A single market to consumers and citizens (2010) continued

The United Kingdom used to project itself as a champion of the EU single market, but if you take a closer look, you are about to detect a paradox.   

If you compare what the European Parliament said in May 2010 about lowering and eliminating barriers in the internal market, with what the UK prime minister Theresa May said on 17 January 2017 about her government’s priorities to create new obstacles to the four freedoms of movement, depriving British and other EU citizens of rights, it offers you a certain perspective on the United Kingdom’s incompatibility with single market aspirations.

Sadly, bad examples are catching. Even some government ministers in EU member states have started to sound like English tabloids with their calls to roll back EU achievements for citizens.

Resolution P7_TA(2010)0186

After a short introductory blog post, we return to the European Parliament resolution of 20 May 2010 on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens P7_TA(2010)0186, which underlined (11):

that the relaunch of the single market should achieve concrete, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed targets, which must be achieved by proper and effective policy instruments based on the four freedoms of movement that are available to all EU citizens;

The European Parliament also highlighted (12):  

the fact that the single European market is in dire need of a new momentum, and that strong leadership from European institutions, especially the Commission, and political ownership by the Member States is required to restore credibility and confidence in the single market;

In addition, the European Parliament called for (18):

a new paradigm of political thinking, focusing on citizens, consumers and SMEs in the relaunch of the European single market; holds the view that this can be achieved by putting European citizen at the heart of European Union policy making;

Citizens would have to be better informed about their rights, the European Parliament called (65):

on the Commission and the Member States to develop a targeted communication strategy focusing on the day-to-day problems that citizens encounter when settling and taking up employment in another Member State, especially when undertaking cross-border transactions moving, shopping or selling across borders, and the social, health, consumer-protection and environmental-protection standards on which they can rely; considers that this communication strategy should expressly include problem-solving methods such as SOLVIT;

Single Market Act

The resolution had already mentioned the Small Business Act (SBA) a few times, before it introduced the concept Single Market Act, accompanied by reform values and guidelines:

76. Believes that in order to establish an effective single market, the Commission must produce a clear set of political priorities through the adoption of a ‘Single Market Act’, which should cover both legislative and non-legislative initiatives, aimed at creating a highly competitive social market and green economy;

77. Encourages the Commission to present the ‘Act’ by May 2011–- well ahead of the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Single Market Programme – putting citizens, consumers and SMEs at the heart of the single market; emphasises that it should be looked upon as a blueprint for future action if we are to achieve a knowledge-based, highly competitive, social and environmentally friendly, green market economy which also ensures a credible level playing field;

78. Calls on the Commission to incorporate in the ‘Single Market Act’ specific measures aimed at, but not limited to: - putting the consumer interests referred to in Article 12 TFEU and social policy based on Article 9 TEFU at the heart of the single market; - making the single market fit for the future by improving consumer and SME access to e-commerce and digital markets; - supporting the creation of a sustainable single market based on Article 11 TFEU through the development of an inclusive, low-carbon, green, knowledge-based economy, including measures to further any innovation in cleaner technologies; - ensuring the protection of services of general economic interest on the basis of Article 14 TFEU and Protocol 26; - creating a strategy for better communication of the social benefits of the single market;

The European Parliament wanted the Commission. in preparing the ‘Single Market Act’, to take into account the various EU institutions’ consultations and reports (EU 2020, Monti, Gonzales and IMCO reports, etc.), and to launch an additional wide-ranging public consultation, with a view to bringing forward a coordinated policy proposal for a more coherent and viable single market (79).

Ralf Grahn

Eurotroll Cameron

UK prime minister David Cameron ”has promised to do "everything possible" to stop other EU states discussing the single market without the UK” (BBC News UK Politics).

According to the Open Europe blog the EU institutions are ”all over the draft proposal” for an international treaty for a reinforced economic union. The signatories of the treaty will work towards "deeper integration in the internal market".

The EUobserver tells us that ”British PM David Cameron on Friday (6 January) vowed to do "everything possible" to prevent EU institutions from being used in a new fiscal treaty the UK has refused to join, but admitted there were legal difficulties in pursuing that path”.

It looks as if Cameron's strategy and tactics aim at driving as many of the non-eurozone member states as possible towards the euro core. With or without the EU institutions – where Britain has both the voice and the vote – the governments, or most of them, are bound to begin laying the groundwork concerning all aspects of economic policy, including competition, the internal market, tax issues etc. intergovernmentally.

Previous UK governments laid the foundations for Britain's obstructionist position in the European Union, but Cameron's policy of Eurotrolling is achieving a qualitative shift towards irrelevance in all matters except his country's potential for sabotage in Europe on (many fundamental) issues requiring unanimity.

The draft international treaty will do little to remedy the fundamental flaws of the European Union or the euro currency, but the government of the United Kingdom seems dead set on retaining as few allies among the EU members as possible, when they are forced to choose between the European Union and Britain.

I am waiting for how the English tabloids are going to construct Cameron's isolation as splendid.

Update 8 January 2012: Via @EuroCelt David Garrahy I noticed an op-ed piece on Irishtimes.com, where Paul Gillespie discusses how Ireland should handle Britain's self-marginalisation in Europe. - The UK seems to have set in motion a process of alignment by EU members with the eurozone core.



Ralf Grahn

European democracy or euro crash?

Prime minister David Cameron did not get off the Titanic. He blocked the Euro ambulance.

The Titanic metaphor catches the imagination, but it is wrong because the United Kingdom was not aboard the Euro vessel, so it is logically impossible to get off.

Bagehot's notebook offered a more apt simile, Chernobyl. Fixing it, or containing and limiting the continent-wide fallout is in Britain's interest.

Sadly, the UK Parliament instead hailed Cameron, promised more vetoes and rebalanced Britain's EU relationship towards limiting them to economic ties. These formulas are wide enough for those who want the UK pissing in, both on the inside and from the outside of the EU tent.

The Euro ambulance was forced to make a detour, but the team of 17 was joined by up to nine voluntary well-wishers, all except Britain.


Alignment

We should not overrate the success.

We do not know what the fiscal compact will turn out to be in the end. We do not know if even all eurozone countries are going to join. We know even less about how many of the other EU members will participate.

What I see is more of a slow process of alignment by EU countries around the euro core, leaving Britain less able to form and lead alliances.


Far from enough

I think that the eurozone and the other EU members showed more resolve than before, but the Euro ambulance went to fetch only one of the several casualties, leaving the rest on the ground.

The high borrowing costs, the falling euro, the sliding stock markets, the coming downgrades, the troubled banks and the glide into recession show that the structures and powers in place are not robust enough, the agreed remedies are insufficient and moving in slow motion is far from enough.

Just three examples from my Twitter stream yesterday.

@JasonBWhitman (Policy chairman US Young Republicans) asked me about the probability of the euro crashing. @spignal (Stanley Pignal of the FT) tested the waters with a question about how probable a new eurozone summit was becoming before the end of the year. @JSLefebvre (French EU journalist) retweeted a 'complicated' poll showing that the French are attached to Europe, but do not believe the euro summits have brought results.

This leaves us with a number of unanswered fundamental questions about European integration and the future of the eurozone.

To put it plainly:

The common European currency, the euro, needs a sovereign. In the Western political tradition of democracy and fundamental rights, this sovereign must be based on the citizens to be legitimate and accountable (democracy), equipped with robust structures and sufficient powers, as well as providing good governance and transparency.

No taxation without representation, but also a real federal budget and taxes, a lender of last resort (federal reserve) with broad enough mandate.

Foreign policy, security and defence, are among the policies to conduct at the European level.

European democracy or euro crash?

Our leaders have not yet faced up to the challenges, and their national electorates are far behind, but the alternatives should concentrate minds, hopefully sooner rather than too late.



Ralf Grahn

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

David Cameron and EU Single Market

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

In March 2011, just ahead of the spring summit, nine national political leaders sent a joint letter on European growth to the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the president of the Commission José Manuel Barroso.

Together with the leaders of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden, UK prime minister David Cameron was seemingly still at that point for the integrity of the internal market and calling for forceful action to liberate the potential of the single market, with the increasingly important services markets on top:

First, we must deliver the full and untapped potential of the Single Market. The Single Market is Europe’s greatest economic achievement – the core foundation of the world’s largest economy encompassing 500 million consumers and €12 trillion of economic activity. But it is far from finished business.

Services now account for almost four fifths of our economy and yet there is much to be done to open up services markets on the scale that is needed. While significant efforts have been made to put in place the provisions of the Services Directive, many sectors still remain closed off by opaque, disproportionate and disparate regulation. Restrictive practices are rife. And implementation overall falls far short of what is needed to open up markets fairly to competition. So we must do for services markets what we have done for markets in goods – removing the restrictions that hinder access and competition, reducing the number of regulated professions, and making a firm commitment to implementation and enforcement, building on and extending the mutual evaluation process and publishing scorecards of national performance. Succeed and we could add €140 billion to the European economy. We welcome the commitment given by the Commission in its Annual Growth Survey to take action in this area and invite the Commission to report at the earliest opportunity on the steps needed to realise these gains.

Striking at the root of decades of British EEC and EU involvement at the European Council last week stunned more than the 26 heads of state or government present.



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

UK in Europe: This was their finest hour?

If John Bunyan described The Pilgrim's Progress towards the Celestial City, I have depicted the Cameron's regress from bystander through growing weakness to near-isolation in European affairs.


Rejoice, Rejoice

The surreal atmosphere in England is illustrated by EUbusiness: British eurosceptic press jubilant at EU treaty veto.

Here is a German roundup of the British press, by Sandra Fiene (ZDF).

(Let me add that there is nothing sceptic about eurosceptics, led by campaigning anti-EU media aiming at poisoning Britain's EU relatiosnhip until the day of UK secession. Thus, I only use the euphemism in direct quotes.)

These are the sentiments prime minister David Cameron and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg have decided to placate, instead of even allowing the fiscal compact to take shape within the EU framework.

This was their finest hour?


Thinking writers

Let me offer you a roundup of a few actors, thinkers and writers I respect, many of them British citizens (if the concept does not appear too alien) or residents. I won't refer to the contents much, but hope that you take time to read and think.

From free market Sweden, with its own difficulties to remain close to the EU core, foreign minister Carl Bildt - @carlbildt on Twitter – tweeted this:

A very pessimistic analysis by a very competent observer on the consequences of marginalizing oneself in Europe.

Bildt linked to the blog post by Charles Grant, of the Centre for European Reform (CER): Britain on the edge of Europe.

On the CER blog, Simon Tilford mentions Britain only in passing, but his pessimistic assessment of the euro salvage operation is a reminder that Europe needs people outside the governments and institutions willing to discuss the big picture: EU summit: Enough to save the euro?

Just ahead of the fateful summit dinner, The European Citizen set out Britain's Bad Negotiating Position, questioning the repatriation strategy amidst potential euro meltdown (although the power to block financial regulation turned out to be the rabbit Cameron pulled out of his hat).

On the British Politics and Policy at LSE blog the headline by Simon Hix offered a shortcut to the conclusions: David Cameron's EU treaty veto is a disaster for Britain. But do read his reasoning.

Also on the LSE blog, Olaf Cramme saw David Cameron going to Brussels ill prepared and under domestic pressure: Cameron's pandering to euroscepticism and the illusionary 'national interest' is a failure of leadership and leaves Britain in a lose-lose situation.



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

Cameron in European Council: Weak, weaker... (Updated)

Without democratic government and sufficient powers at the European Union or eurozone level, the national leaders have been forced to proceed further on the road of intergovernmentalism, although credible and sustainable solutions need durable and legitimate foundations.

While we wait for the conclusions from the European Council, this is how the leaders of the euro area countries and other EU member states have tried to manoeuvre despite these self-imposed structural weaknesses: Statement by the euro area heads of state or government (9 December 2011; 7 pages).


United Kingdom

If Britain has been a constant gardener of weakening its position in the European Union, prime minister Cavid Cameron managed to drive the wedge further in, by alienating almost all the rest of the participants, by demanding escape clauses for British financial services from internal market rules.

With the global financial system in danger, Nero would have been proud of Cameron's priorities.

Let us look at some early reactions after the EUCO all-nighter, especially with regard to the United Kingdom.

Financial services are, as we know, part and parcel of the internal market. What remains of UK goodwill capital to press for future concessions among the 27? Le Monde quotes the French president Nicolas Sarkozy on Britain's ”unacceptable” demands regarding financial regulation, the absence of which Sarkozy sees as a root cause of the current problems.

On Fundación Civil, the headline of Mario Conde says that the English have become ”anti-system” in the European Union, but he also notes that the fiscal compact is all discipline (Merkel), but no eurobonds or new tasks for the ECB (in Spanish).

According to David Cameron, the agreement between the EU countries is not in Britain's interest, so he hopes that the EU institutions will protect British interests and he wishes the rest of the union well in their endeavours to safeguard the euro.

How many Europeans do you think, by now hope that Cameron arranges an exit referendum?

***

Update 9 December 2011: The euro area statement has been revised, tentatively bringing the participants to 26 (all but UK). Here is the web page with the statement in all EU languages.



Ralf Grahn

UK views on eurozone decisions

What has actually been agreed in the eurozone or EU27 this far in response to the crisis in the eurozone, which has turned into a crisis of the euro itself? A while ago I collected the main documents in a blog post with brief descriptions.

A more detailed hearing has recently been published by the UK House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union: Inquiry on European Council of 23 October 2011 and the Euro Summit on 26 October 2011 (26 pages).

On 8 November 2011 David Lidington MP, Minister for Europe (Simon Manley, Director, EU Directorate, and Victoria Dean, Head of EU Strategy Department) gave evidence to the EU Committee.

Britain is one of the ten members still outside the eurozone and one of only four EU member states outside the Euro Plus Pact.

Being outside does not protect the UK economy if the euro area economy crashes, so the government of Britain hopes that the eurozone can solve the problems which require further fiscal and economic integration.

Naturally the risk of UK isolation was on the mind of the participants, so the integrity of the single market is seen as important.



Ralf Grahn

EU: Can expansionary budgets save us from hardship?

Should Europe spend its way out of gloom and ever slowing growth? Are there real alternatives to the so called austerity measures, actually efforts to reduce government borrowing and eventually total debt to sustainable levels?


EU government deficits

According to Eurostat, the 2010 total government deficit in the European Union was EUR 805,008 million, or 6.6 per cent of the gross national product (GDP), while 3% is the maximum prescribed by the stability and growth pact (SGP):

In 2010 the largest government deficits in percentage of GDP were recorded in Ireland (-31.3%), Greece (-10.6%), the United Kingdom (-10.3%), Portugal (-9.8%), Spain (-9.3%), Latvia (-8.3%), Poland (-7.8%), Slovakia (-7.7%), France (-7.1%), Lithuania (-7.0%) and Romania (-6.9%). The lowest deficits were recorded in Luxembourg (-1.1%), Finland (-2.5%) and Denmark (-2.6%). Estonia and Sweden (both 0.2%) registered a slight government surplus in 2010. In all, 21 Member States recorded an improvement in their government balance relative to GDP in 2010 compared with 2009, five a worsening and one remained unchanged.

EU government debt levels

The debt level allowed under the SGP is 60 per cent of GDP. At EUR 9,806,372 million, or 80.2 per cent of GDP, the EU was way above the level allowed by the SGP:

At the end of 2010, the lowest ratios of government debt to GDP were recorded in Estonia (6.7%), Bulgaria (16.3%), Luxembourg (19.1%), Romania (31.0%), the Czech Republic (37.6%), Lithuania (38.0%), Slovenia (38.8%) and Sweden (39.7%). Fourteen Member States had government debt ratios higher than 60% of GDP in 2010: Greece (144.9%), Italy (118.4%), Belgium (96.2%), Ireland (94.9%), Portugal (93.3%), Germany (83.2%), France (82.3%), Hungary (81.3%), the United Kingdom (79.9%), Austria (71.8%), Malta (69.0%), the Netherlands (62.9%), Cyprus (61.5%) and Spain (61.0%).

Budget hawks?

Let us pick two countries perceived as budget hawks by many:

With a government deficit of 10.3% the United Kingdom was firmly ensconced between the bailout cases. The UK debt level was 79.9% of GDP in 2010.

Germany, the reference country for eurozone sovereign debt, ran a public deficit of 4.3% of GDP and its debt level had climbed to 83.2%.


Avoiding hardship?

Keynesian stimulus would be welcome to avert hardship and recession, but the coffers are empty and the markets are shedding government bonds, driving up borrowing costs to ruinous levels. We are only one step away from a sovereign debt stampede.

The historic facts (2010) do not take ongoing and future consolidation efforts into account, but my sad conclusion is that the government hovercrafts are unsustainable in the present circumstances.

Austerity is less evil than disaster.



Ralf Grahn

Merkel and Cameron on EU and euro

Thursday, the German chancellor Angela Merkel met the new prime minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmidt. Friday brought the UK prime minister David Cameron to Berlin for talks about the European Union, the eurozone crisis and bilateral issues.


David Cameron

Merkel started the press conference by emphasising the common interest of Germany and the United Kingdom to make the European Union competitive. Both countries want the internal market to succeed. The EU budget for 2012 should acknowledge the domestic consolidation efforts by keeping in line with inflation, but nothing more.

A strong eurozone is in Britain's interest. Stricter rules and enforcement require limited treaty change among the members of the eurozone, according to Merkel.

Prime minister David Cameron underlined the common aims concerning the internal market, budget discipline and the EU budget. A sustainable euro is in everyone's interest, although differences remain regarding crisis measures.

Merkel and Cameron are united on a global financial transaction tax (FTT), but not on a European one.

Cameron replied to the Bild magazine headline about what the UK is (still) doing in Europe, by stressing his country's positive role for competitiveness and productivity.

The institutions of the eurozone need to defend the currency and to take all the necessary measures, according to Cameron.

The United Kingdom remains outside the Euro Group of 17 countries, the euro summits, the ECB and the Euro Plus Pact joining 23 EU members (see EUCO paragraphs 11-12 and Annex I), but it is hard to guess how Cameron's friendly advice was received deep down by his step-by-step host.


CDU positions

Previously we have looked at some differences between Germany and Britain in European politics: the CDU party conference, European values, British Europe as an alternative, Ireland as a risk to needed treaty reform, the euro area and the EU, as well as CDU's next steps to overcome the euro crisis.



Ralf Grahn

British or European Europe?

What makes the leading government party of the biggest eurozone and EU member state tick? Despite too little, too late, Germany participates fully in all the policy areas of the European Union. For Germany, the symbols of the EU express a feeling of community in Europe.

Compare the conference of the Christian Democratic Union CDU in Leipzig – Für Europa. Für Deutschland – with the steady stream of war-like propaganda from anti-EU media and campaigners in the United Kingdom, negative public opinion, the open hostility among the political class and the efforts of successive UK governments to play as little as possible for the team, while demanding most in return.

The previous British prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pretended that the UK was at the heart of Europe, while standing on the brake and devising opt-outs. According to David Cameron ”we sceptics have a vital point”.

Compare the European values of the CDU (and Germany) with the sovereignty cum narrow national interest discourse streaming from Westminster.

The euroblogger Jon Worth called on Labour to embrace more constructive EU politics than those expressed by the shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander. He also proposed that UK politicians should drop the indiscriminate and narrow-minded use of the 'national interest' in relation to the European Union.

For those who think that prime minister David Cameron showed great restraint and wisdom by calling for the EU to be turned into a flexible network of nation states promoting open markets, Kosmopolit wrote a long blog post on the problems of the UK's approach to the EU. Long term all the EU member states (except Britain and Denmark) are bound to join the eurozone, so where are Cameron's long term allies?

Timothy Garton Ash asks Cameron to present his vision for Europe, if he has one. At this moment Cameron's British Europe is purest waffle. Chancellor Angela Merkel's German vision for political union in Europe is still only part right, but let the European leaders choose between these alternative routes forward.



Ralf Grahn

EU military headquarters – CSDP permanent structured cooperation

The euroblogger Jon Worth - @jonworth on Twitter – made me notice the Telegraph article by Bruno Waterfield: 'Big Five' tell Baroness Ashton to bypass Britain over EU military HQ.

Jon also had the kindness to point out that my old blog post about the legal base for deeper military cooperation between willing member states turned up first on Google search: EU Treaty of Lisbon: Permanent structured cooperation (1 February 2008).


Permanent structured cooperation history

My blog post offers the drafting history of permanent structured cooperation within the EU framework at treaty level, without dramatics.

I can only marvel at the editorial style of The Telegraph, but I think that a few comments are in order after the government of the United Kingdom vetoed the establishment of the military HQ for the European Union. See EUobserver: UK snubs Ashton over EU military headquarters (19 July 2011).


CSDP aims

The common security and defence policy (CSDP) of the European Union is an integral part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP) (Article 42(1) TEU).

The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy. This will lead to a common defence when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides (Article 42(2) TEU).

There are still a few EU member states which describe themselves as neutral or non-aligned, there is the United Kingdom and perhaps a few other special cases.


CSDP permanent structured cooperation

Thus, the intergovernmental conference leading to the Treaty of Lisbon agreed on a formula to satisfy the countries with shared and higher ambitions in the military field.

If their military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and they have made more binding commitments to one another in the military area with a view to the most demanding missions, they shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the EU framework (Article 42(6) TEU).

Since the UK veto on the EU military headquarters prevents progress for the union as a whole, the advance group of willing countries has set in motion the procedure to establish permanent structured cooperation among themselves, according to the procedures outlined in Article 46 TEU and Protocol (No 10) on permanent structured cooperation established by Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union.

The British nationality of the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton, is totally irrelevant. It is her duty to act in accordance with the EU Treaties.


European defence, NATO and the UK

If I have understood correctly, the cash-strapped US administration is experiencing a severe case of imperial overreach, and they have clamoured for the Europeans to take responsibility for their common defence, while preserving the fundamental transatlantic bridge through the NATO alliance.

It is sad that the United Kingdom, with its military know-how and resources, is dead set against participation, so the willing countries have to proceed with what they have. One more EU core is in the making.

The EU military HQ issue is but a small step, but sooner or later it will hopefully lead to a common European defence, the long term aim of the Treaty on European Union.



Ralf Grahn

State minimalism and parliamentary absolutism in EU

Max Steinbeis on Verfassungsblog vividly described Belgium: Failed State mitten in Europa (12 January 2011). Given the slow but seemingly inexorable descent into oblivion, Belgium's greatest gift to Europe could be to cede an ample enough territory to establish the real European Capital (E.C.): Brussels E.C? (7 January 2011).

Square this tenuous statehood and EU membership with the fiery fundamentalist rhetoric about parliamentary sovereignty – nay, absolutism crowding out the rule of law - a stone's throw away, across the Channel in UK Westminster.

We wonder if, or for how long, Belgium remains a state, and we begin to think about how the assets and liabilities should be divided.

We wonder how long it takes before the British people wake up to demand a modern and comprehensive Constitution with fundamental rights, instead of an elective dictatorship based on unrepresentative elections.

United or not, Europe is excelling in diversity.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. On Think about it 4 you find promising young bloggers from around the world writing in English about climate change. Think 4 is organised by the European Journalism Centre.



P.S. 2: There are now five updates worth reading to my previous blog post on the EUSSR and the new Pilgrim Fathers.

Time for a UK mass exodus from the clutches of the EUSSR? (5 x updated)

Was I uncharitable regarding British tabloids, large parts of the political establishment and the UK educational system, which have utterly failed to frame the UK discussion on ”Europe” in constructive and forward-looking terms? My criticism in UK and the fall of the ”EU dictatorship” (12 January 2011) seems mild in comparison to fellow euroblogger @Nosemonkey who tweeted about the ”barking mad #EUbill reading/debate”.


Westminster bubble

Generally ”Europe” is treated as an alien, hostile and threatening empire (EUSSR), rather than as the team the United Kingdom is playing on (and should be playing for).

I invite you to be your own judge. Read the record of the 11 January debate on the European Union Bill in the Westminster Parliament.

How do you, as an EU citizen, perceive that the House of Commons debate on parliamentary sovereignty (or Crown in Parliament), especially the Tory rebellion led by Bill Cash targeting the independence of courts (the rule of law), addresses our real concerns about values, security and prosperity in a world increasingly shaped by rising powers (BRICs)?


Bleak House ahead

The Gulf Stream Blues blog noted that the Tory rebellion was defeated, but the government's European Union Bill is heading for adoption, and Bleak House lies ahead: UK throws a spanner in EU integration (12 January 2011):

In the end, if the British vote 'no' on something the rest of the EU is ready to approve, the only logical next step would be for the British to have an 'in or out' referendum on its own membership. One can't quite predict how that will go, but I suspect it would be a 'yes' because deep down the British know they need the EU. But they can't stay in it if they're going to drag it down by rejecting every attempt at treaty change.

So there you have it, quite a bleak future for the UK's relationship with the EU. And there's little chance of this bill being overturned by a later government.

For Europeans, being dragged down by the United Kingdom is not the brightest of prospects.


Sterile sovereignty

In my view, framing the debate about the European Union in terms of (parliamentary) sovereignty is sterile. The rights and interest of citizens are primary, which a House self-obsessed with its own sovereignty does little to serve.

Yesterday, the Federal Union blog made a similar observation, in: Where sovereignty lies (12 January 2011). What matters, are the rights of citizens, not the rights of MPs. The rights of citizens need to be strengthened:

For a number of reasons, most of them good ones, the principle that what parliament says, goes, is no longer unbending. International treaty obligations, including notably those of the European Union, plus many other home-grown concerns, combine to restrict what parliament may do. Purists of the old school, as exemplified by Bill Cash, may dislike what has happened, but it is nevertheless the case. Even leaving the EU would not restore parliamentary powers to their former glory. What matters, though, are the rights of citizens, not the rights of MPs – do not confuse the two – and those rights are being strengthened.

Pace of learning

In the political culture of the United Kingdom the concept and meaning of national citizenship have yet to take root.

Sixty years after the establishment of the Council of Europe (CoE) and the conclusion of the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the protection of citizens' rights through the rule of law seems alien to considerable parts of the British political establishement.

In addition, the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights ECtHR are often confused with decisions by the European Union, itself no spring chicken, with roots going back to the 1957 (EEC) Treaty of Rome.

If you do not believe me about the constant confusion and misinformation, see Talking about the EU: The European Court of Human Rights is NOT an EU institution (11 January 2011).


Ignore, deny or accept

Ignoring, denying and accepting all seem to be alternatives equally presentable, even if we discuss a matter of fact.

Little wonder that the Federal Trust is going to host a conference 20 January 2011 on these great unknowns: Citizenship and the Lisbon Treaty – can the British ever be European citizens?


Dual citizenship

Despite the excruciatingly slow pace of learning, legally the case is clear. Citizenship of the European Union was introduced by the Treaty on European Union (TEU), also known as the Maastricht Treaty, which was signed in 1992 and entered into force in 1993.

Today, this dual citizenship – national and EU – is enshrined in Title II on provisions on democratic principles of the Treaty on European Union (OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/20):

TITLE II
PROVISIONS ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

Article 9 TEU

In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship.

Concrete provisions on and benefits of the bonus EU citizenship are found in Part Two of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union (Articles 18 to 25).

Through the treaties and secondary legislation EU citizenship confers some, but not full, political rights on the citizens. The European Union is still ”owned” by the member states, instead of vested in its citizens.

The member states even hold the keys to who becomes an EU citizen, since it follows automatically from national citizenship, without effective brakes on mass naturalisation by an individual government: National and EU citizenship: What if? (30 November 2010). .

As we saw, EU citizenship is less than twenty years old, almost nothing compared to the age of the Council of Europe, the ECHR, the Treaty of Rome (EEC) and other landmarks of European integration still freely ignored or misunderstood by large sections of British media and nationals.


Ignorance or denial?

Should we rejoice that denial is better than ignorance, because the denier at least is aware of the existence of his or her citizenship of the European Union?

In addition, the protest comes without cost. If you tell the world that you reject your EU citizenship, you still retain your status and the benefits.

The effective, non-gratuitous way to get rid of EU citizenship is to become a national of a state which is neither an EU member, nor a potential member. This leaves plenty of exotic options among the 192 member states of the United Nations.


Mass exodus?

The Tory rebellion having failed, European Union Bill of the UK government is on the road to the statute book, and the campaigns to get Britain out of the EU seem to be going nowhere (even if UK secession might be a blessing for the rest of the union).

Why don't the tabloids, Bill Cash, Daniel Hannan and others act in the spirit of the Pilgrim Fathers to flee oppression by the EUSSR dictatorship and head for a new start in a more promising land?

Afghanistan? Belarus? Burma? Cuba? North Korea? Iran? Libya? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Zimbabwe?

The choice is almost endless for those who cherish their age-old English liberties enough to flee the evil European Union. (See Freedom in the World, Freedom House ratings of more than a hundred countries in 2010.)

Do I see lines forming in front of the Consulates, crowds crying Exodus, English political notables packing their bags and media campaigning in overdrive to spur people to take liberty into their own hands?


Update 13 January 2011: The European Citizen has written a blog post on the trials and tribulations of the UK Parliament to come to terms with sovereignty in the context of the debate on the European Union Bill.


Update 2, 14 January 2011: Nosemonkey has returned to the EU and UK sovereignty in a long, but interesting blog post.


Update 3, 14 January 2011: Eva en Europa writes (in Spanish) about the British drift away from the rest of Europe manifested by the European Union Bill debate.


Update 4, 14 January 2011: The House of Commons debate on the European Union Bill does not convince Caroline Bradley of Blenderlaw about the merits of parliamentary sovereignty.


Update 5, January 2011: Charles Reed on the Ethics and Foreign Policy blog wonders if the European Union Bill introduces referendums for the wrong type of questions.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Parliament magazine focuses on the directly elected European Parliament, which co-legislates on more of the important issues concerning EU businesses and citizens than before the Lisbon Treaty. Lobbyists have spotted the influence of the EP. Should EU citizens too?

UK and the fall of the ”EU dictatorship”

”Gov(ernmen)t sees off revolt by Tory eurosceptics”, if we believe the AFP, but readers of Mail Online are happy to be served ”Tory eurosceptics win battle over UK 'sovereignty clause' ”.

In UK discourse about the EU even the most basic of facts are contested, if we assume that the reporting concerns the same Parliament and the same European Union (Bill).

Those who are able to stomach it can delve deeper into parliamentary debate on Europe, UK style.


EuroGoblin

Ahead of the parliamentary debate in the United Kingdom, EuroGoblin was more interested in the coming vote than in the crusade from the Daily Express: We Are the Knights Who Say … No! (10 January 2011).

In my view it would be wrong to ignore the astounding argumentation concerning the ”EU dictatorship” by the self-proclaimed ”world's greatest newspaper” The Daily Express, presented on 23 pages in order to ”Get Britain out of the EU” (8 January 2011).

That a newspaper can thrive on such writing anywhere in the free world beggars belief, not only with regard to editorial standards, but the quality of large parts of the political establishment and the educational system of the nation.


BRICs rising and Europe sinking

I wrote a comment on the EuroGoblin blog, where I tried to explain why the European Union needs less retrograde thinking and a whole lot more of energy in a world increasingly shaped by the BRICs. Even if the United Kingdom is an extreme example of toxic discourse, the rest of Europe is well on its way to oblivion:

I am actually less insouciant than you [EuroGoblin], because the debate in the United Kingdom is characterised by varying degrees of backwardness, even more than in Europe generally.

In the real world various Asian countries have already surpassed the EU member states in educational achievements (Pisa), China is about to pass Europe in research and development within a decade, the world’s industrial output is increasingly produced in Asia, the Chinese armed forces are strenghtened at a rapid pace, the US and European governments are in hock to China, and as consumers we spend more than we earn on Chinese goods.

There seem to be only token efforts to put the European Union back on the world map and on the road to economic prosperity.

Discussing various scenarios of backward mobility (as in the UK) gives me the impression of criminal neglect from our beloved leaders.

Energy and democracy

In my view, the citizens of the European Union need an energetic and effective union in the crucial matters of security and prosperity, but this union has to be based on its citizens, meaning full EU level democracy and political accountability.

A Britain erring between the Scylla of still more sterile sovereignty or the Charybdis of EU withdrawal is certainly not the leadership model Europeans need for the high seas of the 21st century. The best we can hope for from the United Kingdom is to do as little damage as possible.

But where are the leaders the rest of us EU citizens need?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Oh, US is US, and EU is EU, and never the twain shall meet? Forgive me, Kipling, but it will be interesting to see what my new acquaintance The Worden Report makes of his comparison of federalism in the United States and the European Union in the end. In my humble opinion, Europe has substantially more than a healthy dose of Anti-Federalist (News)Papers for the challenges of the 21st century, especially in the English language.