Parties must wake up to EU policy opportunities, and threats

When will our political leaders realise that the action they take when dealing with the European Union will have a direct and significant effect on their success at the polls?

Looking at lists of the issues people prioritise when it comes to voting in general elections, concern about Britain's relationship with the EU tends to linger some way behind the economy, schools, hospitals and crime.

But politicians make a huge mistake if they believe this means that people don't care about the issue.

The most recent evidence that EU policy can have a critical impact on a party's level of support is the bounce in the polls that the Conservatives appear to have enjoyed since David Cameron last month vetoed EU plans for a 'fiscal union' treaty.

Veto boost

An ICM survey for the Sunday Telegraph has given the Tories their highest rating since last year's general election and a six-point lead over Labour, up from two points before the pre-Christmas summit.

The poll puts the Tories up two points since the start of December on 40%, with Labour support sliding by two points to 34%, opening up the widest margin between the two parties in 18 months.

Other polls have confirmed the trend, with a post-summit BBC report highlighting polls by Ipsos Mori and YouGov that also put the Conservatives ahead of Labour for the first time this year.

Questioning people about the EU summit's outcome exposes the overwhelming public support for the Prime Minister's actions that underpins this poll shift. A Populus survey for The Times showed 57% felt Mr Cameron was right to use the veto while only 14% disagreed and another, for the Mail on Sunday, showed that 62% supported David Cameron's actions, while only 19% said he was wrong to use the veto.

Ed Miliband's response in the immediate aftermath of the summit, accusing the Prime Minister of being "out of touch", couldn't have been more ill-judged.

Poll threats

But this latest shift is far from the first time time polls have reacted sharply to how politicians act on the EU.

When, back in October 2007, Gordon Brown confirmed his support for the Lisbon Treaty and it became clear that he would not extend his party's previous promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution to the revised document, the result was an abrupt end to his honeymoon as the new Labour leader.

Brown actually increased his party's support through the September 2007 eruption of the Northern Rock crisis, when polls showed a three-point Labour lead mid-month widened to nearly eight points by the end of September. Even the events of early October that year, when the Conservatives unveiled a new inheritance tax policy and Brown was accused of having 'bottled' an early general election, resulted in him conceding only a slight lead to the Conservatives.

So far, not so bad for Mr Brown. Until, that is, later in October 2007, when he agreed to the final text of the Lisbon Treaty and made a statement to Parliament on the 22nd of that month. By the end of that week, Conservative support was growing again and Labour's ratings started a precipitous fall, ending the year at a punishing ten point deficit on the Conservatives as Gordon Brown turned up (late) in Brussels to sign the treaty.

The fact that this poll gap then remained broadly the same until late April 2008 shows that Labour's hair-raising fall in public support over a few short weeks between the end of October and mid December must have been due to some very particular event after both the peak of the Northern Rock bank run and the fallout from the party conferences.

It's impossible to dismiss that this was the period during which the deceit of the process of re-naming the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty became crystal clear and Gordon Brown confirmed that he would not grant us the EU referendum we had been promised.

But Brown has been far from alone in suffering at the polls as a result of his EU actions. Later, in November 2009, David Cameron suffered a similar fate when he also dropped his "cast iron guarantee" of a vote on "on any EU treaty" emerging from the negotiations that came up with the Lisbon Treaty.

The Conservative leader also suffered an immediate drop in public support that, as we speculated at the time might turn out to be the case, did indeed re-balance the polls in a way that resulted in Mr Cameron's failure to secure a clear majority at the general election, forcing him to form accede to coalition government.

Arguably, the Liberal Democrats have suffered the worst of all from this trend in public opinion. Languishing in the polls and seemingly looking down the barrel of an electoral gun, the party's leaders still don't seem to realise where they have been going so wrong.

Referendum opportunity

This clear and growing pattern in how EU policy moves public support to an extent that affects electoral fortunes should provide much food for thought for any party aiming to improve its chances of obtaining a clear majority at the next general election.

Obvious focus should be placed on where party policy is at stark odds with public opinion and where better does such an opportunity lie than over whether there should be a referendum on Britain's EU membership?

The Sunday Telegraph's ICM poll also confirms that people do not back Mr Cameron's decision to rule out a public vote on whether Britain should stay in or leave the European Union. A majority of 59% to 25% (pdf, Table 5) say that there should be a proper in-out vote and most (51%) wish to see one in this Parliament.

If one veto, to unknown effect, can deliver a four-point boost in the polls, it's not hard to imagine the electoral rewards awaiting the party that grants that EU referendum.

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.

Lib Dems guilty of major breach of trust

For Nick Clegg to attempt today to don the mantle of trust and honesty in British politics is the most laughable idea that has yet been put forward during this election campaign.

This man seems to think he can say one thing and be believed, despite having so recently and so conspicuously behaved in a completely different way.

The dangerous game he is playing with such a strategy is that anyone with a memory will see that he is trying to treat voters like fools and, in doing so, only discrediting himself.

Dishonesty

At the last general election, the Liberal Democrats promised to support a referendum on the EU Constitution. "Ratification", they said in their 2005 manifesto, "must be subject to a referendum of the British people."

But when, in March 2008, the opportunity came to vote in the House of Commons in support such a referendum - the EU Constitution having been revived and re-named as the Lisbon Treaty - Nick Clegg instructed his party to abstain.

Despite the influential House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee - whose job it is to scrutinise EU legislation on behalf of MPs - confirming that the Lisbon Treaty was "substantially equivalent" to the EU Constitution, Nick Clegg and other leading Lib Dems conducted a charade claiming that the two documents were completely different.

The chairman of that committee, Labour MP Michael Connarty, said during a debate in the House of Commons: "Every provision of the Constitutional Treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Reform Treaty. We think that they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position."

This view was backed up by a second cross-party group of MPs - the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee - which concluded that "there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied."

And at the time there was a cacophony of other European leaders claiming that the EU Constitution had been preserved in all but name.

They said it

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, chief architect of the original EU Constitution, writing in Le Monde, said of the Lisbon Treaty: "Looking at the content, the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty … are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties ... Above all, it is to avoid having referendum thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed."

Hans-Gert Poettering, then president of the European 'parliament', said in a letter to M. Giscard d'Estaing: "I had the feeling that the voice of the European Parliament had been heard and that the essentials had been saved, even if we had to give up calling it 'a European Constitution' ... "

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said: "The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained in large part… We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state, like the flag and the national anthem."

Jose Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister, said: "A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties"

Bertie Ahern, then Irish PM, said: "They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there."

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, confirmed: "The good thing is...that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left."

Flip-flopping

Either the Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems thought they knew better than all these European leaders and, somehow, believed that the Lisbon Treaty was in fact 'completely different'.

Or, blinkered by their evident long-term fanaticism for passing ever more powers from our elected parliament to the European Union, they knew the truth but set out to deceive the public and deny us the say we had been promised.

Worse, having abstained in the House of Commons to ensure the treaty passed, the Lib Dems then voted against a referendum in the House of Lords - flip-flopping to vote whichever way it took to ensure the anti-democratic treaty became law without people being given the say we were promised at the last election.

Deceit

The whole process of how the EU Constitution was revived after the French and Dutch 'no' votes and re-presented in order to avoid further public votes was a blatant deceit, endorsed by Gordon Brown and in which the Liberal Democrats - led by Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey - actively participated.

Clegg and many in his party behaved in a deeply hypocritical and dishonest way, saying one thing and doing another.

They betrayed promises given at the last election and such behaviour should not be rewarded with votes at this election if we are to have a chance of achieving in the future the quality of democracy that we deserve.

Brown's double standards on jobs and public spending

It's day two of the general election campaign and the usual suspects are already trying to take voters for fools.

Business secretary Peter Mandelson was first on the stump this morning, making a speech to the Foreign Press Association.

Mandelson, a powerful yet unelected government minister, seems to enjoy inexplicable credibility from the media - even when talking about trust and honesty in politics. Can the media already have forgotten how Mandelson's own actions twice previously caused him to be sacked from the cabinet?

His latest argument about an opposition party being too 'inexperienced' for government is nothing more than an argument that government must never change - that only the experienced should govern. An argument against democracy itself.

Admittedly, not an entirely unexpected point of view, coming from someone known for his enthusiasm for the European Union. His favouritism for technocracy over democracy has long been clear.

But sadly the media seem to be letting the public down by reporting such anti-democratic sentiments from a senior government minister completely uncritically.

Brazen Clegg

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg also joined the fray early in the day, to claim that this election 'isn't a two horse race'. Despite presumably knowing what the rest of us do - that in reality, unlike Gordon Brown and David Cameron, he is not likely to become Prime Minister.

A much more remarkable claim, however, was his assertion that only the Lib Dems are untainted by corruption and can therefore restore trust in politics.

Firstly it's plainly clear that, like the other parties, Lib Dem MPs were also caught up in the expenses scandal and had to apologise and pay back misclaimed expenses.

But Clegg's claims about trust are especially brazen, given it assumes people have such short memories that we will already have forgotten how he led his party to break a clear 2005 election promise to support a referendum on the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty.

Worse, during that process, Clegg engaged in precisely the dodgy backroom deals he accuses the other parties of employing to ensure that his party quietly voted whichever way it took at each stage of the Lisbon Treaty's progress through Parliament - abstaining in the Commons and voting against a referendum in the Lords - to prevent people being given a say on something as important as who decides new laws.

Hardly very trustworthy, or democratic. So who does Clegg really think he's fooling with his 'holier than thou' rhetoric? In reality, such claims just serve to make himself look something of a joker and badly out of touch.

Commenting on the euro today, Clegg also reinforced his party's enthusiasm for handing power over to the EU.

The Lib Dem leader admitted that "we think there is a case for, a long-term case for, considering entry into the euro, which needs to be done with a referendum" but admitted that "eurozone interest rates over the last few years would have been wrong for Britain".

In revealing that he believes we should ultimately join the euro while admitting eurozone interest rates can be wrong for our economy, Clegg displays how his EU-statist ideology trumps the economic stability and prosperity on which many jobs depend. Hardly the best bid for a leadership position in our democracy!

Certainly, given his low grade behaviour over the Lisbon Treaty, it would be a brave person indeed who took seriously his purported commitment to holding a referendum before signing Britain up to the euro.

Brown's £6bn gaffe

At Prime Minister's Questions, a major theme was the government's proposed increase in National Insurance, versus the Conservatives' plans to ditch that increase.

Gordon Brown banged on repeatedly about the dangers of "taking £6bn out of the economy" that the NI increase will raise.

As the BBC reports, Brown said "Take six billion out of the economy now and there is more unemployment, more businesses go under and there is less growth."

"Thousands of jobs would then go", Brown lectured.

Yet this is the man who, last year, despite our growing deficit and massive borrowing, was quite happy to take £6.4bn out of the economy and hand it over to the European Union.

This is an institution about which there are regular reports of financial waste and fraud on a grand scale, and whose accounts have not been fully approved by auditors for an unjustifiable 14 years in a row.

According to the recent Budget documents, next year, if Brown remains Prime Minister, at the same time as he is slashing public services, his plan is to increase our cash payments to the EU to a scandalous £7.6bn net.

So, once again please for the record, Mr Brown. How many thousand jobs has taking such sums "out of the economy" and wasting them on the EU already cost?

New campaign: Not Liberal - Not Democrats!

The Liberal Democrat bid to increase its tally of MEPs at the forthcoming European Parliament election took an early knock yesterday, with the launch of a hard-hitting new attack campaign by the Democracy Movement.

The DM has announced plans to blast the party as "Not Liberal - Not Democrats" in some of its most vulnerable seats, over the actions of leading party figures on the EU's Lisbon Treaty.

In particular, the campaign has been launched in defence of Ireland's democratic 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty. Leading Lib Dem MEP Graham Watson has pledged to use taxpayers' money he and his colleagues will receive from the European Parliament to help the Irish and EU political elite bully the Irish people into reversing a clear 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty given in last year's referendum.

Speaking on behalf of all ALDE group MEPs in the European Parliament, Watson recently told the Irish Times that it "would be our great pleasure" to help the Irish government fund a major campaign in favour of the Lisbon Treaty in the repeat referendum that the country is being pressured to stage this autumn.

Ireland's vote was the only referendum any people in Europe have had on the Lisbon Treaty, its "substantially equivalent" predecessor - the EU Constitution - having also been rejected overwhelmingly by the French and Dutch peoples in 2005.

Watson's pledge makes a vote for the Lib Dems on 4th June a vote to disregard the previous referendum result and to bully the Irish people into reversing it.

Succession of affronts

But the campaign on the Lib Dems follows what the DM is calling "a succession of affronts to democracy and civil liberties" by the party, caused by their enthusiasm for handing ever more decision-making to the EU.

They amount to a stark conflict between the party's claimed values and actions that can no longer be allowed to pass largely unnoticed by voters.

Not only did the Lib Dems vote to approve the highly illiberal and anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty, but at every stage of the treaty's progress through Parliament the Lib Dems did what it took - abstaining in the Commons and voting against in the Lords - to prevent us being given the EU referendum they promised us at the last general election.

That's why the campaign has been called Not Liberal - Not Democrats.

'Double whammy' roadshow

A giant mobile poster bearing the Lib Dem logo and the campaign slogan (pictured above) is set to be deployed throughout May and early June. The roadshow will be accompanied by targetted local leafleting, letter-writing campaigns by DM activists and other activities.

The 'double whammy' campaign will rove Graham Watson's South West euro constituency, amongst other places, also visiting the most marginal Westminster seats of Lib Dem MPs who broke their promises and refused to support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty / EU Constitution.

These will include Chris Huhne - Shadow Home Secretary (Eastleigh, Maj: 568), Jeremy Browne - Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Taunton, Maj: 573), Paul Burstow - Chief Whip (Sutton & Cheam, Maj: 2846) and Julia Goldsworthy - Shadow Communities and Local Government (Falmouth & Camborne, Maj: 1886).

Twenty of the Lib Dem MPs who refused to support a referendum - almost a third of the parliamentary party - are in vulnerable Westminster seats with majorities of under 5,000.

Clegg ambushed

The campaign kicked off yesterday with a leafleting picket of the official Lib Dem Euro-Election campaign launch, forcing Nick Clegg to cancel a planned outdoor TV interview and to dodge our giant poster as he came and went from the venue.

Having ratted on the referendum they promised in their last manifesto, the Lib Dems now say that they support a wider 'In / Out' referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU.

But given the party's recent failure to deliver on an EU referendum promise written in their general election manifesto, it's not clear how they think their alleged support for a different referendum can be believed.

Even if they do now support a wider referendum on Britain's relationship with the EU, and would actually vote in support of one should an opportunity in Parliament arise, there's no reason why that should have precluded people being consulted in the meantime on whether more powers should be passed to the EU or not.

If fact, the logical action if you believe Britain's relationship with the EU is now at a such a stage that it should be reviewed via referendum is to block any further power transfers until that consultation is conducted.

That's what makes this 'new' referendum idea looks like typical politicians' spin, attempting to confuse people and disguise the fact that the Lib Dems do not support people being consulted about the EU's powers at all.

Please use our 'Order leaflets' link (above right) to request some copies of our campaign flyer. A pdf of the leaflet can be seen here. You can keep up with the latest info about the campaign by joining the Not Liberal - Not Democrats group on Facebook, or by signing up for the eBulletin on the DM's main website.

South West MEP presses Gordon Brown to scrap the pound

The South West's only Liberal Democrat MEP, Graham Watson, seems to be on a quest for maximum unpopularity.

And on current form he might just end up taking the whole Lib Dem campaign for the European Parliament elections down with him.

During the Prime Minister's visit to the European Parliament in Strasbourg this week - on the first leg of his pre-G20 'world tour' - Watson used his regulation three minutes speaking time to press Gordon Brown to take Britain into the euro.

Responding to Gordon Brown's address to MEPs, Watson said that he expected the single currency to "emerge stronger from this crisis" and asked the Prime Minister "Will you now work to bring the United Kingdom into the euro in the post-recession period?"

Euro problem

Ever allowing his starry-eyed enthusiasm for EU centralisation to cloud sound economic judgement, Watson's call came despite almost daily evidence that the inflexibility of the euro has exacerbated a boom-bust cycle in some countries and is now making the recession worse for its members.

Neither has the euro prevented banking crises and the need for bailouts among member countries.

Ireland's construction-led economy has collapsed so spectacularly that a leading Irish economist has warned that the country may have to quit the euro. Unemployment in Spain has grown to over 3 million and, in the eurozone as a whole, is at its highest for more than two years.

Markets fear debt defaults in Italy and Greece, where debt has risen to huge proportions of GDP. And European Central Bank president, Jean-Claude Trichet, has admitted that the currency bloc is under "extreme strain".

Both Greece and France have already seen major public protests against insufficient action by their governments to relieve the effects of the recession - governments that simply can't afford to replace with cash bailouts and 'stimulus packages' what a drop in the value of their currency would deliver.

Even arch EU fanatic and former European Commission president Jacques Delors admits to pessimism about the euro's future.

This is what Graham Watson MEP bizarrely wants to embroil us in.

It's little wonder that the EU has recently been pushing for the IMF's resources to be increased dramatically, likely hoping that the emergency funding body will help to bail out those countries suffering the worst inside the euro straightjacket.

How much Britain and other EU countries who have wisely kept control of their economies will be asked to splash out via the IMF towards papering over the euro's widening economic cracks remains to be seen.

Sterling boost

Of course, Britain has similar economic problems to those being suffered by other European countries mentioned above.

But thanks to our flexible exchange rate as a result of keeping the pound, Britain's goods and services have at least been made considerably more competitive in world markets right when we needed it most.

The benefit of British exports becoming cheaper due to the recent fall in the value of the pound means that businesses selling to the eurozone have been given a timely boost that would not have been possible had we joined the euro when people like Mr Watson were first campaigning for that change years ago.

Had we followed his advice back then, British companies would today be locked into a fixed exchange rate with the eurozone and facing greater pressure to make cuts to wage costs and jobs instead - just like those inside the euro.

Real lessons

In the face of this recent overwhelming reminder of how unpredictable economic conditions can be, Mr Watson's perverse view seems to be that we should lock ourselves into the 'one-size-fits-none' euro and give up control of key economic levers like our interest and exchange rates.

Not for him has the crisis illuminated, in reality, how critical it is to retain maximum economic flexibility to respond to rapidly changing conditions.

That, of course, can only be achieved by keeping the pound.

No surprise, then, that public opinion remains strongly against Britain joining the euro.

A BBC poll at the start of the year showed that, despite the economic troubles, 71% of people would vote against Britain joining if it were put to a referendum.

Not liberal - Not democrat

Watson's controversial euro demand follows a pledge earlier this month to help Ireland's ruling political party fund a second 'Yes' campaign in any new vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

A second referendum is predicted for this autumn, following the Treaty's rejection by Irish voters last year.

Given Watson tops the list of his party's candidates in the South West, anyone in Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Devon, Cornwall or Gibraltar voting for the Liberal Democrats is essentially voting to re-elect him.

So far, such a vote stands not just for bullying the Irish people into reversing their clear 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty, but also for scrapping the pound.

And there's very little either liberal or democratic about that.

Lib Dem pledge to bully Ireland over Lisbon

A vote for the Liberal Democrats at the European Parliament elections on 4 June is a vote to bully the Irish people into reversing their clear 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty.

That's the message being sent today by Graham Watson MEP, according to this article in the Irish Times.

As the leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament, Watson has pledged "to help fund a major campaign in favour of the Lisbon Treaty" when the Irish government calls a second referendum, which is expected in the autumn.

Expressing his group's support for the Irish government and EU elite plan to ignore the previous referendum result and make the Irish people vote a second time on the same treaty, Mr Watson said "It would be our great pleasure to support Fianna Fáil if they wanted us to, either in the referendum campaign in the autumn or any other campaign".

Watson tops the Liberal Democrat list of candidates for the South-West of England euro-constituency, which covers Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Devon and Cornwall, and which also includes Gibraltar.

Credibility chasm

In the article, Mr Watson also rehearses the inevitable scare-mongering that a second 'No' vote to the Lisbon Treaty would force Ireland to leave the EU - a line so weak that its lack of credibility is far more likely to be a hindrance to securing a 'Yes' vote in any referendum than a help.

"It is very difficult to see any country being able to stay in if they have had two Nos from the people," he burbles. Not so difficult for anyone who has read the EU treaty, however.

The reality is that if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified by every single EU member country, it doesn't become law, and the EU continues to exist - and every country continues to be a member of the EU - on the basis of the current, post-Nice, treaty.

That contains no clause under which a member country can be thrown out of the EU.

Any decision as to the extent of Ireland's participation in the European Union after a second 'No' vote will be entirely down to the Irish government.

Unless Watson is revealing that it is the position of Irish Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, that he will take Ireland out of the EU altogether if there is a second 'No' vote, then Watson is either blowing smoke or exposing his ignorance.

Time for change

In truth, a second 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty from Ireland would be a welcome earthquake for the entire EU structure as we know it today. And Ireland would be far from alone in administering that much-needed shake of the foundations.

Not only has the Polish president said that he will not sign the Lisbon Treaty into law until Ireland has settled its position, but the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has expressed a similar stance.

The treaty also looks set to remain an outstanding issue in Germany for some months yet, while its impact on the German constitution is studied by that country's constitutional court.

What's more, by May 2010 a Conservative government may be in power in Britain with the policy of rescinding Britain's ratification of the treaty if it has not yet been approved by every other EU member country.

But before the events of the autumn and spring 2010 unfold, Graham Watson perhaps ought to be more concerned about how popular his support for bullying the Irish people into reversing their already clearly expressed view on the Lisbon Treaty is going to be with South West voters, come the elections on 4 June.

The confused Norman Baker

The Daily Mail today shouts from its front page that the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, Norman Baker, is spearheading a campaign for MPs to ditch their traditional oath of allegiance.

Supporting the campaign purportedly on the grounds that their 'principal duty' should be allegiance to the people who voted for them rather than the Queen are 22 MPs from all three main parties, but reportedly including only a single Conservative.

A full list of these supporting MPs isn't given. Yet what's the betting that most of these sudden adherents to representing their constituents and 'swearing allegiance to the nation' both didn't keep their manifesto promises to support a referendum on the EU Constitution and voted to approve that transfer of more decision-making powers to the EU?

At that time, countless polls showed that a large majority of people wanted a say on the treaty and opposed the transfer of more decision-making to the EU. How many of these MPs were so interested in representing their constituents then?

Norman "it's a matter of democracy" Baker himself certainly wasn't. In line with the instructions of his party leader, Nick Clegg, he didn't bother to vote in support of a referendum on the EU Constitution's "substantially equivalent" successor, the Lisbon Treaty, but he did vote to approve the treaty.

Wouldn't MPs keeping clear promises on which they were elected and taking their own manifestos seriously be a far greater contribution to improving democracy than gimmicky campaigns to tinker with oaths?

Last gasp for the Lib Dems?

UPDATE (Wednesday 11 June, 21:09): The House of Lords has rejected a referendum proposal by 280 votes to 218.

As expected, Lib Dem peers voted against a referendum, which would have been approved if they had abstained in accordance with Nick Clegg's policy in the Commons.

So will Nick Clegg have the integrity to take responsibility for his party's damaging multiple U-turns, ending up acting completely in contradiction to a popular manifesto promise? Or will he admit he has lost control of his party? It's one or the other, surely ...

------------------------

Tomorrow there will be a key vote in the House of Lords on the question of whether there should be a referendum on the re-named EU Constitution - now called the Lisbon Treaty.

Due to the different make-up of the House of Lords, with a large number of 'crossbench' peers not linked to any party holding the balance of power, a referendum amendment would very likely be approved if the 76 Liberal Democrat peers obeyed Nick Clegg's policy to abstain on the question.

However, the leader of the Lib Dem peers Lord McNally has already made clear that he and his colleagues will not be abstaining like the party's MPs.

The new instruction is to vote with the government, against a referendum.

The question is - on whose instructions? Either Nick Clegg has performed yet another policy U-turn, and told Lib Dem peers to vote with the government rather than abstain.

Or the peers are doing as they please and just plain ignoring him.

So Clegg must either take responsibility for the fact that his repeated U-turns on the popular referendum promise his party made at the last election are haemorhagging both credibility and popular support. Or admit he has lost control of his party.

Lib Dem voters back referendum

Back in March an ICM poll conducted for the Iwantareferendum campaign found that Liberal Democrat voters supported a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty by more than two to one.

67% said that “Voters should decide in a referendum” while only 30% thought that “MPs should decide in Parliament.”

Shortly afterwards, most Lib Dem MPs having abstained on the issue in the key Commons vote, the party performed terribly in the local elections, failing to capitalise on the flow of voters away from Labour. Particularly in areas where their promise-breaking stance on a treaty referendum was highlighted the most intensely.

A matter of trust

The potency of the treaty referendum at the ballot box has been grossly underestimated by the government and the Liberal Democrats.

Noting that the European Union comes low down the list of voters' concerns, they schemed that they could confront the evident strong public support for a treaty referendum and get away with it.

However, typically of today's political class, they gave scant regard to the 'small' matter of their manifesto promises.

The promise-breaking nature of their actions has caused the referendum issue to transcend into a matter of trust. And the high profile failure to deliver a clear and popular promise made at the last election - almost regardless of the issue itself - is a much bigger electoral liability.

From that point on, nothing a promise-breaking MP says can be believed - a distasteful trait the memory of which also lingers far longer than the details of the act that confirmed it. Hardly a good basis for an MP to request support.

So this issue is not so much about the referendum itself anymore. It has become a matter of trust. And MPs who have appeared to hold trust - much more so than voters' concerns about any single issue - so cheaply are far more likely to pay a heavy price at the ballot box.

Last gasp

In this context, if Lib Dem peers block any chance for the party's MPs to redeem themselves, tomorrow's Lords vote could be the last event standing between the Lib Dems and meltdown at the next general election.

With a high proportion of the party's MPs in marginal seats, the Lords' actions will place over 30 of their parliamentary colleagues and the future leadership prospects of Nick Clegg firmly in the firing line.

The only way back from their predicament is for the party's MPs to be given a new opportunity to support the referendum that they promised at the last election.

So when they vote today, those peers must either vote for a referendum as the party promised at the last election, or at least vote in line with their party leader's policy and abstain.

Clegg's hypocrisy over weakness of Parliament

Writing in The Independent today, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg returns to the theme of the quality of our democratic system, in particular the weakness of Parliament to hold the government to account.

Clegg argues that Parliament has been 'castrated' and is virtually powerless to influence government decisions, pointing out that "in 11 years, there have been only three defeats for the Government in votes by MPs."

Talking of this being "the record of a system in crisis" in which "the legislature dances to the tune of the executive", Clegg laments "a spineless abdication of scrutiny and accountability at the heart of our Government."

"The mother of all Parliaments has become the eunuch of all Parliaments," he concludes.

Important themes indeed. And in many ways what he says is true. But coming from Nick Clegg, such complaints amount to massive hypocrisy.

Accountability squandered

A mere two months ago, Clegg had an opportunity to defeat a government plan to ditch their clear manifesto promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution - recently revived and re-named as the Lisbon Treaty.

By voting in Parliament in support of a referendum along with the Conservatives, and ensuring Parliament held the government to their manifesto promise, Clegg would also have been upholding an identical promise made at the last election by his own party.

So did he take this opportunity? No. In fact, he deliberately fluffed it.

Instructing his MPs to abtain at the crucial vote on the question of a referendum, he allowed the government to get away with it.

Despite apparently being concerned that voters are losing faith with a system that doesn't represent them, he didn't just fail to represent those who voted for his own party, but also those Labour voters whose expectations of a referendum were being thwarted by the government.

And now that the treaty has moved on to the House of Lords, Lib Dem peers are actually planning to vote with the government against the referendum that both parties promised.

Taking people for fools

So who does Nick Clegg now think he's fooling by rather tragically trying to re-invent himself and his party as a champion of Parliament and of holding the government to account?

One of the biggest problems afflicting faith in our democracy today arises from politicians imagining that people have no memory beyond what they happen to be saying that particular day.

Hypocrisy - taking people for fools - is fast becoming the norm, whether politicians are talking about post offices, NHS service closures or the EU. Just like The Independent in their accompanying report about Clegg's article, the national media seem almost too embarrassed to point out the increasingly glaring inconsistencies between the words and actions of our politicians.

Or if the media's problem is not embarrassment, then it is more serious - one of competence.

If actions really do speak louder than words, then far from being likely to offer a solution, Nick Clegg has so recently and so clearly shown himself to be one of the main causes of the problem.

Parties punished for broken referendum promise?

On the face of it, it's perhaps hard to imagine that the issue of the broken promise over an EU Constitution referendum can have made much of a contribution to Labour's terrible results in last Thursday's local elections.

Not with such powerful factors as mortgage problems, rising food and fuel prices, and the badly handled change over the 10p tax rate in play.

Those issues alone could easily explain Labour getting a hammering.

But that the betrayal of the referendum promise may have been a bigger influence on the results than many have imagined is perhaps shown in the fact that it wasn't just Labour doing badly.

Despite Labour's woes, and despite Nick Clegg's recent election as their new leader, the similarly anti-referendum Lib Dems' also had a terrible night.

Taking economic factors alone into the equation, that really shouldn't have happened.

The Lib Dems managed to pick up only 33 more councillors (compared to 257 for the Conservatives) and saw their share of the vote decline again.

According to BBC political editor Nick Robinson, it dropped 1% lower than last year and was 4% lower than 2004. That Labour did so badly that the Lib Dems edged up into 2nd place overall is really neither here nor there.

Lib Dem London disaster

Looking at the results in South London in particular, this situation must be a particular concern to several MPs at the very top of the party.

In the London assembly 'South West' constituency the Lib Dems were beaten into a not-even-close second place after the Tories.

Given this assembly constituency is chiefly made up of not a single Conservative parliamentary seat but three Lib Dem ones - in particular those of Lib Dem deputy leader and shadow chancellor Vince Cable, and shadow foreign secretary Ed Davey - these results must have created considerable concern among the party's leadership about their prospects at the next general election.

Neither was this an isolated result. Nextdoor in the 'Croydon & Sutton' London assembly constituency, comprising two Tory, one Labour and two Lib Dem parliamentary seats, the Lib Dems were beaten into third place.

DM campaigned heavily in South London

No coincidence, perhaps, that these constituencies were the subject of intense campaigning by the DM criticising Liberal Democrat MPs, and those of other parties, for intending to abandon their manifesto promises to support a referendum on the EU Constitution treaty.

More than 20,000 of our 'Don't let your MP take you for a fool' leaflets were distributed in Ed Davey's constituency alone, and the same number in Sutton & Cheam.

Ten thousand leaflets were distributed in several others, including Richmond Park and Carshalton & Wallington, complemented by local media advertising.

Parties should reflect on referendum gaffe

If the Lib Dems were hit by their behaviour over an EU treaty referendum, as seems a plausible explanation for their poor performance, then it would surely be a mistake to imagine that the issue had no effect on the Labour result.

Polls consistently showed than an overwhelming majority of people wanted the say they were promised on the treaty, and the arguments used to slide out of promises given were so threadbare it should have been embarrassing.

Beyond the details of the treaty, their actions made both Labour and the Lib Dems look shifty and untrustworthy. And that's never going to make for good election results.

While together they may have succeeded in pushing the treaty through the Commons, both Labour and the Lib Dems should reflect on whether these results show they in fact haven't yet got away with breaking that referendum promise.

And on whether, with the treaty still being ratified by Parliament, there's still time to honour their manifesto promises and prevent an even bigger disaster come the general election.

If not, we plan to be very busy in the most likely two years before that election, ensuring local voters know which MPs they can and cannot trust.

Nick Clegg's troubles deepen

The faltering start of new Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg seems to go from bad to worse.

It all began with a major loss of face over a referendum of the Lisbon Treaty, when nearly a quarter of his MPs defied his instructions to abstain on whether there should be a public vote, and three of his frontbenchers quit to join the rebellion.

A second slap in the face over the issue from his own party came when Lib Dem peers said they were going to ignore his troubled abstention policy and vote against a referendum when the matter comes to be debated in the Lords. A stance that apparently hasn't gone down at all well with those of their fellow party MPs trying to defend marginal seats.

A matter of days later, his much longed-for 'man of principle' image took another knock when he dodged a question tabled by a Spectator reader as to whether his position in favour of an in-out referendum on the EU (rather than one on the Lisbon Treaty) was going to be in the party's next election manifesto.

A reaction that seems to indicate that the allegedly "principled" policy has already been dropped, fuelling suspicions that it was only ever a lame ploy to get the Lib Dems out of their election promise to support a referendum on the renamed EU Constitution Treaty.

Facing accusations of a feeble first 100 days, next came Clegg's ill-judged claim that he had slept with "up to 30 women", during a discussion of his sexual history with GQ magazine.

And now, according to a report in the Independent on Sunday, it has emerged that after all his woes, poor Nikki Clegg may not be the real leader of the Lib Dems after all!

Hundreds of postal votes, arriving late due to the Christmas post, would apparently have meant Chris Huhne in fact won the race to succeed Menzies Campbell.

Mr Clegg beat his rival by just 511 votes out of more than 41,000 party members in one of the closest-run races in political history.

Yet as many as 1,300 postal votes arrived after the deadline of 15 December – and an unofficial check of the papers showed that Mr Huhne had enough of a majority among them to hand him victory.

Whatever next for 'Calamity Clegg'?