Leaders' stale old debate on the EU

The part of last night's second TV debate between the party leaders devoted to discussing the European Union proved mostly a stale rehash of the same old inaccurate lines - particularly from Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown.

As ever, they moved to shut down any focussed debate about the realities of the EU with a combination of smearing David Cameron's choice of political allies and of asserting that legitimate questions about the extent of the EU's powers indicated a wish not even to work with other European countries at all.

As if the only possible form of co-operation between countries is an EU-style transfer of political decisions to unaccountable, central institutions.

It's a low grade tactic that's deployed time and again by the EU lobby to subvert an honest debate about the true goals of the EU and the nature of Britain's relationship with it.

Everyone agrees with the need for co-operation between countries on the issues that affect us all. But the EU is entirely about political integration and the real debate is about how far it has gone, whether centralised decisions in EU institutions is a practical or democratic way to govern a group of very diverse countries, and what should be done about this problem.

But neither Clegg nor Brown want to engage in that debate because they know their unswerving ideological support for giving the EU ever more powers at the expense of our democratic national institutions is both unjustifiable and completely out of step with public opinion.

Why else would the pair of them have expended so much political energy wriggling out of promises made at the last election to give people a referendum on the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty if not to prevent the public blocking their plans? They knew we would, given the chance.

From their point of view, any debate about the EU must be quickly diverted and frustrated by the setting up of false dichotomies, distractions and plain old name-calling.

Brown's 'Big Lie'

Typifying this approach, Gordon Brown resorted to his favourite Big Lie on the issue, asserting that 3 million jobs depend on Britain's 'membership of the EU'.

In reality, the 3 million jobs figure comes from a National Institute for Economic and Social Research study into the impact of UK-EU trade.

But given that trade with European countries isn't dependent solely on EU membership, and trade would clearly not halt if we changed our relationship with the EU, it is not honest to suggest as Brown did that 3 million jobs would be at risk.

Clegg chimed in with the idea that you can only change the rules of clubs you're a member of by 'getting stuck in'.

But the truth is neither he nor Brown intend to 'get stuck in' at all, as their behaviour over the Lisbon Treaty showed. If Brown truly tried to change the EU's rules or goals during the negotiations that resulted in the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty, you wouldn't notice it from the long list of extra EU powers to which he agreed.

Lib Dem dishonesty

Clegg also tried to distract from how he broke his promise made at the last election to support a referendum on the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty, by saying he would give people a say on the 'real question' - whether we should be 'in or out' of the EU.

However a glance at the Lib Dem manifesto confirms that the pledge is only for an in or out referendum "the next time the British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between Britain and the EU".

Lib Dem 'small print' that provokes several further questions about the pledge's value.

First, what is a "fundamental change" if the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty wasn't and, given how the Lib Dems wriggled out of their last EU referendum promise on the grounds that even the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty did not present such a change, what's the betting they will wriggle out of this new referendum pledge by claiming exactly the same about the next EU treaty?

Second, why is it necessary to wait until the next treaty change is proposed before holding this 'in or out' referendum? In practice, we could terminate our EU relationship at any time we choose. So might this stipulation be there because, having battled for eight years against French, Dutch and Irish public opposition to get the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty ratified, there's little prospect of another EU treaty for many years to come. And, consequently, such a stipulation means little prospect of the Lib Dems having to deliver such a referendum?

Far from Clegg's glib TV comments, reading the small print of the new Lib Dem referendum promise reveals all. They won't pledge to hold that 'in / out' referendum immediately, because they clearly still want to avoid giving people any say on the EU at all.

Cameron's contribution

The responses of both Clegg and Brown to questions on the EU issue during the TV debate can each respectively be described in one word: dishonest and distraction.

In contrast, David Cameron's recognition that powers should not be transferred to the EU without people being asked directly, and his proposals to get powers back from the EU, have merit as a start to securing the change we need.

But he clearly wasn't able to resist a bit of stale mantra-reciting of his own.

A disappointment from among his own comments was the re-emergence of the lame old Tory 'In Europe, not run by Europe' line. It's a ridiculous idea because, as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the way the EU works will know, you can't be in the EU but not run by the EU.

Steadily taking over the running its member states, in the place of national governments, is the EU's fundamental mission and goal.

Prize, however, for most ridiculous line of the night must still go to Nick Clegg, who probably thought he was being clever in defending the EU by saying that "the weather doesn't stop at the cliffs of Dover".

In fact, it rebounded on him quite badly by sounding so narrow-minded. Of course, the weather doesn't stop at the Polish border or Mediterranean coast either.

Final judgement

What was clear overall was that only one leader on the TV stage - David Cameron - was criticising the extent of the EU's powers and proposing to seek some reversal of that situation.

Whereas both Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown were defending the undemocratic status quo and showed no indication they wouldn't sign even more powers over to the EU given the chance in office.

But the most fundamental problem with the TV event was the short amount of time devoted to debating an organisation that membership of which will next year alone cost Britain £7.6 billion (net), that even so hasn't been able to get its accounts fully approved by auditors for 14 years in a row, and which according to German government estimates may now be behind as many as 80% of our new laws.

Is that all the high profile time that such an important issue gets during this election campaign, and how can its many and full implications possibly be explored in such a short period of discussion?

In fact, the EU problem deserves a 90 minute leaders' debate all of its own.

Now double standards on democracy

Suddenly, Gordon Brown is a convert to holding referendums.

In 1997, we were promised a referendum on the euro, should the government ever decide to recommend membership.

There was much talk of '5 economic tests', but most could see that the real reason the vote was never held was that, contrary to the government view, people would have voted overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the pound.

In 2005, we were promised a referendum on the EU Constitution.

But when, having been rejected by the French and Dutch peoples in their own public votes, it was renamed as the Lisbon Treaty - "substantially equivalent" to the EU Constitution, according to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee - the government nevertheless played out a charade that it was a completely different document and shamefully wriggled out of their election promise.

Here in 2010, another referendum 'promise' is now being dangled before us by the same people who have repeatedly failed to deliver such promises in the past.

In a speech to Centre Point yesterday, Brown proposed a public vote on reform of the electoral system for the House of Commons and on changing the House of Lords to make it elected.

Necessary changes, you may think. But why does such a domestic rearrangement warrant a referendum if transferring the actual decision-making powers of those institutions to external bodies beyond meaningful democratic control apparently doesn't?

Brown's double standards are exposed once again.

As a result of his plans, "Britain’s democratic future", he said, "will not belong to any politician or party. It will be up to the people."

Mere months after handing over a range of new decision-making to EU institutions and denying any of us the say on that fundamental shift of power that he promised us at the last election.

Actions, not words. Brown has already shown very clearly his real attitude to democracy.

There has indeed "been a fundamental rupture in the bond of trust between those who serve, and those who they are sworn to serve."

Gordon Brown's problem is that he himself has acted so shamefully, and so conspicuously, to diminish our democracy that it is now far too late for him to hope to regain that trust.

In truth, those who act to degrade democracy deserve only to lose their position within in.

Shadow-boxing over constitutional reform

Westminster has today been discussing the subject of 'constitutional renewal', prompted by a statement by Gordon Brown.

Yet when a significant proportion of Britain's laws now derive from remote EU institutions - against which a large majority so recently voted during an EU-specific election - Gordon Brown doesn't seem to think the EU even worth mentioning as part of the problem of how to reconnect politics with the public.

Throughout a statement that threw in every possible distraction - from holding a consultation on changing the voting system to the establishment of some new quango to supervise MPs - the EU didn't get one mention.

On the one hand, Brown claims, he wants the "devolution of power". This, he concludes, will lead to the "engagement of people themselves in their local communities."

But on the other, via the Lisbon Treaty, he's clearly happy to see ever more decision-making centralised in remote EU institutions in Brussels - in the process denying us a promised say - and can't see why that's causing people to disengage from Westminster politics.

"Let us stand together for integrity and democracy", he concluded - after setting out how he plans to ignore the key message of the recent European parliament election.

Instead of a proper acknowledgment of the EU's role in draining away the standing of parliament and sterilising Westminster debate, today we had the government's attempt to change the subject.

Expenses myth

The idea that last week's election wasn't really about the EU at all, but a protest vote about MPs' expenses or other aspects of how parliament works, doesn't stack up.

First, despite their MPs being arguably as badly affected by the revelations as Labour - think duck ponds and moats - the Conservative vote actually went up.

Second, the Lib Dems - a party that was deemed to have come out better from the expenses scandal, but which connived with Labour to deny us the promised referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty - saw their vote drop.

Where is the quest here to punish all the Westminster parties? But the message on the EU - on the Lisbon Treaty - is crystal clear.

Those opposed to today's EU were up. Those who support the status quo - who actively blocked us being given a say on passing more power to the EU - took a hit.

Not listening

That's why today's statement couldn't be a worse response for Labour's prospects at the next election.

It couldn't be worse because it's increasingly hard to imagine that no-one in government recognises how much of a problem in our democratic system the scale of the EU's powers is now causing - and how much people want to see that change.

Rather, it shows, no-one wants to put that key problem right.

That isn't reducing the 'disconnect' between public and politics. It's making it so much worse.

Brown slapped down by EU over biofuels

Gordon Brown is set to "push for changes" in EU biofuels targets if a government review launched in February shows that they are to blame for driving up food prices and environmental damage.

Quoted in a Reuters report filed at 12:43 today, the Prime Minister said "We need to look closely at the impact on food prices and the environment of different production methods and to ensure we are more selective in our support (for biofuels)."

"If our UK review shows that we need to change our approach, we will also push for change in EU biofuels targets," he said.

However in an embarrassing put-down a matter of hours later, a European Commission spokesman played down the prospects of change.

Quoted in a later EUobserver report filed at 18:07, a spokeman for Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said that the EU's executive stood by its target of getting 10% of road transport fuel from crops and agricultural waste by 2020.

Confirming that the Commission had requested its own study into links between biofuels policy and rising food prices, spokesman Mark Gray said "The president is not however considering changing the ten percent biofuels target."

Pressure for biofuels u-turn

Pressure is mounting on policymakers for a review of biofuels policy from international organisations such as the World Bank and the United Nations World Food Programme in the light of growing reports of a food crisis and protected landscapes being cleared for biofuel crop production.

The PM's only chance of forcing change, should the government review confirm the targets as extremely damaging, is to go begging to the EU to change their policy.

Even if the Commission were to propose a change, the plan would still have to pass the hurdle of majority voting in the EU Council of Ministers, where a majority for change would by no means be assured.

Rather than elect a government, it seems we now simply elect lobbyists to run to those who really hold power ... in Brussels.

When exactly this became the limit of ambition for our country exhibited by much of today's governing class will have to be a question for another time.