Labour and the Euro summit

pqrdef

sims01 wrote: »

But what it asked for instead was an incredibly wide opt-out from something entirely unrelated to the proposals being discussed (i.e. any EU banking regulation at any point in the future, the treaty change proposal on the table does not even contain any provision for banking regulation).

And according to Nick Clegg, the things Cameron was asking for were never discussed at the main meeting at all. Evidently Cameron raised them at his private pre-dinner chat with Merkozy, and was told "no dice", and decided to play tit-for-tat. Perhaps that's his idea of how to conduct negotiations, in which case, we really need somebody else.

Only thing is though, treaty changes would have had to be ratified by a whole bunch of parliaments and referenda. Cameron has handed Merkel, on a plate, just the perfect excuse to short-circuit all that with the intergovernmental agreement, setting a dangerous precedent. And joy of joys, as a bonus, the finance ministers' monthly meetings won't have any annoying Brits around.

So Cameron comes away with less than nothing and Merkozy must be laughing fit to bust. Very possibly they plotted to provoke Cameron into using the veto.


But the silliest thing is, Cameron has snookered himself and all future Tory PMs with the referendum law. If at any point a Tory PM has to put treaty change proposals on the table, he can't oppose them, nor can he support them. Whoops.

And Cameron didn't do himself any good with the last Commons vote on Europe, where he imposed a 3-line whip but didn't make it a resigning issue. This allowed the rebels to discover their strength. And now they're on the warpath, demanding things that Cameron knows he can't give them, much though in his heart he'd like to.

dshart

What is the point of having a treaty where everyone has to agree to changes, but when someone disagrees the rest just make up another treaty? So now when the 26 do their own thing what happens if another issue comes up where someone disagrees? does it then become 25 and so on down the road. But this time they have put in majority voting so if just a few dont agree then its just hard luck you have no choice but to accept it or leave the EU.

At the end of the day there was a treaty in place that required all members to agree to any changes, to forge ahead with a change without total agreement is a breach of the original treaty agreement. If they can do that now who is to say they will not do it the next time it suits them. Remember it was Germany and France who were the first to breach the budget deficit rules of the EU in the last financial crisis.

I always used to think of myself as more pro Europe than against it and thought working towards more European integration in the future was good, but seeing how they carry on makes me realise more and more that European unity is just an ideal that can never be achieved as there are too many ideological differences between the member states.

sheffield_lad

dshart wrote: »

What is the point of having a treaty where everyone has to agree to changes, but when someone disagrees the rest just make up another treaty? .

Cameron looks like he has a trump card with no European instruments being able to be used due to it being a veto meaning mercozy have to either create a new European constitution for all 26 (we are talking years not months),

or.......

Come back to the table and negotiate with Cam!! I like it he is in the driving seat, talk of isolation now looks nonsense.

Finally we have someone who can stand up to the frogs, I dare not imagine what would happen with the weakling at the table.

Also nice to see most of the nation is behind him, although pity the BBC are so pro Europe it would be niice for the balance to come back in their reporting.

julieq

Good article from Gavin Hewitt making many of the same points I have been.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16136004

Arguing hypothetical cases on the Euro is pointless and the history of Europe could have been changed at many points by many actions. We are where we are and it's certainly not clear to me that we're in any worse state outside the negotiations than inside.

Graham_Devon

Ed Milliband is now suggesting that Cameron using his veto failed, therefore Cameron had failed us.

Apparently it failed because it didn't put a stop to the rest of the 26 nations.

Apparently using the veto was bad for britian. Bad for trade, bad for jobs, bad for politics and left us standing alone outside in the cold.

However....and the important bit!!! Ed Milliband stated he would also have used the veto. You couldn't make it up.

dunstonh

Technically, he didnt actually use the veto if I understand it correctly.

robmatic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ed Milliband is now suggesting that Cameron using his veto failed, therefore Cameron had failed us.

Apparently it failed because it didn't put a stop to the rest of the 26 nations.

Apparently using the veto was bad for britian. Bad for trade, bad for jobs, bad for politics and left us standing alone outside in the cold.

However....and the important bit!!! Ed Milliband stated he would also have used the veto. You couldn't make it up.

I think the important bit is that Ed Milliband is a pillock. And clearly has zero principles.

Mind you, Ed Balls is even worse.

sheffield_lad

robmatic wrote: »

I think the important bit is that Ed Milliband is a pillock. And clearly has zero principles.

Mind you, Ed Balls is even worse.

The weakling and the bully, yet the weakling is the one in charge! lol

does anyone SERIOUSLY think this guy is electable other than the unions?

IronWolf

pqrdef wrote: »

And according to Nick Clegg, the things Cameron was asking for were never discussed at the main meeting at all. Evidently Cameron raised them at his private pre-dinner chat with Merkozy, and was told "no dice", and decided to play tit-for-tat. Perhaps that's his idea of how to conduct negotiations, in which case, we really need somebody else.

Only thing is though, treaty changes would have had to be ratified by a whole bunch of parliaments and referenda. Cameron has handed Merkel, on a plate, just the perfect excuse to short-circuit all that with the intergovernmental agreement, setting a dangerous precedent. And joy of joys, as a bonus, the finance ministers' monthly meetings won't have any annoying Brits around.

So Cameron comes away with less than nothing and Merkozy must be laughing fit to bust. Very possibly they plotted to provoke Cameron into using the veto.


But the silliest thing is, Cameron has snookered himself and all future Tory PMs with the referendum law. If at any point a Tory PM has to put treaty change proposals on the table, he can't oppose them, nor can he support them. Whoops.

And Cameron didn't do himself any good with the last Commons vote on Europe, where he imposed a 3-line whip but didn't make it a resigning issue. This allowed the rebels to discover their strength. And now they're on the warpath, demanding things that Cameron knows he can't give them, much though in his heart he'd like to.

Cameron had nothing to lose, nothing ventured nothing gained. It honestly made very little difference to us whether this was part of a treaty or an outside agreement because it doesnt affect us directly. The veto has been very popular with the public and im sure Cameron is glad he did it.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Its popular with the public because they know very little. Amongst the business community there has been a lot of alarm at the notion that the EU will carry on without us leaving Britain with little input to the union other than our financial contributions. As the fal-out of this one permeates people's conciousness, I doubt the initial "Cameron did gud" opinion will stick.

What I do love is the change in position from Cameron on city regulation. He spent three years complaining that Brown was regulating the city too tightly and that he'd deregulate. He then spent two years saying Brown had regulated the city too loosely and he'd regulate. He then spent 18 months as prime minister saying Brown regulated the city too loosely whilst doing nothing to tighten regulations. And now finally he's binned our relationship with the EU to protect its deregulated nature vs EU proposals to regulate finances so as to avoid the next crash. Glad his position on regulation is nice and clear. No wonder that having spent no efforts trying to line up EU allies with his proposals they told him to stick it.