The Purpose of Candidlist

Candidlist exists as a service to the democratic process.  It tells both party activists and the electorate at large what their parliamentary candidates think about the most important issue of our time - Europe.

In all these parties, there is room for confusion, and many candidates have been selected or have put themselves forward for election whose opinions on Europe are less clear than they might seem on first inspection.  Very often, we suspect, the "wrong" candidate has been selected because of an honest confusion over the meaning of words.  In the context of the debate over Europe, the word "sceptic" has many shades of meaning; and it might be possible for candidates as far removed from each other as Tony Benn and Kenneth Clarke both to apply the word to themselves with equal conviction, though with different understandings of what it means.

And so Candidlist has been created to ensure honesty and accuracy.  This is not a matter of "left" against "right" or of Conservative against Labour.  It is to help ensure that selection committees go into the next election with the sort of candidate they really wish to see getting into Parliament, and that the electors in each constituency are able to make an informed choice between candidates.

Some candidates have objected to our definitions.  That is inevitable.  Others have objected to having their views exposed to general inspection.  That is a shame.  Candidates do not have the right to privacy about their political opinions on this issue.  This is not intrusive or prurient.  We are not talking about sexual peccadilloes or youthful indiscretions, but about which way a future Member of Parliament may vote in the House of Commons on matters of supreme national importance.

A Note on Sources

The information on Candidlist has been gathered from various sources.  These are:

1.  Public Sources  In the case of MPs their positions are often well known.  Before the last general election, The Times published its own informed assessment of where all candidates stood on the European issue based on the analysis of its own experts, and we have used some of that material.  We have also relied on shorter lists published in The Daily Telegraph.  A number of candidates have made public statements on European issues over the past few years, and we have an extensive database of press cuttings, speeches, etc. from which we have drawn.  Also, we have acquired a copy of the list of officially approved Labour candidates, and this is proving an excellent source of information.

Where Members of Parliament are concerned, we are strongly aware of the difficulty of using old information.  Many Conservatives who voted for the Maastricht Treaty have now changed their minds, as have most Labour politicians who supported withdrawal from the European Union in the 1980s.  Therefore, while we have no definite cut-off date, and while we continue to rely on old information in some cases where it seemse reasonable to do so, we have taken little notice of statements made more than about five years ago.

2.  Private Sources  Trusted activists in all the main parties have helped us by passing on information about the views of candidates and Members of Parliament.  In many cases, this information is based on private conversations with the people concerned.  It is not to be trusted implicitly, as memory often deceives - as do some politicians - but where nothing else exists, such information is selectively used.

Our sources of information on Labour candidates remain far less complete than for Conservatives. But we are in touch with persons within the labour movement, and hope eventually to improve our listing.

Sometimes, it will be noted, we have made classifications that are inconsistent with a person's published statements.  This is because we hope or believe that person not to be telling the truth in public.  Therefore, we classify William Hague as a sceptic in spite of his public ambiguity on European issues.  This is not an ideal way of making classifications, but it is often the only way of making them.

3.  Personal Statements  Increasingly, Candidlist is supporting its classifications with the personal statements of candidates.  It is our policy to publish all correspondence with Candidlist that is not marked "confidential".  This enables visitors to see how the list is being changed, and to see the evidence on which a classification or a reclassification is based.  For obvious reasons, these classifications are the most reliable.  It is our ultimate ambition to provide links from all names on the list to personal statements or to personal web pages, so that visitors  can go beyond the perhaps imperfect classification given by Candidlist and see and be able to assess the primary evidence.  Such evidence as has already been provided can be seen by clicking on the highlighted names. No changes have been made to messages.  To ensure complete authenticity, they are published exactly as received.

Because we are dealing with thousands of people - many of them just names to us - Candidlist cannot be claimed as accurate in all respects.  We have made mistakes in our classifications, and are doubtless making many even at the moment.  Sometimes, we have been confused by similarities of name.  Sometimes, we have accidentally jumbled classifications.  We apologise for this to all our readers.  We can only plead in mitigation that we are fallible human beings, and that we make every effort to correct mistakes as soon as we realise we have made them, and to publicise corrections.

We actively welcome information on candidates either from those who possess relevant information or, indeed, from candidates themselves if they feel that they may have been misclassified.  Please contact [old.whig@btinternet.com] or call - 07956 472 199.

We must emphasise that our preference is for personal statements by candidates.  We will accept recommendations from trusted sources when nothing else exists.  Equally, we will rely on private sources even when they conflict with public statements.  But we regard these as inferior grounds of classification.  We are even scandalised by our need to rely on such grounds.  Our relationship with the European Union is a matter or at least immense importance.  Those candidates who will not clearly and publicly state what they think on this supremely important issue do credit neither to themselves nor to the democratic process.  They also risk sudden and unannounced reclassification if what seems better private information is disclosed to us.

A Note on Definitions

Sceptic = Generally opposed to further EU integration and committed to saving the Pound.

Europhile = Generally enthusiastic about EU integration and supportive of the Euro.

? = Either: (a) has avoided stating a clear position; or (b) will take the Party line regardless of content; or (c) we have no information and are actively seeking it.

Needless to say, the colours used are simply for ease of identification, and do not imply any political views.

The "Test"

We have already been compared to the Spanish Inquisition.  Our refinement of the above short definitions into a formal test will doubtless strengthen that comparison for some observers.  However, Candidlist has been more successful than we expected, and it is necessary for both fairness and accuracy to clarify still further what we mean by the words we use.

Many people on our list have asked to be reclassified from Europhiles or don't knows to sceptics.  Sometimes, this is because we have made a mistake in our original classification.  Sometimes, it is because our original classification was based on deeds or utterances collected from what in terms of the very fast-moving debate over Europe is the distant past, and there has been a change of mind.  Sometimes, it is because a candidate has failed to understand that we define as a sceptic not simply someone who is not a Europhile or - in the case of Conservatives - who subscribes to Mr Hague's "in Europe but not ruled by Europe".  Without something stronger, that position falls into our don't know category.

This being so, we propose the following test:

Do you answer in the affirmative both of the following:

1) If elected or re-elected to Parliament, would you oppose our joining the Eurozone even if joining were to be recommended by the Party leadership?

2) If elected or re-elected to Parliament and required to choose between accepting the supremacy of European Union law in this country and leaving the European Union, would you vote for British withdrawal?

Being able to answer the two questions in the affirmative justifies a sceptic classification.  Accepting the Party line usually justifies a don't know classification.  Being able to do neither may justify a Europhile classification.

There is some apparent unfairness in our offering this test to candidates.  We do not offer it to some because we already know what classification or reclassification to make.  We do offer it to others, however, either because we do not know them or because we are concerned to ensure that we and they are fully agreed on what is meant by a sceptic classification.

For a discussion of what is meant by the Candidlist test, please go to Appendix One at the end of this Introduction.

A Note on the Presumed Views of Candidates

Though every effort is made to seek the views of candidates - either through published statements, or through recommendations from trusted sources - there will remain many about whom nothing is known or can be known.  In these cases, the following presumptions will be made:

Conservative - William Hague has imposed a compromise statement on the Conservative Party - "in Europe, not ruled by Europe" - which is in itself neither sceptic not Europhile.  Therefore, candidates about whom nothing is known, or who refuse to give clear answers to questions about their views, are presumed to be don't knows.

Labour - The Government is formally in favour of entry to the Eurozone, and the Prime Minister and several of his colleagues are known to be ardent Europhiles.  Therefore, candidates about whom nothing is known, or who refuse to give clear answers to questions about their views, can be fairly presumed to be Europhiles.  However, as our sources of information about Labour candidates are currently poor, it is reasonable to give almost everyone a provisional don't know classification. We hope this will change.

Exceptions to this rule are made for members of the Government:  these are presumed to be Europhile from the beginning unless there is evidence that they are sceptics.  Kate Hoey has been classified as a sceptic because of her known hostility to the Corpus Juris.

Liberal Democrat - It seems reasonable to presume that all Liberal Democrat MPs and candidates are Europhile, unless they make clear statements that they are not.

Candidlist and Party Politics

Candidlist is not intended to help or damage any party at the next general election.  Its purpose is to make information available about candidates.  So far as it is successful, its effect will be to bypass the party system - enabling the electors to vote according to the single issue of Europe rather than have to accept a set menu of policies, as has been largely the case since the 1860s.

Undoubtedly, the Candidlist Webmaster is a conservative of sorts, and would like to see a Conservative Government that will do conservative things.  But such a government is not currently likely. and he is not even a member of the Conservative Party.  Indeed, as his Conservative parliamentary candidate is the deeply inadequate Micheal Forsdyke, he will not be voting Conservative at the next general election.

The Success of Candidlist

Candidlist has attracted nearly 10,000 visitors a month since it began. It has been extensively discussed in the print media, and Sean Gabb has written articles for The Times and other newspapers and given various interviews to the electronic media. And it has made a difference in the selection of candidates. In an article about Candidlist published on the 6th June 2000, The Daily Telegraph states that

Tory candidates chosen to fight winnable seats at the next election will defy William Hague if he recommends scrapping the pound....

They would also vote for Britain's withdrawal from Europe rather than accept further political integration. [It is calculated] that among the 50 most likely to overturn small Labour and Lib-Dem majorities, 33 take a tougher line on the EU than the Tory leader.

The survey, by Sean Gabb, libertarian academic, and posted on the internet, has caused controversy within the party....

The list... is studied by constituencies eager to establish the views of applicants.

We cannot agree with the flattering assumption of the article, that we have achieved this revolution unassisted. But, undeniably, we have helped; and our help has often been decisive. As all correspondence on this point is confidential, it is not possible to give specific examples. But we receive upwards of ten enquiries every week from association members, asking for information on short listed candidates. Candidlist advice has been considered very important in several selections for winnable seats. It is also used by activists seeking to deselect candidates.

In general terms, the approach taken by Candidlist is the future of political activism. With at least 20 per cent of the British population now on-line, the Internet has become a mass medium as important as television was in the mid-1950s. Moreover, it is cheap, uncensored and democratic. Information does not need to pass through editorial hands that are invariably constrained by multiple if conflicting pressures. Instead, it can be published directly. No amount of training in how to handle the conventional media can save a candidate from the direct, public questioning that the Internet allows, nor from permanent storage and accessibility of answers.

Commenting on Candidlist, the American science fiction novelist L. Neil Smith says:

I’ll bet this isn’t what the 1960s advocates of ‘participatory democracy’ had in mind - but it’s what they’re stuck with.

The main purpose of Candidlist before this coming general election is to ensure that voters and other interested persons can see what their candidates think about European integration, and can take whatever steps they think appropriate.  After the election, its main purpose will be to to ensure that Members of Parliament keep to their published statements.  Candidlist will remain on the Internet for the foreseeable future, and so can be used to compare promises with performance.  We will continue to monitor policitians by building an on-line database of speeches, media comments and voting records.  None of this is not intended to prevent changes of mind in the light of new circumstances, but it is intended to reveal - and perhaps thereby to deter - purely opportunistic shifting about.

Dr Sean Gabb
Candidlist Webmaster

Q.  Gordon Bell writes:   "Many genuine individuals who oppose further European integration are sceptical in the extreme of your motivation given recent statements you have made to the media. It has done little to enhance the reputation of Candidlist as a reliable, well-intentioned source of information to the Conservative Party membership."

A.  Sean Gabb replies:  "Whatever my direct or quoted statements in the media, you can rest assured that the Candidlist is as reliable a source of information as I can make it.  In no case have I allowed a personal like or dislike of a candidate to sway my classification.  In all cases where I have corresponded with a candidate, the whole unedited correspondence has been published.  This enables any visitor to our web site to go behind our classification to see the grounds on which it has been made.  In one instance - I cannot be specific - a selection committee has chosen to understand a correspondence in a sense quite opposite to my understanding of it.  My ambition is to go into the next election with a personal statement on the Candidlist web site of views on Europe from every Conservative candidate.  Give me this, and my classifications will be redundant except as part of a wider conversation.

"I turn now to the matter of my intentions.  Strictly speaking, these are not important.  I might be receiving large sums of money from that Labour Party - I am not, by the way! - to run the Candidlist, the intention being to destroy the Conservative Party as an opposition force.  That would have no bearing on the accuracy of the Candidlist.  As said, my intention is to provide objective proof of classification wherever possible.  But intentions are important from a psychological point of view, and so I will explain what mine are.

"I joined the Conservative Party in March 1979 and campaigned hard in the next three general elections.  At around the same time, I joined the Libertarian Alliance - an organisation with which I remain closely connected, editing its journal, Free Life.  You will gather from this fact that I belonged to what may be called the ultra-Thatcherite wing of the Party, crying up every privatisation and deregulation.

"By 1997, my enthusiasm for the Conservative Party had faded.  Undeniably, the economic reforms of the Thatcher and Major Governments had made this country the most dynamic in Europe.  Even so, many other changes to law and administration had brought us very close to a police state.  The war on drugs had led to the erosion of both financial privacy and due process.  The various Criminal Justice Acts and Firearms Acts were also tyrannical in their substance.  At the same time, the Government's European policy had taken us, via the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, into something like a United States of Europe.

"I voted Conservative in 1997, but only because I feared a Labour Government slightly more than continued Tory rule.

"Today, I hate and fear Tony Blair.  He is a constitutional vandal, a warmonger, and at least a potential tyrant.  But I see little positive reason to want a Conservative return to power.  The reason is that everything Mr Hague says on Europe and on almost every other issue reads like a cheap insurance policy.  He wants to "save the pound" - but only for five years at a time.  He wants no more integration - but quietly accepts all that has so far happened.  He wants not to be ruled by Europe - but nevertheless to be in Europe.  It seems reasonable to believe that he and the rest of the Party leadership are willing to say no more than is needed to gather in the votes.  If they succeed, they will come back into office free of specific promises and able to continue the softly pro-European policies of the Major Government.

"The purpose of Candidlist is to try and stop this.  The Candidlist test requires straight answers on important questions.  These answers are made universally available on the Candidlist web page, and will remain available effectively forever.

"In providing an opportunity for making clear and public commitments on Europe, the Candidlist can only help the Conservative Party.  There is no reason to suppose that more chanting of Mr Hague's in-but-not-ruled-by mantra will bring victory at the next election.  So let the Party try honesty instead."

Q.  An anonymous correspondent writes:  "Your first question asks:

If elected or re-elected to Parliament, would you oppose our joining the Eurozone even if joining were to be recommended by the Party leadership?

"My answer is: It depends on the circumstances in which the recommendation is made. I do not believe that this Party leadership would recommend joining the euroszone unless it were demonstrably necessary that we should. I define "demonstrably necessary" as requiring potentially catastrophic circumstances  in which it is plain that  were we not to join the threat to our survival as a nation would be greater than that posed by EMU. I regard these circumstances as highly unlikely to arise and virtually ignorable as a basis on which to assess present policy. However, on this basis I cannot adhere to a position which says "never". In any other event I would oppose a recommendation to join.

A.  Sean Gabb replies:  "If you answer "yes" to the first question, it commits you to ruling out Eurozone membership in all reasonably likely circumstances.  But it does not rule out accepting membership in every possible circumstance.  Let us take an example from the Common Law to illustrate this difference. Suppose I have a house that overlooks a road down which the Queen will pass to open some public exhibition, and you agree to pay me £1000 to look out of an upper window.  This means that we are committed to carrying out our parts of the contract.  I cannot back out of providing the room because someone has offered more money.  You cannot back out of paying me because you take on some lucrative employment that will take you out of the country, or because you find you have become a republican, or whatever.  This being said, the contract can lapse because of frustration.  If my house burns down, you cannot demand that I provide you with the agreed accommodation.  If the procession is cancelled, I canot insist that you pay me for the agreed accommodation.  But in our contract, we do not make explicitly conditional promises.  Our promises are absolute, and we look to an understanding of what is reasonable in the event of frustration.

"It is the same with regard to the first Candidlist question.  There are circumstances in which an affirmative answer will cease to be binding. I cannot say what they are - because if they were known or knowable, I would not have asked the question in such absolute form.  But I think of things like an asteroid impact, civil war, pandemic infection, alien invasion, the second coming of Jesus Christ, and so forth.  In such circumstances, it might be necessary to look very differently at joining the Eurozone; and no one will think any the less of you for changing your mind.  To give an illustration of this point, let us suppose a parliamentary candidate had promised in 1931 always to oppose closer links between Britain and the Soviet Union.  This might have made excellent sense at the time, but could not reasonably have been invoked in the very different circumstances of 1941.

"This being said, an affirmative answer does exclude you from changing your mind because William Hague, or some other influential person on the Conservative Party, decides that the Euro has been an economic "success", or that it is "now in the best interests of Britain to take part in this unrepeatable opportunity" or whatever.  In those circumstances, a reasonable understanding of the question requires you to disobey the instructions of the Party whips - and to do so no matter what political force can be placed on you.  You should disobey if it means resigning from the Government, or losing your seat in Parliament, or having even your future hopes of political advancement utterly destroyed.

"An affirmative answer does bind you for all reasonably forseeable purposes.

Q.  The same correspondent writes:  "I do not find [your above answer] helpful. I do not know what is reasonably likely. A lot of the rather sterile discussion on the euro revolves around that issue. I quite accept it  is easy to  determine that it is reasonably likely that we shall not be hit by an asteroid or witness the second coming (in which event we should almost certainly have to surrender the pound - unless we could persuade the Almighty that it should become the currency of heaven). However, this tells the reader nothing. There is a debate as to whether the City is reasonably likely to suffer from our remaining outside the euro or whether inward investment is likely to fall. I certainly start from the position that we must keep the pound and stay out of the euro. But the thing people will want to know is what type of circumstances and what evidence of them the candidate would think would justify our joining the euro."

A.  Sean Gabb replies:  "'Reasonably likely circumstances' include the reasonably likely adverse consequences that the Europhiles claim will follow from our not entering the Eurozone.  A knowledge of economics and history must tell you that being outside a particular currency zone will not condemn us to domestic poverty and foreign impotence.  Indeed, the examples of Athens, Venice, Holland, and England, show that national greatness often derives from keeping out of supranational institutions.  It is conceivable that there would be a substantial loss in the short term of City business. We might find ourselves somehow excluded from the Single Market, and this might cause some harm to exporting industry and some diminution of investment into this country.  But that is probably all.  If, against the experience of history and the truths of economics, our staying out of the Eurozone were to threaten undeniable catastrophe, we are looking at circumstances very like those covered by the Common Law doctrine of frustration.  No one in this case could think worse of you for having made and then broken a promise that is apparently unlimited but is impliedly limited as are all political commitments."

"Again, the Candidlist test cannot be supposed to prevent a change of mind.  Peel changed his mind on the Corn Laws.  Gladstone changed his mind on Ireland.  Asquith changed his mind on female suffrage.  All that can be required is that such changes should be made openly and with sufficient explanation why.

Q.  Supposing objective circumstances do not change, but that a candidate changes his or her mind once in Parliament and with a "better understanding" of the issues?

A.  The Candidlist Test cannot be supposed to prevent a change of mind.  Peel changed his mind on the Corn Laws.  Gladstone changed his mind on Ireland.  Asquith changed his mind on female suffrage.  All that can be required is that such changes should be made openly and with sufficient explanation why.

Q.  The second question about resisting the supremacy of European law is meaningless.  European law is already supreme in this country, is it not? Surely, all the question asks is whether a candidate would vote now to leave the European Union?

A.  This question does not mean voting now to leave the European Union - desirable as this might be. It asks whether a candidate would vote to leave if the only alternative were the surrender of sovereignty by the Queen in Parliament. Several Conservative candidates have tried arguing that this sovereignty has already been given up. This is not the case. European Union law is not currently supreme in this country, as it does not proceed from a sovereign lawgiver. Instead, it enjoys a borrowed primacy, subject to the continued forbearance of our sovereign Parliament.

This being said, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is not something absolutely fixed and certain. It is a doctrine of the courts. It was in the past occasionally denied by the courts, when Acts of Parliament were overturned on the grounds of their repugnancy to some other part of the Constitution. It could easily in the future be denied.

The Judges so far have remained at least ambiguous on what effect the European Communities Act 1972 might have on legislation passed since then. The Factortame case seems to imply that the European Communities Act is uniquely privileged, so far as it cannot be touched by the usual doctrine of implied repeal. There is another case going through the courts at present that may result in a more definite statement of this new doctrine. It is not incredible to suppose that in the near future the sort of Judges now being appointed might decide that membership of the European Union and full subordination to its laws are part of our own constitutional law, and not subject to even to explicit parliamentary alteration.

If that should happen, the only way to preserve parliamentary sovereignty would be to pass an immediate Declaratory Act asserting the challenged doctrine, and perhaps to threaten penalties against any dissenting Judge. To do nothing would be to allow a course of legal development in which Parliament would soon enjoy the same limited power as the Scottish Assembly now does.

To pass this Declaratory Act, however, might by implication repeal the effective parts of the European Communities Act 1972, thereby removing us from the European Union. This is not a certain implication, as it is possible that the European institutions and other member states might choose to overlook our constitutional housekeeping. But it is a possible and, I presently suspect, a highly probable implication.

That is of the second question. Would a candidate, if elected to Parliament, vote to save the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty even if doing such meant leaving the European Union?

Q.  You say that European law is not supreme in this country except in the sense that it is a borrowed supremacy, relying on parliamentary toleration. But what about the repeated claims by some candidates and others that European law is supreme?

A.  It is not true that European Union law is supreme in this country.  A supreme law is one that proceeds from a sovereign lawgiver.  None of the institutions of the European Union can be called sovereign under the laws of this country. Undoubtedly, European law has a primacy that requires our courts to apply it even when it overrides laws made by Parliament.  But this is a primacy that derives wholly from the European Communities Act 1972. Parliament has chosen to allow other bodies to exercise a wide jurisdiction under that Act.  But it can repeal the Act as any time it feels inclined.

This, at least, is the view taken by Mr Justice Hoffmann in the cases of Stoke-on-Trent City Council v B & Q plc and Norwich City Council v B & Q plc (Chancery Division), reported in The Daily Telegraph, 18th July, 1990. See also per Lord Denning MR in Macarthys Ltd v Smith: "if the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty [of Rome] or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament" ([1979] 3 All England Reports, 325).

It may be objected that these are cases decided before the Maastricht Treaty was incorporated into British law.  I therefore quote from the 12th edition of Constitutional and Administrative Law by A.W. Bradley and K.D. Ewing (Longman, London, 1997):

...[w]hat would be the position in the (admittedly unlikely) event that Parliament should say expressly (or by clear implication) that a statutory provision should apply notwithstanding any Community obligation to the contrary?...  As a matter of British constitutional law (and regardless of what the ECJ might say), it would appear in such an eventuality that Parliament had repudiated the 'voluntary' 'limitation of its sovereignty' which it accepted when it enacted the 1972 Act.

The European Communities Act only becomes unrepealable if Parliament dissolves itself, and hands on the Act as part of the constitutional law of a less powerful successor body.  Unless that happens, the Act is legally no different from any other.  Given the political will, it could be repealed in half an hour.

Q. Does a sceptic classification imply any endorsement of a candidate?

A. Sadly, yes.  Our relationship with the European Union is the most important issue in British politics.    But it must be confessed that some of the candidates who secure a sceptic classification are otherwise infamous creatures not fit to clean the lavatories in Parliament, let alone represent a constituency there.

Take, for example, Phill Gallie.  On the 29th October 1993, The Scottish Herald quoted him as supporting an identity card scheme.  "The only people who would have anything to be concerned about are those who have something to hide", he said.  I half suspect he dislikes the European Union not because it is an authoritarian monster, but because it is not authoritarian enough.

By comparison, most Europhiles seem decent and liberal.  It is a shame that the European issue to too big to let us choose our allies.  But there it is.