Defiant UK Parliament praises Cameron and rebalances EU relationship

Yesterday the UK Parliament (House of Commons) adopted, by 278 votes to 200 (all Liberal Democrat MPs abstaining), the following motion:

That this House commends the Prime Minister on his refusal at the European Council to sign up to a Treaty without safeguards for the UK; regards the use of the veto in appropriate circumstances to be a vital means of defending the national interests of the UK; and recognises the desire of the British people for a rebalancing of the relationship with our European neighbours based on co-operation and mutually beneficial economic arrangements.

BBC News UK Politics offer additional information.


Comments

When prime minister David Cameron defended his EU summit blunder, he also soothingly said that Britain remains a full member of the European Union and that EU membership is vital to Britain's national interest.

Parliament has now changed tack in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union (and its member states).

The general tenor of the debate and the wording of the praise can be described as defiant.

Parliament calls for a rebalancing of the UK's relationship with the European Union towards economic arrangements solely.

When Parliament commends prime minister Cameron for his refusal to allow an EU agreement – not affecting Britain – to pass, it has to be noted that the ”safeguards for the UK” had nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty proposal at hand at the European Council.

There is a positive expectation from Parliament for more British vetoes to come.

Leaders of the EU institutions and in the member states have expressed wishes to see the United Kingdom become a responsible and constructive member of the European Union, but in vain as we now see.

If the Liberal Democrats were able to explain Cameron's European summit catastrophe as an unfortunate accident, the new course set and the hostility shown from the government benches breaks the moral backbone of the coalition.

This is a watershed for the Liberal Democrats, who have tried in vain to temper the tribalist spirits among the Conservatives. If Nick Clegg and the other LibDem ministers do not resign, they make a historic mistake. Better to live with honour, than to suffer the contempt from such coalition partners.



Ralf Grahn

EU: Economic crisis, Tory priorities and euro bully-boys (Updated)

Here is a thoughtful tweet from @Nosemonkey (J Clive Matthews) in London:

Question: Is there a single foreign leader that respects Cameron? Just wondering if the UK has any friends left anywhere...

To the warlike atmosphere created by campaigning anti-EU media and secessionist Tory backbenchers and which has fed into popular images of a bulldogian Churchill defending Britain from nazi invasion, I add a tweet of my own:

Churchill was still wedded to Empire, Commonwealth & Anglosphere but IMHO would today be smart enough to be European.

Admittedly, it is speculation. At which stage would Churchill, who in 1946 proposed a United States of Europe built around France and Germany, but with Britain among its friends and sponsors, have taken the plunge to engage fully as a constructive member?

Perhaps it would have taken new generations not rooted in the Boer War and the imperial past to start playing a positive part as a key player in Europe. But the new generations found it hard to shrug off their tribal legacy, with David Cameron the bulldog biting 26 heads of state or government before withdrawing to the company of his secessionist backbenchers at Chequers for R&R [victory celebrations] (The Independent, Financial Times).

The bully-boys (The Sun) and blithering idiots (The Telegraph) on the Continent may be forgiven for thinking that their simple demand for a laissez-passer for a treaty fix among 27, but affecting only the willing, was a reasonable demand. They may have been misguided in thinking that the euro crisis and the global financial crisis, combined with worsening economic prospects globally, were weightier aims even for the future of the United Kingdom (Reuters), but they were taught a lesson about UK Tory priorities (Mail Online).

Naturally, there are some domestic quislings bickering against these new heights of unhelpfulness, but they only add to the festive spirit.

The Liberal Democrat leader and the coalition partner Nick Clegg has, belatedly, come out against Cameron's blocking move (The Telegraph). Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, has accused Cameron of damaging Scottish interests (AFP Google News). British business leaders are troubled by the prospects of isolation in Europe (BBC News Business).

After slamming down criticism from Clegg (Huffington Post UK), foreign secretary William Hague is going to meet US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to discuss wisely chosen topics such as Syria and Iran, where there is still life in the 'special relationship' (The Guardian, question 6 out of 7 Britain is facing).

Let us end our exposé of the statecraft of unhelpfulness here.


Update 12 December 2011: We now have the PM's statement on what he did at the European Council, but IMHO neither the wording nor the reasoning stand much rigorous analysis. Cameron's 'good faith' negotiations did not sound attractive enough to entice deputy prime minister Nick Clegg to sit on the government bench in the House of Commons (BBC News UK politics).

Just wondering... (on Twitter)

Would #Cameron statement stand 10 minutes of scrutiny by young solicitor's clerk first day on the job? #UKpolitics #euro



Ralf Grahn

EU: I'm ”privately furious” at UK Coalition

We know that politics make strange bedfellows, but it becomes worrying when they reside in the same head.

At the European Council UK prime minister David Cameron struck at the root of decades of British EEC and EU involvement, by wanting to scrap the integrity of the internal market (the four freedoms, or free movement of goods, persons, services and capital).

The other Coalition leader, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has first been in on the act, then defended Cameron's use of the veto and finally let anonymous sources make known that he is ”privately furious” over the failure when the tactics backfired.

How's that for credibility?



Ralf Grahn

European Council: UK's heroic obstructionism?

It was not much the other EU member states asked for, but UK prime minister David Cameron and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg were unwilling or unable to allow the eurozone to proceed with a treaty fix to strengthen economic coordination within the euro area.

A responsible member state government would have given a helping hand, by signing the agreement and its parliament would have nodded through ratification (a simple laissez-passer). End of story.

The United Kingdom, however, was mean-spirited and obstructionist, even if the agreement would not have altered its relationship with the EU, only given the willing member states the opportunity to advance.

Mass market media have elevated the prime minister to Churchillian proportions, totally forgetting that putting out fires in the eurozone (with Britain a close neighbour) and the global financial system is a civilian rescue operation completely different from defending your country from foreign invasion. Actually, it is in Britian's interest.

After this we have to wonder, are there any rational voices left? At least well wishes have a hollow ring, when accompanied by gratuitous acts of sabotage.

A blog roundup gives us some indications.


Blogs etc.

On Global Dashboard, Britain and Europe after the veto discusses various consequences for the United Kingdom in an instructive manner.

The Labour leader Ed Miliband mostly seems content to accuse prime minister Cameron of failure to defend the interests of Britain, its financial industry and export businesses, but he is extremely thin on what a Labour government would do.

Timothy Garton Ash sees the split between the vast majority (at least 23 countries) and Britain as a turning point in history, even if the eurozone has plenty of crises to come. Cameron has not served British long term interests, but Europe will be weakened too: David Cameron's 'no' is bad for Britain and for Europe.

At the end of the day it is always the kids who end up paying the price of a messy divorce, says Mojo Working.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland never saw itself as European, but the fiscal compact means a first step on the road towards greater unity, says Dadefinspeaking (in Spanish).

Jason O'Mahony portrays The British eurosceptic as a maligned victim, adding a lighter touch to the überserious discussion, but correctly accuses the unrepresentative UK political system of failure.

Éoin Clarke puts a different spin on the matter on Liberal Conspiracy by arguing in purely domestic terms why Cameron's No is a vote-winner.

I on Europe sees Britain isolating itself in a story with enough general background on European integration to fill in for instance US readers: Europe forges fiscal union, sees way out of crisis.

Michael Heaver, who among other things dislikes the EU, questions what exactly Cameron delivers, since no powers are repatriated.

Even the UK's usual allies in the American media were aghast, the Gulf Stream Blues blog chips in: 9 December 2011: The day Britain left Europe.

The European Union Law presents the main components of the new fiscal compact and the toxic role of the United Kingdom: What's Behind the New Eurozone Fiscal Stability Union?

The Independent has a list of quotes which show that people in or close to Cameron's government publicly support his rejection at the EU summit.

Kosmopolito discusses Cameron's diplomatic failure, since his demands had nothing to do with the issues on the agenda and nobody knew about his demands in advance. ”Moreover, Cameron has no allies whatsoever.” The post deals with many of the salient points.

If Cameron had signed the treaty offered, then the opposition and his own party would have launched a further attack on his leadership, says Tom Scholes-Fogg.

Noëlle Lenoir discusses Camerons No to the fiscal compact at the European Council and his withdrawal from the discussions about the alternative, an intergovernmental treaty. She takes note of different steps the United Kingdom and the Tories have taken towards the outer rim of Europe. On the other hand, chancellor Angela Merkel has imposed her will (including the limits on action) on the rest of the members (in French).



Ralf Grahn

UK flunked in Europe

If blocking an EU treaty fix between 27 members and complicating the euro rescue mission was not the finest hour of UK prime minister David Cameron and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, what was it?

Sony Kapoor of Re-Define flunked both the European Council and UK government.

The NYT IHT discusses the pros and cons of UK government the wisdom with regard to the future of the City: In Rejecting Treaty, Cameron Is Isolated.

Spiegel Online International tries to make David Cameron's acting against a background of anti-EU sentiment comprehensible for European readers, while preparing them for the next British blockades: The Man Who Said No to Europe.

PlaceLux.EU tries alternative history writing by exploring: How Cameron's kamikaze act could have been prevented.

MarketWatch was fairly upbeat about the fiscal compact between the EU member states minus Britain, but cautious about the ECB stepping up to the huge task of calming sovereign bond markets: New EU deal leaves ECB nowhere to hide.

Before the number of fiscal compact participants shrinks back somewhat, The Guardian noted Britain's unprecedented loneliness in the European Union: UK isolation grows as three more countries reconsider eurozone treaty.

The Economist has covered the EU summit(s) from a number of angles, naturally keen to discuss domestic British issues. From Bagehot's notebook: The moment, behind closed doors, that David Cameron lost his EU argument last night.

Earlier in the day, Bagehot had written: Britain, not leaving but falling out of the EU. If you have ever had doubts about the Britishness of The Economist, read: 'we have started falling out'. Bagehot sees Cameron's No as an indication of his weakness within his own party, which led him to walk away empty-handed, but the blog post also offers a detailed discussion about different aspirations in the UK and Europe.

Charlemagne's notebook contributed with Europe's great divorce, right after the fateful all-nighter in Brussels.



Ralf Grahn

European Council: centrifugal Cameron

Hopefully the political leaders, their teams, the EU officials and the journalists on duty during the European Council 8 and 9 December 2011 get some well deserved rest.

Soon enough they are going to be confronted with an astonishing number of political and legal questions needing to be sorted out.

First we have to look at what the summit(s) produced.


European Council conclusions

The traditonal conclusions are available in all the 23 official EU languages; the English version:

European Council 9 December 2011 conclusions (EUCO 139/11; 7 pages)

If you take a closer look, you notice that just over two text pages are dedicated to general economic policy issues, with many references to the Euro Plus Pact. The rest of the conclusions deal with energy, enlargement and some other topics.

For the second time in a short while, the meeting in the EU27 framework reminds us of the plain sliced bread roll of a hamburger, but without the beef or garnish.

This is not that far from the hastily called meeting where the EU heads of state or government were informed about the preparations for the Euro Summit later the same day, 26 (to 27) October 2011.

Now the ”bouches inutiles” of those unproductive in the defence during ancient sieges left the formal European Council conclusions gutted: the sliced roll.

To the extent that there is beef and garnish, they belong to the defenders of the euro, in the euro area statement in the official languages; in English (revised version):

Statement by the euro area heads of state or government; 9 December 2011


Centripetal forces

By Friday morning the 17 eurozone were joined by the same six non-euro countries which had earlier adopted the Euro Plus Pact in order to stay as close to the core as possible.

When prime minister David Cameron rejected regular treaty reform (without permanent powers for the United Kingdom to block financial regulation), the Czech Republic, Hungary and Sweden realised that they were on course towards marginalisation.

Despite their governments, parliaments and public opinions being cool towards deeper integration, deliberate loss of influence is not an attractive option. Difficult domestic discussion await, but they wanted to secure the option to join the new fiscal compact and to participate in fleshing out the details.

The euro area statement was revised accordingly, and the last sentence now reads like this:

The Heads of State or Government of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Sweden indicated the possibility to take part in this process after consulting their Parliaments where appropriate.

Potentially there could be 26 participants in the new fiscal compact, leaving Britain alone. It is more probable that the six non-euro members of the Euro Plus Pact are willing to take the next step together with the eurozone 17: Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

For the Czech Republic, Hungary and Sweden the fiscal compact (and, I imagine, belatedly joining the Euro Plus Pact) would mean reorientation, against the grain of their previous policies. However, few national leaders embrace loss of influence, if they can avoid it.

The eurozone chaos has done little to sweeten the deal. Less than 10 per cent of the Swedes support euro adoption, down by around 40 percentage points in two years.


United Kingdom

Let us still call a 27-1 European Union a theoretical outcome, but prime minister David Cameron's centrifugal strategy has brought something close to it into the realm of reality.

By falling on his sword to please his backbenchers, he did not become more fit to defend the one square mile of Britain he ostentatiously cares about. On the contrary, the UK's goodwill deficit grew considerably, so the government is less useful for the City in the future.

I wonder why deputy prime minister Nick Clegg signed up to the strategic disaster.

Cameron's reaction leaves the door open for reprisals to prevent the rest of the EU member states from using the institutions and facilities of the European Union:

When we can’t be given those safeguards in the treaty, it is better this is done by intergovernmental arrangements, outside the treaty and outside the institutions of the European Union. That is what will happen, and that is what is in Britain’s national interests.

As I said, there is an astonishing number of political and legal questions to sort out after the European summit(s), without Cameron including active sabotage in his well wishes to the countries joining the fiscal compact.

Soon enough the participants will find the difficulties all by themselves.



Ralf Grahn