Nemesis

Sooner than he might have wanted, David Cameron is facing the prospect of having to "fess up" and admit that a referendum on the constitutional Lisbon treaty is no longer on the cards.

His nemesis is likely to come some time in early November when the Czech constitutional court clears the way for Vaclav Klaus to sign the ratification instrument, the last of 27 EU member state leaders to do so.

And sign it he will, having indicated to the Czech newspaper Lidove noviny that it would be futile to do otherwise. "The train carrying the treaty is going so fast and it's so far that it can't be stopped or returned, no matter how much some of us would want that," he told the newspaper. (However - see health warning on the forum.)

Although some eurosceptic campaigners have been clinging to the hope that he might delay ratification until the election, thus paving the way for a Cameronian referendum, Klaus made his position very clear by adding: "I cannot and will not wait for British elections, unless they hold them in the next few days or weeks."

Booker, in his column, salutes the man whom he calls "Europe's last democrat". In a melancholy way, he writes, it has been vastly entertaining to see the rage provoked in Brussels and Europe's political class by his continuing dalliance.

Now, though, the game is drawing to a close – a treaty which has taken eight years in the making, built on a foundation of lies, deception and bad faith, rejected by the electorates of France, Holland and Ireland, is shortly to come into force. And Mr Cameron is going to have to tell us what he proposes to do about it.

Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, is possibly pointing to a way out for the man who would be prime minister – but in fact will be a satrap of Brussels. He (Davies) says, "If the treaty is fully ratified I have never believed there is any point in having a referendum on it. It would be futile gesture politics." Instead, he wants Cameron to stage a vote on repatriating powers from the EU.

In purely practical terms, Davies is right – but politics is not always about practicalities. Holding a referendum on the treaty would be enormously symbolic, drawing a line between the Labour administration and the Conservatives, and making a powerful statement to Brussels.

Cameron would not, of course, be obliged then to de-ratify the treaty – and nor could he affect its course. By then it would be in force and it would be virtually impossible to unravel the new treaty provisions specifically for the UK.

But, armed with a substantial vote against the treaty, Cameron would have a strong mandate to demand from the other member states an intergovernmental conference (IGC), to which he could present substantive proposals for a new status for Britain, including the repatriation of powers, of which so much has been made.

An alternative course would be for him to set out detailed proposals for dealing with Brussels in the Conservative Party manifesto, with a promise of a referendum to approve whatever deal he manages to negotiate, in the manner of Wilson's 1975 referendum.

Either line, though, is fraught. It is not within Cameron's gift to promise renegotiations. Any substantive changes will require treaty changes and these can only be secured through the medium of an IGC. This requires the "consensus" of the member states, determined if necessary by a vote on which there must be a simple majority in favour.

That, in itself, is a major hurdle. Once an IGC is declared, it is "open house" for any member state to submit their own proposals – many of which have their own agendas and their own publics to satisfy. Given the bruising experience of the Lisbon process, the last thing the "colleagues" will want to is re-open old wounds, and engage in another round of treaty negotiations.

There will, therefore, be massive pressure to refuse Cameron any negotiations. In the face of a "democratic" vote from the other member states (not the EU, but the member states acting – in theory at least – individually), he has no means of forcing the issue, short of invoking the exit provisions of the treaty and taking the UK out of the EU altogether.

Much is made of the ploy of blocking agreement on the multi-annual budget framework, during the forthcoming negotiations. There, parallels are being drawn with the Thatcher "handbag" ploy on the rebate negotiations. But that is a non-starter. Community law simply does not permit treaty changes without an IGC, so Cameron could not trade what we wanted against approval of a new budget framework.

That leaves Cameron with few options. But, if he is prepared to play the exit card, the "colleagues" may well concede an IGC. Even then, there would be massive hurdles. Any changes will have to be agreed unanimously and, once again, the new treaty will have to be ratified by all 27 member states. That will not necessarily be problem-free.

From start to finish, the process could well take several years and one does not have to be a mind reader to see that, from Cameron's point of view, this would be highly undesirable. The last thing he will want is for his first term to be dominated by bickering – and that it would be – over "Europe".

Given also that Cameron's preferred position is active membership of the EU, his position will almost certainly be to seek a de minimis resolution, which can be concluded as fast as possible. Thus, one possibility is that he will offer largely cosmetic changes, sufficient to convince the electorate that he is "doing something" about "Europe".

He could, as a result, try for something like an "Irish option", extracting from the "colleagues" a number of declarations, which could then be incorporated in one of the accession treaties which may come up.

However, he has also to satisfy the "eurosceptic" wing of his party and keep his europhiles on-side, giving him perilously little room for manoeuvre – even less if public hostility to the EU forces him to make more robust changes than he would prefer.

Ideally, Cameron would like to "park" the whole issue – that has been the default tactic of his leadership to date, but in the face of his oft' repeated mantra that, if the treaty is ratified he "won't let matters rest there", he will shortly be forced to make his position clear(er). Even then, he could simply delay the evil day, promising only to set out his plans in his manifesto.

Tory MP Philip Hollobone, though, states the obvious – of which Cameron will be keenly aware. "Everyone will be expecting clarification of what the Conservative position will be," he says, adding ominously, "the issue of Britain's relationship with Europe is not going to go away."

Moreover, Cameron will not get away with a 1975-style Wilsonian fudge. The EU is far more powerful and visible then it was then, the electorate is that much better informed and, of course, there is the internet. "Europe" most definitely is not going to go away, and the prime minister in-waiting has a real problem on his hands.

COMMENT THREAD

Sending a signal?

According to an ICM poll carried out for The Sunday Telegraph, 40 percent of respondents want Britain to leave the EU. This, we are told, is a higher percentage than in other recent polls.

Furthermore, 70 percent of respondents want a new Conservative administration to offer a referendum on the constitutional Lisbon treaty, even if it has already been ratified by the time they are elected. Even among Labour-supporting respondents, 64 percent still wanted the Tories, if elected, to offer a referendum.

Both these figures are somewhat higher than the 57 percent recorded by a YouGov poll earlier in the week, but one wonders how comparable they might be. Whether they are or not, this is not good news for Cameron, although it remains to be seen whether such sentiment will be sustained and have any electoral impact.

It is certainly the case that, should Cameron commit unequivocally to a poll, come what may, most of the UKIP vote would walk his way. That means, potentially, a million-plus votes are there for the taking.

On the basis that politicians, as a rule, value every vote, the fact that Cameron seems so disinterested in harvesting an easy crop of votes fuels much of the suspicion about Tory intentions. Furthermore, Cameron is sending a signal to a swathe of the electorate, effectively stating that he does not care about their votes.

That is a very dangerous signal to send, for an election which should be in the bag but which is not a foregone conclusion. This latest poll is perhaps the electorate sending a signal back to Cameron. He would be foolish if he dismissed it outright.

COMMENT THREAD

Not unrelated

A piece in The Guardian today (yes, another one) has our Mandarins launching an attack on Labour, criticising the party's record on cabinet government.

Doubtless, there is an element of special pleading here as the Sir Humphries are complaining that Labour has abandoned cabinet government during its time in power and routinely bypassed the civil service to exert greater political control over Whitehall.

So concerned are these "Rolls Royce" minds that four former cabinet secretaries – who served three prime ministers over 26 years – have warned that the presidential style of both leaders is a threat to Britain's constitutional settlement.

In particular, they complain that Britain's "great institution" of joint cabinet government is threatened by the growing power of the prime minister. Both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, they say, have shown little understanding of cabinet government; they operate as a "small unit" and hold "cards rather close to their chest". And, last but not least, Whitehall has been politicised with Blair and Brown presiding over a "massive increase" in special advisers.

Read alongside the interview with Lord Salisbury, which we summarised in late July, this paints an interesting if disturbing picture of the breakdown of our fundamental structures of government.

Salisbury, you will recall, was worried about the "parliamentary muscle" having atrophied, leaving us with "a vast, complicated, self-referential bureaucracy." He warned that, when Cameron tried to implement his own agenda, "He will go into Whitehall and pull the levers and find that nothing works." "I don't think he realises how Whitehall has become so broken," said the noble Lord.

When the civil servants are also complaining, there is clearly something amiss – especially as, with the growing power of the European Union, it is the bureaucrats who have gained most, at the expense of both ministers and parliament.

Probably, what is happening is that, in the areas dominated by EU policy – such as agriculture and environment – the civil servants are left to run their affairs alongside our masters in Brussels, with very little interference from ministers or MPs. On that, the Mandarins are silent.

Of those policy areas where there is less interference from Brussels, however, ministers seem to be taking a far greater managerial role, cutting out the traditional structures, hierarchies and lines of demarcation, leaving many of their senior civil servants in the dark as to what is going on.

On the other hand, though, in by-passing the Mandarins, ministers are clearly finding it more and more difficult to enforce their wishes and diktats, as the two sides are no longer talking to each other freely, or working together. And while even senior civil servants cannot make and enforce their own policies, they have an endless capability to sabotage anything a government might wish to implement, should they be so minded.

This may be one of the dynamics affecting defence, about which we have so recently written, where ministers (and the prime minister) are no longer in the thrall of their civil servants but are increasingly finding it difficult to impose their collective wills. The levers of power have indeed become disconnected.

If the dysfunctional performance of the current administration is not unrelated to these developments, then this further reinforces the view that there are serious repairs to the system required, before government can begin to function effectively again – if indeed that is possible, given how much power has drained elsewhere.

The retired mandarins, however, want to see a return to the tradition in which the cabinet office and the cabinet secretary acted as "guardians of collective responsibility of government" with the prime minister not a presidential figure but first among equals. This may be the civil services' ticket to restoring some of its own power over government, but since so much of that power is simply now exerted on behalf of Brussels, this will not necessarily improve matters.

Short of that, though, we are left with a situation where, increasingly, no one is really in control and the machinery of government will continue to deteriorate. That which has been so easily broken cannot be so readily mended.

COMMENT THREAD

Dave doesn't care

Simon Heffer says that David Cameron and his friends are not Tories. But, he says, little Dave doesn't care.

Heffer thinks he should. Fringe parties like UKIP, usually only given big support during marginal electoral contests, could find themselves the repository of protest votes by those who wish – as a result of the widespread disillusion caused by the expenses scandal – to smash up the old, cosy system.

It won't happen in time for the next election but, with a low turnout and a significant proportion of votes going to fringe parties, any hold on power that the Tories have will be fragile, and their supporters not remotely loyal.

More and more people who should be traditional Tory supporters are no longer – a terrifying number see the only way out is for the system to self-destruct. And there's the rub. They know Dave doesn't care. The thing is, neither do they ... about him or his friends.

COMMENT THREAD

Are we actually interested?

Ever since the Tories broke away from the EPP group in the EU parliament and formed their own, critics inside and outside the party have been seeking to exploit apparent inconsistencies between them and their "partners".

So tedious are these little scraps that we have avoided reporting on them – who really cares about the internal politics of the EU parliament, much less the machinations of a fringe group like the Tories?

The latest twist, however, has a certain amusement value. As reported by The Independent, the president of the new group, Law and Justice Party MEP Michael Kaminski (pictured), has expressed support for both the Lisbon Treaty and the Common Agricultural Policy.

This, says The Independent, "would appear to put him seriously at odds with David Cameron who is strongly opposed to the treaty which he wants to put to a referendum in the UK."

Actually, it doesn't – which goes to show how little the British media understands EU parliamentary politics.

The political groups – including the one which the Tories have formed – are little more than "marriages of convenience" between disparate national parties, with very little in common. They come together at the EU level in order to milk the system, enabling them to maximise their drawings from parliamentary funds and to bid for key positions in the parliamentary structures.

Look at any of the political parties forming any of the EU groups and you will see huge national differences in policies, to the extent that you could play endless games pointing up the anomalies and inconsistencies. They matter not though.

All the group members sign up to a set of common principles, in order to satisfy the parliamentary rules, carefully drafted so as not to interfere with national sensibilities. Each national delegation then tends to run its own affairs.

Since the EU parliament has absolutely no control over EU policy, which is determined by the commission and the European Council, national policy differences between group members are of very little importance.

However, playing up the differences in order to score political points on a national stage is fair game. Thus, Baroness Kinnock is doing her own"milking", declaring that: "David Cameron needs to get a grip. The fringe is coming apart at the seams." She goes on to say: "Cameron and Hague must say where they stand. Do they agree with the leader of their group or do they oppose him and move further from reality?"

Outside the foetid bubble of micro-EU politics though, one suspects no one actually cares. After all, Kaminski is a foreigner, and who cares what they say anyway? For goodness sake, just look at him. He cannot even wear his tie correctly.

COMMENT THREAD

A certain sameness

Booker returns with a vengeance to the subject of global warming climate change today, picking up on the discomfiture of the Met Office, caught out over its April forecast that we were in for a "barbecue summer".

To that, Booker adds an analysis of the root cause of the Met Office's ineptitude, the fact that it relies for its short-term forecasting on the same multi-million pound computer it uses to produce data used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to predict global warming.

In this respect, says Booker, the IPCC's computer models have proved just as wrong in predicting global temperatures as the Met Office has been in forecasting those mild winters and heatwave summers.

Behind that, though, "a curious little drama" has been unfolding over attempts by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian statistical expert, to get the Met Office to divulge the computer data on which they base their temperature record.

McIntyre was not only the chief demolisher of the "hockey stick", showing how it was based on a seriously skewed computer model, but later exposed the "adjustments" which had skewed the other official record of surface temperatures, run by Dr James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

To date, all Freedom of Information requests to see the data used to construct the Met Office temperature record have been given "an almighty brush-off", the Met Office saying that this information was strictly confidential and that to release it would damage Britain's "international relations" with all the countries that supplied it.

The idea that temperature records might be a state secret seems strange enough, Booker observes, but when the policies of governments across the world are based on that data it becomes odder still that no outsider should be allowed to see it. Weirdest of all, however, is the Met Office's claim that to release the data would "damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector".

This, however, is more than strange. It is a downright scandal and should not be tucked away in the Booker ghetto or left to a Canadian statistician to pursue. Given the political and economic implications, this should be front page material, with the opposition parties baying for blood.

Therein lies the problem. Instead of that, we have a comment section, with over a hundred contributions, but with the discussion stuck in the same, well-worn grooves. There is nothing much new there, because there is nothing much new to say. The opposing sides have staked out their territories and are indulging in the dialogue of the deaf.

What is entirely lacking here is political engagement. As we saw with the equipment issue and Afghanistan, until there is a controversy centred around high profile political figures, and the media can personalise the issues in a domestic political context, there is no traction. The subject remains in the ghetto, ignored by the mainstream, where the proponents churn over the same old arguments, ad infinitum.

Of course, this points up the utter fatuity of the Tory policy and Cameron's espousal of the green agenda, but the fact of the matter is that, until we get an opposition party that is prepared to stand up and be counted on this issue, it is going nowhere.

There is too much money in the climate change industry, and too many reputations at stake for change to occur without a highly focused political initiative and, as long as Cameron is at the helm, this is not going to happen any time soon.

COMMENT THREAD

The ground truth

A fascinating interview with the Lord Salisbury is recorded in The Daily Telegraph today, with Benedict Brogan talking to a man who is familiar with the "dark art" of government.

Amongst the nuggets that emerge are his views that Parliament is in deep trouble because this Government holds the institution in contempt. Burkean judgment has been replaced by Platonic judges, he says. This, opines Brogan, is an elegant way of saying that MPs have abdicated responsibility in favour of unaccountable judges and bureaucrats.

Salisbury puts it more plainly: "The parliamentary muscle is atrophying and we now have a vast, complicated, self-referential bureaucracy."

We are referred to his recent pamphlet published by Politeia detailing the mess that Whitehall's security and defence committees have become. Salisbury illustrates how officials, faced with ministers who are unwilling to show judgment or take a lead on vital issues of national security, have allowed a vast tangle of a structure to develop, with no clear accountability or control.

A return to Cabinet government is urgently needed, he argues. Whitehall is "mired in treacle". A clear line of authority from officials to ministers has been lost and must be restored.

What then leaps from the page is Salisbury's views on the difficulties facing Cameron when he tries to implement his own agenda. "He will go into Whitehall and pull the levers and find that nothing works. I don’t think he realises how Whitehall has become so broken," says the noble Lord.

This has been going on a long, long time and his comments remind me of that interview I had with Roger Freeman which I recorded briefly on this blog. At the fag end of the Major government, in late 1996, he was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I still recall him vividly standing at the window of his spacious office, overlooking Horse Guards.

"You know, Richard," he said to me. "You struggle to get to this elevated position as a high ranking Cabinet Minister where you are finally able to do things." Imagining a huge, old-fashioned signal box with all the gleaming brass levers, he then complained that, while he had "all the levers of power", they were "not connected to anything."

I recorded my experience of tramping the street of Whitehall, meeting ministers, high-ranking officials (one of whom treated me to a very fine and expensive lunch) and then MPs, ending up at midnight in the Central Lobby staring at the deserted grandeur and feeling the presence of ghosts of statesmen past.

The day had been punctuated by my putting the case of very serious problems emerging in the farming community (some sections of which I was then representing) which needed addressing very urgently. And all day I had been getting the same refrain – sympathy combined with profound regrets: "My hands are tied", I was told, leaving me to conclude that the only meaningful activity in Whitehall had become group bondage.

It is this progressive and serious breakdown in the mechanisms of government to which I was trying to draw attention, in my own lame and halting way, with the helicopter issue.

Projected through the prism of the media is the childish image of an all-powerful government, the prime minister at the helm – no doubt sitting, cat on lap, in his penthouse suite – with the levers of power arrayed before him, rattling off orders and instructions, his polished acolytes leaping into action.

Real life is not like that. The idea of a prime minister issuing "action this day" memoranda, thus galvanising a well-oiled machine into frenetic activity, is no more – if ever it was. All we have left is a dysfunctional machine which, as Salisbury puts it, is "mired in treacle".

Yet the myth has overtaken the reality, where all the ills of society are put down to that single hate figure, Gordon Brown, the all-powerful, all seeing head of that vast bureaucratic empire. This is exactly the dynamic we see over at Coffee House Blog from the ineffably lightweight Peter Hoskin, a dedicated subscriber to the myth.

Salisbury knows it isn't real. Anyone with anything beyond a "Janet and John" appreciation of the realities of modern government knows it isn't real – but the myth prevails. Nevertheless, the "ground truth", as they like to call it these days, is that the levers of power are not connected to anything.

COMMENT THREAD

Santa Klaus

Offering us a very early Christmas present (although I swear it was warmer on Christmas day that it was yesterday) Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president, has intimated that he intends to refer the constitutional Lisbon treaty to his country's constitutional court at the start of August.

With the support of 17 senators, he will seek a ruling on whether the treaty complies with the Czech constitution, thereby delaying once more the ratification of the treaty, which he can now do until the court has given its verdict.

This completely stall the process, blocking Sweden, the current rotating EU presidency holder, from sorting out the final details of the treaty implementation by the end of the year, assuming the Irish vote "yes" on 2 October.

Whether even that will happen is anyone's guess. According to The Telegraph the "no" campaign is seeking to exploit the financial crisis, so says Mr Cox, a former Irish MEP (and EP president) "to encourage the Irish people to vote against our own interests and reject the Treaty." He adds: "We do not plan to let them succeed." But then he always was an arrogant .... person.

The longer Klaus delays it, of course – even if the Irish do roll over – the closer to Armageddon comes David Cameron, who will now not be off the hook by the time of the Conservative Party conference. Just a measly six months into the next year – if he can stall it that long - and we will see what Boy Dave is made of, when he has to promise us a referendum.

It is not only the EU presidency that will then be rotating. Mr Monnet, tucked up in his grave, will be doing likewise.

COMMENT THREAD

A mighty kick?

The triumphalism and euphoria of the (not the) Conservative Party over the Norwich North by-election is only to be expected of a tribal system where winning is all. However, since the winner took only 18 percent of the popular vote, this is not so much a victory as a sign of a political system in crisis.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, we see an uneasy Charles Moore, who seems to be more than usually on form of late. He writes:

And I am sure that the Conservatives' focus groups tell them that, beyond thinking well of Mr Cameron, voters do not recognise the Tory "signature" on anything much. In 1978/9, they would have known that the Tories promised something different on taxes, inflation, trade unions, and the Cold War. What do they know now? Nothing terrible, but also, nothing much.

The vagueness of these impressions might not matter politically if in fact the Tories did know what they wanted to do. But where are they on terror, "human rights", our constitutional decay, health service reform, local government, energy, our relations with America, the undeclared war in Afghanistan?

This blog has rather gone overboard on the Afghan issue, but it is one which has considerable political traction and has a totemic significance far beyond the narrow geographical confines of the conflict – from which many broader lessons can be drawn.

Yet, apart from – some might say – a cynical exercise to exploit the very narrow issue of helicopter shortages, we have seen little input from the Conservative Party in general, reflected in a remarkable paucity of debate on the Tory-supporting blogs.

From the flagship Tory blog, for instance, we have had but one clumsy intervention and little more. By contrast, debate on the Labourlist site has been far more active, albeit on the forum rather than on the main blog.

Something of this must surely stem from the tendency of contemporary politicians to steer the debate in directions they want it to go, rather than address the issues that concern real people in the real world. But the lack of political discourse on a subject that has dominated the headlines for the best part of three weeks can do nothing but reinforce the sense of disconnect between the political classes and their claques and ordinary people.

The evasion of reality, of course, stretches far beyond Afghanistan, not least into the pressing issue of the economy where it is growing evident that there are extremely tough times ahead. And, with tough times come tough choices, which will require bold political leaders with a strong mandate from the country.

Whatever the victory at Norwich North was, it was not an expression of support of and confidence in the Conservative Party. Eighteen percent does not a mandate make. And, if that is in any way replicated at the general election, we face the prospect of a government lacking the moral authority to make the tough choices that will be needed – assuming even that there is the basic competence which will enable the right choices to be identified.

The immediate repercussions are difficult to predict, but while our protests lack the élan of the Gallic street riots, the things we do well in this country are sullen resentment and mulish stubbornness. Against that, even the brutish violence of our increasingly militaristic and insolent police force will find it hard to prevail.

Mr Cameron may, therefore, be cherishing his victory this weekend, but one can't help but feel that the mule is eyeing him up for a mighty kick.

COMMENT THREAD

And that election ...

It says something either of this writer, politics in general, or both, that the by-election in Norwich North is very low down the batting order. But then, the only outcome is to vote in another "useless mouth" to the provincial parliament, while the real government gets on with its business in Brussels.

For the record, the "victor" was Conservative, Chloe Smith, 27 – a former "management consultant" and therefore able to bring her extensive experience of business into play, as to how to comply with EU legislation.

The Times tells us the fair Chloe won a bigger than expected 7,348 majority, overturning Labour's lead of 5,459 in the 2005 general election. With 6,243 votes, Labour was down 26.7 percent on the general election, with 14,854 voters deserting the party since 2005.

Interestingly, the turnout was 45.8 percent – pathetic but only to be expected – which means that the Tories now hold the seat with votes from just over 18 percent of the electorate. A sweeping mandate it ain't, especially as the majority is attributable more to a collapse of the Labour vote than a positive endorsement of the Cameron agenda.

Ukip's Glen Tingle apparently did quite well, bringing in 4,068 votes, taking 11 percent of the vote. Lib Dims only made 4,803 votes, two percent less than in the 2005 general election – a very poor showing for a party that is supposed to specialise in by-elections. Nick Clegg's message is not wowing the voters.

The UKIP vote is interesting. Together with the Greens (3,350 votes), BNP (941) and Craig Murray (953) running as an anti-sleeze candidate, the "tiddlers" polled 14,115 votes, more than the Conservative's 13,591, taking over 40 percent of the vote cast, better than the 39.5 percent which the Conservatives took.

This did not prevent the Tories winning the seat, but this is a significant tranche of votes. If the minority vote holds up across the board in the general election (a very big "if"), we could see variations of the UKIP effect, with unpredictable results.

Predicting results is a mug's game at the best of time, so all that can be said is that this result injects an element of unpredictability into a situation already fraught with unpredictability. We could be in for an interesting time – or not.

COMMENT THREAD

They can't do it

David Cameron would scrap FSA in biggest overhaul of City regulation since 1997, says The Daily Telegraph. The Financial Services Authority will be scrapped to make way for an all-powerful Bank of England as part of a radical overhaul of the financial system, the Conservatives government will effect if they are elected.

They want to get rid of the so-called "tripartite" regulatory system, comprising the government, the Bank of England and the FSA. Except that it isn't a tripartite system - it's a quadripartite system. The fourth player is the European Union, which makes the bulk of the law and has the superior enforcement powers.

Thus, as we explained earlier, the Tories can't do it. But then hope springs eternal, and there is no fool like a Tory fool when it comes to the EU. Osborne has announced the creation of a new Treasury minister for European financial regulation who "will spend as much time as necessary in Brussels to build alliances and defend Britain’s interests."

In time, if this post happens, the holder will become the minster for obeying European financial regulation. At least, when he goes to Brussels, he will be able to pick up his instructions directly from our government.

COMMENT THREAD

Was it British?

From here, speculation that ER-MCV was under contract to the MoD as an asset not declared to Nato. It may, therefore, have been working solely for the British.

The contract, according to this source, was for logistical resupply only. UK and Nato troops were not authorised to fly on the aircraft without ballistic protection and self protection suites. This asset strictly moved cargo, supplied largely by British Forces.

The asset and contract is said to have been managed in theatre by SkyLink Aviation. According to this presentation, the MoD has a charter arrangement for two Mi-8 MTVs and one Mi-26.

The caveat that troops were not authorised to fly on the helicopter(s) without protection suggests that troops may have been lifted on occasions and, therefore, this time it could have been a matter of luck that none were on board.

If this is true, the notoriously secretive MoD has struck again. When the Canadians decided to hire Mi-8 MTVs, they were completely open about the intent, thus answering critics about the shortfall of lift capacity.

Given the pressure Brown has been under – and still is – one further wonders why he did not declare the use of these machines which, cumulatively, add 28 tons to capacity, nearly equivalent to three Chinooks.

Of course, by Wednesday's PMQs, he would have known the fate of ER-MCV and the speculation that it had been shot down, plus the history of the machine and its primary operator, could have proved a tad embarrassing had the Tories raised it – given that they knew.

There is such a thing, however, as a "Privy Councillor's" briefing, where senior opposition members are briefed in confidence and given secret material, on the condition that it is not disclosed. Cameron could have known the background, therefore – although we should not bank on it – in which case he would have been constrained from raising it.

On the other hand, it is known (don't ask) that the Tories have been opposed to leasing civilian capacity in theatre, and it is quite possible that the MoD has been withholding information on this charter deal simply to avoid political controversy, not least fallout when (as now appears to have happened) a machine crashed. The Tory view is that all effort should be provided by the RAF with MoD-owned assets.

Either way, the information emerging seems to point to this being a British supply helicopter (in the sense that it was working for the British), which was shot down on its approach to a British base, possibly in circumstances that the Taleban were trying for an RAF Chinook.

That the Taleban presence was such that they were able to mount (an apparently successful) attack on a helicopter under the noses of the British suggests a degree of strength, one the one hand, and a degree of vulnerability on the other, that should inform the current debate on helicopter usage in Afghanistan.

But the questions also remain as to why the British were relying on an aircraft operated by a company which had been banned from flying in EU member state airspace on safety grounds, and which has been associated with arms trafficking.

COMMENT THREAD

Danse macabre

So it came to pass that, on the final Prime Ministers' Questions before the recess, David Cameron made as the focus for his set-piece attack on Gordon Brown ... helicopters in Afghanistan. Thus did he reflect the Tories' "line", selected at the weekend as the most profitable – and, for them, least embarrassing – area on which to score political points.

Now up on Hansard, we can read – without having to listen to the cheering, hooting and jeering which our honourable members so love – how Cameron steers the safe path, relying on formulaic questioning the like of which we have been hearing all week.

Without needing – or wanting - to go into the details, one can easily determine from the narrative the Boy's game plan. For the main evening news, he wants from Brown an admission that "the number of helicopters in Afghanistan is simply insufficient." Brown, on the other hand, knows that is the game plan and, furthermore, Cameron knows he knows. And Brown's game plan is quite simple – he is not going to make that admission.

Thus does the dreary charade play out. Cameron makes his pitch, Brown dead-bats it and the exchange goes nowhere, leaving the chef de claque to pronounce a 6-4 "win" for his Boy. This is politics à la blogosphere for you. Scintillating it ain't.

What the Boy could have asked, of course, is why the MoD did not follow the example of the Canadians: bring some Bell 412s into service, and hire some Mi-8 MTVs.

Cameron could also have asked why, since they are available off the shelf, the prime minister did not instruct the MoD to procure rapidly some UH-60 Blackhawks. And, for good measure – just to put the prime minister on the rack, he could have asked what steps were being taken to make good the sudden shortfall of capacity arising out of yesterday's events.

One can speculate as to why the Great Leader did not suggest these options but, given his party's view on the Future Lynx and other high-value procurement projects, it is not untoward to suggest that he has no more interest in expeditiously solving the helicopter "crisis" than does the General Staff.

Thus, do we see this obscene and ultimately sterile danse macabre where, to put it bluntly, the bodies of dead service personnel are but another tool to be exploited in the endless pursuit of headlines. And that is really what this is about, which makes the chef's "win" of 6-4 a tad sick. The real score is 184-0, and rising.

COMMENT THREAD

Unsustainable

In the News of the World yesterday, Fraser Nelson writes a piece under the heading "Condemned by silence".

He notes that, three weeks since BNP's election triumph, no party has started to discuss immigration. Westminster parties have kept their baffled silence and are giving the BNP a monopoly over the most explosive issue in politics.

You'd think, writes Nelson. Gordon Brown and David Cameron would have been shocked into action after seeing Griffin win a seat in Brussels, his party taking almost a million votes.

Immigration was always a "big subject" and it is bigger now because layoffs in the recessions are hitting British-born people hardest. Directly from the Office for National Statistics – but not openly published – Nelson has found that there are fewer UK-born workers in the private sector than 12 years ago.

In the last year there are 119,000 more migrant workers in UK jobs, but 615,000 fewer UK-born workers. In recent months, both are falling. But UK-born workers are being laid off at five times the rate. Workers, he says, can see it with their own eyes, and ask: why? And because no mainstream party has an answer, the BNP prospers.

Other statistics gleaned include the nugget that 1,000 Britons are emigrating every day, although they are not working in Europe. Although Alan Johnson, now Home Secretary, claimed a figure of 1.5 million British working in Europe, that is actually seven times the real number. Of immigrants in the British workforce, the official figure is two percent but the real total is fourteen percent.

But, while Thatcher killed off the National Front in the late 70s by taking the issue immigration head-on, Cameron is silent. The subject scares away voters in the marginal seats he needs to take power. Westminster only cares about swing voters in swing seats - so millions are forgotten. Thus writes Nelson, the silence from Westminster suggests that the BNP's "shocking success story" is far from over.

Taking a broader perspective, it is not just immigration on which the political classes are silent. We have all been impressed with the US treatment of the climate change bill over there. It may have been rammed through the House of Representatives but at least it is as political issue. Here, the silence of the politicos is deafening.

Similarly, defence in the United States is an issue – discussed widely in the media and on the Hill. Here, although a debate has started, it has been led by the military and the media. Over the pond, it was kick-started by defence secretary Gates.

One by one, you can tick off the "big issues" – the European Union also comes to mind – and our politicians are silent. They have their own agendas, but these increasingly are not ours. The gulf between the politicians and the people may have been greater, but in recent times it is hard to imagine when. Thus, to use a word beloved by politicians, whether new or not, the current gap is "unsustainable".

COMMENT THREAD

Getting interesting

The Irish referendum drama took another lurch towards a conclusion today, with the European Council agreeing to offer to the Irish government "legal guarantees on national sovereignty" as an incentive which they hope will attract a "yes" vote in October when a re-run is planned.

That much is according to Reuters which refers to the guarantees being given the status of a treaty "protocol". This, as opposed to the declarations which were originally proposed, give them legal status, but this also means that they must be ratified unanimously by all 27 member states.

The Irish Times, unsurprisingly, has following the drama, earlier reporting that the deal followed an early morning meeting between Irish prime minister Brian Cowen (pictured) and Gordon Brown - the latter having blocked the idea of a protocol. It is understood that, as the meeting, Brown withdrew his objections.

Protocols do not actually change the constitutional Lisbon treaty. They are described as providing a "common interpretation" of it. Specifically, they pledge that nothing in the treaty will affect Ireland's constitutional provisions on abortion and the family, its right to determine its own tax regime, or force the state to sign up to European defence co-operation.

Bruno Waterfield suggests that this move could see a future Conservative government plunged into fraught negotiations over the EU's powers. The process could require the opening of full-blown treaty negotiations next year, possibly allowing a new Conservative government to renegotiate the power balance between Britain and Brussels.

To support this we get an unnamed official cited, saying that, "Some people see this as a Pandora's box," adding: "It could be used by Conservatives to reopen the question of EU powers over [Britain's] social affairs." Bruno adds that a fresh debate in the Commons soon after returning to power could open up old wounds in a party historically split between europhiles and euro-sceptics.

This is amplified by the BBC's Mark Mardell, who remarks that there could be a campaign in Britain for a referendum on the protocols. Either that or someone will pop up and ask for their own reassurances, or the Czech or Polish president will find a new reason for not signing off Lisbon, or there'll be some other democratic diversions.

However, Mardell also notes that the protocols could simply be tagged onto the next accession treaty – perhaps either Croatia or Iceland – which was always an option. That would require no further discussions at EU level, unless of course a new Cameron administration made it an issue.

Here, Dave could make agreement conditional on the EU agreeing to new British opt-outs or, writes Mardell, "even a new relationship with the EU," then leading to a British protocol being attached to the accession treaty, on the back of a UK referendum.

Back in Ireland though, there is a mixed reaction to the deal. Newly-elected Socialist MEP for Dublin, Joe Higgins, is insisting that the protocols are an "elaborate charade" meant to distract attention away from the key issues.

"The debate on the Lisbon Treaty has yet to be held because we've been dealing with side issues," he says. "The fundamentals have still to be debated." Higgins thus maintains that the protocols (which will not be in force by October) will not mean that the treaty will be ratified.

This "take" on the treaty is, of course, spot on – the protocols do deal with side-issues, leaving the substance of the treaty unchallenged. But that aside, one wonders whether the Irish will even accept the assurances so far given, bearing in mind that any member state could refuse to ratify them after the next referendum, thus negating the whole deal after it is too late to block the treaty.

What would be interesting, therefore, is whether the Irish would be prepared to refuse to agree to Lisbon until after the protocols have been ratified – which could be some years hence. That would certainly put Cameron in the frame as his new administration would have no excuse whatsoever for refusing a UK referendum.

All of a sudden, EU politics are getting interesting again.

COMMENT THREAD

Why are we not surprised?

The Guardian - and others, including the BBC - are reporting that Ken Clarke has "softened" the Tory line on Lisbon treaty.

This was during the BBC's Politics Show yesterday, when he declared that, "If the Irish referendum endorses the treaty and ratification comes into effect, then our settled policy is quite clear – that the treaty will not be reopened ... I don't think anybody in Europe … is in the mood for any more tedious debates about treaties, which have gone on for far too long, which is why this needs to be resolved."

Clarke added that a Tory government would still seek to negotiate the return of some powers back to Britain, mainly in the employment field.

It was only last month, however, that David Cameron was telling us, "I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power ... from the EU to Britain ...". At the time, we were extremely dubious as to whether he meant what he said and, if Clarke is to be believed, it appears not.

Interestingly, Booker yesterday expressed the same degree of cynicism over Cameron's good faith, telling us that the last thing Cameron wants is a referendum in which Britain would be likely to vote against the treaty by a huge margin. He knows this would provoke the most almighty row with the "colleagues".

With the way the Tory "top team" have been playing games on this issue, it thus comes as no surprise that Clarke should express himself the way he has, all the more so when a Tory spokesman said Clarke had not changed party policy. As always, we get the tired and entirely unconvincing mantra that, "if the Lisbon treaty is ratified and in force across the EU by the time of the election of a Conservative government, we would not let matters rest there."

The Sunday Times was also yesterday suggesting that the cynicism was more than a little widespread. Its YouGov poll indicated that smaller parties were retaining the support of the electorate, up from 12 to 18 percent, pointing to a "significant backlash" against the main parties.

With 2.5 million having voted for UKIP is the euros, Mr Cameron may be banking on many of those voters returning to the fold in the general election but, it seems, many might not. Whether he likes it or not, the EU does mean a great deal to a sizeable minority, who are not prepared to take "more of the same" from the Tories. They are going to take their votes elsewhere.

COMMENT THREAD

Get a grip!

It comes to something when even the CBI notices something is wrong. But Richard Lambert, the director general of the CBI, certainly seems to have put his finger on the problem (or part of it) when he complained last night of politicians who have become obsessed by their own problems.

He is thus demanding that politicians "get a grip" and get back to tackling "the biggest economic, social and environmental challenges of our lifetime." He is also scathing of the government's plans to introduce electoral reform, declaring that "Politicians are airily throwing around ideas for constitutional reform - ideas which may be desirable in themselves and will need serious discussion in calmer times - but which are a massive diversion at a time when so many urgent policy decisions have to be agreed and implemented."

As for the "money quote", Lambert then accuses politicians of appearing "wholly preoccupied with what's going on within the Westminster village, and in doing what they can to strengthen their own positions over the short term."

One gets the impression that Lambert was referring to Westminster politicians as a breed and not confining his comments entirely to the government ranks, but in what could be a graphic illustration of the "bubble effect", Philip Hammond, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury chose to interpret this as an attack on the government.

He thus told The Daily Telegraph that: "Mr Lambert's comments should come as a powerful wake-up call to Ministers who have been more worried about protecting their own jobs than saving other people's, and to a Prime Minister who refuses to acknowledge the extent of the challenges we face. It's clear the only solution is a general election."

Elsewhere, we see the latest Populus poll in The Times with the Tories taking a hit, dragging them down five points to 36 percent – in common with other major pollsters which all have the Tories below the magic 40 percent. And, on preferences between Labour and Conservatives, 44 percent prefer a Labour government against 42 percent favouring the Tories.

That is not to say that there is any likelihood at all of Labour winning at the next general election, but it does reinforce the euro-election result, where only one in ten of the electorate actually voted for Mr Cameron's merry men. And, as my co-editor reminds me, in the South East region, where Mr Hannan, darling of the claque held sway, the Tory share of the vote actually declined.

For quite a while now, we have been railing at the fundamentally unserious nature of British politicians and, while it is self-evident that the grand personages in Westminster are not listening to us, perhaps some of them will listen to Mr Lambert.

To judge from Hammond's reaction though, this seems unlikely. This is a shame. Just as you cannot defy the laws of gravity, there is a limit to how long you can take the piss out of the electorate (and there is no better way of describing how politicians are treating us) before it loses patience completely. That time may well be drawing nigh.

COMMENT THREAD

This is so boring …

When is David Cameron going to grow up - if ever?

If ever a man misjudged the mood of the nation, it is he. This is a leader of the opposition, against possibly the worst government in living memory, who has just gone through a major national election where only one in ten of the electorate actually turned out to vote for his party.

Having watched part of the "debate" on the prime minister's statement, to watch Brown make his proposals and then to listen to Cameron deliver his fatuous response is to invite embarrassment and frustration in equal measure.

Back in October, we wrote a piece entitled "This is not a game". Away from the political claque, ordinary people are sick to the hind teeth of the empty, vain posturing from our politicians, and the bear garden of the Commons chamber. If a local pub got that disorderly, the landlord would be calling out the police.

Mr Cameron needs to latch on to that figure. Only one in ten voters in this entire nation voted for him. Nine out of ten, therefore, did not. He is not engaging, he is not carrying the nation with him. He is not speaking to them or for them.

We'll cover the debate when the transcript is up on Hansard, but what the written record does not convey is the truculent, smug and puerile tone of a man who can only attract the support of ten percent of the electorate. One in ten may be happy with his performance but, if Cameron is to carry any weight, he needs to speak to the other nine.

COMMENT THREAD

Well, that's the BBC for you

Once again we doff our caps to Lord Pearson of Rannoch in recognition of his continuing battle with the BBC and his absolute determination to make that organization live up to its Charter and broadcast in a more or less balanced way on the European Union. At least, he maintains, the BBC should learn some facts.

He has once again written to Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust, with copies to all sorts of worthies who work for Auntie (the letter will be on Global Britain website very soon, I am told), in which he professed himself to be in despair over the BBC's coverage of the European election.

The final straw, as he explained, was an interview with David Cameron on the Today Programme yesterday, 2 June. In it the Boy-King explained that once the Conservatives sweep into the European Parliament and form their new group, they will be able to introduce all sorts of reforms. Nobody, in particular not Jim Naughtie, pointed out to him that any change of that kind requires an IGC and a unanimous agreement from all 27 members.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen of the Conservative Party, Libertas.eu, Open Europe and the Taxpayers' Alliance reforming the European Union in the opposite direction from the one it is going, that is ever closer union, is not possible. Which part of it is so hard to understand.

Anyway, just in case our readers are interested, here is the transcript of the relevant section:

JN: On, more or less, the eve of an election, let me just ask you a couple of things about Europe, since we’re having a Euro Election.

DC: Well, we're having an election, why not?

JN: Absolutely. Now look, you lead a party which is pretty well Eurosceptic these days. You're leading the main centre-right grouping in the European Parliament, and you think very clearly, that the Lisbon Treaty goes too far. Now, if you come to power and that Treaty has been ratified – the process hasn’t been completed yet – will you try to renegotiate it, or will you accept it?

DC: Well, what we’ve said is we will not let matters rest, because . . . .

JN: And I'm asking you what that means.

DC: Well, I'm going to answer. What I mean by that is too much power would have been passed from Brussels to Westminster, and we want some of that power back. Now, I don't want to go into every last detail of what happens if a series of things happen. If there isn't an early election, if the Irish vote "yes" in a second referendum, if the Poles decide to ratify this treaty, if the Czechs decide to ratify this treaty. That is four "ifs". I would rather than focusing on all those "ifs" focus on the hear and now, and today we are publishing a bill that could go through parliament right now to allow us to hold the referendum on the European Constitution that everyone promised, particularly the prime minister, and we can hold it on the same day as the Irish referendum. Now I know that, of course, my opponents would love me to focus on what happens if all of those things happen subsequently. Well actually, I’m not going to.

JN: Well ...

DC: I'm going to focus on the here and now, because on Thursday people can go into those voting booths, vote Conservative and pile the pressure on Gordon Brown to hold a referendum.

JN: Well ... well ...

DC: And I don't want to let him off the hook.

JN: Okay, that's a fair enough political point, but people have a right to know what you’d do if Mr Brown doesn’t ring you up and say, "oh, I think you're right, we're going to have an election tomorrow". If you go in, on the crucial part of Britain's relationship with the outside world, they will need to know how you deal with a piece of legislation that has been ratified, and the unravelling of which would mean, in the view of many people in your own party as well as outside, effectively challenging our membership of the EU.

DC: Well it isn't that, I mean every treaty is an effective renegotiation, and if we had a Conservative government we'd be going into those sorts of negotiations with a list of powers we’d want to have returned to the UK, because we think that we believe in being members of the European Union, but we want it to be about more ...

JN: How do you ...

DC: (continues) trade and cooperation, rather than this endless process of building a superstate. And one of the reasons, in fact the main reason for leaving the EPP and forming this new group, is that it will bring to European politics I centre-right group of parties that are committed to reform in Europe and change in Europe. It won’t just be the British Conservatives, it will be other parties ...

JN: (speaking over) You describe the Latvian Fatherland and Freedom Party as centre-right?

DC: We've announced the two major parties that we’re going to be linking with. That is Law and Justice in Poland and the Czech ODS parties, that are parties of government, that are centre-right parties and that with us share the view that Europe needs to be reformed.

JN: Well, I ...

DC: We ought to be dispersing power more widely, that we want a Europe about trade and cooperation, not about creating a superstate.

JN: Do you think that if you became prime minister, at some point, you would have a referendum on "in or out"?

DC: No, I don't think that's right, because I don’t want us to ...

JN: You wouldn't want one?

DC: Well, I don't want us to leave the European Union.

JN: How deep is your commitment?

DC: Well, I thought that if being a member of the European Union was against the national interest, I would argue for us to come out.

JN: Can you see any circumstances in which it would be?

DC: Right now, I can't. I think we're right to be in this organisation, we want to be fighting to change it, and we're now going to have some partners to help us in that fight . . .

JN: What if you fail to change the Lisbon Treaty? Would you think that that made it not right.

DC: I don't go into things in life thinking I'm going to fail. I think ...

JN: But there's no evidence that anybody else would be with you on that.

DC: Well, I don't accept that at all. Britain is a strong member of the European Union, and has a lot to bring, is an important trading partner. There's a very big negotiation coming up on the future funding of the European Union, and I don't want to see us increasing the funding at all, and it gives us enormous leverage in terms of making sure we get a good deal for Britain, and we build the sort of European Union that, not just the British Conservatives, but other parties in Europe want to see as well.

JN: David Cameron, thank you very much.

DC: Thank you.

As I said, that's the BBC for you. And the Conservative Party.

COMMENT THREAD

Giving them a kicking

The election turnout next Thursday could either have nose dived, as people walked away from the election process as a whole, or they could flock to the polls as a protest vote. We wonder which way it would go, but now The Times seems to be pointing the way.

Relying on its Populus poll, it is suggesting that we might make 41 percent, up on the 38 percent in 2004, itself higher than the previous poll. That is completely bucking the general EU trend, with turn outs of 12 percent expected in member states such as Latvia.

There is no doubt as to why the British euro-elections have suddenly become so popular – and it has nothing to do with a sudden enthusiasm for MEPs. Simply, nearly four out of ten voters have decided to give their domestic politicians a kicking, the only way they can short of a lynching.

With UKIP leading the polls of the tiddlers – depending on which polls to take notice of – an exercise which the "colleagues" would love to think is the ultimate expression of confidence in the project is descending into pure farce. To protest against corrupt politicians in Britain, voters are set on sending even more corrupt politicians to Brussels, where the gravy train is even richer and the pickings easier.

There is no logic to this, and there is every logic to it. Since the whole exercise of sending MEPs to Brussels is meaningless, the voter reasons that they might just as well make the best of it and use the election for a purpose not intended.

When the results come in, they will be just as meaningless – a protest vote that will have no effect whatsoever on the domestic scene, as Brown battens down the hatches and stays in office for the full term.

Somehow, though, as even the saintly Mr Cameron is smeared, politics will never be the same. Estate agents will never, ever again be at the bottom of the popularity stakes.

COMMENT THREAD