Europe

Will Sir John Major be asked to lead Britain’s Europe renegotiations? The Telegraph diary raises this prospect – and it makes sense. As a former PM with clout and credibility he would be well-suited to the job, and has made the case for such an external negotiator in the past. His recent speeches about Britain's relationship with Europe have struck some as an audition for this job. When Sir John was on Andrew Marr’s sofa last month, he was asked about this directly: Major: I think there are some practical things that could be done that don’t infringe the principle but do meet the problem, but I think frankly they’re much more likely to be done if they’re not aired in public but discussed in private.

The response to the Ukip surge has reached the panic stage. Just as British business and academia chorused the economic benefits of Union in the final stages of the Scottish referendum campaign, now their refrain is of the economic benefits of immigration. A letter from ten chief executives in the Financial Times pronounced that unimpeded immigration from Eastern Europe is highly valuable. The previous week economists estimated that immigration from Eastern Europe had contributed £20 billion net in taxes. But Ukip supporters are no longer overawed by businessmen and dons, so what is to be done? Within the accepted rules of English social hierarchy, the tempting implication for the rest of us is condescension.

Philip Hammond’s interview in The Telegraph this morning is striking for several reasons. First, Hammond admits that Britain isn’t going to regain full control of its borders in the renegotiation. As he puts it, ‘“If your ambition is that we have total unfettered control of our own borders to do what we like, that isn’t compatible with membership of the European Union, it’s as simple as that. And people who advocate that know jolly well it is not compatible with membership of the European Union. So if that’s what you want, you’re essentially talking about leaving the European Union.”   But he does seem to think that agreement on something that delivers similar results to a quota system is possible.

Labour might be mired in misery this week, but at least it can take comfort that around the corner is the Rochester by-election, which the Conservatives look set to lose. Not one MP returning from campaigning against their former colleague Mark Reckless honestly thinks they'll win, even if they tweet nice things and post aggressive videos. Let's just remind ourselves of why losing this constituency is particularly painful for the Conservatives. They spent their conference calling Reckless a 'dickhead' and saying they thought they could win the by-election because he was a liar, and he didn't have the same personal appeal as Douglas Carswell in a constituency considered far less Ukip-friendly.

The Commons has a rather listless feel to it at the moment. Today’s PMQs will not live long in the memory. Ed Miliband’s strategy was to get David Cameron to say as often as possible that he wants to stay in the EU, with the hope that this would drive a wedge between Cameron and his backbenchers. This tactic was, as far as it went, quite effective. Cameron repeatedly said that he wanted to stay in a reformed EU, and wasn’t prepared to say explicitly that he would be prepared to campaign for an exit if he didn’t get what he wanted out of the renegotiation.

It is easy to understand David Cameron’s desire to make a ‘game changing’ speech on EU immigration. Voters are telling pollsters it is the issue that most concerns them, Ukip are breathing down his neck and it could be the swing issue in any future EU referendum. However, he needs to play his cards carefully. By making a ‘big pledge’ on reducing numbers, the risk is that Mr Cameron needlessly raises expectations that are undeliverable and draws attention away from negotiable reforms to EU migrants’ access to the British welfare system that would concretely address the inconsistencies and perverse incentives undermining public confidence in free movement.

A visibly riled David Cameron railed at the European Commission's 'completely unacceptable' behaviour in demanding another £1.7 billion from Britain by the 1st of December. He warned that he certainly won't be paying this bill then, and that anyone who thinks he will 'have another think coming'.

This chart, courtesy of Mike Smithson, shows Ipsos-Mori's polling on British membership of the European Union. It shows support for leaving the EU is no higher now than it was 20 years ago. I'll wager this surprises you. As you can see, there has always been a constituency for leaving the EU. Public enthusiasm for the european project has always been conditional. Despite that, the unhappiness of a known known has generally proved more attractive than the uncertainty of a known unknown. (This, ahem, is also true of certain other constitutional questions with which we have wrestled recently.) But how can this be? How can UKIP be soaring in the polls even as public support for their greatest proposal sags?

It is a bold approach but, who knows, perhaps it is just crazy enough to work. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with a strategy on immigration best summarised like this: UKIP ARE RIGHT. DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. Thank heavens for Ed Miliband, eh? He's the Tories' last, best, weapon. What a cheery thought that is.

[audioplayer src="http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_16_Oct_2014_v4.mp3" title="Lord Pearson and Damian Green join Lara Prendergast on this week's podcast to discuss Ukip and the Tories." startat=79.5] Listen [/audioplayer] What result at the next election would most suit Ukip? There is little doubt that the party would most benefit from a Labour victory in 2015, which I discussed in my Spectator column this week. In brief, Labour victory would mean: 1. No EU referendum and more EU immigration. Ed Miliband has taken a strong stance against an In/Out referendum despite pressure from inside his shadow Cabinet to agree to one. He is unlikely to change his mind on this if he became Prime Minister.