Eu

Boris Johnson’s speech this week is one of the few domestic issues really animating Westminster. He will argue that the UK should not be ‘frightened’ of leaving the EU, supposedly in contrast to David Cameron, who has always made clear that he wants to remain in the bloc. But it’s worth remembering that Cameron himself has started to shift recently on how he’d vote in the 2017 referendum. When he returned to the Commons after losing his fight against Jean-Claude Juncker’s bid to become President of the European Commission, Cameron changed his language on that vote. Where previously he had argued that there was no doubt he’d be voting to

The Sunday Telegraph has news that Boris Johnson will give a speech next week in which he will throw his weight behind a report, published by Volterra, calling for Britain to renegotiate its membership of the EU. The Telegraph reports: ‘The capital’s gross domestic product (GDP), currently £350 bn — or just over a fifth of the UK economy — would grow to £640 bn by 2034 if Britain stayed in a reformed EU and adopted policies encouraging more trade with the world’s fastest-growing markets, the report will say.  But if the UK left the EU, while pursuing its own trade-friendly policies regardless, the London economy would still grow to £615 bn over

I have described David Cameron’s posturing on immigration today as vacuous and cynical, for that is exactly what it is. Cynical because once again he seems determined to fool the British people into believing that we can seriously have our own immigration policy whilst remaining inside the EU. We can’t. Vacuous because his policy solution seems to consist of tinkering around the edges of the problem instead of dealing with it head on. Under his government, net migration levels per annum remain in the hundreds of thousands, with citizens from twenty-seven other nations allowed to come and go as they please. What Britain really needs is a tough, solid, Australian-style immigration system.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind was right: there was no agreement in Europe on serious against Russia. The FT’s Peter Spiegel tweets the news that many have been expecting: The #EU ambassadors meeting finally breaks. No decision on “phase three” sanctions, but meeting again tomorrow. And maybe Mon. And Tues. — Peter Spiegel (@SpiegelPeter) July 24, 2014   The EU’s account of the meeting refers, comically, to an ‘exchange of views’ on the ‘preparatory work’ on tier three sanctions. There was some agreement on the extended list of ‘Putin cronies’. Zero Hedge has a summary of the discussion, drawn from a variety of sources. The headlines are that the number of listed ‘cronies’ is expected to be increased to

‘Somewhere between zero and minus five.’ That is the verdict of former Foreign Secretary and current Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, to the question in the headline. The general consensus is that the European Union will not – indeed, cannot – agree substantial sanctions against Russia. European countries are, variously, too dependent on Russian trade and resources, or too weak in themselves, to punish Putin. The disagreements at yesterday’s summit were plain to see. Europe, the narrative goes, can only agree on more provisions against ‘cronies’ who use international markets to conduct their nefarious business and then spend their spoils in the great playgrounds of the

The talk before the reshuffle was all about the march of women into the cabinet, but the other story from yesterday’s developments is the positioning of Eurosceptic voices in the Cabinet. Rather than focusing on the demographic composition of the Cabinet, it’s worth considering the beliefs of those in key positions. In the run up to the election next year, and maybe a 2017 In/Out referendum, those who believe that fundamental reform of the EU is necessary and aren’t afraid to consider the alternative if it fails, will occupy key seats at the top table. No wonder Michael Fallon said ‘it’s certainly a Eurosceptic cabinet’ on the Today programme this

Jean-Claude Juncker delivered a speech to the European Parliament this morning. Its content was, from the British government’s perspective, provocative. Juncker had one watchword: integration: and a clear idea of how to achieve it. He expressed belief in: Tax harmonisation (especially on corporate tax rates) Integration of capital markets Energy integration and the diversification of energy supply 300bn euros extra spending and a commitment to the ‘social market’ A financial transaction tax No new member states for 5 years (how about that, Mr Salmond?) The euro as a unifying force across Europe Freedom of movement In some respects it was a slightly strange speech for Juncker, a man of the

Politicians tend to get all the blame for immigration policies not working. But politicians are often doomed to fail on migration questions because there are deep-rooted problems with the way we all debate immigration and with what we expect of immigration policy. Following UKIP’s success in the European elections, and given the likely failure of the government to meet its net migration target by 2015, immigration is guaranteed to be a key focal point of public debate in the run-up to the general election next year. There is widespread agreement that Britain needs a ‘better’ immigration debate – but how can that be achieved? Over the past year I have

‘Energy is the single biggest issue facing Jean-Claude Juncker,’ remarked a seasoned Eurocrat to me earlier this week. Europe’s energy infrastructure is decrepit and insular. Rates of cross-border interconnection, for example, remain very low – at just 8 per cent of their production capacity on average across the union according to the FT. The Commission’s 2030 energy package aims to raise the average rate of interconnection to 15 per cent — part of a string of targets designed to complete the single market in energy. Alas, it’s going to take more than a target or two. The level of investment required is enormous (more than 1 trillion euros by the Commission’s

Next week, EU leaders will meet to parcel out the top jobs in the next European Commission. So David Cameron doesn’t have long to decide who he is going to nominate—and Berlin is already bugging him for his pick. Here’s The Spectator‘s run down of the runners and riders. Andrew Lansley: Until recently the firm favourite. But in recent weeks support for him has fallen away. No. 10 has been irritated by the hints he has dropped about having been offered the job. It has also grasped that nominating someone as compensation for dropping them from the Cabinet is a recipe for getting a second-tier job. David Willetts: The science