EU referendum: a load of Balls

Gradually working through yesterday's debate on the Address, one lights upon the contribution fromEd Balls, who tells us, "I want us to stay in the European Union". He then cites Lord Heseltine, who had said:

To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn't begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that's unknown, where Britain's appeal as an inward investment market would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble.

To take that "unnecessary gamble" now, says Balls, "would be the wrong thing to do". This, he adds: "is exactly the same position as the one the Prime Minister and the Chancellor joined us in the Lobby to vote against in October 2011". Balls then reminds us of what Mr Cameron told the Conservative party conference in 2006:

For too long, we were having a different conversation. Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most. While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life - we were banging on about Europe.

Now, says Balls, his party has certainly been banging on about Europe day after day over the last week - banging the nails in the coffin of Tory modernisation and in the coffin of this Prime Minister's prime ministership, too.

And there, it seems to me, lies the essence of the europhile tactics. They are – and always have been – seeking to close down the debate on the EU altogether. We should not even discuss "Europe".

This was exactly the line taken by Paul Goodman in Tory Diary yesterday. These people would have us eternally condemned to having a debate about whether to have a debate, never actually getting down to the substantive issues.

And today, we see a variation of the same thing with the intervention of Vince Cable, who tells usthat leaving the EU would be "self-indulgent and reckless".

No "serious friend of British business" would call for a break-up of Britain's relations with the EU, he is to tell a business conference in Birmingham, warning that if Britain quit the EU, he will warn, "we could reasonably expect an exodus of the non-EU firms headquartered in this country, precisely because they regard the UK as the gateway to Europe". 

However, no one in their right mind (other than the Judean People's Front) would actually call for "a break-up of Britain's relations with the EU". In or out of the EU, we still need a relationship with the member states of the EU. Thus, the question is how those relations would be managed.

Cable is, of course, spreading FUD, but it is that which sterilises the discussion, and makes it so unremittingly tedious. We never seem to be able to get down to the core issues, discussing the merits of membership and how we would fare outside the European Union under various exit scenarios. 

Instead of that debate, all we get is a load of Balls.

COMMENT: COMBINED REFERENDUM THREAD

EU referendum: a step closer

I'm not quite sure when the practice stopped but certainly before the war, an important debate in Parliament would get at least two full pages of coverage. And that was in the days when the likes of the Daily Express was a broadsheet. The reports, in eight, densely-printed columns, with only tiny pictures, would run to several thousand words.

Now, we just get the highlights, which means the flavour of the debate comes via the filter of the reporters covering the story – and most often they are either working from agency reports, or broadcast highlights. 

There is, however, some compensation in that we can watch the debates live and read the Hansard reports later. I prefer to do the latter, finding the written word more reliable without the distraction of the theatricals. Thus, while the MPs were chuntering at each other this evening, I was actually watching a decade-old episode of West Wing on the internet. I'll read the full debate tomorrow. 

Anyway, the headline news is that 114 Conservative MPs voted for John Baron's amendment to the Queen's Speech "expressing regret" that an EU referendum Bill had not been included in the Government's legislative programme for the next session. 

This is slightly more MPs than had been anticipated but, nevertheless, the amendment was defeated by 277 votes to 130. Labour and Lib-Dem MPs responded to their whips, and toed the party line. Strictly though, the Tory vote was not a rebellion or a mutiny, as there had been a free vote. 

The good news is that at least this blog is back doing the very thing is was set up to do when we set it up on 22 April 2004. That makes us now just over nine years old. By the time we get a referendum in 2017, if we do, the blog will be thirteen years old, longer than a typical life sentence for murder. 

The bad news is that it could be another five years after than before we see a referendum – depending on a lot of things, including the outcome of the general election, so the blog could be 20 by the time we see the results come in. 

With that thought, we take comfort in the view of the Independent which thinks that David Cameron's "bloody nose" tonight brought an EU referendum a step closer. 

Please let it be so.

COMMENT: COMBINED REFERENDUM THREAD

EU referendum: a significant event

By the media and the paid politicians, almost any subject can be trivialised to the extent that it becomes a low-grade soap opera. And that transition was managed with consummate ease earlier this morning during PMQs, when deputy prime minister Nick Clegg stood in for Mr Cameron. Perhaps the highlight of the event was Edward Leigh taunting the Clegg with a copy of a 2008 Lib Dem leaflet (below left) in which he declared: "It's time for a real referendum on Europe" at the time of the Lisbon Treaty negotiations. Leigh, asked Mr Clegg whether the man pictured in the leaflet was "an impostor or just a hypocrite", only to get a dead-bat reply that he was in favour of a referendum when the rules changed. Clegg, in turn, complained of the Conservatives of "constantly shifting the goalposts" on a referendum. He said the Commons had spent a hundred hours debating the Bill which gave a legal guarantee of a referendum if powers were transferred to Brussels. Nevertheless, he now seems to concede that a referendum is inevitable. In anticipation of a vote today on an amendment to the Queen's Speech, the deputy prime minister declared: "We on this side should go out and promote what is in the Queen's Speech, not spending days bemoaning what is not in the Queen's Speech", then adding: "I think we should stick to the priorities of the British people, which is growth and jobs". This is a theme echoed by Paul Goodman on Tory Diary, who is relying on a time-honoured formula in an attempt to defuse the "Europe" issue. "The matters that most move the British people at the ballot box", he claims, "are the meat, potatoes and two veg of British politics: the economy, hospitals, schools and crime - plus, of course, immigration". Notwithstanding that these issues are all, to a greater or lesser extent affected by our membership of the EU, Goodman is unwittingly illustrating what we should have a referendum on the EU. Such constitutional matters tend to be swamped by more immediate concerns in a general election, so they should be deal with separately, with the referendum format being the most appropriate mechanism. What is interesting though is the contrast between this mealy-mouthed response and the triumphalism of the Daily Express which was the only national newspaper to give the referendum full frontal treatment this morning (right). Claiming a victory for its own campaign, it announces without equivocation that we are to get a straight in-or-out choice in a referendum on Britain's EU membership. In a dismissive response, however, Nigel Faragedeclares that, "This latest talk of an EU Referendum is nothing more than gesture politics". Thus, his earlier-declared stance of planning to stand for Westminster in 2015 is still in force, which means that the effect of UKIP's intervention could be to ensure that we have a Labour government and no referendum. Meanwhile, we have the putative rebellion of up to 100 MPs, in the Queen's Speech vote, which is scheduled for 7.15 this evening. As Labour and the Lib-Dems were whipping their MPs against the motion, it is almost certain to fall. Dominic Sandbrook in the Daily Mail is amongst the many who see in this evidence of the Conservative Party tearing itself apart, Sandbrook himself relying on comparisons between Mr Cameron and John Major. This also allows the loss-making Guardian to question Mr Cameron's leadership skills, asserting that he once led his party by challenging it, but now meekly muddles through by pandering to its obsessions. But, for all that, the publication of the draft Bill seems to have had an effect. We are told that the rebellion is "fading away", possibly signifying that MPs attach more significance to the referendum promise than does Mr Farage. Certainly, an evidently frustrated Daniel Hannan has bought the package – but then you would expect that. However, one has a sneaking sympathy for his complaints about the tendency of lobby journalists to look at the EU through the tinted glass of party management. He thus observes that, amid the hubbub about "Tory splits", we are in danger of missing the magnitude of what is taking place. We are no fans of young Hannan here, but in this one instance, I tend to veer closer to his "take" than anything the likes of Iain Martin has to offer. This man, whose own judgement is very often suspect, thinks the Conservatives have "lost the plot". To me, that is the kettle calling the pot black. I think we are looking at an event of some magnitude here, one which the media and the serried ranks of MPs have not entirely succeeded in trivialising. And such are the dynamics of the Cameron offer that I would not be entirely surprised to see Labour and the Lib-Dems supporting the idea of a referendum. Indeed, Cameron is now on the attack, saying that the "focus" must now shift to Labour and the Lib-Dems and whether or not they would be prepared to offer the British public a vote on Europe. He is criticising the two party leaders for "pretending nothing has changed" in the EU in recent years, putting them on the back foot. But, once the events of this day are over, the real focus must then shift to king-maker Farage and his UKIP supporters. As the reality of a referendum seems to be firming up, Farage may come under pressure to rethink his somewhat glib response. If it has become the role of UKIP to deny us a referendum on the EU, then he had better start telling us what he has in mind as an alternative. COMMENT: COMBINED REFERENDUM THREAD Richard North 15/05/2013 Edit

EU budget: a done deal   Wednesday 15 May 2013 We warned last week that it was on its way. And now it is here (see page 9). The finance ministers of the EU member states, including Mr George Osborne, have agreed to provide an additional €7.3 billion for the 2013 budget, as the first tranche of an overall figure that will eventually reach €11.2 billion. The "amending budget no.2" will add about £800 million to Britain's EU bill, with potentially another £400 million to find when the complete deal is reached. That will come with the second tranche, expected to be agreed after the summer break, bringing the additional British liability to £1.2 billion. The sum so far agreed represents rise of 5.5 percent on the original budget of €133 billion agreed for this year, itself and increase on the previous year's budget (2012) of €129.1. With the budget now standing at €140.3 billion, that represents an 8.7 percent year-on-year increase, kicking into touch any idea of EU budgetary restraint. Needless to say, Mr Osborne has been very quiet about this, and the UK media has been playing it relatively low key, making light of the British humiliation. Only the BBC hints at the scale of the defeat, citing a British government source who said the government could not support the amending budget. But, with the vote taken by QMV, there was nothing a powerless Mr Osborne could do. Ironically, this came on exactly the same day that the Conservative Party published its draft Bill for an EU referendum. The Party could well have pointed out that we were having to find another £1.2 billion to feed the ravening maw of Brussels, making it another good reason why we should be planning our exit. And still there is the battle of the multi-annual budget to come. Then there will be many more amending budgets to come, as the "colleagues" attempt to chip away at the hidden deficit which technically makes the EU insolvent. Unsurprisingly, we saw yesterday Kenneth Clarke claim that us leaving the EU could "spell catastrophe for the economy". What Clarke didn't specify, of course, was that the real catastrophe would be to the EU Commission's economy. They desperately need our money – and much more of it. We have not heard the last of this. COMMENT THREAD

EU budget: a done deal

We warned last week that it was on its way. And now it is here (see page 9). The finance ministers of the EU member states, including Mr George Osborne, have agreed to provide an additional €7.3 billion for the 2013 budget, as the first tranche of an overall figure that will eventually reach €11.2 billion.

The "amending budget no.2" will add about £800 million to Britain's EU bill, with potentially another £400 million to find when the complete deal is reached. That will come with the second tranche, expected to be agreed after the summer break, bringing the additional British liability to £1.2 billion. 

The sum so far agreed represents rise of 5.5 percent on the original budget of €133 billion agreed for this year, itself and increase on the previous year's budget (2012) of €129.1. With the budget now standing at €140.3 billion, that represents an 8.7 percent year-on-year increase, kicking into touch any idea of EU budgetary restraint. 

Needless to say, Mr Osborne has been very quiet about this, and the UK media has been playing it relatively low key, making light of the British humiliation. Only the BBC hints at the scale of the defeat, citing a British government source who said the government could not support the amending budget. But, with the vote taken by QMV, there was nothing a powerless Mr Osborne could do. 

Ironically, this came on exactly the same day that the Conservative Party published its draft Bill for an EU referendum. The Party could well have pointed out that we were having to find another £1.2 billion to feed the ravening maw of Brussels, making it another good reason why we should be planning our exit. 

And still there is the battle of the multi-annual budget to come. Then there will be many more amending budgets to come, as the "colleagues" attempt to chip away at the hidden deficit which technically makes the EU insolvent. 

Unsurprisingly, we saw yesterday Kenneth Clarke claim that us leaving the EU could "spell catastrophe for the economy". What Clarke didn't specify, of course, was that the real catastrophe would be to the EU Commission's economy. They desperately need our money – and much more of it. We have not heard the last of this. 

COMMENT THREAD

EU referendum: a poison chalice?

A due amount of cynicism is warranted, and all the things I said last night about the prime minister still stand.  

However, it is possible to concede a small amount of surprise at the exact text of the referendum question that might be asked, if we ever get a referendum, which is now supposed to be before the end of 2017. And that question, the one which causes the surprise is, "Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?"

The reason for the surprise is that it abandons the great advantage, upon which Mr Cameron was to rely – the "renegotiation" ploy which, according to Kellner and others, converts a majority in favour of leaving into a comfortable win for him.

Cameron is still going to be pushing his renegotiation agenda but, unless that is tied in to the referendum question, he has problems. In the 1975 referendum, the question was very similar: "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (The Common Market) ", but that time it was prefaced by: "The Government have announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom's terms of membership of the European Community" …

Also, tying the referendum to the end of 2017 at the latest opens the way to the "colleagues" to block any negotiations right up to the very last minute, leaving Mr Cameron with no room for manoeuvre in seeking to big-up the deal.

On the other hand, the one thing Cameron has going for him is that he is now able to say only his party is offering a "clear choice" about the UK's future in Europe. But most of all, he can say with a little more conviction that the only way we are going to get a referendum is by voting Conservative.

Whatever one might think of the way he has been dragged kicking and screaming to this position, it would be very hard now for a new Conservative government to back away from a referendum. Even without legislation in place before the election, they have nailed their colours to the mast.

Interestingly, Miliband is holding firm so far. He is not bending to vulgar "populism" and matching Cameron's offer. But we can bet he will be watching the polls very closely, and if there appears to be electoral advantage from putting a referendum on the table, the Labour leader will surely be tempted.

This also rather puts Farage on the rack. If we judge that Cameron is making a genuine offer, then our best hope for a generation for getting out of the EU is most definitely to back the Conservatives. A vote for UKIP at the general election would have the effect of denying us the opportunity of quitting.

These are difficult judgements though. To treat Mr Cameron's offer as suspect is entirely an honourable position. With so many promises made, and not fulfilled, there is every good reason for not believing that this is a genuine offer.

Thus, we ourselves have to make the call. Are we going to hammer the Tories, and hold out for something better – whatever that might be – or do we go with the latest offer and hope it comes off? And then, we have to ask whether we are actually capable of winning a referendum, or is Mr Cameron presenting us with a poison chalice.

Just for once, the ball is back in our court. We maybe have a chance of a referendum, but maybe it is an illusion. And then, do we really want something we might not win?  We are unprepared, with no coherent arguments to put to the electorate, and could very easily lose a referendum.

As yet, though, it is not decision time, but the choices are getting more interesting and challenging.

COMMENT: COMBINED REFERENDUM THREAD