Does time heal all policy wounds?

David Cameron's European policy seems purely aimed at placating the anti-EU wing of the Conservative party, perhaps the sole aspect of the unappealing Old Tory party that has been openly embraced by Cameron, who has tried to modernise the party and shift it towards the centre. This has given the policy an ad hoc quality, and has allowed it to be driven largely by shadow foreign minister William Hague and Tory MEP Daniel Hannan. I say ad hoc because, though the Tories' European policy can easily be identified as Euroskeptic, it's harder to see the actual goal of the policy. And surely to have a successful policy, you need to know where you want to go?

The policy - insofar as it exists as a conscious policy - is also ad hoc because the principles behind it that are on display, aren't really backed up with action after the symbolic move has been taken. Though the Tories have tried to present the ECR Group in the European Parliament as the "first real opposition" and the separation from the EPP as the opportunity to give people a chance to vote for a sceptic, non-withdrawalist grouping, scant attention has been paid to the ECR apart from its scandals (of which it has quite a few for such a young party). In fact, the Group doesn't even have it's own website - this was brilliantly exposed by Jon Worth's cybersquatting. But then, the aim was never to advance a political ideology, but to bin Europe as an issue in the Tory party altogether. The move to the ECR will therefore result in a loss of influence in the European Parliament, while not advancing any clear political vision. It has also started to damage relations with former EPP sister parties like the CDU - as the BBC reports:

"Joint policy groups have been scrapped and an annual meeting has been cancelled. [...] Mr Altmaier [from the CDU] acknowledged that the working groups had concluded their work, but added that when the time came to form new ones the CDU would be looking to their partners in the EPP. [...] He added that, for the same reason, no Tory MPs had been invited to come to Germany as observers during the recent election campaign, as they usually would have been."

Though pragmatism will mean that the UK won't be completely isolated in the Council under a Tory government, the Tories will have to work and lobby harder to construct issue-by-issue alliances.

The promise of a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty brings the Tory dilemma over European policy to a head (though it naturally won't be resolved given the dangers the issue poses to party unity). Since the UK Parliament has already ratified the Treaty, it would be an incredible reversal of UK foreign policy to push for its retrospective rejection in a referendum - especially if the Treaty has come into force. Tearing up (or attempting to tear up) a painstakingly negotiated compromise is also unlikely to help with mending fences after the EPP split. Perhaps most importantly for Cameron's likely government: it would also open a can of worms for the Tory government - with no clear party vision on what it wants out of Europe, and with the fragile unity the party has on Europe, can a Tory government seriously renegotiate a relationship with the EU that's: (a) acceptable to the whole Conservative party; (b) acceptable to the other member states; and (c) legally and practically possible? And that's without taking into account the vast economic problems the Cameron government would have to face, as well as the questionable populism with which the Conservatives are approaching constitutional reform in general.

So what's Tory policy towards the EU if the Treaty is in force if/when they come to power? Either there's a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty or on EU membership, or there's an attempt at renegotiating back competences, which would require a clear idea of what exactly the Conservatives want, and what they think the EU is for. It would have been better for Cameron if Ireland had voted No and taken the flak for binning the Treaty, so that the Tories could advance their aims, such as they are, without a loss in diplomatic, political capital and party unity. But now Cameron has to make a choice.

At the heart of the Tory dilemma is that it wants to see reform the EU, without exactly knowing what it wants from the EU. Presumably withdrawalism, though vocal in the form of Cash and Hannan, remains a minority opinion in the party since the ECR is more geared towards retaining and advancing the single market aspects of the EU while supporting deregulation and reversing integration. Yet the die-hard anti-EU wing of the party has managed to exert considerable influence on European policy, because the withdrawalists are the only wing of the party that have a clear vision of the UK's relationship with the EU and also enough momentum in the form of the policy concessions they've won from the party leadership to drive their agenda.

Cameron effectively lost control of European policy from day 1 when he promised that the Conservatives would leave the EPP, since he can't push for a more moderate form of scepticism. This creates real problems for him, because the belligerent style of current Tory policy makes progress on even moderate aspects of Tory European policy almost impossible to achieve. The European question won't go away - time won't solve this one. Splitting from the EPP means that Cameron can't hide from the European question by just muddling along as before. Cameron has signalled a change in Tory policy toward Europe, even if substantive change wasn't intended, and with little control over the expectations his party creates, Cameron is likely to be dogged by the issue if he can't deliver.

Progressive reform through Conservative means?

David Cameron yesterday gave a speech on constitutional reform.

I agree with the idea that local councils and devolved assemblies should have more power and autonomy, though Cameron has avoided the whole issue of Parliamentary Sovereignty - if the constitution can be so easily changed to devolve power down, then power can be quickly and easily centralised again by a determined government/parliament. Also disappointing is Cameron's avoidance of the issue of the House of Lords.

It would be too much to hope for Cameron to start a debate on the sorts of policy and the areas of competence that local government should have - and what this means for policy areas such as health, policing and education. If health is controlled more locally (decisions over medicine provision, etc) then how will/should that affect access to health care outside your area (if it should be controlled locally to a degree)? Should police be subject to some local control, and what are the implications for the political neutrality of the police? Hopefully now the issue of competence has been raised, there will be some debate on it.

I like the talk on the power of the whips being reduced for the early stages of the legislative process, but how will this be enforced? If it's just a political convention, political pressure could see a government or an opposition increase the power of the whips again when "politically necessary" for the party. Conventions are weak, and depend on the self-restraint of MPs - perhaps some sort of parliamentary disciplinary procedure for whips who interfere at a point where parliamentary procedure allows MPs a free vote...?

The temptation to break with convention - even the most powerful and respected of conventions - can be very tempting when there's a political advantage in it. Daniel Hannan has recently called on the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call an election if Gordon Brown doesn't:

"If the Prime Minister will not ask the Queen for a dissolution, perhaps she should force his hand. Her constitutional role is very limited, but this strikes me as a case where she might reasonably act. The country unquestionably wants fresh elections. The legitimacy of our democratic system is in the balance. All three party manifestos have been rendered obsolete by events - as much by the financial crisis as by the expenses revelations. The only possible argument against an early poll is based on low political calculation - which it is precisely the Crown's role to transcend. Your ministers have failed you, Ma'am: send for better ones."

If the Queen is supposed to be politically neutral, then she shouldn't intervene - those judgments are political ones, and, really, it's not up to the Queen to judge her ministers. I can't see how the Queen can call an election unilaterally when the polls show that the Tories will win and it wouldn't be see as political. It would be breaking convention and a breach of political neutrality for the Queen to decide what the best political course of action is. Especially since constitutional reform is in the air. The Queen is wise not to start tempting fate by exercising her power in a controversial way (even if you hate Labour) when people are pushing for constitutional reform.

Cameron's speech also has some points I would be seriously critical of:

Cameron's reasons against PR - that in a fixed term parliament it would be bad to have a parliament where the government didn't have a majority and that is weakens voter's ability to decide on the government.

First, the problem of weak governments could be fixed with a minimum requirement of votes to ensure there are coherent parties and if a government can't be formed after, say 3 months or 3 attempts, then there could be an automatic election under a fixed term system - fixed term meaning that parliament or the Queen don't decide on when an election happens, but the stability of a government and the set term of the parliament does.

Second, if parliament is to be strengthened at the expense of the executive, then no government will be able to push through their manifestos and implement them. Wasn't that the point of reforming parliament - so that it would be stronger and more diverse views would be expressed and constituents would be better represented? The more power parliament and individual MPs have, the more consensual politics become, and manifestos are implemented less directly and clearly. If Cameron wants MPs to go through legislation line by line and for parliament to have more legislative input independent of the executive (with perhaps even citizens proposing legislation for parliament to debate), then the importance of government manifestos is weakened as a more consensual approach to legislation is taken. Why then, is a consensual government - or coalitions - a bad thing? If you're going to have a more powerful and consensual parliament, then why not go for PR, where fewer votes are wasted? Does Cameron fear Parliament becoming political? Did he just want MPs to make legislation more efficient and effective and leave the serious politics to the government? Coalition governments can be effective in implementing their respective parties' manifestos - it's more likely that right-wing and left-wing parties will join with like-minded parties to govern, and the changes in policy from manifesto to government need not be so great. And, again, since a consensus needs to be build in Parliament anyway, what's wrong with a consensual government programme? Or to put it another way: why should a party with 1/3 of the vote be able to impose it's manifesto outright?

On Human Rights and the power of the judiciary, I wonder if Cameron actually knows much about this area in the first place.

"...since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws."

Increasingly? Judges in the common law system always had some law-making power - that's what the common law is: judge-made law. The Human Rights Act involves the interpretation of Acts of Parliament in the light of the Human Rights Act (another act of parliament, though it copies and pastes practically all of the ECHR, it's still an Act of Parliament, and the ECHR only has legal effect because of this). The HRA states that judges can interpret laws into line with the ECHR (which they do, sometimes creatively) or declare laws incompatible if such interpretation is impossible (which has the effect of doing, well, nothing). So judges interpreting law passed by Parliament in light of law passed by Parliament - sounds pretty much what judges are supposed to do, doesn't it?

And the alternative?

Cameron proposes a "British Bill of Rights" to "strengthen our liberties". Ok, so what does that mean, exactly? From the speech, it sounds like he thinks that the HRA has gone too far, so I would guess that he wants a diluted version of the ECHR. Does he propose pulling out of the ECHR? If not, people can still appeal to the court in Strasbourg which, although unbinding (almost like the judges' rulings under the HRA if there's incompatibility), it does have a political effect. So does he want less rights than the ones under HRA? More? What does he want - does he have policies or is he just staking out a populist decision? And again, what about the old question of Parliamentary Sovereignty - where does Cameron stand? If, under a British Bill of Rights, the rights are enshrined and cannot be repealed by implication by Parliament and judges still interpret the law, then judges have the same power (maybe more if declarations of incompatibility start to mean something), but if PS is reasserted, then rights won't be protected as well as they will be vulnerable to the whims of Parliament. So what's it to be, Cameron?

Finally, on Europe, Cameron highlights it's unaccountability and its remoteness. So, where are his policies? What powers should be taken back? What policy areas shouldn't be? On the policy areas that shouldn't be, what policies will the Conservatives pursue in the EP and how should the EP be reformed to make it more in touch with voters? Cameron has failed to articulate any opinions he has on these issues (and you never know, he may have some) despite the looming European election. How do you propose to make the exercise of power in the EU that you're happy to leave there more accountable if you fail in your duty to explain and formulate policies for the voter to choose or reject?

Sadly, the Conservatives are far from alone from this in the UK.