Eu

In the autumn Nick Clegg annoyed some in the Labour party by telling his conference that ‘Labour would wreck the recovery’ and that ‘the Conservatives would give us the wrong kind of recovery’. Some senior figures such as Lord Adonis said it suggested Clegg was predisposed to partnership with the Tories as wrecking is so much worse than a tendency to veer off in the wrong direction. But in his New Year message Clegg turns on all the parties, warning voters that a vote for anyone other than the Liberal Democrats in the European elections would wreck the recovery too. He says: ‘In May you are going to choose who

Fair’s fair. Ed Miliband might be a fish-faced ninny but that doesn’t let David Cameron off the hook. And not just because he’s trailing a fish-faced ninny in the polls. No, the Prime Minister can be a terrible poltroon himself. Witness his witless suggestion today that the United Kingdom might veto future EU enlargement unless something is done to  thwart “vast migrations” of people. It is a silly thing to say for a number of reasons and the first of those is that Cameron is in no position to make any such suggestion. He cannot bind future British governments and since there is no immediate prospect of any country being

A mischievous question, I know, but one prompted by Janan Ganesh’s latest Financial Times column. It is eight years since David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party and three and a half since he became Prime Minister. He may only have 18 months left in either post. We know – or think we know – a lot about Cameron. He is what he seems to be. Decent fellow, capable in a crisis, unruffled. A better-than-average product of his class and background. Thought he should be Prime Minister because he reckoned he’d “be good at it”. And yet the thought nags: what is he for? What is Cameron’s ministry about? As Ganesh

What will happen when Britain sits down to negotiate a new relationship with the European Union? The Open Europe think tank decided to find out with ‘war games’ in Westminster this morning. Expert negotiators representing the UK, EU Commission, Germany and France among others tried to figure out how a new Europe could be built that works for everyone. Tory MP and member of the No.10 Policy Unit Andrea Leadsom ably batted for the UK, based on the principles in her Fresh Start manifesto. Not surprisingly, she clashed with France, Germany and the EU Commission representative John Brunton. He was against fundamental change and was ‘amazed’ at the UK’s position,

What with Britain’s dreadful performance in the PISA educational rankings, there has been comparatively little attention given to another international league table– Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. The good news is that Bulgaria and Romania, with whom we will become much more intimate next month, are already in the EU’s top 5 for corruption, placed 2nd and 4th, with Greece, Italy and Slovakia filling out the leader board. I don’t object to Romanian and Bulgarian EU citizens being able to come to Britain as such, I object to the very idea of these countries joining the polity of which I am a member. But then I’m not too happy about

Hats-off to James Kirkup for noticing that Goldman Sachs have suggested they would “drastically” cut their UK workforce (and operations) should Britain decide to leave the European Union. That is the view of Michael Sherwood, the fellow responsible for running Goldman’s european operations. I am sure eurosceptics will dismiss this as the usual scaremongering just as Scottish nationalists dismiss warnings that some businesses (RBS?) might shift their operations south in the event Scotland votes for independence next year. This is but one of the many ways in which the european and Scottish questions overlap or dovetail with one another. Perhaps it is only scaremongering! But what if it isn’t? In any case, the Tory High Command

Sir John Major was beginning to make a habit of embarrassing Downing Street: by suggesting windfall taxes on energy companies and denouncing private school cliques. But he was on his best behaviour last night at the Institute of Directors’ annual dinner. He praised Cameron and Osborne for their ‘brave policy’, adding that their ‘unpopular policy’ had ‘been proved to be right’. He slammed Alex Salmond and the SNP. So far so good; but, when it came to Europe, the old dog reverted to being decidedly ‘unsound’. He believes that the EU would suffer if we were to leave (which is not something that overly concerns Eurosceptics): ‘Of course, we would survive

David Cameron’s restrictions on welfare for new migrants have pleased Tory backbenchers – but not enough for them to drop their Commons campaign for the transitional immigration controls to be extended. There are now 46 Conservative MPs signed up to support it, and I’ve just spoken to Nigel Mills, who tabled the amendment, who said: ‘The Prime Minister’s announcements are welcome steps in the right direction. However the issues with our current levels of unemployment and pressures on other public services would not be tackled so I still believe we need to keep the restrictions in place, and so I will still proceed with my amendment.’ Labour is briefing that

From Fraser Nelson: David Cameron proposing delaying welfare payments to EU immigrants – which some might see as his listening more to Lynton Crosby and less to the likes of modernisers like Nick Boles (whose approach to politics Bruce Anderson critiques below). But Boles has advocated going far further: deporting EU immigrants who don’t work. He believes he has found a clause in EU law that allows it. Given that Boles is generally seen as an uber-moderniser,  I thought Coffee Housers may be interested in seeing another side to his political thought –  a deportation plan which is further than most right-wing Tory MPs would go.  The below is abridged from