Analysis: The state of euroscepticism
All united?
BASC has sent a letter to all local newspapers in the UK highlighting the benefits of game shooting and game meat. |  |
David Cameron's father died today, shortly after he arrived at the hospital to see him. |  |
Related Analysis and Comment
By Alex Stevenson
Tony Blair used to try and charm his way out of trouble when faced by the bi-annual grilling from select committee chairmen. |  |
Friday, 13, Feb 2009 11:12
By Ian Dunt
This week, the pieces on the chessboard moved, albeit slightly. Britain, for the millionth time, did its little dance with Europe, just one more week in the endless series of flirtations and rejections which constitute Anglo-EU relations.
David Cameron lived up to a promise he made while campaigning to be party leader by initiating the Tory pull-out from the centre-right European People's party (EPP) grouping. Meanwhile, Declan Ganley established the UK version of his Libertas party, which will run in the forthcoming European elections.
The UK Independence party (UKIP) reacted rather interestingly, writing a comment piece in politics.co.uk highlighting Liberta's pro-EU sensibilities. Their relationship has never been particularly friendly. It wasn't so long ago Bridget Rowe, a friend of Nigel Farage (UKIP leader) registered Libertas UK on the Electoral Commission's website, immediately setting up an early hurdle for the Irish businessman.
But at the heart of these stories are genuinely different ideas about what form euroscepticism should take.
When Farage wrote on politics.co.uk that Ganley is "very much a supporter of the [EU] project, just wishing to change very slightly the direction it's going in", he's not lying. Libertas is essentially an EU democratisation project. Ganley's comments say it all: Europe is "arguably the most successful peace process in the history of the world" but "wouldn't it be better if we could ensure the EU was democratic, was accountable?"
It's a legitimate viewpoint, and there's no reason for the debate to be polarised between those calling for total withdrawal and those who want the UK right in the middle of things. The Lisbon treaty was formulated to streamline decision making, and help the EU function as a governing body. You only have to look at its fractious reaction to the global downturn to see why officials might be keen for this to happen sooner rather than later. But streamlined decision making is sometimes just another word for lack of democratic input, and there are strong arguments for saying the Lisbon treaty would further bypass already weak democratic structures in the Union.
UKIP is a far simpler animal, calling for total withdrawal. It wants Britain's membership of the EU to be replaced by a host of trade and cooperation agreements. It hoovers up a great deal of support by sticking to this simple line. It's described as unpractical, but it reflects its members' interests in a way most other parties consistently fail to. They are reliable, and that means a great deal in the murky and emotive world of Anglo-EU relations.
It's a lesson the Tories could learn from. Anyone with a decent idea of the Conservative position on Europe must have access to information no-one else does. Where it has addressed the issue successfully it has been on easy, uniting attacks, such as the call for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The treaty was such a blatant rewrite of the constitution - on which a referendum had been promised - that government refusal was a flagrant contradiction of previous promises. That opinion held regardless of your opinion on Europe itself.
The success of those Conservative attacks gave many people the impression the Tories were getting over their European ghosts. That couldn't be further from the truth. Even this week's announcement, that the Tory Europe and foreign team had pulled them out the EPP stank of compromise and crudely formulated policy-making.
The party now has to find MEPs from at least six countries to create a new grouping and qualify for EU funding. That process could push it into the arms of some very dubious people. It will start with MEPs from the Czech Republic and Poland, but who knows where they will have to go from there. Lib Dem and Labour criticism that the party was moving to the 'lunatic fringe' of European politics wasn't that far off the mark.
Whether they call for a referendum or not, the Tories can't afford to have the European debate take centre-stage. On an immediate day-today basis, they simply can't allow anything which will prompt Ken Clarke, the shadow business secretary, to leave the front bench in protest - a less than impossible eventuality given his boisterous and individual nature. This would give Labour far, far too much glee to ever be contemplated by Tory high command.
But more generally, the party remains fundamentally divided on the subject. All parties have splits. Labour has thousands of them, but one example would be working class trade-unionism and middle class liberalism. The Tories - traditionally more united - have one that towers over all others: Europe.
The patriotic/anti-federalist tribe dominate, but there is a substantial pro-business minority, who place perceived financial realities above what they would see as sentimentalism. This wing is usually more comfortable with real-politick as well, arguing that Britain can best maintain its leading role in the world if it becomes further involved in Europe.
This split has destroyed the Tories before. The EU never goes away as a political issue but has for some time bubbled away in the background - rarely dominating the front pages. Eventually it will do so again, and when it does there's every chance it will tear them apart one more time. The fundamental problems in the Tory response to the Union have not gone away.