If Mr Cameron becomes Prime Minister again after May, he is likely to be the Prime Minister who will lead the UK out of the European Union.
From time to time Mr Cameron has expressed enthusiasm for Britain being at the heart of the EU. In his Bloomberg speech in January last year, he declared:
“I believe something very deeply, that Britain’s national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European Union and that such a Union is best with Britain in it….There is no doubt that we are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful player in the European Union. That matters for British jobs and British security.”
Since then his speeches have become more and more Eurosceptic. He has allowed his Conservative cabinet colleagues to indicate their preference for a British exit from the EU (‘Brexit’) and he appointed a declared Europhobe, Phillip Hammond, as Foreign Secretary. As a Financial Times editorial observed, he has placed the interests of his party and his own survival as Prime Minister before the interests of the country. Appeasement has been his main concern, of UKIP and of his Europhobe backbenchers. Whenever they threaten revolt, he moves their way. But they have never yet been satisfied. The trouble with paying Danegeld is that the Danes always asked for more.
Immigration has now become the central issue. The Prime Minister started by calling for quotas and caps. But at least he has now realised that this would require Treaty change and would never be accepted, even by his closest allies. Instead he now demands restrictions on the rights of EU migrants that are the toughest anywhere in the EU, but which require changes in EU directives rather than the Treaties. Once again, he threatens that if he does not get his way, Britain will leave the EU.
Two questions arise. Will other EU member concede his demands? And even if they do, will Conservative Europhobes regard them as real or largely cosmetic changes? They have been encouraged by the recent eurosceptic tone of his speeches to demand nothing less than an opt-out from the right for freedom of movement of labour within the single market.
Cameron is committed to a referendum in 2017. But we cannot assume that if he wins, he will have a deal by then. There can be no special deal for Britain. Different countries want different changes. It will be no quick and easy negotiation, especially as 2017 is the year of Federal elections in Germany and Presidential elections in France.
If there is no deal, Cameron has now made it clear that he would not recommend a vote to stay in. Anyway, if he did, he would be replaced as Conservative leader.
Suppose he gets a deal, but one which his party rejects as only “cosmetic”? Again, there would be a new Conservative leader who would campaign for Brexit. And a 2017 referendum, with a public mood of wide-spread xenophobia and hostility to immigrants, nurtured by UKIP MPs and a stridently anti-EU press, would be a very different campaign from that of 1975.
So consider what Brexit would mean for British influence in the world.
First, it would break up the United Kingdom. Why should a pro-EU Scotland want to stay in a Britain that was no longer in the EU? Wales, even Ulster, might well want to follow where Scotland led.
Even if the United Kingdom survived as such, by his own admission Britain’s voice outside the EU would no longer count in Europe, or in the US, the Commonwealth or China.
On the course which Cameron is now set, the odds are strengthening day by day that, if he wins, he will end up as the Prime Minister who did more to destroy British influence in the world than any other Prime Minister in history. Liberal Democrats must do all they can to prevent such a national catastrophe.
* Lord Taverne - Dick Taverne QC - was a founding member of the SDP and then the Liberal Democrats and has been a life peer since 1996.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
nigel hunter
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
20 Comments
I agree with Dick Taverne and his conclusion — “…… Cameron …… he will end up as the Prime Minister who did more to destroy British influence in the world than any other Prime Minister in history. Liberal Democrats must do all they can to prevent such a national catastrophe.”
Liberal Democrats should now withdraw from Cameron’s Tory Coalition and fight the General Election as Liberal Democrats determined to prevent any type of Tory government after 8th May.
It is now of vital national importance that the conservative party is removed from power in May.
I think I agree it’s time you withdraw from coalition, fight your corner this will illustrate for voters and the largest party in 2015 your colours. I am sure that you will gets many votes nationwide.
I see no reason why on Monday Nick should not end your role as I doubt you want anything to do with the Autuam statement or budget 2015 much better run with the 8% that supports your position and see if you get into double figures
‘ Liberal Democrats must do all they can to prevent such a national catastrophe.’
Yes but a. We can’t stop the Tory right dominating a ‘leader’ who is scared stiff of them b. We are ignored by the British public on Europe (see Clegg/ Farage debates/ Euro meltdown).
As John Tilley says, perhaps the only thing we could do is pull out of the coalition but I don’t think that is going to happen. Why? Because the time came and went after the Euro meltdown and any pull out will destroy the single remaining shred of credibility we salvaged from the ashes in May.
I think we should simply and calmly keep pointing out to the British public the fact that Cameron is a prisoner of his own party – in this respect he is like John Major.
Helen, What do you think was the single remaining shred of credibility we salvaged in May? I can’t say I noticed a single one.
Helen thank you for making me smile as I realised that the extension of your astute point, that “Cameron is a prisoner of his own party – in this respect he is like John Major”, is that the Liberal Democrats in contrast are prisoners of their leader.
David Evans
‘ What do you think was the single remaining shred of credibility we salvaged in May?’ The shred of credibility remaining is/are what individual hard-working ministers have achieved in the government, despite the Tories – Norman Baker at transport, Vince Cable at BIS for example.
Bill le Breton
‘ Liberal Democrats in contrast are prisoners of their leader.’ Or perhaps his ‘people.’
Thanks Helen, I was reading your post as we salvaged some shred of credibility from May’s election results themselves, rather than the work doen by some of our ministers afterwards.
What’s this talk of prisoners?
Are LibDems looking for excuses to give up before the game even starts, again?
I think to say that Cameron ‘led’ the UK out of Europe would be overstating his role; Cameron is a weak leader and at best, he ‘let’ the UK leave.
It is horrifying to think that something as important as this might be decided by the Tories need to avoid losing a few seats to UKIP
The question is does Nick have the courage to bite the bullet and take us out of the coalition on this issue now? If he doesn’t he will show he is willing even to sacrifice he beloved EU to keep himself in government.
Errrrm:
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3463/Support-for-EU-membership-highest-for-23-years-even-as-UKIP-rises-in-the-polls.aspx
As soon as the Tories set out their next cuts into British services – the LDs must oppose those cuts. This means leave government as soon as possible – and work with all parties who have the will to save what is left of Britain’s direction in government, built especially over the years since WW2.
Hywel, the graph does show a great deal of volatility in support or otherwise for membership. The most recent figures would suggest that a referendum now (as soon as possible) might secure our membership. On the other hand, it could produce a similar outcome to the Indy referendum, with the result being close and at the same time boosting the strength of organisation for the out campaign.
Unless the issue of immigration and free movement suddenly falls back into obscurity (unlikely in my view), it will become clearer that the consensus within Britain, for no further integration, and a renegotiation of some key points, is in complete conflict with the impetus within the EU. I wouldn’t like to predict the result of a referendum after a campaign in which all the emotive arguments will come from the out camp.
Cameron apparently studied the realignment of politics in the 1920s under Vernon Bogdagnor at Oxford.
Its a shame he didn’t also study the Prime Ministership of Neville Chamberlain, and the politics of appeasement. Every time Cameron throws a bit of red meat too his Party’s right wing, they chew it up and want more. And every time he talks about ‘renegotiating’ treaties he gives air time to the loathsome Farage and his ilk who say it can’t be done.
Harold Wilson was able to use the ‘renegotiation of the terms’ smokescreen in 1974/5 because the UK had only just joined a 9 member EEC. Now we have a 28 member EU then if the UK wants to ‘re-negotiate’ surely others may well want to do the same. Are we going to have years of instability as one country at a time “does a Cameron” in order to win or keep power at a national level?
We should try to change the language, the Tory right and UKIP and not “Eurosceptics” they are anti-EU. Most of them really want a more vicious form of capitalism with even greater division between rich and poor on the American model. That model is probably good for profits and bonuses for a few based in the City of London, but it would be disastrous for ordinary people.
I thought the lib dems, the Tories and ukip all had the same policy on this? That policy being that there should be an in out referendum ASAP?
I thought the only difference was that the lib dems would campaign to stay in, ukip to stay leave and the Tories aren’t sure.
Are the lib dems still in favor of an in out vote or not?
…’If there is no deal, Cameron has now made it clear that he would not recommend a vote to stay in.’…
Has he? Can you give a link to an unambiguous, unqualified and attributable statement by Cameron that says exactly that? From my ears, I’ve heard ‘might’ and ‘I rule nothing out’ but I’ve never heard him use that phrase in that manner and context.
So, I’m all ears, as they say?
@Mark Argent
“It is horrifying to think that something as important as this might be decided by the Tories need to avoid losing a few seats to UKIP.”
No, what is truly horrifying is that the political class ignored the economic downsides of immigration because it was affecting mostly those at the lower end of the jobs market, and had little impact on the elites themselves, and in so doing brought this anti-Europe movement upon themselves.
And indirect further evidence of the lie that British workers won’t do the jobs we give to our overseas guests comes from reading one of the Spectator blogs today. the London Ambulance Service is under such heavy pressure that it is bullying its staff into meeting impossible targets, with savage disciplinary actions and bullying the norm.
At the same time, LAS is looking to Australia to recruit those paramedics they are losing to stress, anxiety and maybe even suicide.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/mary-wakefield/2014/08/revealed-why-paramedics-are-fleeing-the-nhs/
Surely the Lib Dems want an in order vote in 2017 and will campaign to stay in? I thought this was their policy? But by the sound of the comments on this site the Lib Dems don’t actually want a vote as they believe people might decide to ‘vote the wrong way’? Really confused now… What are the Lib Dems policies and where do they stand on this issue? Was Nick saying he favoured an IN/OUT vote just a political game? Or did he mean it?