Thanks for the update post Ferris, sorry to hear about your injury but pleased you could put it to good use. A temporary block on BOAT 13 would be a good start.
Graham, since you live in Surrey, have you petitioned your County Councillor on the subject?
Speech by Prime Minister David Cameron on Europe ‚Äď 23 January 2013
This morning I want to talk about the future of Europe.
But first, let us remember the past.
Seventy years ago, Europe was being torn apart by its second catastrophic conflict in a generation. A war which saw the streets of European cities strewn with rubble. The skies of London lit by flames night after night. And millions dead across the world in the battle for peace and liberty.
As we remember their sacrifice, so we should also remember how the shift in Europe from war to sustained peace came about. It did not happen like a change in the weather. It happened because of determined work over generations. A commitment to friendship and a resolve never to re-visit that dark past ‚Äď a commitment epitomised by the Elysee Treaty signed 50 years ago this week.
After the Berlin Wall came down I visited that city and I will never forget it.
The abandoned checkpoints. The sense of excitement about the future. The knowledge that a great continent was coming together. Healing those wounds of our history is the central story of the European Union.
What Churchill described as the twin marauders of war and tyranny have been almost entirely banished from our continent. Today, hundreds of millions dwell in freedom, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, from the Western Approaches to the Aegean.
And while we must never take this for granted, the first purpose of the European Union ‚Äď to secure peace ‚Äď has been achieved and we should pay tribute to all those in the EU, alongside NATO, who made that happen.
But today the main, over-riding purpose of the European Union is different: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity.
The challenges come not from within this continent but outside it. From the surging economies in the East and South. Of course a growing world economy benefits us all, but we should be in no doubt that a new global race of nations is underway today.
A race for the wealth and jobs of the future.
The map of global influence is changing before our eyes. And these changes are already being felt by the entrepreneur in the Netherlands, the worker in Germany, the family in Britain.
So I want to speak to you today with urgency and frankness about the European Union and how it must change ‚Äď both to deliver prosperity and to retain the support of its peoples.
But first, I want to set out the spirit in which I approach these issues.
Discussion Brief 1/2013
I know that the United Kingdom is sometimes seen as an argumentative and rather strong-minded member of the family of European nations.
And it‚Äôs true that our geography has shaped our psychology.
We have the character of an island nation ‚Äď independent, forthright, passionate in defence of our sovereignty.
We can no more change this British sensibility than we can drain the English Channel.
And because of this sensibility, we come to the European Union with a frame of mind that is more practical than emotional.
For us, the European Union is a means to an end ‚Äď prosperity, stability, the anchor of freedom and democracy both within Europe and beyond her shores ‚Äď not an end in itself.
We insistently ask: How? Why? To what end?
But all this doesn‚Äôt make us somehow un-European.
The fact is that ours is not just an island story ‚Äď it is also a continental story.
For all our connections to the rest of the world ‚Äď of which we are rightly proud ‚Äď we have always been a European power ‚Äď and we always will be.
From Caesar‚Äôs legions to the Napoleonic Wars. From the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution to the defeat of Nazism. We have helped to write European history, and Europe has helped write ours.
Over the years, Britain has made her own, unique contribution to Europe. We have provided a haven to those fleeing tyranny and persecution. And in Europe‚Äôs darkest hour, we helped keep the flame of liberty alight. Across the continent, in silent cemeteries, lie the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who gave their lives for Europe‚Äôs freedom.
In more recent decades, we have played our part in tearing down the Iron Curtain and championing the entry into the EU of those countries that lost so many years to Communism. And contained in this history is the crucial point about Britain, our national character, our attitude to Europe.
Britain is characterised not just by its independence but, above all, by its openness.
We have always been a country that reaches out. That turns its face to the world‚Ä¶
That leads the charge in the fight for global trade and against protectionism.
This is Britain today, as it‚Äôs always been:Independent, yes ‚Äď but open, too.
Discussion Brief 1/2013
I never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world.
I am not a British isolationist.
I don‚Äôt just want a better deal for Britain. I want a better deal for Europe too.
So I speak as British Prime Minister with a positive vision for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part.
Some might then ask: why raise fundamental questions about the future of Europe when Europe is already in the midst of a deep crisis?
Why raise questions about Britain‚Äôs role when support in Britain is already so thin.
There are always voices saying ‚Äúdon‚Äôt ask the difficult questions.‚ÄĚ
But it‚Äôs essential for Europe ‚Äď and for Britain ‚Äď that we do because there are three major challenges confronting us today.
First, the problems in the Eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe.
Second, there is a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead. And third, there is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years. And which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is ‚Äď yes ‚Äď felt particularly acutely in Britain.
If we don‚Äôt address these challenges, the danger is that Europe will fail and the British people will drift towards the exit.
I do not want that to happen. I want the European Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it.
That is why I am here today: To acknowledge the nature of the challenges we face. To set out how I believe the European Union should respond to them. And to explain what I want to achieve for Britain and its place within the European Union.
Let me start with the nature of the challenges we face.
First, the Eurozone.
The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union ‚Äď and the future of every country within it.
The Union is changing to help fix the currency ‚Äď and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.
Britain is not in the single currency, and we‚Äôre not going to be. But we all need the Eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.
Discussion Brief 1/2013
And those of us outside the Eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the Single Market is not in any way compromised.
And it‚Äôs right we begin to address these issues now.
Second, while there are some countries within the EU which are doing pretty well. Taken as a whole, Europe‚Äôs share of world output is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades. This is the competitiveness challenge ‚Äď and much of our weakness in meeting it is self-inflicted.
Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that‚Äôs been visited on our businesses.
These problems have been around too long. And the progress in dealing with them, far too slow.
As Chancellor Merkel has said ‚Äď if Europe today accounts for just over 7 per cent of the world‚Äôs population, produces around 25 per cent of global GDP and has to finance 50 per cent of global social spending, then it‚Äôs obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.
Third, there is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf. And this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic problems.
People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent.
We are starting to see this in the demonstrations on the streets of Athens, Madrid and Rome. We are seeing it in the parliaments of Berlin, Helsinki and the Hague.
And yes, of course, we are seeing this frustration with the EU very dramatically in Britain.
Europe‚Äôs leaders have a duty to hear these concerns. Indeed, we have a duty to act on them. And not just to fix the problems in the Eurozone.
For just as in any emergency you should plan for the aftermath as well as dealing with the present crisis so too in the midst of the present challenges we should plan for the future, and what the world will look like when the difficulties in the Eurozone have been overcome.
The biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point.
And my point is this. More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the Eurozone. More of the same will not see the European Union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the European
Discussion Brief 1/2013
Union any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same ‚Äď less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs.
And that will make our countries weaker not stronger.
That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change.
So let me set out my vision for a new European Union, fit for the 21st Century.
It is built on five principles.
The first: competitiveness. At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the single market. Britain is at the heart of that Single Market, and must remain so.
But when the Single Market remains incomplete in services, energy and digital ‚Äď the very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy ‚Äď it is only half the success it could be.
It is nonsense that people shopping online in some parts of Europe are unable to access the best deals because of where they live. I want completing the single market to be our driving mission.
I want us to be at the forefront of transformative trade deals with the US, Japan and India as part of the drive towards global free trade. And I want us to be pushing to exempt Europe‚Äôs smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives.
These should be the tasks that get European officials up in the morning ‚Äď and keep them working late into the night. And so we urgently need to address the sclerotic, ineffective decision making that is holding us back.
That means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic Union, relentlessly focused on helping its member countries to compete.
In a global race, can we really justify the huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions?
Can we justify a Commission that gets ever larger?
Can we carry on with an organisation that has a multi-billion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven‚Äôt worked?
And I would ask: when the competitiveness of the Single Market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport council, an education council but not a single market council?
The second principle should be flexibility.
We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members ‚Äď North, South, East, West, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating
Discussion Brief 1/2013
much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal.
I accept, of course, that for the single market to function we need a common set of rules and a way of enforcing them. But we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest developments and trends.
Competitiveness demands flexibility, choice and openness ‚Äď or Europe will fetch up in a no-man‚Äôs land between the rising economies of Asia and market-driven North America.
The EU must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.
We must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach which implies that all countries want the same level of integration. The fact is that they don‚Äôt and we shouldn‚Äôt assert that they do.
Some will claim that this offends a central tenet of the EU‚Äôs founding philosophy. I say it merely reflects the reality of the European Union today. 17 members are part of the Eurozone. 10 are not.
26 European countries are members of Schengen ‚Äď including four outside the European Union ‚Äď Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. 2 EU countries ‚Äď Britain and Ireland ‚Äď have retained their border controls.
Some members, like Britain and France, are ready, willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali. Others are uncomfortable with the use of military force.
Let‚Äôs welcome that diversity, instead of trying to snuff it out.
Let‚Äôs stop all this talk of two-speed Europe, of fast lanes and slow lanes, of countries missing trains and buses, and consign the whole weary caravan of metaphors to a permanent siding.
Instead, let‚Äôs start from this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency. Those of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely to need to make some big institutional changes.
By the same token, the members of the Eurozone should accept that we, and indeed all Member States, will have changes that we need to safeguard our interests and strengthen democratic legitimacy. And we should be able to make these changes too.
Some say this will unravel the principle of the EU ‚Äď and that you can‚Äôt pick and choose on the basis of what your nation needs.
But far from unravelling the EU, this will in fact bind its Members more closely because such flexible, willing cooperation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.
Let me make a further heretical proposition.
Discussion Brief 1/2013
The European Treaty commits the Member States to ‚Äúlay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe‚ÄĚ.
This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European Court of Justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation.
We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain ‚Äď and perhaps for others ‚Äď it is not the objective.
And we would be much more comfortable if the Treaty specifically said so freeing those who want to go further, faster, to do so, without being held back by the others.
So to those who say we have no vision for Europe.
I say we have.
We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions and pursue together the ideal of co-operation. To represent and promote the values of European civilisation in the world. To advance our shared interests by using our collective power to open markets. And to build a strong economic base across the whole of Europe.
And we believe in our nations working together to protect the security and diversity of our energy supplies. To tackle climate change and global poverty. To work together against terrorism and organised crime. And to continue to welcome new countries into the EU.
This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union ‚Äď but it is just as valid.
My third principle is that power must be able to flow back to Member States, not just away from them. This was promised by European Leaders at Laeken a decade ago.
It was put in the Treaty. But the promise has never really been fulfilled. We need to implement this principle properly.
So let us use this moment, as the Dutch Prime Minister has recently suggested, to examine thoroughly what the EU as a whole should do and should stop doing.
In Britain we have already launched our balance of competences review ‚Äď to give us an informed and objective analysis of where the EU helps and where it hampers.
Let us not be misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised, to hanker after some unattainable and infinitely level playing field.
Countries are different. They make different choices. We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the
Discussion Brief 1/2013
integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.
In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.
Nothing should be off the table.
My fourth principle is democratic accountability: we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national parliaments.
There is not, in my view, a single European demos.
It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.
It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek Parliament that Antonis Samaras has to pass his Government‚Äôs austerity measures.
It is to the British Parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.
Those are the Parliaments which instil proper respect ‚Äď even fear ‚Äď into national leaders.
We need to recognise that in the way the EU does business.
My fifth principle is fairness: whatever new arrangements are enacted for the Eurozone, they must work fairly for those inside it and out.
That will be of particular importance to Britain. As I have said, we will not join the single currency. But there is no overwhelming economic reason why the single currency and the single market should share the same boundary, any more than the single market and Schengen.
Our participation in the single market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal reason for our membership of the EU.
So it is a vital interest for us to protect the integrity and fairness of the single market for all its members.
And that is why Britain has been so concerned to promote and defend the single market as the Eurozone crisis rewrites the rules on fiscal coordination and banking union.
These five principles provide what, I believe, is the right approach for the European Union.
So now let me turn to what this means for Britain.
Discussion Brief 1/2013
Today, public disillusionment with the EU is at an all time high. There are several reasons for this.
People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. And they wonder what the point of it all is.
Put simply, many ask ‚Äúwhy can‚Äôt we just have what we voted to join ‚Äď a common market?‚ÄĚ
They are angered by some legal judgements made in Europe that impact on life in Britain. Some of this antipathy about Europe in general really relates of course to the European Court of Human Rights, rather than the EU. And Britain is leading European efforts to address this.
There is, indeed, much more that needs to be done on this front. But people also feel that the EU is now heading for a level of political integration that is far outside Britain‚Äôs comfort zone.
They see Treaty after Treaty changing the balance between Member States and the EU. And note they were never given a say.
They‚Äôve had referendums promised ‚Äď but not delivered. They see what has happened to the Euro. And they note that many of our political and business leaders urged Britain to join at the time.
And they haven‚Äôt noticed many expressions of contrition.
And they look at the steps the Eurozone is taking and wonder what deeper integration for the Eurozone will mean for a country which is not going to join the Euro.
The result is that democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer thin.
Some people say that to point this out is irresponsible, creates uncertainty for business and puts a question mark over Britain‚Äôs place in the European Union.
But the question mark is already there and ignoring it won‚Äôt make it go away.
In fact, quite the reverse. Those who refuse to contemplate consulting the British people, would in my view make more likely our eventual exit.
Simply asking the British people to carry on accepting a European settlement over which they have had little choice is a path to ensuring that when the question is finally put ‚Äď and at some stage it will have to be ‚Äď it is much more likely that the British people will reject the EU.
That is why I am in favour of a referendum. I believe in confronting this issue ‚Äď shaping it, leading the debate. Not simply hoping a difficult situation will go away.
Some argue that the solution is therefore to hold a straight in-out referendum now.
Discussion Brief 1/2013
I understand the impatience of wanting to make that choice immediately.
But I don‚Äôt believe that to make a decision at this moment is the right way forward, either for Britain or for Europe as a whole.
A vote today between the status quo and leaving would be an entirely false choice.
Now ‚Äď while the EU is in flux, and when we don‚Äôt know what the future holds and what sort of EU will emerge from this crisis is not the right time to make such a momentous decision about the future of our country.
It is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right.
How can we sensibly answer the question ‚Äėin or out‚Äô without being able to answer the most basic question: ‚Äėwhat is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?‚Äô
The European Union that emerges from the Eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the Eurozone.
We need to allow some time for that to happen ‚Äď and help to shape the future of the European Union, so that when the choice comes it will be a real one.
A real choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain shapes and respects the rules of the single market but is protected by fair safeguards, and free of the spurious regulation which damages Europe‚Äôs competitiveness.
A choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain is at the forefront of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade and where we leave the door firmly open to new members.
A new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where Member States combine in flexible cooperation, respecting national differences not always trying to eliminate them and in which we have proved that some powers can in fact be returned to Member States.
In other words, a settlement which would be entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated European Union I have described today. More flexible, more adaptable, more open ‚Äď fit for the challenges of the modern age.
And to those who say a new settlement can‚Äôt be negotiated, I would say listen to the views of other parties in other European countries arguing for powers to flow back to European states.
And look too at what we have achieved already. Ending Britain‚Äôs obligation to bail-out Eurozone members. Keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact. Launching a process to return some existing justice and home affairs powers. Securing protections on Banking Union. And reforming fisheries policy.
Discussion Brief 1/2013
So we are starting to shape the reforms we need now. Some will not require Treaty change.
But I agree too with what President Barroso and others have said. At some stage in the next few years the EU will need to agree on Treaty change to make the changes needed for the long term future of the Euro and to entrench the diverse, competitive, democratically accountable Europe that we seek.
I believe the best way to do this will be in a new Treaty so I add my voice to those who are already calling for this.
My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain.
But if there is no appetite for a new Treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
It will be a relationship with the Single Market at its heart.
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether.
It will be an in-out referendum.
Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative Government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.
It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.
I say to the British people: this will be your decision.
And when that choice comes, you will have an important choice to make about our country‚Äôs destiny.
I understand the appeal of going it alone, of charting our own course. But it will be a decision we will have to take with cool heads. Proponents of both sides of the argument will need to avoid exaggerating their claims.
Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other Member State.
But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?
Discussion Brief 1/2013
We will have to weigh carefully where our true national interest lies.
Alone, we would be free to take our own decisions, just as we would be freed of our solemn obligation to defend our allies if we left NATO. But we don‚Äôt leave NATO because it is in our national interest to stay and benefit from its collective defence guarantee.
We have more power and influence ‚Äď whether implementing sanctions against Iran or Syria, or promoting democracy in Burma ‚Äď if we can act together.
If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe. It will remain for many years our biggest market, and forever our geographical neighbourhood. We are tied by a complex web of legal commitments.
Hundreds of thousands of British people now take for granted their right to work, live or retire in any other EU country.
Even if we pulled out completely, decisions made in the EU would continue to have a profound effect on our country. But we would have lost all our remaining vetoes and our voice in those decisions.
We would need to weigh up very carefully the consequences of no longer being inside the EU and its single market, as a full member.
Continued access to the Single Market is vital for British businesses and British jobs.
Since 2004, Britain has been the destination for one in five of all inward investments into Europe.
And being part of the Single Market has been key to that success.
There will be plenty of time to test all the arguments thoroughly, in favour and against the arrangement we negotiate. But let me just deal with one point we hear a lot about.
There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland ‚Äď with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?
I admire those countries and they are friends of ours ‚Äď but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single market ‚Äď and pays for the principle ‚Äď it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.
The Swiss have to negotiate access to the Single Market sector by sector. Accepting EU rules ‚Äď over which they have no say ‚Äď or else not getting full access to the Single Market, including in key sectors like financial services.
The fact is that if you join an organisation like the European Union, there are rules.
Discussion Brief 1/2013
You will not always get what you want. But that does not mean we should leave ‚Äď not if the benefits of staying and working together are greater.
We would have to think carefully too about the impact on our influence at the top table of international affairs. There is no doubt that we are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful player in the European Union.
That matters for British jobs and British security.
It matters to our ability to get things done in the world. It matters to the United States and other friends around the world, which is why many tell us very clearly that they want Britain to remain in the EU.
We should think very carefully before giving that position up.
If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return.
So we will have time for a proper, reasoned debate.
At the end of that debate you, the British people, will decide.
And I say to our European partners, frustrated as some of them no doubt are by Britain‚Äôs attitude: work with us on this.
Consider the extraordinary steps which the Eurozone members are taking to keep the Euro together, steps which a year ago would have seemed impossible.
It does not seem to me that the steps which would be needed to make Britain ‚Äď and others ‚Äď more comfortable in their relationship in the European Union are inherently so outlandish or unreasonable.
And just as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should want us to stay.
For an EU without Britain, without one of Europe‚Äôs strongest powers, a country which in many ways invented the single market, and which brings real heft to Europe‚Äôs influence on the world stage which plays by the rules and which is a force for liberal economic reform would be a very different kind of European Union.
And it is hard to argue that the EU would not be greatly diminished by Britain‚Äôs departure.
Let me finish today by saying this.
I have no illusions about the scale of the task ahead.
I know there will be those who say the vision I have outlined will be impossible to achieve. That there is no way our partners will co-operate. That the British people have set themselves on a path to inevitable exit. And that if we aren‚Äôt comfortable being in the EU after 40 years, we never will be.
of the European Parliament for South East EnglandRead
Daniel in the Telegraph every day at http://www.hannan.co.uk/EURO-BULLETIN
- 24 January 2013David
Cameron‚Äôs announcement of an In/Out referendum was his finest moment as prime
minister, and the most significant statement by a British leader about the EU in
the 40 years of our membership.As
recently as 2011 David Cameron said: ‚ÄúI don‚Äôt believe an In/Out
referendum is right, because I don‚Äôt believe that leaving the European Union
would be in Britain ‚Äôs interests.‚ÄĚWhat
changed his mind? Partly the agonies of the single currency, which is pushing
the eurozone states into full federation. But partly, too, the strength of the
arguments within the Conservative Party for a referendum.Ever
since the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was dropped, I have campaigned,
patiently and, I hope, politely, for an In/Out poll. I never once criticised my
party leadership. Instead, I tried to make the case logically, both in private
and, through the People‚Äôs Pledge, in public. If our arguments were as convincing
as we claimed, I kept saying, surely they would convince. And so they have.
you to everyone who supported that campaign. This is as much your victory as
40 years, we have left it to mandarins and ministers to decide what is an
acceptable deal in Europe . The results can be seen all around us. Half our laws
come from Brussels . Our seas have been emptied by the CFP. Our small businesses
are asphyxiated with red tape. Our overseas trade has been artificially
redirected away from the growing markets of the developing world to one cramped
and dwindling customs union. Our net contribution to the EU budget now more than
wipes out every penny we have saved through domestic austerity
we might at last all get to decide whether the terms of membership are good
enough. But securing that referendum depends on the return of a Conservative
majority at Westminster . It would be tragic if, when the Conservative Party had
finally embraced an In/Out referendum, it lost office, giving Ed Miliband and Ed
Balls a second chance to empty our treasury, exhaust our credit and disinherit
me one good reason to vote Conservative‚ÄĚ, people sometimes say. Actually, there
are several: school choice, welfare reform, deficit reduction, controlled
immigration, falling unemployment. But perhaps the clearest answer of all can
now be given: so that your vote continues to matter in future.ALSO:A reminder of the forthcoming meeting in Chichester
on Europe and the Conservatives with me and Nick Herbert
MPThe meeting will take place on 9th February, 10am
atUniversity of Chichester, Mitre
lecture theatre, Bishop Otter Campus, College Lane, Chichester, PO19
6PE(free parking on campus, the event will be
signposted within the campus)If you’d like to come, please email your name and
constituency to me in reply.—Read
my daily column at http://www.hannan.co.uk
I have visited BOAT 13 twice in the past few months and most recently on Tuesday 22nd. January with residents when, (now famously), I fell coming down and suffered slight injury.
As a result of the information I received I reported the matter to the Police and a Police investigation has now been authorised.
At the end of [...]
Ferris has got many irons in the fire and according to his blog, BOAT 13 TRO is usually the item on the bottom that has to be left till later. As far as I can see nothing has happened on the Surrey side at all. Probably the only way that Councils get motivated about implementing TRO’s is if enough [...]
MDO Studio started the forum topic Anybody lost ‚Äď or knows someone who lost a mobile phone on Tuesday? in the group Lost & Found: Wednesday 23rd January 2013 3:36 pm · View
Found down Hurstmere Close. Contact me if you think it is yours, or you know whose it is.
Update – Owner collected it.
Well I hope it works. I have been trying to remember where I got it, but can’t so it was probably Halfords, as all the other shops have closed down now anyway, start on line and see where it goes. Better luck in the future.John
That’s awful. I wonder if it would help if you had a remote controlled alarm. I had one, it fits in the car but goes off in your pocket as well as in situ, then you quickly dial 999. It worked twice for me and both times I was able to have the police attend [...]
I think this is it Lynda, you are working to earn a living they are jealous of what you are doing, sadly this type of behaviour always raises its head when times are tough, instead of putting that negative energy into finding work they turn on those that are in work.
Thank you Caroline. I just hope I can embarrass them into acting like adults & face me with whatever is beefing them as this is so frustrating & expensive for me. Like everyone else I’m just trying to earn an honest living in hard times & this isn’t helping.
For the 2nd time in 6 months my van (D&G Pets) has been attacked in the village (Whitmore Vale Road this time, layby opposite St Lukes last time), causing hundreds of pounds worth of damage. Clearly someone has an issue with either me or my business as no other vehicles were damaged either time. I would request that whoever [...]
Graham Duerden posted on the forum topic thank u to chaps in digger and land rover clearing snow in the group East Hampshire District Council: Tuesday 22nd January 2013 9:57 pm · View
Agree with you Julie, they’ve been about all weekend and helped many of us – thank you!
Julie Macleod started the forum topic thank u to chaps in digger and land rover clearing snow in the group East Hampshire District Council: Tuesday 22nd January 2013 6:18 pm · View
Dont know who u are but thank u so much for your efforts around grayshott today. much appreciated.
Just to let you know that the Library will be closing at 4pm today to allow staff to get home safely.
take care and stay warm
- Load More