Eu

Just for Coffee House readers, here is a sneak preview of the leading article from this week’s Spectator. Download our iPad and iPhone app to read the rest of the magazine first thing tomorrow.  It was almost worth the wait. The substance of David Cameron’s speech on Europe was disclosed in this magazine a fortnight ago, but his delivery was excellent. He offered a clear-headed and almost touchingly optimistic vision of the type of union that the British public would find acceptable: one based on free trade, not bureaucratic diktat. One where power can flow back to countries, not be leached from them. And one founded on genuine popular consent,

David Cameron has postponed his speech on the European Union because of the hostage situation in Algeria where a standoff has been taking place in a gas plant in the Sahara Desert. There are conflicting reports, but it seems about 300 Algerian and 40 international hostages were taken and several have been killed in a rescue attempt. The PM has suggested that worse news will follow saying:- ‘We should be prepared for the possibility of further bad news in this very dangerous fluid situation.’ No10 said earlier that Cameron had not been informed about the Algerian rescue attempt before it began and has told his Algerian counterpart that he wishes

It is always an understatement to say that David Cameron can’t possibly satisfy his party with his Europe speech this week: the reason being that there is no one unified position on the EU within the Conservatives, with different groups calling for different responses to Europe. Today the Fresh Start Group of Tory MPs publishes its ‘Manifesto for Change’ which will propose a list of powers that Britain should repatriate from Europe. Cameron has already made clear that he will be seeking a new relationship with the EU, and so the Fresh Start MPs will be hoping that he will pick up some of their ideas. For them, it is

The date of David Cameron’s Europe speech has been moved yet again. But this time it has been pulled forward, to this Friday. Downing Street realised that they weren’t going to be able to talk about anything else until the speech was done. The mood in the party ahead of the speech is not good. There’s considerable irritation among Tory Cabinet Ministers that they haven’t been consulted about the speech. Another source of irritation for Eurosceptic ministers is that Ken Clarke has been allowed to — or, at least, not prevented from — joining up with Peter Mandelson and this new Centre for British Influence Through Europe. As one put

The Europe debate is raging in the Sunday papers ahead of Cameron’s speech on the matter. There’s mounting concern among Tory Cabinet Ministers that the speech will not go far enough and will simply inflame the situation. One told me, ‘It would be better to make no speech than to disappoint.’ But I suspect that Tory spin doctors will be concerned about a second Europe story this Sunday, Eric Pickles’ confirmation under questioning from Andrew Neil that the government has a number for how many Romanians and Bulgarians are expected to move here from December 2013 when EU transition controls come to an end: listen to ‘Eric Pickles on housing

Ed Miliband’s speech to the Fabians is being rather over-shadowed today by Lord Heseltine’s attack on David Cameron’s EU policy; the political media like nothing more than a ‘Tories split on Europe’ story. I suspect, though, that Labour won’t mind this too much. Heseltine’s criticisms make the Tories look divided and allow Labour to claim that even Cameron’s own growth adviser thinks his Europe policy is wrong. Of course, there is nothing surprising about Heseltine’s criticisms: he is an ideological pro-European. He wanted Britain to join the euro, something that would have been a total disaster for this country, and even now believes that we will join the euro one-day.

Good grief. Are we supposed to be surprised that senior officials at the US State Department take the view that Britain should, all things considered, remain a member of the European Union? Of course not. Are, however, we supposed to be shocked by Foggy Bottom’s impertinence in saying so? Apparently so. Of course, if the Obama administration were to say that it’s in America’s interests for Britain to leave the EU then I hazard many of those pretending – for surely it must only be a pretence? – to be outraged by this damned interference in our own affairs would instead welcome the Americans’ intervention in the debate and use

David Cameron’s big Europe speech is now less than a fortnight away. It will be, I suspect, the most consequential speech of his premiership. When you look at the challenges involved, one can see why the speech has been delayed so many times. Cameron needs to say enough to reassure his party, which has never been more Eurosceptic than it is now. But he also needs to appeal to European leaders, whose consent he will need for any new deal. At the same time, he’s got to try and not create too much nervousness among business about where all this will end up. I understand that he intends to argue

David Cameron’s New Year interview on Marr was dominated not by the economy but by Europe. In a sign of what the promise of a speech setting out his European strategy has started, Cameron was repeatedly asked about what powers he would like back. He didn’t give much away, repeatedly telling Andrew Marr he would have to wait for the speech later this month. But two interesting things did emerge. First, Cameron indicated that he wanted to toughen up the way that the free movement of people is applied. I presume this means that only those with work or a clear means of support could come here; Nick Boles and

Here is a story that should have got far more attention. A story that perfectly epitomises the corruption and anti-democratic activity of the EU. In 2010 the group NGO Monitor – which seeks to hold NGOs to account – petitioned the European Commission to reveal details of the NGOs it has funded in recent years.  As readers will know, much of the government-funded NGO business is a racket, and one which pushes highly specific political agendas. And so it has been in recent years with funding from the EU. In particular, as NGO Monitor has previously shown, there is the little matter of the European Commission funding rabidly anti-Israel groups

Becoming a ‘second-class’ member of the European Union doesn’t sound awfully appealing on first glance at today’s Times story. But the ‘associate membership’ being considered by the Union of European Federalists would see Britain remain in the single market but lose its commissioner in Brussels and eventually its MEPs, too. Those drawing up this version of the new treaty also envisage that there would continue to be a seat at the Court of Justice for Britain. The big question for the eurosceptics I’ve spoken to this morning is whether Britain could have what one Tory MP described as a common market, rather than single market agreement, whereby it abides by

Nick Clegg has made a not-so-startling intervention in the debate about Britain’s relationship with Europe today, warning that Britain must avoid selling itself short in a renegotiation. His interview with the Guardian is a necessary piece of positioning ahead of David Cameron’s Big Europe Speech in mid-January, and this kind of differentiation is something the Tories are more than happy for the Lib Dem leader to continue doing. So in some ways, Clegg warning Cameron not to overdo it on Europe isn’t at all significant. But the Deputy Prime Minister makes an important observation in his interview about Britain’s bargaining power. Describing the creation of the single market and the

David Cameron’s Conservative modernisation agenda is struggling. Several of today’s front pages highlight how traditional Tory issues — immigration and family values — have returned to the centre stage. And many of Cameron’s attempts to modernise his party on big issues (climate change, green energy, gay marriage, HS2) have met with a negative responses. How can he retool his modus operandi to win a Tory a majority at the next general election? Policing and ex-immigration minister Damian Green has a few suggestions. In a speech he will give to Bright Blue this evening, Green suggests Cameron’s modernising agenda is not yet an ex-agenda, and can still be refashioned to work in 2015.

Today’s Think Scotland column takes a gander at the rumpus over an independent Scotland’s accession to the EU. Until recently the SNP promised that said accession would be automatic. Now it’s simply “common-sense”.  This is because Jose Manuel Barroso, the Spanish Iberian agent* at the heart of the EU Commission, has made an awkward intervention. Scotland would, he says, not be an automatic member of the club at all. Intuitively this is obvious just as Scotland would not be an automatic member of the United Nations. It would have to apply. Once it applied it’s application would most probably be accepted. There are few plausible grounds upon which to reject

Liam Fox sparked a row with a former diplomat today after accusing the Foreign Office of an institutional bias towards greater integration with the European Union. The former Defence Secretary is building up a reputation for himself as a rallying figure for the eurosceptic right wing of the Conservative party with a series of speeches on Britain’s relationship with Europe, and today he attacked the civil service for having a weak spot for the continent. He told an Open Europe event at the Royal United Services Institute that the government’s desire to renegotiate its EU position was impaired as a result of the FCO being ‘totally wedded to the concept

Another day, another paper by a Tory MP about Britain’s relationship with Europe. Except the latest paper, by Tobias Ellwood for think tank Open Europe, is actually not so much about what’s wrong with Europe, but about what’s wrong with how our Parliament in Westminster deals with the whole issue. Ellwood, who is PPS to Europe Minister David Lidington, doesn’t believe Westminster politicians are actually very good at engaging with European Union policymaking, preferring instead a ‘complain-but-don’t-change’ approach. He paints a discomfiting picture of the way MPs relate to Brussels, describing an alienation which leads to ‘little appetite amongst MPs to understand fully how the EU actually works – and