Miliband vague on most EU issues but categorical on energy

Labour leader Ed Miliband addressed his party conference in Manchester this afternoon. While the focus was on ‘togetherness’, the NHS and his various encounters with members of the public with useful bits for his speech, there were a couple of mentions of the EU and related issues. On the topic he said:

“Let me say it plainly: Britain’s future lies inside not outside the European Union. And the way we reform the EU is by building alliances, not burning them. And it’s why all those who want to leave, including in the Conservative Party, are now a huge threat to the prosperity of our country.”

Miliband went on to add that he saw the need for EU reform in areas such as “the economy, migration and other big issues”. He also cited the UK’s failed opposition to Jean-Claude Juncker’s Commission Presidency as evidence that UK Prime Minister David Cameron cannot achieve reform in Europe, since all countries simply believe he is pandering to his party.

Ultimately the EU section was a side note to the main messages of his speech. Once again there was no detail about exactly which reforms Labour would pursue with regards to the EU, no mention of whether a referendum would be held or not and only vague talk of alliance building with no clear message of how this would be achieved other than by not being the Conservative Party. He also glossed over the fact that the Labour Party ostensibly supported the anti-Juncker push by the UK and that the negotiations over Juncker seem to have resulted in the UK securing a prime post in the new Commission – one many thought they would never get.

Interestingly, there was a bit more detail at one of Open Europe's fringe events with Shadow Europe Minister Gareth Thomas stating that he (and presumably his party) support a red card for national parliaments as well as a specialised European affairs committee to better scrutinise all EU legislation. Certainly commendable if they prove to be concrete Labour policy.

One final interesting point on substance from Miliband regarding energy:

“[We are] making a clear commitment to take the carbon out of our electricity by 2030.”

This is a pretty bold statement (although he did hint at something similar last year), which essentially says that all of the UK’s electricity consumption will be met by renewable sources in 2030. To put that into context current renewable share of electricity generation is around 16%, and is due to rise by to 30% by 2020 – that is if the UK meets its EU set targets (quite a big if at this point).

To achieve the current 2020 target, according to government impact assessment, the Renewables Directive costs £4.2bn per year over the course of a decade. Miliband’s target would essentially involve tripling the increase of renewables over the same timeframe up to 2030 – exactly how much would such a policy cost per year!? (We’d hazard a guess at…a lot). As the graph above from the National Grid shows, most forecasts expect the UK to still have a sizeable chunk of electricity generation from gas and coal, mostly due to the cost and complexity of overhauling the entire grid and the intermittent nature of renewables (note - we have an upcoming paper on these issues and more soon so stay tuned).

All of this also takes place in a context where carbon prices (via the EU ETS) and targets are set and negotiated at the EU level. Will Miliband unilaterally commit to such an approach when it seems likely few, if any, other EU members would sign up to it? We've highlighted before the potential conflict between Labour's energy policy and the EU. Again, more detail needed but at least here there are some interesting questions to chew over.

Martin Schulz's revenge: Will the European Parliament block the UK's EU Commissioner?

If you read our press summary this morning (if not, do sign up!) you would have seen - before anyone else outside Germany incidentally - that Lord Hill, the UK's nominee for EU Commissioner, is already at risk of becoming a victim of an increasingly assertive European Parliament.

Martin Schulz – the ‘European Commission Presidential candidate’ who was re-selected President of the European Parliament after his socialist group in the EP came second in the European elections - was made persona non grata by Labour in the run-up to the European elections.

He was seen as too federalist, and someone who would only give Ed Miliband additional headaches shortly after Labour ruled out an In/Out referendum. He’s had a rough ride in the UK over the Spitzenkandidaten, where he clashed head on with the Tories and most other British people. He may now take his revenge.

Speaking to Deutschlandfunk radio this morning, he said of Lord Hill:

"I cannot imagine that, with his radical anti-European views, provided that he has them, [Lord] Hill can get a majority in the European Parliament…It will become clear if Mr Hill approaches us without prejudice, and that will certainly influence whether or not he gets a majority."

The European Parliament cannot formally reject individual Commissioner-nominees, but can veto the entire European Commission. Therefore, MEPs have de facto 'blackmailing powers' to pick off individual nominees. Interestingly, Schulz added that a rejection of Lord Hill in such a way "cannot be ruled out".

In fairness, Schulz was asked a clearly leading question when making these comments:

"David Cameron has proposed the eurosceptic Jonathan Hill as [the UK's] next EU Commissioner, and [he's] a determined sceptic of the euro and the EU. Can one assume that the next EU Commission  will become significantly more eurosceptic, blocking things from the inside?"

So, is this posturing or is Schulz meaning business? Well, as for now, we should treat the comments with caution. Even if Schulz is serious, he will need to get a majority of MEPs to agree that Hill should be rejected on basis of "radical anti-European views, provided he has them". Hill isn't exactly on record spewing out Farage-type anti-EU slogans. The point about Lord Hill is that he's a very different type of political operator altogether: he's someone who strikes deals, rather than engaging in shouting matches or trading in platitudes.

Schulz will struggle to build a case on this one - not least since Lord Hill seems like exactly the type of pragmatic, deal-maker type person MEPs should like. Still, it's a strong statement from Schulz.

Labour finally wake up to the fact there is a European election next week

Do Ed Balls and Ed Miliband see eye-to-eye on the EU?

Anyone following Labour's election campaign up until now would be forgiven for thinking the party was fighting a general election as opposed to a European one - any references to Europe were hard to come by. However, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has emerged with a hard-hitting piece in yesterday's Evening Standard in which he argues that:

"Europe needs to work better to respond to public concerns, deliver better value for money for taxpayers and secure rising prosperity."

"First, we need the EU to be better focused on creating jobs and growth. An EU Commissioner focused on growth, and an independent audit of the impact of any new piece of EU legislation on growth, would be key to helping re-focusing the Union on this key task. And we need to drive forward the completion of the single market in digital, energy and services."

"Second, our reforms will help ensure that EU citizens seeking work here contribute to our economy and society. So we will extend the period of time that people from new member states have to wait before being able to come to the UK to look for work. We will work to stop the payment of benefits to those not resident in this country, consult on changing the rules on deporting someone who receives a custodial sentence shortly after arriving in the UK, and have called on the government to double the time that an EU migrant has to wait before being able to claim the basic Job Seekers Allowance."

 "And third, any agenda for change in Europe must also address people's concerns about how power is exercised at a European level. So we have called for national parliaments to have a greater role in EU decision making by being able to 'red-card' any new EU legislation before it comes into force; for serious reform of the EU Commission."

This commitment to reform is very welcome, even if this is merely a re-statement of existing Labour EU policy. It's worth noting that these reforms are not a million miles away from David Cameron's own priorities for EU reform - especially the further restrictions on EU migrants' access to benefits and the red card for national parliaments. Yet more evidence - as we've pointed out before - that tone and rhetoric aside, there is a surprising degree of consensus among the main parties when it comes to the substance of EU reform. 

As the New Statesman's George Eaton pointed out recently, there is a lot of frustration within Labour over how to deal with the EU question:

"Other shadow cabinet members complain of the party's failure to promote its commitment to reform the EU, which they regarded as a quid pro quo for Miliband's refusal to guarantee an in/out referendum under a Labour government."

It appears that Ed Balls is among the Labour heavy hitters keen to address this disparity.

Miliband’s EU pledge divides UK media – but is largely ignored in Europe

There is this much chance we will hold an
EU referendum if I'm Prime Minister

Ed Miliband’s intervention yesterday – in which he said he would only hold an In/Out referendum in the event of a new EU Treaty transferring specific powers from the UK to Brussels – has, as expected, divided commentators and media opinion in Britain.

Echoing a similar point we made in our response yesterday, the Telegraph’s leader describes Labour's new policy as a "classic fudge" and argues that:

"Effectively, Mr Miliband is offering either more Europe or no Europe... The Tories and Labour like to give the impression that they have fundamentally different policies. But they are, in truth, remarkably similar”.

Also in the Telegraph, Peter Oborne argues that the new policy is

"by far the biggest mistake of [Miliband's] leadership... [this] unforced error is a priceless gift for David Cameron because it amounts to an unequivocal vindication of the Prime Minister’s decision last year to promise a referendum on Europe after the election.” 

However, on Conservative Home, Lord Ashcroft warns that Miliband’s announcement could lure the Tories into talking only about one thing – Europe, arguing:

“the Conservative Party would not only be missing the chance to talk about the things most voters care about more, like the economy, jobs and public services. It would also, as far as these voters are concerned, be proving again the out-of-touchness (outness of touch?) of which it has for so long been accused." 

The Sun has commissioned a snap YouGov poll which found that 50% of voters disagreed with Miliband’s pledge to only hold an in/out referendum if more powers are transferred to the EU – a move he admits is “unlikely” - while 32% backed his policy but nearly twice as many people regard it as a cowardly move rather than a bold one. The Sun's leader argues that the wait-and-see approach has made Miliband “even more unpopular” with voters and the paper concluding that he'd have been better off "keeping schtum".

The FT broadly endorses Miliband's speech though echoes our caveat that “Mr Miliband’s policy does not guarantee the British people the right they should have to an in-out referendum if the bloc ultimately redesigns the way it operates in the wake of the eurozone crisis.”

In a less coherent leader, the Guardian argues that Miliband is desperate to avoid having to deal with a referendum if elected as:

"Trying to avert an "out" vote would drain all energy from anything else a Miliband government might want to do; enduring one would sink it entirely."

What about European media? Well, surprisingly, Miliband has been largely ignored. There’s almost nothing at all in the German press, though Der Spiegel's Carsten Volkery – not known for being the Tories' greatest fan – argues that:

“Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President François Hollande and the EU Commission should now secretly have their fingers crossed for Miliband. For all public expressions of sympathy for Cameron’s reforms, the British referendum seen as a massive nuisance in the rest of the EU.”

Walter Oppenheimer, London correspondent for Spanish daily El País, writes that Miliband's decision not to hold an EU referendum:

"It is, however, a very calculated risk: it can cost Miliband some votes – and who knows whether those votes can cost him the election – but leaves his hands free if he manages to get into Downing Street."

The French press has almost nothing bar news agency write ups, ditto in the Italian and Spanish press, although Miliband got a couple of hits in Switzerland. The speech was picked up by the Polish Press Agency but they focused on the immigration/access to benefits angle and completely ignored the wider referendum issue. The Nordics are quiet too, despite Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt trying to weigh in on the debate yesterday.

We won’t pass judgement as to why Europe has so profoundly ignored Miliband.

Ed Miliband confuses with a new EU referendum lock he says is "unlikely" to be triggered

Ed Miliband will today set out the Labour Party's position on an EU referendum. Previewing his speech in today's FT, Miliband says:

"I am announcing that the next Labour government will legislate for a new lock: there would be no transfer of powers from the UK to the EU without a referendum on our continued membership of the EU."

So, unlike the existing 'referendum lock' put in place by the Coalition, it would not simply be a referendum on a specific transfer of power to the EU or treaty change but would mean that any proposed transfer of powers to the UK would trigger a straight In/Out vote.

It is not entirely clear whether Labour would therefore repeal the existing referendum lock and replace it with theirs. If not, we might be faced with the strange situation of two referendums - one on the specific treaty change and one on whether to remain in the EU altogether - with no guarantee that they would go in the same direction. If they do replace it, then we could be left with a much blunter instrument, where any transfer of power requires an In/Out referendum. Far from ideal if you wish to stay in the EU but also want to push for reform or dislike the transfer of power on offer.

Miliband himself notes that it is "unlikely" that his referendum lock will be triggered, emphasising that "there are no current proposals – from either the EU or any member state – for a further transfer of powers from Britain. Therefore it is unlikely there will be any such proposals in the next parliament." However, what would happen if, for example, the fiscal compact were to be incorporated into the EU treaties as is envisaged? This would not be a transfer of powers per se but would potentially alter the UK's relationship with the EU substantially.

In the rest of the article Miliband is keen to stress his reform credentials, saying that:

"I know the reputation of the EU is, with reason, at a low ebb. If Britain’s future in Europe is to be secured, Europe needs to work better for Britain. And Britain needs to work more effectively for change within the EU."

Labour has so far been rather vague about its proposals for reform. The Labour leader cites three main areas in his article. On economic competitiveness:

"Europe must do more to address common economic challenges by improving competitiveness, tackling youth unemployment and building an economy that better promotes prosperity."

On EU migration:

"A Labour government would work with our EU partners to lengthen the existing transitional arrangements for countries joining the EU so that their citizens have to wait longer before gaining rights to work here. There should be reforms to rules allowing people to claim child benefit or child tax credit when their children live abroad. And we should look at ways to make it easier to deport people who have recently arrived in this country when they commit crime."

On the democratic deficit:

"The agenda for change, however, must address people’s concerns about how power is exercised in the EU. This means giving back more control to national parliaments. And it means responding to concern that the EU is intent on an inexorable drive to an ever closer union. I am clear this is not Labour’s vision for Europe."

These proposals all sound very much like what David Cameron, and others, have been saying on EU reform.

But, on Labour's conditions for a referendum, it remains to be seen what political impact it will have. On the one hand, Miliband has raised the prospect of a vote (presumably in an attempt to avoid accusations of denying people a say). But, with the other, he is saying that the likelihood of his conditions ever being met is very small. What will the British electorate and other EU governments make of that?

Is Ed Miliband's "energy price freeze" compatible with the UK's EU commitments?

How will Ed Miliband's new Energy policies go down in the EU?

At our fringe event today at the Labour Party conference - that we organised together with IPPR (write-up to follow) - we sought to answer the question, how Labour should respond to a changing Europe. Well, here's a potentially interesting twist to that question.

Ed Miliband in his leader's speech earlier today promised to freeze energy prices for 20 months after 2015 if he is elected Prime Minister. Furthermore he also seemingly promised to reduce carbon emissions from the UK's energy sector to zero by 2030. Interesting ideas, both brave and potentially effective with the electorate (they can also count as real policy announcements). However, we wonder whether he has thought through the EU implications of all of this.

First, it's impossible to discuss energy policy without considering the EU dimension. Although UK governments - Labour and the Coalition - have no doubt added extra requirements, much of the cost of reducing CO2 and other emissions are now locked into legally binding EU agreements. Incidentally, Ed Miliband was Energy Minister from 2008-10 when many of these policies were being developed. Capping price increases while keeping the underlying policies will do nothing for long term energy affordability. Meeting the renewables target is costly and requires significant investment - this will not be forthcoming under a price freeze and the UK is already behind schedule in terms of meeting its target. UK energy companies may also find it impossible to stomach the cost of managing both policies at once.

The real question then is whether Miliband is also ready to go to Europe to renegotiate these policies to achieve affordable energy in the long-term?

Secondly, is it possible for the UK to unilaterally freeze prices in the UK while championing an integrated EU single market in energy? An integrated single market is one real way to help reduce prices - and is something that we believe Labour has rightly called for in the past.

Some have already questioned whether the move would be legal under EU competition law. We believe it might, just. Since there is currently no single market to break in energy but also because UK firms receive no competitive advantage from the move. Any imported energy would also face the same price cap since it is applied at the consumer level. Given the problems above though, tinkering along the edges of the plan seems likely (possibly to reduce the impact on UK energy firms) this could well create legal issues with the EU.

Thirdly, did Ed Miliband really mean to commit his party to reducing UK energy carbon emissions to Zero (its worth noting he made similar suggestions last year)? The EU's already ambitious targets are to cut carbon emissions by 85 - 90% by 2050, so bringing that forward to 2030 would add a huge cost to the UK's energy bill. We wonder whether he actually means 100% of UK electricity (note, not total "Energy") should be carbon free? That could technically be possible (just), but likely at an incredible cost, and require vast amounts of investment in both nuclear and renewables.

Perhaps we have been here before. When Tony Blair signed the UK up to a binding 15% of energy, it was thought by some he believed he was signing up to 15% of electricity. Former UK scientific adviser Sir David King for instance suggested that Blair and the other EU leaders did not understand what they were committing themselves to when agreeing the target:

"I think there was some degree of confusion at the heads of states meeting dealing with this. If they had said 20% renewables on the electricity grids across the European Union by 2020, we would have had a realistic target but by saying 20% of all energy, I actually wonder whether that wasn't a mistake."

It's an interesting idea - and credit to Ed Miliband for actually trying to address an issue that will be very important to people for years to come - but we would like to see more details.

But more fundamentally, it's also a reminder that, not matter how it tries, Labour won't be able to escape tough decisions on how to approach EU policy - in all its various shapes and forms.

EU Referendum: Now a question of when not if?

Today’s Commons debate on whether to hold an EU referendum in 2017 – brought forward by James Wharton MP through a so-called private members bill - was interesting as much for what was said as for what was not.

As expected, Conservative MPs came out in droves to proclaim their commitment to an in/out referendum if re-elected. Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander criticised 2017 as “an arbitrary date”, although he yet again appeared not to categorically rule out an EU referendum under a Labour government. So that door is still left ajar. He also reiterated Labour’s commitment to EU reform, proving how entrenched this concept now is across the political spectrum.

Interventions during the debate showed that within the Labour Party there is now a spectrum of opinion on the EU referendum, although in fairness Labour and Lib Dem participation was limited (see picture). There are those against a referendum because of a long held attachment to the EU; those like Keith Vaz MP who want the UK to remain an EU member but also want a referendum to strengthen democratic legitimacy; and those, like Kate Hoey or Dennis Skinner who have long been opposed to the EU and want the UK to leave altogether. In addition, there are many on the Labour benches who see the entire issue as a valuable party-political stick with which to beat the Conservatives.

Labour has so far managed to avoid a divisive public debate on the issue but with the Conservatives – who now appear relatively united – having put them on the spot, a familiar question reappears: if polls are close leading up to the 2015 general election, will Labour gamble on being seen as the ‘pro-status quo anti-referendum party’ – or will it pull the trigger?

Clearly, there are powerful voices within the Labour party who are feeling increasingly worried about such a prospect. So what will the endgame look like? Several different scenarios are emerging:

Tory majority: If the Conservatives win the next election outright it is now inconceivable they would avoid a referendum.

Continuity of Tory-Lib Dem coalition: Lib Dems are unlikely to promise a referendum in 2017 so the question would then become whether David Cameron insists on a referendum as a the price for a renewal of the Coalition. Cameron has been less than clear on this point. He has said “if I am Prime Minister” there will be a referendum, but the official write up says “if a Conservative Government is elected in 2015, they would... hold an in-out referendum to let the British public decide.” Would Nick Clegg block it (assuming he is even still the leader then).

Tory minority government: With a more stable economy both the Tories and Lib Dems could decide not to formally renew the coalition, with the former instead ruling as a minority government. Depending on the exact parliamentary arithmetic, a Tory referendum in 2017 could gain sufficient support from Labour and Lib Dem rebels and Northern Irish MPs.

No Labour pledge followed by a Labour victory: Only chance for a referendum would be if the “referendum lock” is triggered as part of an EU treaty change that transfers powers from the UK to Brussels – Labour has pledged to keep the lock in place. Perhaps they can somehow elevate that into an In/out referendum, and get around the pickle they’re in that way (there’s talk about this in Labour circles).

No Labour pledge followed by a Lib-Lab coalition: As previous scenario – both Labour and Lib Dems are in favour of the referendum lock.

Labour pledge followed by Labour majority: Question would then be on what terms (a straight In/Out vote or something else) and when (immediately after the election or mid-term). 

Labour pledge followed by a Lib-Lab coalition: That would depend on the Lib Dems and whether Labour sees it as a deal breaker. It’s easier to Labour ditching the referendum pledge in coalition negotiations than the Tories. However, a Lib-Lab Coalition Government might end up with a referendum anyway due to cross-party backbench cooperation by Labour and Conservative MPs.

Labour throws back the ball in Tories’ court: As has been floated, Labour could seek to amend James Wharton’s bill, to suggest a referendum before 2017 – some have floated 2014, at the same time as the European elections. This would be extremely awkward for Tory MPs, many of whom would feel obliged to vote for such an amendment so as not to be seen as anti-referendum. The Tories are also vulnerable to criticism that 2014 is no less of an arbitrary date than is 2017 (are we confident that all the changes in Europe and in the UK-EU relationship will have taken place by 2017 so the British public would have the choice of two clear alternatives?)

Regardless, there was a feeling when listening to today’s debate that a referendum on Europe is now not a matter of if – but when. Disappointingly, the debate largely ducked a question just as fundamental as the referendum debate itself: whoever wins the next election will have a series of European challenges in its intray: a Europe that desperately needs reform, a changing Eurozone with bailout programs running out, a series of pending EU court cases, potential treaty changes and more.

These challenges transcend party politics.

EU referendum: So who's cup of tea will it be?

EU budget debate sees rare outbreak of consensus in the House of Commons

Seasoned House of Commons watchers will be well used to the 'robust' nature of exchanges between MPs and government ministers, even those belonging to the same party. This confrontational approach is typified by the weekly shouting match at Prime Minister's Questions, while polite, consensual exchanges are very rare, usually limited to instances where the subject matter is solemn.

It is therefore worth flagging up, especially to international readers, how extraordinary this afternoon's debate about last week's EU budget summit was. The deal was welcomed by Labour leader Ed Miliband (who had teamed up with disgruntled Tory backbenchers to demand Cameron pursue a cut rather than a freeze in the negotiations), even if he made a point of not congratulating the PM in person:

"At a time when so many budgets are being cut at home, this House voted for a real-terms cut last October and it was right to do so. No doubt it was just an oversight that in your statement you forgot to express your thanks to members on your own side and this for giving you such a strong negotiating mandate."

Miliband also added that while the relative drop in CAP funding was welcome, this area of the budget was still far too big given the relative importance of agriculture to the EU economy. Cameron also received praise from Lib Dem MPs including Deputy leader Simon Hughes who said that:

"Both my colleagues here and our members of the European Parliament are supportive of the deal." 

Cameron also received praise from many Tory MPs, with Peter Lilley congratulated him for "demonstrating that when a British leader takes a resolute, reasoned and constructive approach on what is good for Britain and good for Europe, we can succeed in carrying other people with us". Significantly, Cameron even attracted praise from rarely pacified better-off-out backbenchers, highlighting how impressive his EU budget deal really is - even if there is still far to go on the substance.

Do Ed Miliband and David Cameron actually agree on Europe?



An emerging cross-party consensus on EU reform?

On Europe, Labour doesn't exactly shy away from turning the debate into a discussion of "Tory splits". Ed Miliband had another go in Wednesday's PMQs, perhaps a vintage attack inspired by a folk memory of the advantage Labour gained from the Maastricht rebellions twenty years ago. He said: "When it comes to Europe, it is the same old Tories: a divided party, and a weak Prime Minister."

It has been less clear, though, what Labour would actually do differently - to put it mildly. In the past, Ed M has also attacked the Conservatives for endangering the single market and jobs. In one such attack:

"Can he confirm that what he actually proposed was to unpick the existing rules of Lady Thatcher’s Single European Act as regards the internal market? Given that those proposals would have changed 25 years of the single market, why did he make them in the final hours of the summit?"

But this morning on the BBC's Today Programme, behind the bluster, the big news is that he actually agrees with David Cameron (and a laterday Clegg) on more than anyone perhaps would like to admit: 

Miliband said he wanted "change Europe" to "better reflect our interests." Who could object to that? He also said:

“I think we are moving to a more flexible Europe, a more flexible EU. Why do I say that? Because we will have some countries in the euro, Britain’s not going to be joining the euro, won’t be joining the euro if I’m Prime Minister, and therefore by the nature of it, we’re going to have some countries that are in the euro and some countries that are out. That makes, what I would call, a more flexible European Union.

"It’s a more flexible European Union. That needs to be reformed urgently to work in Britain’s interests." 

This is almost exactly what Cameron says. Zero difference. But absolutely right. 

He also supports the Government's "referendum lock";

"Clearly there is legislation on the books which we don’t propose repealing, which says if there is a transfer of powers to the EU then there would be a referendum. If there is a transfer of powers, there’s legislation on the books that says there would be a referendum."

Like Cameron, he also thinks that the UK needs to repatriate powers:

"Other areas, let me give you other areas. Regional policy, the way that a national government can have an industrial policy. I think there are areas where Britain actually needs some powers back."

Reforming regional policy is a great area to target, so well done Ed. Bringing 'powers back' in order to have an "industrial policy" would, as he has accused the Tories of doing, clearly mean unpicking the single market - and is an open invitation to the French to let the state aid flow - so perhaps not the greatest idea. But let's not split hairs...
  

Disagreements? Well:

“The debate here is between essentially those who say reform Europe and the European Union to change it to work in our interests, and I fear the Prime Minister’s strategy which is leading us towards exit, which would cause real damage to our economy.”

"I think in some areas, and this is a difference from this government - I say, for example, the European Arrest Warrant, which is something where Europe cooperates with the European Union, that helps our country... "

But he is only able to cite one policy example - the EAW - where he takes a different view to the government. And even here, from the Government's point of view, the real question is reform of the EAW and the jurisdiction of the ECJ post 2014, and whether to opt back into this particular measure.

Leave aside the current shouting match - and look at the bigger picture of Britain's role in the world and Europe - and this a country far more united on the need for anew relationship within the EU than the politicians would dare to admit.