Tory wars over Europe

[Sheilbh]

On the wider issue, how exactly would a future UK not in the EU work; when was the last time a policy of splendid isolation work out well for us ?

Of course the Eurosceptic argument would be that it wouldn't be splendid isolation but that instead of mainly having our economic relationship with the EU (and then defence with the US) we'd be a bit of a whore and work with anyone. As I say it's got its attractions, but I think that seems a bit optimistic.

Edit: Here's a piece from the Spectator's blog on this, mainly for the rather cutting Lib Dem perspective:

Tory leadership publishes draft EU referendum bill in a panic, and fails to convince backbenchers
Isabel Hardman 13 May 2013 23:13

David Cameron was trying to work out how on earth to deal with the latest Europe row in his party. He heard them demanding legislation in this parliament for a referendum in the next, and this evening, after nearly a year of letter-writing and speeches, he announced that the Tory party will publish a draft bill doing just that. They still can't get it through Parliament through the government channels, so they'll be putting it up for any willing backbencher (of which there are many) to adopt in the Private Member's Bill ballot.

Figures close to the Prime Minister were hinting to Tory MPs this evening there would be a move for legislation, but they were taken by surprise when, just a few hours later, the announcement was made that the draft bill will be published tomorrow.

So is this it? Is the Conservative party falling on its knees with gratitude? Unsurprisingly, MPs are not doing anything of the sort. I've spoken to John Baron who has been leading the charge from the backbenches. He now thinks that this is a sign that the whole Tory party should support his amendment to the Queen's Speech on Wednesday. He says:

'The leadership should have initiative and courage and support our amendment on Wednesday, which would force Labour and the Lib Dems to decide where they stand, and it would give them a mandate to introduce the legislation through the normal channels.'

The Lib Dems I've spoken to this evening strongly dispute that this would offer any sort of mandate for a government bill. One says:

'Call me cynical, but I think parliament might have better things to do than have a paving bill for a referendum based on a general election result we have not had, following a negotiation that has not started.'

There are two big problems with this. The first is that the PM now appears well and truly behind his party. He has resisted introducing draft legislation, and didn't mention it in negotiations about the Queen's Speech. And now, less than 48 hours before a vote on a motion that doesn't make any difference, he publishes a bill. The message is panic, not planning here, especially as it seems the draft bill has been circulating within the upper echelons of the party for some time. And the leadership failed to consult Baron and Co on the idea, meaning they've developed their own response, which is to demand more.

The second is that this just reinforces the impression that backbenchers are psychic. Why give up on a pet quest when you're just campaigning for something the leadership will eventually give in to? This has happened time and time again: the backbencher who recently joked to Coffee House that they just vote 'two or three weeks ahead' of their party rather than really rebelling was right. There are technically just under 24 months left of the Coalition: this won't be the last psychic demand Tory MPs make. Conversely, why on earth should any Tory bother being loyal or trying to peddle the party line any more? It could change at any minute.

Edit: Also how weird that three years into the coalition I think the Lib Dems look like the responsible party of government while the Tories look divided and fringe, not just over this either

[Iormlund]

Of course the Eurosceptic argument would be that it wouldn't be splendid isolation but that instead of mainly having our economic relationship with the EU (and then defence with the US) we'd be a bit of a whore and work with anyone. As I say it's got its attractions, but I think that seems a bit optimistic.

Not to mention that other markets will also require you to adhere to certain standards. And if engineering is any guide, those will be more often than not copied from Euro/US guidelines.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Cameron has made the classic error of pandering to a fringe of his party. It is how British political parties put themselves in the electoral wilderness. The last big time this happened was the 1980s when the Labour party actually advanced a socialist agenda and discovered that, while it was popular with party activists, it only had about 25% support from the electorate. A lesser example might be the electoral reform recently proposed by the libdems, important to them but a resounding "meh" from the voters.

People like to grumble in the UK, it is the main feature of political discourse here. Not endearing, but probably better than the alternatives. We have a hard core of maybe 25% who despise the EU, dislike immigrants etc etc. The most important group though is the pragmatic centre (a silent majority  ), who will not stick up for the EU down the pub but will vote to stay in if a referendum takes place. I have no doubt that if/when a referendum takes place it will result in us staying in, assuming that a disaster doesn't take place (eg fascists in government in Greece).

I'm beginning to think it would be best to have the referendum sooner rather than later and get this nonsense dismissed for a generation. Then the British PM can go to Germany with a reasonable hand of cards and chat with Merkel about the reform that the EU undoubtedly needs.

[Martinus]

I agree with you.

However, the Little Englander view is that the UK could depart from the EU and would still be better off for two reasons: first, the UK would be able to better pursue exports to higher-growth markets (ie Asia, Africa and Latin America); second, that the costs of EU contributions and regulatory frameworks outweigh the benefits of the single market. In other words, they reject your argument that these would be economically bad for the UK.

I think I have heard mention that outside of the EU, the UK could unilaterally dissolve all tariffs and basically go it alone on free trade (think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute advocate this).

From what I understand, the UK contributions to the EU are not very substantial.

Governmentally, no, but the argument goes that private firms spend a lot of money complying with EU legislation and regulatory requirements.

Does the "argument" go further to say that if the UK left the EU all these regulations would be abolished? Because frankly I don't see this happening. 

[Martinus]

Governmentally, no, but the argument goes that private firms spend a lot of money complying with EU legislation and regulatory requirements.

That's not going to change much if they want to market their products and services to Europe. In fact, they'll probably go up if they want to do that since they'll have to conform to two presumably different regulatory schemes - the UK one and the EU one.

Yeah it's funny when anti-EU idiots use this argument - the EU regulations are there so that there are no separate local regulations for every single member state.

[Martinus]

Another question:
Does a UK exit increase the probability of Scotland breaking away on the theory that Britexit forces the Scots to choose between their connection with England vs. their connection with the rest of Europe?

I think Scotland has already made it clear that it will reapply to the EU if the UK exited - not sure how the rest of the EU would feel about it though.

[Warspite]

Another question:
Does a UK exit increase the probability of Scotland breaking away on the theory that Britexit forces the Scots to choose between their connection with England vs. their connection with the rest of Europe?

This is an interesting question and one I have considered elsewhere.

The problem in working out whether this is true is that the EU referendum is planned for the next UK parliament in 2017, but the Scottish referendum is next year.

Scots are broadly more pro-European than the English, so the potential of British exit could skew the 2014 independence referendum vote.

It is difficult to tell if this will happen. But the problem Cameron faces is that in pandering to his own party, he might inadvertently set up a choice for Scots that is not between the Union and independence, but between Little England and Europe -- or at least the perception that this is the choice.

[Josquius]

The pro-Europeaness of Scots has always baffled me. Northern England is pretty culturally and politically similar (only we just have labour and no opposition in the shape of the SNP) and attitudes there are pretty anti-Europe.

[Martinus]

The pro-Europeaness of Scots has always baffled me. Northern England is pretty culturally and politically similar (only we just have labour and no opposition in the shape of the SNP) and attitudes there are pretty anti-Europe.

The Auld Alliance.

[Richard Hakluyt]

In the 1975 referendum Scotland was far less pro-Europe than England :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

[Sheilbh]

Does the "argument" go further to say that if the UK left the EU all these regulations would be abolished? Because frankly I don't see this happening. 

I think they generally mean the social Europe regulations and that sort of thing.

Cameron has made the classic error of pandering to a fringe of his party. It is how British political parties put themselves in the electoral wilderness. The last big time this happened was the 1980s when the Labour party actually advanced a socialist agenda and discovered that, while it was popular with party activists, it only had about 25% support from the electorate. A lesser example might be the electoral reform recently proposed by the libdems, important to them but a resounding "meh" from the voters.

Matthew Parris said today that you don't need a commentator to talk about the Tory party at the minute, you need a psychiatrist

The pro-Europeaness of Scots has always baffled me. Northern England is pretty culturally and politically similar (only we just have labour and no opposition in the shape of the SNP) and attitudes there are pretty anti-Europe.

Because they're not English and overly anti-EU views like Thatcherism and the Tory Party are generally seen as afflictions of the English. I think it's the similar sort of quite shallow EU support from people my age. Being pro-EU is a way of saying 'I'm not Tory'.

In the 1975 referendum Scotland was far less pro-Europe than England :

Now about 50% of English say they'd leave, 55% of Scots want to stay.

[Warspite]

It is rather amusing to think that Cameron, if he wins the 2015 election (the Tories are a lot stronger electorally if Scotland secedes), could conceivably be the prime minister who lost both Scotland and Europe.

[mongers]

It is rather amusing to think that Cameron, if he wins the 2015 election (the Tories are a lot stronger electorally if Scotland secedes), could conceivably be the prime minister who lost both Scotland and Europe.

Maybe political power is worth that to him ?   

[Agelastus]

People like to grumble in the UK, it is the main feature of political discourse here. Not endearing, but probably better than the alternatives. We have a hard core of maybe 25% who despise the EU, dislike immigrants etc etc.

That's more than a tad insulting - lumping anti-EU and anti-immigration attitudes under the same umbrella. While I'm certainly in the former camp I'm most definitely not in the latter. In fact, I find the current Tory contortions on the issue of immigration and how they're "clamping down" on it to be laughable at best and (since the easiest group to clamp down on are students or non-EU skilled workers) at worst actually damaging to the country.

-----------------

As for the thread and various things.


I don't think anybody in the UK, regardless of which side of the argument they are on, believes that Merkel is doing anything other than humouring Cameron. To genuinely renegotiate the treaties would require Germany to break with France which is something no post-war chancellor will do. It will also set a terrible precedent as has been noted unless it is done as part of a genuine reform of the EU, something for which there seems to be insufficent support for on the continent.


As for Scotland and Europe? Given Alex Salmond's (who is normally a very realistic and hard-nosed politician) mixture of cloud cuckooland and downright lies on the issue I'm not certain anyone can tell how the Scots feel on Europe or how it will affect the vote. For example, Salmond thinks that Scotland can keep the pound while  being an independent member of the EU (er, no, no-one's getting away with Sweden's trick or new exceptions as more recent accession treaties have shown) or that the UK's EU membership carries through to an independent Scotland (er, no, Scotland would have to negotiate its' own accession treaty as the Commission has pointed out.)

In fact, if Scotland votes "yes" to independence there's a good chance that it would have to apply for membership, a multi-year process. So those 55% of Scots who support the EU could very easily be voting to leave it (albeit temporarily) by voting for independence!

I must admit that I don't have a clue which way the Scots will vote given all the complications involved. But that's pretty normal with me regarding how the Scots think since I've never been able to reconcile "Scottish independence" and "membership of the EU" before now. For example, the way things are going in the Eurozone all Scotland will be doing is swapping the Bank of England for the ECB as one of the major controllers of their fiscal policy.


As for EU regulation there's certainly a thread among the Eurosceptics who are somewhat blase about the issue. However, there's also a certain degree of truth to the fact that in some areas EU regulations are not (or were not) as strict as British regulations so the whole argument is something of a red herring since both sides misrepresent the issue. What is interesting is the evidence that's been presented that British businesses find it easier to open new subsidiaries in most places outside Europe than they do inside the EU itself when for the EU to be worthwhile to Britain the reverse should be true.

As for the comment that "the City will be destroyed" by leaving Europe the balance of actual evidence from the last forty years suggests that it is in more danger from being within Europe. I'm not convinced that the choice is "fast death" outside Europe or "slow death" within Europe for the City since so much of the City's interests are global.


And finally, on the Tory party? I do recall the infighting of the Nineties, and it's not sunk to that level yet. However, the situation isn't all sweetness and roses for the Tory leadership either. For one thing, the total number of potential rebels is higher. In the Nineties there was a hard core who would vote against the government on Europe no matter how much Major placated them, and a more amorphous anti-European group who made noises but who constantly stepped back from actually joining the rebels. Cameron has a larger group of MPs who are more willing to be placated but who will, since they seem to be more committedly Euro-Sceptic, revolt en-masse if they lose their remaining faith in him.

Which is the second thing. It's not just the general public who distrust the party leaderships when the word "referendum" is bandied around, it's the backbenchers too. Part of it is constitutional, of course. The current parliament cannot bind the actions of a subsequent parliament, that's absolutely correct. But the other part of it is the same issue a large proportion of the general public have in that it appears that we've been promised referendums before "should certain things occur" and then have been told that we don't need to hold a referendum because "even though it looks like they did happen certain things didn't actually occur". Within the letter of their words the people saying this have been right, of course - but that's not what the perception has been, and I think that this feeling of being lied too is being felt by voters on both sides of the argument...which is reflected in parliament by the attitude of a number of MPs.


----------------

Anyway, the whole thing is moot anyway. The twin blows of the loss of boundary reform and the rise of UKIP have guaranteed a Labour victory in the next general election. The Lib-Dems are heading for a wipeout because at least half their support consists of voters too stupid to understand the realities of a coalition government and who feel somehow betrayed by the Lib-Dems actually living up to their principles ("we want electoral reform, electoral reform will lead to more coalitions, we have to show that coalitions work, sometimes election results and the good of the country leave only one choice of partner."*) The Tories and UKIP look like splitting the rightwing vote nationwide for the near to medium future.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the next election didn't result in another landslide on the scale of 1997 for Labour. Not because they have the support, but because the opposition is so fractured.


*I've said this before but I'll say it again. I never expected to feel sympathy for the Lib-Dems, a party whose policies are generally anathema to me, but a large group of the British Electorate have actually made this happen.

[Warspite]

Age, you are right that a lot of Salmond's policies are not thought through. But the fact is that polling over the last five years or so has consistently shown a much more pro-European attitude in Scotland than in England. So the risk is that voters nervous about Scottish independence are driven to vote for it because of the worry that, actually, they're going to be worse off in a UK outside the EU.

It's not a certainty, but it is a risk for the unionist position.