08/10/2012
Wearily, one watches from a safe distance, the contortions of the Conservative Party on the European Union, as it tries to recover the ground from UKIP without actually having to give anything away, or reveal too much.
Predictably, David Cameron is going to indulge in some flag-waving over the EU's multi-annual budget settlement, but the wooden spoon goes to Teresa May, who is claiming that border controls "could be introduced to block European immigrants flocking to Britain".
This "dramatic proposal",
we are told, "will be seen as a direct challenge to one of the central principles of the European Union", as the "freedom of movement directive - which allows 500 million people to move freely between member states - is under now review as part of a study into Britainâs relationship with Brussels".
These are the words offered by the
Mail, but it is unlikely that they invented them. Most probably, they come from a Conservative Party briefing note or press release, issued on behalf of May by her policy wonks.
However, a minor problem emerges here. There isn't a "freedom of movement directive". It doesn't exist. Freedom of movement is one of the
four freedoms, enshrined in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, currently Title IV).
Furthermore, not only is that a fundamental treaty obligation, it forms the basis of the single market framework, alongside the free movement of goods, services and capital, which Mr Cameron has pledged to uphold.
So basic is this that even
The Guardian understands it, although it notes that Theresa May's idea of limiting the free movement of people through the EU "can only be achieved in full by rewriting the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the founding treaty".
Actually, it means rewriting the TFEU (as amended by Lisbon). The point this paper seems to be trying to make is that these "four freedoms" were actually in the founding treaty.
In that context, it is quite possible that there are Conservative Party members around who don't know that freedom of movement is a treaty obligation. Certainly, Matt Chorley, the
Mail's political editor doesn't seem to know, so this must be possible. But one dreads the thought that the Home Secretary doesn't know.
Never in a million years, therefore, is Mrs May voluntarily, or with knowledge of forethought, going to abrogate the treaty. And that is what she would have to do in order to limit freedom of movement. So, one must assume, this is all part of the tease.
With each passing second, though, there is a diminishing number of people who are either entertained or impressed by this type of ploy. Even the loyal party apparatchiks are getting a little tired of it, and are more likely to be irritated than amused.
And therein lies a conundrum. No political party should be going out of its way to irritate its members and supporters. So what does Mrs May really think she is trying to achieve?
