Lies, damn lies and David Cameron's EU policy
The fate of both the European Arrest Warrant 'debate' and the EU bill underscore how Cameron is playing a Ukip game that he can't win.
By Tim Stanley
10:15AM GMT 12 Nov 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11224868/Lies-damn-lies-and-David-Camerons-EU-policy.html
There are lies, damn lies and then there’s David Cameron’s position on the EU. That became obvious this week in the parliamentary debate over the European Arrest Warrant. I watched those angry scenes hours later through the fog of jet lag, didn’t understand what Cameron was up to, called a friend, still couldn’t figure it out, tried to piece it together by reading everything available online and, finally, gave up and watched a Doctor Who marathon instead. Better to presume that the PM was caught trying to deceive us yet again. Which, upon sober reflection, he was.
Here’s what I can piece together. The PM said that there would definitely be a vote on the European Arrest Warrant. But someone realised that Britain doesn’t actually have the power to say “yay” or “nay” to the Warrant, so the Government whips decided to hold a debate on everything but that instead. Speaker John Bercow noticed the deception and called it out; Labour jumped on the Government’s mistake and took the opportunity to humiliate it; and Cameron was forced to rush back to Parliament to try to crush a rebellion against a motion that was designed to prevent a rebellion.
Yet again the Tory leadership is guilty of saying one thing on Europe and then doing something quite different. Evidence for the prosecution #2: the payment of the EU bill. When we were handed that tab for £1.7 billion, Cameron made a big (but carefully worded) objection to its size and timing. After a few days, George Osborne claimed to have successfully cut it in half in what appeared to be a victory for our proud nation again the profligate Eurocrats. Who knew it was that easy to reduce a tax bill by 50 per cent? Doubtless, the HMRC’s phone-lines glowed red with people calling to see if they could do the same.
But, of course, life isn’t that sweet. In reality, the EU has allowed the UK to deduct a separate rebate that it is owed from the £1.7 billion, with the effect that we are reducing our bill with our own money. Oh, some concessions have been won: we’ll have longer to pay and will do so without interest. But the victory looks pathetic when you consider the following analogy. Say A owes B £10, while B owes A £5 – which means that An overall is set to lose £5. B says to A “If you say that I don’t owe you £5, then I’ll deduct it from your £10 so that you will only pay me £5.” I’m not super hot at maths, but that still means that A loses £5 overall – as he was going to in the first place. Nothing has changed: A and the UK remain out of pocket.
David Cameron is in a tricky situation. He doesn’t want to talk about Europe and would have happily skipped gaily through his time in office avoiding the subject – but Ukip has forced him to pretend to want reform. However, the EU reforms that Ukip has put on the agenda are the kind of reforms that only really make sense to Ukippers – changes that demand such a fundamental alternation in our relationship with the EU that Brexit is their only natural consequence. Under our present relationship with the EU, Cameron cannot reject the European Arrest Warrant out of hand or refuse a bill that the EU’s accountants regard as entirely reflective of our ability to pay. Only a government on the brink of Brexit could threaten such things and mean it; only the government of a UK finally separated from the EU could guarantee them. In short, Cameron is talking a talk that he cannot walk.
And one might feel sympathy for him if he wasn’t so transparently deceptive. His Government could be accused of trying to mislead both Parliament and the taxpayer in the space of a fortnight – and for what? For fear of losing a paltry by-election to Nigel Farage? To paraphrase Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, “It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ... but for Rochester and Strood?”