Uk politics

It is becoming increasingly clear what the Conservative party expects of its Prime Minister. If he is going to agree to 17 eurozone countries pushing ahead with the Franco-German plan for fiscal union, he needs to secure a new deal for Britain in exchange.   Just what this new deal should look like is a matter of intense debate in Conservative circles. If France and Germany turn the eurozone into a ‘fiscal union’, what does that mean for Britain’s standing in the European Union? At the weekend, Iain Duncan Smith suggested that the nature of the EU would change so much that a referendum would be necessary. No. 10 quickly ruled that out. Cameron confided to Cabinet colleagues on Monday that he feared another referendum would bring down the coalition.

Much ado about a Cabinet split over Europe this morning. The Financial Times has interviewed Ken Clarke, whose europhile instincts are well known — something he shares with the senior Lib Dems. Clarke tells his eurosceptic colleagues not to expect powers to be repatriated from the EU at Friday’s summit. Meanwhile, David Cameron has written a piece in today’s Times (£), reiterating that he will veto any treaty that damages British interests. He also says that his ‘requests will be practical and focussed’. And therein, apparently, lays the split. The word ‘requests’ might open the possibility of repatriation.

“I certainly think it’s a serious problem and I described it when we last discussed this as a canker on the body politic and I would stay with that,” said Jesse Norman on the World at One earlier today. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s sting, splashed by this morning’s Independent, of executives from lobbying/PR firm Bell Pottinger boasting of their influence over the prime minister has renewed the debate about regulating the lobbying industry, with calls for a public register to be established. Downing Street has outright denied the allegations, which do sound rather far-fetched. Bravado is, of course, the currency of thin-air merchants. The objection is not to the bragging (how else can one tout ‘influence’?

David Cameron’s European problems seem to be mounting. The usual suspects — Carswell, Redwood, Jenkin et al — have been only too happy to take the airwaves and talk of this ‘great opportunity’ to repatriate powers. Those sentiments are growing across the backbenches. The Guardian quotes an ally of Iain Duncan Smith saying that he and his friends ‘do not accept the prime minister's argument that the changes will only affect the eurozone. Of course the changes will have an impact on Britain.’ The mounting disquiet appears to have been created, to an extent, by the PM hedging his bets and lowering expectations.

Earlier this morning, Number 10 briefed that fiscal union in the eurozone would not trigger a referendum in this country because sovereignty will not be transfered from London to Brussels — a pre-requisite for any vote. The problem for Cameron is that some of his backbenchers say there should be a referendum. Bernard Jenkin was on the Daily Politics earlier, insisting that fiscal integration marks a new era in the history of the Eurozone, which he dubbed ‘Maastricht Plus’. On the other hand, some eurosceptic backbenchers caution that now is not the time to hold a referendum — stability in the eurozone is the order of the day.

The Commons will debate the UK’s controversial extradition treaty with the US and the European Arrest Warrant later today. The debate has been brought by Dominic Raab MP. He was on the Today programme this morning, explaining that he wanted to introduce a ‘forum clause’ to the UK-US treaty. Forum is a principle that could apply in cross-border cases like Gary McKinnon’s, which Raab has been championing. Raab wants to end the ‘sort of haggling between prosecutors behind closed doors’ that governs extraditions at present, and reform the process by placing it before open court in Britain. He argues that numerous other countries enjoy such an arrangement with the US, why shouldn’t its ‘stalwart’ British allies?