Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts

Monday, 22 February 2016

My wager on the Brexit referendum

With the announcement that the UK is to hold a referendum all the political parties are drawing up lines.

The Liberal Democrats are united as part of the IN choice and will be joined (eclipsed) by elements from the Tories and Labour against UKIP, George Galloway and elements of Labour and the Tories.

For me it is a no brainer and the EU membership offers vast opportunities if we led and tried to reform it rather than follow the UKIP line of voting "No" to everything if they turn up at all. Also with my belief structure a united Europe with a strong Germany at the heart is always an appealing notion!

Any way I won't try and sway your vote (just yet) as this isn't today's scope.

My big question is why are we IN parties going to bother? Brexit will win hands down.

I caught a few minutes of Murnighan earlier and someone was comparing the two line ups and suggested the Out camp needed to work on their image and that got me thinking....

Yes, George Galloway (possibly the most hated person in British politics by politicians) is a liability, yes there will be infighting by Tories and Labour unhappy with being on the same platform and then there is the UKIP scion which no one wants to openly admit working with.

Ultimately though their disunity and infighting will not damage their campaign at all as the vote is all about the issue not how they go about it.

For years the British press has been filling their headlines with stories of Europe with not all of them true, after all stories of the EU investing in community projects, forming international police task forces to combat major crimes or getting rid of those pesky data roaming fees just doesn't sell papers as blowing up little stories into chaos.

In the last fifteen years I've seen British sovereignty under threat more times than in the fifty preceding years. We've had X million Poles, X million Romanians, X many Hungarians and now a wave of countless ISIL terrorists are coming via Greece and Turkey disguised as refugees all granted citizenship by Germany and allowed to come here to steal our jobs and benefits! The EU have attacked our Chocolate, our bananas need straightening, our laws, our way of life and their courts (which are separate to the EU) have over ridden the decisions of our judges on our crimes etc... Bastards.

Brexit is seen as the only way to stop these countless waves and raise the drawbridge guaranteeing British people their money and jobs for hard working Britons (Though I look forward to the waves of former unemployed fruit picking or manning the grills at MacDonald's), make Britain Great again and restore sovereignty to the country before returning it to its former glory.

There is such a web of half and untruths to fight through and deep seated fears that ultimately the "In" campaign have a veritable mountain to climb and the victory we're all smugly thinking isn't as achievable as we think (though I pray that it will be) and come the end of June we'll be saying good-bye to our European buds and isolating ourselves further.

This is all before you say "The Lib-" (usually when doors close or interest is lost). Farrage still has a lot of support from grass roots who think he can do no wrong.

I fear that it is so unachievable that I'm close to asking why bother? It isn't like the plucky Rebellion vs. the Empire with its Death Star - it's the same number of fighters vs five a Death Stars and a fleet of Stardestroyers... 

So confident am I in my defeatist prediction that I will make this wager - *if* the UK votes to stay In I will put in the Acknowledgments of my next book; "Thanks to Nigel & George for pulling a Porkins" 

Come on Britain... It's worth voting "In" for that!

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

Labour must think you're all stupid




This kind of thing really grinds my gears.
Those of you who know me or are regular readers of this blog will know that I'm, somewhat naively, a fan of good Democracy and the democratic process. So it will come as no surprise why my gears are so well and truly ground.

Also before I start I should say this is not aimed at hard working Labour activists, councillors or MPs but the party machine and those who use the following technique on the doorstep - you know who you are!


Unless you have been living in a cave for the last few months you'll know there is an election on Thursday for some local authorities (not Medway) and more importantly the European Parliament. 

The LibDems (at least on a local level) have been campaigning for the merits of the EU over Grand Isolation which UKIP seem to espousing. National politics has not been used unless brought up by the voter.

This election is not about the cuts.

This election is not about Tuition fees.

This election is not about the Coalition.

This election is not about Nick Clegg or David Cameron.

So imagine my confusion when I saw a tweet with ten reasons to vote Labour on Thursday. (here) with a link to the Labour page with Ed's pledges for what Labour would do if they won the next election. 



Clearly it would be argued that this meant the General election next year and it is a mere coincidence that this list has appeared now at this election.

Can this behaviour be just attributed to a small dirty tricks brigade? 

Well, no.

I've seen a lot of tweets locally about the toxic nature of Clegg and it makes me wonder how much campaigning on Europe vs. National policy there has been but that is just supposition.

Who sent the original tweet? Was it an activist trying to cause confusion? It was some guy called Iain McNicol - the General secretary of the Labour party - surely he would think he knew what elections were taking place on Thursday?

This is not the first time that this has happened either, indeed shadow minister Chuka Umunna tweeted (back in may 2012 here)
Cameron is running a heartless and hopeless government #voteLabour today for growth, jobs and to relive the squeeze on you and your family.

Which was interesting as it was Local and mayoral elections with no impact on Westminster what so ever!

It is little wonder that candidates are secretly venting their frustration at Ed et al. Local PPC and Councillor, Tristan Osborne was unfortunate to get caught on tape out lining his concerns with leadership etc.

It is telling that a PPC selected for one of the top 101 target seats against a formidable and capable Tory MP (Tracey Crouch) is showing these sort of concerns.

 You can view the article here

How can they appeal to the average voter if they can't even tell the truth about what the election on Thursday is for? Or have any policies on Europe? 

If I cannot trust them on these two fundamentals how can I trust them with pledges or my taxes?

Sunday, 6 April 2014

Nick should not have gone against Nigel

Yesterday I renewed my Libdem membership again. I still have mixed feelings about some things but I do believe that we have a good record in Government and have achieved some great things that have benefited many working families like mine.

I also have mixed feelings about Nick as leader. Sometimes I find myself in despair of the things that we have signed up to and think that Nick should show more backbone and stand up for what he/we believe in but then I see him speak at conference, the news or listen to Call Clegg and I'm immediately back on side, there is definitely something charismatic and down to earth about Nick when he talks unlike the seemingly out of touch Etonian Cameron (A bit harsh I know but the way he is portrayed) and the tainted Ed Miliband whose role in the Brown regime has been white washed over but not forgotten. There is a new guy on the scene and he is dangerous, it is Nigel Farage.

I don't agree with Nigel or his party on a lot of things and I think some of their reported views are dangerous for society and this country. I fear the demonising of immigrants can lead to all kinds problems and stoke fires, fires that like minded people in the BNP would enjoy starting. The problem is UKIP is a lot more mainstream.

When you hear BNP you are immediately reviled and even though some might agree that Europe is a problem and there is an open door for "Johnny Foreigner" coming into the country deep down you know that they are racist with links to street mobs. UKIP is a similar sounding voice but is more rational. Instead of saying Get the foreigners out it is saying that immigration is a problem that needs to dealing with. Same point, different approach.

Farage's appeal to the average bod on the street is that he is pointing out all the things that we know are problems. The EU has mass problems with the way it is run and is far from perfect, the people of this country need a referendum to finally put this issue to bed one way or the other, immigration has been a concern for almost a decade and none of the big three parties have successfully dealt with it. The people of this country have been bombarded by lies and exaggeration about the European Union by newspapers like the Express and Mail for decades including the infamous "Your Bananas are to curved" story. He comes over as a man of the people seemingly speaking the views of the majority or indeed ideas that they can get behind or understand from the media - much in the same way that Nick did back in 2010 before he seemingly sold his soul to Cameron (again as portrayed in the media.).

With Nick's record and the accusations of pledge breaking and being under hand he will never win when it comes to arguing with Farage over how many laws are made for this Country in Brussels. The nation fears the worse and who are they going to believe?

Is it the guy who is seemingly confirming your worse fears and the stuff you sorta knew already from what you read in the papers or the guy who broke his pledge to the Students and who got the Tories into power bringing us fraking, bedroom tax, cuts and job losses through the Public sector? Nick can twist and turn with Farage and present facts but you cannot argue with the image of a man who is portrayed as talking sense and of the people when you yourself are considered a career politician who hasn't had a real job and is considered to be fast and lose with the truth.

What makes it worse is that if you hit the Twitterverse you see fellow Libdems saying; Didn't Nick do well? Didn't Farage look awful and like a zealot?

This is true, I thought he looked out of his depth and struggling in the face of the facts that Nick was presenting and playing down the alarmist stories and suggestions of a new City the size of Manchester being needed by 2019 (that is approximately homes for 502,900 (in the city and metropolitan area in 2011) people from Europe according to the accusation). The polls don't lie though, people are more inclined to believe Nigel with him coming out on top both times.
He has confessed he doesn't want power merely to bring the people of the UK to a vote and that is attracting so much support for common people who feel they should have a say, a say their parents and Grandparents never got in the 70s.

I should reiterate that I do agree with Nick on Europe and that we are better off in and working to reform from within rather than being powerless and sitting on the fence complaining about it. I also dislike Farage, I personally don't trust him and disagree with a lot of what his party says about things and believe that a lot of what they are doing is scare mongering and stoking fears to achieve their own political machinations.

I also think that although to some extent the debate was needed and it was good to see the differing opinions, it was also a bad idea. It has given far too much air time to a man who represents a party that has members with somewhat out dated (at best) and dangerous (as extreme) views about things and society in this country, a party that has at last count - zero MPs in parliament. He should not have been indulged on National Television and radio like this. A lot more people will have been attracted to his cause or party based on his performances rather than actual belief's and politics.

I also think Nick was wrong to go on personally. Like I said, I have a lot of time and admiration for Nick and he was one of my main inspirations and indeed role models for getting into politics and joining the party but his public image is not a good one. There was a reason (albeit petty) that Ed Miliband would not share a platform with Nick on equal marriage, he has become a political pariah and is considered almost a bogey man, a living embodiment of a man who has sold out his morals and beliefs for a ministerial car and office - which I still believe is untrue, mostly, depending on the day. The public believe the worse and that has come out of these polls leaving Farage all the more stronger.

We've even had people on the doorstep in Gillingham (thankfully in a Labour street!!!) telling us they are going to vote UKIP in 2015 because they're tired of the other parties and that Farage talks a lot of sense!!!!

All I cling to is that with declining numbers of people turning out to vote means hopefully less votes for UKIP - or they divide the Tory vote allowing more Libdems on Medway Council!

Friday, 4 April 2014

Campaigning for Europe in Gillingham

Catherine Bearder on the Streets of Gillingham
Last Saturday the Medway Liberal Democrats hit the streets of Gillingham - but this was not an average street canvassing or leafleting it was a special occasion.

The upcoming elections for the European Parliament are exceptionally important and as we are the only party of In and in full support of Europe we had to hit the streets and talk about the excellent work the party have achieved but we weren't doing it alone.

Standing with local party stalwarts like Councillor Diana Smith and Councillor Geoff Juby as well as regular activists and newbies was current standing MEP Catherine Bearder and candidate Antony Hook.

Whilst Nick Clegg has been standing up to Nigel Farage and the generalisations and lies about the European Union we took to the streets to try and dispel the myths on our doorstep.

There was quite some interest with many people drifting by on the bright sunny day and taking leaflets and others stopping to talk to our candidate and representative about specific issues like crime, immigration, economy and jobs.

The European Union is not the most perfect organisation in the world, there are a lot of questions that need answering and reform that needs to be done BUT the only way to reform it is to be inside it. I am a fan of Gillingham FC but I have serious questions about how the club is run and of the Chairman Paul Scally. The only way to have an input on this though is to be a shareholder - so I sit at home and mutter to myself. Should the UK leave the EU it will have to deal with them in the same way that Switzerland and Norway do but without any input into the trading agreements or how they work - so we will be sat at home muttering to ourselves.

The EU also provides money to worthy causes and projects including money for projects in Medway and regeneration of the Dock yard as well as charities - who is to say that our government, who have cut services and make massive efficiency savings would still invest in them as well?

It was a privilege to meet Catherine and Antony and to watch them talking with ease with the public in Gillingham High street and talk passionately about their work in the field and what the EU has to offer and the people we spoke to were impressed too.

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

Transcript of Nick Clegg's speech on Europe

I am a pro-European - that is no great revelation, I know. But sometimes you need to say it, clearly and unambiguously.
 
The isolationist forces in Britain are on the rise - UKIP on the doorstep; Conservative politicians at their conference; familiar headlines in some of our newspapers each placing Britain’s ills firmly at Brussels’ door: too much immigration, too much crime, too much red tape. And every time Europe is back in the spotlight, their hostility towards it – this negative reaction to all things continental – drowns out the other voices in this debate.
 
Pro-Europeans have to take some responsibility for that. The moderate and rational voices have been too quiet up until now. But we cannot afford that silence anymore. We are no longer asking if Britain will have a referendum on continued membership, we are asking when Britain will have a referendum on continued membership.
 
The parties differ on the timing. The Conservative party want one in 2017, regardless of what’s happening in Europe at that time: it’s a date chosen for internal party management as much as anything else. The Liberal Democrats believe it will be far better to have the referendum when a serious change to Europe’s rules, affecting the UK, next arises. But we all agree that it will happen at some point or another.
 
Senior - and usually moderate - voices in the Conservative party have now openly flirted with the idea of leaving; the Mayor of London insisting we should be ready to walk away; the Chancellor issuing threats of exit in German newspapers. That rhetoric has been toned down more recently. I expect they’ve realised that threatening to flounce out of the EU is hardly the best way to appeal to British business.
 
But the threats certainly haven’t been forgotten in Europe’s capitals. The hardliners have been stoked up. And next May the Euro-elections are bound to become a proxy for the bigger question of ‘in versus out’ – a debate that will play out in the 2015 General Election too.
 
And all this at the worst possible time. Our economy is finally turning a corner, but the recovery is fragile. We should be focusing on finishing the job and laying the foundations for long-term growth, not entertaining the idea of an EU exit that would throw our recovery away.
 
Let me be absolutely clear: leaving the EU would be economic suicide.  You cannot overstate the damage it would do to British livelihoods and prosperity.
 
Three million British jobs are linked to the Single Market – three million. As a member we are part of the world’s biggest borderless market place, made up of 500 million people. It’s now the largest economy in the world – ahead of the United States – and it’s where we do around half of all our trade.
 
Major non-European companies build their factories here precisely because we are a springboard to the EU.
 
It gives us access to trade agreements with over 50 countries around the world – and we’ve launched negotiations with Japan and the US. The latter alone could bring an extra £10bn to the UK every year. But on our own we’d have to renegotiate all of them – from scratch, and from a position of weakness; government would spend a decade doing nothing else.
The fact is you cannot be for a stronger economy if you are for leaving the EU.
 
And it’s not just jobs and prosperity. What will happen to our influence in the world if we choose to go it alone? Of course Britain must build up relationships with emerging powers and likeminded nations in other continents. But this idea that we can pull up the anchor, drift away from our neighbourhood - our historical and geographical allies – only to float around in some new network of relationships is a nonsense.
 
I worked in Europe; I used to negotiate trade deals with the Russians and the Chinese. We simply will not be taken seriously by the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, all the big superpowers if we’re isolated and irrelevant in our own backyard. We stand tall in Washington, Beijing, Delhi when we stand tall in Brussels, Paris and Berlin.
 
Two weeks ago I was in Washington. Did they want to discuss US/UK trade? No – they understandably wanted to talk about the big money, the US/EU deal. The Americans value their old friend Britain as a bridge to Europe as much as anything else.
 
What will happen to our citizens’ safety if we leave? The British police depend on cooperation with their counterparts abroad - sharing information, pooling resources, helping each other bring criminals to justice. Take that away and you are forcing the police to do their job with one hand tied behind their back.
 
Just last week we heard Rob Wainwright, the British Head of Europol, declare that it would be an ‘unmitigated disaster’ in the fight against organised crime if Britain withdrew from the organisation.
 
Criminals cross borders – so must we.  
 
What about our environment? Climate change doesn’t stop at Dover. There is no point reducing our carbon footprint unless our neighbours do the same. But together we can set collective targets and work in concert to achieve them – and we have far greater clout in encouraging other countries and regions to do the same.
 
Every way you look at it – jobs, influence, safety, the environment – the UK is infinitely better off in the EU.
 
Time to speak up
 
So I’m not worried about how we make the case for membership to the British people – the argument is ours to win. But I am worried that we’re not out there making it. My great fear, in all of this, is that pro-Europeans are being too slow to wake up to the danger ahead.
 
The day I dread – the day I hope never comes – is a time when it is all too late: Britain has stumbled out of the EU, and we look back to these days and say we should have done more. It will not be enough to speak up on the eve of a referendum. We need to start challenging some of the ludicrous mythmaking by the isolationists now. 
 
Brussels isn’t perfect by any means. But it’s just not true that it’s some kind of sinister super-bureaucracy - the Commission is smaller than Birmingham City Council. It’s just not true that the Treasury is robbed blind for the privilege of membership – last year our contribution to the EU Budget was around the same as we spend on the NHS every two or three weeks.
 
It’s just not true that we’re at the mercy of a foreign elite. Britain shapes everything that happens in the EU. Nothing passes into UK law without the input of our MEPs and Government Ministers. Even though there are 28 states in all, we have one in ten of the seats in the Parliament. And in the Council the countries with the most votes and greatest power are France, Germany, Italy and the UK.
 
So we need to counter the myths. And we need to explain the real reasons Britain belongs in the EU and what is really at stake in this debate. I have made my commitment very clear: the Liberal Democrats will lead the way as the Party of In.  But today I am calling on businesses and organisations and individuals to show their support for continued British membership in a reformed EU.
 
I am not asking you to get involved in the party politics. I’m not asking you to support the Lib Dems. But I am asking you to be part of a coalition for the national interest – standing up for Britain remaining in Europe; for a Britain that is richer, safer, greener and stronger in the world.
 
I’m calling on every internationalist politician – from any party; every company that buys or sells across the Channel; every umbrella group representing British business interests; the big banks and City firms that depend on the Single Market as well as the small family firms who want to expand; the investors who’ll have to reconsider their operations here if we withdraw from the EU; the research institutes that benefit from pooled EU funding; the British Erasmus students studying abroad;  the hundreds of thousands of Brits who’ve relocated to France, Spain, and Greece; the police;  the charities who pick up the pieces when men, women and children are trafficked across our borders; the human rights organisations that want to make sure British citizens stay signed up to the protections in EU law; the green groups who want a UK that can lead the way on climate change; the farmers and fisherman who need a level playing field in Europe; the millions of British consumers who get better, cheaper products because we’re a member of the EU; and anyone and everyone who can see that there is strength in numbers in today’s world.
 
Express your support for staying in the EU however you like: tweet using #whyIamIN, put it on Facebook, post it on our website, write to the Government, write to the newspapers, make your position clear in the conversations you have and the work you do.
 
Whatever you do, just don’t let the isolationists speak for you or dominate this debate.
 
And if you are for IN, don’t wait for others to say it; make yourselves heard.
 
Don't surrender reform
 
And, if you believe we should stay in Europe, don’t let anybody tell you that you are somehow against change, or anti-reform. Don’t believe this idea that if you see the benefits of membership, you are blind to the EU’s faults.
 
I was campaigning to make Brussels more open and transparent a decade and a half ago, when I was an MEP for the East Midlands. Last month, at my Party’s Conference, we signed up to a forty page document filled with ideas to make the EU more streamlined, more accountable, more focused on growth; less meddlesome in areas of national life that are none of it’s business, and more effective in the areas where nation states cannot act alone.
 
And the fact is: Europe is changing, whether we like it or not. The single currency area is healing, but the Eurozone crisis revealed deep economic tensions and they must be resolved. The Eurozone core will need to tighten further: rules governing greater fiscal discipline will be demanded by the strongest Eurozone members and the weaker economies will expect sustained Eurozone support in return.
 
Britain, by definition, will lie outside of these emerging arrangements. But there will be big implications for the single market as a whole – and we need to make sure that the EU that emerges at the other end continues to serve all of its members.
 
The Banking Union is a prime example. It’s in everyone’s interests for it to work – including states like the UK who are not part of it. But it is in no one’s interests if the banking union operates in a way that damages the City – Europe’s biggest financial centre. The Coalition Government will now make sure that doesn’t happen.
 
And next time there is Treaty Change I will certainly advocate new legal safeguards guaranteeing that – whenever a reform might impact on the Single Market – Euro-ins and Euro-outs have an equal say.
 
So the real question is not who wants to reform Europe and Britain’s relationship with it, it’s who can do that?
 
Flawed and bound to unravel
 
I don't believe the Conservative strategy of demanding repatriation with the threat of exit can or will deliver lasting reform. The sceptics have been placated – temporarily – with a promise of a repatriation of powers in the next parliament, ahead of a referendum in 2017.
 
It is a seductive offer – a grand, unilateral renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU. But this promise is deeply flawed, and bound to unravel. It collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions.
 
Just imagine how this will develop. After the next election, a Conservative Government will fly from capital to capital, clocking up air miles demanding a series of UK opt outs and carve outs from other European leaders. There’s been some speculation suggesting there’s a deal to be had with the Germans, ready and waiting. But that misses the point. Of course a future British Government will be able to cobble together a package of reforms with Germany and other member states with likeminded views on European competitiveness and so on. But the question is not can a reform package be negotiated. The question is will it ever be acceptable to the large swathes of the Conservative party who want to be semi-detached from the EU, or out of it altogether?
 
Let’s be clear: what these people really want is not a change in the wording of treaty here, a directive repatriated there. For many on the right, this whole process is just a smokescreen for exit. Politics masquerading as patriotism. Nothing a Conservative government could bring back will ever be good enough unless it meets that impossible test. The isolationists will latch on to everything that wasn’t achieved. They will say that to accept this deal would be humiliation at the hands of the Germans and the French. They’ll say it’s just Wilson all over again.
 
And because the Government will have spent two years conducting these negotiations under the threat of exit – saying that if the offer on the table wasn’t good enough, the UK would be forced to leave – don’t be surprised when the sceptics say: ‘it’s not good enough, let’s leave’.
 
The Government will have armed them with precisely the arguments they need. And then what? What kind of chain reaction will have been set off?
 
A renegotiation widely deemed a failure; a divided Conservative Party; the sceptics emboldened and off the leash; a referendum fought at the wrong time and on a skewed debate; and a very real possibility of Britain tumbling out of the EU.
 
The promise of unilateral repatriation was made at a time when the Conservative party needed to find a way to plaster over their internal divisions on Europe. They needed a position that, in the lead up to the election, all sides can get behind – a policy fix. Although, judging from this weekend, it’s not even clear they’ll make it that long.
 
It’s a short -sighted political calculation that could jeopardise the long-term national interest. It is playing with fire and, if we go down this track, it is Britain that will get burned.
 
The Coalition’s unsung success
 
And, most perplexing of all: the unilateral approach is completely at odds with what the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have been doing together in this government. Our partners don’t tend to shout about this, but one of the least noticed Coalition successes  is our record of delivering for the British people by engaging constructively with our European partners – much of which David Cameron deserves credit for.
 
This is the real way to be ambitious for Britain. Yes, there are times you need to put your foot down: that’s why I supported the Prime Minister when last year it looked like Britain might need to exercise our veto to stop a rise in the EU budget. But by working with our allies – the Germans, the Dutch, the Swedes and others – we not only secured a good deal for British taxpayers, we protected the rebate and capped the budget for the next spending period.
 
For years people said the Common Fisheries Policy was beyond reform. In Britain we have seen our fish stocks depleted and profits diminished, while our fisherman have been tied up in bureaucratic knots. 
 
Yet in January we led the way on a historic agreement that will transform fishing practices across Europe, and end micro-management from Brussels, massively benefiting our fishing industry and our marine environment too.
 
The Coalition has brought together 13 like-minded countries to take on the Commission over excessive red tape. For example, hundreds of thousands of firms will now be exempt from costly EU accounting rules. We’ve also cracked the previously illusive EU-wide patent – worth up to £20,000 per patent in translation costs alone.
 
And our experiences only prove what we have seen with every government for the last 60 years: if you want Europe to deliver for Britain, you have to lead. Margaret Thatcher led when she helped pioneer the single market. Tony Blair led when he and Jaqcues Chirac launched EU defence and security cooperation. It was British Lawyers who drafted the European Convention on Human Rights - not to be confused with the EU, as it so often is, but a huge success for European cooperation nonetheless; British police who have driven ground-breaking cooperation on cross-border crime. And – in keeping with this very British tradition – I will always believe that the best way to represent our nation’s interests is to stay and win the argument, showing leadership abroad for your citizens at home.
 
If you want to know my position, it's very simple: yes to staying in Europe; yes to reforming the EU and improving our relationship with it; yes to a referendum when the time is right.
 
And that is the approach I will continue to take.
 
More meaningful, less meddling
 
And throughout this process we need to get Europe back to what it’s good at: adding value where the global nature of our problems means states have to work together for any real chance of success.
 
Completing the single market in services and the digital economy; innovating so that our continent keeps up with China, India, Brazil; opening up trade with the rest of the world; dealing with the fragile states on Europe’s borders; promoting human rights and democracy; working together for a greener future; protecting our citizens from the threats that cross our borders.
 
Where the EU has lost its way, we need to refocus it, so that its contribution to national life is less meddling and more meaningful. Where the EU has become intrusive, it needs to be pushed back.
 
I welcome the announcement by President Barroso last week that the Commission will simplify EU rules to make them lighter and less burdensome. I want to see a much more active role for national parliaments in scrutinising EU decisions and policing the principle of subsidiarity. We're still not fully exploiting the provisions made for this under the Lisbon Treaty.
 
And it's right that the UK stays opted out of rules that we believe are damaging - like the 48 hour cap on the working week in the Working Time Directive. It's important to point out that we're not ideological about this. Many of the workers' protections that we now take for granted actually originated in the EU. Guaranteeing paid holiday and regular breaks - they're also in the Working Time Directive. So there are good bits too; but we need to get the right balance.
 
 
Where arrangements are unfair, they need to be corrected. High up on my list is the Common Agricultural Policy, where we need to end the historical subsidies that distort trade.
 
And where the institutions are just plain wasteful, of course that needs to end. It’s ludicrous that the European Parliament has an official seat in Strasbourg. The round trip for MEPs travelling from Brussels and back costs £150m a year. It’s high time the Strasbourg seat was scrapped.  
 
And I say all of this as a pro-European – because we are the real reformers now. I say this as someone who wants to change and improve the EU and Britain’s relationship with it precisely because I am ambitious of what can be achieved, because I believe we are at our best when we are open and outward-facing – richer, stronger, safer and greener.
 
If you believe that, it’s time to say it. Stand up for a proud Britain leading in a better EU. Stand up for staying in Europe, for the sake of the national interest.
 
I will and I hope you will too.  

Sunday, 19 May 2013

Letter from the Leader; Europe, Grimmond, and referendum

Dear Chris,

I'm writing this week's Letter to you from Kirkwall in Orkney. Alistair Carmichael and Jim Wallace
Grimmond
have been trying to persuade me to make the trip for a while and I've finally made it in order to join the celebrations of the centenary of Jo Grimond's birth.


The big debate this week in British politics, which featured strongly in PMQs - where I was standing in for the PM (you can watch it here) - has obviously been about our future role in Europe. An issue on which Jo Grimond was a pioneer and leader.

What's emerging in this debate is that there are three basic positions. The first is UKIP's and an increasingly large number of Conservatives' - they want to leave now. I am clear that would be a calamitous mistake for the country - it would make us poorer, make us less safe and jeopardise millions of jobs and billions of pounds of investment.

The second position is the Conservatives' official position (at least for now) which amounts to saying to the rest of the EU that they should keep all the EU rules for themselves, but we'll only abide by the bits we like. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat it strategy. It might sound seductive, but it's unlikely to work. Instead it will end up with either largely symbolic concessions from the other 26 member states "inconsequential" in Lord Lawson's words - or demanding so much that the other EU countries will simply refuse.

The third position is the Liberal Democrats' position. Of course the EU has to change. It is going to change because it's in a state of challenge and flux and so needs reform. It must be more competitive, more open, leaner and less bureaucratic. All things Britain should lead from the front on and work constructively with our European partners to achieve.

That is a vision of Europe and Britain's role in it that our party has long subscribed to. And importantly, it is actually achievable.

And in line with our previous manifesto, and the legislation we passed in 2011, when the EU rules change and new things are asked of the UK within the EU, the British people will have a say in a referendum. We are the first Government ever to give the British people such a guarantee in law.
So there are three positions: we can leave now; we can try and (almost certainly fail) to have our cake and eat it; or we can play our part at the heart of Europe promoting reform and guaranteeing a referendum when the EU rules change affecting Britain.

But as I argued in PMQs to the Tory backbenchers (who by the way seem to have developed an almost unhealthy interest in our Focus leaflets!), people are facing more pressing issues. And it is exactly those issues Liberal Democrats in this Coalition Government are currently taking a lead in tackling.

We won't always get the attention or coverage we deserve for things we are doing, such as introducing Steve Webb's single tier pension or the important work Norman Lamb has been talking about this week on Social Care. But we will keep delivering these things that make a real difference to people's lives.
That is what we are in Government for: anchoring it in the centre ground and building a stronger economy and a fairer society. I'm sure Jo wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

Best,

Nick_Clegg_signature.png

Nick

Thursday, 16 May 2013

EU vote - my two cents

Last night MPs voted on trying to bring forward an in/out referendum for the UK's EU membership however
they lost 270-130 as Labour and the LibDems voted against.

Already the tribal party politics has begun.

Even during yesterday's (D)PMQs, Conservative backbenchers tried to label Mr Clegg a hypocrite for pledging for a referendum in 2008 and 2010. On every turn he repeated the party line - which is clear in the 2010 manifesto - Like Nick I've read it, though not wrote any;

The Liberal Democrats will push for a referendum if there is any significant treaty changes that will effect the UK (Not a direct quote)

This seems fairly inevitable as the crisis in the Eurozone continues and even Germany feels the pinch.

Indeed the 2008 leaflet calling for a referendum was when Gordon Brown threw powers away in the Lisbon treaty. Since then we've stuck to the position of referendum when next there is a treaty change.

Europe has always been rightly or wrongly an obsession for elements of the Conservative party and I remember it being a severe problem for John Major's administration and helping to bring it down.

Now it looks like the party is rupturing again. The small number of hardcore MPs is growing but why?

It could be put down to a couple of reasons.

1. The rise of UKIP, especially after the last round of local elections, Conservatives are worrying about their supporters. Further to that the best way to take the wind out of their sails is to hold a referendum.

2. Sort of linked to the last point is the right wing worried that the Conservative party have drifted too centrist and given too many concessions to the Liberal Democrats. Where as support is leeching to UKIP there are those members who are loyal to the Conservative party and want to bring their party back.

David Cameron denies it being a serious problem from the other side of the Atlantic.

Labour are already attacking the Tories for having their priorities straight. Tackling issues that effect everyone like taxation, living standards, fuel prices to name but a few. I tend to agree - as do the Liberal Democrats which is why we are waiting for the "Inevitable" treaty change.

This Conservative obsession could, as it has in the past, cause a detrimental distraction at a vital moment.

I should just say that I am pro referendum on Europe but Pro Europe - much to the horror of some of my family!

Thursday, 31 January 2013

Lib dem Councillor Juby on EU referendum

Cllr Juby's column for the Medway Messenger:



I find it slightly worrying that so much energy and time is being spent on debating the pros and cons of a referendum on Europe.  Most people have definite views on whether we should stay in or come out, but I am getting vibes that the public would rather like to know sooner rather than later. Perhaps not only the public – if I were a foreign investor with a few billions to spare I might be thinking twice about putting my cash into Great Britain, given the fact that half our foreign markets may disappear by the time factories and built and are profitable. 

A few things have really benefitted working people here, the main one being the introduction of the minimum wage.  Also we have a couple of million British nationals who live in Europe, many of them with jobs – not to mention that the cheapest holidays to the sun, all involve travel within the European union (don’t forget that the Canary Islands, Majorca etc. all come in this category). Many Britons enjoy the ski slopes as well, and  we do not know how the rest of Europe will react to us pulling the plug - we may all end up holidaying in the rain here!

 Most of our problems seem to stem from popular objection to the  immigration from Europe, especially at a time when we are desperately short of jobs and houses.  A lot of European countries seem able cherry pick which dictats they choose to obey but it always looks as if we fall over backwards in order to meet the letter of European law!  Perhaps I am wrong in this, but public perceptions are a very powerful force and I am glad that Nick Clegg, for once, has spoken out on this issue.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Clegg v Cameron on Euro referendum

Since before recorded history the inhabitants of this island have not got on with the mainland and conflict has been rife between the two ranging from raids to invasion to full out genocide. This has all subsided in the aftermath of World War Two. As Britain's star waned and her position as the World's greatest superpower was lost, Germany's star has risen from complete annihilation to economic powerhouse and let's face it, the real voice in the EU.

The Conservative party has always had this divide over Europe that has gained even more relevance during the economic crisis and the collapse of the Eurozone. There are many calls from backbenchers, including Rochester & Strood's Mark Reckless MP, for a referendum.

There is also another dynamic to the Conservative divide and that is the Libdems. As a party, we're generally quite receptive to the notion or ideal of the EU, though not always the reality! It has however caused rumblings, one the The Telegraph were happy to exploit and make more news worthy than it probably is.

On Radio 4's Today programme Nick stated that;

We should be very careful, at a time when the British economy is still haltingly recovering from the worst economic shock for a generation, to create a very high and prolonged period of uncertainty.

His argument being that this continued debate and uncertainty of a referendum before the already legislated time has the potential to put off business and economic investment.

To a degree, I agree. Government has set the ball rolling on a referendum and the Coalition agreement clearly states that a referendum will only be called in this parliament if there is to be a serious shift of powers to Brussels.

However, the Tories have gone back on their word before...

However you feel about Europe, you must see it from a Business point of view. For stability and certainty you want a potential scheme to have a certain amount of continuity and not be subject to an expensive change in circumstances. It could be another painful pin prick to our already lacerated economy.

The Prime Minister's office have contradicted Nick and stated that it is in the National interest to have this debate now. Indeed many of the British public want to, UKIP want to and Tory strategists who want to halt their advance and heal rifts with in their own party want to.

As Pratchett's Lord Vetinari said;

What is in the public interest is seldom in the public interest

I tend to follow this point. Though a debate is needed caution and an ear to possible business and economic currents is needed. All of the uncertainty is causing ripples that are effecting many side issues like falling stones on a mountain that causes an avalanche.

I suppose my meandering, sleep deprived and overworked mind is to either, be quiet, stick to the agreement and wait for the legislated referendum or, lets schedule one for the summer and get it out of the way. The next battle would be for the vote to be fair and open. At current the British public would vote No based solely on misconceptions of certain issues - yes the EU has some horrednous problems but then agian it has its bonuses but it is not the purpose of this post to discuss that - that, is as they say - is another story.

Wednesday, 7 November 2012

Time for an EU referendum

Like the creation of Champagne, Ed Miliband did something wonderful completely by accident last week.

Whilst there was a certain opportunistic edge to Labour's proposition and indeed an opportunity for the Conservative's Achilles heal making its usual appearance there does appear to be an opening to seriously discuss Europe and the possibility of a referendum.

It is a subject that we all avoid talking about, both sides are fairly entrenched and no middle ground is achievable - it is either in or out.

I'm an idealist when it comes to Europe. I see a lot of potential in the EU. Trade, policing, green measures - if we all talk and cooperate we are stronger together than apart. I like to envision a Europe together rather than the fractured self serving states out to get what they can.

Unfortunately the ideas of spheres of influence and countries trying to undermine each other is still virulent now and though my younger self would have loved to see Europe dominated by Germany it could be detrimental for it to carry on this way.

With Parliament rightly voting against the move to agree to the proposed EU budget rise it means we can pull out the referendum Pandora's box, set it on the table and discuss opening it.

Only a year ago I argued that opening it at this current time would be wrong.

Now... Now I think we should seriously talk about it.

Not in the tribal, tub-thumping, point scoring, "He said" "you said" way that Parliament seems to devolve into but a serious, sensible, adult debate.

Lets be honest, the Conservatives are divided over the issue, they always have been and always will be. Let's not be trying to score points or try to rub vinegar in the wound for party political gain. ( I'm talking to you Ed and Harriet.) This is a serious issue, one that could define British economic, domestic and foreign policy for a generation.

This should be an open debate without party lines or whips - just honest open debate.

This extends to local politicians/politicos as well. We should let them debate this one in peace. After all this is a MAJOR concern of many of the electorate and many feel cheated as to the level of involvement the Nation is in compared with what Edward Heath promised and many have never been asked.

The time has come to evaluate and discuss openly and frankly a matter that is a major talking point and concern for many and could have serious repercussions for the nation both good and bad.

Sometimes it is a good idea to evaluate a course of action at such a juncture rather than to continue on blindly regardless to whatever end.

Let's make Mrs Bone happy and carry out our promise on an open, fair referendum sooner rather than later.

Thursday, 1 November 2012

Nick Clegg's speech on Europe 1-11-12


This autumn, the great debate on Britain's role in Europe has, as ever, generated a lot of heat yet little light.

We want to be in, we want to be out. We want to repatriate powers, use our veto, keep our pint, save our pound, protect our strongest export market.

Be critical of Germany, not end up like Greece, feel proud of our role in creating peace in Europe, yet cynical about an acronym winning the Nobel Prize.

And just last night, in a House of Commons debate on the European Budget, we saw Europe turned into a political football as political opportunists sought to score a political point.

But when it comes down to it, there is a serious debate to be had, and we do have some serious decisions to make.

In Europe today, there are effectively three places you can be. They fit together like rings around a circle.

There’s the core: where the Eurozone countries are now pulling together more closely, integrating further to shore up the single currency.

Then there is the ring around that – the inner circle: the states who aren’t in the euro, but are members of the EU.

And the outer circle: where you find the accession countries, EEA countries, Norway, Switzerland, and so on.

The UK is in the inner circle – but the terrain is shifting. The core is tightening – to what degree we don’t yet know.

Some states on the outside are seeking, over time, to head further in. And, as a different Europe emerges, over the coming years, we have to decide where the UK fits within it. What role will we play in our new neighbourhood?

Very few people are now suggesting we move into the centre. Joining the Euro will not be in our interests anytime soon – certainly not in my political lifetime.

But there are forces who want to pull us towards the edge, towards the outer circle. Reducing the extent to which we cooperate on the continent. Happy for the Channel to widen. Hoping, even, that it becomes a gulf.

Today I want to explain why that is a very dangerous position, leaving the UK isolated and marginalised, and I want to offer a more compelling alternative: a strong UK, influential in Europe and so more influential in the world. Working with our allies on the issues that matter to our prosperity and security. Driven by pragmatism, as opposed to dogma, in these debates. Unambiguously in the inner circle.

That will require an approach that is engaged and balanced, so not accepting every request or regulation sent from Brussels, but equally, cooperating constructively where it is in our national interest to do so.

In our immediate future, that means three things:

One: a tough EU Budget settlement.

Two: defending and deepening the Single Market – and our place in it – for the sake of growth and jobs.

Three: taking the decisions on law and order cooperation that will keep British citizens safe.

The Europe debate will continue to run and run, as the Eurozone integrates further – that is certain. And in the UK we will find ourselves talking about it, thinking about it, arguing about it frequently over the coming years.

But right here, right now the UK’s priorities can be easily summed up: tough on the money, more jobs, more criminals behind bars.

Before I turn to those, I want to focus on the proposal doing the rounds that the best way to improve the UK’s position in Europe is to renegotiate the terms of our relationship with the rest of the EU.  We should opt out of the bad bits, stay opted in to the good bits, and the way to do that is a repatriation of British powers.

That seems very reasonable; in fact, it’s a pretty seductive offer – who would disagree with that?

But, look a little closer, because a grand, unilateral repatriation of powers might sound appealing but in reality, it is a false promise, wrapped in a Union Jack.

Let me explain why.

I am all for reducing frivolous and expensive European rules. At the weekend we heard stories about proposals to regulate the shoes and jewellery British hairdressers wear. That kind of thing is clearly too much. Having worked at the heart of the EU, I can certainly give you some more examples.

And, more profoundly, we need to refocus the EU, so it does more where it adds value, and less where it doesn’t.

I’m very proud of this Government’s track record in working with our European partners to do that, whether that’s reducing EU red tape for small business, or securing agreement on a European Patent after 23 years of negotiation, or getting long overdue agreement to devolve powers over fisheries policies.

But there is a lot more we need to do to get Europe focused on the policies that create economic growth and make it more competitive, and I want the UK leading that.

So I do not think the EU is perfect by any stretch and I’m a big advocate of EU reform. But this idea that we should – or could – extract ourselves from the bulk of EU obligations is nonsensical.

It is wishful thinking to suggest we could effectively give ourselves a free pass to undercut the Single Market, only to then renegotiate our way back in to the laws that suit us. The rest of Europe simply wouldn’t have it.

What kind of club gives you a full pass, with all the perks, but doesn’t expect you to pay the full membership fee or abide by all the rules?

If anyone else tried to do it, if the French tried to duck out of the rules on the environment or consumer protection, if the Germans tried to opt out of their obligations on competition and the single market, we would stop them – and rightly so.

And let’s be honest: many of the people who advocate repatriation are the same people who want us out of Europe – full stop.

For them, no rebalancing of powers will ever be enough, and so there is no hard border between repatriation and exit because, for these people, repatriation is pulling at a thread – and they want to unravel the whole thing.

Just look at the last few weeks. As soon as we start talking about repatriation, we descend into the in-versus-out debate.

And heading to the exit would be the surest way to diminish the UK. Because what then? Become the next Norway or Switzerland?

Advocates of repatriation point to these nations and say they have the best of both worlds: success to Europe’s markets without an assault on their sovereignty.

But these countries sit and wait for bills and directives from Brussels, duly paying their bit, changing their laws, but with absolutely no say over Europe’s rules. No political representation, no national voting rights, no voice at all.

They work by fax democracy: you find your instructions on the machine in the morning, and you follow them. They have no meaningful sovereignty in the EU.

Norway has had to implement three quarters of all EU legislation, including the Working Time Directive.

They pay into the EU Budget: for the specific programmes they participate in and for development grants to new member states.

Switzerland has no guaranteed access to the Single Market, they have to negotiate on a case-by-case basis, and right now they are having to match – even surpass – rigorous EU banking regulations just to protect business between Swiss and European banks.

To go down that route would be a catastrophic loss of sovereignty for this nation. I want better for the UK, and our other allies want better for us too.

It’s long been the case that the UK stands tall in Washington because we stand tall in Brussels, Paris and Berlin.

There is a great deal to our enduring special relationship but, for the Americans, the UK’s leverage on the continent has always been part of our appeal. That will remain the case no matter who’s in the White House after next week.

And while it is, of course, important that we form new alliances in the world -  in Asia, India, Latin America - the idea that we can float off into the mid-Atlantic, bobbing around in a new network of relationships without a strong anchor in Europe while countries around the world, incidentally, are working more and more in regional blocks, is clearly not a sound strategy in a fast-moving, fluid and insecure world.

Those who advocate turning our back on our neighbours seem to think we have a ready-made web of alternative alliances, a set of international agreements with other countries that could readily sustain us. But that isn’t how it works.

The Commission has just confirmed, for example, that if the UK suddenly left the EU, we would instantly lose access to every EU trade agreement with a third party.

Agreements with 46 countries are in place, and agreements with a further 78 are under negotiation. Our membership of the EU gives us access to all of them, and that includes almost every Commonwealth country.

The EU is looking at opening negotiations with nine more countries, two of which, Japan and the USA, would be very significant.

Do we really want to leave the EU, lose these free trade arrangements for UK exporters, which go above and beyond WTO rules, and potentially have to negotiate that all from scratch?

The UK government would spend a decade doing that and nothing else.

And can anyone seriously suggest that Japan, or South Korea, or Brazil would cut us a better deal as an island of 60m people than as a continent of 500 million?

Ironically, the people who do understand this strength-in-numbers argument are the Scottish Nationalists.

They may be trying to pull away from the UK, but they’re going around saying an independent Scotland would have automatic entry into the EU – an assertion that has no basis in fact - precisely because they see how important it is to Scottish prosperity.

And they know a separate Scotland, seeking re-entry into the EU, would lose the extra benefits it gains from being part of a big member state.



They don’t want to face what might happen to Scotland’s influence on fishing quotas, or agricultural policy, or the regulation of the banks.

They don’t want reality to bite. So they’ve gone into denial, preferring political assertion to legal advice. 
The best - and most realistic - choice for the United Kingdom is to stand tall in our European hinterland, for the sake of our security, our prosperity and our place in the world.

Standing tall means asserting ourselves when we need to protect the nation’s interests, but also cooperating with our neighbours when it is for the good of the British people.

In the coming weeks and months, that will mean three things.

First, taking a tough line on the EU Budget ahead of a special European Council meeting at the end of the month.

The Coalition Government’s position remains the same: we will not accept an increase, above inflation, to the EU Budget. That is a real terms freeze. And we will protect the British rebate in full.

That is the toughest position of any European country. At a time of deep fiscal tightening in the UK, with British taxpayers seriously feeling the pinch, we cannot support a real increase in EU spend.

Labour has now taken a different position – as we saw last night – having had a change of heart. Ed Balls knows only too well, from bitter experience, that there is absolutely no prospect of securing a real terms cut to the EU budget. But at the eleventh hour, and having stayed silent on this issue for months, Labour now proclaims that, actually, this is what they’ve wanted all along. And they can wave a magic wand over the Council negotiations and convince 26 other countries to agree.

Yet it was Labour who agreed to the last long-term EU budget settlement, which saw a major jump in EU spending and lost part of the UK’s rebate in exchange for virtually no real EU spending reforms. And British taxpayers have suffered the consequences ever since, with our net contributions going from less than €3bn in 2008 to more than €7bn in 2011.

Who were two of the Labour MPs to vote for it? Ed Balls and Ed Miliband.
Who was the Europe Minister? Douglas Alexander.

Their change of heart is dishonest, it’s hypocritical. And worst of all, Labour’s plan would cost the taxpayer more, not less. Because in pushing a completely unrealistic position on the EU budget - one that is miles away from any other country’s position - Labour would have absolutely no hope of getting a budget deal agreed – driving the annual EU bill up instead, over which we would have no veto power at all.

We’ve been waiting for years for the Labour party to announce how they would cut spending. Now they have finally come out in favour of cuts. But in a way they know is undeliverable; and in a way that would hurt British taxpayers. And it turns out even their cuts cost money. I’ve heard people describe it as clever opposition politics – and I suppose it is. But it’s not the behaviour of a party serious about government.

Yes, the British Government’s position is tough.

Yes, it is going to be difficult to negotiate.
But we are working for a deal because that is the best way to protect British interests.

The Prime Minister and I may have our differences on Europe but, on this, we are absolutely united.

To one side we have opponents of the Government pretending we can give less, on the other side, there are some in Europe demanding we give more.

But it’s our job to make realistic, responsible and hard-headed decisions on behalf of the British people. 

This is a deal that can be done – that’s the message I’m pushing with my European counterparts.

With governments across Europe having to get the most out of every pound, euro or zloty they spend, a real terms freeze is a good offer.

It’s in the EU’s own interests to be seen to be showing real restraint.

Second, we need to be actively protecting and advancing the single market – and our place in it – for the sake of British jobs.

Around one in every ten jobs in Britain relies on British trade within the Single Market. Around half of all our trade goes to other European states – exports from around 100,000 firms. But as Europe evolves, we cannot take the integrity of the Single Market for granted.

That’s already been made clear during negotiations on the new Eurozone banking union, which we’re having to ensure doesn’t undermine the single market in financial services – prejudicing the City.

And we can expect more of this kind of thing, as the Eurozone integrates further.

And not only will we need to defend the Single Market – we also need to deepen it.

Removing trade barriers in services and digital industries would be worth around £3,400 a year to the average household, money we need as we return our economy to health. But it won’t happen without leadership from the UK.

We were among the Single Market’s architects: Lord Cockfield – a British Commissioner – helped design it. Margaret Thatcher played a critical role in pushing it through. And today – as the most open, liberal economy in the EU – we will need to help finish what was started twenty years ago.

And that’s how we send the right signal to foreign investors too.

One of the reasons big multinationals come here is because we offer a launching pad to the world’s largest borderless marketplace.

Think of the big employers who’ve set up operations here: Samsung, Tata, Siemens.

The automotive giants helping drive the renaissance in the UK’s car industry:
Nissan, Honda, BMW, Toyota.

Firms who currently pay no import tariffs on the vehicles they send from here to the continent but who would be faced with levies of up to 22% if the UK suddenly left the EU.

These companies need to be reassured that we will continue to be the best bridgehead into the European market.

We cannot afford to give the impression that we are going to disengage.

We need to stay focused on driving trade between us and our neighbours.

That is the only way to protect British jobs. It’s a position that is pro-business and pro-Britain too.

Third, cooperation on law and order.

Before signing up to the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the previous Government negotiated an opt out on a package of 130 crime and policing measures, which pre-dated the Treaty.

The Coalition now has to decide whether to stay opted in to all of those measures or else pull out of the lot, before seeking to opt back in to individual instruments – depending on negotiations with the Commission and the Council.

A decision needs to be taken by 2014 and we will give Parliament a say.
But, clearly, we need to agree our starting position now, so we’re looking across the 130 measures.

The Government has said our current thinking is to opt out of them en masse, before seeking to rejoin some.

But I want to be absolutely clear: a final decision has not been taken, and I will only agree to doing that if I am 100% satisfied we can opt back in to the measures needed to protect British citizens, and if I am convinced we are not creating waste and duplication, incurring unnecessary costs.

We will be led by the evidence and the experts at all times. What matters is preventing crime and terrorism – this must not turn into an ideological scrap.

We are likely to find that some of the measures are defunct, like old measures to improve data collection in drug trafficking, or things like outdated skills directories for crime fighting professionals – old instruments that have now been superseded.

But there are others which have transformed the way our police operate, delivered justice for victims of crime where once there was none and put thousands of criminals behind bars.

It is my strong personal view that there is a great deal of value in Europol, for example, which pools intelligence to combat serious organized crime. Joint Investigation Teams and Eurojust, which enable cross-border operations like the ongoing investigation into the recent murder of a British family in Annecy in France.

Today, if a rapist, or paedophile or violent offender living in Britain has a foreign criminal record – we can receive it at virtually the click of a button.
When a forged British passport or driving licence turns up in Europe – we can find out about it straight away.

When a fugitive runs from the UK, we can use the European Arrest Warrant to bring them back – as we saw again recently in the case of teacher Jeremy Forrester. Yes, the Arrest Warrant needs reform so that it is used proportionately, but it is an important crime fighting tool. 

We’ve managed to set high standards for combating child pornography across the whole of Europe – something the UK pushed for.

Our police can call on the resources and intelligence of the entire European crime-fighting community to hunt down and arrest murderers and escaped convicts, to stop billions from being laundered out of the UK every year.

In the words of Hugh Orde, the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, “In the 21st Century, policing is international.”

And to anyone who says we don’t need these EU measures to fight crime and terrorism effectively, I say prove it.

Prove it to the police, the intelligence agencies, the lawyers, the victims of crime charities.

Prove it to the people who deal day in day out with the worst criminals imaginable.

Because my position is clear: I will not ask them to protect the British people with one hand tied behind their back.

The UK is part of the most advanced system for combating cross-border crime on the planet, and we have been at the forefront of building it.

Over the last fifteen years we’ve led the way on crime and policing cooperation in Europe. The Head of Europol is British. The last head of Eurojust was British. The EU’s police training centre is at Bramshill in Hampshire.

This package of 130 law and order measures has British fingerprints all over it and I want UK citizens continue to benefit – fully – from the system we built.

So, tough on the money, more jobs, more criminals behind bars.

That’s the deal we are going to deliver for the British people.

You cannot do any of those things from the edge.

You cannot deliver for British citizens when you’re halfway out the door.

Europe is changing – yes. But rather than go into retreat, now is the time to confront those changes head on.

We need to make a decision about who we will be in the new Europe, and I say we need to be strong, loud, present.

That’s the strategy that will leave the UK more prosperous, safer, strong.
Standing up for the people of Britain by standing tall in our own backyard.