EU referendum: crucially different from 1975

If we take Mr Cameron's Wednesday speech as "Day One" of a four-year referendum campaign, then we are now on day four. And already the legacy media are running out of steam, finding it hard to offer anything of very great interest or originality.

That is not to say that the idea of having an EU referendum some time in the future is devoid of interest – very far from it. But the media, which has always struggled to write intelligently on the European Union, lacks the depth to be able to analyse the issues and come up with anything helpful to its readers. 

The Daily Mail, for instance, offers a laborious piece from Dominic Sandbrook, drawing parallels between these current events and the 1975 referendum. 

While there indeed appear to be resemblances between today and forty years ago, inasmuch as we appear to be looking at a plebicite based on the outcome of a "renegotiation", there are many important differences. Rather than dwell on the similarities, therefore, it might be more profitable to explore those differences. 

Starting at the beginning, though, things do look superficially the same. Back all those years ago, the story starts in 1974, on 28 February to be precise, when the Wilson government gained power. This produced a hung parliament with Labour gaining 301 seats (up 13), Conservatives 297 (down 37) and the Liberals on 14 (up eight). 

Hampered by having no overall majority, and a divided party, Wilson played the Europe card. This was followed on 1 April with Jim Callaghan asking the EEC for a renegotiation on the terms of membership. Then, on 10 October, there was then another general election, when Wilson strengthened his position ending up with an overall majority of three seats. 

With a wafer-thin majority, and his party still split over "Europe", Wilson followed up on 9 December with the Paris Summit which marked the start of the renegotiation process. 

Come 1975, the referendum campaign was announced on 7 January, the White Paper was published on 26 February and the renegotiations were concluded on 11 March, with the Cabinet endorsing the terms on 18 March (by a vote of 16 to 7), followed by a Commons endorsement on 9 April (398 to 172 votes). The Referendum Bill passed its Second Reading the following day (312 to 248 votes), and the poll was on 5 June. 

When Wilson announced his intention to have a referendum, therefore, he was heading a minority government, but not in formal coalition with the Liberals. He did not make it conditional on his winning the next election and, at that October election, "Europe" was barely an issue, being brought up respectively by 16 percent of Conservative and 47 percent of Labour voters, as against 82 and 73 percent of Conservative and Labour voters who expressed concern at the cost of mortgages. 

The similarity, therefore, is that Wilson was using the referendum as a means of settling a long-running division within the ranks of his own party, and so is Mr Cameron. He is, of course, also seeking to gain electoral advantage, and in particular, to neutralise UKIP, which – of course - did not exist then. This is what the Irish Times calls a "cynical political ploy", putting party before country. 

That said, such similarities - and even the differences - as may exist are not at all crucial. What really makes the difference now is the institutional architecture of the Communities, which have been re-born as the European Union, and the fact that Cameron is, ostensibly, asking for a treaty change. 

Back in 1975, there was no prospect of changing the Treaty of Rome in any material sense and, crucially, the negotiations were handled by the Member States, meeting during "summits". These were without the formal structure of the European Council, without formal input from the Commission, and with no input from the European Parliament, the members of which then were not directly elected. 

What now must happen is that the 27 (28) Member European Council must meet, and formally invoke the revision procedure set out in Article 48 of the TEU. Here, there is the "ordinary" procedure and the "simplified" procedure, with the default mode being the "ordinary" procedure. 

This actually requires the European Council to convene a convention, after consulting, inter alia with the European Parliament. However, if the Council wants to adopt the simplified procedure, it must first obtain the consent of the parliament. 

Here, then, is a major difference. In 1975, Wilson had a great deal of control over the timetable. In the current round, Cameron has none. He is entirely in the hands of the EU Institutions, in the first instance, the European Council and then, especially, the European Parliament. 

This makes a key figure in the coming drama the EP president, currently Martin Schultz, who is interviewed in a current edition of Die Welt. And it is here that the UK political background to the referendum is highly significant. 

Schultz sees Cameron as "motivated domestically", and "resents" (Das nehme ich ihm übel) the British prime minister's action in "threatening" Europe for his own political gain. 

It will then be up to Schultz (or his successor) to decide on Mr Cameron's fate, and whether, if Cameron wins the next election, he can meet his 2017 timetable. Any blockage – in fact anything short of the wholehearted co-operation of the European Parliament – and there is no way the 2017 referendum timetable can be met. Specifically, if the EP president insists on a convention, negotiations are almost bound to run into 2018. 

Furthermore, a hostile parliament will have a huge effect on the outcome of the convention, to the disadvantage of Mr Cameron, and can make it very difficult for the subsequent IGC to accommodate changes that will play well to the British people. 

Ironically, the changes in the procedures which are set to make Mr Cameron's life difficult came in with the Lisbon Treaty, on which he refused to have a referendum. Now he does want a referendum, he is dealing with a very different institutional architecture, which could make it almost impossible for him to achieve anything. 

That, possibly, will underscore the major difference between this and the last referendum. In Wilson's time, there was a renegotiation result – albeit a sham – to put before the people. In this case, if he is to stick to the 2017 timetable, Mr Cameron may have to go to the polls empty-handed. 

At best, according to Jonathan Powell in The Guardian, Mr Cameron may only be able to achieve a few cosmetic changes, in which circumstances he would find it difficult to lead a campaign with all his "heart and soul" for Britain to remain in Europe, as he said he would if he got a good deal. 

Thus, we could end up with a prime minister actively campaigning to leave the EU. That really would be different. 

COMMENT THREAD

EU politics: seriously serious

We've had seriously serious global warming here, coming in near horizontal at times, dumping about four inches in just a few hours after tea time yesterday (pictured above), keeping on into the wee small hours of this morning to about a foot overall. We haven't had it this bad since 1963.

This made a perfect backdrop to Tony Juniper whingeing in the loss-making Grauniad, offering a FUD-laden prediction that David Cameron's EU speech is "grave news for our environment".

Juniper thus paints a picture of hard-hearted (and presumably money-grubbing) Tory MPs, frustrated at their failure to cut what some ministers see as unnecessary environmental legislation through their red tape challenge (because many of the laws in question originate from Brussels).

But, with the opportunity afforded by the referendum to get us out of the EU, we can dump all that law and storm the heights of the sunlit uplands of a competitive economy, leaving behind sewage-blighted beaches and rampant air pollution.

The idea, though, that without the EU, we would suddenly be bereft of environmental law, and the protection that went with it, is about as laughable as Dr Viner's view of the rarity value of snow, but this has added hilarity when you realise that Juniper is bogged down by the ignorance of how his own country is governed.

If we take water pollution, for instance, even without the framework of EU law, we are signatories to the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, adopted in Helsinki in 1992, coming into force in 1996.

Now that, you might say only applies to transboundary matters, and you would be right. However, this convention was supplemented by a protocol "done in London" on 17 June 1999, which came into force in 2005.

The objective of this Protocol is "to promote at all appropriate levels, nationally as well as in transboundary and international contexts, the protection of human health and well-being, both individual and collective, within a framework of sustainable development, through improving water management, including the protection of water ecosystems, and through preventing, controlling and reducing water-related disease".

With the addition of that magic word, "nationally" the water convention casts its spell on the UK domestic water management, even where there are no transboundary implications, potentially tying the British government into a web of binding commitments which could be enforced through the UK courts.

However, there is a delightful twist here. Although the UK signed the protocol, it did not ratify it, and opposed EU ratification, noting that the Community had already adopted legislation in this field which met all the substantive obligations imposed by the Protocol. The EU then in 2005 withdrew a proposal to adopt the protocol.

Despite this, the EEA countries of Norway and Switzerland did ratify, and are covered by the provisions of the protocol, which are binding on those parties who have ratified.

We thus have a situation where Norway, outside the EU, has committed to an international agreement which safeguards water supplies and the aquatic environment. Thus, on this – and similar provisions regarding air pollution - Tony Juniper doesn't need to pour out the FUD on the consequences of leaving the EU. He can simply call for the UK to ratify the UNECE water protocols and other agreements.

Given his alarmist response to leaving the EU, though, you might suspect that Mr Juniper has other agendas, and there you could well be right. But, when it comes to protecting our environment, we can be assured that there are enough safeguards available to make the EU supremely redundant.

And that also, is seriously serious.

COMMENT THREAD

EU politics: Article 50

There is a masterful exposition on Article 50 over at The Boiling Frog. He covers the ground very thoroughly, including the oft' raised canard that Britain is excluded from the European Council and the Council for the duration of the negotiations. 

This, of course, only relates to the times when discussions on the negotiations are being held. Otherwise, UK representation continues unchanged, with voting powers unchanged.

To understand Article 50 properly, though, we must go to Altiero Spinelli, father of the Maastricht Treaty and of the European Union. His concern was the Union should be seen to be a voluntary association of nations, which it could not be as long as there was no exit clause.

Famously, he said that European Union should not be a prison, and when he drew up his Draft European Constitution for the European Parliament in 1984, he included in it an exit clause.

This was taken up during the Constitutional Conventions, proposed, incidentally by Frenchman Michael Barnier, and thence to the Lisbon Treaty where it became the current Article.

Far from being a "trap", therefore, as some will aver, Article 50 is a genuine exit clause, necessary for the EU's own image of itself. Needless to say, they think that their Union is so wonderful that no-one would want to leave it – as did Spinelli – but that is another story. 

The main thing to savour is that Article 50 is the way out.

COMMENT THREAD

EU referendum: think of the farmers

Defra Secretary Owen Paterson has told Farmers Guardian that UK agriculture could be better served if Britain leaves the European Union.

This was during an online discussion on the CAP, the same day that David Cameron finally announced he will offer the British public an "in-out" referendum on membership of the EU. Mr Paterson said the UK would "do a good job" of making its own decisions on agricultural policy. 

"Within Europe the CAP is moving away from pure food subsidy to a more environmental policy, and we are seeing that in the negotiations it is impossible to impose a one-size-fits-all policy", Paterson adds, then declaring, "I'm completely clear that as we move towards a more environmental policy, these sort of decisions are much better made at national and local level".

Paterson is one of the Cabinet Ministers who is unequivocal about leaving the EU, although he remains realistic about the problems involved. As head of a department implementing more EU legislation than any other in Whitehall, he is acutely conscious that the slate cannot be wiped clean overnight. 

His caution is reflected in the FG editorial (free registration required), where News Editor Ben Briggs cautions Mr Cameron to spare a thought for the farmer who remains financially solvent because of his CAP cheque. "If a referendum pulls the European rug from beneath farmers' feet, there needs to be a constructive and consistent alternative in place to soften the blow", says Briggs. 

From a standing start, however, an FG on withdrawing from the EU gave 51.7 percent against the proposition, with 40.1 for, and 8.1 percent "don't knows". For the farming community, that is a pretty strong result against the EU, demonstrating the scale of the task the "outers" have to surmount. 

The "renegotiation" option was not offered in this poll, but one can assume that farming support for this will be high, which gives Cameron an in-built majority in the small but influential farming community. If the farmers come out against leaving, then they will be fully exploited by the europhiles. 

Paterson places great store on Hague's "audit of competences", but to a certain extent we are dealing with a moving feast, as the CAP undergoes yet another periodic reform, bringing in its wake a degree of uncertainty. If there was ever a good time to put withdrawal to the farmers, now is as good a time as any. 

But, as Briggs says, there has to be a "constructive and consistent alternative in place to soften the blow".  Doubtless, that applies to most other sectors, and the population at large.  If people see leaving the EU as a leap in the dark, the status quo effect kicks in, and the voters hold on to nurse.  

Think of the farmers: they show the way.

COMMENT THREAD

EU Referendum: subsidiarity rears its head

We shouldn't be at all surprised, but Reuters is turning out to be a major scare-factory, offering this FUD-laden headline to the retail media. This one has Mark Rutte, the Dutch PM and one of Cameron's supposed allies, telling the world that Britain leaving the EU would be a "disaster".

So far, the British media haven't bitten, probably because Rutte isn't a household name, but there are hidden depths to the Reuters piece which offer some clues as to sentiment on the continent. 

Rutte, speaking at Davos, concedes that "Europe needed to reform”, but then rules out "special favours" for one country. He argues for the need to "restore economic competitiveness" – assuming that the competence was ever there in the first place – to "reduce the running costs of the Union" and to "focus on subsidiarity".

Says Rutte, "I'm in agreement [with Cameron] on all these issues", then adding, "There might be a difference if at the end of the day David Cameron were to opt for particular opt-outs that he would ask for the UK". 

The mention of "subsidiarity " is possibly the clue to what is going on. This was part of the package, alongside the opt-outs with which John Major sought to buy off the Danes after their referendum on Maastricht back in 1992, with the UK holding the presidency. 

The comments made before the referendum make interesting reading, with Major sitting next to a subdued Jacques Delors, telling the media that they were:

... both committed to looking at ways in which the principle of subsidiarity can be enshrined as a natural part of the Community's instincts rather than something that is just wheeled out from time to time when it is convenient.

Now, that seems to be exactly what is happening, with Rutte wheeling out subsidiarity, saying of Cameron's bid for repatriation: "I don't believe you should have unique individual arrangements between individual countries and the EU, but we have to have this debate on subsidiarity".

One wonders whether the "colleagues" are going to try for this as their "get out of jail free" card. If so, stand by to dust off the Edinburgh declaration and the examples they gave. I don't suppose they will be any more impressive now than they were then, but the "colleagues" might just be desperate enough to run this past Cameron. 

Like as not, they are looking again at the Danish "rebellion" and working out whether the British can be bought off in similar fashion.

COMMENT THREAD

EU referendum: a challenge from Merkel

Seen as a victory for Mr Cameron by some press reports in the wake of his "Europe" speech, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was reported as saying she wanted "to see a deal" with Britain. The Mail claims he "even won the support of Germany's Angela Merkel".

However, Quentin Peel in the Financial Times thinks celebrations may be premature, and that Cameron is in danger of misreading Merkel. There is a long British tradition, he says, of failing to understand Berlin. 

Although Merkel had sent a clear message from Berlin after Mr Cameron's speech on Wednesday, that Germany did not want the UK to leave the EU, she also told Cameron that, if he was just pursuing narrow national (or party) interests, this was a game everyone might play. The European game, she said, was about compromise. 

Peel sees this as a warning to Cameron that he would not be able to dictate the outcome of any renegotiation, and it is not untoward to see it in that light. If Mr Cameron is to obtain a new treaty in time for it to be put to a referendum by the end of 2017, the "colleagues" are going to have to march to the drumbeat set by a British prime minister. 

Before any substantial changes can be considered – and there is no worthwhile negotiation without substantial changes – there must under amendments added by the Lisbon Treaty, be a treaty convention. This, cannot be convened until after the next euro elections in 2014, and could hardly take less than two years. 

That would bring us towards the end of 2016, with the convention resolutions then being circulated to Member States and the EU institutions, which must then draw up proposals for a draft treaty, convene an IGC, negotiate the treaty and agree a final draft. 

This must all be done in time for Mr Cameron to proclaim victory and put the revised treaty to the people of Britain in time for the start of a referendum campaign. That would put the completion of the processes somewhere at mid-2017, requiring the "colleagues" to afford maximum priority to the British agenda, and to subsume their own political needs. 

Unsurprisingly, therefore, we get Die Welt warming us that there is a limit to Merkel's patience. While she has adopted a conciliatory tone at Davos, this could very quickly change. 

Peel reminds us that Merkel is already backing away from the need for big treaty change, and that she will do whatever she can without treaty change. She knows that French president François Hollande, her closest ally in Europe, is desperate to avoid any referendum in France. 

For her part, Ms Merkel is still unclear about what Mr Cameron wants, adds Peel She wants to know if he is seeking – "for ideological reasons" – the repatriation of primary law (i.e., treaty changes), or whether he will be satisfied with "pragmatic" reduction of secondary legislation. She also wants to know if he is seeking to reduce unnecessary EU legislation for everyone, or just for the UK. 

With that, it is clear that Merkel is not disposed to allow Cameron to set the agenda, just to resolve his own internal party differences. She knows as well as anyone that Labour's Miliband is not offering a referendum. Embarrassing Cameron at a critical time, refusing to contemplate negotiations,  could give Labour the electoral edge, whence the referendum – and any idea of negotiations – disappear from the agenda. 

Thus, says Die Welt, while Merkel is not going to do anything to push the British out of the EU, she is not going to do anything drastic to keep Britain in the fold. Any concessions to Cameron will be made on her terms, and she is not prepared to expend any political capital to help him out. 

Come 2017, Mr Cameron - if he has been elected - may find he has no treaty, no victory and nothing to offer the people of Britain. What will he do then poor thing? 

COMMENT THREAD

EU politics: don't go to Brighton!

I was rather pleased with my train metaphor yesterday. That was the one where I equated Cameron having Britain staying in the EU but not progressing towards political union with him sitting on the Brighton train and denying he was going to Brighton.

Now we have Cameron in Davros telling the "colleagues" that "any attempt to force countries into ever-deeper political union is a mistake".

"Britain is a major European player on all of the issues where Europe needs to act - being more competitive, fighting terrorism, combating climate change - we are right out there leading the arguments, making the arguments", he says, "and that is the sort of political action that we need. But a centralised political union? Not for me, not for Britain".

Continuing with the train metaphors, this is rather like him sitting in a carriage on the Brighton train and screaming to the driver not to go to Brighton. In my mind I have the image of Cameron ranting at fellow travellers, "any attempt to force passengers to go to Brighton would be a mistake".

Seeing as the "colleagues" so love train metaphors – warning about being left on the platform, or on the slow train, etc., etc. - we can have another one. 

To my recollection from my days on Southern Region (although my memory may be faulty), there used to be a composite train out of London Bridge. It would stop at Haywards Heath, whence it would split. The front portion would go to Brighton and the rear to Eastbourne. 

If Mr Cameron really wants a resolution to his Europe problem, there's his answer. He needs to decouple Britain from the EU and allow the "colleagues" to proceed on their way, whence he can take us to a destination of our choice.

The trouble is that Mr Cameron really does want to go to "Brighton". His protests are for show, and he is hoping that people will be taken in. But if he keeps on like this, it won't be Brighton he gets, but the political equivalent of Hither Green.

COMMENT THREAD

EU referendum: playtime over

If Mr Cameron has judged it correctly, yesterday's euphoria over the announcement of an EU referendum will be sufficient to carry his party to victory at the 2015 general election. What happens at the euro-elections in the interim is of very little consequence.

With a Conservative administration in place, however, we will see the start of a period of great danger for the eurosceptic community. While a referendum presents a great opportunity, the default position is that we lose it. And the consequences need hardly be spelled out. It will set back the anti-EU movement for a generation. 

It is, of course, a given that the renegotiation, if it ever gets off the ground, will be a sham. But that is Mr Cameron's declared trigger for a referendum, whence the forces ranged against us will be formidable. 

For a start, all three main political parties will be supporting the "sham deal", and we must assume that the legacy media will follow suit. Whatever their fine words now – and despite the limited license afforded to dissidents – the media represent the establishment and they will fall into line. 

The state broadcaster will also give its full-throated support to remaining in the EU and we can also expect the ranks of "business" to go for the sham deal. They will be backed by a myriad of campaigning organisations ranging from the European Movement to Open Europe, reinforced by phalanxes of rent-seekers. 

On our side, we do not as yet have anything approaching a coherent campaign. UKIP, as the single most visible organisation, is more of a liability than anything under the leadership of Nigel Farage, as long as it persists in pushing for unilateral abrogation of the treaties, via repeal of the ECA. 

In fact, some of the biggest problems are going to come from our own side. As Witterings points out, we already have the "Matthew Elliott types" nosing around, seeking fame and glory as überführer of a putative "out" campaign. 

On this, it would be as well to state that the "Harrrogate Agenda" has been incorporated as a non-profit company and we will be holding our first management meeting next month. It is certainly within the realms of possibility that we will be looking to be part of a coalition which makes a bid to be the official "out" campaign. 

What must also be stated is that no-one, and no single organisation or group of organisations, is going to "own" this campaign. Already, we have seen the tendency of petty-minded, self-serving claques attempting to exclude certain voices, and we also see the legacy media trying to control access to the debate. 

What these people must realise is that this is not a game, and neither is the referendum campaign to be treated as a plaything - or a launch vehicle for the politically ambitious. We will not be silenced, and nor will we be excluded from the debate, or from playing an active part in any campaign. 

Crucially, we will be making our voices heard on the shape of the campaign strategy, and already have offered many thoughts on the subject. What we must be certain to achieve is a sound intellectual base. It is all very well playing with ideas about how to spread the message, but first we must have a credible message to spread. 

Here, many people who call themselves eurosceptics are going to have to take a hard look at themselves. They might like to ponder, for instance, whether damning the EU as a "Nazi plot" and calling it the "Fourth Reich" or the "EUSSR" is quite the best way to convince voters that voting for an EU-free Britain is the sensible way forward. 

Similarly, those who continually brand our politicians, past and present, as "traitors" and the like, might care to wonder what effect that might have on the electorate. And that applies to the whole of what Cameron delights in calling the "fruitcake fringe". We've had our fun but now, careless words cost votes. 

More mainstream, however, is the "magic wand" model of extracting ourselves from the EU – better known as immediate repeal of the ECA. In the context that our opposition will be seeking to maximise the perils of decoupling from the EU, advocates of this option really need to ask themselves whether they want to win a referendum, or whether they simply enjoy grandstanding. 

For many years, such points have not really mattered, as there was no referendum in the offing. But now there seems to be a genuine prospect of casting a vote that will lead us from the supranational maw, we have to recognise that playtime is over. 

We need to get down to work. 

COMMENT THREAD

EU politics: tail wagging the dog

Straight from FUD-factory central comes a piece which has "some" business leaders warning that the very idea of an EU referendum will "hurt investment", although it grudgingly concedes that other business leaders support the Cameron initiative.

Delightfully, the BBC photo-caption includes two of our keywords, "fear" and "uncertainty". We've yet to find an article with all three, but the FUD-hunters are on the case. It it's there, we will root it out. 

What emerges from the BBC piece (and others), though, is the prominence given to the "business case" in EU affairs, as if business persons should have a greater say in how we are governed than us mere plebs. Not for the corporates must there be "uncertainty", even though we face that plague every month as we struggle to pay their CEOs' inflated wages. 

Interestingly, this emphasis has historical roots. It stems from the Monnet genius of disguising political integration as an economic issue. Over term, it is a ploy the legacy media has fallen for, hook, line and sinker, so much so that that the BBC piece illustrated gets the "business" label. Similarly, most EU news generally finds its way into the business sections of the dead-tree media. 

One of the great tricks of agenda setters, of course, is to frame an argument, and nothing serves the europhile cause better than framing the EU as an economic issue. That way, the "business leaders" naturally get a bigger say in what must happen. 

However, whether we remain in the EU (and therefore have a referendum) is not a business matter. It is a political question of how we are governed, and belongs rightly to the people. Individuals in business should have no greater say than any other individual, and then as citizens which no special authority or weight. 

The point here is that decoupling from political integration can be arranged so as to be economically neutral, or even advantageous. A transition from participation in the single market via the EU to the same level of participation within the EFTA/EEA framework covers the business need, following which "business leaders" should have no special status in the debate. 

With that, we may find that many of these so-called business leaders are not actually speaking up for the business case, but have their own political agendas. Many are rent-seekers, arguing for a form of government which best serves their corporate preferences, better enabling them to milk their consumers. 

What is "good for business" therefore, is not necessarily good for the people and much of the European Union is a corporate ramp. While they may weep and gnash their teeth in public about regulation, for instance, many corporates gleefully welcome their bonds, for the commercial advantages and the "certainty" it gives them. 

Thus, over the long years that this campaign develops, one of the things we must not allow is for the debate to be hijacked by the business fraternity. What the likes of ex-thief Branson and his ilk have to say should have no more weight than any other individual. 

This is a debate about government – about how we are governed. The greatest lie is that the EU is a trading bloc. It isn't. It is a supranational government, intent on political union. And, about that, business should mind its own business. We the people, and the people alone, should decide on whether we should want such a government. 

Anything else is the tail wagging the dog.

COMMENT THREAD

EU politics: FUD of the day

In what is going to be a one-sided and thoroughly dishonest debate in the legacy media, the weapon of choice will be the europhiles' favourite – Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD).

They don't engage. They don't address arguments. 'They don't answer criticism. They don't correct their errors. They lie, they cheat, and they resort to fear – because they have nothing else to offer. 

And scare tactics work They rely on shock value and novelty, alongside the handmaiden of uncertainty, all to create doubt. And doubt serves the status quo effect, pushing people to hold onto nurse for fear of something worse. 

But fear is a short-lived effect. Technically, it induces habituation. People get used to it, inured to the shock. In simple terms, it wears off. Once the weapon has been deployed, it is a diminishing asset. More and stronger doses are required to achieve the same effect, until the scare no longer works at all. 

Thus, the answer to Euro-FUD is not always to address the substance. Most often, there isn't any. The tactic plays at a visceral level – it is not appealing to the rational. Thus, it must be handled in a different way. Exposure, repetition and ridicule are the best antidotes. 

So, today the first structured fightback on this blog: "FUD of the day". I'm minded to collect the best example each day, and give it the prominence it deserves. We can possibly go to "FUD of the week" and even think of an annual award, for the best example of the tactic - "Euro-FUD of the year".  We might even nominate the best FUD-factory. The BBC is vying with the loss-making Grauniad for the lead spot at the moment. 

The volume at the moment looks daunting, but the good news is that the europhiles are peaking too early. At this rate, they will exhaust their stock and it will cease to have any effect. Thus we offer you three examples of the genre, one from the loss-making Guardian, one from a trade magazine and the other from Handelsplatt.

Send in your examples and I'll put the best ones up tomorrow. You have nothing to lose but your FUD, or – as the song went - FUD, FUD, glorious FUD. 

COMMENT THREAD

EU Referendum: a bodyguard of lies

In a perverse sort of way, we can be quite encouraged by Mr Cameron's speech. A case that has to be surrounded with a bodyguard of lies is one that is inherently weak. Thus, we see not the Churchillian image of the truth surrounded by lies, but the greater lie ringed with still more lies. The Great Deception continues.

One originally had difficulty in working out whether Mr Cameron was ignorant, badly advised, or a deliberate, serial liar. But in the end, it doesn't matter. The effect is the same – from his lips venture forward a veritable battalion of lies. The man who chooses to deliver them, and keeps so doing, has to be considered a liar. 

He starts his speech with the propaganda line that would be quite at home on the EU's website, telling us that, "the first purpose of the European Union [was] to secure peace", a lie by omission if nothing else as the primary purpose – to the exclusion of all else – is to secure European political integration. 

If Cameron can't get past that hurdle, he has nowhere to go.  But all he does is talk glibly about different countries not wanting "the same level of integration". He is not listening to his own words. Integration is a matter of degree, for sure, but this is largely a matter of the speed with which different countries reach the same objective. The end objective is a United States of Europe. 

Britain, says Cameron, would never embrace that goal, which is rather like him sitting on the train to Brighton and saying he has no intention of going to Brighton – as the stations sail by and his voters implore him to get off at the next stop. 

The lie by omission is then embellished when he starts from a deceitful premise, asserting that "we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency". 

The foundation of the European Union, of course, is not the single market – it is "ever closer union". The single market and the single currency are simply means to that end. And therein can be found Cameron's central lie. He wants us to believe that the EU and the single market are, to all intents and purposes, the same thing. 

We need progress no further in order to dissect the coming campaign. The effort will be directed towards embellishing that lie, and building on it an edifice of fear, aimed at stopping people looking further. 

It is there that Norway inconveniently rears its head. It participates in the single market, but  is not a member of the EU. This inconvenient fact destroys his case, so it must be dealt with. Cameron does this with a naked, incontrovertible lie. Norway, he asserts, "has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives". 

Not even the Norwegian europhiles claim that. They say that Norway has "limited influence" – true enough inasmuch as there are limits to the influence of every nation on earth. But for Cameron, it is too dangerous to admit that, so he resorts to the outright lie. 

The fact is, Cameron then says, "that if you join an organisation like the European Union, there are rules. You will not always get what you want. But that does not mean we should leave - not if the benefits of staying and working together are greater".

But the even greater fact is that, if you join the European Union – and there is no organisation like the European Union … it is unique – you are committed to European political integration. Whatever the benefits, that is the unacceptable downside. 

What Cameron is at pains to conceal is that we can have the "benefits" of the single market without the downside of political union. By decoupling from the deadweight of political integration and reasserting ourselves on the world stage, we can actually increase our influence in making the rules. 

These essential truths, in my view, lie at the heart of the battle to come. Mr Cameron has today demonstrated the fragility of his case, and exposed his willingness to lie to protect it - backed by the biggest lie of all, that "we will have time for a proper, reasoned debate". That is the very last thing this man wants.

Personally, I feel a deep, wrenching revulsion at knowing that we have an unconscionable liar for a prime minister, and a gut-churning dismay at the thought that we might have to vote for him to get our referendum. 

Even to this point, as PMQs conclude, Miliband is refusing to commit to an in-out referendum, so we don't even have a choice of liars. But what a state we are in when that is the only possibility on offer. 

COMMENT: "SPEECH" THREAD

EU Referendum: I will not rest

"The most important political speech of his life", says the BBC. He has kicked off the debate with a promise of a referendum by the end of 2017 - in the first half of the next Parliament, on the basis of negotiating a new treaty change.

And to those who say a new settlement can't be negotiated, I would say listen to the views of other parties in other European countries arguing for powers to flow back to European states.

And look too at what we have achieved already. Ending Britain's obligation to bail out eurozone members. Keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact. Launching a process to return some existing justice and home affairs powers. Securing protections on banking union. And reforming fisheries policy.

So we are starting to shape the reforms we need now. Some will not require treaty change.

But I agree too with what President Barroso and others have said. At some stage in the next few years the EU will need to agree on treaty change to make the changes needed for the long-term future of the euro and to entrench the diverse, competitive, democratically accountable Europe that we seek.

I believe the best way to do this will be in a new treaty so I add my voice to those who are already calling for this.

My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain.

But if there is no appetite for a new treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.

The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.

It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.

And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.

It will be an in-out referendum.

Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.

"I will not rest until this debate is won". That's what the man said. There is the need for treaty change, he says, but in the end the choice will be for the British people. 

Distortions and lies pervade his speech - it is built on a foundation of lies. Norway and the "no influence" meme is still embedded: "And while Norway is part of the single market – and pays for the principle – it has no say at all in setting its rules. It just has to implement its directives", he says.

With that lie - a clear, naked lie - he sets the tone. It is going to be a dirty campaign, with the BBC giving the first word to Mandelson: "a schizophrenic speech", the ex-commissioner says, "a completely bogus set of demands". "Reality, delusion and ignorance", says Autonomous Mind. Boiling Frog calls it "bullshit bingo".

The full speech is here.

COMMENT THREAD

EU politics: gathering of the euro-clans

That speech, it seems, is to be delivered at eight this morning – hit and run, one assumes, so that Mr Cameron can get back to preparing for PMQs. It should be an interesting session if there is a "Europe" question on the list.

Meanwhile, the euro-luvvies in the Conservative party are breaking ranks. Led by a modern-day Edwina Currie, by the name of Laura Sandys, 30 or so MPs are to push for an in-out referendum in the belief that they can win it. 

Interestingly, to make her case, Sandys calls in aid UKIP, telling us that the party "misleadingly" provides "simple, but false choices". To leave Europe is presented as a zero-sum game, she claims, then having UKIP say:

In the EU we are dominated by the iron grip of an authoritarian construct run by foreign-tongued bureaucrats. But, if we break free, we will be a liberated nation whose GDP will gallop ahead of those stagnant Europeans, as our former empire embraces our products and services ...

Thus presented, it is branded as unrealistic, but it would be hard to argue that UKIP is being seriously misrepresented. 

Witterings tries to get to grips with the issue, but we're talking to a brick wall – aphenomenon about which we have commented before. But whether you agree with his recent poll or believe it could be fixed the trouble is that Kellner articulates a basic truth when he says:

… if a referendum is held at some point in the next few years, then Europe will become a headline issue once again; and our latest results confirm the pattern of the past four decades – that when Europe lurks at the backs of peoples' minds, we would rather keep our distance; but when the talk turns to a decision to withdraw, we start to contemplate the prospects of life outside the EU and fear that this might not be so attractive after all.

Hence we are seeing a torrent of euro-FUD - the latest in a letter in the low-circulationGuardian from Charles Kennedy and 58 others. "Casting doubt on the UK's future membership while reforms continue will weaken our hand in influencing those reforms before anyone knows what the benefits and responsibilities of future membership might be", they argue. 

At least, we're getting some sense from one UKIP MEP who tells us to use Article 50 in order to extract from the EU. "As far as I can see, trade would be unaffected", he says. 

And just maybe, we will be getting a chance to use Article 50, if UKIP doesn't blow the campaign. According to the Financial Times, David Cameron is to promise a straight in-out referendum by 2017, in what has been described as a "high-risk strategy" which "will test the willingness of Paris and Berlin to cut the UK a better membership deal".

Cameron's strategy, says the FT is based on a belief that the EU will negotiate a new treaty some time after the 2015 British election to reinforce political and fiscal union in the eurozone – throwing open a wider debate about Europe's future. 

Well, it's only a few hours before the suspense is over and we know exactly what he has in mind. But, to judge from the gathering of the euro-clans, we're in for a fight. 

COMMENT THREAD

UK politics: "Europe" good for Cameron?

At the end of a fortnight in which international affairs have moved centre stage, says the loss-making Guardian, David Cameron has clawed back ground from Labour. Its lead has been squeezed to five points, after three straight months in which the gap in the polling series has been a solid eight points.

One factor may be the Algerian hostage crisis, which has shifted attention towards terrorism and relations with the Muslim world, but the polling period has also seen the European Union climb up the political agenda, with a promise of a referendum in the offing. 

It has been an article of faith in contemporary politics that a high-profile "Europe" is bad for the Conservatives, but this may be changing. And a straw in the wind may be the UKIP vote, down one point to six percent, and trailing well behind the Lib-Dems, who come in at fifteen percent. 

It is early days but this could well indicate that the Conservatives could gain a real electoral dividend from a firm statement on a referendum.

Any sign that Mr Cameron's stance is changing the electoral calculus will, of course, have an impact on Labour. While Ed Miliband has been gyrating through his own, rather inelegant dance of the seven veils, if there are votes to be gained from a referendum promise, the Labour leader will follow.

Should this happen, we could see the 1997 scenario, where both sides go into the election campaign with an offer of a referendum. By such means, they hope to neutralise "Europe", drowning out UKIP's voice in a torrent of domestic issues.

UKIP is trying to compensate by ramping up the immigration issue, but it seems poised to make the tactical error, over-blowing the scare tactics. This can work in the very short-term, but in a prolonged campaign, it rarely works – as we will see with the euro-FUD.

If Cameron comes up with a credible referendum promise, people who are committed to decoupling from EU political integration will most probably see the Conservatives as their best hope. Support for UKIP at the general election will wither on the vine.

At the euro-elections next year, the calculus may be different. A vote for UKIP could bring the party extra resources with which to fight a referendum campaign, and people may still be prepared to give the party a punt. But, with the lacklustre performance of the party, which has yet to offer a credible exit plan, even this might be a vain hope.

If UKIP is to stay in the game, it could make a start by coming up with a serious policy on "Europe", which means developing a credible policy for a post-EU Britain. There, it has one advantage, in that Cameron's renegotiation policy lacks credibility.

As time passes and meaningful negotiations do not materialise, UKIP shoiuld be able to gain strength from the uncertainty, but only if it is able to offer a realistic alternative vision.

Tomorrow, therefore, many be a turning point for Mr Cameron, but it could also be prove to be the high tide for UKIP. This is a party that has to decide whether it wants to survive, or whether it is going to allow its support to drain away. For it, the signs do not look good.

COMMENT THREAD