Europe

Assuming that the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, that the Conservative Party wins the next election and that Angela Merkel and Nicola Sarkozy want Britain to remain in the European Union, what “sovereignty package” will EU leaders come up with for Prime Minister Cameron, so that the Tory leadership can placate its eurosceptic base? The deal cannot be cosmetic, but make it too tough and other EU leaders will not want to compromise.

Of all the countless leaflets, pamphlets and circulars being handed out in Manchester, one of the most interesting is a glossy collection of essays entitled Cameron's Britain.  It has been put together by the folk at Portland PR - who recently hosted that "war game" which James reported back on - and has entries on everything from the NHS to tackling global poverty. As it doesn't seem to be online, I figured it's worth quoting from one of the most insightful essays of the bunch: that by Steve Morris, a former Downing St adviser, on the Whitehall machinery that the next government will have to get to grips with.  Norris makes some important points - e.g.

There is a reluctant acceptance here that Lisbon will have been ratified by next May and that the Tories won’t hold a post-ratification referendum. But it is important to understand why the leadership is getting away with a position that is so unpopular with the grassroots. Partly it is a reflection of the fact that the party has rediscovered its discipline, it wants to win again and is prepared to swallow quite a lot on the way. But more important is that the party believes the leadership is Euro-sceptic; that Cameron is--to use Bruce Anderson’s phrase—not tainted by ‘federasty’. The view here is that if Cameron doesn’t have the time to fight over Lisbon, he’ll still block any further moves to ‘ever closer union.

The Tories have been briefing heavily that this would be a policy heavy conference. Indeed, I’m told that every shadow Cabinet member will have at least one substantive announcement to make. But there is relatively little that is genuinely new in the Sunday newspapers. One explanation for this is that the Tories accept that Lisbon is going to crowd out any other story. One senior source told me on Friday that CCHQ thought that nothing other than Europe would have cut through until Sunday afternoon. So far, the Tory containment operation on Europe appears to be just about holding. There is, though, grumbling about Boris’s comments in the Sunday Times which are seem as being distinctly unhelpful and threaten to reignite the stories about tension between him and the leadership.

It’s not yet official, but everyone is couning on a big “yes” from Ireland – to the tune of about 64% says The Guardian. I say in my News of the World column tomorrow that this is far from a disaster for the Conservatives. It works well for them, in fact: it isn't nerds who want a UK referendum but any fair-minded person who has just witnessed the way Brussels bullies, bribes and cajoles to get its way. Tony Blair was the one who reneged on his promise of a rederendum – something which, in my opinion, should be a criminal act (but, as Stuart Wheeler tested, is not technically breach of contract). And who is to be EU President? Blair himself. It will be dawning on Cameron, fairly soon, why Europe is important.

According to exhaustive polling data, the Irish will vote Yes to the Lisbon treaty. With Czech senators looking set to ratify the treaty also, the probable future Conservative government in this country faces a dilemma: what to do about Lisbon. Simple, says Bill Emmot in the Times. Cameron and Hague must hold their noses because it is in their national and partisan interests to do so. ‘For a new Tory government in Britain, the European scene could not be better, with right-wing parties in power in both France and Germany. The chance is there to seek common cause on an issue dear to Tory hearts, namely defence and the protection of the Nato alliance, under threat from spending cuts and from the dreadful stresses of Afghanistan.

In his interview with the FT, Nick Clegg says that the Lib Dems have been too “reticent” about making Europe a dividing line with the Tories. There’s little doubt that Clegg, a former MEP is an ideological pro-European. But if he starts banging on about Europe he’ll cause his party problems. The Lib Dems have several seats in the South West, one of the most Euro-sceptic regions of the county. As the European elections results there showed, when Europe is the issue the Lib Dems do badly. If Clegg really does intend to make Europe a key campaign dividing line, then the Tories will fancy their chance of picking up a fair few of these South Western marginals.

At last night’s Policy Exchange lecture, General David Petraeus said he had known the former CDS, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, since “he was simply Sir Charles.” I met Petraeus for the first time when he was simply a colonel, serving with NATO forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even then he was thought of as a rising star. His leadership in Iraq, first in Mosul and then in Baghdad has only cemented his reputation. Now, however, the scholar-warrior faces his probably greatest task – helping to defeat Taliban insurgents on both sides of the Durand Line. An effort, he said upon assuming command of CENTCOM in 2008, which might turn out to be “the longest campaign of the long war.

One of David Cameron’s chief successes has been to marginalise Europe as an issue. But the expulsion of Edward McMillan-Scott MEP from the Conservative party, for refusing to withdraw allegations he made against Michal Kaminski, the leader of the controversial Eurosceptic grouping of which the Tories are members, has disinterred the fractious European problem. The Europhile McMillan-Scott launched a pointed attack on the Tory leadership and its European policy on this morning’s Today programme. He said: “I think David Cameron has got most things right on Europe, but this partnership (the grouping) matters...What we will see is the party becoming much more Eurosceptic than it seems now.

Few Tories will enjoy looking back on 1974, but they may find it useful to study the second Wilson government and its successor, the Callaghan government, when it comes to the question of Europe.  Back then, we had a government coming to power in the midst of a severe economic climate, and which sought to change the pro-European course that its predecessor had set, including by re-negotiating Britain’s relationship with the EU and by appealing to fraternal parties in France and Britain. However, it ultimately ran into blades of domestic discontent and international indifference. The question is: could this end up being the story of a Conservative government from the middle of next year? Sure, there are key differences between then and now.