Cameron appeases the eurosceptics
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to veto a new EU treaty designed to tackle the eurozone crisis has raised questions about Britain losing influence within the EU and becoming increasingly isolated from its partners.
Cameron’s veto has also been interpreted as being designed to win favour from his eurosceptic backbenchers – at the expense of European solidarity.
Cameron argued that any change to the Lisbon Treaty could lead to a financial transaction tax being introduced across the EU, which he opposed, and during the EU summit he insisted on a number of safeguards to protect the City of London, namely that the UK’s financial services industry would be exempt from any new European financial regulations.
However, Cameron never really stood a chance of getting his opt-out as many EU leaders – particularly French President Nicolas Sarkozy – emphasised that much of the blame for the financial crisis was due to a lack of regulation in the financial services industry.
In the end Mr Cameron did not end up getting any special protection for the City of London and the other 26 EU member states agreed to an intergovernmental treaty, or accord, outside the normal framework of the union on greater fiscal integration and tough new budget rules – effectively bypassing Britain’s opposition.
Furthermore, there was no mention of a financial services tax in the draft agreement at the summit, which a number of other countries, including Malta, was opposed to.
So it is really quite difficult to pinpoint anything really concrete which Cameron achieved by vetoing a new treaty, except of course, winning the support of the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party which rather worryingly seems to have become the dominant faction within the party.
Cameron either intended to wreck the treaty from the beginning, knowing that his demands were unacceptable, or he greatly miscalculated by believing that the EU, especially Germany, would go to any length to get treaty change agreed to by all 27.
In any case it was bad day for British diplomacy and it seems that Cameron’s inner circle of Downing Street advisers took charge at the summit, not Foreign Office diplomats.
It has also become evident that Cameron was not very clear about what he wanted and he sprung his demands on his fellow EU leaders in the early hours of Friday morning when a solution to the eurozone crisis was being sought. One central European diplomat was reported by the Financial Times as having said: “We were talking about big things – saving the euro – and he was asking for peanuts. It was not the time or place”.
At the same time Cameron’s veto has caused a rift with the Liberal Democrats, his pro-European coalition partners, with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg saying the veto was “bad for Britain” and could leave it “isolated and marginalised”. Although I still believe the governing coalition will probably survive the full term of this Parliament, I have no doubt that Cameron’s hardline approach at the summit has caused a serious rift between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Analysts are also asking what this veto means for Britain’s future in the EU.
Significantly this is the first time since Britain joined the then common market in 1973 that an EU treaty has been agreed to without British consent. This is bound to damage relations between the UK and the rest of the bloc, lessen Britain’s influence within the union, and give France and Germany an even more dominant role in the EU.
It also has to be pointed out that a marginalised Britain is certainly not in Malta’s interest, as the two countries share many common views in the EU, including over financial services, taxation and the role of the nation state within the union.
Furthermore, many eurosceptic Conservative backbenchers believe that Cameron’s veto signifies the start of a new relationship with the EU, and some of them have actually argued – foolishly in my opinion – that Britain should leave the EU and just remain a member of the single market.
That would be a huge mistake, it would be bad for business and it would significantly reduce Britain’s influence not only in Europe but also the world. Britain’s “special relationship” with Washington, for example, would certainly not be the same if the UK left the EU.
Although Cameron has made it clear he believes Britain should remain a member of the EU, the fact that so many of his backbenchers do not share this view is very worrying. Britain’s veto, furthermore, has already led President Sarkozy to declare that there is now a “two speed Europe”, which is really in nobody’s interest. Le Monde’s headline perhaps best summed up the mood after the summit when it declared: “L’Europe à 27: c’est fini”.
The fact that the accord between 26 EU countries is an intergovernmental treaty and not an EU treaty has raised some questions about whether EU institutions, such as the European Commission and the European Court of Justice – which belong to all 27 member states – can enforce the agreement.
Britain thinks not, which will make the situation even more complicated and create further uncertainty – the last thing the markets need. However, this issue has not yet been clarified, and the sooner it is the better.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alan Taylor
Jan 25th 2012, 14:48
To Quote Joseph Calleja.' I would still like to ask: Why Britain has not totally switched strictly to to the Euro currency like the the rest of the European States did? Do they have a different agenda, or does the UK think they are superior to the other States?'
I don't think that the people of the UK feel in anyway superior in regard to currency. I do feel that having all the differing states tied to a single currency is a recipe for disaster.
If the UK for example were in dire financial straits then the currency (UK Pound) would naturally devalue and that would make our exports and services more desirable and help regrowth. With the single Euro it could cause great difficulty to any 'weaker' country in times of recession as there can be no 'local' devaluation
I was surprised to see Malta join the Euro as I felt that their tourism might well be damaged in times of global recession if linked to a comon European currency. Thankfully, from the reports I read here, Malts is doing well..
Joseph Calleja
Dec 19th 2011, 17:49
I would still like to ask: Why Britain has not totally switched strictly to to the Euro currency like the the rest of the European States did? Do they have a different agenda, or does the UK think they are superior to the other States?
Keith Mullen
Dec 18th 2011, 20:47
Liked the Comment s from the BBC a few days from the Czech minister who after agreeing to the latest treaty..
"Every one has heard of the Loch Ness Monster, but like the Treaty Document no one has seen it".
Within one week of saying that Cameron would be isolated and the UK would be out on a limb,it appears it's not the case,and Mrs Merkel has made it clear that the UK should be involved in the interests of the EU.
In the cold light of day Hungary,Sweden,Ireland are all now voicing concerns that fiscal union could have serious implications on their own economies and are concerned concerned about sovereignty..
The fact is that the UK imports more from the EU than it exports, and new markets with emerging economies are now being talked about like China,India,Russia and Brazil,and frankly most in the UK( not me though) would welcome leaving the EU and like Norway & Switzerland revert to a trade agreement that worked well in the past and say good riddance to the naked self interest of European Parliamentarians and the hot air talking shop that Brussells has now become.
This whole business of signing up to something that is being rushed through is down to the fact that there has been nothing but talk these past few months when in fact nothing has been done for at least 2 years.
That the UK decided to veto was it's right and the way forward is for the 17 Eurozone Countries to solve this themselves,with ALL 17 countries agreeing and not just Germany & France talking with others on the sidelines watching and nodding it through....this is the only way forward
Evarist Saliba
Dec 18th 2011, 18:50
What David Cameron has done in Brussels during the last EU summit must be of interest to Malta, because we are in the EU, and what he did may have reprcussions on the EU, and therefore Malta.
However, the considerations that made him act the way he did, are of less relevance to Malta, though highly imporatnt to the British electorate.
What should be of direct interest to Malta, but somehow seems to have been overlooked in most commentaries that have been written so far, is the position of the Maltese government, supported by the opposition. Malta has expressed disagreement with a few measures that may be suggested as a result of the agreement reached in Brussels.
I would suggest that these are the main points that should be kept in front of the public's eyes.
As I have already said, this does not mean that we should ignore the UK position, or indeed that of any other state, especially those whose support does not seem to be as solid as it was thought to be.
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 18th 2011, 17:05
@ Anthony Manduca
"Significantly this is the first time since Britain joined the then common market in 1973 that an EU treaty has been agreed to without British consent."
No treaty has been agreed as yet, and the 'united' 26 are far from united.
"....that Britain should leave the EU and just remain a member of the single market."
That is what the referendum was about, and what people wanted.
Norway sent the E.U. delegates packing when asked to join, yet still trades with the E.U. I don't hear the Norwegians complaining-quite the opposite in fact.
Also the U.K. has been asked to send observers whilst the others argue it out.
Patrick Zammit
Dec 18th 2011, 16:38
Re the new tax, Metro had this to say:
"The initiative has been proposed to pay for another increase in the eurozone budget.
But because London is the financial capital of the continent, Britain would have to pay up to 80 per cent – or £37billion – of the costs.
Financial services account for 30 per cent of the country’s GDP and city experts predict that if the tax is imposed, 500,000 jobs could be lost."
Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/882101-david-cameron-says-no-to-tax-that-will-cost-britain-37bn-and-500-000-jobs#ixzz1gtuKJw4F
So what Cameron did was just stop Merkozy tax the UK in a most unfair way.
What would Merkozy have said if the new tax were to target luxury cars and fine wines instead?
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 18th 2011, 22:29
@Patric Zammit
The E.U. was looking for a 5 or 6% hike in its budget. Considering so much money has disappeared from its accounts that they have not been signed-off for the past 17 years it's a bit cheeky to say the least!
Charles Cremona
Dec 18th 2011, 14:08
The question is what does Britain get out of the EU ? It costs the country £55million a day for the privilige and that is after rebates, the fishing industry in the north sea which used to be amongst the richest in the world has been destroyed by overfishing, the country has been swamped by millions of European immigrants especially from the east who undercut local wages and take all the jobs, they see their industry being undermined by petty laws from Europe and becoming increasingly uncompetitive and then they see the Euro saga unfolding with no answers in sight, when they see all this I don't blame the Brits for being anti Europe, I am surprised they are still part of the EU as apart from Germany the rest of the Eurozone is going sinking fast. The future now for countries like Britain which after all still has the 5th largest economy in the world is to increase trade with Asia and Brasil and free itself from the EU and its petty rules and regulations, so yes Britain will be better of outside the fast declining EU.
Michael Walter
Dec 18th 2011, 14:00
The British empire may well be dead,but the EU empire is going the same way.The British may no longer rule a vast empire,but at least they attempt to rule their own country,not delegate that duty to a bunch of foreigners.
Without doubt The United Kingdom was a far better place before a clique of European empire builders got their hands on too much power.
John Vella
Dec 18th 2011, 12:34
The British seem to always want to be out anyway. They seem to be stuck in their colonial past. They never and can never really integrate with the rest of Europe. They want their own currency, their own church, their own way in everything. When will they realize that their past Empire is long dead and that they do not rule the world anymore? As ever its conservative psyche pulls back and regresses their whole mindset. Besides the only thing that the French and the English agreed about was the Euro Tunnel. Well so be it. If the English want to always think that they are a superior race and not to be mixed with any race let them have a look at London and see who is English really anymore. Grow up from illusions of grandeur Brits it is about time.
Mr Tony Gatt
Dec 19th 2011, 15:19
@ John Vella,
Sorry, but you seem to be out of kilter with most of these comments. The U.K. taxpayer will jump on any politician who misuses public money- some have gone to jail.
Have you heard of any Eurocrat who has?
Yet billions have disappeared into 'black holes' in European handouts.
France, for all its huffing and puffing pays less inot Europe than Britain does, because under the CAP any Frenchman with half a sheep can claim to be a farmer and get loads of lolly in subsidies.
As someone who pays U.K. tax I'd like to see where my money goes.
Peter Murray
Dec 18th 2011, 10:38
Cameron actually appeased the vast majority of the UK electorate who don't even want to be part of the EU -some 40 million people if polls are to be believed.Also it is now transpiring that he might not be so isolated after all as there may be more dissenters for the Treaty in question who wont sign .It would appear that defending one's interests and actually thinking for one's self is anathema to the majority of EU member states(including ours) and I envy your vast and exceptional insider knowledge of Mr.Cameron's mindset which appears to have supernatural powers.Britain mangaged perfectly well for many years conducting trade and business outside EU membership and this scenario may well resume,indeed flourish, if they exit -as it actually opens more doors for trade and the EU need Britain more then the other way around as a trading partner.In any event ,the reaal issue is the euro and its inevitable demise or at least reduced membership and the undoubted fact that there is no solution being provided to ameliorate this dire situation ,with the only one possible being an orderly exit by distressed countries .A fact refused to be acknowledged or addressed by the EU tyrants and power-mad cabal.
Wenzu Vella
Dec 18th 2011, 13:34
Peter I think you are reliving an old dream when Britain was a power because of its empire. Those days are well and truly over. It has no colonies to dictate preferential treatment for its exports. The British industrial might is just a shadow of what it used to be and for Mr Cameron to play it tough could spell disaster for the British economy.
austen lennon
Dec 18th 2011, 15:28
Well said Peter.... I was one of the European Union's biggest supporters..... but I have now turned against it. We, in the UK, have seen over and over again that the French and Germans are not our partners and are more than happy to hand over their power to some faceless court in Brussels... I am not and many of us are not. The above opinion is just a left wing rant against the Uk.... it will find a small enthusiastic audience in some quarters because Malta is new to the Dictators of Brussels and have not been in the European Union long enough to really discover how it eats away at the Maltese rights.... but they will find out.
Peter Murray
Dec 18th 2011, 10:38
Cameron actually appeased the vast majority of the UK electorate who don't even want to be part of the EU -some 40 million people if polls are to be believed.Also it is now transpiring that he might not be so isolated after all as there may be more dissenters for the Treaty in question who wont sign .It would appear that defending one's interests and actually thinking for one's self is anathema to the majority of EU member states(including ours) and I envy your vast and exceptional insider knowledge of Mr.Cameron's mindset which appears to have supernatural powers.Britain mangaged perfectly well for many years conducting trade and business outside EU membership and this scenario may well resume,indeed flourish, if they exit -as it actually opens more doors for trade and the EU need Britain more then the other way around as a trading partner.In any event ,the reaal issue is the euro and its inevitable demise or at least reduced membership and the undoubted fact that there is no solution being provided to ameliorate this dire situation ,with the only one possible being an orderly exit by distressed countries .A fact refused to be acknowledged or addressed by the EU tyrants and power-mad cabal.
Please choose the reason of your report below: