Every time a story about the European Union does the rounds, I’m left with a slightly uncomfortable feeling at the thought of having to avoid using the phrase ‘the EU has reared its ugly head again’. This avoidance is, of course, partly because of the horrible cliché, but also there’s the issue that the head of the European Union is José Manuel Barroso, and whilst the accuracy of describing him as ‘ugly’ is a matter of individual preference, I imagine he would probably not be too impressed with me if he discovered I had been doing so1. If I’m honest, the EU’s head does not look to me like a chap I would be happy to have as an enemy.

Of course, he will only be the Head of the EU Council for so long – presumably the root of the oft-heard assurance that this thing or the other thing will ‘forever change the face of Europe’. Most recently, the terrifying prospect has reared its ugly head2 of ‘the face of Europe’ regenerating into this face (or, even worse, this face). Enough to scare kids to sleep.

However, I digress – and before I’d even managed to get started. The focus of the EU story this time round is the question of what exactly David Cameron is going to do about the probability that the Lisbon Treaty will have been ratified before the next general election. This focus is because back in 2007 – facing the prospect of a snap general election and the possibility of actually becoming Prime Minister before the Lisbon Treaty ratification process had been completed – Cameron gave what he called a ‘cast-iron guarantee‘ that his Government, were he allowed to form one, would hold a referendum on the question of whether Britain should sign up to the Lisbon Treaty.

For what it’s worth, I quite honestly believe (as, I think, do most reasonable people) that Mr Cameron meant that promise sincerely. When he gave it, it was indeed a cast-iron guarantee. Had an election been held and the Conservatives returned as the largest party, I think he would definitely have held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Considering that this is a man who is often criticised by his opponents for supposed insincerity or assumed lack of trustworthiness, I think on this matter he could have really shown his critics up.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, did not follow through with their respective pledges to hold a referendum on further European integration. Labour’s argument was one of specificity – its cornerstone being the assertion that they had only promised a referendum on one particular document, the EU Constitution, and not on any other treaties, constitutions, agreements, settlements, compacts, covenants or other such contractual arrangements the EU may or may not produce in the future. It’s a point of view which is semantically accurate whilst not entirely convincing. You might say they followed the letter of the law, but not the spirit. As it were.

The Lib Dems, on the other hand, took a ‘principled stance’ against their original promise, declaring that democracy would be better served by having no referendum at all than a referendum which, in their eyes, only went half way. This idea, if you twist your face into a funny angle, stand on your head and squint at it, makes some slight degree of sense – an in/out referendum could plausibly have been preferable in the long run, after all. But, having promised in their manifesto to argue for a referendum on further integration, when push came to shove I think it’s fair to say they faltered.

It was all, really, as disappointing as it was predictable.

So now, with the Lisbon Treaty ratified, David Cameron has ended up a little stuck in the mud. Realistically, he has only two options. He can break his ‘cast-iron guarantee’ and leave the Lisbon Treaty ratified without a referendum (with some token attempt at ‘renegotiating our relationship’ with the EU), in the process upsetting a large amount of his party. Alternatively, he could hold a referendum which would effectively decide whether Britain remains part of the EU or not. In the process this could further alienate him from the other EU countries, and put him in something of a lose-lose situation, in the long run.

The juxtaposition here, between the pussyfooting and dishonesty from Labour and the Lib Dems, and what I genuinely think was a sincere and well-meant promise from David Cameron is quite eye-opening. I’ve written before on this same point, but happily Patently Rubbish has written along similar lines with much greater eloquence than I managed:

The only politician who has, throughout, kept to his promise that he would hold a referendum, is David Cameron. Every other party has dropped us in it. What is worse, they have dropped us in it so thoroughly, and so deeply, and so irrevocably, that they now actually dare to criticise Cameron for acknowledging that the promise he made is no longer deliverable.

For those parties, now, to taunt and tease Cameron and make him out to be the dishonest one in this situation, is just disgraceful. It is a showcase of British politics at its lowest, at it’s most venal an crass. All involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

So, I’m afraid I won’t be joining those rushing to do exactly that over this issue. I have to say, I don’t see why sticking to your guns, taking risks and making promises you intend to keep is such a bad attribute for a politician, and I furthermore don’t see how changing your position when things have moved on and it is no longer a sensible position is the mark of a dishonest man.

Cameron’s mistake, and certainly to the political-minded observer he did make one, was his (perhaps naïve) assumption that the other parties would not sell him, and those voters who cared about having a referendum, down the river. He may (as Mick Fealty put it) be ‘wriggling off a hook he should not have landed himself on’, but the fact is that this entire exercise has provided an object lesson in why politicians always seem to lie and sidestep tough questions in the first place. Whenever you give a straight and sincerely meant promise, if events transpire in such a way that you cannot fulfil it (normally known as Murphy’s Law), the mistake is deemed to be yours.

Seriously, how often do you hear people arguing, as Mark Thompson has here3, that politicians should use more caveats, and give themselves more wriggle room in interviews and campaign pledges? Is that a serious suggestion that had Cameron been vaguer and less forthright, it would have been more honourable? That he would not have received any criticism for refusing to make a firm promise?

It certainly sounds like it to me, and if so, I think there’s a word for that.

Hypocrisy.

  1. Not to mention my bringing up the matter of him being ‘reared’ by the EU, which sounds just a tad painful to me. [↩]
  2. Does a prospect have a head? Or would I be better off not asking? [↩]
  3. UPDATE: For avoidance of confusion, I only linked to Mark’s post mainly because he’s the one I’ve been back-and-forthing with about this subject. He is not the only one to have made this argument, and is far less damning than many others. [↩]