And another thing…

WE’VE ALL been having fun with Dave’s scrapping and melting down of his “cast iron” guarantee to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

And at 4.00 pm, the cast-iron laddie will take to the rostrum to explain a new policy which he hopes will be an effective sticking plaster over the newly exposed European wounds in his party. He’s been lucky in at least one respect: whatever he says will be lost in the acres of coverage of Kelly’s report into MPs’ expenses; so, for the time being at least, Dave’s difficulties won’t be too high up the media agenda.

Apparently he’ll announce a “manifesto mandate” to be obstructive and rude to foreigners, or something, which will go down well enough with his rank and file.

But all this dancing around the issue is getting silly. Dan “I’m not as mad as I look, honestly” Hannan MEP was on Newsnight last night insisting that a future Cameron government should hold a referendum on Europe. Which aspect of Europe? asked Paxo, reasonably enough. Doesn’t really matter, provided there’s a referendum, replied the party’s Great White Hope.

You know what he meant. I know what he meant. Paxo knew what he meant. There’s a more than 50 per cent chance that Hannan knew what he meant: the overwhelming majority of rank and file Conservative Party members want a referendum on withdrawal from the EU.

All this shilly-shallying over Lisbon, over the proposed repatriation of specific powers, none of this really matters to most Tories. The big issue for them is not a refinement of the UK’s relationship with Europe; it is Britain’s membership itself of the EU, and they will not rest until they get it.

Cameron would unite his party if today he were to announce exactly that (although there would then be the bear trap of which way any government led by him would campaign during the campaign).

Of course, not all Tories go along with the foamers; Ken Clarke, distrusted by most of his party, has reportedly pulled out of his appearance on today’s The Daily Politics. A straw in the wind, perhaps?

EUROPE, for me, is one of those “bleah” issues: it’s never lit my candle, as it were. I have much the same reaction to the subject as I do to vanilla ice cream, which is, I suspect, the same attitude as the vast majority of electors.

Most people do not obsess about what per centage of domestic legislation comes from Brussels (Eurosceptics tend to invent figures upwards of 70 per  cent; for the record, it’s actually less than ten). The vast majority of Tories and libertarians, of course, do little other than obsess about Europe: “Betrayal!” they cry, almost as if anyone were listening to them.

So much time has passed since there was a Tory government in this country that many have forgotten just how the issue of Europe turned them into a dysfunctional entity. And it would happen again if they ever formed a government again. Not because they’re particularly disunited on Europe this time round; in fact the Tories are probably more united on Europe since at any time since our entry to the EEC. The problem is, they’re united around overt Europhobia.

Sure, Cameron keeps Ken Clarke, his pet Europhile, in the Shadow Cabinet, just to prove to the world what a big tent the modern Conservative Party is. But Clarke is very much the exception. The vast majority of Conservative MPs, candidates and members would vote to leave the EU in a heartbeat if they got the chance.

So what of it? That’s arguably more in tune with the views of the British people right now. Arguably.

The problem, of course, is that even though they believe they’re more in tune than Labour with the public on Europe, they can’t act on it, for fear that they will appear dogmatic and extreme. Which is why we have this ridiculous argument over the Lisbon Treaty. Dave has said he “will not let the matter rest there” if the treaty has already been ratified by the time of the general election and if he becomes Prime Minister. Yesterday I had a bit of fun baiting some foamers into explaining what this actually meant. We all know what it meant: nothing at all. But Cameron must keep up the pretence of opposition to a fully ratified treaty if he’s to stop his right wing rebelling.

Cameron, ultimately, despite being anti-EU, is a pragmatic politician; he doesn’t want any government he might form bogged down for its first 18 months in a pointless and costly referendum campaign which could achieve nothing other than isolating the UK within Europe. But he desperately needs to keep his right wing on board until 10.00 pm on polling day. Hence the silly “we won’t let matter rest there” soundbite.

That won’t work for very long if the Tories – God help us – ever do form a government. The likes of John Redwood and Bill Cash and a hundred others won’t allow a little thing like electoral credibility get in the way of their ideological purity.

On the evidence of the past couple of days, there’s plenty of fun to be had in baiting the Tories on the subject between now and the election.

MY TORY chum, Iain Dale, is optimistically punting Louise “Sarah Palin is my political heroine” Bagshawe’s recent Tweets as articulating Tory European policy “better than either David Cameron or Eric Pickles did this morning”:

Here’s our policy on Lisbon: we oppose it, and we want a referendum. And if it’s not ratified by polling day, we’ll have one. And if it is?

If it is, we’ll announce what we do about its lack of legitimacy then. The Tories: crossing bridges when we come to them.

Labour hates it when David Cameron is pragmatic. It’s sweet how desperate for a Euro-split they are. This sceptic is fine w/ being practical.

There’s only one tiny problem with this attempt to paper over the cracks in the Tory Party before it all comes crashing down like a Glasgow MP’s bedroom ceiling: if the treaty is ratified before the general election, then, by definition, Cameron will have time before polling day to tell us what he will do. There would be no justification for waiting until after polling day finally to announce what he actually meant by “we would not let matters rest there.”

The nation holds its breath.

OKAY, I accept that the question in the last post was too difficult for you. So let’s try an easier one:

Dave has said that if he forms a government after the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified, he “wouldn’t let the matter rest there.”

So, fingers on your buzzers: what on earth does “wouldn’t let matters rest there” actually mean?

IF THE Tories win the election and if, by then, the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified, will David Cameron go ahead with a referendum on the issue?

Simple question, Dave; simple answer: yes or no? The country has the right to know.

DAVID Cameron seems to be rather nervous about his party’s reaction to Ireland’s “Yes” to Lisbon.

He’s issued a statement saying that he won’t be saying anything and that nothing has changed. Or something. Makes you wonder why he bothered to make the statement if he’s nothing to say. And in saying nothing, he’s repeated something he’s said before.

If the Treaty is ratified and in force in all Member States, we have repeatedly said we would not let matters rest there

And, like last tme he said this, it means nothing.

He’s petrified, naturally, that divisions in his party will become more apparent at Manchester next week, so he’s warning everyoone that “there will be no change in our policy on Europe and no new announcements at the Conference.”

Paradoxically, he starts off his email with the message: “Next week, we won’t be playing it safe.” Well, apart from him and his Shadow Cabinet refusing to countenance any discussion on party policy on the one issue that the vast majority of ordinary members and MPs regularly foam at the mouth over. I would call that “playing it safe”, wouldn’t you?

And anyway, what exactly does “we would not let matters rest there” mean? Is it some kind of veiled threat? “Just watch it, Europe, that’s all I’m saying…”

We’ll see if the media do their job next week and try to get to the bottom of what the Tories’ European policy actually is, perhaps even challenging them on their peculiar choice of words with which they’re hoping to mislead the electorate.

The Nasty Party is alive and well, as evidenced by this afternoon’s statement on the Lisbon Treaty in the Commons. When my old boss, Patricia Hewitt, rose to speak, there was a loud and hostile reaction from the Tories, with much disgraceful cat-calling and insults. There was a similar, though lower key, reaction whejn Chris Bryant spoke. Difficult to escape the conclusion that there are some groups of people to whom the Tory Party just doesn’t react well.

UPDATE (at 10.50pm) My editor-in-chief (Carolyn) has expressed some disquiet at the above post, suggesting it is unfair to label the whole Tory Party as misogynist homophobes. She’s right, of course. I know many Tories, inside and outside the Commons, who couldn’t be remotely described that way. Perhaps I was being just a little defensive of Patricia, of whom I’m extremely fond, and Chris (ditto). Hope that clarifies things.