compromise
01-23-2013, 08:49 AM
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100199668/david-cameron-has-given-the-most-eurosceptic-speech-ever-by-a-british-prime-minister/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/01/nigel-cameron.jpg
What an extraordinary moment. As recently as two years ago, the PM was saying that he saw no need for a referendum because he didn't want to leave the EU. Now he says that Britain needs a different deal if it is to remain a member at all. And, critically, the people who decide whether it's a good enough deal won't be the ministers and mandarins who have brought us to our present unhappy state, but the electorate as a whole.
Regular readers of this blog, at any rate, won't be surprised by the In/Out referendum commitment. But they might be surprised, as I was, by the Eurosceptic tone of the other passages: no European demos, the primacy of national parliaments, the importance of repatriating power (unilaterally if necessary), an end to the idiotic metaphors about a two-speed Europe. It's true, and it's hardly news, that the PM wants Britain to remain in the EU. But I noticed that, even as he rejected the Norwegian option, he spoke such warm words about that country as to open the door to a settlement where Norway, Britain, Switzerland and others could form a pan-continental free trade area, within which the EU's more integrationist members were free to create a separate federal structure – as sketched out here.
As I left the magnificent Bloomberg HQ after the speech, a political correspondent asked me whether I wasn't disappointed. I stared at him uncomprehendingly. Disappointed? I've spent my entire adult life campaigning for a referendum on EU membership. Over the past two years, through the People's Pledge, it has been my main focus in politics. (Take a bow, by the way, everyone who signed the Pledge: this is as much your victory as anyone's). Disappointed?
Ah, persisted the journalist, but you surely can't be happy about the fact that he wants to renegotiate first. Really? I'm pretty sure that I was the first person to suggest the renegotiate-then-referendum option back in 2011. I have spent 16 months plugging it, slightly to the frustration of some readers, who felt I was becoming a bore. But it worked. The PM changed his mind. So now I'm supposed to be disappointed because David Cameron has adopted by idea?
Of course, that journalist won't have to look too far to find some curmudgeons. There are always people in politics wanting an excuse to be negative. We need a vote in this parliament, they say. (Fine, guys: when you've come up with a way to make Labour and the Lib Dems back one, let me know.) The plan depends on the Conservatives winning the election, they say. (Well, yes: that's the general idea with manifesto promises.) The Tories promised us a referendum at the last election and then let us down, they say. (Not true: David Cameron dropped the referendum commitment six months before polling day, and thereby almost certainly deprived himself of a working majority. I thought it was a mistake – indeed, I resigned from the front bench in protest – but it was hardly a lie. The people who promised a referendum and then voted the other way were the Lib Dems.)
Think how far we have come since, in 2011, David Cameron said: "I don't believe an In/Out referendum is right, because I don't believe that leaving the European Union would be in Britain's interests." What changed his mind? Partly the People's Pledge, partly the righteous 111 MPs who showed how fast opinion in the Commons was moving on the referendum issue, partly the eurozone crisis, and partly Ukip.
Which is why it is so odd to hear Ukip friends cavilling and carping this morning. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just embraced the policy that has been your central demand for 20 years. Stop moaning, chaps, and start preparing to fight and win that vote.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/01/nigel-cameron.jpg
What an extraordinary moment. As recently as two years ago, the PM was saying that he saw no need for a referendum because he didn't want to leave the EU. Now he says that Britain needs a different deal if it is to remain a member at all. And, critically, the people who decide whether it's a good enough deal won't be the ministers and mandarins who have brought us to our present unhappy state, but the electorate as a whole.
Regular readers of this blog, at any rate, won't be surprised by the In/Out referendum commitment. But they might be surprised, as I was, by the Eurosceptic tone of the other passages: no European demos, the primacy of national parliaments, the importance of repatriating power (unilaterally if necessary), an end to the idiotic metaphors about a two-speed Europe. It's true, and it's hardly news, that the PM wants Britain to remain in the EU. But I noticed that, even as he rejected the Norwegian option, he spoke such warm words about that country as to open the door to a settlement where Norway, Britain, Switzerland and others could form a pan-continental free trade area, within which the EU's more integrationist members were free to create a separate federal structure – as sketched out here.
As I left the magnificent Bloomberg HQ after the speech, a political correspondent asked me whether I wasn't disappointed. I stared at him uncomprehendingly. Disappointed? I've spent my entire adult life campaigning for a referendum on EU membership. Over the past two years, through the People's Pledge, it has been my main focus in politics. (Take a bow, by the way, everyone who signed the Pledge: this is as much your victory as anyone's). Disappointed?
Ah, persisted the journalist, but you surely can't be happy about the fact that he wants to renegotiate first. Really? I'm pretty sure that I was the first person to suggest the renegotiate-then-referendum option back in 2011. I have spent 16 months plugging it, slightly to the frustration of some readers, who felt I was becoming a bore. But it worked. The PM changed his mind. So now I'm supposed to be disappointed because David Cameron has adopted by idea?
Of course, that journalist won't have to look too far to find some curmudgeons. There are always people in politics wanting an excuse to be negative. We need a vote in this parliament, they say. (Fine, guys: when you've come up with a way to make Labour and the Lib Dems back one, let me know.) The plan depends on the Conservatives winning the election, they say. (Well, yes: that's the general idea with manifesto promises.) The Tories promised us a referendum at the last election and then let us down, they say. (Not true: David Cameron dropped the referendum commitment six months before polling day, and thereby almost certainly deprived himself of a working majority. I thought it was a mistake – indeed, I resigned from the front bench in protest – but it was hardly a lie. The people who promised a referendum and then voted the other way were the Lib Dems.)
Think how far we have come since, in 2011, David Cameron said: "I don't believe an In/Out referendum is right, because I don't believe that leaving the European Union would be in Britain's interests." What changed his mind? Partly the People's Pledge, partly the righteous 111 MPs who showed how fast opinion in the Commons was moving on the referendum issue, partly the eurozone crisis, and partly Ukip.
Which is why it is so odd to hear Ukip friends cavilling and carping this morning. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just embraced the policy that has been your central demand for 20 years. Stop moaning, chaps, and start preparing to fight and win that vote.