Conservatives for Britain

Conservatives for Britain have now launched the website. Those interested in offering support can register on www.ConservativesforBritain.org.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

24 Comments

  1. matthu
    Posted August 12, 2015 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    I think it as great pity that this particular appeal is so closely aligned to Cameron’s supposed renegotiation of which there is scant evidence.

    I don’t have every confidence in the PM’s ability to renegotiate a better deal without treaty change.

    I don’t accept that he has been particularly successful in previous negotiations, whether they be a cut in the budget (before other increases in charges to the UK) or taking our country out of EU bailouts (particularly if this has since been compensated by making one-sided payments to Ireland) or securing a commitment from the EU that payments to the EFSF would not be used to support keeping Greece in the Euro.

    Any change without treaty change is not worth the envelope it is scribbled on.

    But it will be interesting to keep an eye on signatories, if these are published.

  2. yosarion
    Posted August 12, 2015 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    So will that be England and Wales or Just England by another name?

  3. Duyfken
    Posted August 12, 2015 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    This must be some joke. The site is spare of information and is dominated by a picture of Cameron on the Home page. Apart from my positively not wishing to sign up to something so opaque, and apart from my not now being a Conservative Party supporter, I deprecate the idea of making this a cabal of “Conservatives” for Britain. There are many others (including but not only 4 million UKIP voters) who are for Britain and we need an integrated force and strong leadership in the cause of Brexit, nothing less.

    • Duyfken
      Posted August 13, 2015 at 7:18 am | Permalink

      May I amplify my comment above:

      Were there to be a majority vote of “NO” in the referendum, this presumably would not compel the government to withdraw from the EU, nor would it provide a timescale for such action.

      With the present UK government, it is surely likely to try to fudge the result, inter alia drawing attention to the large number of, and consideration needed for those who voted “YES”. I can foresee our government and the EU powers then conspiring to stitch up a treaty change of sorts, involving a few concessions here and there, and presenting this as a satisfactory response to the referendum result.

      Those now campaigning for a “NO” vote, and indeed those, like the CfB, who may so campaign, should understand how the referendum could just be a limited inconvenience to the UK pro-EU rump and to the Brussels’ totalitarians.

      The fight for our independence has to be really robust and I am less than confident this will be so, given this CfB initiative.

      • Richard
        Posted August 14, 2015 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

        The referendum is a distraction. We need to elect at a general election, a party who say it will leave the EU if it wins.

        Reply The problem with that plan is that in both 2010 and 2015 the electorate decisively rejected that offer from UKIP

        • Paul Hopkins
          Posted August 16, 2015 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

          I am afraid – and somewhat disappointed – that your reply is slightly disingenuous, in that you know as well as I do that FPTP was a major factor here. Indeed prior to the election you used this factor in your repeated warnings not to split the anti-EU position by voting for UKIP. 4 million votes was hardly a decisive rejection, and UKIP came second in a lot of seats.
          Furthermore it seems certain that a large number of people were swayed back to the Tories at the last minute by the SNP/Labour scare stories.
          Like others here, I was interested in reading the link you put out but am deterred by the strong alignment with Cameron’s position. To be fair, “Conservatives” for Britain probably has little alternative at this stage in the game. However, like most people, I am expecting Cameron to recommend voting to stay in even if all the EU offers is the continued right to put milk in the teacup first. Of course the surge in SNP support over the last year should be a salutary lesson to Cameron about the possible consequences of being seen to “throw” the referendum, but he is now in a box of his own making.

  4. matthu
    Posted August 12, 2015 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    CfB align themselves with Cameron’s ability to negotiate a “good deal” with the EU which will not even be underwritten by treaty.

    The same EU of which Christine Lagarde, then French finance minister, gloated: “We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailout.”

    So if we know they are prepared to violate treaties themselves, why should we trust them when we have even less than a treaty to rely on?

    Why choose Cameron as your figurehead? Someone who has already indicated he will not be around to pick up the pieces in 5 years’ time?

    Just say “No”!

    • acorn
      Posted August 13, 2015 at 7:36 am | Permalink

      The markets always discount future events in today’s prices. So, forget Cameron, think Osborne.

      When Osborne takes over the Conservative Party, it will shift further to the right, as he is the leading neo-con in that party. Imagine if Corbyn leads the Labour Party and moves it to the left and/or it becomes a wholly Trade Union owned party? What happens in the middle ground, where it is said, a party has to be to get elected?

      Do the left wing of the Conservative and the right wing of Labour form a new party in the middle, and call themselves Social Democrats if a bit leftist; or, Christian Democrats if a bit rightist? Where would they stand on the EU, probably exactly where we are now, betwixt and between. 😉

      Reply Why do you think Mr Osborne is a neo Con or will shift the party to the right? I see no evidence for that.

      • acorn
        Posted August 13, 2015 at 11:00 am | Permalink

        “Why do you think Mr Osborne is a neo Con”. Because it says so on Wiki, and nobody has ever bothered to edit it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_neoconservatism .

      • Ken Moore
        Posted August 13, 2015 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

        ‘Shift further to the right’.

        Is it this ‘shift to the right’ that has brought us record net immigration and a doubling of the national debt ?. .
        Or perhaps the ‘token’ gesture of squandering billions on
        foreign aid that does more harm than good but pleases left wing liberals. Or the crackdown on Quangos that never happened…
        Or being one of the few governments in Europe that closes down it’s power stations to please a left wing elite ?.
        Or having an education secretary that seems to care more about celebrating ‘diversity’ than teaching children to add up ?
        Or the reductions in our armed forces that have left us worse able to defend ourselves in a more dangerous world..
        Or having a PM that has set his face against coming out of the Eu at any cost.

        How are the Conservatives in any way shape or form ‘right wing’ ?

  5. Sean
    Posted August 12, 2015 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

    Come on! Really! Conservatives for Britain, when have they ever had Britain at their hearts. Most of you should hold your heads in shame.

    • brian
      Posted August 13, 2015 at 9:15 am | Permalink

      Most of us Conservatives have always had Britain at our hearts. If we don’t like the results of the negotiations we will vote for Brexit. Hopefully that will consign the (word left out ed) kipper elements to oblivion.

  6. forthurst
    Posted August 12, 2015 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    It is not clear what these Eurosceptics are expecting CMD to achieve or what they would find acceptable in order to recommend Yes. From Steve Baker MP’s DT article:

    “[CMD] has indicated about ten areas for reform. As a recent Business for Britain report set out, they are: an end to “ever closer union”, reduced regulation for small businesses and start-ups, domestic control over social and employment law, protection for the City, exemption from Eurozone intervention, fast-track trade deals, a reduced EU budget, greater transparency, migration controls for member states and the right for Britain to veto EU laws.

    Conservatives for Britain will be exploring the extent to which those goals have been met in the renegotiation package and whether they are sufficient to recommend EU membership to the British people.”

    “The Know” is a non-political Out campaign to run from September which already has an active twitter feed:

    http://theknow.eu/

  7. JoeSoap
    Posted August 13, 2015 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    An oxymoron if ever I saw one!

  8. agricola
    Posted August 13, 2015 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    This site is a further step in the smoke and mirrors campaign for staying in Europe after a spurious and worthless renegotiation. If it were about leaving the EU and regaining our sovereignty I ask you where are the labour Party doubters and all the members of UKIP. If you wish to pretend that this is a site to galvanise opinion for our departure from the EU you are grossly deluded. I would not touch it with someone else’s barge pole.

  9. agricola
    Posted August 13, 2015 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    In Conservatives for Britain you are suffering the illusion that the EU is prepared, or might be prepared, to hand us back our sovereignty. Imagine if they did, how many more EU countries would demand they follow us. In effect you are asking the EU to tear up all it’s treaties and go back to a blank sheet of paper from which nation states become supreme again.

    Were the EU prepared to accept this they would loose control of their precious Euro, ensuring it’s demise and ipso facto loosing control of the countries that use it. The desires of the British people and the pathetic crumbs that Cameron might achieve are totally incompatible.

    In my judgement, Conservatives for Britain is a piece of fantasy designed to placate those within the Conservative party who might otherwise ruffle the feathers of your leader. A typical piece of political fudge which dilutes the integrity of those who might sign up to it. It is a piece of insular arrogance that makes the assumption that the conservative party are the watchkeepers of British sovereignty when a bare 50 of their MPs give it unqualified support, while ignoring those in Labour and UKIP who have a much more credible story to tell.

    If this is what you have been encouraging us to await I am sorely disappointed.

    Reply On the contrary. Conservatives for Britain want a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU and don’t mind whether we get it from negotiation now or from exit.When will you want to work with people who can help instead of always querying motives and aims? There are only 10% of the electors currently pure enough for UKIP, so you need to work with other support.

    • agricola
      Posted August 13, 2015 at 9:52 am | Permalink

      Can you not see that in creating this body and naming it C f B you are excluding everyone who is not a Conservative. I do not see Kate Hoey and Nigel Farage joining such, nor their supporters. Come the referendum you will need every vote you can get, and you are less likely to get them by making it party political. To me it is a lost opportunity for unity of purpose.

  10. James Winfield
    Posted August 13, 2015 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Not sure if it covers my preferred outcome. I don’t necessarily want a different relationship – I want the EU to be reformed.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 13, 2015 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

      It’s already been reformed, through Merkel’s “Reform Treaty”.

  11. Douglas Carter
    Posted August 13, 2015 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Whilst I understand the normal caveats and manoeuvres which go hand-in-hand with an emerging agenda movement, with particular regard to a body which campaigns to withdraw from the EU, the change I’d like to see would be a paradigm shift in the nature of its media appearances.

    Traditionally, for several decades, pro-EU figures are given free rein to assert the most extraordinary drivel with regard to the consequences of EU withdrawal Or for the specific nature of the EU itself, for that matter. (‘3 Million jobs etc…) Claims which also go hand-in-hand with the most extraordinary childish aggressive hyperbole emitted from them (swivel-eyed loons… space aliens… clowns) which the media lap up; as they will also do so from non-accountable sources. (Neither (names a peer and businessman ed) – among the usual suspects – have any accountable obligations to the electorate nor to the debate, nor notable proficiency in the subject, yet they remain reliable occasional sources of the most egregious rubbish)

    I would wish to see from such your recommended new body a commitment to enjoining public battle stridently countering – immediately and relentlessly – such imbecilic claims from the EUphiles. Allied with an insistence that the media provide for such debating purposes proper peer figures to debate with them. There’s no point, John, you yourself appearing on Channel Four news to rebut a false and exaggerated claim made by a LibDem who lost her seat in 2005 and has vanished from public relevance since (just an academic unqualified example) and for the media to claim that’s a legitimate interjection in the public face of the debate. Thence for the same outlet to put up Ken Clarke – as usual unopposed – to elicit the usual ranting ignorance which has become a hallmark of his interventions.

    I would suggest you as an MP would have an entitlement to go face to face with Alan Johnson or Nick Clegg to rip up this all-too-frequent pernicious form of blatant lying and evasion. As I’ve said before with regard to Eurosceptics who plan to campaign publically – stop being reserved and polite. It’s not getting that movement anywhere. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Imitate the action of the Tiger. Over the decades, I think all of us are tired of hearing from the Hamster. When these people pop up, take them down. Ruthlessly, and permanently. There’s nothing in them but wind and indignation – no actual substance detectable among them in all that time. Take advantage of it at last. The goalposts are wide open, and have been for years.

    Reply I accept interviews on the EU when they are available and do not usually argue over who else they wish to have on, as I just wish to have some airtime on this matter. I do not agree we should be ad hominem or unpleasant. I just think we need to use every opportunity to get over the truth that 3m jobs are not at risk, and that we would be better off out and freer without EU interference.

    • Douglas Carter
      Posted August 15, 2015 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

      ..’I do not agree we should be ad hominem or unpleasant’..

      I didn’t mean that John, neither did I intend to imply it. I also know that you personally tend to defend your stance during TV interview with a degree of assertiveness over the matter.

      (reference to an individual removed ed)
      We’re now in the foothills of a process which will be funded by the taxpayer. Both sides of the debate will be presented and whilst there is an on-going observation by some that core elements of broadcast media have a record of pro-EU bias, the figures who inhabit studio time tend to remain the same usual suspects all of whom reliably drawl on from the same long-established script. A script over which all too many journalists refuse to give pertinent and intellectual scrutiny.

      In recent weeks, Jeremy Corbyn has been answering media interview in a manner many established journalistic figureheads were clearly unready for. Whilst I have no truck with Mr. Corbyn as a potential Party Leader, it was at least refreshing to hear him stridently insist on actually delivering the verbal answers that those journalists allegedly wanted to hear – but also proceeded to interrupt half-way through the delivery of.

      So to come back to my point about the EU Debate subject to taxpayer funding, I would suggest it’s time for properly accountable pro-EU Politicians to attend studios and state a proper case. Not the falsified one that is resident in myth and caricature, but the one which represents the true political EU as it actually is – and a clear illustration of what they intend it to be. Those politicians have become entirely too happy to have their places taken publically by non-accountable figures such as those I named in the original unedited posting. Those same figures who not only insist on regurgitating the garbage they have done so over the years, but reliably without intervention by – what would appear to be – sympathetic interviewers.

      I’m not suggesting insults or ‘unpleasantness’ – I’m suggesting that the subjective matter invariably hoisted by Europhiles in public debate (most of it long discredited) is engaged far more stridently and that interviewers and panel journalists are given a requirement to add a ‘memory’ into the debate. Each time the EU is raised as a subject, each precious moment is taken up by a return to the tedium of the mythologies from more than two decades ago. Each time individuals such as yourself are obliged to start again across the same familiar territory which as you will know will be yet again ignored, forgotten in time for the next interview.

      If the debate is one which is fuelled by public funding, then it’s right that media outlets usually also funded by the same public are equal to the debate, and provide their precious studio facilities to that debate with due diligence to ensure the public can be properly informed.

      Thus far, I see no evidence that such broadcasters are willing to adopt such strictures spontaneously. So I’m observing that if experienced and well-briefed Eurosceptics are to appear in a coordinated form specifically where doing so in association with the ‘No’ Campaign, they ought to adopt a fairly stringent requirement to see the debate properly conducted. So, as an example, should you find yourself in a TV debate where the ‘three million jobs’ myth is once again held aloft, that you might not engage with your opponent, but with the Journalist who should be questioned on why such an obsolete point has not already been challenged and discarded. I personally would want to know why such a journalist would not immediately interject to properly highlight the misuse of frequently discredited falsehoods.

      There are factual and intellectual fundamentals the Media profession continually retain and utilise in other disciplines of broadcast news which they seem to refuse to employ in regular, predictable other areas. Matters EU falling decidedly into the latter area. But where such a journalist will not intervene, it’s appropriate for Eurosceptics to counter any opponent immediately and fairly ruthlessly over intentionally misleading the watching audience. It is only that which will remain in the memory. Letting such propaganda go out, desperately wanting for a proficient demolition by such figures – or equally unforgiveable where the same outlets do not provide properly for that counter argument – are regular gremlins which are genuinely harming the ‘No’ side of the debate.

      So where you indicate ..’I accept interviews on the EU when they are available and do not usually argue over who else they wish to have on, as I just wish to have some airtime on this matter.’.. for these purposes, I suggest there would be merit (and with regard to Lord Mandelson – precedent) in the organised Eurosceptic front being more assertive over the conduct and makeup of broadcast interviews. The News Channels aren’t doing people a favour in giving valuable airtime – it’s their obligation to give it, and to ensure a proper debate occurs. To date that just isn’t happening. I would suggest there is ample leeway for yourself and your allies to insist on the introduction of these strictures. But I doubt it will happen unless and until the point is made.

  12. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted August 13, 2015 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    No plan has appeared from the Conservative Party on an exit strategy if Mr Cameron decides his saunter around Europe has failed. Nor what will happen if he advises the British electorate to come out of the EU and they vote to stay in.
    The thought that Mr Cameron will appear a complete duck egg and so usher in any candidate at all from the Labour Party as Prime Minister is horrific.

  13. Cheshire Girl
    Posted August 14, 2015 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    It says on Con Home that ‘ senior parliamentary figures’ are backing this. I will be interested to know who they are. I think I’ll wait and see.

  14. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted August 14, 2015 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    I’ve signed up and I’m looking forward to a definition of the minimum to be achieved either by negotiation or unilateral action.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page