ways that violate treaty obligations but have not been specifically implemented by parliament.

• Britain must explicitly be exempted from the obligation to seek "ever closer union".

• We must withdraw from the common criminal space and defence space (each of which were established in the Amsterdam treaty, which the Conservative party opposed).

• We must withdraw from the common foreign service provisions of Lisbon (eg the EU embassies and EU High Representative).

• We must repudiate our involvement in the passerelle clause of Lisbon.

• We must state that the UK is not part of the single legal entity, for international negotiations, created by Lisbon.

• We must repudiate our commitment, under Lisbon, to be in good standing with the European Convention on Human Rights and to accept as binding the findings of the European court.

Unfortunately this form of repatriation/renegotiation is now obsolete and we could not stay even if we secured all these points (though all these remain necessary). The task of renegotiation is harder now, because it involves not merely changing our relationship with our EU partners, but the very destiny of the EU itself.

A pro-leadership, pro-EU group of Tory MPs released a manifesto today, they want:

1. An emergency brake for any member state in financial services.

2. Repatriation to member states of the competence in social and employment law. Failing that a UK opt-out and emergency brake.

3. A UK opt-out from policing and criminal justice measures not already covered by block opt-out.

4. A new legal safeguard for the single market.

5. The abolition of the Strasbourg seat of the European parliament, the economic and social committee, and the committee of the regions.

And if they don't get it:

Where EU legislation threatens to cause significant harm in the context of UK practice, for example where patient safety in the NHS is put at risk, and appropriate reforms cannot be negotiated at the European level, the UK should consider unilaterally suspending the relevant obligations until a long-term solution can be negotiated.

Apparently Cameron wants to put deportation of terrorists suspects at the key of his renegotiations. Of course that problem is the ECHR. So...

[Zanza]

We must repudiate our commitment, under Lisbon, to be in good standing with the European Convention on Human Rights

That sounds like Vladimir Putin.

We must repudiate our involvement in the passerelle clause of Lisbon.

Just vote no every time. What's the problem?

[Sheilbh]

The Tories are obsessed and kind-of ignorant about the ECHR. Generally I think they want to withdraw and for that not to be an issue with the EU/Council of Europe.

Domestically they also want to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which is odd because there's far more judicial power with the American Bill of Rights than our rather more feeble Human Rights Act.

Incidentally great line in Peter Oborne's latest column, 'like the interior of Mali, large tranches of the Conservative party have become an ungoverned space'

[Valmy]

This is sort of like the 'UN black helicopter' right wing types hijacking a party isn't it?  I guess it was just a matter of time before the insanity infecting the Republicans began to spread to other English speaking right wing parties.  Sorry guys.

[Eddie Teach]

This is sort of like the 'UN black helicopter' right wing types hijacking a party isn't it?  I guess it was just a matter of time before the insanity infecting the Republicans began to spread to other English speaking right wing parties.  Sorry guys.

But the EU really exists.

[jimmy olsen]

This is sort of like the 'UN black helicopter' right wing types hijacking a party isn't it?  I guess it was just a matter of time before the insanity infecting the Republicans began to spread to other English speaking right wing parties.  Sorry guys.

But the EU really exists.

Are you saying the UN doesn't?

[The Larch]

This is sort of like the 'UN black helicopter' right wing types hijacking a party isn't it?  I guess it was just a matter of time before the insanity infecting the Republicans began to spread to other English speaking right wing parties.  Sorry guys.

It's like the Republicans bending over to appease Teapartiers. Does it feel familiar? 

[crazy canuck]

Domestically they also want to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which is odd because there's far more judicial power with the American Bill of Rights than our rather more feeble Human Rights Act.

Well there is no magic in calling it a Bill of Rights.  The American version has teeth because it is a constitutional document.  The Canadian Bill of Rights was a toothless wonder because it was mere legislation and was not the supreme law of the land.  Perhaps this is what Cameron has in mind.

[Sheilbh]

Well there is no magic in calling it a Bill of Rights.  The American version has teeth because it is a constitutional document.  The Canadian Bill of Rights was a toothless wonder because it was mere legislation and was not the supreme law of the land.  Perhaps this is what Cameron has in mind.

I doubt Cameron has anything in mind. No Tory I've seen has managed to explain what the difference between a British Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act would be, with the possible exception of being less continental

The irony is the Blair government looked at all sorts of different Commonwealth experiences to frame the Human Rights Act, because they were worried with how it would work with a Westminster system. They rejected the Canadian model and followed New Zealand. A further irony is that the only thing I've heard Cameron say about his Bill of Rights is that it should have a explicitly require proportionality which is, of course, a key concept derived from European law

I agree the words wouldn't matter, but I think they'd set up different expectations. I read an interesting article on the change from the House of Lords to the UK Supreme Court on this.

Meanwhile the Tory love of internicine fights bafflingly continues

Tories tell PM: lift poll ratings or face revolt
David Cameron told he has until summer 2014 to improve party's public standing or rebels could force confidence vote
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
The Guardian, Thursday 31 January 2013 21.03 GMT

Downing Street has been warned that David Cameron risks facing a confidence vote over his leadership in the summer of 2014 if his poll ratings fail to improve and the party performs poorly in the local elections.

A diehard group of party rebels, who would like to remove the prime minister immediately, will significantly grow in numbers over the next 17 months if the Tories fail to achieve a breakthrough, according to MPs inside and outside the government.

An incipient Tory rebellion was blown into the open this week when a leadership campaign by the former shadow science minister Adam Afriyie was exposed by the Mail on Sunday. The campaign, which was hoping to collect 120 signed letters in support of the millionaire MP for Windsor, has been widely derided by MPs who have said that it would be "mad" for the party to turn to a relative unknown who has never held ministerial office. Cameron made light of the challenge this week, telling MPs: "The Conservative party has always stood for people who want to work hard and get on and I'm glad that all of those behind me take that very seriously indeed."

But the Guardian understands from members of the government and from prominent backbenchers that there is a growing belief that enough MPs are prepared to trigger a vote of confidence in the prime minister in the summer of 2014 if the Tories experience a setback in the local elections. Such a contest would be triggered automatically if 46 MPs – 15% of the parliamentary party – write to the chairman of the 1922 Committee, Graham Brady.

One MP said: "There is a core of MPs that is determined to get rid of Cameron right now. They think he lost the last election, they think he cannot win the next election and maybe doesn't even want to win the election. They think he just likes the idea of being a coalition prime minister.

"While this group are wrong to think of a move now, there would be support for a contest if there is no movement for the party by 2014. There would be no problem in drumming up 46 letters to Graham Brady at that point. I could name them. I would support it."

The MP voiced the hope that the prime minister would revive his and the party's fortunes. "Maybe Cameron will turn things round. He is very good when his back is against the wall. But he is hopeless at managing the team room."

One member of the government said of the rebels: "This is not necessarily about waiting until 2015 and seeing if David Cameron loses. This is about being ready for the moment when the party realises that Cameron is not a winner."

The MP said that while the Afriyie campaign was not credible, it had touched a nerve as the party looked to a future where it could be led by someone whose background contrasts dramatically with Cameron's.

"Colleagues are fed up with the posh boys. They do not look like the country. I would love it if a working class guy of mixed race became our leader. It would say to Labour – wrong again. We had first woman leader, the first Jewish leader and now the first black leader."

The manoeuvring has exposed divisions among supporters of Afriyie. The former frontbencher maintains that he only ever intended to stand if Cameron resigned after losing the 2015 election. But some of his supporters want to unseat Cameron now.

Loyalists insist that the Afriyie campaign had ended up strengthening the prime minister.

One member of the government said: "What this week has done is guarantee that David Cameron will lead us into the next election. The Afriyie campaign is mad and far too premature." But the MP added: "Clearly there are MPs who want David out."

One minister said: "I have been involved in Conservative politics for 20 years. The Conservative party is never not plotting."

Others were more dismissive. One prominent backbencher said: "David Cameron will lead us into the next election. These people are somewhat deluded. What is their problem?

"The prime minister has an incredibly difficult job and he has just promised us a referendum on our membership of the EU with a deadline."

The prospect of a leadership contest will focus attention on Brady whose predecessor, Sir Michael Spicer, was chairman of the 1922 Committee when a vote of confidence triggered the downfall of Iain Duncan Smith in 2003.

It is understood that Brady already has a handful of letters in his safe calling for a vote of confidence in Cameron. At least one MP sacked from the Tory frontbench by Cameron has written. But Brady is praised by Cameron and by MPs across the party for being the soul of discretion.

The events of the past weeks have also clarified in the minds of senior Tories that George Osborne enjoys negligible support on the Tory benches should he decide to stand.

I can't understand the Tories on this sort of thing. Also, those rules seem designed to cause no confidence votes - 15% of signed letters, held anonymously from a group of around 300 career politicians...