Lisbon II - Cameron's dilemma

So apparently the Lisbon treaty which appeared to be done and dusted will actually be back before parliament in a few weeks time for technical ratification of a few points regarding seat distribution that had to be rushed through previously.

Now at first glance this may seem like a golden opportunity for David Cameron. He always said that he wanted a referendum on Lisbon and in a few weeks time he may well be Prime Minister. The question is what will he do?

There are suggestions that he could announce a referendum and then use that as a bargaining chip with the rest of the EU about repatriation of powers.

I think that David Cameron will actually view this situation with dread. He thought that Lisbon and the EU were now well and truly kicked into the long grass. This would bring it all to the fore again. Worse still it is likely even if the Tories can get a majority that it will be pretty slender. We all know that there are a sizeable chunk of Tory MPs (and many current PPC who may well be MPs on Friday) who would actually like to see us renegotiate the UK's position in the EU in a much more fundamental way. These MPs could find themselves able to exert great pressure on Cameron to make any referendum more wide ranging.

If instead the Tories do not have a majority (which is currently the most likely outcome according to the bookies) then Cameron may not even have enough votes in the house to call a referendum or block ratification. I wonder how Tory MPs would react to that.

Things could get very interesting on this front very quickly.

Has David Cameron got it wrong on Lisbon and UKIP?

I've just been listening to Iain Dale on Simon Mayo's show discussing the Tory slip in the polls with Peter Riddell. Iain stated that he thinks the main reason why the Tory lead is now averaging in the low double digits rather than the high teens as per a couple of months ago is largely attributed to David Cameron's decision not to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Now we have already established that I am no Mike Smithson, but I did decide a few weeks ago to have a small flutter at 10-1 that there would be some sort of referendum on Lisbon by the end of 2010. Of course now that is looking very, very unlikely but when I put the bet on, I tried to think if there was an upside if the bet did not come in. I thought there was and that it would be an entertaining spectator sport to watch the Tories tear themselves apart over this issue if Cameron dared not to have a referendum.

The thing is that although there were (and are) plenty of Tories who were deeply unhappy about Cameron's Lisbon decision, the media side of this was handled very well. Expectations were managed and although people like Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer were mightily miffed, as a story it was all over within a few days and the narrative moved on. So you might think job done.

I don't think it's that simple though. For a start, Cameron's supposed way of making sure "matters do not rest there" are widely recognised as very insubstantial and some think they are almost meaningless. A law to ensure any further cessation of powers to Brussels is deemed by many to be too little too late and all the indications are that this and the other measures will be kicked into the long grass anyway.

So if I was a Eurosceptic Tory (and the term nowadays is almost a tautology) then the only party truly representing my views on Europe would be UKIP. I am sure there will be plenty of Tories who for the sake of putting in the most Eurosceptic of the main parties will still vote Conservative but I am sure there will be some who feel so strongly that they cannot stomach doing so and will vote UKIP, whatever the consequences. The question is how many.

I wonder if Cameron will eventually rue his decision on Lisbon. I know that he wants to be able to focus on more important and substantive issues if he becomes PM and in a way I admire him for facing the Eurosceptics down but in order to be in any position to focus on anything he actually has to be in power.

The risk is that by going against what many in his party feel so strongly about, he jeapordises his chances of ever actually being in that position.

Lib Dems should not ditch the in/out referendum pledge

Ming Campbell has indicated on The Daily Politics today that the Lib Dems may be moving away from their pledge on an in/out referendum for the EU. If this is true then I think this is a mistake.

I have been a bit back and forth on the Lib Dem's approach to the Lisbon treaty. I tried to sum up my views in a blogpost early last month:

I think that the EU hugely over complicates these treaties and makes it difficult for non-technocrats to understand them. I certainly haven't the time or inclination to wade through it. I don't really understand why they can't keep it simple. Something like the US constitution is clear, concise and simple enough to be understood by schoolchildren - indeed it is taught to them in schools. Does anyone seriously think that say the Maastricht Treaty or Lisbon could be taught in a similar way?

Unfortunately, that is not how these things are done in Europe (perhaps more learned people than me could explain why in the comments) so because it is so complicated, it was not a good idea to pledge a referendum. How many people would read and fully understand it before voting? That is where parliament should earn its money by debating the treaty and voting on it.

However the Lib Dems and Labour did pledge a referendum and because I think parties should honour their pledges, we should not have gone back on this. I know both parties had their arguments: "It's no longer a constitution" in the case of Labour, "The real question is in or out" in the case of the Lib Dems but to most people it seems like a reneging on pre-election promises. I find it very hard to argue against that.

Now that we have done though, I actually think our current policy is more sensible than our original one. The ongoing saga of Europe needs to be settled. The last referendum was 35 years ago and on a completely different question.

I genuinely think that a referendum on in/out would be close and may go "out". I would not want to see this outcome but I am a democrat and we need to allow the public to make up their minds on this in order to settle this issue at least for the next political generation.

So my conclusion was that I would not have got to where are via the same route but that an in/out referendum was the correct policy. It is genuinely brave for a pro-EU as there is a real risk of losing but it is also principled and won or lost would settle the question which has dogged our politics for many years.

I also think it is a vote winner. Both the Conservatives and Labour are not offering anything like it as they both fear the consequences of an "out" vote. Having it as one of our policies makes it easier for people who may like some or lots of our other policies but may not agree with our pro-EU approach to vote for us as they know they would ultimately be given the choice by us anyway.

So the idea that we now might be ditching this policy seems odd to me. Even more odd is Ming's comment that there is "no public appetite" for a vote. That really does not seem to tally with the views of a decent chunk of the electorate in polls that I have seen. There may be little appetite amongst our political classes but that is a very different thing.

I very much hope that Ming was just flying a flag and that we keep this policy.

My view on the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron and the EU

So the Czech President has signed the Lisbon Treaty which means it will likely to come into force in a few weeks time. The big political question now is what David Cameron will do. Apparently he will make an announcement tomorrow or later this week depending on who you believe.

I had an interesting discussion with my fellow "House of Comments" podcaster Stuart Sharpe from off of Sharpe's Opinion on Twitter earlier on. I tweeted a couple of things asking what Cameron would do next given his previous "cast iron" commitment to a referendum. Stuart tweeted: "I don't really think it's fair to stab someone in the back and then dance on their grave, you see." and then linked to this post he did last month where he suggested that neither Labour or the Lib Dems have stuck to their pledges on a Lisbon referendum. He therefore thinks it is unfair for members of those parties to now use the Lisbon Treaty as a stick with which to beat the Tories.

I can see his point and if I was a Tory and/or Eurosceptic I would be pretty annoyed about this too. In fact I am annoyed about what Labour and my own party have done over this issue but my thinking on it is a bit too involved for the 140 characters that Twitter allows. I did try and outline it in a series of tweets but I will have a proper go here.

Firstly, I am in favour of us having strong ties with Europe. I think it is good for us and makes us stronger as a nation. I am not hugely wedded to the EU as it is constituted at the moment not least because of the lack of accountability of the European Commission. I don't like the way the commissioners are all appointed and it is often seen as a reward or sop for domestic politicians of the various member states. I think it would be much better if it was more democratically accountable. I also think that the fact the accounts have not been signed off is very bad and gives the impression of corruption even if this isn't warranted. I really don't understand why this has not been addressed more fully. However I also think that the arguments above can be and are overplayed by opponents of the EU. The Council of Ministers which consists of ministers from each country is democratic in so far as the ministers are elected in their respective countries. MEPs are also elected and although I don't like the specific proportional system used for this in the UK, it is better than First Past the Post and they are representative.

As for the Lisbon Treaty and how things have played out with that in the last year or two I have a few points:

I think that the EU hugely over complicates these treaties and makes it difficult for non-technocrats to understand them. I certainly haven't the time or inclination to wade through it. I don't really understand why they can't keep it simple. Something like the US constitution is clear, concise and simple enough to be understood by schoolchildren - indeed it is taught to them in schools. Does anyone seriously think that say the Maastricht Treaty or Lisbon could be taught in a similar way?

Unfortunately, that is not how these things are done in Europe (perhaps more learned people than me could explain why in the comments) so because it is so complicated, it was not a good idea to pledge a referendum. How many people would read and fully understand it before voting? That is where parliament should earn its money by debating the treaty and voting on it.

However the Lib Dems and Labour did pledge a referendum and because I think parties should honour their pledges, we should not have gone back on this. I know both parties had their arguments: "It's no longer a constitution" in the case of Labour, "The real question is in or out" in the case of the Lib Dems but to most people it seems like a reneging on pre-election promises. I find it very hard to argue against that.

Now that we have done though, I actually think our current policy is more sensible than our original one. The ongoing saga of Europe needs to be settled. The last referendum was 35 years ago and on a completely different question.

I genuinely think that a referendum on in/out would be close and may go "out". I would not want to see this outcome but I am a democrat and we need to allow the public to make up their minds on this in order to settle this issue at least for the next political generation.

As for David Cameron, well nobody forced him to make a "cast-iron" pledge in The Sun about a referendum on Lisbon with no caveats. That was his decision and so if he now goes back on that he is going to have to expect some flak, not least from many of his own party members for whom this is a vital issue and who may well feel betrayed.

Is Paxman/Boris the new Frost/Nixon?

It was highly entertaining to see Jeremy Paxman interview Boris Johnson last night on Newsnight. Boris was most definitely not "on message" but I guess trying to make him toe the party line is a bit like trying to herd cats! However Jeremy's attempts to Paxo him did not really work out as you might expect...

Boris answered Paxman's questions about the Lisbon treaty and David Cameron's Bullingdon days in his own inimitable style, giving as good

as he got and taking the interview off on some fascinating tangents. He even at one point delivered a direct to camera statement after Paxman insisted following Boris' assertion that Paxman was seeking to "intermediate" too much!

It is well worth checking out and will surely become a classic of the genre. It is currently on the iPlayer here from about 16 minutes in or you can watch the embedded Youtube of it below:

Tory Lisbon line not going down well with the public

On the way into work I caught the end of a discussion about the Conservative position on the Lisbon treaty on Victoria Derbyshire's 5 Live show. It seemed that Mark Francois was doing his best to communicate the party line on the issue but the audience of 200 invited members of the public seemed to be getting more and more exasperated with him.

I heard several comments from audience members along the lines of politicians not being able to give a straight answers and there was a fair bit of heckling and booing when again and again Mark tried to deflect the questions with his "wait and see" line.

Obviously an audience on a radio programme is not a scientific sample but if the reaction there is at all representative of feeling out in the country (and I look forward to the polls on this) then this is an issue that could drag the Conservative party down just at a time when they really need to be maintaining a decent lead over Labour.

I wonder how long they will be able to hold the current line.

In related news, on the advice of Mike Smithson I decided to have a little flutter today on the likelihood of there being a referendum on Lisbon at some point during 2010. Ladbrokes are offering 10-1 which I agree with Mike are good odds.

Caroline Flint - speed reader

Following the recent revelation that Caroline Flint had not read the Lisbon Treaty, John Rentoul of The Independent reported yesterday that the situation had been remedied.

It really should not have taken embarassment like this to force the Europe Minister to actually read the treaty that Parliament has assented to on our behalf. She has had six months to get up to speed with it and I would argue that it should have been the very first thing she did on day one!

I am curious to know what other things have been deemed a higher priority for her to read until now.