Friendless Britain? Difficult times lie ahead

Last Friday marked another turning point in Britain’s relationship with the EU. After hours of marathon talks at the European Council meeting in Brussels, 26 member states agreed on changes to the treaty of Lisbon that would potentially save the eurozone. Members agreed to stricter budget rules and a stronger fiscal union. All member states that is, except for Britain who effectively vetoed the offer on the table.

By vetoing the proposed treaty change, David Cameron has taken a risky gamble. Cameron argues that the amendment was not ‘in Britain’s national interests’ and that he was safeguarding the City of London (the same City that depends on business from EU member states and therefore should expect some input from those member states when it comes to regulation).

Sources claim that Cameron sought a separate legally binding protocol to protect the City of London from further EU financial regulations, protection for US financial institutions based in London that do not trade with the rest of Europe and an agreement that any future changes would require the unanimous backing of  every EU member state. It can come as no surprise that the other EU member states found these demands for preferential treatment unreasonable and were unwilling to compromise. Had Cameron negotiated harder, longer and smarter he may well have reached a better deal for the City and a compromise that was acceptable for Britain and other EU member states. After all, isn’t a deal that saves the Euro in Britain’s interests too?

By playing his trump card too early Cameron has used his veto but stopped nothing. The planned treaty amendment will steam ahead. As the Centre for European Reform point out, Britain has never been outvoted on a single piece of EU financial legislation. The EU will continue to move forward and Britain has been left behind. David Cameron can at least take some comfort in the fact that the die-hard Eurosceptic fringes of his party will see his performance at the European Council meeting as victorious. Cameron’s decision is bitterly disappointing. For forty or so years, Britain has operated a successful foreign policy that has allowed it to build good relationships with its European neighbours. A critical element of that foreign policy was that Britain was there, sat at the table when EU bodies made decisions. Now Britain’s position has been weakened with less influence amongst those neighbours and it is viewed as an outsider, a difficult and reluctant partner.

Britain has not left the EU and nor is it likely to do so. It remains part of the single market, albeit from a marginalised and isolated position. Less than two months have passed since MPs voted overwhelmingly not to hold a referendum on EU membership but the future of UK-EU relations looks grim, particularly while David Cameron is Prime Minister.


3 thoughts on “Friendless Britain? Difficult times lie ahead

  1. Pingback: Britain stands at forefront in a potential Eurozone collapse |

  2. Well written article. Although I take issue with the implication that we should have more regulation imposed on the City of London simply because business comes from EU member states. With markets as shaky as they are I do wonder whether more regulation is what is needed. Furthermore the idea of the transactions tax worries me in that it would disproportionately effect this country as oppose to other countries that rely less on international financial institutions. If these businesses are taxed more, will they simply not move to a more business friendly country (ie Switzerland) and take their jobs with them? Car industries have had to be bailed out around the world, maybe we should tax them to behave more responsibly? Not sure if Germany would like that. Is there also not a danger in the EU tax being used to bolster the Euro? A currency that we do not support? Surely any regulation imposed on companies (financial or otherwise) would be more effectively imposed on a national level? The EU wide Carbon Cap and Trade Scheme for instance as far as I know, has had trouble with enforcement.

    Also do you have absolutely no problem with the EU commissioners summoning in national budgets at will? I think this is a worrying amount of power to hand away. As is the idea of imposing sanctions on struggling states. Imposing a fine on a bankrupt person is surely not productive, the same must be true for states. Furthermore, would France and Germany accept sanctions if they lost their credit ratings (fairly likely with France)?

    Personally I think our party needs to be more open and honest with Europe. Where do we want to go with it and why? What is European integration as Clegg describes it? And if it is so important, why will we not allow the public to have a vote about our membership within it? Or even vote on new treaties changing the very concept of what the EU is? The only way we can make the EU relevant to people is to make it as transparent and open as possible.

  3. Pingback: Britain and the Eurozone – A Political Nightmare | Day in the life of a Busy Gal…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s