Benedict Brogan

There is another aspect of David Cameron's EU speech worthy of consideration. Peter Oborne yesterday mapped out with characteristic vigour why its long-term consequences could be terrible for the Conservative party. Others argue, in the wake of Mr Cameron's commitment to offer an in-out referendum, that he has given the party a cause and a position to rally around. But here's another point made to me by several people yesterday: where does this leave Mr Cameron's modernisation project?

Think back to his conference speech in 2006 when he was a new leader who wanted sunshine to win the day. Back then he was explicit: Europe was a turn-off for the voters – the Tories should not mention it. "While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life – we were banging on about Europe," he said. "For years, this country wanted – desperately needed – a sensible centre-right party to sort things out in a sensible way. Well, that’s what we are today. In these past ten months we have moved back to the ground on which this Party’s success has always been built. The centre ground of British politics."

Where is that sensible centre-right party now? It's hardly surprising that some Tories are worried: on immigration, on welfare, recently on crime and now on Europe Mr Cameron has been adopting positions that would have jarred back when what he was trying to do was to make the Tories, well, less Tory. He rejects the suggestion some make that his lunge towards gay marriage – which kicks off in Parliament today – is modernising move calculated to allow him to adopt more traditional poses on other issues.

That's a tad unfair. The global debt meltdown, the euro crisis, and the absence of growth have changed everything about the Europe debate. His political weakness vis-a-vis his increasingly militant backbenchers has also forced his hand. Cameroon modernisation is indeed in doubt. But on Europe he has adopted a position that is, above all else, supremely modern.

I mentioned earlier an event last night hosted by Conservatives in Communications at which Lynton Crosby spoke. The new campaign chief was the star party draw alongside George Eustice and Charles Lewington, with me and James Forsyth making up the numbers on the panel. There's was lots of good sport out of the Q&A (not least the tumbleweed moment when a woman from Hacked Off showed a disturbing lack of familiarity with the contempt of court rules on the Coulson/Brooks case, which just shows why that bunch wouldn't know proper journalism if it kicked them in the backside). But what was most useful was Mr Crosby's insight into the forthcoming Tory campaign. He's settled in London and his influence is beginning to be felt. There was a palpable charge in the room when he spoke.

He argued in favour of applying strict tests to any issue that a party leader might want to raise with the voters: is it genuinely salient? Europe is, gay marriage not so much. Is it personally relevant to the voters? Tax is, Lords reform isn't. Is it capable of political differentiation with your opponent? After yesterday, Europe certainly is. We can expect that rigour to be applied to the choices Mr Cameron makes between now and polling day. But his central point was on what David Cameron's strategy should be. After reminding us that strategy is something you do but don't talk about, he gave us a hint – with a list: deficit cut by a quarter, 850,000 private sector jobs created, interest rates at record lows, cap on benefits, immigration controls, free schools, fuel duty cut, state pension increased, income tax cuts for low paid. His point was that it will be the Government's record that will make the most compelling case with the voters. As for the press – "friend and foe" – and the BBC – "socially biased, run by a socially progressive, out of touch, narrow elite" – there was no point raging, he said. Effort will instead focus on promoting and preaching the record.

Read all Benedict Brogan's Telegraph Blog posts here

Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter

David Cameron has headlines to savour this morning following his Europe speech

The text below is taken from my Morning Briefing which brings you my take on the best stories from around Westminster, straight to your inbox, every weekday morning. Best of all, it's free. If you'd like to sign-up, please click here.

Good morning. Lynton Crosby shared his tips for winning elections last night with a Conservative audience that was particularly preoccupied with newspaper hostility. The party's new elections chief cautioned that the press was both friend and foe, but like battery hens it was best when fed regularly and kept in its place. To judge by the rapturous reaction to David Cameron's EU speech this morning, the PM has found the winning recipe. No10 will cherish the Daily Mail's splash - "Yes, Prime Minister!", and in particular the spread on pp6-7, "How PM outfoxed his foes": truly one for the scrapbook. It's the same just about everywhere else (though the outer Express leads with the weather). Angela Merkel's cautious welcome last night has given Mr Cameron's critical success an extra sport of turbocharging, although the French have promised to "roll out the red carpet" should we wish to leave. David Lidington, the Europe minister, suggested that Germany, the Netherlands and the Czech Repulic were all on side when he appeared on Newsnight last night. Add to that the support of 56 business leaders through a letter to the Times (£), and it is clear Britian won't have to stand alone if Dave plays his hand well.

It really is one of those mornings when the headlines tell the story. The Sun opts for "Top Merks", and the pick of the pack from the Left is the Independent's "Handbagged!". The leaders are equally punchy. The Mail's praises Mr Cameron for having "pulled off the seemingly impossible", the Times (£) salutes a speech that "had not only the wrong people cheering, but the right people too". The Telegraph (we also run an excellent Matt cartoon) is full-throated in its praise, arguing that "Mr Cameron has taken an audacious and momentous step, and one deserving of the highest praise."

Speech duly delivered and acclaimed, Dave must now lay the groundwork for delivery post-2015. James Kirkup points out in the Telegraph that with Frau Merkel on-side, anything's possible. That support has a price, though. A price that may have to be paid with assurances on financial regulation. That may not play well with a wavering business community. The Guardian and the Times (£) call the business vote in different ways. In the FT (£), George Parker is right to contrast the "breezy optimism" of yesterday's speech with the grim diplomatic slog ahead. These will be hard yards for the Prime Minister, even if Peter Oborne's worst-case scenario of a Tory split fails to materialise. But tomorrow's problems are just that. The Prime Minister has earned his jaunt to the Alpine sun.

Key themes to consider then this morning: 1) Mr Cameron's argument that the EU is more willing to have this conversation than the Euro-establishment acknowledge looks to be right 2) the Tories have given themselves an electoral tonic – we can't underestimate the positive impact this will have on the electoral dynamics 3) Labour is in a deep hole, and from the conversations I had last night, recent Westminster speculation about plots might have to be refocused on Ed Miliband.

CARRY ON UP THE (EMPLOYMENT) CHARTS

One of the great mysteries of the British economy – its ability to add jobs despite stagnant growth and shrunken productivity – was in evidence again yesterday. Unemployment is now at its lowest since mid-2011, and almost 30m adults were in employment in the quarter ending in November, the highest ever number, but not percentage, as the Telegraph's graphic makes clear. It isn't all good news – earnings growth is less than half of RPI inflation meaning a squeeze on living standards, but it is a rare bright spot for the British economy which had its growth outlook downgraded again (1pc from 1.1pc this year) by the IMF, as we report. Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist, told the Today programme that it was time for Britain to "take stock [and] reassess" its austerity programme. Just what the Chancellor needed ahead of Dave's Davos speech.

LET THEM EAT SANDWICHES, JUST NOT AT THEIR DESKS

It isn't simply poverty which makes people fat, it's the "disgusting" habit of eating sandwiches at their desks, Nigella Soubry tells the Telegraph this morning. The Tories' new kitchen queen has been criticised for her views on the link between poverty and obesity, even though she's fundamentally right. It's not as though she isn't trying for support, though. She also argues that not taking a lunch break prevented people from "chill[ing] out". In that case, I think her views will find at least one advocate in a very high place.

IMMIGRATION FAILURES

Chief inspector of immigration John Vine has warned that HMRC is agreeing to carry out only 3,000 solvency checks on immigrants each year for the UK border agency, despite around one million applications for entry to Britain. The result is that applicants are, in effect, able to self-certify their incomes and arrive in Britain without resources, the Mail reports. The UKBA did not escape criticism either. Its staff have a backlog of 16,000 applications for residency to consider, 14,000 of which are applications. Some are more than a decade old after a box was mislaid in transit between Croydon and Sheffield.

TRIDENT TRASHED AGAIN

Former defence secretary Lord Browne of Ladyton argues in a speech today that Britain's 24-hour roaming nuclear deterrent has "less and less of a role in our national security strategy", the FT (£) reports. Lord Browne's intervention is significant because it is so rare for a former office holder to criticise the plans of the incumbent. A decision doesn't need to be made until 2016. Just as well, given the divide apparent at present.

HAMMOND CONCERNS OVER GAY MARRIAGE

The "robustness" of the protections offered to religious groups by the Bill legalising homosexual marriage has been questioned by Philip Hammond in a letter to a constituent. The Defence Secretary wrote: "I do not believe there is a compelling reason to prioritise legislation to go further at the present time and I have concerns about the robustness of the protections for religious organisations that are being put in place," the Mail reports. Ah, Tory unity. You didn't last long, did you?

LABOUR BACKS DOWN ON LEVESON

It walks like a sheep, bleats like a sheep, so what is it? A new system of press regulation, of course. Labour's Harriet Harman withdrew her party's demand for a Commons vote of Leveson yesterday. As the Times (£) reports, Ms Harman wants to keep her options open, even when it comes the Coalition's favoured option of a regulator set up by Royal Commission. "It's like Dolly. It might look like a sheep, but we don't know if it is can do all a sheep can do," she mused.

BURNHAM CRITICISES FAILING NHS

From being virtually untouchable at the last election, the NHS has a strong claim to being punchbag of the month this January. Following Jeremy Hunt's remarks on pockets of poor care, Andy Burnham will use a speech this morning (copy on the Telegraph website) to criticise the "production line model" of treatment, adding that "deep" problems need addressing.

SIMPLE TAXES FOR THE ELDERLY

The Office of Tax Simplification will send pensioners colour coded letters explaining their tax codes, the Mail reports. The OTS also propose abolishing the 10pc savings rate tax, a lower rate applying to interest on the first £2,710 of savings each year, a c£90 rebate mainly claimed by pensioners. What the one hand giveth.

GREEN DEAL INEFFICIENT SHOCK

Eco loans are a "rip-off" with rates on Green Deal home improvement loans almost 5pc higher than for similar schemes in Germany, the Sun reports. Given the 6.9pc interest rate, it's perhaps understandable that the Government's aim for a take-up of 14m families is somewhat short, a mere 13,999,995 short at last count.

TWEETS AND TWITS
Jamie Reed with some football satire:

@jreedmp: "Come on Swansea, play 'Hazard Town' at the final whistle. Followed by 'The Kids Are Alright'. Come on…. "

TOP COMMENT

In the Telegraph

Peter Oborne – Cameron may have finished off the Tories – but had no choice

Sue Cameron – Border bullies show Whitehall at its worst

Theodore Dalrymple – It's not poverty that's fattening

Telegraph View – At last, voters are trusted to choose Britain's future

Best of the rest

Steve Richards in The Independent – He can retreat toa Thatcherite comfort zone, but he won't be safe

Martin Kettle in The Guardian – Cameron was not brave yesterday, he was reckless

Max Hastings in the Daily Mail – The speech of his life! And if the PM can follow through, he might just seal a historic triumph

Chris Giles in the FT (£) – Why Sir Mervyn has taken a walk on the supply side

THE AGENDA

09:30 am: David Cameron speech to World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Also attending are Chancellor George Osborne and Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude. Speech expected around 10:30 Swiss time.

10:00 am: Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood gives evidence to Commons Public Administration Committee on ministerial reshuffles. Thatcher Room, Portcullis House.

10:00 am: Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland gives evidence to Commons Northern Ireland Committee. Committee Room 8.

10:00 am: David Willetts speech on industrial policy and future technologies. Policy Exchange, 10 Storey's Gate, SW1P 3AY.

10:30 am: Andy Burnham speech to King's Fund on "whole-person care". Burdett Room, The King's Fund, 11-13 Cavendish Square, W1G 0AN.

Read all Benedict Brogan's Telegraph Blog posts here

Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter

The most significant measure of David Cameron's EU speech will be whether it helps secure a Conservative victory in 2015 and a working majority. He cannot deliver its promises without that, so any verdict must first consider the political effectiveness of what he had to say. Where does it leave the prospects for the general election? Markedly improved, I reckon. Ukip, which posed a nuisance threat to the Tories, is sidelined. Nigel Farage can congratulate himself on having helped drive Mr Cameron to this point, but by offering the British people an opportunity to call time on the euro-nightmare, the Prime Minister has elbowed him aside and says "I'll take over from here".

Labour is shafted: having teased us about possibly trumping Mr Cameron with his own in/out offer, Ed Miliband is stranded on the wrong side of the argument. As they say on Twitter, #strategicfail. By denying his own call for a referendum, Nick Clegg is in knots and the Lib Dems are left arguing for an unpopular status quo. Mr Cameron has something to bash them with on the campaign trail. The Tories meanwhile are given something concrete to rally around. Even the outers should be able to see that there is now a pragmatic case for helping Dave deliver the referendum they've been banging on about by returning him to office with a majority. As for the voters, Mr Cameron will hope that the promise of a referendum will turbocharge the Tory offer in 2015, even if he knows that the election will be decided on the state of the economy, mortgage rates, jobs and confidence. Taken together, the speech has tilted the electoral balance in Mr Cameron's favour, and makes it harder to sustain the argument that 2015 is lost already.

Three other points that to my mind stand out from what Mr Cameron had to say. First, he was canny to put his argument for change in a Europe-wide context. It would have been easy to frame it solely in the British national interest. Instead his diagnosis of Europe's problems (after he had paid generous tribute to its accomplishments), and his five principles for getting it back to its central objective of securing prosperity, provide an analysis that will be hard to dismiss out of hand in EU capitals. Of course, the immediate reaction will be derision. But this is a long game, and whatever Peter Mandelson may say, there will be those from Tallinn to Athens who will, perhaps only privately at first, recognise that Mr Cameron has a point.

Second, because we have anticipated it for so long we might be tempted to pocket the referendum offer without quite appreciating what a major moment this is for a British Prime Minister. He has offered the British public the key to the exit, an act of faith that even the sainted Mrs Thatcher never managed. It is easy to talk about, but for a PM hard to do. He deserves extensive applause for surrendering Establishment power and leaving it to the people.

Third, Mr Cameron could have stopped there and left us to work out what he will campaign for come the time. But he didn't. Instead, he made an extended case for Britain remaining in the EU as a full member. Rather than tease up the possibility of some sort of Norway option, he explicitly ruled it out. He might have more aptly described the choice as all in or all out. He has placed his bet, which is an act of leadership that deserves acknowledging, whatever we might say about its wisdom or likelihood of success. Galling for some, but Mr Cameron has exceeded expectations.

Today we've had confirmation of the 5300 redundancies being imposed on the military this summer, as the total is reduced steadily to 82,000 by 2020. At the same time David Cameron leads a meeting of the NSC to discuss the 'generational struggle' he envisages in the Maghreb. No wonder then that the military are anxious about how that's going to work. The Sun has a taste of top brass concern today (and Pete Hoskin at ConHom has a handy compendium of similar headlines).

The Government is presiding over sweeping cuts to the military imposed by financial necessity, and the challenge of reconfiguring our Armed Forces to do more with lots less. Anyone who doubts how bad the mess is should look back at what Gen Stanley McChrystal, the former US commander in Afghanistan, had to say about our under-equipped and under-performing military last week. Or ask military folk about what shape we are in and they will produce a litany of complaints about major procurement projects that have committed us to big expenditure on things that have little to do with taking on terrorists in the "ungoverned places" of North Africa. The campaign against the inadequacies of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review continues.

For Mr Cameron there's a tricky reputational issue at stake here: Dennis Skinner accused him of 'crusading zeal' in the Commons yesterday, the intention being seemingly to bracket him alongside Tony Blair as a messianic interventionist (Janan Ganesh in the FT argues cogently this morning that the PM is indeed emulating his predecessor in foreign affairs, although with a greater sense of restraint).

But the central issue for the Government is the one raised indirectly by Gen McChrystal and certainly keenly felt by a growing number of Tories: on defence, Britain is becoming dangerously European. In the search for budget savings, we have eroded our capacity and our credibility. Our forces are adept at making the best of what they have, but as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, too often we have to count on the Americans to rescue us from the consequences of our unrealistic ambitions. At this rate we will be like other EU countries, dapper on parade but not strong enough to do anything on our own. Mr Cameron is right to talk about the vital importance of deterring al-Qaeda in North Africa. But to contribute credibly to that effort, we must show a willingness to do it on our own account, without relying on the world's policeman to lend us his truncheon.

Read all Benedict Brogan's Telegraph Blog posts here

Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter

The PM is allowing his adversaries to define him: will the real party leader please stand up?

David Cameron has been telling his colleagues that he wanted three things above all for Christmas: a onesie, the video of Gangnam Style, and Ed Balls confirmed as shadow chancellor until the election. “I only got one in the end,” he says, “but it was the one that counted.” Under pressure, Ed Miliband was forced to begin the year by removing the threat of a reshuffle he had briefly waved over his stronger rival. Mr Balls will continue to shape Labour’s economic policy, and the Prime Minister is delighted as a result. He might even be tempted to see it as a good omen, a sign that even in the bleakness of mid-term midwinter, he can still get a break.

Mr Cameron starts 2013 trailing policy successes but personal uncertainty. His administration has chalked up an enviable record of achievement, but he continues to elude definition. He looks the part, nowhere more so than when navigating moments of international difficulty such as the Algeria crisis, yet the public wonder what he is for. His party worries that he may never be a winner.

To his MPs and ministers, or at least to too many of them for it to be healthy, he is weak, rude and somewhat lazy. To those who want us out of Europe, he is the treacherous captain general of the In camp. His metropolitan fans love him for his black jeans, box-sets and dab way with slow-cooked pork; to his small circle of courtiers he is and always has been just faultless Dave. Labour has painted him as a reactionary toff, forcing him into sometimes silly contortions to minimise his privileged yet reassuringly unremarkable county background. The media tease him, rail against him and, like all the others with an interest in his success or failure, can’t quite pin David Cameron down. He in turn does little to answer the question, almost as if he doesn’t understand why it should matter who he is, when what he is preoccupied with is doing things. “There is nothing complicated about me,” he said in his under-appreciated speech to Tory conference last year. “I believe in working hard, caring for my family and serving my country.”

If only it were that simple. This weekend saw another outburst of speculation about a possible plot – a Tory plot – to unseat Mr Cameron before the next election. His MPs are said to be collaborating in secret to produce the 47 signatures needed to put his future to a vote. It’s a wearisomely familiar refrain, and a fantasy. We can say with certainty that there will be no credible challenge of any sort mounted against Mr Cameron before May 2015, for the simple reason that it would fail outright, would make the Conservatives look even sillier than they are in danger of appearing, and – the vital ingredient – there is no Conservative capable, let alone willing, to mount such a challenge. Rule changes years ago sent the stalking horse to the knacker’s yard: a vote of confidence is required to bring him down, and he would win it, handsomely.

You might argue that Boris Johnson is happily stalking Mr Cameron without troubling the Tory parliamentary party for permission. And indeed he is. Westminster is greatly enjoying the rumour that candidates have been told to keep clear of Croydon South, safe as houses and being vacated by the retirement of Richard Ottaway, because it has been quietly earmarked as a Commons re-entry vehicle for the Mayor of London. But he is too wily to risk the overt treachery needed to force the issue. Boris will bide his time, knowing that the merest flip of his fringe will secure him a seat.

A significant number of Conservatives also say with certainty that the 2015 election is lost already. They stack up various arguments which – taken together – look depressingly like an inevitability: the lack of any Tory progress north of Watford; the persistent hostility of minority communities; the Labour bias of the electoral system; the catatonic state of the economy. The polls show the Tories to be moribund, and stuck behind Labour, which records enough support to guarantee it a healthy Commons majority (while ignoring polling that shows Cameron’s approval rating climbing and his popularity exceeding his party’s). No wonder Nick Clegg has been meeting in private with Mr Miliband for a spot of mutual admiration, and to plot how to defeat his own Government on the boundaries review. As power appears to shift Left, so do the Liberal Democrats.

Those who want to can stack up plenty of evidence that it might get worse. Next month, Mr Cameron will make his MPs back him in legalising gay marriage. He says it’s a reform that is right in principle (he claims the safeguards put in place to protect religious freedom are strong enough), and politically helpful because it appeals to the young who need persuading to vote Tory. Up to 150 of his MPs are preparing to disagree by voting against him. He won’t be defeated, and he might secretly be glad of a chance to differentiate himself from his party, but it will be a thumping rebellion. Ditto the May local elections, when the Tories are banking on a predictable mid-term drubbing. That’s the moment favoured by his internal opponents to make maximum trouble.

Then there is the immediate challenge of his Europe speech tomorrow. Putting aside the farcical circumstances of its genesis, he sorely needs it to be accepted by his colleagues and taken as a final word on the matter. The indications are that it will serve for now, but he has opened a debate about what he can and cannot achieve in Brussels that will dog him to the end of this parliament.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is aware of the criticisms about his Downing Street operation, and changes are being drawn up. The respected Paul Kirby, who heads the policy unit, is to leave: having initially made the case for putting the Civil Service in charge, Mr Cameron is rediscovering an appetite for political appointees. Steve Hilton is said to be about to make a return, though likely on an ad-hoc basis. Mr Cameron is anxious to get the politics right, convinced that his successes so far – long-term pension reform, the cap on welfare, taking two million low earners out of tax altogether, freedom for schools – are worth defending from the risk of Labour unpicking them after 2015.

Tory high command hopes it can rely on policy delivery, eventual economic recovery, Labour’s lack of credibility, and Mr Cameron’s seriousness to confound the doomsayers. But he will have to do more. If he is difficult to pin down it is because he is an uncomplicated, gut Conservative. His instinct is one of public service – honourable, admirable even, but not the kind of eye-catching quality that scores points in the accelerated world of 24-hour news and Twitter. His capacity to embody tradition yet accept the demands of modernity is the quality that successful British institutions have always shown, from the Army to Oxbridge colleges. That his charm is inconsistent or his ability to take criticism variable does not detract from the evident skills he brings to the role.

Precisely because he is good and privileged and – as he famously told one interviewer – thinks he can do the job quite well, his failure to give a clear account of himself is no one’s fault but his own. Yet he has recorded achievements to be proud of. He now needs to persuade his party that he is worth fighting for. It’s not complicated, he said last year: what will get the nation through difficult times is hard work. His in particular.

Read all Benedict Brogan's Telegraph Blog posts here

Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter

Algeria knows about terrorism and the horrors that Islamist insurgencies can bring to a society. Any country that went through the brutal civil war that raged for the best part of the nineties between the government and the GIA might be forgiven for being unwilling to equivocate when confronted with a terrorist crisis. It is also determinedly secular: its leadership is relentless in countering any incipient threat. Over the past ten years or so Algeria has emerged into relative stability and has so far navigated the pressures of the Arab spring. It is stupendously wealthy and, as Lord Marland never fails to remind me, eager to do business with Britain. David Cameron's evident disappointment that he was not informed by his Algerian counterpart before the military stormed the BP compound reflects in part a Government hope that developing relations with Algeria could have prevented such an oversight. Apart from the obvious logistical difficulties, the Prime Minister was also presented with the inescapable fact that Algeria is a sovereign nation entitled to make its own choices: without an invitation, it was impossible for Britain to involve itself.

What lessons will Mr Cameron take from this? The crisis is not yet over, but two have already suggested themselves. First, the importance of not just maintaining but increasing our military capacity. He was eloquent in the Commons about the threat posed by various Islamist groups operating in north Africa, not least Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. "We do face a large existential threat from groups of terrorists. They thrive in ungoverned spaces….The threat posed by AQM is made worse when we have so much ungoverned space in Mali….the threat will grow," he said. Mali, as he points out, demonstrates that. Britain has involved itself – it believes modestly – in an attempt by France – the former colonial power – to prevent the Islamist groups exploding out of Libya from turning Mali into a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and a jumping off point for terrorists targeting Britain and the rest of EU. The Algeria crisis is linked. Algeria is furious with France for intervening in Mali, but then left itself open to its internal enemies by allowing France over-flight rights. Mr Cameron should not fool himself that there are savings to be had from leaving Afghanistan. The world is always dangerous, and on our doorstep our enemies are gathering. He should heed American warnings and consider how best to reverse the decline of our military capabilities.

Second, he should consider the price of action in Mali. Someone with close links to the Government's foreign policy machine called to express concerns that some in the Foreign Office might be tempted to trade military support in Mali for French help with a European renegotiation. It seems far-fetched, I grant you, though you can see the logic. France is vigorously hostile to Mr Cameron's European strategy. But Francois Hollande is getting bogged down in Mali. The temptation might be to offer a military hand in the hope that, just as Libya forged a close bond between Mr Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, seeing off AQM in Mali would make the French president more supportive in Brussels. There may well turn out to be sound reasons of national interest to justify British efforts to prevent the rise of AQM in the Sahel. But I am sure Mr Cameron won't confuse them with his European troubles.

Various snippets about The Speech are emerging and worth noting. The Prime Minister himself is said to be relaxed about the chorus of advice he is receiving from inside the Tory party and across the Channel. He's clear in his mind that now is the time to take advantage of an unlikely alignment between Tory demands for a renegotiation and Europe's willingness to grant one. The noises from the continent about there being no prospect of a renegotiation are just postures: Mr Cameron is clear there will be one, leading to a new treaty, and sooner than we realise. We can expect that thinking to form part of the speech.

Cabinet ministers have seen it. Those who wanted to could go and read it in No10. It has also been shown, supposedly, to various influential backbenchers. I gather it will make an emotional, even patriotic, case for Britain's relationship with Europe. Mr Cameron will make clear that we need no lectures from other EU members about what it means to be European. The cemeteries of both wars are a testament to Britain's commitment to peace in Europe. If so, will be a welcome rebuttal to the exclusivist charge that somehow just because we weren't repeatedly invaded by Germany we don't understand the importance the rest of the EU attaches to peace. By the same token, he will be able to point to Britain's stake in Europe economic prosperity.

Also, my impression is that despite being offered a number of shopping lists by various Tory groups – the one from Fresh Start, for example, is described as "particularly helpful" by No10 – Mr Cameron will not give us a detailed break-down of what he will be angling for in the renegotiations. Better to keep his powder dry, he reckons. The initial view from some who have seen it is that his argument is compelling, eminently reasonable, and they estimate it will satisfy the great majority of the party and the public. Mr Cameron is eager to see an exhaustive national debate about the future of Britain's place in the EU. Following Ed Miliband's confused appearance on the Today programme, he calculates that the difference between his commitment to action and the Labour leader's support for the euro-status quo is a vote-winner.

The warm-up for The Speech, as it is referred to in Downing Street, has been marked by the emergence of various lobby groups who are eager to get into a fight over Britain's membership of the EU. The antis have done impressive work preparing the ground – and the case – for a withdrawal. The Fresh Start group of MPs will publish its wishlist for what should be renegotiated tomorrow. Tory MPs are making plain they don't trust their leader by insisting on legislation this Parliament for a referendum in the next. Cabinet ministers are whispering that, however Dave describes it, his referendum will be a 'de facto' in/out choice.

In reply the great and the good are gathering their forces. Nick Clegg rather exploded on liftoff on the Today progamme but not before claiming a referendum would have a 'chilling effect' on confidence and certainty. Roland Rudd is on manoeuvres with his corporate chums. Foreign governments are being enlisted – the Americans lumbered in last week, the Germans talk of blackmail, other countries are using their diplomats to mutter that inward investment might be at risk. Various grandees from the world of business put their name to a recent letter in the FT that voiced hand-wringing concerns about the risks to Britain if Mr Cameron were unintentionally to lead us to the exit. This, as Jeremy Warner's essential column explains today, is the same bunch who wanted us to stay in the ERM, and who advocated for British entry into the euro.

Mr Cameron, and George Osborne, are convinced that the British electorate stands between two extremes. Voters would rather not leave the EU, but want our relationship to be redrawn. The same goes for business. As Jeremy argues, medium and small companies are particularly aggrieved by the increasing burden EU regulations place on their activities, and are keen supporters of Mr Cameron's ambitions to renegotiate the relationship. Thankfully help is at hand. The clue is in Jeremy's opening sentence: 'Remember Business for Sterling?' The campaign group set up by Rodney (now Lord) Leach and others in 1998 to see off Tony Blair's euro-ambitions became one of the most successful lobby organisations ever constructed. As George Trefgarne argued in this piece of commemorative praise, we owe it a debt of thanks for keeping Britain out of the single currency. And the good news is that the band is being put back together, the old gang is being reconvened. I gather Lord Leach is canvassing his friends with a view to reviving the BfS, albeit with new faces. He has the Treasury's blessing, as the Chancellor is anxious to see an effective campaign mounted making the business case for renegotiation. The BfS alumni include Nick Herbert (now with time on his hands), Neil O'Brien (conveniently now at the Treasury), Dom Cummings (working for Michael Gove and full of fire) and George Eustice to name but a few. Given the tensions in their relations with Mr Cameron, it will be worth watching who rides to his rescue.

Read all Benedict Brogan's Telegraph Blog posts here

Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter

The Prime Minister's back-to-front approach to European speechifying is causing plenty of disquiet and bafflement among his colleagues. At a basic level there is plenty of muttering about the way Number 10 has contrived to make David Cameron have to talk – and talk – about a speech he hasn't delivered yet. This morning's outing on the Today programme was a case in point: the night before Downing St says Dave will be appearing to discuss pensions. Result? He appears, and discusses Europe, at length, with a brief PS for pensions thrown in at the end by John Humphrys. At this rate Mr Cameron will have used up more words anticipating the speech than it actually contains. The to-and-fro about the date hasn't helped. There are some too who wish he had just dropped it on us and made a surprise of it, rather than this dance of the seven veils. Expectations unmanaged.

Never mind the process though, let's consider the content. As James Kirkup argued earlier, Mr Cameron's approach is to keep both sides unhappy and tilt for the middle. His betting is that a majority support his objective, which is to make real William Hague's ideal of a "Britain in Europe, not run by Europe". He wants a renewed relationship, with powers repatriated, and he wants that new arrangement to be given consent in a referendum. Victory in the general election of 2015 would provide the mandate for negotiation. What is unclear, and therefore uncertain, is how Mr Cameron will answer the hypotheticals that arise, namely: what if he can't persuade his EU friends to give him a deal, especially in the brief timespan he envisages? Or what if the British people withhold their consent from any deal he presents? Both of those outcomes point to the exit. Indeed, the latter is the more dangerous, because it supposes a moment when Mr Cameron has been vetoed by the electorate. How then does he prevent a 'no' – a withholding of consent – being interpreted as a vote for 'out'? Mr Cameron confirmed today that he will argue for us to remain in the EU. But there are several among his Cabinet who will argue that his 'consent' referendum will be an in/out choice in all but name: a 'no' will be a vote for leaving. As one Cabinet minister told me, 'David cannot disguise it: if we do not get a substantial renegotiation, then we have to leave'. This is not what Mr Cameron wants, but it is how it will be seen.