.

David Cameron has swung the handbag. Now what?

By James Kirkup Politics, Last updated: December 9th, 2011


I've written here about the possible consequences of David Cameron's European veto. Here in Brussels, the decision is still sinking in.

It's safe to say that the veto was a surprise: yes, Mr Cameron had warned he was ready to do this, but most in Britain and elsewhere had marked that down as the sort of thing leaders always say before summits. And if the demeanour of Mr Cameron and his team is anything to go by, they too weren't really expecting to have to swing the handbag with such force here.

Why did he do it? Several factors spring to mind. Some are obvious, such as the pressure from the Conservative Party, including ministers. The hostility of France towards the UK over Mr Cameron's demand to safeguard the City was also expected, though some of the colourful language being thrown around by the French was not. What was less widely-predicted was the strong opposition of Germany's Angela Merkel.

There's also an intriguing personnel issue at work here. Unusually, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has been around the summit site since yesterday. Ordinarily, he wouldn't have been here, since this is a meeting for leaders, not their ministers. But Mr Hague just happened to be in town for a NATO meeting, and decided to stay on to support the PM. His presence has tongues wagging this morning: did he tip the balance in the UK delegation towards scepticism? Mr Hague, once a most outspoken sceptic, is these days sometimes dismissed by backbenchers as having gone soft on Europe. Will his party now celebrate him again as the key player in this drama?

So what does Mr Cameron do now? How does he try to frame the outcome of the summit? In the early hours of this morning, I sketched out how the PM would sell the deal I then expected him to strike here. Events have, of course, proved the old adage that only a fool makes predictions, especially about the future.

In some ways, I stand by that earlier forecast: Mr Cameron must obviously cast his actions in terms of the national interest, not political party advantage. The stakes are pretty high here, and voters, no matter how strong their underlying doubts about the EU, are unlikely to appreciate a Prime Minister who mucks around with a save-the-universe economic deal to placate a bunch of backbenchers.
As Mr Cameron knows well, voters rarely rewards a Conservative Party seen to be "banging on" about Europe. Instead of relishing the praise of his party, Mr Cameron has to insist that he has done this because it is in the best interests of British companies, British jobs, British families.

That's the similarity with the way the PM would have sold a treaty of 27. But of course, there's a difference. If he'd signed a deal, Mr Cameron would have been at pains to stress that would seek future opportunities to loosen his ties with Europe, probably making a fresh round of promises to renegotiate and repatriate.

Now, having proved that he is actually prepared to walk the Eurosceptic walk as well as talking the talk, he has to send precisely the opposite signals. The emergence of the new euro-plus group will raise all sorts of warnings about a two-speed Europe and a "caucus" that drives through new EU rules and regulations harmful to British interests, not least the financial services Mr Cameron vowed to protect. And Britain's place in an ad hoc out-group along with only Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary will lead to allegations of isolation and diminished British influence.

William Hague has already started to rebut those claims this morning, rejecting the very idea of a two-speed Europe and insisting that "it doesn't mean the UK loses its influence over other matters".

Expect more of that from the PM over his veto. Having taken a step away from the centre of the EU, Mr Cameron will have to insist that Britain can remain a player in Europe.


blogs.telegraph.co.uk . . .


.

William Hague has already started to rebut those claims this morning, rejecting the very idea of a two-speed Europe and insisting that "it doesn't mean the UK loses its influence over other matters".

Expect more of that from the PM over his veto. Having taken a step away from the centre of the EU, Mr Cameron will have to insist that Britain can remain a player in Europe.


Who the hell do they think that they're kidding? We are now out of the EU; the only question being when. A two tier EU, with Britain being 1 against 26 is an absurdity. And pointless to boot. I'd have preferred that we stay in, but that's no longer an option.

mikgof wrote:


Who the hell do they think that they're kidding? We are now out of the EU; the only question being when. A two tier EU, with Britain being 1 against 26 is an absurdity. And pointless to boot. I'd have preferred that we stay in, but that's no longer an option.

Reminds me of 70 years ago. Almost exactly like that.

Sadly, the communist we have in charge now versus the one that was president in the 1940s will not help GB.

.

... think about it a moment and you'll realize that what's left of the sinking EU will be forced for practical reasons to include the UK as a player, albeit a more independent (sovereign) one.



.

So what is the point of having a greek, spic, wop parliment if you have given away all of the following to brussles:

The right to tax, the right to spend and the right to regulate, what the fuck are you left with,

Olive oil and goat cheese proclamations?

NOZZLE wrote:

So what is the point of having a greek, spic, wop parliment if you have given away all of the following to brussles:

The right to tax, the right to spend and the right to regulate, what the fuck are you left with,

Olive oil and goat cheese proclamations?

Spot on. And quess who'll have the dominant hand in the EU. Germany and France. It's their canoe club. And a bunch of shithead bureaucrats in Brussels.

NOZZLE wrote:

So what is the point of having a greek, spic, wop parliment if you have given away all of the following to brussles:

The right to tax, the right to spend and the right to regulate, what the fuck are you left with,

Olive oil and goat cheese proclamations?

Er, you have forgotten the sausage munching Krauts, Nozzle, Ol'Fruit!

Yawn

This goes in cycles.

Once the other idiotic nations realise that theyve been suckered into more Germanic dominance - they'll rechange their alliances again

BrasherBoot wrote:

Yawn

This goes in cycles.

Once the other idiotic nations realise that theyve been suckered into more Germanic dominance - they'll rechange their alliances again

The summit chairs aren't even cooled off yet, and its already happening,...

In a clash that may reshape Europe’s balance of power, the euro users took the novel approach of enshrining the debt rules in a new treaty that leaves out the U.K. instead of amending EU agreements that date back to the 1950s. Nine of the 10 non-euro members -- Denmark, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania -- indicated they may follow suit after consulting with their parliaments.

Continentals often act like children.

(see Sarkozy today). This us all a storm in a teacup. But I bet some of them will try to be vindictive towards the UK. They are often as not jealous of us and they act accordingly

[qContinentals often act like children

Between the pull away handshake and having to be "physically" restrained in the meeting, Sarko sounds close to a breakdown.

How much you wanna bet he throws a shoe next.

Cameron did it to protect the banks in London, not out of care for Britons

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

Cameron did it to protect the banks in London, not out of care for Britons

Absolutely. It's because financial services are such a big part of our economy. We might hate the bastard bankers but we know that we need them, and they know it.

mikgof wrote:

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

Cameron did it to protect the banks in London, not out of care for Britons

Absolutely. It's because financial services are such a big part of our economy. We might hate the bastard bankers but we know that we need them, and they know it.

its a giant cash cow

why would yas give it up ?
to save the euro ?
please

not in a million years

mikgof wrote:

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

Cameron did it to protect the banks in London, not out of care for Britons

Absolutely. It's because financial services are such a big part of our economy. We might hate the bastard bankers but we know that we need them, and they know it.

only the private markets need the city. Ban of England can be nationalized

All banks should be regulated

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

mikgof wrote:

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

Cameron did it to protect the banks in London, not out of care for Britons

Absolutely. It's because financial services are such a big part of our economy. We might hate the bastard bankers but we know that we need them, and they know it.

only the private markets need the city. Ban of England can be nationalized

All banks should be regulated

Banks produce 1 in 6 pounds in tax for the UK. They work well. I agree regulation is necessary to a degree.

What the EU wants - is control of London and to take its tax money.

Socialism is a hungry, bloated pig that cares not where it feeds itself as long as its fed

Despite what the UK's right-wing tabloids and their dimwitted readers are saying, this has been a classic own goal for Cameroon and will turn out to be disastrous for Britain as a whole (though not for the Tories or for the fat-cats).

The EU has launched a new common policy to save the euro and the union itself, with more central control over national budgets; Britain has decided to stay out - and is now isolated. (For France this is a huge political victory, as Sarkozy has long wanted a Eurozone without the British being able to sabotage things.)

Cameroon was counting on a few (fig-leaf) concessions but came away with nothing - he had no allies left because the Tories (and their rabid anti-EU press cronies) have alienated them all. Why would they need or want to do him any favours?

Camoron's veto had no effect this time and won't have an effect in future either. The other EU states already had their Plan B ready to circumvent his veto. In future the UK will no longer be listened to or taken seriously. And all this to protect the City of London - the greedy banksters and fat-cats who helped to cause many of the EU's problems in the first place (but who are the Tories' main backers).

One consequence is that Britain will now be unable to prevent its business moving to Paris or Frankfurt, should the EU decree new financial regulations requiring euro-denominated business to be handled in the eurozone. Britain's industries will also take a hit, as many international companies invest in the UK purely because it's part of the EU. Any uncertainty about that status will lead to those companies relocating or rethinking their strategies.

Although I've always been in favour of UK membership of the EU (for patriotic reasons), I now realise there's no longer any future for Britain in the EU: Britain has lost, it's isolated and marginalised, and has little clout or influence.

Now would really be the time for a UK referendum on EU membership. But Cameron won't dare: he wants Britain to stay in, but in the present hysterical climate the electorate might possibly vote to get out. I think that's still unlikely, but Cameron (and the other two main parties) won't risk it precisely for the reason that the get-outs mght prevail. So there isn't going to be a referendum.

Vote Labour in 2015!

BrasherBoot wrote:

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

mikgof wrote:

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

Cameron did it to protect the banks in London, not out of care for Britons

Absolutely. It's because financial services are such a big part of our economy. We might hate the bastard bankers but we know that we need them, and they know it.

only the private markets need the city. Ban of England can be nationalized

All banks should be regulated

Banks produce 1 in 6 pounds in tax for the UK. They work well. I agree regulation is necessary to a degree.

What the EU wants - is control of London and to take its tax money.

Socialism is a hungry, bloated pig that cares not where it feeds itself as long as its fed

Will wonders will never cease? Brasher actually posted something I agree with. Spot on as you Brits say. Fuck the EU, Fuck Sarkozy, and Fuck Fat Anna (not literally...uuugggg hhhhhh!!!!!!).

Lord_Buckhouse wrote:

BrasherBoot wrote:

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

mikgof wrote:

Lord_Haw_Haw wrote:

Cameron did it to protect the banks in London, not out of care for Britons

Absolutely. It's because financial services are such a big part of our economy. We might hate the bastard bankers but we know that we need them, and they know it.

only the private markets need the city. Ban of England can be nationalized

All banks should be regulated

Banks produce 1 in 6 pounds in tax for the UK. They work well. I agree regulation is necessary to a degree.

What the EU wants - is control of London and to take its tax money.

Socialism is a hungry, bloated pig that cares not where it feeds itself as long as its fed

Will wonders will never cease? Brasher actually posted something I agree with. Spot on as you Brits say. Fuck the EU, Fuck Sarkozy, and Fuck Fat Anna (not literally...uuugggg hhhhhh!!!!!!).

I went to white power charm school.

'