David cameron

David Cameron’s use of the veto in the early hours of this morning changes the British political landscape. The first thing to stress is that if the euro collapses it will not be because of the British veto. The deal agreed between the 17 eurozone countries and six of those nations who still want to join it does not address the single currency’s fundamental problems.   What is, perhaps, most intriguing about what happened in the early hours of this morning is that Sarkozy and Merkel chose to put Cameron in this position. In truth, Cameron was not asking for that much. But Sarkozy and Merkel were not prepared to

Much has already been written this week about the negotiating hand that David Cameron should be playing in Brussels over the next couple of days.   I am fervently of the view that there is indeed a whole raft of policy areas over which he should be seeking to reclaim powers from Brussels, and they are detailed in a new paper by Dr Lee Rotherham, Terms of Endearment, which was published earlier this week by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.   But forget the European Council for a moment. For it is worth highlighting the things that the British Government could do immediately and unilaterally, here at home, to challenge EU power

Ed Miliband had an open goal today. And he whacked it straight over the bar. Cameron was in trouble from the start. Having placated the rebel wing of his party with vague talk about ‘repatriating powers’ he is now expected to deliver. But he can’t make specific demands without weakening his hand at the negotiations so he has to talk in generalities. The Labour leader spotted this weakness and tried to exploit it with one of his lethally brief questions. ‘What powers would the Prime Minister repatriate?’ Cameron gave several answers without addressing the issue. His aim in the negotiations, he said, was to resolve the eurozone crisis, ‘and that

As French and German officials make final preparations ahead of tomorrow’s meeting on fiscal union, it’s worth reconsidering the coalition’s triple referendum lock. James Kirkup has an incisive post on the issue, describing a potential government split. The division was evident on TV this morning: Iain Duncan Smith told Dermot Murnaghan that a referendum would be held ‘if there is a major treaty change’, while Nick Clegg told Andrew Marr that only ‘an additional surrender of sovereignty from us to Brussels’ can spark a vote. Kirkup argues that IDS reflects the broader sceptic position on the Tory backbenches: that the PM has promised a vote on all substantial treaty changes.

An old enemy of England nestles in the pages of today’s Daily Telegraph. Charles Moore travelled to Paris to meet Jacques Delors, the architect of the euro and advocate of Europe’s ‘social dimension’. Moore found defiance where one might have expected humility, perhaps even repentance. Delors insists that the fault was in the execution not the design of the euro. He thinks that the euro’s ‘Anglo-Saxon critics’ were correct in their analysis of the euro’s structural failings; he believes that Europe’s political leaders did not go far enough in ‘founding [economic] co-operation between member states’, which would have promoted the beloved ‘social dimension’ by harmonising fiscal, welfare and employment policies.