I woke up this morning to discover history had been made, or so I was told. Europe and the United Kingdom have parted ways. At a summit in Brussels this morning, David Cameron had used our veto for the first time to stop a ruinous financial transaction tax, but he has also isolated the country as a result. Eurosceptics have spent the day rejoicing; Europhiles lamenting.
This blog has been a purposively Euro-free zone: I simply don’t know enough about the ins-and-outs of the European Union to write intelligently on it (assuming I write intelligently on other stuff…). But after reading a lot of the commentary surrounding today’s events, I think there are a number of hard truths to face.
- David Cameron did not veto anything; he and a few other countries simply refused to participate in a (bad) deal.
- The Prime Minister was decisively outmanoeuvred by Nicholas Sarkozy, the most theatrically inept French statesman since Napoleon III, who also had the odd diplomatic success.
- Given that France, Germany, and the United Kingdom fundamentally disagree about the problems of, and solutions for Europe, the first two truths were inevitable.
- Given the third truth, David Cameron chose the least bad option, as it seems the only way this country can gain “influence” in Europe is if it gave up pursuing its own interests and devoted all our energies to pursuing those of France and Germany (which is what The Economist‘s Bagehot and Charlemange seem to be recommending).
- Today, then, was a victory for Nicholas Sarkozy, not David Cameron, but it will be a short-term one: the deal agreed to by twenty-odd countries does not solve the fundamentals of the financial crisis in Europe, and, like the many deals of the last few months, it will probably fall apart as quickly as it was reached.
- The great Julian Lindley-French believes that the United Kingdom needs to begin to separate solving the European financial crisis (which matters to us) from the survival of the Euro (which is partially important) and our membership of the European Union (which looks less and less attractive by the hour).
- If Julian Lindley-French believes we should leave the EU, then maybe we should…
Posted in: Conservative Party, David Cameron, diplomacy, Europe, France, Germany, Great Britain, Nicholas Sarkozy
Lord Palmerston
December 10, 2011
Time for a little bit of gunboat diplomacy methinks…Oh shit! We don’t have a navy anymore.
jedibeeftrix
December 10, 2011
“Given the third truth, David Cameron chose the least bad option, as it seems the only way this country can gain “influence” in Europe is if it gave up pursuing its own interests and devoted all our energies to pursuing those of France and Germany (which is what The Economist‘s Bagehot and Charlemange seem to be recommending).”
But people who use this argument always do so in couched terms, never explicitly stating the consequence of their chosen solution.
What are the consequences of this fantasy they hold, are they willing to turn to the British public and admit the price, the loss of sovereignty, involved in joining France and Germany at the helm of europe?
I ask them to be honest about the implications of these pious mutterings; are they willing to state plainly to the electorate the consequence of being in the first tier, i.e. being in the euro and a driving force in further federalism?
“Today, then, was a victory for Nicholas Sarkozy, not David Cameron, but it will be a short-term one: the deal agreed to by twenty-odd countries does not solve the fundamentals of the financial crisis in Europe, and, like the many deals of the last few months, it will probably fall apart as quickly as it was reached.”
Short term not least because, to follow Peter Oborne’s argument, the veto was used not because cameron demanded repatriation of powers, but because sarkosy would not spare the city of london from the tide of regulation that approaches. When the next ‘permanent’ solution to the euro-crisis needs haggling the smaller countries will be watching france not britain.
“If Julian Lindley-French believes we should leave the EU, then maybe we should…”
I delighted he follows a sensible path on this, but that logic has been apparent for some time, and Cameron’s “no” is most significant for the fact it sets on a different path for the first time, rather than the previous approach of endlessly tugging on the reins.
S Ortmann
December 10, 2011
I’m not sure that catering to its financial sector is in Britain’s best interest.
Its financial sectors’ “strength” is probably part of the reason why Britain’s actually producing industries do not meet the nation’s demand (the UK had a goods+services trade balance deficit for 25 years!).
It’s leeching talent, capital and political attention from the industries which produce the export-capable goods which are so vital for a modern economy.
Aaron Ellis
December 10, 2011
An over-reliance on the financial sector isn’t in our long-term interests, something which the current government recognises and is doing things to remedy. Nonetheless, it is our largest and most important industry NOW, so it is in our interests to protect it: not undermine it and patiently wait a few decades for a more manufacturing-led economy to develop.