CentreRight

I have already made it clear that the Tories broke this ultimate promise. The voters will not stand for it. Any Tory politician worth his salt won’t stand for it.

There is a great precedent in the United Kingdom to issuing a referendum now. There is no difference in political principle or in law between what happened in the post-ratification referendum of 1975 on the then European Community and the granting of a referendum following the EU-wide ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The mere transition of the Treaty to a post-ratification stage is being used as a poor excuse by the Tory leadership to get out of dealing with Europe at all.

But don't ask me if it bothers others. See the comments published on this blog:

A post-ratification referendum on Lisbon does matter. It matters because of the mass of provisions over almost every aspect of our daily lives provided for in the treaty, for what it now means to undemocratic governance in Britain, and in the interests of democracy. The Westminster Parliament has become a sham, or a conveyor belt, in which 70% of our laws originate from Brussels and are accepted blindly by politicians at Westminster.

All three key political parties pledged a referendum. All three political parties have now abandoned that promise, in their own unique ways, and the electorate’s faith in politics – in return for the ability for a politician to do something in line with their wishes – is dying its death. The British people are sick of the traitors who govern them.

Those who hold the power in the mainstream parliamentary parties, who simply choose to renege on promises when the going gets tough, are watching their votes slip to ever-extreme parties with increasingly dangerous messages on Europe and immigration. And we have a General Election approaching. I would not have thought the Tory party would have joined the ranks of the mainstream who had abandoned their promises and integrity on an issue so central to the governance of the United Kingdom.

So, there goes Mr. Cameron’s promise. And now we wait. What for? All I can advise is that voters will not look favourably on another empty, referendum-less, policy-less mandate. They wanted their say and it has been denied.

It is astonishing to think that the ratification of the Lisbon treaty has been rammed through 27 national parliaments, including in the UK, with very serious questions over legality. That is not my opinion. That is the view of the UK Parliament’s own European Scrutiny Committee.

I had already written briefly before how the European Scrutiny Committee questioned David Miliband over the legality of the Irish guarantees on 2nd July.

The Committee then sent him a straightforward letter on 21st July over specific legal claims, asking him to answer several questions on the legal validity of the Irish guarantees in relation to the Lisbon Treaty. View this page and this one. 

Miliband then sent an awful and apologetic letter on 13th October, which failed to address any of the issues seriously (notice it was issued after the Irish referendum and almost 3 months late).

I now see that the Chairman (Labour) and the rest of the Committee are still astonished by his reply and have sent another letter on 21st October to continue their questions over legality. View this page and this one .
.

I have just heard that President Klaus is now being accused that it is too late for him to demand the    exemption from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that he should have done it earlier. The difficulty is that “earlier” the Lisbon Treaty was dead because it was rejected in Ireland, as you know, and unanimity was and is required for its ratification and implementation, if the EU follows its own rules.

That is why President Klaus came up with this demand after the second Irish referendum. He is not demanding anything special, but “only” a legal guarantee which the EU has already granted to two other EU member states. And he requires this guarantee to be legally binding.

(I am currently writing this up in The European Journal).

The European Scrutiny Committee has effectively backed 88% of the British people who wanted a say on the Lisbon Treaty and who have questioned, on grounds of democracy and law, how the Lisbon Treaty could ever have been enforced in this country without their consent. How can Britain now sign up to the Treaty, via Westminster’s hastily passed Bill, if that Treaty is to incorporate the ‘Irish Decision’ (guarantees made to the Irish), and the parliamentary Act that has passed the Treaty is now nonsense.

The British Government are wrong to claim that the Irish Decision on the Lisbon Treaty is legally binding, so it is a good to see that a parliamentary committee – the European Scrutiny Committee – is asking for a response on how this is all possible. View this page and this one. There is therefore good reason for the Conservatives to adopt this as part of their policy – we are in a new stage and a new policy is required.

Bill Cash, MP for Stone, received overwhelming support in a vote of confidence at an Extraordinary General Meeting last night. The meeting gave him a truly overwhelming majority - and a standing ovation. Bill said that he was utterly delighted with the results. He received a personal letter of support from David Cameron (see below).

That morning, in the European Scrutiny Committee, Bill had cross-examined David Miliband on the Irish guarantees and the Lisbon Treaty. He pointed out that the Minister for Europe, Baroness Kinnock, had stated the previous day that the British Parliament had “agreed” the Irish guarantees, which was simply not true. Bill challenged the Foreign Secretary to either agree with her or to tell the truth. The Foreign Secretary completely failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the legal and political situation regarding the Irish question and Cash demanded a referendum in line with the wishes of 88% of the British people.

Letter from David Cameron to Bill Cash

Dear Bill,

Further to my letter to you on 4th June, I understand that you will be meeting your Association at an Extraordinary General Meeting later today.

My earlier letter made clear that you did not have further questions to answer, and that I hoped very much that you would be able to put this matter behind you. However, in the light of the subsequent press coverage you and your family have had, I would like to reaffirm what I said and to thank you personally for the tireless contribution you make to the work of Parliament. You have a long record of serving your constituents with commitment and integrity.

I wish you well in the outcome of your Extraordinary General Meeting, and look forward to working with you to make sure a Conservative Government is elected at the next General Election.

Yours ever,

David Cameron

I would like to further Theresa May’s calls for more efficient Westminster scrutiny of EU legislation with a few more suggestions.

It has been a persistent problem in Britain that the Government, in signing up to European legislation, has almost inevitably overridden the scrutinized assessments, conclusions and objections of the United Kingdom Parliament. In short, Westminster continues to be shunned as EU legislation is passed. This has been partly explained by the failure of the European Scrutiny Committee’s scrutiny reserve – by which Parliament, through its designated Committee, should 'okay' a particular Treaty or piece of legislation before elected ministers agree a decision in the Council of Ministers. The Government has overridden the reserve countless times and it has become, to some extent, a redundant tool. In fact, it is this kind of “democratic deficit” attributed to the EU which actually derives from badly designed parliamentary arrangements in Westminster. The Conservative Party has already led the call for the scrutiny reserve to be asserted on a “statutory basis,” so that ministers are fundamentally and legally obliged to gain Parliamentary approval before they pursue fuller negotiations in the Council of Ministers.

On Monday, Europhile Labour MP, Denis MacShane asked Gordon Brown in the House of Commons: “Does he share my dismay that when the issue [tough stance on Russia] was fought out at the Council of Europe the other week, the Russians’ closest collaborators and fellow travellers in the debate were UK delegates from the Conservative party?”

First, the interesting observation is that Gordon Brown did not answer the question, indicating he did not share MacShane’s opinions or his dismay. On the other hand, the worst that the Conservatives have done is to sit with Putin’s centre right United Russia in the Council (hardly a crime, the bloke does still run Russia).

That is France's vision for an EU Space Policy which was suggested at an informal meeting of the European ministers for space affairs, held at the European Space Agency's Spaceport in Kourou in late July. Despite opposition, Sarkozy has a politically ambitious plan for the use of space for security and defence purposes and wider exploration of Mars and the moon. There is no legal base for it under the existing EU Treaties (but the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution does). Recent events and reports have attempted to further Sarkozy's European space plans. This is not what Britain wants from the European Union.

I really hoped the Conservative Party would have stepped up to the mark on issues of economic principle during the financial crisis – but they have been disappointing. So I will go further than what others have said and argue that it is John Redwood who has the ability to ‘connect’ – he connects himself to the philosophy he espouses (he doesn’t offer a sewn up set of impersonal disjointed policies), he connects to average ‘pay my way’ voters on the ground and he connects his own framework coherently into a better (Conservative) vision for how the Government, BoE and even FSA should have acted during the financial crisis. He also has the benefit of experience as a former Cabinet minister. In the absence of a practical Conservative Party view, he was not only right on his anti-bailout sentiment but he was right to have given private markets absolute priority over any state recapitalisation measures. Not because his view is merely popular, but because he is most probably right, John Redwood should be up there working with Osborne deciding how the Conservatives are realistically going to act in the future of this crisis (both the financial one and the political one of their own making).

‘Aarrgh, the dying economy’
Cameron said to Osborne
‘What’s a leader to do?

‘Darling’s saved the banks, they say
Brown’s patched up the whole of Europe –
Damn George, I think we’re screwed’

‘Oh, its balls and piffle Dave’
Osborne said to Cameron
‘Britain will be bankrupt soon

‘Once Bailout Brown’s
Spent all our pounds
Slaughtering the many for the few

‘They’ll have robbed the country
To pay off the bankers
From Rock down to Lloyds Group

‘So I’ll slash taxes and make it so
That each man pays his dues:
You watch them switch from red to blue.’

Jim McConalogue

I am certain that the vast amount of public money being spent in Europe on the financial crisis (as devised by Gordon Brown) may turn out to be the single biggest state expenditure mistake in recent global history. The pan-European spending spree amounting to £1.17 trillion could well turn out to be the biggest historic gamble of taxpayers’ money in recent European history at least. The key European governments are paying an amount of public money which is equivalent to funding a medium-sized state. The billions being thrown into the bottomless “rescue plans”, for example, are likely to cost the British household £20,000, the French household £11758 and the German household £9913. All of this, despite there being no real foreseeable conclusion to the financial crisis. We needn't be looking to Iceland to see the massive levels of debt that states have put themselves in during the crisis, when the leading countries of the European Union are attempting to spend themselves out of this black hole.

In answering to Charles Tannock’s (rightful) advice ensuring that we are “not blinded to reality by praising what is good when its obviously so even if emanating from the EU”, it is worthwhile focusing on Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling’s rescue plan and their supposed replication of the British model within a grander pan-European plan. After all, it sounds very good, does it not? Right now, Brown is being painted in the European media as a knight in shining armour. So, we must have some concerns for the plans, both the British package and also the trillion-euro pan-European plan. They are a big deal – and the Opposition is obliged to say something about it all (even if we are in agreement). So, here we go:

This is a massive gamble for taxpayers, both British and European. On the pan-European £1.17 trillion plan, I would suggest that the spending spree amounting to £1.17 trillion may turn out to be the biggest historic gamble of taxpayers’ money in recent European history. There are no guarantees it will work. There are no guarantees on future returns for eurozone Governments. There are certainly no guarantees that it will bring about more long-term good than harm in the global financial system. I am sure that the £1.17 trillion injection will be a welcome contribution to a pot which has so far proved to be bottomless.

European Union government has been massively at fault in Britain’s (and the rest of Europe’s) management of the financial crisis – this should now be clearly obvious. You will not hear that from the BBC (technically obliged to act as a public service under the Charter) or even The Mail on, for example, the EU’s failure over bodged capital adequacy rules because of the stance taken by their governors. The media’s continued blackouts on reporting EU legislation underpinning the governance of Britain is a shameful dereliction of public duty and moral sense. It is logically nonsensical and morally appalling.

It is not a new phenomenon – it was Leith’s guidance of the BBC which blocked the broadcast of Winston Churchill’s warning of the impending German threat in Europe. It was both the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror who were, again, the early supporters of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. They all got that wrong and they have got it wrong again. We are in the same situation now and the little Europeans running the national media will have shamefully caused a similar situation. People have been misled. The very European government our leaders have sought to impose upon the country is about to destroy us, but the morally vacuous officials, with a biased national media who presume to know better, have not stated the issues. As was done with the passage of the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Commission’s attempt in recent days to update its defective legislation comes far too late. The massive failure of the European Commission in governing financial regulation should lead us into the situation in which Britain can now seek a loosening of the relationship between Britain and the EU. Ever-deepening centralisation has not worked out for us. We do not need Lisbon, and nor did we need most of the provisions of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. The opportunity for an alternative way is laid out for us all.

I thought that some people might be interested in Europe and the banking crisis concerns dealt with in my article today, written for the Yorkshire Post. Meanwhile, the expected failure for ‘unity’ on banking rescue plans at the Luxembourg meeting yesterday have now been overshadowed this morning by Gordon Brown's proposal for a European-wide funding plan for the medium term. It is proof of Labour's bottomless pit of spending. As if the mutli-billion pound spending spree and nationalisation has not been enough, we are now presented with proof that the rescue plan is no longer about the British national interest – it is about propping up financial institutions in the interests of Europe.

Britain would now appear to be forking out billions for the decades of failures of the European Union. In my view, British taxpayers' should not be paying for every Tom, Dick and Harry across Europe. European nations must pay their own way, to sink or swim their own banks, according to their own vital national interests. It would be reckless to pump several more billions into European banks, by acting against the interests of British consumers and taxpayers.

Isn’t Chancellor Darling misplaced in going off to Luxembourg to seek grander reassurances during a time of such an unsettling crisis – key European leaders (in Britain, Italy, France and Germany) talked on Saturday and realised that there was no official EU-wide bank rescue plan. Now, Darling is going off to guarantee £80K in all savings accounts across Europe – I wonder if Europe will agree to this? I wonder if it is the right kind of action that is required? Is this recent market action really just about bank deposit guarantees? I think it is an Irish idea and the Irish are not well liked the moment – key player, Germany doesn’t want to pay for all the debt of all the sinking Club Med states as it will cost them a fortune. Germany has always fought for a tough politically uniform European policy in line with its own ambitions whilst maintaining strong financial security at home. That should not change in the current crisis. Does Darling support the Irish idea? I can’t help but think the European Council negotiations are going to wind up like the Paulson deal and end up being far too late for some banks. The financial world can not wait for the tortoise response of Labour politicians – but it looks as if it is being left to work its own way out.

I said it then … And now it is beginning: “Traders are starting to ‘price in’ an appreciable risk that EMU will break apart”, says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, where “the storyline is evolving much as eurosceptics predicted …”

I already blogged about David Cameron and his possibly problematic references to European regulations over the past few days at conference.

However, there is a new question: what view would Britain take over an EU-wide bail out plan in the current financial crisis? Is President Sarkozy wrong to try and put together an EU-wide bail out plan? Should Britain not be regulating its own plans? Sally Keeble MP (Labour) told Andrew Neil in the past 10 minutes that we should not support the EU bail out plan given that there are “significant differences” between nations in their own economic capabilities and banking difficulties. I would have to agree with that part of her argument, but not her support of Labour’s economic mismanagement of the crisis.

At 2.35pm, Louise Bagshawe does a good job, telling the conference of how she stood up as a heavily pregnant woman, going out to campaign for the Conservative Party.

Of Margaret Thatcher, Louise Bagshawe says “she fixed Britain’s broken economy.”

She says, I don’t want my little one’s growing up in broken Britain. Superb!

Heavy EU regulation is to blame for a large portion of the failings in the current financial crisis.

The UK’s implementation of the EU Capital Adequacy Directive within the framework of the Basel II Agreement, does underpin the downgraded value of banks, making the financial crisis worse than it really is. Richard North has done a good job of explaining this phenomenon in terms of how David Cameron promised at his Party Conference that he would like to get Britain out of this mess (without talking about EU legislation). Since the UK has surrendered control over this area of legislation for the financial industry, it is difficult to see how this situation is going to be reversed – will Cameron or anyone on the Tory frontbench talk about European governance of the financial industry, as is necessary for the reversal of this Government-assented problem.