If Britain prefers to be isolated
Britain’s relationship with the EU is relevant to us in Malta not just because we are members of the same club but also because of our long-standing historical ties with the former empire.
So when the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, took the unprecedented step of vetoing (blocking) an important decision that was agreed by everyone else at the EU summit last week, it was bound to draw our attention.
All the other EU countries – including Malta – wanted to change the EU Treaty to insert tougher fiscal rules that wound oblige members to put their financial house in order.
In practice, this would mean that, from now on, all EU governments should balance their budgets and limit themselves to spending no more than what they generate in revenue. At worst, a budget deficit should be of no more than 0.5 per cent, which should be enough to cover for a rainy day.
These are common sense financial rules and it is difficult to understand why anyone would be against them.
Certainly, for those of us who believe in sound public finances as an essential pillar of sustainable growth, they should be welcomed. The fact that they are also necessary to save the euro’s credibility is almost beside the point.
Since this agreement required treaty changes, it needed everyone’s consent. But Britain pulled out its veto claiming that it was not given sufficient assurances on its “national interests”.
These national interests turned out to be a request to exempt the UK’s financial sector from EU rules designed to control abusive behaviour in the financial markets. Again, after the financial turmoil that we have been through, it is difficult to understand why anyone would object to this. Except for the City of London, it seems.
So the remaining 26 EU countries were faced with a stark choice: either to give up the treaty changes and risk the future of the euro or to go their own way without Britain. Sensibly, they chose the latter option.
But this option is fraught with difficulties.
Since no treaty changes can take place without the consent of all countries, the remaining 26 countries could only do this by drawing up a new treaty among themselves outside the EU framework, hence, not requiring the UK’s consent.
This option throws up a host of complications, such as whether the EU institutions can be used to monitor the implementation of the new treaty. This would depend on whether the UK would allow the EU institutions to be to apply a treaty that it opposes. And if the EU institutions are not able to police the implementation of the new fiscal discipline rules, what guarantee is there that they will be respected?
Little wonder, therefore, that Mr Cameron was not the most popular man in the room last Friday.
For with 26 countries determined to go ahead, Britain found itself as the lonely man of Europe, faced with the inevit-able question of whether it should be in or out of the EU altogether.
Indeed, this episode opens the cupboard on the UK’s long-standing love-hate relationship with the EU. And a lot of skeletons are bound to come out of that one.
Depicted marvellously in Hugo Young’s book This Blessed Plot: Britain And Europe From Churchill To Blair, Britain’s relationship with Europe has always been one of uneasy coexistence. It is a fascinating story of constant torture between the hope of “leading from within” and the glory of splendid isolation on the outside, a tantalising prospect for a country that, let’s face it, has never quite come to terms with the loss of its status as a world power.
Having joined the then European Community in 1973 at the behest of the Conservative government led by Edward Heath, as irony would have it, it had to be a Conservative-led government that is now driving the country to the brink of rupture.
A posse of militant Eurosceptic members of the party have capitalised on a public opinion that has long been fed by a voraciously Europhobic press and seem to have cornered their Prime Minister into facing the ultimate existential question of Britain’s place in Europe. This is why they welcomed his “bulldog spirit” in wielding the veto. But, then, snarling bulldogs do not make many friends.
And Britain’s veto may have been a bite too far for its European partners.
Hopefully, it will not get to an exit.
Mr Cameron claims that he is firmly committed to Britain’s membership of the Union because it is in Britain’s interest.
As I write, his deputy, Nick Clegg, leader of the pro-European Liberal Democrat junior coalition partner, expressed his “bitter disappointment” at Mr Cameron’s decision to “isolate” Britain.
Mr Clegg argues that, far from being “bulldog”, wielding a veto in the name of British national interests might well end up undermining the very same interests that it seeks to protect.
Whatever the British decide is entirely up to them. If they choose to go, it would be a sad day for Europe. For them splendid isolation may well be an option. But if they choose to stay, they should not block everyone else from moving ahead.
Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
32 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mark Cassar
Dec 17th 2011, 04:41
QUOTE These are common sense financial rules and it is difficult to understand why anyone would be against them. UNQUOTE The rules were not common sense up to now. The mess that Europe is in was created by most if not all members of the EU. No member state can point fingers. The British PM has gone down a road which for him makes sense in order to win the next general election; but it is doubtful that he would go all the way and remove the UK from Europe. This is not the Europe and the world where the UK can go it alone as in the times of the British Empire. In fact the German Chancellor and French President have also gone down a road which they think will win them their respective next election. It's political pragmatism. The fact that the French and Germans have (at the moment) the majority of the member states is a bonus. However how likely is it that all 24 or 26 or whatever number will come to an agreement soon? March 2012? If only the Europe Union can come up with a definitive conclusion so quickly. Whatever the differing opinions re fiscal responsibility etc., and the best way forward, I admire and respect the fortitude of the British PM.
Carmel Cilia
Dec 16th 2011, 17:37
He spoke too soon today it was announced that two other non euro countries might be joining Briton. It seems that soon the 26 countries would become 24. Europe is anything but united.
Joe Abela
Dec 16th 2011, 14:45
Various correspondents accuse Britain of not being a team player, and what should we then call the defaulters who through their egoism are burdening their partners and putting all european economies at risk??
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 15th 2011, 11:24
Dr.Busuttil does not even begin to understand the frustration and anger the British taxpayer feels towards Europe where money is thrown around like confetti.
The 200 million euro it costs shuttling the European Parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels is just one example-and for what? Pride, that's all-each city wants to have it permanently.
The U.K. signed up to a free European market- it is certainly not going to be sucked back into a Napoleonic Europe as the French President would like it to be.
I've heard one bond market investor liken this latest charade to building a greenhouse while the house burns down- as good a comment as any.
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Dec 15th 2011, 11:14
Cameron did the right choice.
The Eu puppets are only trying to find a scape goat for the mess they created with the introduction of the Euro
Camerons sacrifice will pay in the long run. The Euro and EU will collapse like the old Soviet State
People had enough
Noel Abela
Dec 15th 2011, 09:03
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
Paul Micallef
Dec 15th 2011, 12:10
Well he was a conservative, and look at what happened after the war??? He lost the ELECTION. SOCIALISIM is a philosopy of FAILURE???? HA HA HA, the world ECONOMY is in shit because of our SOCIALIST PHILOSOPY??? No its because of the CONSERVATIVE WAY OF THINKING, that you must break the workers back and suck them dry. I think PN supporters like yourself have got the world upsidedown,
do you think that BANKERS are socialist. Ha ha ha.
Noel Abela
Dec 15th 2011, 14:29
Why does it always have to come down to PL/PN ?? This has nothing to do with local politics.
I am no PN supporter as you claim. In fact the PN has practiced socialism more than the PL ever did!!
All parties in Europe are practicing socialism. Actually the EU is trying to take it a step further and is attempting to convert to communism.
Noel Abela
Dec 15th 2011, 14:34
Oh! and bankers are not Socialist of course. They feed off socialism.
Mrs Connie Deguara
Dec 15th 2011, 04:03
I think Britain did the right choice.I love to know how much the tax payers of Malta will have to pay,for other countries mismanagement.
D. Zahra
Dec 15th 2011, 01:42
Besides reading a full propaganda article, from a pro-EU Pariamentary, may I pose a question... How can Britian be isolated, when having, Australia, Canada, and the USA as trading partners?
All I can say is that this mess, even though banks are culprit, has not started because of lack of regulations. Europe is over regulated, and adding more regulations won't solve anything!
If as Mr Busittil said that these are common sense rules, I can asked him another question... If they are common sense rules, why needing an actual written rule to implement a balance budget?
Noel Abela
Dec 15th 2011, 14:37
Bravo!! Excellent logic.
Tony Berkeley
Dec 14th 2011, 23:59
It is amazing that an MEP like Dr Busuttil cannot even understand the difference between the European Commubity and the EEC!! The Uk wants to be part of the Common Market for trade purposes and not a political group that interfere's in everything else. Every country of any substance will defend its National interest. The French do it, the Germans do it, and together the do it irrespective of any other country's interest. The UK got the guts to use its Veto, other countries are either afraid to take a stand, or like Malta, are prepared to be considered as irrelevant. Even if Cameron signed up, it would not have have been of any consequence because the UK has now passed a law that any treaty that involved taking powers away from our Parliament to Brussels, the people will have a referendum - too many of our rights have already been given away to the Franco-German pact who rule the roost. The people in The UK would never accept that our taxes and budgets are subject to Brussel's approval or meddling. You wait and see, the Uk will not be on its own for much longer, before March, some of the nations who signed, will find out what is really in the treaty, and will not be able to get their governments to agree. Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, and more. The Uk got the guts to stand up and oppose anything that is not in it's national interest, other politicians are not. And besides all this, rhis treaty outside the EEC is not going to solve the current Eurozone problems.
j brincat
Dec 14th 2011, 21:46
"But if they choose to stay, they should not block everyone else from moving ahead"
What an understatement to close with!
(jb).
.
Robert Sproule
Dec 14th 2011, 20:27
Unusually Great Britain is the first to jump into the life raft of a sinking ship, God help those members left whilst the band plays on!
The recent summit has done nothing to address the current issues of the EU members, Sarkozy & Merkel fiddled whilst the EU is burning.
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 14th 2011, 20:13
Just a couple of points-
The U.K. wanted and still wants a free-trade area; not a political union run by unelected bureaucrats from Brussels and
It's a bit rich to tout fiscal rectitude when the E.U. accounts are so full of holes they have not been signed-off for the last 17 years.
Keith Mullen
Dec 14th 2011, 20:01
"If Britain prefers to be isolated"
Britain did not prefer to be isolated and went looking for a deal not a row,with David Cameron was pushed into a corner where he felt he had no choice but to Veto.
Those who question EU democracy just need to look at what part they played in this latest round of "last chance to save the Euro" and sat silent on the sidelines whilst Germany & France lead the talks whilst seemingly the other 15 nations sat and watched,with their role( those in the Euro) to rubber stamp what Angela Merkel & President Sarkozy came up with to save the Euro.
Contrary to what most people may believe not everyone in the UK( me included) wants to see the Euro fall apart ,as the consequences on the Global Economy will be grave.
The European Union was set up as a trading treaty but the hidden agenda has now been shown for what it was always intended to be ..ie Political Union and a United States of Europe with "Fiscal Union" as the 1st step towards it.
I admire Angela Merkel enormously and believe her to be the best political leader in Europe but this attempt to save the Euro I fear will end in tears as it was always flawed and not all European Countries have the work ethic and fiscal policy that the German people have,and how long the German people are prepared to bail out countries remains to be seen.
Either way if the Euro is saved it will have big implications on the economies of the present 27 EU Nations and the folly of allowing the EU to expand and allowing Countries to participate in the Euro( like Greece) is now coming home to reap the reward.
carlos ellul
Dec 14th 2011, 19:58
How dare England stand alone against this un elected and non democratic European superpower? They should bow their heads and don't give a toss about their national interest just like we did when we signed the Dublin 2 treaty. No one question this un elected and non democratic European superpower whose ambition is to capture more lands under its command. Erm does that ring a bell? Let me check the history books. Oh well.
Paul Attard
Dec 14th 2011, 18:47
What everyone has to understand is that this was a no win situation. For the UK to join the consensus there would have to have been a referendum and I can quite certainly with 100% confidence say that the UK population would have rejected it. So David Cameron had no option to take the lesser of 2 evils.
Mike O'Hara
Dec 14th 2011, 15:33
Mr Cameron's prima donna behaviour has more to do with his vulnerable position within his own party. His extreme right is closing in, and he felt he had to be macho; in doing so, he has angered his coalition partners, making his position even more dodgy (watch this space!).
When Charles cites the size of the EU-take from the proposed tax, I'm not sure of the source of this figure. What is clear is that City of London sources now provide 50% of Conservative Party funding; this may explain Cameron's petulant behaviour. Maybe the puppet-masters pulled his strings.
British democracy is wonderful - provided one is among the 1%.
I can't wait to our next break in Malta!
Regards, Mike
Charles Cremona
Dec 14th 2011, 18:22
I read today that this agreement is alreadu unravelling, ,The Irish said that they might have a referendum and if they do it will be voted down, the Swedes and others including Finland and the Netherlands are not sure if they can get it trough their parliaments, In the meantime the Euro crisis gathers momentum, It looks like another summit is in the offing.
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 16th 2011, 17:28
I have never voted Conservative in my life so don't give a hoot about them but in this case I think Cameron is right.
The latest news is that the E.U. has asked the U.K. to send a delegation to observe the talks on saving the euro.
I wonder why?
Gordon McHarg
Dec 14th 2011, 14:59
Latest UK polls CON 41%(+7), LAB 39%(-2), LDEM 11%(-1) (from YouGov), all polls show a swing for the conservatives after the Veto. Most comments outside the EU say that Cameron is right as the EU continually flaunts its own directives. Finally as a politician you could at least get it right that it is the UK and not Britain that is a member of the EU although we joined the EEC after being vetoed for years by the French President De Gaulle (possibly a reason for the origin of the difficult relationship).
Evarist Saliba
Dec 14th 2011, 14:48
I understant that David Cameron's stand is not unprecedented. France, for one, has not hesitated to say "Non" when it suited her.
I also undestand that anything which could have been agreed at last wekend's summit would not have established that "as from today" this or that would happen. Such a claim implies that the processes of negotiations and ratifications are irrelevant. Hardly a democratic position.
I also understand that Malta has put in some provisos which should be taken into consideration during negotiations.
David Cameron chose to say "no" in anticipation of negotiations. I shall not stand in judgement of what made him take that stand, or whether it was a good one. But I would caution against taking public stands against another EU member state when the situation is so fluid and the processes of detailed negotiations and ratification according to national requirements have not yet started.
Charles Cremona
Dec 14th 2011, 14:21
The EU has become an uncompetitive area full of useless rules and regulations and losing competitivness big time against emerging markets like China and India. The UK wants to cut the red tape that hinders competition but the EU keeps bringing in new petty rules and regulations that are having an adverse effect on competition the latest tax that is being proposed is the Financial Transaction Tax, if this is implemented it will devastate the City of London the biggest financial market in the world, of course the Eu will make £30 billion a year from London alone if this tax comes in. No wonder the Brits have had enough, they are the 5th largest economy in the world and they can see that the future is not in the EU but in Asia and Brazil and they want the freedom to trade without hindrance from EU red tape. Now we all know that Mr Busutill is an EU fanatic but he wants to be carefull because with Eurozone convergance Malta will be effected if FTT is brought in also, he has to remember that the Brits are the EU second highest net payers after Germany and if they leave the EU which mainly consists of poor ex communst countries will be a lot worse off.
fred newsome
Dec 14th 2011, 15:05
I certainly think that Charles Cremona as certainly got it right - did you know that the UK has put into the EU 90 billion pounds more than it has got out in the way of grants etc. and it continues to put into the EU 47 million pounds per day - it also imports a lot more from the EU than what it exports - does anybody seriously think that the EU wants the UK to pull out of the gravy train and does anybody seriously think that the Germans and French dont want to sell the Mercedes, BMWs. Renaults etc and if you think Germany and France is doing it for all the little member countries you would be seriously wrong - Frances big 3 banks alone hold nearly 3 trillion toxic debt to say nothing of German banks - if Germany handed over all the banks profits, gave all the pension funds it still would not be enough - also the red tape is as Charles says frightening that is why if Europe isnt careful China will be the king of the world and nobody will be able to catch them and also by the way France as only 3% of the finance market
Patrick Zammit
Dec 14th 2011, 13:13
1) "These national interests turned out to be a request to exempt the UK’s financial sector from EU rules designed to control abusive behaviour in the financial markets."
As far as I know, Cameron was opposed to the introduction of a new tax on financial transactions. The UK, having the highest number of such activities, would have much more to lose than other countries, namely Germany and France. How would the Germans and French react to a new tax on wines and luxury cars (like VW, Mercedes-Benz, Audi & BMW)?
2) "Having joined the then European Community in 1973 at the behest of the Conservative government led by Edward Heath, as irony would have it, it had to be a Conservative-led government that is now driving the country to the brink of rupture."
Most of the UK citizens did not know what they were signing to. They thought that it was some form of free trading agreement and not something that would lead to most of the countries laws being made by an unelected and unaccountable commission. Just as we did not know that EU membership would lead to an explosion in illegal immigration and having to fork out millions of Euro to prop up irresponsible countries which goes against the Maastricht treaty.
Ray de Bono
Dec 14th 2011, 12:59
Well put, Dr. Busuttil. The realities of the UK are also distinct from Malta's, in any case. It will be interesting to see if the UK government coaltion allies will remain so silent given it is a know secret they are totally against this latest 'official' UK position...
Rod Enderby
Dec 14th 2011, 12:04
No Mr.Busuttil, the Uk did not join the "European Community" in 1973, it joined the "Common Market", (EEC) and was assured by Ted Heathat the time that this was purely for trade and not political union.
However, shortly before his death, heath admitted that it had always been about political union and the UK was therefore lied to and would never have voted to stay in the "Common Market" in the later referendum given by Wilson!
Slowly but surely, national powers have been given away to Brussels without electorate approval and the worm has finally turned.
You, may be happy about non elected "Officials" in Brussels taking charge of national budgets and replacing elected Heads of National government as in Italy and Greece, but the UK electorate are not and wish to keep their independence-so much so, that there is now an unstoppable call for a referendum in general on leaving the EU altogether,which will win, when eventually granted.
It won't be a sad day for the UK when it leaves and saves the fifty MILLION pounds a DAY, that it now pays in, and since the UK buys far more from Europe than it sells (trade deficit of 34 BILLION Sterling a year) Europe would be stupid to do anything to disrupt that trade.
Merkel and Sarkozy have to be re-elected by their own electorates next year, and on present showing that is not going to be easy. The Euro could well collapse before then becuse it is the Euro that is the "cancer" and nothing was done last week to address that. Indeed, the IMF supposed package has today collapsed.
John Sutcliffe
Dec 14th 2011, 11:36
What you are all forgetting is the steadily growing cancer that is Brussels.
The EU was supposed to be a union of equals facilitating movement of people and materials to increase trade in order to compete with the giant monoliths of this world such as the US , China , India which all benefit from enormous internal markets as an aid to keeping down the costs of their exports. The idea was a noble and sensible one.
Whay we got , and what most people did not expect is a super government that is seeking to expand its powers to in order to rule Europe.. In order to get Euro funds , countires have to dance to Brussels tune where hordes of over paid unelected bureaucrats(Google "Catherine Ashton" ) come up with ever more stringent regulations .
The EU already forcibly taxes revenues from bank accounts of EU residents who do not provide them with the name of their country of residence. Their utimate goal is a Europe wide payroll tax , doubtless to be called some thing innocuous like the European support levy and levied intially at a very low level say 1/2% . But this will rise slowly over the years once it is accpeted.. Anyone who does not believe this should ask themselves how often governments reduce taxes !
William Flynn
Dec 14th 2011, 11:07
"Britain’s relationship with Europe has always been one of uneasy coexistence". Scratch the word "Europe" and insert "every country" and Dr Busuttil's statement would be closer to the mark.
As to "(Britain) has never quite come to terms with the loss of its status as a world power", I think last Friday at least one British PM did. And when the British have to go back and grovel to be let back in, so will the rest of Britain.
Unless, of course, the British don’t go begging to be allowed in; in which case the coming to terms with reality would be much more painful.
Humble pie would be hard to swallow but stomach bleeding ulcers are much worse.
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 14th 2011, 20:17
An inconvenient truth, is, however that the U.K. is the second-biggest contributor to E.U. funds, bigger than France's input.
Also-so much money has gone missing from those funds in Europe that the accounts have not been signed-off for 17 years.
Still, Croatia might make up for some of the shortfall!
Please choose the reason of your report below: