Former Lib Dem leader Ming Campbell has called on David Cameron to put the national interest ahead of his party’s interest as he prepares for his major speech on Europe:
Those who argue for disengagement in whole or even part have a duty to tell us what the consequences would be. So far they have failed to do so. We need to be rational, not emotional. The issue must be about the essential nature of the relationship, not about squashing the ambitions of Ukip. The EU offers the best deal for Britain.The days of unlimited European patience to accommodate the UK have gone. If it were to be finally exhausted, Britain would either have to climb down or leave – the first being disastrous for the PM and the second for the country.
Ming pauses to sympathise with Mr Cameron having to balance the demands of his Europhobic backbenchers against the need to build alliances with neighbours such as Angela Merkel — but his warning is unmistakable:
The middle ground will not satisfy either of them and will alienate both of them. What is the alternative? It is to show commitment, to demonstrate leadership and to take our opportunity. Britain is a top-table member of Nato, the UN, the EU, the Commonwealth and the G8, and the present government has rightly gone out of its way to establish better relations in South America. We stand therefore in a unique global diplomatic position. Detachment from Europe in whole or in part will be seen as opting out of a golden opportunity denied to others. Forced to choose between Bone and Merkel, Cameron should choose the interest of country over party.
You can read Ming Campbell’s article in full at the Guardian here.
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lochee Park - 1973 #dundeewestend
Urgent action needed on Welsh rivers
Llandow, 1950: The worst air disaster the world had seen
Electoral Calculus's local election predictions
Are memories like a row of telegraph poles?
Nigel Jones
David Murray
tom arms
Simon R
8 Comments
Re the European Debate in or out:
I like most of the British people are sick of the ruling class’s saying what is good for us without making the case for such. As to Referendum now even Michael Heseltine has jumped into the fray to say it would be bad for British Business to have a referendum. Bad or Not it is for us the people to make the choice IN or OUT and it is not for you to deny us the chance to make that choice. If you think Good for us to be In make the case for it if you think bad for us and better Out make the case then we the people can make a choice.
The peoples Choice
Ming talks about interest of country with out spelling these interests out, I can spell out the negatives i.e. the net cost to us 53millions a day we send to Europe in cash, flood of the poor EU members into our country taking Our Jobs Tied even in a tighter grip of no democratic political administrative class in EU and Dancing the tune of others Does not seem a positive to be in.
I’ve read Ming’s article in the Guardian. It is a strikingly strong defence of Britain’s membership of the EU – as it existed five years ago.
But the Europe of today and the Europe of the future are very different creatures. The central, key defining message coming from politicians across most of Europe is that “more Europe” is the answer to the problems it faces as a result of the creation of the Eurozone. We should be honest with the UK electorate and admit this is the case. Pretending that political union is not the end goal of the exercise would be fraudulent in the extreme, yet many in the leadership of this party are very close to adopting this approach.
I do feel that Cameron is utterly wrong in the tactics he is adopting. He is doing so for purely party political reasons as a means of trying to claw back lost voters from UKIP. However, the reason why I feel he is wrong is the nature of these tactics, not their end goal. If unemployment carries on rising in Spain, Greece, Italy and other southern European countries as a result of current economic and monetary policies, the EU will face a massive existential crisis within a very short space of time. Monetary union is not sustainable without fiscal union to transfer massive amounts of funding from rich to poor countries, fiscal union cannot exist without political union, and political union is simply not a possibility and would have no democratic basis.
It is because of this impossibility at the heart of the current European project, we should be waiting, not rocking the boat any more than necessary and building alliances for the eventual major restructuring that will inevitably result. Then will be the time to ask for a change of direction, but certainly not before.
Dear Lord above, can we please cease to be subjected to this endless beside-the-point drivel from lib-dem’s on europe!
Let me turn this question around:
“Those who argue for continued british ‘leadership’ in europe have a duty to tell us what the consequences would be.”
As RC has tirelessly pointed out we are swiftly reaching the point where it will cease to be a EUrope of sovereign nation-states, as a direct result of the federalising of the eurozone.
We face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. At which point we cease to become a sovereign nation and instead become a sanjak, such as greece was under the ottomans and is again under the troika.
This is not a theoretical problem, it is happening right now, and it has been recognised for at least a century as the very core of representative Democracy (Gladstones “power of the purse”):
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf
“De jure incentives to take common position: This incentive is reinforced by the way the Commission’s ECB/EBA Regulations are currently drafted. For example:
• The ECB Regulation envisions the ECB acting as a coordinator of eurozone national supervisors, with the view for them to take a common position. The ECB has already dropped hints that it intends to actively discourage dissenting opinions amongst eurozone national supervisors.
• Through a eurozone caucus, some member states will indirectly boost their influence as their voting weight amongst eurozone countries is proportionally much greater than in the EU-27 (EU-28 with Croatia). This is particularly true of the larger eurozone member states.
• The safeguards proposed by the European Commission (see Section 5 below) leave the eurozone with the upper hand. Given that the 17 eurozone countries already constitute a simple majority, these countries would only need to seek the support of three ‘outs’ – whereas non-euro countries would need at least four countries.”
“De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.”
“Taken together, the EBA structure will therefore significantly shift the balance of power in favour of the eurozone, at the expense of the UK and other ‘outs’.”
Now, it may well come to pass that Britain achieves sufficient safeguards against eurozone convergence that we can safely remain within the EU as a sovereign nation-state, and the double QMV plus non-discrimiation clause on EBU decision making achieved by Cameron is certainly a start, but the EBU is only the start of this convergence and Lib-Dem’s are talking about continued membership as if the status-quo will continue to apply!
So when Ming comes out with utter garbage about “Europe offering the best deal for Britain” it is as if someone has given him a labotomy in 2010, leaving him able only to parrot phrases that were only of limited relevance before the Draghi Put and the EBU.
We have not reached the point where ANY lib-dem can say EU membership is ‘best’ for Britain, and he is arguing in favour of continued membership against a criteria of purely technical questions, before there has been assent to the basic principle from your fellow Britons (yes, Britons, not europeans, yet).
This is why I always smirk when i respond to this cart-before-horse proposition, and request that you (the lib-dems), openly campaign at the next general election in favour of ‘leading’ in europe in order that public assent can be sought.
The answer, always, is that of course “I” support entry and that “We” really should openly campaign for euro-membership at the next GE. But, and this is the funny bit, both you and I know that the party (the lib-dems) is not going to do this, precisely because they have already judged that the electorate would openly reject it en-masse.
So, as usual, I smile a little when I ask the above sure in the knowledge that the same irreleveant response will be trotted out.
So Ming, what are the consequences of this fantasy they hold to; are you willing to turn to the British public and admit the price, the loss of sovereignty, involved in joining France and Germany at the helm of europe? Joining the euro, schengen, the EBU, the fiskal union, more…………..
I ask you to be honest about the implications of these pious mutterings; are you willing to state plainly to the electorate the consequence of being in the first tier, i.e. being in the euro and a driving force in further federalism?
Go get me a mandate, then we’ll talk seriously.
I think we should stay in the EU, it was brought into being to keep peace and the instability at present, with stikes and protests is so sad to see. I was in an EU very recently, the suffering is something else.
We could try for other ideas, to transform what we have into something slightly different, but still working together on trade. I feel that there are many people, who, are finding their lives so difficult, this will of course make things unstable.
This caps a disastrous week for the tory-led no campaign in Scotland. With both Labour and Tory parties taking an increasingly isolationist stance on europe and the threat of a UK referendum to leave the EU looming, it is clearer than ever before that the real threat to Scotland’s continued membership of the EU comes from being tied to Westminster. Unionists would hand the decision about Scotland’s future in europe over to English isolationists.
Only a yes vote in 2014 and independence will put the decision to be part of the EU in Scotland’s hands.
Al McIntosh says ‘ it is clearer than ever before that the real threat to Scotland’s continued membership of the EU comes from being tied to Westminster.’ With concern in EU countries such as Spain about secessionist movements such as the Catalans etc the chances of of an independent Scotland being allowed to retain it’s membership of the EU are NIL. Dream on Al!
@Terry
“I like most of the British people are sick of the ruling class’s saying what is good for us without making the case for such. As to Referendum now even Michael Heseltine has jumped into the fray to say it would be bad for British Business to have a referendum.”
Please don’t complain that politicians fail to make the case for Europe and then complain when a senior politician does exactly that.
If you want to find other policians making the case for Europe then why don’t you just look for it – it’s there.
You may not find it in the Daily Express, Daily Mail or the Sun – but I’m sure you knew that already.