Cameron’s EU game-plan


It’s becoming clearer that Cameron knows he can’t achieve any significant outcome from his much vaunted “renegotiation” of our EU terms.  The fact that he’s floated an earlier referendum date of 2016 (in an attempt to recover voters lost to UKIP) is evidence enough of that.  There’s no time for a serious renegotiation.

So what’s his game plan?  My feeling is that he’s digging himself a hole.  Any concessions he comes back with (the old cliché: Neville Chamberlain waving the piece of paper: “It will be peace in our time”) will be nugatory, and will be ripped apart by the media.  He speaks of Tory Cabinet Ministers being dragooned to vote “IN”.  Not just “voting for the government line”.  No.  It’s simply taken for granted that the government will campaign for “IN”.  Let’s hope that a few have the courage to resign rather than sell their birth right.  But sound folk like Owen Paterson have already been summarily swept aside.

But there is another view.  Even though the concessions will be trivial – acceptance of some curtailment of social security rights for new EU immigrants here, a couple of temporary opt-outs there – they may be talked up by sections of the media as a great breakthrough.  Why?  Because some sections of the media believe that UKIP’s success may leave the door open for a Labour (or Labour/SNP?) government, and they see  a Labour government as a worse outcome than continued EU membership.

I find it difficult to believe that there will be enough substance in the renegotiated terms to spin it as a success.  But there is a precedent.  Harold Wilson’s 1974 “renegotiation” did precisely that.  His concessions were so trivial that they are now forgotten, and certainly have no effect.  Yet they swung the 1975 referendum in favour of “Yes”.  Cameron hopes to repeat the trick.

So let’s put down some tests (as Gordon Brown famously did for the €uro!)..  I don’t think that they would be sufficient, even if achieved, to justify staying in.  But if they’re not achieved, no one should even consider supporting continued EU membership.

Immigration: Will we be able clearly and unequivocally to control our borders, and to decide who should be admitted (and who should be deported)?

Justice: Will our courts be able to decide on human rights issues without interference from European Courts?  Will British citizens be protected from arbitrarily being sent abroad to foreign jurisdictions?  Will extradition only be allowed with proper safeguards, and evidence tested in British courts?  Was it not Enoch Powell who said “I hold that man or woman to be a scoundrel who goes abroad to a foreign court to have the judgments of the Queen’s courts overturned”?

Regulation: Will the British parliament be able to reject proposed EU laws and rules, and to repeal existing EU laws if it so chooses?

Energy: Will we in the UK be able to adopt a rational energy policy without regard to Brussels rules?

Agriculture: Will we be able to establish a British farm support régime designed in Britain for British farmers, instead of a régime designed in Brussels for French farmers?

Fisheries: Will we be able to reclaim the British waters and fisheries to which we are entitled under International Law?

This is just a start.  But if any one of these conditions is not met, the renegotiation will be worthless.  And of course as we know already, not one of these conditions will be, or can be, met.  Brexit is the only way.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Cameron’s EU game-plan

  1. doggywoggydooda says:

    Regardless of what minor successes Cameron *may* acheive, they are irrelevant. The EU can veto any reforms that we vote to accept, after our referendum. THAT is the real plan. Agree a set of reforms, bait the gullible public to vote for them, then after the vote, the EU will veto them, and we will then be stuck in an unreformed EU, which the establishment media will repeatedly claim WE voted for.

    That is the trap. It is a classic example of the “bait & switch” con.

  2. Ian Terry says:

    As usual straight to the point Roger.

    The squadrons of pigs are flying over Downing Street everytime the man opens his mouth on Europe. If Labour get in supported by the SNP then please ensure that the last person leaving the UK turns the lights off. Nigel has just got to deal with the Tories might stick in peoples throats but if and when we get a seat at the top table we have some influence on some really big issues. Repealing the Climate Change Act, getting rid of the DECC, stopping all energy susbsidies plus Europe exit which will address a heck of a lot that is wrong at the moment.

    • Me_Again says:

      Actually, I wonder if Nigel can negotiate some decent terms for us leaving the UK when the EU propaganda machine has won the vote? I mean if we don’t get out this time, there won’t be another before the blood is on the streets.

      I quite fancy the antipodes.

      • Jane Davies says:

        That would be a bad move Me_Again, welcome back by the way, as the Antipodes are a territory of New Zealand and NZ is one of the countries that are on the frozen pension list! Unless of course you are rich enough not to worry about your state pension being index linked.

        Note to Roger, this is an election issue and UKIP have been very quiet on this subject.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Been very quiet, Jane, Have they actually ever said anything about the frozen pension scandal – let alone abolishing it? Roger?

      • vera says:

        You have to go that far to avoid the open jaws of EU. I fancy Oz but really too old now to seriously consider it, and in any case I want to see what is happening here.

  3. Cameron: So, mes chers amis, here’s my game plan. I give you everything you demand, and then I go home proclaiming a triumph.

    J-C Juncket: I want a bottle of wine

    Cameron: Here’s my loyalty card for Threshers

    Rumpy Pumpy: I want to sleep with your wife

    Cameron: Here’s my daughter’s phone number too.

    Rumpy Pumpy: Thank you for cooperating with your European partners to advance the European project of fraternity and peace.

    J-C Juncket: Encore do vin

    Cameron: I’m glad we’ve cleared that up. Can I now go home and tell everybody that I’ve forced you to bow to my inflexible strength of purpose?

    Rumpy Pumpy: Only if you give us £20 billion.

    J-C Juncket: And another bottle of wine.

    Cameron: With pleasure, although I trust you’ll understand if I tell everybody how furious I am.

    Rumpy Pumpy: Truly, you are a great European

    J-C Juncket: Allez, mon brave, buvez du vin

  4. “I find it difficult to believe that there will be enough substance in the renegotiated terms to spin it as a success”

    What do you expect when Cameron has the backing of both Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg?

  5. Sean O'Hare says:

    UKIP need to be wary that they aren’t being led into a trap here. NIgel Farage has focused almost exclusively on ‘uncontrolled immigration’ as a reason as to why we must leave the EU. If Cameron can succeed even partially, by say preventing them claiming benefits using a fast-track treaty change via Article 48, then that would leave UKIP up the creek without a paddle. It is now time to start concentrating on the issues to raise above and let immigration take a back seat fora while.

    • Me_Again says:

      Absolutely Sean. It will always be on the back burner if we need it. Time now to look at the problem NOT from the perspective of the symptoms -immigration is a symptom of our membership- but from the perspective of the cause i.e. The EU vs UK sovereignty, the EU and the ECHR, the EU and % of UK law made by them, the EU and the primacy of its law, the EU and its disastrous Fisheries directives, the EU and its ridiculous bio-fuel rules, the EU and the smoking hole in Mongolia whence they get the neodymium for the turbine magnets.

      I do understand that after years of trying to catch the public’s attention with the simple truth about the EU, they have now happened on to real vote winner, BUT there are a good many other reasons too that can now be wrapped around that particular brick and aimed at Brussels parliament windows.

    • doggywoggydooda says:

      There isn’t time to get any significant treaty change ratified in every EU member state (and therefore implemented as EU law) by the time of the referendum. A proposed treaty change is worthless, until it is implemented.

      So even IF in the very highly unlikely event that Cameron can get significant immigration changes into a treaty change, all that will happen is that the UK public will be baited with that change, they will vote for that change in the referendum, then the change will be vetoed by other EU member states. Poland for one is a dead cert to veto immigration controls for the UK… Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Spain, Greece, Italy and others may well also wish to veto them.

      The point is, the whole ‘reform then referendum’ strategy is a masssive “bait & switch” con.

      • Sean O'Hare says:

        If you read Article 48 there is a simplified procedure that does not require a full convention (IGC) or unanimity.

        What I am afraid of is that the little that Cameron will ask for (i.e. changes to benefit entitlement by EU migrants) could be achieved in this way. If UKIP hang too much of their case on EU immigration then the wind will be taken out of their because Cameron will play this up as a major concession. People are more incensed by those who have never paid in claiming benefits than they are by hearing someone speaking in a foreign tongue on a train. If that situation is resolved before 2017 then the referendum is as good as lost by the outers.

  6. Anne says:

    From where I sit, Mr Cameron wants exactly what is taking place now. Mr Cameron could take us out of the EU NOW if he wanted to, but he doesn’t want to at all. If he would take us out of the EU, another Country would follow to the exit too.

    If most of the people want out of the EU, all they have to do in the General Election is fill that House of Commons with UKIP-and it matters not if none have never “GOVERNED” before, for no Prime Minister has done since they joined the European Union, for all have obeyed EU Orders. If you want to know “what is to come”, just look up at what the EU has already in store for us all, for 2020, 2030, 2050 and a couple on the Environment for 2060, although how they can see that far ahead re the environment beats me for if all obey the rules on the environment NOW, there should be all full sailing ahead, don’t you think!

  7. ps3person says:

    I see another part of Cameron’s cowardice in the aftermath of his long heralded and very predictable failure to secure immigrant caps, is to attempt to hide behind the Green minnow, to avoid a televised confrontation with the new shark in the political pool, pretending he cares about the Green party getting the same tv rights as the bigger parties, and using that as his excuse for not entering into televised debates. Good old Dave, he really wants everyone to be included, just to ensure his exposure to real scrutiny is minimalised

    • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

      I thınk you are a lıttle bıt off topıc here but nevertheless an ınterestıng poınt. Frankly I am dısappoınted wıth Farage resortıng to usıng phrases lıke “runnıng scared” and “chıcken” and feel he should have supported Cameron on thıs. After all what beter opportunıty than a televısed debate between the party leaders to confront the Green party on their policies?

    • David says:

      Or he wants a 4 against 1 debate.

  8. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Yep…the other 20 odd countries will not agree. What I have seen of EU Parliament activity periodically tells me that they are surely a fanatical bunch on the whole. A few aren’t, but is of no significance as is the UK. Significant when handing over cash….little else.

    Liz Truss recently: (O. Patersons replacement)
    “I fully agree that climate change is happening. I think the evidence is very strong, but this department’s role is making sure we adapt to climate change and that’s taken into account in all our modelling”

    So, the home governments that follow such policy need to change radically first. Hopeless, I’d say.

  9. Andy Robertson-Fox says:

    The referendum in 1975 produced a result of 67% in favour of staying ın and 33% against ratıfıcatıon; only two regions out of 70 – the Western Isles and Shetland – opposed. Roger, wıth such overwhelming support, do you really think that Wilson’s renegotiated terms “swung the balance”?
    To be honest I would suggest that any negotiated terms achieved by Wılson had only a marginal affect on voting intentions…as may well happen wıth Cameron’s efforts .

    • doggywoggydooda says:

      The re-negotiation being a minor re-negotiation, passed off as a major and significant one, alongside repeated lies about our Sovereignty being secured and the EEC only ever being a trade agreement, is what swung that vote.

      • Andy Robertson-Fox says:

        Thank you for confirming that Wilson’s negotiations were not the deciding factor on the outcome of the 1975 referendum and certainly not enough to ınfluence one in six of the electorate to swing the vote. Of course, in 1975 sovereignty was secure and the EEC was only a trade agreement; it is only in the subsequent forty years that life has moved on.

  10. Richard111 says:

    “Let’s hope that a few have the courage to resign rather than sell their birth right.”

    And it is MY birth right they are selling dammit!

    • doggywoggydooda says:

      MINE Too and our collective heritage and freedoms which were secured with the blood of thousands of brave men, in two world wars, who are now laid to rest under crosses in foreign fields. I shall remember those crosses as I cast my cross on a ballot to protect and defend what they died protecting and defending. British Self-Rule.

      The only way to vote to protect and defend this, is to vote UKIP.

  11. eddie coke says:

    Arguably, Cameron has already won this, because we are talking about the pros and cons, ins and outs, etc of a referendum. That’s presumably a win for his so-called Nudge Unit (formally the Behavioural Insights Team).

    This issue of Supremacy, or Sovereignty, is not really a matter for a cobbled together referendum (which of course will be manipulated). The issue is whether a foreign state or potentate is exercising power, authority or supremacy over THIS realm – the UK. I’d say so. And that is both unlawful and illegal.

    The law (Declaration of Right 1688/9 – common law contract between “the People” and “the Monarchy”). Parliament subsequently reissued the common law Declaration as a Declaratory Statute called the Bill of Rights 1688 – with the intention of holding the King to his contract. The Bill of Rights is legally still in force I think. The common law Declaration always applies. Here it is (the Statute), and scroll down to near the bottom, first paragraph under the heading “Supremacy”:

    That any power at all is applied to the UK by a foreign entity to enforce the introduction of any rule or regulation or instrument seems to me to be unlawful. All that is required is for the proper remedy be applied to correct the crime – not a referendum to see if a small majority (or whatever) wishes to be governed unlawfully by a foreign power with no right or reason to do so. Doesn’t matter how long we’ve been operating under the unlawful state of affairs – “How long so ever it hath continued, if it be against reason, it is of no force in law.”

  12. George Morley says:

    I see that catalanbrian says :Voting UKIP will make not a jot of difference, as UKIP will not be in a position to change anything, thank goodness.
    Well he knows all of the answers obviously , so who will form the next government then ?
    Do I hear silence ?
    Cameron could tell the EU to get lost and that we are closing our borders and controlling immigration to our country and deportation from it.
    If you don’t like it then throw us out – but would they ? Ha.
    I don’t think so but we could leave anyway.
    There’s a big wide world out there that UK already trade with and trade with EU would continue.

  13. DICK R says:

    Cameron has only one game plan , abject grovelling collaboration ,he’s no different fro the rest of the socialist traitors !

  14. Jane Davies says:

    More billions being demanded from the UK, I must say with the UK state pension being the lowest in Europe and 4% suffering the frozen pension scandal this is a real slap in the face….my blood pressure is going through the roof! Now we are to pay the fat cats, who lap up the gravy in the EU train, a very nice FAT CAT pension to keep them in the manner in which they have become accustomed. Who got to vote on this or is it self awarding?

    I’m about to use bad words…so I will say no more until I have calmed down.

    • George Morley says:

      I don’t see a comment from cantalabrian about that Jane Davies ! It won’t fit well with his arguments and you are so right there about the gravy train. It is just sick and no doubt when Cameron gets the boot in May he will be looking there to jump on !

  15. stallardmike says:

    Mr Cameron is a fraud working on Wilsonian lines as you say. Mr Miliband, however, and Mr Clegg and the Greenies are even worse. They have their eyes shut.
    Ukip’s weakness is this: OK, so we leave. Then what? Do we lose all our trade with Europe? Do we lose all our current arrangements on Police and extradition and so on?
    The only way is to leave immediately and join EFTA.
    Why are Ukip not plugging this?
    Remember the fate of Alex Salmond when asked about the currency…

    • Sean O'Hare says:

      The reason UKIP are against Richard North’s solution of interim EFTA/EEA membership is because they haven’t researched it deeply enough and North is considered persona non grata due to past history and on-going criticism of UKIP on his EuReferendum blog. UKIP say that they believe that as members of EEA we would not be able to do anything about the free-movement of people. If they cared to read North’s proposals rather than just pooh-pooh them they might come to a different conclusion. Again there is too much emphasis on immigration to the virtual exclusion of every other reason why we need to get out of the EU. This is very dangerous and could so easy become an existential problem for UKIP.

      I attended a fringe event organised by the Bruges Group at UKIP’s Autumn conference in Doncaster last year. Robert Oulds gave a presentation on something very close to North’s Norway option and a debate between him and UKIP’s Ray Finch followed. Oulds won the debate hands down in my opinion because Ray Finch had nothing to offer to counter the “3 million jobs” and “we will be isolated” memes, whereas an interim EFTA/EEA solution immediately takes us out of the most damaging impact of EU membership (CAP, CFP, EAW, ever closer union etc.).

  16. Richard111 says:

    Roger, and everyone visiting please read the article at this link:

    Here is a short quote:

    “”In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls “Londonistan” – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

    The Islamic Emirates Project names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.””

    There are many live links in the article text for more information.


    • DICK R says:

      They will simply roll over belly up and ask what they can do to speed up the process !!!!!!

    • Jane Davies says:

      If this article is true then yes what is the government doing about it? This must be nipped in the bud NOW.

    • George Morley says:

      very interesting article Richard111 but it is dated August 2011 and should this be the case then it would have been addressed in some way before now and no doubt has with increased intelligence.
      It is a possibility if the government and police do not stamp on any attempt to have sharia law allowed with their kangaroo courts. I was disturbed by the ArchBishop of Canterbury saying Sharia law could be acceptable if I remember correctly.
      Food for thought indeed.

  17. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Dear Electoral Commission,
    Thanks, but we’re not registering with you and we’re not going to pay any attention to your rules.

    Yours in freedom,

    Paul Staines
    Editor Guido Fawkes’ Blog

    Whats a non party campaigner all of a sudden ? All of a sudden !!

  18. Anne says:

    Just one little Cross FOR UKIP.

    Just one little cross, that is all that it takes,
    To change this great country of ours.
    Just one little cross that I will make one day,
    For a history to read down the years.
    Just one little cross for those that say,
    They will earn the money we pay,
    For they will govern this Country of ours
    And take back, what others gave away.

    One little cross we have over the years,
    Placed by names of those parties known well,
    But long gone is the hope, the faith, the trust,
    For they took us down the path to Hell.
    Just one little cross for those that dare
    The truth to speak loud and clear,
    We know what we see, is what we will get,
    So there is nothing now left to fear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s