This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/18/david-cameron-control-geoffrey-howe

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
This is a new, farcical low and David Cameron is losing control This is a new, farcical low and David Cameron is losing control
(4 months later)
Unfortunately, last week's events in the House of Commons have brought the debate on Europe within the Conservative party to a new, almost farcical, low. Having previously opposed the introduction of legislation in this parliament to hold a referendum in the next one, the prime minister suddenly allowed a free vote among backbenchers, with the government abstaining, on the extraordinary basis that the party had no policy on the issue.Unfortunately, last week's events in the House of Commons have brought the debate on Europe within the Conservative party to a new, almost farcical, low. Having previously opposed the introduction of legislation in this parliament to hold a referendum in the next one, the prime minister suddenly allowed a free vote among backbenchers, with the government abstaining, on the extraordinary basis that the party had no policy on the issue.
Then, once more than 100 backbenchers had voted for such a referendum, he insisted that all Tory MPs, whatever their view, should from now on support the proposal, on a three-line whip, whereas only the day before they could take any position they chose. This saga looks more like the politics of the French Fourth Republic than the serious practice of government and it is especially disappointing and damaging on such an important issue – the place of Britain in Europe and the world.Then, once more than 100 backbenchers had voted for such a referendum, he insisted that all Tory MPs, whatever their view, should from now on support the proposal, on a three-line whip, whereas only the day before they could take any position they chose. This saga looks more like the politics of the French Fourth Republic than the serious practice of government and it is especially disappointing and damaging on such an important issue – the place of Britain in Europe and the world.
Sadly, by making it clear in January that he opposes the current terms of UK membership of the EU, the prime minister has opened a Pandora's box politically and seems to be losing control of his party in the process. The ratchet-effect of Euroscepticism has now gone so far that the Conservative leadership is in effect running scared of its own backbenchers, let alone Ukip, having allowed deep anti-Europeanism to infect the very soul of the party. The risk now is that, if it loses the next general election – a far from negligible possibility – the Conservative party will move to a position of simply opposing Britain's continued membership, with or without a referendum.Sadly, by making it clear in January that he opposes the current terms of UK membership of the EU, the prime minister has opened a Pandora's box politically and seems to be losing control of his party in the process. The ratchet-effect of Euroscepticism has now gone so far that the Conservative leadership is in effect running scared of its own backbenchers, let alone Ukip, having allowed deep anti-Europeanism to infect the very soul of the party. The risk now is that, if it loses the next general election – a far from negligible possibility – the Conservative party will move to a position of simply opposing Britain's continued membership, with or without a referendum.
Archimedes said: "Give me a place on which to stand and lever long enough, and I will move the world." British foreign policy should be about maximising and exploiting the levers we possess – whether through Europe, the transatlantic relationship or the Commonwealth – not breaking them or throwing them away.Archimedes said: "Give me a place on which to stand and lever long enough, and I will move the world." British foreign policy should be about maximising and exploiting the levers we possess – whether through Europe, the transatlantic relationship or the Commonwealth – not breaking them or throwing them away.
In this context, I have yet to meet any significant western political figure from beyond our shores who can understand why Britain would even contemplate leaving the European Union, which is now a key point of leverage for this country in the modern world.In this context, I have yet to meet any significant western political figure from beyond our shores who can understand why Britain would even contemplate leaving the European Union, which is now a key point of leverage for this country in the modern world.
In Washington, Tokyo, Beijing, New Delhi or Moscow, let alone in all other EU national capitals, it seems obvious that the UK needs the union as the platform and vehicle by which to influence events and policy in many spheres. Nowadays, with the possible exception of Germany, a country such as Britain, boasting about 1% of the world's population and 3% of the world's GDP, is unlikely to be able to hold anything like the position of power to which we continue to aspire, unless this is firmly anchored in a strong alliances and, ideally, a credible regional framework. With the decline of Nato, the only such framework available, unless we seek to join the United States, is basically the European Union.In Washington, Tokyo, Beijing, New Delhi or Moscow, let alone in all other EU national capitals, it seems obvious that the UK needs the union as the platform and vehicle by which to influence events and policy in many spheres. Nowadays, with the possible exception of Germany, a country such as Britain, boasting about 1% of the world's population and 3% of the world's GDP, is unlikely to be able to hold anything like the position of power to which we continue to aspire, unless this is firmly anchored in a strong alliances and, ideally, a credible regional framework. With the decline of Nato, the only such framework available, unless we seek to join the United States, is basically the European Union.
The Americans have always wanted Britain to play a leadership role in a united Europe – from the early 1950s through to today. It has been a constant of US foreign policy that any "special relationship" is not based on nostalgia or some mystical solidarity among the "English-speaking peoples", but on a realpolitik assessment of our capacity to help shape our continent in a modern, outward-looking direction.The Americans have always wanted Britain to play a leadership role in a united Europe – from the early 1950s through to today. It has been a constant of US foreign policy that any "special relationship" is not based on nostalgia or some mystical solidarity among the "English-speaking peoples", but on a realpolitik assessment of our capacity to help shape our continent in a modern, outward-looking direction.
Half a century ago, in making Britain's first application, Harold Macmillan understood this very well. He wrote: "If we remain outside the European Community, it seems to me inevitable that the realities of power would compel our American friends to attach increasing weight to the views and interests of the six in Europe, with others who may join them, and to pay less attention to our own. We would find the United States and the community concerting policy together on major issues, with much less incentive than now to secure our agreement or even consult our opinion. To lose influence both in Europe and Washington, as this must mean, would seriously undermine our international position and hence, one must add, our usefulness to the Commonwealth."Half a century ago, in making Britain's first application, Harold Macmillan understood this very well. He wrote: "If we remain outside the European Community, it seems to me inevitable that the realities of power would compel our American friends to attach increasing weight to the views and interests of the six in Europe, with others who may join them, and to pay less attention to our own. We would find the United States and the community concerting policy together on major issues, with much less incentive than now to secure our agreement or even consult our opinion. To lose influence both in Europe and Washington, as this must mean, would seriously undermine our international position and hence, one must add, our usefulness to the Commonwealth."
Every one of Macmillan's words remains as true and powerful today as in 1962 – except that, first, the six are now the 27; and second, Britain is a much lesser force in world affairs, making the problem he describes more acute.Every one of Macmillan's words remains as true and powerful today as in 1962 – except that, first, the six are now the 27; and second, Britain is a much lesser force in world affairs, making the problem he describes more acute.
Last week, President Obama called Britain's membership an "expression of the UK's influence and role in the world". Leaving the union would, by contrast, in my view, be a tragic expression of our shrinking influence and role in the world – and the humbling of our ambitions, already sorely tested by the current crisis, to remain a serious political or economic player on the global stage.Last week, President Obama called Britain's membership an "expression of the UK's influence and role in the world". Leaving the union would, by contrast, in my view, be a tragic expression of our shrinking influence and role in the world – and the humbling of our ambitions, already sorely tested by the current crisis, to remain a serious political or economic player on the global stage.
Earlier this year, Obama made it clear that America wants "a strong United Kingdom in a strong European Union", not a weak or isolated UK outside a broken-backed EU. Ironically, his words echoed the "Strong Britain in a Strong Europe" manifesto slogan on which the Conservatives fought the 1994 European elections. Almost two decades later, the Conservative party now needs a US president to tell it what it once had the confidence to proclaim as common sense itself.Earlier this year, Obama made it clear that America wants "a strong United Kingdom in a strong European Union", not a weak or isolated UK outside a broken-backed EU. Ironically, his words echoed the "Strong Britain in a Strong Europe" manifesto slogan on which the Conservatives fought the 1994 European elections. Almost two decades later, the Conservative party now needs a US president to tell it what it once had the confidence to proclaim as common sense itself.
Another irony was that the prime minister's main business in Washington was to discuss the launch of negotiations for an EU-US free-trade agreement and single market, officially known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It is the EU, not the member states individually, which will negotiate TTIP. If successful, it will create the largest single open economic area in the world, even bigger than Europe's existing single market, and help us set global standards in a world where neither Europe nor even America has that leverage on its own. Where would the UK fit into this, as an independent island, stranded between markets of 450 million and 300 million apiece? Outside the EU, we would have to accept the terms of whatever deal Washington and Brussels decide, with us enjoying no meaningful influence on either side.Another irony was that the prime minister's main business in Washington was to discuss the launch of negotiations for an EU-US free-trade agreement and single market, officially known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It is the EU, not the member states individually, which will negotiate TTIP. If successful, it will create the largest single open economic area in the world, even bigger than Europe's existing single market, and help us set global standards in a world where neither Europe nor even America has that leverage on its own. Where would the UK fit into this, as an independent island, stranded between markets of 450 million and 300 million apiece? Outside the EU, we would have to accept the terms of whatever deal Washington and Brussels decide, with us enjoying no meaningful influence on either side.
This pattern would be repeated across the board internationally. Outside the EU, Britain would have to renegotiate hundreds of existing EU trade, investment and aid deals with countries all around. I find it difficult to imagine the Japanese, South Koreans or Brazilians queuing up to give us a better deal than 26 (soon 27) other European countries, including Germany, can extract as a bloc.This pattern would be repeated across the board internationally. Outside the EU, Britain would have to renegotiate hundreds of existing EU trade, investment and aid deals with countries all around. I find it difficult to imagine the Japanese, South Koreans or Brazilians queuing up to give us a better deal than 26 (soon 27) other European countries, including Germany, can extract as a bloc.
Creating and completing the European single market of 500 million consumers – a major British objective – has already brought significant benefits, too often ignored. They include greater competition, lower prices and a wider choice for consumers. If we push for further progress in liberalising services or digital commerce, these gains can be built on, with British firms well placed to take advantage of the opportunities that result. Much of our inward investment also depends on easy access to the £11tn EU economy. Does anyone think that the UK's revival as a car manufacturing nation is based on the appeal of the British market alone to foreign investors?Creating and completing the European single market of 500 million consumers – a major British objective – has already brought significant benefits, too often ignored. They include greater competition, lower prices and a wider choice for consumers. If we push for further progress in liberalising services or digital commerce, these gains can be built on, with British firms well placed to take advantage of the opportunities that result. Much of our inward investment also depends on easy access to the £11tn EU economy. Does anyone think that the UK's revival as a car manufacturing nation is based on the appeal of the British market alone to foreign investors?
Last week has shown that the Conservative party's long, nervous breakdown over Europe continues and what is essentially a Tory problem is now, once again, becoming a national problem. Serious mistakes have been made, but the situation is not irretrievable.Last week has shown that the Conservative party's long, nervous breakdown over Europe continues and what is essentially a Tory problem is now, once again, becoming a national problem. Serious mistakes have been made, but the situation is not irretrievable.
What is needed is a mixture of clear thinking, strong leadership and an overriding concern for the national interest, not party management or advantage. If the Conservative party is losing its head, a heavy responsibility now rests with Labour and the Liberal Democrats to hold their nerve. In the complex and interdependent world we inhabit today, to walk away from the European Union into the unknown would be a very dangerous choice indeed.What is needed is a mixture of clear thinking, strong leadership and an overriding concern for the national interest, not party management or advantage. If the Conservative party is losing its head, a heavy responsibility now rests with Labour and the Liberal Democrats to hold their nerve. In the complex and interdependent world we inhabit today, to walk away from the European Union into the unknown would be a very dangerous choice indeed.
Lord Howe was chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary and deputy prime minister during the government of Margaret ThatcherLord Howe was chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary and deputy prime minister during the government of Margaret Thatcher
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.