08/01/2015
Aside from an outburst of
rampant hypocrisy from the British media, one almost certain consequence of the Charlie Hebdo shootings is that it will
stoke up Islamophobia throughout Europe, fuelling
anti-Islam movements and adding to the tensions in Germany where each week brings a new record for the Pegida marches.
That in turn may have consequences in that, like David Cameron, Angela Merkel will find it necessary to offer concessions to the opponents of mass immigration, giving her an amount in common when it comes to addressing EU law on the issue.
The tension â pre Charlie Hebdo â may already be sufficient to explain why Merkel appears to have been
somewhat emollient after her talks with our Prime Minister yesterday, agreeing that there is a "necessity" to address the "abuses" of Britain's benefits system by immigrants.
One wonders, though, whether the media is being deliberately obtuse, in failing to mention the possibility of a "simplified procedure" treaty, preferring instead to maintain the narrative which has the German and British leaders locked in a tense confrontation over the issue.
The fact is, though, that Mr Cameron not only wants a treaty change, but one is politically necessary for him if he is to present his renegotiations as successful. Having thus signalled this, he has the German Chancellor telling him that Germany was prepared to "work together" with Britain on securing changes to the benefits system â which will need technical changes to the TFEU.
Failing to understand this point, the
Telegraph is far too focused on comments "that will disappoint many Eurosceptic Conservatives", which Mr Cameron reiterating his support for the notion of freedom of movement, looking only for changes to the benefits system.
What really matters to Cameron though is how this will play to the middle ground, and one senses that he had fixed on a formula that will be sufficient to attract the support of the politically uncommitted, and win the day in any "in-out" referendum.
As for the hard-core Eurosceptics, they don't matter, as nothing short of a commitment to leave the EU will satisfy them, and that is not going to be on offer for the foreseeable future. What Mr Cameron seems to be doing is peeling off the soft Eurosceptic centre â people who are uneasy about EU membership, but don't feel any political affinity with Ukip.
Certainly, that is what comes over from the
BBC report, which has Mr Cameron saying he is "convinced" he can "fix the problems" in the UK's relationship with Europe, evidently with Mrs Merkel's support.
With Ukip losing ground in the polls,
down to 13 percent according to the latest YouGov survey, and with
Goldman Sachs and
Stephan Shakespeare predicting a Conservative victory, Mr Cameron may be feeling confident that he can also slay the "Europe" dragon.
On the other hand, with the Eurosceptic "community" as yet failing to come up with a credible alternative vision to the EU, and relying in the main on Mr Cameron's supposed inability to negotiate a new treaty, the risk of being outflanked continues to grow.
My gut feeling is also that we will see a Conservative victory at the general election â slender but sufficient â brought on in the main by the "Miliband factor", as people reject the idea of the leader of the opposition as a credible prime minister and hold their noses to vote for Mr Cameron.
That gives us the classic two-party squeeze, leaving Ukip with a single figure voting percentage and probably Carswell as their sole representative in the House of Commons. And, with a weakened (and largely discredited) Ukip, the game will be on for a referendum victory.
And that's where the battle always has been, and where we need to focus. As Mr Cameron was effectively signalling yesterday, what happens after the general election is wide open, and where the real battle for our futures will be fought.
