newsjunction.co.uk

Today Ken ‘Calamity’ Clarke has done what he always does and made a gaffe. ConservativeHome counts two, I see three.

The first is to say that if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, we will not be offered a referendum on it, but that there would be negotiation over certain powers.

The second on my count was to say that he would forgive Brown for misrepresenting Tory spending plans if he [Brown] wasn’t “a clever man”. We shouldn’t be giving him such a credit, the public certainly aren’t!

The third on my count (second on ConservativeHome’s) is to say he returned to the Shadow Cabinet because it isn’t as Eurosceptic as it was. As the country becomes increasingly hostile to the EU, and after Ukip’s success at the Euro elections, this is a particularly stupid thing to say. Even more so as it isn’t true; the Shadow Cabinet is more Eurosceptic than ever, it simply isn’t the top issue it was for Hague and is phrased more maturely.

But the real issue that has got the CH comment thread alive has been the first, the What If The Lisbon Treaty Is Already Ratified Question, which has until now been dodged with the answer “We will not let matters rest there”.

Now there is it seems a lot of confusion over this. Some think that once a Treaty is ratified, all subsequent governments are bound by it. This is not the case. Parliament retains sovereignty and can break Treaties, negotiate new ones, make ammendments etc as it wishes.

Some seem to think however that if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, we could hold a post-ratification referendum and unratify it. This is also not the case. Since the Lisbon Treaty replaces the old Treaties, once it is ratified the Old European Union (as it is now) will in effect cease to exist and have been replaced by the new EU 2.0 system. Unless the rest of the EU also agreed to turn the clocks back it just wouldn’t work.

If the Treaty is in force however matters, errr, do not have to rest there. We could negotiate within the new EU certain opt-outs and arangements to become a semi-detatched member, or put forward a new Treaty to replace Lisbon, at least for those countries not wanting political union. Not so much a two speed Europe, but a two destination Europe.

That final option, a new Treaty for a different kind of Europe, is in my view the best answer. It’s what Eurosceptics should have been putting forward ages ago. Such a Treaty could create a Free Trade Area, enlarge and strengthen NATO, and be full of warm Entente Cordiale words but not create a political union. More a Commonwealth than a Confederation.

But if we are to stop the Lisbon Treaty, and won’t be getting an official referendum, maybe some group should organise their own? It worked for Gibraltar in 2002. It wouldn’t have any legal force, but no referendum ever has, it would however somewhat force the issue and make it hard to ignor.

Last night was without doubt the worst night you could realistically imagine for Labour. They already have less councillors than the Lib Dems from Friday’s results, lost top spot in Wales for the first time since 1918 (when Welshman Lloyd George was PM), and scored their lowest GB wide vote share since 1910. Back then Edward VII was King, the Titanic was still safely tucked away as a work in progress at Harland & Wharf’s Shipyard, Winston Churchill was Home Secretary under Prime Minister Herbet Henry Asquith and Liberal MP for Dundee, and the Labour Party was just four years old!

They polled third behind UKIP - with their vote share lower even than that of Stanley Baldwin after his unpopular coalition with the Conservatives - and only escaped the humiliation of 4th because of the Greens heavily eroding the Liberal Democrat vote. (Did anyone else spot Simon Hughes’ Freudian Slip when discussing the rise of the BNP with David Dimbleby he accidently said (not verbatim) “We are totally opposed to the views of the Greens and are very worried about the Greens, I mean BNP.”)

But although Labour very much lost this election, the Conservatives cannot truly claim to have won it either. They may have topped the poll in Wales, but the national vote share was up less than 2% and was still below 30%. In some regions the vote share had even dropped. Last night was a victory for the minor parties more than anyone, and this poses two questions: will these votes return to the main parties at the general election, and will they go blue?

The risk for Cameron is that people have taken a ‘curse on all your houses’ view under the opinion that “you’re all the same” and - having had several Euro elections under PR - become used to voting for other parties. Do some people now even identify themselves as Ukippers or Greens, rather than just voting for them as a one-off, in the same way traditional Labour or Conservative voters proudly view themselves as such?

I still think the odds are in the Conservatives favour, but to form a majority they need the third biggest swing recorded in post-war history and there is still everything to play for.

For Labour to win they would have to be radical - personality wise, rather than with policy. Brown would have to go, as would all of his hated, creepy cohorts. Both of the Millibands, Ed Balls, Harman et al would have to go (if they haven’t already, it’s so hard to keep up). But a fresh face, the fresher the better, and preferably (for them) as surprising as possible. But if Labour did go for electric shock treatment - say Frank Field, Caroline Flint or Diane Abbot - with a cabinet featuring these along with say Kate Hoey, Bob Marshall-Andrews, Tony Benn as a sop to the oldies, Hazel Blears as a sop to the Blairy-bunch… It would be a disaster policy wise (no change there then) but be such a shock it could bounce enough to pull through.

It’s roughly the same as the Conservatives should have done in the 1990s! It’s a case of ‘new broom sweeps clean’; and if you want it to be your party you have to become a new broom.

Even so the Conservatives can win - but they must close their right flank with Ukip by promising a Referendum, and then be free to attack Labour on the issues that move Lab/Con swing voters without fear of losing votes of core voters. Ukip cost them 30-odd seats last time, they can’t be left to cost them the election.

People across the UK are casting their votes in elections to the European Parliament. Or rather some people are casting their votes in elections to the European Parliament.

Lots of people don’t seem to have noticed. The news story is currently ranked 6th in the BBC News ‘Most Popular Stories Now’ - rather like where Labour will come - behind ‘Boris Johnson stumbles into river’.

Turnout under 25%?

UKPollingReport feature a prediction of the European Parliament election results.

The same team produced a similar prediction for the 2004 elections, which predicted that the UK result would be CON 32, LAB 27, LD 12, SNP 2 and PC 2, with the Greens and UKIP loosing all their seats. Hopelessly wrong. Real result: CON 27, LAB 19, UKIP 12, LD 12, GREEN 2, SNP 2, PC 1.

Now they are taking into account all sorts of things - the latest opinion polls, the last national election, who is in government, how close the last national election was to the last european election, whether the party is an “anti-European” party or not, whether they watch Neighbours or not… - though how you weight these things is anyone’s guess. Projection: CON 27(nc), LAB 22(+3), LDEM 13(+1), UKIP 4(-8), SNP 2(nc), PC 1(nc), GRN 0(-2).

Is this the most hopeless poll ever? The notion that the Conservatives make no progress on their 2004 result (their lowest vote share in a national election since 1832) despite a UKIP meltdown; that Labour make significant progress; the Lib Dems improve from their post-Iraq War highs; the SNP make no progress; and the Greens vanish despite the global warming fears…it’s bonkers. What are they on?

My prediction (excluding Northern Ireland) is that the UKIP meltdown largely aids the Conservatives who win 40 seats, with UKIP being reduced to a 3 by holding a single seat in each of the South East, East Anglia and South West constituencies; Labour gets reduced to around 11 MEPs again aiding the Conservatives but also seriously affected by low turnout and the BNP, who I expect will sadly gain a seat in each of the North West, Yorkshire & Humber and London regions; Liberal Democrats will do poorly and be reduced to maybe 10 seats; whilst the Greens will do well with 4 seats, two in London and two in the South East. The SNP will probably gain a seat to have 3, with Plaid Cymru holding their 1.

We will see which is more accurate…

One of the early posts on this blog was Overtime faces EU ban;

“The European Parliament has voted to force Britain to limit the working week of its citizens. Britain has no veto on this area, and unless the (quasi-devolved?) UK government can convince a suitable number of other EU members to back us up, the ban will be put in place. It will then be illegal to work more than 48 hours per week - regardless of whether you need or want to. In the land of the EU it is the [European] State that knows best, not the individual. Having to pay the mortgage, saving up for a holiday, new car or extension, working to pay school or childcare fees, have better quality time, start your own small business or retire early - or retire at all the way things are going - will all be NO EXCUSE. There are no exceptions. Even if it’s temporary while another family member is out of work! Now we see how powerless the British government has become. It cannot even defend our right to work how much we want. And even if we can convince enough to support our opt-out, what will we have to give them in return?”

Well the ban marches forwards ahead of June’s European elections, as reported on the BBC.

Now I personally believe it’s a matter of personal liberty how long you work. There are 168 hours in a week, what you do with yours - and what I do with mine - is entirely our own concern. (The exception being where long hours and tiredness puts others at risk of course). But I know some people are oar-poking busybodies who believe in technocratic state intervention based on statistics and flimsy socialist arguments, so I guess they need demolishing.

MYTH #1. The health hazards caused by excessive working time are well proven.
False. You are generalising. Driving a lorry when tired may be dangerous, stacking shelves or answering phones isn’t! There are already laws in place governing working hours in dangerous situations.

MYTH #2. Countries that work less have higher productivity.
Some statistics show this, others don’t - GDP per capita for example is higher in workaholic America. Surely individual businesses are best placed to maximise productivity in their own firm by adjusting their own employment hours - how many firms would get staff working overtime if productivity would be higher with less hours or by hiring part time staff?

MYTH #3. With people being made redundant or reducing their hours, there is a growing sense that the work that remains should be shared out fairly.
Rubbish. Having more staff on the books is more expensive, paperwork heavy and largely impossible. Hours needed fluctuates and recruiting staff to fill the gaps over the Working Time Limit just wouldn’t work. What’s more you’d be producing less goods with more staff, a waste of human resources that would otherwise be available for use elsewhere!

From the EUObserver via Conservative MEP Dan Hannan;

One of the European Commission’s key departments has circulated a 15-page memo warning officials to be careful about what they write in emails and advising them on how to narrowly interpret requests for information.

The instructions “make it easier to get reports out” and “avoid having to go through blanking out” documents, says the commission.

It reminds DG trade employees that all documents, including emails, are “in principle subject to disclosure” and asks them to think of the regulation when they are producing documents.

“Each official must be aware that all his/her documents, including meeting reports and e-mails can potentially be disclosed. You should keep this in mind when writing such documents. This is particularly the case for meeting reports and emails with third parties (e.g. industry), which are favourite “targets” of requests for access to documents, especially by NGOs,” reads the memo.

It asks officials to draft documents “with the utmost care” while telling them to avoid making references to informal contacts, such as meals or drinks, with lobbyists.

“Don’t refer to the great lunch you have had with an industry representative privately or add a PS asking if he/she would like to meet for a drink.”

The document also tips off officials on how to narrow down the interpretation of a request for information. It points to a past example where a request referred to DG trade meetings with individual companies, meaning the department could avoid making public its contacts with business lobbyists.

“Recent cases concern requests for information about meetings with ‘individual companies’ on our FTAs [Free Trade Agreements] which have allowed us to exclude business federations on the same points, or about meetings with ‘DG Trade officials’ which have allowed us to exclude meetings on the same point with the Commissioner or the cabinet,” it notes.

As a way of avoiding officials having to blank out parts of documents they release to the public, the transparency guide suggests writing two accounts of meetings, a “factual” or neutral one that can be released to the public and a more “personal/subjective” one with assessments and recommendations for follow up that need not be disclosed.

It also explains that briefings should not be made public if still considered “newsworthy” – a derogation allowed under the regulation for documents concerning a decision still in progress – with DG Trade working on a series of key issues including making free trade agreements with poor countries (something NGOs are always keen to have an insight into) and sensitive WTO decisions.

DG Trade’s take on the transparency regulation which MEPs recently voted to expand to cover all documents, including electronic ones, has come in for criticism.

Corporate Europe Observatory, a transparency NGO, said the instructions appear to “directly contravene the spirit and content of the regulation.”

It is a “scandalous” attempt to “legitimise DG Trade’s recurrent attempts to shield evidence of its liaisons with corporate lobbyists from information requests,” said CEO campaigner Pia Eberhardt.

For its part, the European Commission defended the memo. A spokesperson told EUobserver: “Actually we think these are good instructions. It makes clear that no category of documents is excluded [from the regulation].”

The spokesperson also said that the instructions “make it easier to get reports out” and “avoid having to go through blanking out” documents.

The transparency regulation dates from 2001 but the commission recently proposed to overhaul it after complaints from the EU ombudsman and several court cases. Following MEPs’ vote last month the regulation has gone back to committee for discussion on sensitive issues such as the extent to which commercial data can be excused from disclosure.

The updated law is expected to be approved in the second half of this year, under the Swedish EU presidency.

I blogged yesterday about the sad news that Stuart Wheeler, multi-millionaire founder of spread betting firm IG Index and long time Conservative donor, has announced his intention to vote UKIP at June’s Euro Elections and donate £100,000 to the party. Today there have been calls for him to be expelled from the party - from Ian Taylor MP, Iain Dale and ConservativeHome - but I have to disagree.

We cannot have members openly going around supporing rival parties, but there are several other issues here to consider. For starters so many members supported UKIP openly at the 2004 Euro Elections, and may do so this time, that such an expulsion may cause a mass walkout, or a mass expulsion.

Mr Wheeler deserves some reign as he has helped the Conservatives greatly, and indeed has said that he will back them at the Council Elections on the same day, and probably at the General Election. Could his defection back at the GE not be a good dog whistle to Eurosceptics?

Expulsion is also such a horrible and strong term. If you want him to really get annoyed, expel him, an act of escalation that could trigger further UKIP donations from him and make his return very unlikely indeed!

If they must do something, suspend him for a few months until after the vote, but do it politely and explain it to him as a purely symbolic act for the party unity. We must remember Churchill too defected then returned, and that we have tollerated much from Europhiles such as Ken Clarke - who totally undermined Hague - and MEPs, who have refused to leave the EPP, been openly hostile and worse!

Dan Hannan - in the words of Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome - “monsters” Gordon Brown in the European Parliament…

…then becomes global star via YouTube…

Then FOX News..,

…and is declared leader by Guido.

N.B. Hannan is the top video today in the UK on YouTube I’m told, and top politics video worldwide. As of 8:19 he has 818,271 views…it was about 600,000 this morning! The UK media have yet to take notice except The Daily Politics and R4’s Today, but the pressure is mounting as Hannan approaches 1,000,000 views.

The news reported on ConservativeHome that Australian election strategist Lynton Crosby - dubbed “The Wizard of Oz” - has signed up to run the campaign of the newly formed Libertas is indeed strange. It strikes me there are three possible outcomes here: either (1) Crosby has made a big business mistake by annoying long term client in the Conservatives and will never work for them again; (2) Libertas has offered a huge sum of money so he doesn’t care if the Conservatives never call again; or (3) he has made a business masterstroke by breaking what seemed a Conservative monopoly over his services and will reap the rewards of a bidding war at every election from now on.

Meanwhile, what exactly is Libertas? It’s founder, Declan Ganley, ran the NO campaign against the Lisbon Treaty [EU Constitution] in Ireland, so it’s been branded Eurosceptic. The Independent even branded it “far right”. Have they even bothered to Google it? It’s the first real pan-European political party, uses the EU colour scheme, the EU’s symbols and flag, the EU’s “.eu” domain name suffix - but perhaps more tellingly states on its home page that “Libertas is a pan-European party dedicated to creating a new, democratic and open European Union…Libertas wants a strong and successful European Union. A Europe for and of the people…Libertas wants to change how Brussels works and give power back to the people in Europe.” It does not advocate returning power to free nation states.

Czech President Václav Klaus has been slammed by senior MEPs and the Irish Government, for agreeing with the Irish public!

“How bizarre is EU politics?,” asked an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Nov 13. “So much so that the Irish government feels compelled to chide another head of state for agreeing with a majority of the Irish people.”

The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin described President Klaus’ meeting with NO Campaign leader Declan Ganley as an inappropriate intervention by a visiting head of state.

Later at a meeting in Prague Castle, Daniel Cohn-Bendit MEP, Green leader and 1960s French radical student who accused Irish NO campaigners of being CIA stooges told him “he will have to deal with the work directive and climate package” and “[Lisbon Treaty] I don’t care about your opinions on it…You will have to sign it.” Whilst on businessman and Irish NO campaigner Mr Ganley: “You are not supposed to meet him in your function.”

You have to? You are not? Who’s the President here?

Read more here and here.