I like to think of myself as a bit of a Thatcherite on Europe. Partly because it's true, but chiefly because it annoys her Europhobic proteges who are, most of them, too young to remember what a stout European she often was. On the day Ireland votes on the Lisbon treaty, it's worth remembering. After all, a lot is riding on this for David Cameron's career. Tony Blair's too.
Margaret and I voted yes to Europe in the Labour-staged referendum of 1975. Margaret helped negotiate the 1986 Single European Act, which removed so many national vetoes in pursuit of the valuable concept of a single, open market for people, capital, goods and ... I always forget the fourth one. I backed her stance.
But Margaret and I shared doubts about the next big decision we had to take together: the euro. Along with Gordon Brown – I'm afraid Master Blair was a bit wobbly, but he doesn't really get economics, does he; just look at his house-buying record – we didn't think it the right choice for the outward-looking British economy, though we wished our neighbours well.
Now to this constitution business. French and Dutch voters rejected this deeply tedious document, which I read on Ken Clarke's behalf. So Brussels scaled down its pretensions and produced the Lisbon treaty, which enshrines practical advantages – easier voting majorities, a council president etc.
It should allow an EU of 27 to function a little more effectively in the new world of major blocs now emerging. That's what the Irish vote should have been about last time – not about Nato membership or the Republic's right to force nice Catholic girls to go to England for their abortions.
Egged on by Anglo-Irish millionaire Declan Ganley, whose incoherent views, political ambitions and likely fate I correctly predicted here last year (he got hammered in the 4 June Euro-elections), Ireland's 3 million voters said no.
This being the wrong answer, Brussels slipped Dublin a few concessions and invited Brian Cowen's government to try harder. That's what today's vote is about, a very similar proposition but in a very different setting. Ireland's economy has been poleaxed by the excesses of the banking community – and no, we can't blame Brown for it either.
A chastened electorate is thus widely expected to vote yes. In his Daily Telegraph blog, my old Peruvian sparring partner Dan Hannan MEP is puzzled. "Where did it all go wrong?" he muses. A little prematurely, I feel bound to point out, welcome though this rare bout of introspection is welcome.
Hardcore British Eurosceptics like Dan (I regard myself as a mildcore one) and Europhobes are furious. Brussels has broken its rules and pumped in money, they cry. Foreign interference with the sacred national sovereignty of the Irish people that the British Tory party struggled to uphold for centuries (ho ho).
Funnily enough, Sinn Féin/IRA also takes this view, along with assorted leftwing groups and Ganley who has re-entered the fray at the last minute.
Such talk comes a bit odd from Brits who do not hesitate to interfere with other people's national sovereignty themselves. Dear old Bill Cash MP and his ilk are keen travellers whenever an EU referendum is in the air.
And Fleet Street newspapers with falling circulation at home do not hesitate to expand their production in Dublin as readers of the Daily O'Mail and the Sunday O'Times will confirm. Being hostile to Europe is as reflex a feature of their coverage as it is in the O'Sun – though a yes vote may change that. Rupert Murdoch always likes to back the winner.
But there's more to this than Ireland's yes. It's generally assumed that a positive vote today would encourage the recalcitrant Poles to buckle in return for an extra sausage. But, as Martin Kettle writes in today's Guardian, real doubts exist about the Czech Republic, where hardline president Václav Klaus has had a string of excuses for putting off his signature.
German pressure on Prague has been deemed bad form since 1945, so the French will lead the squeeze. My top EU source told me an hour ago that he thinks Prague will sign – "because the pressure will be huge, but Klaus is very obstinate and has links with Cameron."
Links with Cameron? Did you know that? Yes, last month Dave wrote privately to Klaus, either urging him not to sign because Dave will soon be in a position to torpedo the treaty with a UK referendum – or, more prudently, praising his tough stance.
Which version of this under-reported event is true? As Kettle points out, we don't know, because Dave's "Dear Vac" letter has not been published in full, only in selective bits to cynical but credulous news outlets.
The paranoid rightwing press, owned by tax exiles, pornographers and other riff-raff (yes, Rupert, I mean you), already suspects a sell-out in the making: that Dave is keen to wriggle out of the commitment he made when running for leader that he would hold a UK ballot if the Lisbon treaty was not fully ratified when he became prime minister.
I certainly hope he's trying to wriggle. Cameron has annoyed Angela Merkel and other powerful European conservative leaders by breaking away from their EPP grouping in the Strasbourg parliament and expelling veteran Tory MEP Edward McMillan-Scott for sticking to his/their agreed ground.
He's going to need Europe when he becomes prime minister, as it is sensible to assume he will. It is infantile to pretend otherwise, especially as Europe is fast becoming economically enfeebled and politically weaker by the day. Think China, think India, think Brazil.
But Cameron's tactical pandering to his domestic rightwing, to defectors to Ukip and the BNP, is very short-term and dents his otherwise pragmatic and intelligent credentials as a One Nation Tory – which I am usually happy to take more or less on trust. It is the one seriously stupid thing he has done.
In that spirit, I will merely note in passing that at a party only last night someone was remembering what a rough-house merchant Cameron was when employed as corporate spokesman for Carlton TV. "That man doesn't have a principle in his body," a very senior TV executive was quoted as observing.
I hope that's not true; it would bode ill for us all. It is, for instance, not something one could say of Tony Blair, for all his little ways, is it?
Talking of which, Irish voters are being told in today's London O'Times that – according to its page one headline – "'President Blair' waits on voters of Ireland" because our ex-PM will be lined up as the first full-time president of the council within weeks of a yes vote.
I was wrong last year to assert the Blair wouldn't be interested in the job, which I thought too dull and too restrictive for a man keen to get his own way and play a lot of tennis. But I am sceptical about the slant on today's Times report.
Why? Partly because it looks as if it might be designed to push a few Irish voters into the no camp – why give a well-paid job to a smarmy Brit, they might ask themselves in the bars of west Cork.
Partly because it is the diametrical opposite of what the Times was telling its readers only yesterday. "Friends reunited to push Britain to sidelines" was one prediction made about the revival of the Franco-German axis. "Britain is an also-ran on the new EU podium" was the headline on the sidebar.
The casualty of this alignment? Tony Blair's chances of being president. "Tony Blair is a man of the past and the UK is no longer any model," some dozy French official was quoted as saying.
Felipe González of Spain (who is 67 and left the office of prime minister in 1996) was touted as a better bet. So was the legendary Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg, 54, who is still prime minister of the Duchy, though it is not always easy to tell.
Twenty-four hours can be a long time in politics and heaven knows who has been on the phone. But Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy's doubts have been assuaged and Blair is now the international star who could "stop the traffic" in Manhattan when he arrives as Mr Europe.
I know what you're thinking. Tony's been on the phone. Or Peter Mandelson (dedicatee of Robert Harris's latest historical thriller, Lustrum) has been texting. But they are right. Blair's appointment would signal that Europe is serious about pulling its weight again, not lying down and dying quietly.
My doubts remain. Having pumped up Blair's chances in today's paper, the Times uses its own assessment (today's, not yesterday's) to deliver a magisterial editorial – "The politics of President Blair" – to argue that he would be so dynamic that his legitimacy must be buttressed by a UK referendum on Lisbon.
You don't suppose the paper's sacred independence has been tweaked by interference from abroad, do you? I have in mind a wizened old Australio-American tax minimalist, cork dangling from his sun hat, who occasionally rings from New York.
Comments in chronological order (Total 22 comments)
2 October 2009 11:28AM
First of all, our president Klaus is no "hardliner". He is the ultimate example of a thoughtful, moderate approach.
He is not inventing "strings of excuses". These "excuses" are there and they are not really "excuses" but important parts of reality. Right now, he was told by the chairman of the Constitutional Court that he is not allowed to sign the Treaty of Lisbon which will be investigated by the court, after a request of 17 senators claiming that it is unconstitutional.
Even after 1-2 months or more when the court releases the verdict, Klaus may have reasons not to hesitate with the signature. Of course that there are reasons to think that the British voice hasn't been heard and he may organize a referendum.
The racketeering from France looks completely ludicrous so far. You say that German pressure is not viewed too positively since the 2nd war (and earlier, I add). But when the Germans needed to achieve similar things, they actually needed to send their military here. Sarkozy can't achieve similar things to Hitler while being a little ludicrous clown as he has been so far in his life.
Cameron may need Europe but Europe doesn't mean Sarkozy and Merkel. Europe is a continent and I hope that its future will be more formed by the likes of Klaus and Cameron rather than Sarkozy and Merkel.
2 October 2009 12:12PM
I'd be prepared to bet a fair amount of money that you haven't sat down and read the Lisbon Treaty cover to cover. I'd be surprised if anyone has, as it is not, and explicitly sets out not to be, a readable document.
Whereas the Constitution set out to replace all existing EU Treaties with one all-encompassing constitutional document, the Lisbon Treaty seeks to apply more or less exactly the same constitutional changes by the method of amending all the existing Treaties. Hence you get language like this:
In order to read the Lisbon Treaty, you need a copy of every other EU Treaty open beside you for reference. Given that the Lisbon Treaty itself is 287 pages long, that's quite a large desk you'll be needing.
2 October 2009 12:18PM
Incidentally, how on earth can any Guardian journalist criticise the tax-minimising ownership structures of other newspapers? The entire structure of the Guardian is a tax-avoidance scheme. I mean, I think all individuals and companies should do all they can to avoid paying unnecessary tax, especially IHT, but I'm not sure that's the Guardian's position.
2 October 2009 12:28PM
Just to clarify joining the Euro does not make it illegal to export outside the Eurozone and such inward looking countries as Germany are much more successful exporters to North America and China (or anywhere) than the UK is.
2 October 2009 1:01PM
Oh dear Michael, oh dear.
On putative Irish Tony Blair's suggested candidacy for the President of the European Council.
Tony is a Smary Brit? You think that opposition to Blair is due to racism? Presumably the whole of Europe's left is then racist.
The Irish, along with the vast majority of the people of Europe, think Tony Blair is a war criminal who is only popular with European governments because he so successfully demonstrated how you can ignore the will of the people, subvert parliamentary democracy and curry favour with the right wing press - all at once!
The mere suggestion that the Council of Ministers could put Tony on a short list for President of the European Council is enough to demonstrate that the EU is still a club for governments and not a institution with a popular mandate or accountability.
Its a shameful time for European democracy when one of the continents least popular and least trustworthy former politicians is one of the favoured candidates of its governments (not forgetting what a failure he has been as middle east peace envoy).
And there it is. The cringing and submissive European elite want a figure who is popular in the US rather than one who is popular in Europe. God damn you all.
These are dark and sad days.
2 October 2009 1:06PM
Smarmy Brits are bearable, but Tony Blair, the war criminal, is not.
2 October 2009 1:30PM
Yes or NO - Teflon Tony should not be offered the presidency of the EU.
2 October 2009 1:55PM
Goodness no, it's not President Tony we're concerned about.....it's President Bertie!
Saints 'n' Begorrah!
In many of the articles on Lisbon I've read, it's been alledged the 'No' vote last time occured because the Irish didn't understand the Lisbon treaty.
I have yet to hear of someone voting Yes despite not understanding it - although that is just as likely. I have taken to asking campaigners if they have even read the document. Few have.
Funny that.
2 October 2009 1:57PM
Just a reminder, Michael. In 1972 you and I voted to enter the European Common Market not a political union.
2 October 2009 2:09PM
I have yet to hear a good explanation from anyone for why when Ireland votes No there is a second referendum but when Ireland votes yes a second opinion is not necessary?
Surely best out of three would be appropriate?
2 October 2009 2:19PM
LubosMoti, the Czech parliament, elected by the people, has already passed the Lisbon Treaty. What right does Klaus have to try and prevent it then? It is the equivalent of the Queen of England attempting to block laws that have been passed by the UK parliament. Basically, if you don't like the EU then why don't you advocate that the Czech Republic should just leave it?
And, purleez, what is all this rubbish about Blair being a shoe-in for EU president? It's odd that this story suddenly hit the anti-EU British media on the eve of the Irish referendum. Is it an attempt to make the Irish vote no, because they hate Blair too? Or is it to put pressure on Cameron to hold a referendum, since even he has been showing signs of accepting the Lisbon Treaty in the past few days?
Basically, no one in Europe wants Tony Blair. Blair is a symbol of everything that is wrong with Britain's twisted understanding of its position in the wider world. And why on earth would the people of Europe want someone who from such an anti-European country to represent them? The UK is not in the eurozone, it is not in the Schengen zone, the next UK governing party is in a fringe grouping in the European parliament, the British press constantly lie and spew hatred towards the EU, the British people aren't even sure they want to be in the EU. Under Blair's premiership British attitudes towards the EU hardened. So why on earth would anyone in Europe want Blair to be the EU's public face?
And all this rubbish about how Sarkozy and Merkel have decided that Blair's the one simply shows how distorted British understanding is of the EU. The EU is made up of 27 member-states. Perhaps in Britain there is a notion that only the 'big three' count (because Britain still has this idea that certain countries tell everyone in the rest of the world what to do). But in the rest of Europe, including France and Germany, which border many other countries, all the member-states matter.
JohnRennie again simply demonstrates British ignorance of Europe. But, the fact that Britain joined only in 1971 instead of at the beginning just says it all, despite the fact that it was Churchill who coined the term "United States of Europe".
2 October 2009 4:49PM
Michael,
The EU and Europe are NOT the same thing. Dear me
An "Europhobe" is someone who fears Europe
An "EUphobe" is someone who fears the EU.
I, for example am an EUphobic Europhile.
There. That wasn't too difficult, was it?
2 October 2009 5:57PM
I, too, voted yes when asked in the 70s, but I plead, if not insanity, at least ignorance. I thought I was voting for a Common Market. I hadn't read the small print that said I was really going to get a superstate. Like OhHoHoHoHoHo, I'm a EUphobic, Europhile. If the Irish can vote again, why can't I?
2 October 2009 6:57PM
Excellent article.
2 October 2009 10:04PM
I'm afraid it is something that one most definitely could say of Mr Blair
3 October 2009 4:24PM
Very funny and perceptive piece. I could still fancy you, Mr White, in the right light (i.e. dim) with my glasses off.
3 October 2009 8:28PM
As a paid up Tory I am probably in a small minority, hello Ken, Matthew good to see you etc but I think that we need the Lisbon treaty ratified and as soon as possible.
The thought of a referendum fills me with dread as the anti Europe press would have a field day peddling lies and half truths to a gullible, ill informed public more driven by fear than reason.
Ohh and please Gordon can you sign up to the Euro before you go? (provided the rate is 1.35!)
3 October 2009 10:11PM
OFF TOPIC but where to post this ...
It is now 10pm on Saturday evening and while if I open the main page of the Guardian I read:
'Ireland backs Lisbon treaty'
If I then click on 'Politics' I am told:
'Lisbon treaty in balance as Ireland votes'
Pretty poor, hours after the Guardian main page has been changed.
4 October 2009 1:48AM
You mean... suggesting he might keep a promise made to the electorate?! Absurd, but then supporters of the EU rarely understand democracy.
Once there is a President Blair (unelected of course) maybe a few more people will realise that behind the waffle about internationalism and being nice, the EU is an inherently undemocratic regime, authoritarian too with elements of fascist thought, best shown by their appalling attitude to (and obvious fear of) the prospect of Cameron letting the people have a say on the EU - they really think the little people should just shut up and do what they're told.
4 October 2009 2:40AM
So Toady Blair will lead, we hear. The Bush-loving papist with the oddly financed apartment who truly dragged sort-of-Great Britain further down the moral and financial rung? What are we to make of Europe??
4 October 2009 1:28PM
Well, that's encouraging, the headbanging posts are mostly way off the piste. Let's try a few.
John Rennie says he didn't vote for a political union in 1975. Nope, and what's happened since has been a grave disappointment to those who hoped that's what they were voting for. Naive of them, but there we are.
Someone else says the EU and Europe are not synonymous, thanks for that, but if we exclude switzerland and norway - have I missed anyone? - it's pretty close, poppets.
Shay Begorrah and other posters run the Blair as war criminal line. Fine, many people agree with you. Others feel the same about deputy first minister, McGuinness, but life moves on. Paris and Berlin do not love TB much either, but they probably know he's their best bet. What's more - bliss ! - it will annoy the Tories who have been so unhelpful and that might clinch it for Tone. Lucky chap, isn't he?
Finally, in-house housekeeping. Party reptile complains that the Scott Trust which has owned the Guardian 1936 is mainly a a tax-avoidance device. Silly boy, it was and is mainly about keeping the Guardian out of the hands of dodgy or swivel-eyed proprietors ( check the current Fleet St crop) and rapacious shareholders who would have sold out years ago.
The Guardian has survived against great odds !! Excellent. And it does pay a lot of tax on the group's until-recently profits.
Dracabus complains that the website wasn't as up to date as he/she would like. He wants the service she pays for !! Whoops, no, I almost forgot, Dracabus doesn't pay a penny for the Guardian Online. It's paid for out of the taxed income of other Guardian Media Group companies and services - thanks again to the generosity of CP Scott and his descendants.
5 October 2009 4:17PM
Party reptile complains that the Scott Trust which has owned the Guardian 1936 is mainly a a tax-avoidance device. Silly boy, it was and is mainly about keeping the Guardian out of the hands of dodgy or swivel-eyed proprietors ( check the current Fleet St crop) and rapacious shareholders who would have sold out years ago.
Illiterate condescension aside, this seems strangely out of keeping with the reason cited for the change of ownership structure announced last year. The winding up of the Scott Trust, and its replacement with the Scott Trust Limited was explained in the following terms:
In other words - to prevent the Trust or its successors from having to pay Inheritance Tax. Or, more simply, tax avoidance. Of course, I might be misinformed, which would teach me for taking my news from such a swivel-eyed source.