Nick Williams

An amazing example of the differences between British and American conservatives is shown by Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal for binding shareholder votes on executive pay.  On this side of the pond, that would get you bounced out of the Republican party.  When Democrats proposed, non-binding votes on executive pay, they were attacked as “socialists” by Republicans.

My colleague, Nick Williams, has an explanation for Cameron’s move:

Fleishman-Hillard head of public affairs Nick Williams accused Cameron of using executive pay to divert attention away from ‘dire economic predictions’ in 2012.

He said: ‘With 2012 starting off with dire economic predictions the Prime Minister is simply using populist measures to divert attention. With a near-total dearth of good news, Number 10 will have to work creatively on developing these schemes.’

Even as a diversionary tactic, such a think would be unthinkable for American conservatives.

 David Cameron MP UK Prime Minister

 “David Cameron’s isolation is a sign of weakness not of strength … It is not in Britain’s national interest for decisions to be taken without us even at the table and it’s a direct result of David Cameron spending more time negotiating with his own backbenchers than with our European partners.”

Douglas Alexander MP
UK Shadow Foreign Secretary

“Mr Cameron was right to reject a deal designed by the French, for the French.”

The Daily Telegraph

The UK has most of the EU’s financial business, but we have a minority of the votes. The City does business globally but pays its taxes here, so retaining a strong, vibrant, international finance hub here is good for jobs and our economy.”

Angela Knight
British Bankers Association

“Britain did not walk out of the EU last night. But let there be no doubt about it: we have started falling out.”

The Economist

EU Council – Britain’s Veto
Friday 9th December 2011

A major part of David Cameron’s modernisation plan for the Conservative Party was to heal their internal rift over Europe. This rift stemmed from the Conservative rebellion against UK Prime Minister John Major over the 1992 Maastricht Treaty – a formative political experience for both Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne. In this they largely succeeded by producing a Eurosceptic party in which opposition to anything that hinted at federalism assumed the level of a litmus test amongst activists; the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs are amongst the most Eurosceptic to date. This was a purely domestic project, in which the implications for the UK’s influence in the EU were largely ignored.

However, with the formation of the coalition, the European faultline running through government is if anything more significant than at the time of Maastricht. The Liberal Democrats are avowedly pro-Europe, and see the EU as entirely consistent with their internationalist and regionalist approach – a position that evokes a range of emotions from bewilderment to rage amongst their Conservative counterparts.
Against this backdrop, could last night’s debacle in Brussels destroy the coalition? It is unlikely, as neither party wants to face the electorate with the economy stalling and the austerity cuts beginning to bite. In particular, current polling suggests that the Lib Dems would face electoral oblivion at the polls – they need all the time they can get for economic recovery to vindicate their decision to enter a coalition with the Tories and implement the painful austerity programme.

Could this embolden the Tories to call time on the Coalition? Not unless the Conservative Right can convince the leadership that they can win an outright majority in a snap election – something more likely after the October 2013 boundary changes have taken effect. On balance, we therefore expect the Coalition’s increasingly unhappy marriage to continue in the short term – most likely through to 2015. However, the Conservative’s right wing is likely to continue causing trouble on Europe as the Parliament wears on – aided and abetted by Labour for tactical reasons – resulting in increased coalition friction.
UK – EU Relations

In broad terms, the EU has now split between the UK and everyone else. This is a moment that bears more than a passing resemblance to the 1990s – when John Major was isolated in Europe through repeated use of the veto abroad and Tory rebels at home – except that now the stakes are much higher.

Realistically, a disorderly break-up of the eurozone will only be averted if the package agreed between the Eurozone 17 plus the (now) 9 other non-Euro members (i.e., every Member State but the UK) is judged to be sufficiently credible and likely to stick through the three years it is likely to take to negotiate, ratify and implement. The markets will ultimately be the judge of that.
Beyond this, it is clear that we now have a two-speed Europe, regardless of whether the agreement between the rest of the Member States is formally within the EU institutions or not. In vetoing treaty change, Cameron has denied the rest the use of the Commission and EU officials. This may well have been in the UK’s short term interests; however, the reality is that we have also entrenched a large voting bloc whose interests will inevitably start to converge as they embark on closer union.

Given the dramatic way in which the negotiations broke up, and the rancour directed towards the UK (on top of the existing tensions), it is difficult to see how this will not further limit the UK’s ability to influence the EU negotiations in our favour. It is likely that it will take a decade or more for Britain’s influence in the EU to recover – and any future enlargement of the EU is unlikely to change this – the expectation is that any future Member States will also have to sign up to the new treaty.

Britain’s position in Europe is once again a burning political issue after up to 81 Tory MPs voted against David Cameron in the biggest rebellion of Government MPs in years.

It had been predicted that around 60 MPs would rebel, but according to the BBC, around 80 have done so in what would appear to be an unprecedented disaster for Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin.

Not sure what all this means, but it’s not good for Cameron….or for Europe.  Watch this space for further developments.

See the lively account below from my colleague in London (be sure to follows him on Twitter):

Simon Benson, Fleishman Hillard London

Back to the Future for Cameron’s Party?
By Simon Benson, FH London
A Tory Cabinet Minister resigning with the whiff of innuendo in the air and now the Parliamentary Conservative Party dividing in their dozens on the issue of Britain’s membership of the European Union. People younger than myself tell me there has been a 1990’s revival in the UK recently – I now see they are not wrong.

Of course, things are different today. At that time, John Major’s Government appeared to be on its last legs, held together by a rag tag alliance of the mad, bad and dangerous to know – and I have not even begun talking about their critical alliances with the Ulster Unionists.

Luckily, Cameron is not anywhere near that stage, and we should not draw too many parallels. First, Cameron’s coalition gives him a good majority and as Labour is not playing the politics game – for the moment –Cameron will easily survive. Second, the issue of Europe was the defining key issue for Major – for Cameron, it is the economy. If he plays it right, he can emphasise the critical role the EU plays in terms of trade with the UK.

What will be most interesting for me – as a former special adviser in the Chief Whip’s office – will be the scale of the rebellion – especially among the new intake. When I worked in the Whips’ Office, any rebellion predicted to be around the 60 mark sent panic waves through Government. The best operation we were involved in got a top line prospect of 75 rebellions down to about 28 on the day – using all sorts of tactics that I won’t publish here.

If the Government succeeds in reducing the numbers by a healthy third or more, then Cameron and his team will have seen a job well done. Less than that and Cameron will know that Europe – and its fatal ability to be a conduit for other frustrations – has come back to haunt his Party.

The Key Points

• The Motion has been tabled by Tory MP David Nuttall, suggesting a public referendum on either leaving the EU entirely or renegotiating the UK’s position within it.
• It is not binding on the Government – even if it succeeded, it would not pass as statute.
• David Cameron’s Government will easily survive this vote as the Opposition will not collude with the Eurosceptics.
• The Tory rebellion is likely to be up to 65. Any more than 41 rebels would mean the largest Conservative revolt on Europe in Government. The Whips will be spending today finalising a campaign which would have started days ago, turning on the pressure.
• The ‘three line’ Whip on this – the strictest in parliament – surprised many in the Tory Party, who thought that as the motion was not binding, the Government would allow a free vote.
• All eyes will be on the scale of the rebellion and what this will signify for Mr Cameron and his authority on both his policy on Europe and his grip on the parliamentary party.

Key Points from the Debate so far, at 1700

• Labour leader, Ed Miliband MP: ‘He (the PM) went in shouting at Germans, but came out being
• lambasted by the French…the Tory party on Europe suffering another nervous breakdown.’
• David Nuttall MP, proponent: ‘the vast majority of the British people want a referendum’.
• Prime Minister David Cameron MP: ‘National interest is within the EU, benefiting from single market.. 50% UK trade is with Europe – would not want to imperil that.’

What Happens Next

• The vote is at 10pm tonight. Insight Special will email the results and tweet them at www.twitter.com/fleishmanLonpa

His performance in Parliament today showed him at his prime-ministerial best: in command, in control, and, for the first time since the phone-hacking scandal at News of the World erupted, on top of the situation. “The buck stops with the prime minister,” he said.

Jon Stewart swooned over the histrionics yesterday over the phone hacking scandal.  “This is their CSPAN!” he exulted.

Liam McCloy

My colleague, Liam McCloy in the Fleishman Hillard London office gave his pre-debate analysis to me as follows:

The Prime Minister will be listening closely to the evidence given before the Committees tomorrow as on Wednesday he will have to demonstrate a clear sense of purpose in driving the investigation forward.

This is what the Opposition are quite rightly calling for him to display. If he fails to exhibit this then we will be left under no illusion that this is due to his proximity to those at the heart of the investigation.

I suspect that Cameron more than most MPs will be glad when the Speaker calls time on Wednesday and Parliament breaks for the Summer Recess.

However, with August traditionally a quiet month for news, the Prime Minister might find the crisis continues to lap at his feet as he paddles off the British shoreline on his summer break.

As we head into August, Cameron seems to be making the best of a bad situation.

It is truly telling that conservatives in the UK felt obligated to rise to the defense of a system that was too “socialist” to be even considered in the U.S. debate.  Single-payer was ruled out at the outset.

It is also an interesting example of the global nature of communications that this debate over a domestic policy issue the U.S. has generated an uproar in Great Britain.

The top story on the front page of the Financial Times this week, led with this:

The fractious British political classes have united in defence of the UK’s healthcare system after it has become a byword for the failings of universal, state-funded provision among the US Republican right.

Gordon Brown, prime minister, and David Cameron, leader of the Conservative opposition party, on Friday both declared their commitment to the National Health Service.

It is truly a fascinating time to be involved in global public affairs when there is a revolution in communications technology.