Europe: The Gabb-Cameron Correspondence.

Michael Ashcroft

Note: It is said in this chapter from Mr Ashcroft’s biography that I have “revealed” a “private correspondence” with Mr Cameron when he was trying to enter Parliament. I am not the kind of man who gets pompous and starts talking about lawyers. But I will say that Mr Ashcroft’s claim is false. I never reveal anything said to me in confidence. It may be one of my few redeeming features that whatever is said to me in private stays private.

I will put the record straight. Between 1999 and 2001, I ran the Candidlist campaign, which tried to classify every Conservative Member of Parliament and actual or prospective candidate according to his views on European Integration. This was perhaps the first successful use of the Internet in British politics. I helped end several political careers, and I helped several other people to get into Parliament. Whether, in retrospect, they deserved my help is a question I do not feel inclined here to discuss.

I was called last year by one of Mr Ashcroft’s ghostwriters. All I gave her was the correspondence with Mr Cameron from 2000 that I published at the time in full on The Candidlist website. I reproduce this in full at the bottom of the present extract from the biography.

This aside, the reference to me is rather flattering. It achieves the impossible of making me sound like a serious player in this country’s politics. SIG

Extract from
Call Me Dave, first published in The Sunday Times on 04 October 2015

The toxic ‘E word’ has long plagued David Cameron. Now the incendiary biography of the PM by Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott reveals that for all his Eurosceptic posturing he has privately declared he would not quit the EU


and spitting expletives, David Cameron was having a rare and very un-prime-ministerial loss of cool. The immediate object of his fury was Zac Goldsmith, the multimillionaire MP — and now candidate for London mayor — who was sitting in his Downing Street office. The more general source of his frustration was what he called the “E word”: Europe.

It was October 2012, and Eurosceptic Tory backbenchers were giving him yet another headache. For as long as he could remember they had been badgering him to commit himself to offering an EU referendum, a constant source of grief. Now they were kicking off about the European Union’s budget, making demands he considered hopelessly unrealistic. Soon there would be a vote on the issue, and he was set to lose.

The row was being pitched as a test of his authority on Europe — again. It was all so familiar: Eurosceptic MPs had been causing trouble for Tory leaders ever since Cameron had been a young researcher. Now it was his turn to feel the heat. But where exactly did he stand?

As early as the 1990s, there was confusion over the scale of his hostility to Europe. While he was searching for a parliamentary seat, Cameron was dismayed to discover he had been classified as a “question mark” on a document categorising hundreds of Tories as “Europhile” or “Eurosceptic”. Compiled by an academic, Dr Sean Gabb, the “Candidlist” was designed to stop candidates deceiving selection panels on what its author described as “the most important issue of our time”.

Nowhere was this more sensitive than in Witney, where Cameron was trying to succeed Shaun Woodward MP, a defector to Labour who had glossed over his Europhilia to win selection in 1997.

A question mark was potentially damaging to Cameron, indicating he had avoided giving a view or would simply obey party whips. Some prospective parliamentary candidates took the list so seriously that they threatened to sue.

For his part, Cameron emailed Gabb to protest about his classification.

Gabb has now revealed their private correspondence. It was a lengthy and somewhat ill-tempered exchange, in which Cameron argued that he should be designated a Eurosceptic “on the basis that I oppose the single currency and any further transfer of sovereignty from the UK to the EU”.

However, he conceded he was not in favour of withdrawal — “the answer is no” — and accepted that EU law was supreme in some cases (“I don’t like it, but it’s a fact”) which further fuelled Gabb’s suspicions about his status.

“Your complacent tone does you no credit whatever,” the academic told him. “It is only because I believe you are sincere in what you say that I do not reclassify you as a Europhile.”

Alarmed, Cameron shot back a missive saying Gabb must have misunderstood his position. “I am not a lawyer and perhaps my original email put it the wrong way,” he wrote. “But these are my views — no to the single currency, no to further transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels and yes to renegotiation of areas like fish where the EU has been a disaster for the UK. If that is being a Europhile, then I’m a banana.”

Further missives followed, after which Gabb reluctantly reclassified Cameron as a sceptic.

In his own constituency, where Woodward’s treachery was still raw, Cameron knew he had to sound hardline. To reassure local activists, he would occasionally invite his staunch Eurosceptic colleague John Redwood to visit and give a talk, which could be guaranteed to strike the right note.

“He said one of the reasons he wanted me to come was because my views were much prized among his voters,” Redwood recalls. Yet as he put it himself, Cameron was no “Euro obsessive”.

Fundamentally Eurosceptic, he was never stridently so. Cameron’s friend and ally Sir Nicholas Soames MP says: “He’s Eurosceptic, no shadow of doubt. He’s immensely irritated by it and frustrated by it in every way. But he’s not a ‘get out’ man.”

While courting Eurosceptic Tory MPs during his leadership bid, Cameron was honest about where he drew the line. The Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan says: “I was impressed, after years of listening to Conservatives hinting at some inner Euroscepticism, by his frankness. He said, ‘I don’t think we should leave the EU, I know we’re going to disagree about that; but you’ll have the chance to put your case.’”

Iain Duncan Smith agrees that Cameron has never viewed Europe as a die-in-the-ditch issue. “If you asked him instinctively, how much of what the EU does do you think is good, I think the answer would probably be not much. Does he think it’s worth having huge bust-ups and fights over? No.”

Even so, Cameron provoked a row when he tried to win over Eurosceptics during his leadership campaign with a commitment to withdraw Tory MEPs from the European People’s party, a grouping of centre-right parties in the European parliament, viewed with suspicion because it contained federalists.

In his capacity as Cameron’s “eyes and ears”, Desmond Swayne, his parliamentary private secretary, fired off an email to the leader warning that moderate Tory MEPs were “furious”. Unfortunately, he forgot to log off the Commons computer he used, and his missive was leaked to The Sunday Times, along with another, sent two months later, which warned of their “depression” and “dismay”.

“The feeling of frustration and impotence is compounded by our perceived silence on things European,” Swayne wrote.

Cameron’s ambivalence on Europe was always going to set him on a collision course with those in the party for whom the issue is paramount. Having witnessed at close hand the devastating electoral consequences when his party “banged on about Europe”, when he became party leader he considered the subject toxic, and approached it with extreme caution.

There was tacit agreement in his inner circle that he should talk about it as little as possible, to avoid being characterised as leading the “same old Tories”.

When the issue could not be avoided, he was deliberately bland. He immediately regretted an LBC radio interview in 2006, in which he described members of Ukip as “a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists”. From that moment, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, took a personal dislike to him, vowing that they could never make any electoral pact.

The following year, Cameron made a “cast-iron guarantee” that he would offer a vote on the Lisbon treaty, which enhanced the process of European integration. But this was later dropped once it became clear that he was powerless to stop its ratification.

According to a well-placed insider, the U-turn upset at least one former Conservative prime minister. A close friend of the late Margaret Thatcher explained that, in her eyes: “If you’d said something, that was the same as doing something. She believed in delivering promises.”

Eurosceptic backbenchers and activists yearned for a leader who felt as strongly as they did. The spread-betting tycoon Stuart Wheeler, who once gave the party a £5m donation, summed up the mood among many during Cameron’s years as opposition leader when, in March 2009, he declared that he could no longer back the party in European elections.

“The Conservatives, though perhaps more Eurosceptic than Labour, just wish no one would talk about the EU so that they can win the general election in peace,” he complained.

It was true. Cameron had no desire to emulate the disastrous 2001 election strategy focusing on Europe and the threat to the pound. He simply hoped the issue would go away.

The low priority he gave to European matters in opposition reflected the view of the electorate, for whom the subject had always ranked below issues such as public services and the economy.

But from the moment he entered Downing Street, he found himself under relentless pressure from a significant and vocal tranche of his backbenchers to offer an “in/out” referendum.

It found expression in a series of private member’s bills and parliamentary motions and was a constant drag on his leadership. In October 2011, he infuriated many of his own MPs by ordering them to vote against a parliamentary motion calling for a referendum.

It triggered an almighty showdown. A total of 81 Tory MPs defied the whip, the biggest post-war rebellion on Europe. There had been nothing like it since 1993, when 41 Tory MPs defied John Major over the Maastricht treaty.

In this febrile atmosphere, Cameron did manage one spectacular PR coup. On December 8, 2011, he walked out of an EU summit after exercising his veto over proposals for fiscal union. Though the gesture changed little in Brussels, backbenchers were ecstatic, and the party bounced in the polls.

Privately, Cameron reflected that the positive reaction showed an entrenched Euroscepticism among most British voters. He was beginning to wonder whether any party — least of all his own — could enter the 2015 election without some sort of referendum pledge.

The following year, he clashed with backbenchers again, this time over the EU budget. The European Commission had outraged Eurosceptic MPs such as Goldsmith — and many British voters — by proposing a 5% rise, taking it to £898bn for the period 2014–20.

With Britain in the grip of austerity measures, the prime minister was under intense pressure from MPs to block the deal. While he believed the best he could deliver was a freeze, backbenchers, including Goldsmith, were pushing for a real-terms cut. Once again, Cameron faced a Commons revolt.

In the run-up to the vote on October 31, 2012, he lost his temper, letting rip at Goldsmith during a meeting in Downing Street.

According to a Whitehall source, he began pacing around his office effing and blinding and ranting about the “disloyalty” of those whose careers he had helped.

It was a highly unusual loss of temper that exposed his exasperation at finding himself in the same position as so many of his predecessors.

For all his attempts to dodge the Europe ball, like so many other Tory leaders, he found it being kicked in his face. A total of 53 Tory MPs defied the whip. Rebel leaders now warned that he faced a war of attrition with his own party.

Meanwhile, Ukip continued to gain ground, eating into the Tory vote (though as it turned out, the groundswell of support for Farage would not translate into Commons seats).

In Downing Street, Cameron was pulled in both directions, his fundamental Euroscepticism kept in check by his Europhile chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, but fuelled by the discovery that it was difficult to achieve anything in government without bumping up against an EU regulation or directive.

He developed a particular distaste for EU summits, where he would become so bored he would while away time sending surreptitious text messages.

“He can’t stand all those dreadful meetings, having to sit through meals and sit up all night. He makes a great virtue of mocking it,” says a colleague.

A little over a year after his veto, in a landmark speech at the London headquarters of the American financial data and media giant Bloomberg, he finally caved in to the inevitable and pledged an in/out referendum on Europe before the end of 2017. The party was ecstatic. But first he promised to “renegotiate” Britain’s relationship with Brussels. The stage was set for the biggest test yet of his diplomatic skills, and the groundwork began immediately. First stop: Angela Merkel’s schloss in Germany.

The Original Correspondence Published on Candidlist

E-mail Dated Wednesday the 16th February 2000,
David Cameron <>
to Sean Gabb

Dear Dr Gabb

Some time ago I sent you an e-mail asking for my definition as a “?” on the “candid list” to be changed on the basis that I oppose the single currency and any further transfer of sovereignty from the UK to the EU.

You came back to me with two questions.  I have had a computer crisis, but have  now retrieved your e-mail and will answer them.

Question 1 is simple – yes, I would oppose UK entry into the Eurozone even if  the leadership recommended it.

Question 2, about “if required to choose between accepting the supremacy of  European law and leaving the European Union, would you vote for British  withdrawal?” I find more puzzling.  The fact is that EU law is already supreme in various areas.  I don’t like it, but it is a fact.

So if the question is “given the current unsatisfactory situation, do you favour withdrawal?”, the answer is no.

But if the question is “do you favour extending the powers of the EU and thus reinforcing the supremacy of EU law”, the answer is no.

Indeed, I would support moves to take back some areas which we have ceded to EU control, particularly fishing.  This would require some renegotiation of our entry terms.

Your final question was, in any event, did I agree with William Hague’s mantra that we should rule out the Euro for this Parliament and the next and resist further moves towards European Inegration?  The answer is a wholehearted “yes”.

I hope this helps and I look forward to hearing from you.

David Cameron

E-mail of Reply Dated Wednesday the 16th February,
Sean Gabb to David CameronDear Mr Cameron,

I have read your e-mail and must take issue with your claim that European Union law is already supreme.  Parliament is sovereign. It passed the European Communities Act.  It 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).

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.  What legal means could be used to frustrate the will of the Queen in Parliament?  What British soldier or police officer would lift a finger to execute the writ of some European court?

If, on the other hand, you are right, your complacent tone does you no credit whatever.  If, without any consultation of the people – if with a lubrication of deliberate falsehood – we really had been placed under the supreme jurisdiction of a foreign power, that would justify and even require immediate action.

By insisting on a view of our Constitution that is manifestly wrong, you are helping to advance the cause of European Union supremacy that you claim to oppose.  It is only because I believe that you are sincere in what you say that I do not reclassify you as a Europhile.  However, I am now publishing our correspondence so that others can see on what evidence your don’t know classification is based, and so that they can decide for themselves whether your inability to answer my questions qualifies you to stand for and perhaps sit in a Parliament where our relationship with the European Union will be finally settled one way or another.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Sean Gabb
Candidlist Webmaster

E-mail Dated Thursday the 17th February 2000,
David Cameron to Sean GabbThank you for your e-mail.  I am not sure we actually disagree, though re-reading my response I think I could have made myself clearer.  Let me have another try.

1.  Of course I agree that Parliament is sovereign and could choose to repeal the European Communities Act.  I believe that it should retain the ability to do so.

2.  If, as an MP, I was asked to choose between retaining Parliament’s sovereignty and giving it up, I would vote to retain it.

3.  What I was trying to say by saying that “EU law is supreme in various areas” is that the Treaties that have already been signed – like the Single European Act – have committed us to accept rules in various areas.

I am certainly not complacent.  For the last 30 years Politicians have given up far too much sovereignty and explained far too little about the true nature of European Institutions.  This issue is one of the reasons I want to stand for Parliamnet in the first place.

I am not a lawyer and perhaps my original e-mail put it the wrong way.  But these are my views – no to the single currency, no to further transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels and yes to renegotiation of areas like Fish where the EU has been a disaster for the UK.  If that’s being a Europhile then I’m a banana.  Please feel free to publish our correspondence.  I look forward to hearing from you.

David Cameron

E-mail Dated Sunday the 20th February 2000,
Sean Gabb to David CameronDear Mr Cameron,

Thank you for your e-mail of clarification.  I am not sure that you go quite far enough to qualify under the Candidlist defintion of sceptic. However, you may well qualify under other definitions; and I think it only fair to publish our correspondence in full so that selection committees and electors can form their own opinions on the basis of the evidence.

If you wish to supply me with further clarification of your views, please feel free to contact me at any time.

We thank you for having helped to make the Candidlist more accurate.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Sean Gabb
Candidlist Webmaster

E-Mail Dated Sunday the 11th June 2000,
Sean Gabb to David CameronDear Mr Cameron,

It comes a little late for selection purposes – and Candidlist has done nothing to retard your progress in any event – but I have looked again at our correspondence, and have decided to reclassify you as a sceptic after all.

I could have quietly left you as a don’t know or have quietly adjusted the list.  But I feel in all fairness I should do this publicly.  Candidlist is candid or it is nothing.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Sean Gabb
Candidlist Webmaster


  1. So the Candidlist would accept statements from MPukes (or wannabes) on their own recognizance about what they believe and allegedly stand for? That can’t be right Sean. None of them –to paraphrase John Bolt’s words from a Man for All Seasons–could be trusted so far as tonight. To accept the word of a gang of double-dyed liars, esp Mr E.U. Pigg-Phoocur would have been beyond naïve. In fairness the full colour of the creature’s treason and deceit had not yet been fully established but the events do establish the flaws in the idea. These men are all criminals and traitors to the cause of this country and personal freedom in deed and thought even if the law cannot touch them. That is their nature. The only way to judge the potential evil of criminal scum is on the record of their actions. How awful would be a system of criminal records be based on what the thieving, murdering, double-dealing criminal scum say about themselves rather than on records of their deeds.

    Indeed the Candidlist could easily be re-launched with the phrase “They are all scum–don’t trust them/don’t vote for them” attached to every denizen of the HoC deep regardless of party affiliation.

    • You can’t make a window into their souls. The best I could do was to ask questions and put the answers on the record.

      As for relaunching the Candidlist, it worked in its day, but wouldn’t now. Back then, there was still a clear division between how politicians spoke to us plebs. There were the plain lies they could spray at us in direct correspondence. There was the nuanced pap they could utter in scripted speeches or via interviews with the tame media. Correspondence that was both public and from outside the tame media wasn’t something they yet understood. Reading the Candidlist correspondence has all the fun of watching Brer Fox get stuck in the tar baby. The politicians have grown up since then.

  2. “I helped end several political careers, and I helped several other people to get into Parliament.”

    Precisely. Candidlist was a nasty, spiteful, attempt to try to get the Conservative Party to reflect your views, and to try to make membership of the parliamentary party dependent on anti-EU emoting and nothing else. Fortunately the Conservative Party is not a single-issue campaign group, but a broad church and you failed.

Leave a Reply