Eu

The Times has a very interesting story (£) today on page 17. It claims that David Cameron had agreed to inform Nick Clegg if it appeared that Britain was going to be isolated at last week’s European Council. The significance of this is that it suggests that the Lib Dems believed they would be consulted before the government vetoed anything. This news emerges after senior Liberal Democrats have privately questioned why their leader did not insist that Cameron only use the veto once he had Clegg’s explicit agreement. The Times also reports that this negotiating protocol did not envisage a situation where Britain was left in a minority of only

As the effects of last week’s European Council become clear, debate about the rights and wrongs of David Cameron’s diplomacy hinge on one question: were his demands ‘reasonable and modestly expressed’, as a source in No 10 put it to me? Everyone knows that there were chronic failures in the run-up to the meeting itself. I laid a few of them out in an earlier post, but, basically, they amount to a failure of prioritisation: the UK eroded the goodwill it needed by fighting tooth-and-nail on every issue beforehand, thereby blocking things that other EU states care about but which are not important, except symbolically, to the British. International —

Today was one of those days when we saw just how divisive the European issue can be to the Conservative party. The sight of Malcolm Rifkind and Nadine Dorries treating each other with barely disguised contempt on Newsnight was a sign of just how poisonous relations in the parliamentary party could become. Intriguingly, the Daily Mail reports in its first edition that ‘Even some of Mr Cameron’s closest Cabinet allies are understood to be shifting to a much more Eurosceptic position, with a five-strong group of ministers planning to visit the Prime Minister as early as today to urge him to toughen his stance.’ Cameron now finds himself trapped between

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

There probably hasn’t been a meeting of European finance ministers as important as the one tonight. The euro is still at risk; with new governments in Spain, Italy, and Greece incapable of calming the markets, and Angela Merkel unwilling to let the ECB act. In a speech in Berlin, Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski put it clearly: ‘I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity.’ It is a fear shared in London and Paris as well. The 17 finance ministers will discuss the range of options on the table: from setting up an EU Treasury to the possibility of eurobonds or establishing a supra-national process

There’s just over a week to go until the crunch EU summit on 8-9 December, so David Cameron has to decide how best to play his cards — and quick. The problem, as Daniel Korski has pointed out, is that Britain faces the risk of ‘structural isolation’ in Europe in the short-term. To counter this, Cameron effectively has two options. First, work with allies on both sides of the euro divide to seek political assurances — formal or informal — against the formation of a two-tier Europe with a more integrated eurozone in the driving seat. Or, second, press ahead with UK-specific carve-outs from the EU structure. The former would

Yesterday, Fraser wrote that ‘reporting of European issues tends to ignore public opinion’. Today, Philip Stephens has neatly illustrated Fraser’s point in his Financial Times column. Musing on Britain’s possible exit from the European Union, Stephens writes: ‘I am not sure this is what the prime minister intends; nor, when it comes to it, that British voters will accept such an outcome.’ Stephens’ conjecture ignores the European Union’s own polling, which, as Fraser says, shows most Britons to be hostile to the EU. That said, Stephens’ article is substantial. He argues that ‘fiscal union carries its own remorseless logic: the progressive exclusion of Britain from Europe’s economic decision-making’. The magnitude of George

This might seem a very odd question. A pro-EU position is part of the party’s internationalist DNA. Listen to any EU-related speech by the likes of Nick Clegg or Paddy Ashdown and heartfelt support for the European project is apparent. The Liberal Democrats have also made a virtue of reining in Tory euroscepticism, for example rejecting a call for repatriation of powers in the Coalition Agreement. The Deputy Prime Minister remains, in private and public, pro-EU. And to many activists and MPs, the party’s European stance is what makes it different to the Tories – and is the reason why they are Lib Dems. They see in Tory euroscepticism a

David Cameron and Angela Merkel were clearly keen to show that, whatever the tensions over the role of the European Central Bank, they still get on. I lost count of the number of times in their press conference that they used the word ‘good’ to characterise their relationship and their discussions. But there did not appear to have been any actual progress on how to deal with the current crisis. Certainly, there was no softening of Germany’s opposition to using the ECB as the backstop for the Eurozone. Merkel conceded that she had raised a European-only financial transactions tax with the Prime Minister but that, unsurprisingly, no progress had been