Europe

David Cameron struggles to repatriate powers from Brussels. Yet Britain can reclaim one sovereign power without negotiation. Other EU members never relinquished the right to say ‘non’, ‘nein’, ‘oxi’ to European law that violates the constitution. Should Britain do the same? Italy and Germany’s Constitutional Courts first set constitutional limits to EU law in the 1970s. The Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice was not amused. It recently raged against the Spanish Constitutional Court which had the chutzpah to say the European Arrest Warrant might violate due process. ‘Rules of national law, even of a constitutional order cannot … undermine the effectiveness of EU law,’ thundered the Luxembourg judges. European judges putting

Will David Cameron allow senior ministers to take whatever side they wish in the EU referendum? There are reportedly six Cabinet Ministers pushing for a free vote on the matter, and today Liam Fox added his voice to the calls, telling the Daily Politics that even if the Prime Minister refused an official suspension of collective responsibility, ministers would find other ways of making their views heard. He said: ‘Ultimately the legitimacy of the result will depend on whether the voters think they have heard all the arguments openly and fairly and I think any attempt by any side to restrict people’s voice in that debate will limit how people

This speech was authentic Cameron. It was the most modernising speech that he has given since becoming Prime Minister and an attempt to reposition the Tories as the party of ‘true equality’. It was a return to the approach that characterised his leadership before the financial crash of 2008. Traditional Tory thinking has always been that if you work hard you get on, that you can pull yourselves up by your bootstraps. But this speech argued that for some people in society this simply isn’t true, that they find their opportunities blocked at every turn. Cameron cited the example of a black girl who had to change her name to

Boris Johnson’s speech today was the best that I have ever heard him give. It was a potent cocktail of political vision, humour and optimism. But the most significant line it was about Europe. He declared that: ‘It should be up to this parliament and this country – not to Jean-Claude Juncker – to decide if too many people are coming here’ It is impossible to read this as anything other than a demand that freedom of movement rules are fundamentally altered as part of the UK’s renegotiation with the EU. Now, Number 10 are clear that they aren’t seeking to challenge the principle of freedom of movement, they know

Jon Cruddas’ speech warning that Labour is lost in England has attracted plenty of attention for that line alone. But there was another section that is worth taking note of, given the former party policy chief is keen to play such a big role in rebuilding Labour after its febrile summer. Cruddas also spoke about Labour’s challenge on Europe, arguing most significantly that the party should support two categories of EU membership and take a stronger position on the renegotiation. He said: ‘We need to strengthen our pro-European politics with a clear position. We should recognise the reservations many of our citizens have about giving up our sovereignty to Brussels

David Cameron will today support calls from his MPs to keep the Conservative party neutral during the EU referendum campaign, Coffee House understands. The Times reports this morning that the Conservative party board will meet to discuss whether or not the party machine should remain strictly neutral. This would mean the campaign to stay in the EU, which the Prime Minister is expected to support, could not use campaign data gathered by CCHQ, or organise activists using the party’s structures. A Number 10 source tells me that Cameron will be represented at the board, and that his view is that the party should be neutral during the referendum. The meeting

The next project for eurosceptic Tory MPs is to get a free vote for government ministers on the EU referendum. They want David Cameron to tell his frontbenchers whether or not they can campaign for a different stance to the one he’ll take (even if he wants to give the impression he might advocate leaving or remaining), and they want him to do it at the Tory conference in a few weeks’ time. One of the reasons the eurosceptics want this is that it will make it easier for them to add the names of senior ministers to their lists of supporters of leaving the EU, and to do so as

Following the government’s first Commons defeat of the new parliament, I understand that ministers are not going to try to reverse the primary legislation that introduces a ‘full fat’ version of the purdah restrictions on what central and local government can publish during the EU referendum campaign. But what the government can do to get its way is to use a statutory instrument to set out certain exemptions from those purdah restrictions. This was what the government amendment to new clause 10 of the legislation will allow: that changes to purdah can be introduced through secondary legislation, which must be approved by MPs. This means ministers can try again at a

A cross-party group of MPs, including Ukip’s only MP, is to formally join the Westminster-based ‘Out’ campaign, Coffee House has learned. An ‘exploratory committee’ of MPs which started discussing how to advance the case for ‘Out’ in June, will become the Parliamentary Planning committee for the Matthew Elliot-led Out group, which is to move into new offices in Westminster Tower later this month. The members of the parliamentary planning committee are Steve Baker, Douglas Carswell, Bernard Jenkin, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Owen Paterson and Graham Stringer. More MPs will join the committee in the coming weeks. It will advise the campaign team and build support for this particular Out campaign

Will ministers really avoid a defeat on the question of purdah in the EU referendum bill on Monday? They hope that amendments, tabled today (and attached in full here in advance of their publication tomorrow), will stop Conservative MPs flocking to Labour’s new clause that it has tabled to add to the Bill. But Labour sources tell me that they’re still considering voting against the amendment which brings back purdah but with a substantially narrowed scope. And given it only takes a handful of grumpy eurosceptics to vote against to make a defeat, the whips can’t breathe a sigh of relief just yet. Some eurosceptics I’ve spoken to think this

[audioplayer src=”http://rss.acast.com/viewfrom22/workingwithal-qa-eda/media.mp3″ title=”James Forsyth and George Eaton discuss the rise of Jeremy Corbyn” startat=754] Listen [/audioplayer]It wasn’t meant to work out this way. A month ago, Westminster watched to see if Jeremy Corbyn could get the support of the 35 MPs he needed to enter the Labour leadership race. At the time, it seemed a sort of joke. After all, the people who were lending him their backing weren’t doing so for any great love of Corbyn. As a rule, they either wanted a ‘broad debate’ or thought that the ritual slaughter of the left-wing candidate would make it easier for the new leader to move the party to the

As a long-time Eurosceptic, I should be happy about the Johnny-Come-Latelys now swelling the sceptic ranks. Following Euro-institutions’ wicked treatment of Greece, many European liberals have finally realised that Brussels might not be the hotbed of liberalism, internationalism and bunny rabbits they thought it was. So, bit by bit, they’re becoming the thing they once looked down upon, the thing they once forcefielded their dinner parties against: Eurosceptics. But I’m not feeling very welcoming to these latter-day doubters, currently live-tweeting their Euro-existential angst and clogging their newspaper columns with tortured questions about whether the EU really is a ‘great achievement of enlightened internationalism’. (Answer: no, you donuts.) For two reasons.