David Cameron’s ‘renegotiation’ of the terms of the UK’s membership of the EU was designed to encourage reluctant Brits to vote to remain in the union in an in/out referendum that may be held as early as June (the deadline is the end of next year). The draft deal that the prime minister unveiled last week has not, however, been greeted with quite the enthusiasm that he had hoped for. A couple of polls revealed that British opposition to EU membership actually increased after publication of the proposed ‘new settlement’s’ tawdry, paltry details.
And Cameron’s Tory MPs did not seem too impressed either.
Two-thirds of Conservative MPs now support Britain’s exit from the European Union, despite David Cameron’s clear preference for staying in, according to senior sources within the party. Key figures in Tory high command say analysis of public statements and private views expressed by their 330 MPs shows that at least 210 now believe that the UK would be better off “out”.
The surge in support within the parliamentary party for leaving will greatly encourage “out” campaigners, who believe many people will take their lead from local MPs when they decide which way to vote. However, party managers say the total number of Tory MPs who will join the campaign to leave could turn out to be significantly fewer – around 110 – if in the next few months opinion polls begin to point towards a close result or a win for the pro-EU side.
“Certainly at least two-thirds want to leave as it stands,” said a senior party figure. “But if things are very tight some will be bought off by offers of patronage and will be reluctant to take a different line to the prime minister.
Bought off by offers of patronage.
Downing Street has been accused of trying to “buy off” Eurosceptic Tory MPs with offers of foreign jaunts and future jobs to come out in favour of David Cameron’s EU negotiation package – or at the very least to avoid campaigning against him. Conservative whips in Westminster have been tasked by Number 10 to ensure as many wavering MPs as possible come out in favour of the In campaign when negotiations conclude later this month. But some Eurosceptic MPs are crying foul over tactics they say are being used to convince their colleagues not to join the Out camp.
Among the baubles said to be on offer are appointments to become a Prime Ministerial “trade envoy”, promoting links between Britain and far- flung parts of the world with obvious opportunities for travel…
But the real focus of Cameron’s campaign will not be his MPs, but the general public—referendums encourage that. And it was always a certainty that fear—grim warnings of how terrible life would be for tiny, helpless, kitten-like Britain outside of Brussels’ protective embrace—was going to be a key element in the effort to persuade Brits to vote to remain in the EU. Nevertheless, it says something about Cameron’s realization of how feeble his proposed deal is that the fear card was being played quite so crudely within days of the deal’s announcement.
David Cameron has been accused of “scaremongering” over the claim that leaving the EU could lead to Calais-style migrant camps being established in parts of the UK. The Prime Minister is to warn that exiting the bloc could cause a special arrangement where British border staff are allowed to check passports in Calais instead of Dover to be scrapped.
He is expected to say that such a change could cause refugee and migrant camps like the Calais “Jungle” to South-east England. “The French would love to pull out of the arrangement,” a senior Downing Street source told the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
[David Cameron] said a vote to leave would give French politicians the chance to “tear up” the deal [The Le Touquet treaty] which lets UK border guards check passports at Calais.
Yes and no.
As so often, EU Referendum’s Richard North has done the necessary research:
As it stands, the treaty can be ended at any time by written notification, the termination taking effect two years after the date of the notification, so it is always possible that the French could end the treaty if [Britain] leave[s] the EU….
However, outside the EU – and in any event – [Britain]could repudiate the 1951 Convention on the Treatment of Refugees (and the 1967 Protocol), and also the European Convention on Human Rights. And freed of such obligations, should the French allow migrant free access to the ports (and Channel Tunnel), [Britain] could simply pack them on a return ferry and send them back to France.
This could perhaps lead to an unedifying situation with one or more ferries carrying thousands of refugees shunting between British and French ports, prohibited from discharging at either, until one or other of the parties blinked. For this to happen would be no more in the interest of the French that the British, and it was in the interests of regularising the situation that the French signed the treaty in the first place.
Even without it, there are carrier liability provisions in place which impose heavy fines on ferry companies and Eurotunnel for permitting access to undocumented passengers. So, treaty or not, large numbers of would-be asylum seekers would be denied passage, and you would be seeing camps spring up in Calais, just as they did before the Le Touquet Treaty.
With the treaty in place, the French have a considerable degree of leverage and have been able to extract, via the Evian Arrangements, many millions in cash, to assist the Calais authorities in dealing with the problem.
So Calais is most unlikely to come to Kent.
But while we’re on this topic, it’s worth reading Douglas Murray in The Spectator, writing, stiletto in hand:
If we emptied the camp at Calais in a week and brought all the inhabitants here it would still be less than an average week’s immigration into the UK during David Cameron and Theresa May’s time in office. And even if that camp filled up again every single week then that still wouldn’t be worse than ‘managed migration’ under David Cameron and Theresa May. Remember this is the government that promised to bring migration into the UK down from the hundreds of thousands a year to the tens of thousands, yet just last year saw a record high of 330,000 people migrating into the UK. All of which has brought negligible economic benefits to Britain, but has greatly further damaged (to an extent no one seems to want to admit) the possibility of our having any coherent future as a country.
Heckuva job, David.