Angela Merkel says changing free movement rules is the UK's "point of no return". Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What does Merkel's "red line" on EU migration rules mean for British politics?

Germany would sacrifice UK’s EU membership in order not to compromise the EU’s principle of free movement of workers. What are the political implications?

Angela Merkel has made some highly telling comments about the future of Britain’s EU membership.

The German magazine Der Spiegel reports that she would accept UK’s exit from the European Union in order not to compromise over the core principle of free movement of workers. This suggests that she would refuse David Cameron’s attempt at curbing the level of EU migrants entering Britain in any future renegotiation.

Reportedly, Merkel sees any attempted change to the freedom of movement rules as the “point of no return” for the UK’s EU membership. The Guardian reports that Merkel has warned Cameron about this, and that Downing Street has not denied that such a conversation took place.

What does this mean for British politics?

 

David Cameron

Comments like this make things very difficult for the Prime Minister. He has said that changing EU rules about migrants would be “at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe”.

But he hasn’t so far said that he would campaign for an Out vote in a future EU referendum if he doesn’t achieve the renegotiation he’s aiming for – partly because he needs to appear to have faith in his renegotiation, and mainly because he believes in the benefits of Britain’s EU membership.

The idea of Cameron being unable to achieve such a renegotiation – and therefore unable to curb immigration from EU member states to the UK – is what allows Ukip, disillusioned voters and his more eurosceptic backbenchers (and, privately, frontbenchers) to say he lacks credibility on the EU issue.

 

Tory backbenchers

Not all Conservative backbenchers, but many of the “awkward squad” eurosceptic and generally rebellious rightwingers, will use this as yet another opportunity to criticise their leadership for delaying an EU referendum until 2017, and waiting for a renegotiation which will not bring the changes they so desire. Indeed, many of them would prefer the renegotiation not to work so that the only option would be to leave the European Union.

However, the eurosceptics have always been troublemakers on the EU. What should be more worrying to the Tory leadership is those in the party with more nuanced views towards Europe seeing the PM lose further credibility in Brussels. One usually loyal Tory MP told me that, “no one believes him [David Cameron]” when he talks about calling a referendum, let alone achieving a beneficial renegotiation.

David Davis, an influential former Tory minister, and a eurosceptic MP who doesn’t call for outright departure from the EU, told the BBC’s Today programme this morning: “we should have started renegotiating much earlier. Both sides [anti-EU voices in Britain, and EU states who want Britain to stay] don’t really believe you when you really do mean it.”

Davis also said a “red line” for Britain “has got to be a change of the so-called free movement rules” and that concessions on benefit changes are “not enough”. He argued that Cameron should give a suggestion to Germany and the EU leadership that there is a prospect that Britain could leave, if they don’t compromise: “If you’re going to get the Europeans to take you seriously, you’ve got to hold out the prospect of leaving”. He revealed that there are “quite a few cabinet ministers who do believe that”.

 

Ukip

One of the major factors behind Ukip shoring up the Tory vote in many constituencies is that it calls itself the only party that would take Britain out of the European Union. It has a very simply message: the Prime Minister would not be able to negotiate a curb on EU migrant levels, and the only way for him to do it would be to take the UK out of the European Union. Merkel’s comments give Ukip more ammunition when saying that Cameron’s planned renegotiation is impossible.

 

Labour

Although on the surface a weakened Prime Minister is Brussels provides an opportunity for the opposition to question his credibility, this isn’t good news for the Labour party.

Labour is the only main party that has not agreed to support an EU referendum – even the Greens would back one – and is serious about making the business case in favour of Britain’s membership, with its recent appointment of Pat McFadden MP as shadow Europe minister. Although there has been a dilemma among its MEPs and national party on its approach to defending UK in the EU, as I reported last week, the party does now acknowledge that it must up its game on this. Merkel’s comments make it harder for Labour to make a positive, but popular, case for remaining in the EU. The party must identify, and agree to solve, problems with Britain's membership if it makes it to government.

According to the respected MP and former Labour frontbencher Alan Johnson, Labour must be prepared to use its diplomacy to achieve its own renegotiation of the free movement rule. Johnson told me last week:

Away from the childish shenanigans of Cameron, who really hasn't learnt the ABC of negotiation, [we must] say we're the answer to solving some of those problems, including some of the issues around free movement, which in a proper dialogue amongst allies, without threats, I think we'd find a lot of support around Europe for changes to the system, now that there's 28 member states and not six. We have to make that argument without chasing a Ukip vote, trying to out-Ukip Ukip. We'll leave that to the Tories.

Labour articulating the need to achieve "reform within Europe", as voiced by shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander today, means that Merkel could just as easily refuse to compromise with a Labour leader attempting to renegotiate Britain's position in the EU.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496