'We choose our words carefully and we do mean what we say." So wrote William Hague in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago, defending the Tory promise of either a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, or an equally robust (if mysterious) response if the latest version of the plan for a European superstate had come into force before the Conservatives got into power.
Yesterday, David Cameron emerged to explain what he means to do now the latter situation has come to pass. He employed a new set of words, carefully chosen by those around him, who realise what a sticky spot they have got themselves into over the party's position on Europe. Because, to judge by this newspaper's heaving postbag, those who do not live and breathe the subtleties of Westminster may have missed the small print in the "cast-iron guarantee" the party leader offered when he promised to give voters the say on the treaty that Gordon Brown (and Tony Blair) denied them.
To them, it was a simple proposition: Mr Cameron said they would get a referendum, and they, trusting souls, believed him. They assumed that Mr Cameron meant what he said. Or at least, what they thought he had said. They did not hear the "but" that limited the pledge to the eventuality that the Treaty had not come into force. And boy, are they angry as a result.
You might think voters are naïve for believing the words politicians choose, the things politicians say. They fell for it when George Bush Snr said: "Read my lips, no new taxes." They nodded when Mr Brown and Tony Blair said Lisbon would have to be put to the people.
This week, all the politicians were talking great guns about the need to restore trust in politics. If only they had chosen their words more carefully – because none of them mentioned a more urgent imperative, namely to restore trust in politicians themselves. As voters have long noticed, it is not the system that has become untrustworthy: it is the people.
This is proving to be a terrible time for trust, yet it is perhaps the most vital quality in public life. It is trust, after all, that lets you take a politician at his word when he promises a referendum on Europe. It was trust that you displayed when you voted for an MP who turned out to be a thief. And it is worth noting that it was trust that allowed British soldiers to take their body armour off in front of the Afghan policemen they were trying to train, with murderous results.
On every front this year, our capacity to trust those who claim to lead us is being tested to destruction by their actions, and by the gulf between what they say and what they do. "I cannot forget the follies and vices of others so soon as I ought, nor their offenses against myself… My good opinion once lost is lost forever," Mr Darcy told Miss Bennet. We know how he feels. Which is why Mr Cameron argued yesterday that Mr Brown's decision to renege on the promise of a referendum on Lisbon ranks alongside the MPs' expenses scandal as one of the reasons why trust in politics has collapsed so far. In this, he showed an acute awareness that, while ultimate responsibility for the denial of democracy on Europe lies with the prime minister, trust is a finely balanced issue for him and his party.
This does not only apply to the contract with the voters: trust is a toxic issue for the Conservatives internally, and for Cameron's leadership. Those few Tories who have taken to the airwaves to press for a referendum this week hav
Published: 8:02PM GMT 04 Nov 2009
Comments 24 | Comment on this article
'We choose our words carefully and we do mean what we say." So wrote William Hague in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago, defending the Tory promise of either a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, or an equally robust (if mysterious) response if the latest version of the plan for a European superstate had come into force before the Conservatives got into power.
Yesterday, David Cameron emerged to explain what he means to do now the latter situation has come to pass. He employed a new set of words, carefully chosen by those around him, who realise what a sticky spot they have got themselves into over the party's position on Europe. Because, to judge by this newspaper's heaving postbag, those who do not live and breathe the subtleties of Westminster may have missed the small print in the "cast-iron guarantee" the party leader offered when he promised to give voters the say on the treaty that Gordon Brown (and Tony Blair) denied them.
To them, it was a simple proposition: Mr Cameron said they would get a referendum, and they, trusting souls, believed him. They assumed that Mr Cameron meant what he said. Or at least, what they thought he had said. They did not hear the "but" that limited the pledge to the eventuality that the Treaty had not come into force. And boy, are they angry as a result.
You might think voters are naïve for believing the words politicians choose, the things politicians say. They fell for it when George Bush Snr said: "Read my lips, no new taxes." They nodded when Mr Brown and Tony Blair said Lisbon would have to be put to the people.
This week, all the politicians were talking great guns about the need to restore trust in politics. If only they had chosen their words more carefully – because none of them mentioned a more urgent imperative, namely to restore trust in politicians themselves. As voters have long noticed, it is not the system that has become untrustworthy: it is the people.
This is proving to be a terrible time for trust, yet it is perhaps the most vital quality in public life. It is trust, after all, that lets you take a politician at his word when he promises a referendum on Europe. It was trust that you displayed when you voted for an MP who turned out to be a thief. And it is worth noting that it was trust that allowed British soldiers to take their body armour off in front of the Afghan policemen they were trying to train, with murderous results.
On every front this year, our capacity to trust those who claim to lead us is being tested to destruction by their actions, and by the gulf between what they say and what they do. "I cannot forget the follies and vices of others so soon as I ought, nor their offenses against myself… My good opinion once lost is lost forever," Mr Darcy told Miss Bennet. We know how he feels. Which is why Mr Cameron argued yesterday that Mr Brown's decision to renege on the promise of a referendum on Lisbon ranks alongside the MPs' expenses scandal as one of the reasons why trust in politics has collapsed so far. In this, he showed an acute awareness that, while ultimate responsibility for the denial of democracy on Europe lies with the prime minister, trust is a finely balanced issue for him and his party.
This does not only apply to the contract with the voters: trust is a toxic issue for the Conservatives internally, and for Cameron's leadership. Those few Tories who have taken to the airwaves to press for a referendum this week have muttered ominously about it being a point of honour for the leader, effectively a suggestion that he himself may not be a man to go tiger-shooting with. And in the background, the problem of the poisoned relations between party headquarters and the grassroots over candidate selection continues to fester. If you are a Conservative in South West Norfolk, for example, you trusted the Tory high command to alert you if there was anything worth knowing about Elizabeth Truss, the new candidate, only to be told that to find out about her private life, you should have put your faith in Google instead.
Across the country, trust – or the lack of it – strains the relationship between the centre and constituency associations. The former is unwilling to leave the choice of future MPs to the latter. The associations in turn are contemptuous of what they say is the discrepancy between Conservative HQ's talk of localism and its policy of imposing Identikit candidates from Notting Hill casting.
How does Mr Cameron restore trust? He has thought carefully about this, and is active on many fronts. The speed of his response to the expenses scandal is part of it, including his willingness yesterday to embrace Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations in full and without question.
Another element is his work to revolutionise both the way Government and Parliament work. Take, for example, his proposal to reduce the number of MPs by 10 per cent for starters, from the current 649 to 585. Although this will make the Westminster establishment smaller and leaner, burdening the taxpayer with fewer costs (and fewer politicians), some have suggested that it is just another empty pledge that cannot be achieved either quickly or without cost. But I gather preparations are well advanced on legislation that will simplify the process at a stroke, by fast-tracking what are currently interminable boundary reviews, standardising seat sizes, and ending the tyranny of county borders. The work is being carried out by former MP and Tory psephologist Rob Hayward, under the supervision of party chairman Eric Pickles. Westminster – and incoming MPs – will be surprised to find that the election after next will be for a substantially smaller House.
Yesterday, however, it was Europe that threatened to define whether Mr Cameron is a man we can trust. Conservatives complain privately about the way he allowed himself to be defined by rhetoric on referendums that was intended to placate the Eurosceptic Right and buy off the Sun. If Tories are angry this morning, it is because he was not sufficiently clear enough about the prospects for a referendum if, as everyone predicted, the Lisbon Treaty got through before he was in a position to do something about it.
With his statement, Mr Cameron took a difficult but necessary step to restore our trust not in politics but politicians, by promising no more than he can deliver. To have gone further – including any sort of promise of a post-election referendum to strengthen his hand in negotiations with Europe – would have invited ridicule. Instead, we had a thought-through, realistic scheme for stopping the drift to ever greater European integration. And those holding out hope for a broader referendum over our relations with Europe will have noted his explicit desire to put them on a "more permanent footing".
This policy will not satisfy everyone. But it has the merit of being genuinely Eurosceptic and – for once – achievable. "Plain speaking" from a Government in waiting, Mr Cameron calls it. But he will have to do a lot more of it if he is to restore our faith in those whom we elect.
Comments: 24
Cameron said that a Conservative government would not cede any more powers to Europe, what powers do we have left cede Dave? I also heard a news report the other day stating that a European Navy vessel was off the coast of Somalia, this was in fact a Royal Navy vessel, have we already handed over our ships to Brussels? I think Parliament has shot itself in the foot on a whole host of issues and opened the door for the first British National Party MP to take his or her seat in the house of commons next year and I cant wait to see the look on their faces if and when that happens, priceless.
Junius on November 04, 2009 at 09:40 PM "A Sovereignty Act setting up a legal body to rule on future EU proposals, similar to the German constitutional court, is a masterstroke." No it isn't, it's called "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted". Cameron is just as big a promise-breaker as the odious Brown. It is no longer possible to trust a word he says.
Memo to David C.. "David.this is that we do (i)have the referendum...its a good opinion poll (ii) Go live on TV and refuse to make any more payments to the EU..("tear up the cheque live") declare that Bitain cannot finance a body as corrupt as the mafia with no audited accounts (iii) Declare a 50 mile fishing limit and bring back the navy viz Iceland in the 1970s (iv) Sit back and wait... (vi) Learn from history Just watch the diplomatic traffic tooing and flowing...blackmail no, poker yes. aah yes (v) Grow some balls.... have the courage , people will respect you. If you dont then your grandchildren will have to draw blood to fight from freedom for your country. Do you want that? If you do then you are not electable,
dc has just lost next election iregret to say
The only reason the electrate were not asked over europe was because the labour/flip flops and conservative parties knew that they would lose.If Cameron was as euro-sceptic as he makes out he could (if elected) turn round to the eu and say that the previous administration had broken an election pledge to hold a referendum and having then felt that too large a percentage of uk voter were against further intergration a new government must seek a mandate before signing our rates away.And all the tory bollox about giving no more powers away, well whats left the eu dont want.
Junius on November 04, 2009 at 09:40 PM "What are the other member States going to do? Invade us? Germany, France and Spain have attempted to do so several times down the centuries - and been repelled with bloody noses." True, but only due to the overwhelming assistance of the USA, in terms of both personnel and cash. We were even unable to retake the Falkland Islands without US intelligence and military kit, and the USA appear to want a federal Europe. So on our own we have neither the means nor will to resist the EU.
I don't trust the Tory party any more than I trust Labour now that they have lied to us over the referendum. I am voting UKIP. I trust them and I know even if they don't win I will sleep well knowing I vote for honest people not traitors.
As far as I can understand the new situation, it'll be pointless to bother with voting in any future elections - the Westminster government has been reduced to little more than a sort of country council! Is it an EU edict that 'England' be abolished so that the name is no longer on official forms? This is all the end-result of years of treachery, treason & underhand dealings by politicians of all parties, busily selling GREAT Britain to our erstwhile enemies on the continent! "No foreign laws may be imposed upon the ENGLISH peoples" & here we are, thanks to a crowd of politicians who've no intention of keeping any of their promises! NOBODY trusts any of them, even had the latest scandles never taken place!
So Dave is going to take a strong line with the tyrants of the EU next time but not this because he doesn't want to have a bit of a dust-up (poor dear sensitive boy - perhaps Maggie could lend him a hand bag). Where have we heard this promise before? Ever since the UK got sucked into this European monster back in the 70s, it has been a case of "well OK just this once but no more". And ofcourse our political elite have invariably folded to the whim of the tyrants when the next time has come around. Well Dave, this time (and I mean the Lisbon Treaty, not what comes next), telling porkies to the public to get off the hook for a little while longer simply will not do. A referendum on repudiation of this dreadful treaty is the minimum that the Tories need to offer the public at the next election. If that is not on the table, then I suspect a lot of votes are going to support causes other than Dave's.
Mr Cameron has lost my Conservative vote. What more powers are there for us to give to Europe that he is prepared to make a stand on? When he realises there are none significant left to give, he may decide to give us the now required in or out of the Federal EU (as it has now become) referendum. I would rather see Labour back in power or a hung parliament to finish off the job of destroying the rather UK than blue Cameron Labour allowing the loss of our national UK democracy within this Federal EUSSR.
Excuse my ignorance why can't we just 'un' ratify the Lisbon Treaty? Better still, why can't we have a referendum on continued membership in the EU. We can either embrace it or go our separate ways!
Read Full Article »