Could it be the party conference season?

Oh well, back to real life if you can call the matter of party conferences real. Last week we had the TUC blustering and threatening that they will do such things, what they are they know not but they shall be the terror of the earth (to misquote the great Bard of Avon).

Next week it's the Lib-Dims' turn and watching them roast Nick Clegg and other Ministers of the Crown might actually be fun. Then it is Labour and the Conservatives.

This week-end we had the Greens and UKIP, the latter of which produced its usual crop of angry speeches and may well produce some policies. We were certainly promised some but, at present, there is nothing new along those lines on the UKIP website.

But, right on cue, we have an interview with the Foreign Secretary, William Hague (in case you have forgotten his name) in which he tells us

that it would "certainly not [be] career suicide" to become linked to a new group that wants a shift in Britain's relationship with Europe.

So, all those Tory "eurosceptics" can breathe again. They will have their career in the party, after all. Well, maybe.

There was more to come:

Mr Hague suggested that Britain might do better by setting itself apart from the continent in the same way that it had done over the issue of the single currency.

"It's true of the euro, it could be true of more areas in future. In fact we may get ahead as a result of being outside," Mr Hague said.

He said the creation of the eurozone without closer tax and spending rules was "always a giant mistake" and it "would stand as a monument in time to how group–think can go so seriously away from what is realistic"

There is, readers might notice, a certain vagueness about that statement. Which areas? How will Britain set itself apart from the continent or, for that matter, the European Union? It is all a mystery.

On Monday a group of 80 new intake Tory MPs will meet to discuss what reforms they want.

Backbencher George Eustice, one of the group's conveners, said: "The aim of this new group is to promote debate about creating a new relationship with the EU and reversing the process of EU integration."

Mr Eustice has said that the eurozone crisis has given Britain the opportunity to press for change.

Mr Hague said members of the new group would be welcomed into his office any time.

Cosy isn't it? Another group is formed to ensure that the tiny move towards a sensible attitude towards Britain's membership of the EU (get out and negotiate new deals) are undermined and its members will always be welcomed in Mr Hague's office to chew the fat about what reforms are needed without ever bothering to find out how those reforms might be put into effect. (Hint: there is no way as the treaties do not allow it.)

Two things spring to mind: one is that the Conservatives do appear to be looking to a General Election earlier than 2015 and they have probably realized that they need the eurosceptic vote if they want to win. I have written about this before here and here among other postings.

The other notion that is playing in my mind, perhaps unworthily, is that Wee Willie Hague is looking to a future, which is not just post-Cameron but also post-Osborne with himself as the only possible leader.

I disagree

It's worse than you think. I disagree with the Boss over on EURef. David Cameron defending William Hague means only one thing to me: the man is a gonner. That's it. His position is "unassailable". Well, don't say we didn't warn you about Hague. Heh!

Yah-boo, I told you so

A kind reader of this blog suggested that I should blow my trumpet more. Other people say that I do too much of that already but they are clearly wrong. What this reader said is that I should remind everyone that I have been saying ever since William Hague was appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary that he would be a disaster. Well, yah-boo, told you so.

Easily pleased

Attendees of party conferences are like little children at a birthday party. As long as all the right words are said, they are happy. I shall fisk Hague's speech later on but, at present, I need to allude only to the same old rubbish courageous statement about the EU.

It seems that the EU "has many faults". No kidding. The party faithful were delighted by that extraordinarily courageous statement. Gosh, how brave. Shows that the coalition government and its Foreign Secretary will stand up for British interests. The fact that so far they have done nothing of the kind seems to have escaped their attention.

Then we got the usual verbiage about locking a referendum into place for any future major transfer of power.

The sovereignty clause will be inserted into the forthcoming EU bill, which will also provide a 'referendum lock' requiring a public vote before more powers are transferred from London to Brussels.

"A sovereignty clause on EU law will place on the statute book this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo," Mr Hague said, to applause.

"It will not alter the existing order in relation to EU law. But it will put the matter beyond speculation."

Indeed. Please pay attention. There will be no referendum on EU membership and all that has already been agreed on will be handed over without the slightest peep coming out of the Cleggeron Coalition and its benighted Foreign Secretary. Really worth applauding

This is what matters

As I have said before I am profoundly uninterested in William Hague's sexual orientation or interests; I have also said on numerous occasions that Mr Hague is likely to be the most disastrous Foreign Secretary for some time if not ever. The fact that the man has no ability to think his way through a perfectly simple situation does not inspire confidence. The best way of putting it is to say that he made a series of egregious errors of judgement. Another way of putting is to say that he has shown himself to be an arrogant idiot. This does not inspire one with confidence and has not gone unnoted in other countries.

However, let us set the unfortunate saga of Chris Myers aside. The reason I think William Hague should be pilloried is summed up in this article that was published in Europe's World. Undoubtedly it was written by some bod in the Foreign Office but Mr Hague put his name to it and no SpAd of his pointed out the problems with it.

The article is about the "UK's Tory-led government's" EU policy.

The EU is an institution of enormous importance to the United Kingdom and to British foreign policy. And although the Conservative Party has seldom shied away from frank criticism when we have thought the EU has collectively been getting things wrong, we have equally been the foremost champions of the EU’s greatest achievements – the single market and enlargement.

Yet, as is widely recognised, this is no time for the EU to rest on its laurels. Today, its member states need to work together on the new issues we face in the 21st century; combating climate change, fighting global poverty and securing our energy supplies.

Our common economic future poses a fundamental challenge. Europe’s share of the world’s GDP is set to shrink and the world does not owe us a living. With the rise of new economic powers in many industries, Europe has already lost its cost advantage. If we also lose our knowledge advantage our future could be very bleak. Herman Van Rompuy has accurately said, ‘we need more economic growth, now and in the future’ and has rightly identified competitiveness as a key issue.

And so on, and so on. Read the whole thing and remember that this is not simply for show. This is their policy. Here is another taster:

The UK's new Conservative-led government intends to play a leading role in discussion of the European Union's external affairs. While we conservatives have taken a particular view on the utility and purpose of the EU's institutional structures, we have always argued that it is in the common interests of the nations of Europe that we should use our collective weight in the world to mutual advantage and to promote our shared values. We have consistently argued that EU member states have not shown enough determination and consistency in delivering on foreign policy goals. This Conservative-led government will be a strong advocate of the European Union’s collective demonstration of those qualities.

The European Union needs to show unity and purpose in its relations with Russia, where a balanced and constructive partnership would be desirable. And the EU should also prove that we Europeans have the political will to deliver the appropriate response to the Iranian Government’s stance on nuclear proliferation.

The EU's new External Action Service is going to have considerable bearing on the future success of Europe's global role. It is true that we in the Conservative Party were not persuaded of the case for the new EEAS as a service, but its existence is now a fact. Part of our critique of the Lisbon treaty was that rather than making the EU more streamlined and efficient, its new arrangement of the EU’s structures held the potential for inter-institutional confusion and discord. Nevertheless, we now look to the smoothest possible establishment of a service that must play a positive role for the EU and have the confidence of its member states. Britain's Conservative government will work closely with the High Representative, whom we wish well.

Compared to that, the story of Chris Myers is highly unimportant.

Let me make something clear

Enough of fascinating discussions about detective stories; let us move on to more important matters such as the Foreign Secretary's escapade. Let me make it very clear that I, too, have heard the rumours about his sexuality and have been utterly uninterested in them. They are of little import compared to the many examples of his incompetence first as Shadow Foreign Secretary and now the real thing.

Readers of this blog are reasonably aware of the fact that I am not one of William Hague's admirers. (See here, here and here.) There are earlier postings on EUReferendum. Mr Hague has shown himself to be out of his depth from the moment he became Shadow Foreign Secretary: he has no understanding of the European Union, its structure or Britain's position in it; his one mantra seems to be the need to move away from the American alliance and to line up with all the anti-Israeli forces; he has no understanding of China or India or, for that matter, any other important player in the world; he is, therefore, as was clear from that speech of his, going to dance to the FCO's tune. How else is one to understand the need, as the first initiative, for "a joint taskforce with the United Arab Emirates as part of our efforts to elevate links with the countries of the Gulf". I sense the fine italianate hand of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office behind that as well as Mr Hague's ignorant though billed as tough pronouncements about Gaza.

No question about it, the man needs a Special Adviser (known affectionately as SpAd). He also needs a researcher, a good atlas and globe and time to read various papers produced by people who understand international affairs. The question is, does he need three SpAds? And is a twenty-five year old ex-driver with a second class degree from the University of Durham and no experience whatsoever a person who should be a SpAd in receipt of a handsome salary from the public purse?

According to the Guardian, the FCO thought it was a wonderful idea. Well they would, wouldn't they? After all, little Chris Myers was not going to interfere with their agenda.

A Foreign Office spokesperson also jumped to Myers's defence over suggestions that his second-class degree from Durham and relatively little experience in foreign affairs did not qualify him for the job. "Mr Myers has experience of parliamentary matters in the north, where William has done a lot of work in recent times. He is a qualified lawyer and is very close to the new Conservative MPs," she said.

"He is advising … on the UK's overseas territories, such as the Falklands, human rights, Africa, embassies, the UK Border Agency, and parliamentary relations."

That claim raised new questions as the suggestion that Myers was working on international affairs was at odds with an earlier justification Foreign Office sources gave for appointing a third adviser – that as first secretary of state Hague has additional responsibilities and needed additional support.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this whole messy story is about: the doubtful use of public money and hypocrisy from Mr Hague and his office. The proliferation of SpAds was one of the big sticks with which the Opposition used to bash, quite rightly, the Labour Government. A twenty-five year old young lady who had worked hard in the Foreign Secretary's constituency, had she been appointed to that position, would also have aroused a certain amount of interest.

The story is now over: Christopher Myers has gone and William Hague has made a tearful moving speech about his family life and the troubles he and Ffion have had in trying to have a baby. One's heart does go out to any couple who have had to go through several miscarriages. Of course, one hopes that eventually their attempts will be successful but the fact remains that, at the very least, Mr Hague has shown bad judgement over this unnecessary hullaballoo.

A quick note about Hague's speech

Early yesterday afternoon I telephoned the Boss and read out to him the following paragraph with some words elided from the Daily Telegraph:

The Foreign Secretary said relations with the EU were crucial and had been neglected under the previous [government].

Th[is government] has worked constructively with its European partners, surprising those who had expected a strongly Eurosceptic stance, he added.

OK, I asked gleefully, who said that? The Boss thought for a moment and said tentatively: John Major. No, I said even more gleefully, it was William Hague this morning. The full quote was:

The Foreign Secretary said relations with the EU were crucial and had been neglected under the previous 13 years of Labour rule.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has worked constructively with its European partners, surprising those who had expected a strongly Eurosceptic stance, he added.

He then told us how he was going to make Britain's role in the EU a success:

"It is mystifying to us that the previous government failed to give due weight to the exercise of British influence in the EU," Hague said in the speech.

"They neglected to ensure that sufficient numbers of bright British officials entered EU institutions, and so we now face a generation gap developing in the British presence in parts of the EU," he said.

The number of British officials at director level in the EU Commission had fallen by a third since 2007 and Britain was sharply under-represented at junior official level, he said. "We are determined to put this right," he said.

That is it, ladies and gentlemen. We shall have more British eurocrats and all our problems will just simply roll away.

Can anyone tell me why I might be wrong when I maintain that this man is going to be the most disastrous Foreign Secretary for a long time?

Wrong in one prediction

It seems that I underestimated David Cameron, the Boy-King of the Conservative Party. I did not underestimate his inability to win popular support for his party nor his hunger for office (as power he most certainly will not have) but I did underestimate his and, if it comes to that, Nick Clegg's, fear of their separate backbenchers and of the electorate. Forming a minority government would have been the honourable thing to do but also the riskier one and the outcome might have been a speedy election and a possible exit from Number 10. Up with this the Boy-King could not put. Hence this rather sordid little charade and the sight of the two best buddies, until recently worst enemies, smiling and waving to each other, pumping each other's hands and looking frighteningly similar.

For a couple of days we had the media drooling over the new coalition of losers for that is what they are. Let us recap: David Cameron led his party into an election that they could not lose: end of a third term of a highly unpopular government; a severe economic crisis caused to some extent by said government and its long-standing past Chancellor of the Exchequer, later Prime Minister; a dysfunctional set of Ministers many of whom had been caught out in financial shenanigans. What more could the Conservatives want? Yet they lost. Not getting that majority was a defeat.

Nick Clegg and the Lib-Dims received more hype and publicity in this election campaign than they had ever done in their relatively short existence (nobody is going to tell me that this bunch of statists are the descendants of the great Liberal Party of the nineteenth and early twentieth century). They were going to change the face of British politics, they were going to beat Labour into third place if not complete oblivion, they were going to form the government. Well, the last of those turned out to be true but in a very different way from what had been predicted.

For, sadly, the Lib-Dims increased their share of the vote by a measly 1 per cent, lost five seats, did not take several seats they were confidently expected to do and did very badly in the local elections (not that it makes any difference). Their reward: places in the Cabinet and the Deputy Premiership for their incompetent leader.

While Gordon Brown was legitimately the Prime Minister - the chosen leader of the party that had won three elections - precisely who elected Nick Clegg to be the Deputy Prime Minister?

Reading some of the newspaper reports one would think that the coalition, which emerged from a week's sordid negotiations was the greatest thing that happened in British politics since the sitting of the first reformed Parliament or William Pitt's announcement in the House that there had been a British naval victory at Trafalgar.

All is changing, though. The serpent has appeared in the Garden of the ConLib Eden - the backbenchers are unhappy. It seems that far from thinking of the country's welfare or returning power to Parliament, as promised, or restoring trust in politics the new government's first proposal has to do with the preservation of its own position.

Naturally, Labour politicians are protesting but, apparently, so are some Conservative MPs. The constitutional expert, Professor Peter Hennessy

told the BBC the new rules “created a very poor impression for the new politics”. He added: “This is not the new politics, it looks as if it is very, very iffy politics indeed ... It looks all wrong.”

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.

This is all about the proposal that a vote of no confidence in the government should in future require 55 per cent of MPs voting for it instead of the traditional 50 per cent plus 1. This was proposed as a rule almost immediately but, it seems, the government has now more or less accepted that there will have to be legislation about it. At least, I think they accepted it.

This issue is a little more serious than it sounds. Votes of no confidence is one of the few remaining powers the House of Commons has over the government. Hard to use when there is a large majority it could be utilized to great effect in a hung parliament. So the first thing this government did after being cobbled together is to announce its intention to weaken that power even further. What we have here, in other words, is our old friend an executive power grab.

Do I hear the words "coup" or "unelected"? No, I do not, at least not from all those activists and self-appointed analysts who screeched about Gordon Brown being unelected (which was not true) or him planning some grant constitutional coup (which he apparently was not).

(Dear me, this is really disturbing. I seem to be defending Gordon Brown. That is what this blog has been reduced to by the ConLib shenanigans.)

William Hague's response to the criticism shows that whatever knowledge of politics he ever possessed was used up in the two biographies he published, of the younger Pitt and Wilberforce.

William Hague defended the move. He said: “Once you agree that there should be a fixed-term parliament, it is only fixed-term if there is some provision to really give it credibility to make it hard to dissolve parliament.”

Has anyone agreed that there should be a fixed-term parliament? One cannot even argue that the electorate voted for it as it was not part of the main parties' manifesto or electoral campaign. Even if one did argue it, something of this kind cannot just be announced by a government - legislation is needed and it needs to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. It seems that in this session we shall once again have to rely on the House of Lords to protect our constitution and the few remaining parliamentary liberties.

Are they all in this charade?

No way am I going to write about the Sarkozys' personal life. Or lives. Who cares? However, this story, sent to me by a blog reader is off interest. According to the Guardian President Sarkozy intends to warn the Boy-King of the Conservative Party about European defence. Yes, indeed, I hear you: what European defence? If NATO does collapse, thanks to the EU's shenanigans, we shall be left with precious little defence so let us hope nobody takes offence at us.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is to deliver a firm warning to David Cameron that the Conservatives risk forfeiting vital French co-operation on energy, defence and the economy if they refuse to engage over the future of Europe.

In an attempt to lure the Conservatives into a friendlier stance, Sarkozy may be willing to offer concessions over the future of the European defence agency, seen by the party as the incubator for a future European defence force.

Sarkozy is due to meet Cameron on Friday after a working lunch with Gordon Brown in Downing Street. Sarkozy has developed close relations with Brown.

The EDA was set up in 2004 to develop European military capability and armament co-operation.

On the subject of the EDA and its surreptitious activity the best person to read is the Boss on EUReferendum. He has written a great deal and there is no need for me to copy any of it.

There are, however, other issues here. In the first place, it is of interest that President Sarkozy thinks it is his job to dictate policy to the possible next government of the United Kingdom. But then, the truth is that it is his job. He is part of this country's government as are all the other 25 members of the European Council. So David Cameron had better listen.

A more interesting question is why does President Sarkozy think it is necessary to warn the Conservatives. Surely he does not think that they are about to turn eurosceptic or try to work for Britain's interests or, even, offer a referendum on anything to do with that noxious organization, the European Union. He obviously has not been in communication with the Shadow Foreign Secretary (and who can blame him for that) who said the following (the Guardian leads on the report and the article gets some incredibly stupid and ignorant responses but then what can you expect from Guardianistas):

The fourth theme of Conservative Foreign policy is the effective reform, use and development of international institutions and here we must start in our immediate neighbourhood.

The European Union is obviously an institution of enormous importance to the United Kingdom and its foreign policy. The Conservative Party has seldom shied away from frank criticism when we have thought the EU collectively has been getting things wrong but we have equally been the foremost champions of the EU's greatest achievements: the Single Market and enlargement.

If we win the coming general election, it is our firm intention that a Conservative government will be active and activist in the European Union from day one, energetically engaging with our partners. We will be highly active in furthering the Single Market, in promoting European co-operation on the environment and climate change, on energy security, on pressing for freer and fairer global trade that will benefit not just the peoples of Europe but the world's poorest who have not enjoyed the gains of globalisation.

We will uphold our conviction that the widening of the European Union, including to Turkey, is in Europe's collective interest.

The EU's future 2020 strategy on jobs and growth will, if we get it right, have an important contribution to enhancing Europe's competitiveness. The European Conservatives and Reformists Group's submission on the Strategy is a valuable contribution to the debate.

You have to scroll a fair way down in the speech to find this, so it is interesting that the Guardian picked up on that. Presumably they want more votes to go to UKIP.

The point is that it is all the same old blah: co-operation, heart of Europe, reform from within, blah, blah. At the same time, Mr Hague's earlier comments about Britain's relationship with other countries such as the United States, Australia, Russia and China (to pick some at random, which he seems to have done) indicate that he still does not understand what being in the European Union is all about. Well, let us hope, President Sarkozy can set him right.

Well, yes, and?

Maybe I ought to have written a bit more about the rather unexciting series about “Europe” in the Daily Telegraph but I could not quite bring myself to do so. The Boss over on EUReferendum has torn into them in his usual fashion and I cannot do any better.

However, I am going to take a brief look at two items in today’s newspaper as they round up the series. First off: Benedict Brogan on William Hague. I think we can dismiss the notion that a series of not very informative articles constitute a “landmark” in journalistic achievement but what is interesting is that even Mr Brogan is finding it hard to accept the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s attempts at being tough.

The shadow foreign secretary is in table-thumping, "read my lips" mood about Conservative policy on the Lisbon Treaty: there will be a referendum.

Hang on. That should read: there will be a referendum, but only if the treaty is not ratified by all 26 other European countries before the general election. If, however, the treaty has been approved before polling day, then… you will just have to wait and see what happens.

Quite so. The Constitutional Lisbon Treaty has not been ratified in Ireland, the Czech Republic, Poland or Germany (something both Mr Hague and Mr Brogan seem to have forgotten) but if all these hurdles have been overcome by the time of the election, the Conservatives will issue a tough statement telling us all what they intend to do.

That may mean the statement is being drafted as Mr Hague insists or it may mean “oh my God, now what do we do”.

The idea that the question of a referendum on the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is the same as that piddling arrangement of groups in the Toy Parliament is ridiculous. In the end, it does not matter to anyone, least of all the EU, who sits in which group. The Toy Parliament is not there to fulfil the functions we usually associate with bodies called that but to help the Commission and the Council to push through legislation that does not depend on elections or political parties.

In fact, the whole interview seems to consist of Mr Hague making extremely tough, hard-hitting statements that are completely meaningless. The Conservatives will not put up with this, that or the other. And they will do what? Mr Hague takes on the mantle of King Lear:

I will do such things,--
What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be
The terrors of the earth.

And that, dear readers, is the sum of Conservative policy on “Europe” or, to be entirely accurate, the European Union.

One assumes that Messrs Hague and Cameron are praying for a no vote in Ireland, not because they really want to stop that treaty – they don’t appear to know what is involved – but because that might let them off the hook.

The chances are that if there is a no vote next Saturday, the colleagues will decide to take this particular document off the agenda, push through whatever they can on the quiet, and have another “dialogue” with the recalcitrant people of Europe before calling another IGC and discussing another treaty. That, of course, will not be very convenient for Mr Cameron, should he become Prime Minister next May but, at least, it will give him a breather as far as the referendum is concerned.

As far as the rest of the “European issue” is concerned, Messrs Hague and Cameron appear to be no different from their various predecessors. Every Prime Minister, be that Major, Blair or Brown, came in thinking that they knew how to handle the whole problem and all one had to do is be nice and friendly to the colleagues to get what one wants, whatever that might be. Since none of them knew what they wanted or how the whole structure works, they all failed. The same fate will befall Mr Cameron, assuming he is the Prime Minister.

Of course, there is the other possibility, that of Ireland voting yes. There is still the Czech Constitutional Court and the Karlsruhe decision in Germany that means some hasty legislation in Germany. Thus the treaty may not be fully ratified across the EU by May. In which case, the first few months of the Conservative government (if there is one) will be taken up by legislation for a referendum, campaign and vote.

The assumption must be that there will be a no vote on the treaty in Britain. What will Mr Cameron do then? Go to Rome, retrieve the Instruments and tear them up? Demand a new IGC (that is not in his power to call) and renegotiate the whole document? What will he offer to the other member states in return for whatever it is he wants for Britain? Does he even know what it is he does not like about that treaty and how much of it is already in place in the Consolidated Treaties by which this country is governed?

It is no use to the Daily Telegraph complacent and self-congratulatory editorial for guidance. The point of the article is that our opinion has not been asked about Europe (and, to be fair, they do explain why they use that rather vague term instead of the real one). But what is it that our opinion should be asked on? The Constitutional Lisbon Treaty? Well, fair enough but if we vote no, will that change anything about the way the EU is structured and the way it is developing? Probably not even though we would have given our opinion.

So is the Daily Telegraph suggesting an in/out referendum? That is not clear but what becomes obvious at the end of the article is that whoever wrote it has no real understanding of the European project.

Indeed, one of the reasons for running this series has been to do what our political parties hardly ever do themselves: consider the workings of the EU machine and the problems that confront it. We have been reminded that the EU's origins lay in the rubble of the Second World War and in a laudable desire to develop an association in which free people could trade and thrive together after centuries of political tensions and catastrophic warfare.

But the EU has become a vast, bureaucratic, unaccountable empire whose remit runs way beyond policing the common market. Its policies are made in secret, then insufficiently scrutinised in Brussels or national capitals. Yet its directives and regulations affect the lives of half a billion people. It is time we were asked what we think about it.

This is known technically as utter rubbish. The idea of the European state did not originate in the rubble of the Second World War though that rubble has been quite useful as a propaganda tool. It was never intended to be anything but an undemocratic, vast, bureaucratic and unaccountable though definitions of empire vary. Its progenitors were people who disliked democracy, were not keen on liberal constitutionalism and despised accountable legislation.

So what is it the Daily Telegraph thinks we should be asked about?