With apologies to General de Gaulle

We don't say it enough but Charles de Gaulle was right to say "Non".

Yes he was primarily concerned with France's national interest. That's not a bad thing for a national leader to be concerned with. But he also spotted when interests were different and incompatible. When he vetoed our original membership application for what was then the European Economic Community he stated:

England [sic] in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her interactions, her markets and her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions.

It's a statement that could have been made by almost any British Eurosceptic over the last fifty years. And it's ultimately proved correct.

The United Kingdom never shared the vision of the European Union as a whole. That's why we ultimately could never be satisfied. When we did eventually get in (Georges Pompidou was wrong to say "Oui"), we kept needing to be satisfied. Either the project had to be transformed to our approval or the UK had to go places it really didn't want to. And so began endless fudges - renegotiations, rebates, opt-outs, Europe a la carte etc... even while the project as a whole advanced. The situation became ever more messy. In fact, I'm surprised the EU never decided to throw us out.

For sure not everyone in the UK took the same view. Some embraced the European dream. Others came to see it as the wrong direction. And some tried to fudge it for the advantages, but the benefits and drawbacks were not shared evenly. The result was debate over decades as the EU increasingly headed onwards, crippled by a lack of a direct democratic mandate for what it had now become. Holding a referendum on staying under the 1975 renegotiation meant the door of direct democracy had been opened on this. Promises of further referendums never materialised despite expectations being raised. At some point one would have come, forcing the issue to be settled.

Today we trigger Article 50 and begin the process of extracting ourselves. And it's also time to posthumously apologise to De Gaulle for spending so long trying to prove he was wrong.

How MPs should vote on the Article 50 Bill

Quite simply in favour.

There are two main lines of argument advanced for them to vote against.

The first only applies to some, with the argument being made that they should vote against because a majority of voters voted Remain in their constituencies.

Leaving aside the fact that the results were not counted by constituency and the estimates are not unanimous, this raises the potential problem that we could have had a majority of constituencies voting one way and a majority of the voters voting the other. The precedent that would be set would be for MPs to ignore a national vote and substitute the constituency results. Such a referendum outcome could never be sustainable and is undesirable. MPs have multiple duties, including to vote for what is in the best interests of the country as a whole. By calling a UK wide referendum they gave the question to the UK as a whole and should not rewrite the rules afterwards.

The same applies to the argument being thrown about that MPs should replace the electorate's decision with their own judgement. This appeal to parliamentary democracy is fundamentally weakened by the very use of a referendum which has meant that MPs have already passed the decision to the people. And it wasn't an "advisory" affair but a decisive vote. Prior to the results everyone involved, MPs, voters, the EU etc..., knew that a Leave victory would mean the UK leaving the EU.

To deny the referendum outcome would be a negation of democracy. At a time when there is a crisis of participation it is essential that democracy is seen to work, especially with the highest turnout vote of the 21st century.

In the referendum I will be supporting...

Vote Leave.

I'll go into more depth in the months to come but I am deeply unconvinced that it is possible to achieve any meaningful reform for the European Union. Meaningful reform would involve a massive rolling back of federalism and an end to the nonsense that to be "constructive" [sic] in Europe we have to meekly accept every power transfer. That's a culture that's not going to give up easily. The choice is clear - ever closer union or withdrawal. There is no third option.

Greecehog Day

Am I the only one sick of hearing about crisis after crisis between Greece and the rest of the Eurozone? Of a desperate struggle to pay the debts and get support? Of fears Greece is going to crash out of the Euro?

The single currency was always a political project first and an economic one second. The convergence criteria were fudged to allow in as many countries as possible and the expectation was that the separate economies would quickly learn to converge. A period of economic growth also encouraged optimism and complacency - the UK may not have joined then or since but it was a period when our government smugly talked of having ended boom and bust.

And then came the not quite global crisis. Each country has different circumstances and needs to take different measures to get itself out of the mess. Democracy also demands the people decide just where the country will escape to. But the Eurozone doesn't allow for that. Instead it severely restricts the options available to the Greek government and demands cuts on a scale like nothing we've endured here.

And so we get this endless cycle as Greece and other European countries face off with seemingly no end in sight.

Somewhere I can hear my old Economics teacher saying "I told you so".

Maybe it's time to admit the inevitable. To say that Grexit is not a question of if but when. To stop pretending Greece can do enough to meet both its obligations and its voters' demands. To say that ever closer European integration is not an irreversible process. It will be an immense upheaval - but there's no shortage of those at the moment. It will bring immediate economic hardship - but that's already there. What it will do is allow Greece to find its own way forward and follow an economic policy that's the best for Greece rather than continuing the pretence that what's good for Germany is always good for Greece.

It's time to let Greece leave the Euro.

Sometimes you have to fail to succeed

So David Cameron tried to block Jean-Claude Juncker's appointment and failed. It happens - not everyone can win all the time. But it was also necessary. If he'd just thrown up his hands and said there's nothing that can be done to reform the European Union many would have doubted it all the way to the inevitable referendum.

Instead he set out to do what he could to stop this federalist taking office. But it was impossible to do so and that's been shown. Would all those now piling in rather the United Kingdom had meekly nodded its head to Juncker's appointment? Of course not - they'd have been critical of that as well, protesting that an effort should have been made. Well one was - and even though the immediate objective was unsuccessful it has shown how unlikly it is that the EU can be reformed. Many may need further convincing before it becomes clear the only two options are a federal superstate and withdrawal, but it's a start.

Clegg vs Farage - more please

In less than an hour it will happen. The leaders of the two biggest UK wide minor parties will go head to head to argue about Europe. And it could set a useful precedent.

In just about every country that has election debates - and that's an awful lot - there are regularly rows over who should be included and excluded. But they don't all have to be in one messy crowd. In New Zealand, amongst other countries, there are separate debates for major and minor party leaders and it brings greater clarity.

So come 2015 we could put Clegg and Farage, and probably also Natalie Bennett, George Galloway and the Westminster leaders of the SNP/Plaid Cymru (no Alex Salmond, it should be someone actually aiming for Westminster) in their own debate to slug it out, and have a separate one with the two major party leaders. Tonight is just a starter.

If we leave the EU just where do we go?

We've been members of the EEC/EC/EU for forty years now and yet Euroscepticism is rampant in this country. I suspect we will get a referendum on membership sooner rather than later. But if we do then withdrawalists need a clear and consistent answer to the following question:

Which European institutions should the United Kingdom be a member of?

(Thanks to Wikipedia: File:Supranational European Bodies.png.)

The above diagram shows the various European bodies and the precise combinations of memberships. Several points stand out but the big one is that Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Russia all have different arrangements and the differences between them could be a splintering point.

Daniel Hannan addresses some of this in Switzerland is a more attractive model than Norway, but Britain could do better than either, but Hannan is not the sole voice of Euroscepticism. He claims "Our preferred model – with some adjustments – is Switzerland", but I'm not convinced all Eurosceptics have delved so deeply into this issue. Many just say "Get out of Europe".

Nor is it clear that the UK would automatically become a member of the European Free Trade Association upon leaving the EU. I'm not even sure if our memberships of the European Economic Area or the EU Customs Union are separately applied for or part & parcel of EU membership and would have to be negotiated anew from outside.

And this is crucial in the debate about access to markets and regulations, and ultimately about jobs. If there isn't a firm answer as to just what the state of things would be the day after the UK left the EU then there will be fear, uncertainty and doubt - the very ingredients that boost the status quo in referendums. And membership of the EU is the status quo...

Referendum lessons

The Alternative Vote referendum ended this week in spectacular style. After a lengthy campaign, and no end of debate in certain circles (especially Twitter!), the result is through and the message is clear - voting system change (let's stop pretending it's "electoral reform") is dead for a generation.

But there are other clear lessons from this exercise and some of them aren't so comforting.

Much of the country's recent experiences of referendums has, up to now, been limited. Some of the votes have been near invisible local ones. Others have had weakened or non-existent opposition. There are some exceptions, but by and large this vote has been the first time many have experienced a strongly contested vote, with all the campaign tactics and mud slinging that goes with it.

Many can be disappointed by the way both campaigns went about things, but at the end of the day this wasn't a politics lecture. It was a vote to decide an aspect of how the country is run. The tasks for both campaigns were to win the vote, nothing else. They set about that task using methods they believe work. But one campaign made some serious miscalculations about the public attitude.

The Yes campaign by and large pitched itself at something it believes exists called the "progressive majority" - the idea that Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Nationalist voters all belong to some grand tribe and that only splits between them have kept the Conservatives in power. But the harsh reality is that few voters identify with this concept - maybe a handful of the Guardian reading metropolitan liberals & intelligentsia (just look at the handful of areas that did return a Yes vote) but that's about it. It was also a dangerous strategy because it ignored the right and gave them no reason to vote for AV - simply having Nigel Farage on the list of AV supporters wasn't enough.

Furthermore a lot in the Yes campaign had for years believed the public wanted a change to the voting system and would flock to vote for one if only those wicked self-interested politicians would let them. Complacency ruled early on. They forget that whilst opinion polls had indicated there was a lot of support, most voters really don't have strong opinions on what voting system should be used and can be swayed by a campaign. Furthermore it really isn't a political priority for most voters beyond a certain set of chattering classes.

Now just for a moment change a few words in this. Imagine it wasn't an AV referendum but an EU one. Imagine the withdrawal campaign is pitching just for the right Conservative/UKIP voters. Imagine that many withdrawalists look to the opinion polls and take a vote for withdrawal as a foregone conclusion. And instead the stay in campaign mobilises well and secures a thumping victory.

It's not inconceivable. After all the right has its own kind of chattering class and obsessive, who don't always accept that their cause is not the public's priority, who don't realise more ground work is needed. To listen to some Eurosceptics you'd believe that all that's needed is to simply get a referendum called and everything else is a formality.

That kind of complacency is dangerous, but it's present behind most of the calls for an immediate referendum on withdrawal. More must be done before that happens.

Is Europe important to the electorate?

With dozens of commenters and hundreds of pseudonyms roaming the internet to express fake moral outrage about the Conservatives' policy on the European Union, invariably many are claiming that a huge portion of the electorate are concerned with this. But does the evidence stack up?

Late last month Ipsos MORI conducted their "issues index" opinion poll and the results are available online. This opinion poll asks two questions:

1. What would you say is the most important issue facing Britain today?
2. What do you see as other important issues facing Britain today?

One of the entries is for "Common Market/EU/Europe/EURO" (the multiple labels allow for ease of tracking over time). So how what percentage identified this as the most important issue facing Britain today?

1%

Yes it's clearly an issue a huge chunk of the electorate prioritises above all else. Greater percentages selected each of the following:

Economy/economic situation, Crime/law & order/violence/vandalism/ASB, Race relations/immigration/immigrants, Unemployment/Factory Closure/Lack of Industry, National Health Service/Hospitals/Health care, Defence/foreign affairs/international terrorism, Education/Schools, Inflation/prices, Morality/individual behaviour/lifestyle, Pollution/environment, Poverty/inequality and Other

Ah but what about the second question, about other important issues? Well yes this did increase the total. The combined responses to questions 1 & 2 for Europe were:

3%

Still an issue of huge concern to a vast chunk of the electorate! As well as all of the above, this time it was also beaten by: Pensions/social security/benefits, Housing, Drug abuse, Low pay/minimum wage/fair wages

Still the Euro-obsessives can take comfort that Europe scored equally to Local government/council tax and higher than: Public services in general, Taxation, Petrol prices/fuel, Nationalisation/Government control of institutions, Bird flu/Pandemic Flu/Swine Flu, Transport/public transport, Pound/exchange rate/value of pound, Nuclear weapons/nuclear war/disarmament, Countryside/rural life, Trade Unions/Strikes, Scottish/Welsh Assembly/Devolution/Const. reform, Privatisation, Animal welfare, AIDS, GM/GM (Genetically Modified) foods, Northern Ireland (this poll is Great Britain only) and Foot and mouth outbreak/farming crisis.

But I expect people to still make the same old unsubstantiated claim.

Oh look it's another resignation

And another MEP has resigned from the front bench over the new Conservative policy. (BBC News: MEP resigns in referendum dispute) Wow things must be really serious.

Oh it's Roger Helmer. This is the equivalent of Dennis Skinner resigning the Labour whip. It's just the same old difficult names causing trouble again.

Daniel Hannan has resigned

Two months ago the seemingly impossible happened. Daniel Hannan finally started to actually do something in the European Parliament when he became the Conservatives' front bench legal affairs spokesperson.

It could never last. Hannan has spent all his political career as a shouter not a doer, rabble rousing rather than negotiating. (If ever one wanted an argument for restricting leadership elections to parliamentarians, the fact that Hannan would win an activists' ballot for leader of the MEPs despite being utterly unsuited to the task is one.) And today the inevitable happened and Hannan has resigned. (Evening Standard - Paul Waugh: Cam's "EU-turn" backed by 1922..but not ConHome)

I'll post my thoughts on the new Conservative policy later, but for now I'll just say that Hannan will not be missed from the front bench. And I doubt he will have much influence on party policy either, after the mess he dragged the party into in the European Parliament. He will just have to rant in the wilderness.

The Lisbon Treaty has been ratified

The deed is done. Václav Klaus has signed the Lisbon Treaty and thus it becomes enacted. (BBC News: Czech leader signs Lisbon Treaty) Now it is no longer a question of "if" but "now what?"

Inevitably attention is now going to turn to the UK Conservatives as to what policy they will follow if the next election puts them in government. The wilder ends of the blogosphere are already demanding a retroactive referendum be held early in the new parliament in the hope of undoing things. But let's be clear - such a referendum that votes "No" can have no legal force. The changes can't be unenacted.

(A slight diversion here as I expect someone is already about to post a reply on the lines of "Yes it can be undone! Parliamentary sovereignty means anything can!" Parliamentary sovereignty is all well and fine on matters within the full jurisdiction of Parliament. But it doesn't apply to areas beyond the scope of the jurisdiction or where jurisdiction has been withdrawn. For example Parliament could repeal the Canada Act 1982, but try enforcing that withdrawal in Canada! Similarly Parliament cannot undo an action transforming the EU, anymore than a person can unscramble an egg and put it back in its shell.)

All a post-ratification referendum would do is consume a lot of time and taxpayer money for no discernible difference. At the end of it the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union would remain the same no matter what.

There are only two real ways forward. One is to grin and put up with the situation we have. The other is for a new government to undertake a renegotiation of the terms of membership of the European Union and then put those terms to the people in a referendum, much like the 1970s Labour government did, and if a satisfactory arrangement cannot be found then to withdraw.

However too many on the Eurosceptic wing of the party are rarely realistic on these matters. They have just spent the last four years focusing all their energy on the rather trivial matter of which grouping we sit with in the European Parliament after all!

Image choice is crucial

Apologies for the lack of recent updates as I've been kept busy by several matters. There's quite a few subjects I'll blog on over the next few days, but to start with one I've just noticed...

ConservativeHome: "The Eurosceptic way to voters' hearts should be through their wallets." reports on MEP Roger Helmer's latest campaign. Whilst he's got a good message, his posters have picked completely the wrong image:

Yes it's provoked people's reaction that they want the shirt off that back! It's not exactly the reaction the poster's hoping for, is it?

Oh and don't worry, there is apparently another version of the poster for those whose taste is male.

"People who matter"?!?!?!?!?!

I see that once again José Manuel Barroso has gone an shown the utter contempt for democracy that is at the heart of the European Union. He has gone about declaring that the current economic crisis has made it more likely that the United Kingdom will join the Euro, which is a fair enough comment (though the degree of "never" makes it splitting hairs) but what really sticks is this:

I know that the majority in Britain are still opposed, but there is a period of consideration under way and the people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it,

(BBC News: UK 'closer' to adopting the euro)
"People who matter"?!?! As any decision to join will be taken by a referendum, it is the "majority in Britain" who matter!

It is another example the typical contempt for democracy that is so prevalent in Europe and which Barroso regularly expresses. You may remember him intervening in the domestic debate about whether or not the people should have a say on the EU Constitution "Treaty of Lisbon" to again pour scorn on the very idea of democracy.

Of course since Barroso was never elected President of the European Commission in any meaningful sense it's no wonder he spouts this rubbish. And for someone who said when he was appointed that he wanted to tackle Euroscepticism, he's doing a pretty lousy job!

The return of the bendy banana

After years of fruit being wasted and prices pushed up for the sake of petty Brussels bureaucratic regulations, it seems a reprieve is finally coming. (BBC News: EU to cut out wonky fruit rules) In these troublesome economic times anything that will help reduce prices can only be a step forward.

But why did the European Union ever adopt such absurd proposals in the first place? They do nothing to benefit the consumer. Were the bureaucrats just looking for things to do?

You can't have your cake and eat it Gordon!

The EU Constitution "Treaty" has been signed, making sweeping changes to Europe "just tidying a few things up" (BBC News: EU leaders sign landmark treaty) and look who's the only leader not at the signing ceremony.

Yes Gordon Brown, once again bottling out. He's used some committee at the House of Commons as an excuse for not attending, when committees are rescheduled all the time. He just doesn't have the bottle to be seen signing such an important document when he won't honour Labour's election pledge to hold a referendum on it. The argument that the "Treaty" is too different from the Constitution just doesn't wash.

If Brown wants to be taken seriously, he's got to learn that a Prime Minister can't simply hide every time there's something controversial, the way he often did when he was Chancellor. And if he wants the county to adopt the "Treaty" he should be willing to sign it in public. Even Tony Blair had more courage than this.

Or did he just skip the ceremony so he could avoid running into Peter Mandelson?

So will the UK ever finish metrication?

It was announced today that the European Union is no longer going to require the UK to completely move to the metric system by one deadline or another. (BBC News: EU gives up on 'metric Britain') In future the decision will be entirely down to the UK government.

In one sense this is a victory for the UK's right to make the decision for itself. It might also prove beneficial to those who want to see metrication properly enacted, since it removes the EU from the entire debate. The way some people go on about wanting to keep imperial measurements you could be mistaken for thinking that "Brussels" is the reason for their objection, not the merits of using one system of measurements over another. Or, in the UK's case, using one mishmash of two systems.

Because let's be honest - despite what some of the more anti-metric campaigners claim, the UK does not "use imperial measurements" in the exclusive way the US does. For example at the foot of my desk there is a bottle of Irn Bru. And how is its volume displayed? None other than "2 Litre". And in the small print the amount of carbohydrates is given in grams. Other than draught beer, cider (and other drinks in pubs) and milk virtually all drinks are done by the litre. (Even milk is sort of going that way - the bottle in my fridge says 2.272 litres first, then 4 pints. Most prepackaged food is similarly sold by the kilogram, not the pound.

But turn to distances and signs in this country are given in miles. Speedometers give speed in both miles per hour and kilometres per hour, but the former is used for legal speed limits.

Then we come to what's taught in schools and the answer is metric. But many children find their parents using imperial measurements and get dragged into using the older system. I always give my weight in kilos and my height in metres - and indeed don't know what they are in stones and feet respectively - but many find it odd that I do nothing more than give my weight and height the way I was taught to.

Metrication is already in heavy use in this country. But so too are imperial measurements. And the result is a confusing mess.

It's all very well to talk about "choice" but a system of measurements is a commonly used and understand system for conveying information, a language if you will. Do I have the right to start selling stuff in a totally new system of measurements? Surely the consumer's right to comprehension and protection against being ripped off takes precedence and demands that there is a commonly understood and enforced standard?

That common standard is currently undermined by the failure to use one single set of measurements in this country. Now what's easier to teach - a system that uses the same numeric base as the numbering system, or one based on numerous inconsistencies and illogical bases? Why are there sixteen ounces to the pound but only fourteen pounds to the stone? Clearly metrication is the more workable system.

But will it happen? This country's been considering it for nearly two hundred years and keeps putting it off. Whilst there now won't be the problem of having to overcome resistance to "diktats from Brussels", I suspect it will be quite a while before the necessary task is finished.

Don't menzion ze Var!

If the United Kingdom have taken this stance there would be uproar. But Poland has mentioned the unmentionable in the European Union - the effect of the Second World War. For all that we endured, the UK never suffered population losses on the scale of Poland. I wonder if anyone here can comprehend what it means to the Poles today.

I'll admit to not caring much about the details of this row - over the number of votes each state wields in the qualified majority voting system - as I'm so sceptical that it's in the UK's interests to even be in a European superstate at all that details like this don't excite me. That said, the proposed changes stand to benefit Germany and weaken Poland's position significantly.

Are the Poles over the top? I really don't think we can judge this well. Some wounds are very deep about what was lost during the war - on all sides. If the Poles continue on this course, how long before some of those ghosts raise their heads?