Cameron and the referendum

In Britain, David Cameron has been making a complete idiot of himself over the possibility of a vote on the EU. He was in favour, then he was against, now he seems to be back in favour. His own party are fed up, the opposition are calling it a 'shambles' (fair enough) and the people must be wondering what they've got which passes for a government. Cameron dithers until the moment when leadership is required, then vacillates.

My own position is clear. I came to the conclusion in 1991 - more than 20 yeas ago - that Britian would be better off both financially and democratically if it left the EU. Therefore what I want is for the government to stand up and say 'enough is enough. It is time for us to leave.' In view of the fact that there was a referendum in 1975, albeit over a different body, there may be a need for one now, for symmetry. But belief is required to make such a decision, and our Prime Minister has no beliefs at all.

But I am not on the side of the in/outers. A referendum is not a viable policy in itself. My side might lose it, if the Eurofanatics, amongst whiom we must include Cameron, persuade the public it is too risky to leave, and a small adjustment to the Fisheries Policy will be enough.

And Cameron doesn't want an in/out referendum any more than I do. What he wants is to renegotiate what we can and then put it to the people. I don't much object to this, except we are relying on Cameron to negotiate toughly (ha!) and not just say that some trivial change was the best he could do. His backbenchers must hold his feet to the fire, and produce a comprehensive shopping list of what he ought to achieve.

But the thing now is timing. Cameron will try to say that there is no need to do anything immediately, because a new Europe is emerging and we should wait and see how it turns out. He mustn't be allowed to get away with this: it is more vacillation. It may be that something new happens in Europe before the next British General Election, but it is unlikely to be anything in our interest: Merkel and Hollande and that funny little Belgian bloke aren't likely to say the future is a loose association of nation states based on free trade, are they? It will either be more Europe or, equally likely, more dithering and the same thing. We don't need to wait for that.

If they are to move towards more Europe they will need a new treaty (they may in any case need one for the latest accord to bail out Spanish banks) and as soon as this is mooted Cameron must be in there with his shopping list while he still has the threat of a veto. That is how to negotiate.

But I do wish it was anyone other than Cameron in charge of this.