The man who said NO to Europe

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

The EU summit about the financial crisis passed last night. Cameron was the central figure there. He used the British right to veto the new deal, and this way he simultaneously isolated his country and earned a lot of praise inside UK. Now Britain may lose its influence in the EU, but he might've won some respect in his country. Tit for tat, I say?

A chorus of praising voices met his decision to block the EU's agreement for restructuring the Union. Most of the praise came from the right - no surprise. "At long last", Lord Tebbit said (he used to be on Thatcher's cabinet as advisor). He argues that Cameron had the guts to do what John Major couldn't, when the Maastricht agreement was being signed.

The jubilant atmosphere reigns all over the British media. The Daily Mail tabloid, one of the most vocal anti-EU voices, applauded Cameron for the "bold decision". It claims this is the start of a new era of reconsidering Britain's relations with Europe. A comparison was made between Britain's situation and that of a humiliated housewife in a failed marriage, an abused wife who constantly threatens to flounce out of home but never has the courage to do it. "Now that wife has made the first step", hoorah. That was the sentiment in the Daily Mail, and they weren't alone.

The conservative blog ConservativeHome called Cameron "The man who said NO to Europe". The influential blogger Tim Montgommery even compared Cameron to Churchill. That's the biggest compliment one could ever get in Britain, mind you. And all of this praise is obviously a very timely and very needed boost for Cameron, who was sinking in a lot of scandals lately. Before the EU summit he promised to fight like a bulldog for Britain. That was a clear indication that he wanted to look like Churchill, because in Britain "bulldog" is usually associated with the legendary prime minister.

But let's keep in mind that not 100% of the British are against Europe. Some are warning of the potential dangerous repercussions from the chosen anti-EU stance, and I think those warnings ought to be heeded as well. No surprise, most of them are coming from the left-center direction. The leftist Guardian says Cameron's decision has erased 50 years of consistent UK policy. Sure, UK did a lot by opposing the French-German domination in Europe, but now it may become irrelevant and isolated, and lose its last traces of influence on the continent.

Apparently the politicians on both sides of the divide are realizing that this EU meeting was a turning point for their country. Britain was seeing itself as a pariah, a persona non grata in EU, and now the 26-to-1 vote on the issue about the new fiscal union was like a shock to them. Now it's official: Britain is alone.

There are already shrieking voices raising their pitch about "Cameron's guilt", some of them coming even from within the ruling center-right coalition. "A black day for Britain and Europe", lord Oakeshott from the liberal democrats said. "We're not in the room while the big decisions are being made". And his fellow partyman Chris Davies, EMP, outright accused Cameron of treason. Nick Clegg, the leader of the liberal-democrats and Cameron's deputy-PM, was doing his best to defend his leader in Brussels. Meanwhile, the opposition Labour party is of course very critical of Cameron. They accused him of betraying the national interest. "The UK just jumped into a row boat with Hungary next to a 25 nation supertanker. That's weakness, Not strength", the former foreign minister David Milliband tweeted.

But all those screams and accusations aside, Britain's NO was a logical consequence from the internal debate in Britain itself. And it's becoming obvious that this debate has strayed away from relevance in the last years. Cameron himself poured oil in the fire when he was in opposition, he simply removed the Tories from the group of the European conservatives. You don't just do that and expect no consequences. You lose relevance and connection. This way he showed how incompatible the Tories were with Europe. In the British press Brussels is being portrayed as Britain's top enemy. EU officials are complaining that their talks with British journalists have become useless because the journalists are always looking for confrontation. That's not an atmosphere where anything constructive could come out. The course was set for a long time.

Now the Euro-sceptics are hoping this veto will be the first step to leaving the EU. And frankly, this hope is shared by the other side too - many EMPs and reps of the EU commission and even leaders of member states are just tired of the constant British blocking attempts. But if you ask me, this divorce is very unlikely to happen. Not a chance. In fact UK would rather not lose their influence, or they'd become an island under blockade, and this time not in a military situation. In fact UK is preparing for their next battle on Brussels turf. Cameron's government will insist for guarantees that the new parallel structure, this new fiscal union, won't breach the EU legislation. Because suddenly they care about the EU legislation so much. But I can understand them - Cameron said it clearly at the EU summit: "This agreement does not correspond to the British interests". Which is why he voted "No".

Now Cameron has to prove at home that he still has some influence in Brussels. And to prove in Brussels that Britain still cares about Europe. Tricky task. Meanwhile Merkel and Sarkozy continue to play nice and promise that these relations are "just excellent". Like we believe them? OK, that's diplomacy. But as far as the public approval, Cameron still has a lot of work to do. He has to convince the public that he's not isolating his country from EU, and certainly not doing these steps just to please the Euro-sceptic majority in the lower chamber, but instead he's just being Britain's bulldog. If that image gets substituted with the notion of an incompetent statesman, it'll be his political death.

But at least for the time being the focus of the negative emotions is conveniently away from Cameron. Everyone is focused on their fave exercise: hating France. Sarkozy is now the demon (he does kinda look like a gnome, mind you). Sarkozy outright accused Cameron of trying to sabotage the EU summit, and some British media claim he refused to shake Cameron's hand [see video]. The Sun and Daily Mail published footage as evidence. They showed Cameron stretching his hand to the approaching Sarkozy, and Sarkozy just bypassing him and rejecting the gesture. Cameron's smile then freezes on his face. That probably says it all. Or maybe not.

Other footage shows the situation in a different light. Cameron is seen giving a friendly back-tapping, while the two are walking past each other. But this of course didn't prevent the British TVs from showing the situation from their chosen standpoint, many many times. The Daily Mail came out with an article calling Sarkozy "Le Snub".

But all of this doesn't matter. What matters is that Europe is obviously going on a new road, or at least trying to, and whatever that road is, Britain doesn't want to go there. And it shouldn't be surprised that this will have the respective consequences for Britain. It's their rightful choice. Meanwhile, London may lose its primary position as a financial capital of Europe, to Frankfurt. And at these times when every penny in the treasury matters, this could be the game-changer which would eventually compel Britain to put its tail between its legs and return to Brussels like a good puppy. The alternative is to rely on USA to save their ass again. But that might turn not so possible, certainly much more difficult than it was during WW2. Sorry for the improper comparison, but soon things may really start to look that way.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I expected this to be about Finland, not the Tories. The Brits wanted to act like they're not in Europe, now they get what they asked for. If they didn't want that, it's too late now.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

It's never too late. No single policy is irreversible, even within the same government term (although this happens extremely rarely).

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I might also add that given Churchill broke the British Empire in both his terms and saddled Britain with Cold War responsibilities it was never able to measure up to, comparing Cameron to Churchill's in a sense a backhanded compliment at best.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

No European country is big enough to be a factor on its own and force their interests upon others, not even France and Germany, and surely not Britain. Europe's natural way is toward federalization, and it will be achieved at some point, through one form or another. The current form may suck and may have some fundamental flaws, but that means it needs amendments, not complete scrapping off because the alternative is much worse.

Of course anyone could opt for staying outside of the team, but when there are several groups on that team, it's always bad to be on your own without reliable allies to lean upon. Britain's only natural ally so far remains the US - a remote country which doesn't care about anybody else but itself, and which has been living beyond its means for quite a while, and is being indirectly and continuously bailed-out and supported economically by even more remote countries (who knows for how much longer), an ally with huge financial and structural problems of its own, and an ever diminishing international weight. So the Brits would better carefully consider who they'll be teaming up with in the future.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Eh, Europe was more territorially united before 1914 and its political tradition since then has not been greater unity but a bewilderingly greater fragmentation. The UK certainly made a bad choice in allying with the USA for UK interests, but the USA was never interested in perpetuating the British Empire. It remains to be seen whether Europe will really make the EU both a fiscal and a political union or if it just wants the former, which without the latter will only end in disaster. And it only ends in disaster because the interests of different states are almost never always reconcilable which means no fiscal union can endure a clash of rival interests.

[cill-ros.livejournal.com]

Why the pronouncement that any action taken by any country that is not France or Germany in its own interest is automatically "anti-EU", and they must be taught a lesson in some form? That sounds terribly anti-democratic and authoritarian to me, and the WW2 comparison in the original post certainly promotes that idea.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

That's what the general sentiment has been in the UK for a long time, and is certainly works both ways - somehow anything that comes out of Europe is a bad idea, and a stomping on Britain's sovereignty, regardless of the fact that many decisions in Europe tend to be taken by a whole host of countries, each of them with their interests and most of them seeking a compromise that would satisfy most, if not all of their interests. Somehow Britain has always preferred to look at itself as both in Europe and outside of Europe, a special snowflake with a special status, and it is at crucial moments like this one when the true ability and willingness to work hard for common solutions that would bring benefit to all, is being seen. Britain could've made their case, instead they chose to play the hurt kid and flounce.

The comparison with WW2 has been made in no other bur the British press itself. It's being invoked every single time anything remotely EU-related gets into the public debate. Somehow Britain always sees a threat coming from the continent, which I understand is a cultural and historic thing. Fair enough. But consistently refusing to play a team game and then complaining that you're being left out is disingenuous and counter-productive. Britain has its voice and its interests, and it's capable of weighing its options and making its point in Europe. But first it has to change its attitude to the debate. Playing the spoiled brat and demanding some kind of special status won't work. Not this time, when the knife is pressed at Europe's throat. Before this might've looked kinda entertaining, but now is not time for jokes and petty games.

I agree that Europe's way of doing its business suffers from some severe malfunctions. I'm not going to say they're saints in this. Shoving decisions down the throat of the smaller members is not a good thing, and it could disenfranchise them at some point, and Germany and France could be left on their own one sunny day. They need to amend their attitude too. So far I'm not seeing anything productive on either side of this divide.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, the comparison's to the British PM whose contributions to the war effort in any occasion British soldiers and sailors acted on their own were disastrous, scuppered British rule over India with a suicidal famine at Japan's military height of power, who bankrupted the UK, and used genocidal means in Africa to suppress colonial revolts, further tarnishing his name. Calling a British PM Churchill's rather less a compliment than it seems, Churchill's record is one that ensured the USA and USSR wound up using European states as cat's paws and leaving the UK a second-rate power now and a third-rate one in the 1950s. It's like comparing a US President to Calvin Coolidge or Woodrow Wilson.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

So the Powdered Poodles(TM) in Brussels are at it again, eh? You're either with us or against us, sonny. Where have I heard that before?

Don't think for a minute that this 26-1 vote is a consensus. Most of these countries, including mine, don't have too many options but to vote along with the strong of the day. Germany and France are calling the shots, or at least they want to believe they are. The rest are just playing along. That's not a Union. It's a not so subtle form of neo-colonialism.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that your country is in a currency board (more than a decade now), initially tied to the Deutschmark, now to the Euro, respectively. That tells a lot to whom you guys are "supposed" to be pledging allegiance.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Some of those in the "with us" camp weren't really with them. Sweden, Hungary, and the Czechs seemed to be saying "we are not against you at this time", which is very different than saying they're for it. In Sweden's case, this was going to be referred to their parliament, presumably to be acted upon right after they get that bill about joining the Euro Zone hammered out.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

The fact that this was done to protect banking interests from a bill that would prevent them doing the exact things that cause the financial meltdown in America and Europe... yeah. Really not happy with my PM right now. If we leave Europe, I'm going to live in Germany or something.

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the City seems to be more and more of a burden for the UK.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

There is something very loathsome in the way the EU decision makers are making their decisions. I cannot put my finger on it exactly but it leaves a bad taste.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

That's just the lizard scent...

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Norway has been out of the EU forever and it hasn't imploded. Then again, I'm sure I'll be answered with the "they're too small" argument, and the "they're too homogeneous" and "they have oil". All nice points, but still not the main criterion. There are all sorts of countries in EU, many of them easily meeting most or all of these criteria. There must be something else. I'd say: smart and simple institutional structuring, open and efficient governing, emphatic populace, and honesty in discussing all the issues. All things that are probably the most difficult things to achieve, ever.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I think you may be on to something here.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Paul Krugman's blog today talked about this treaty.

Kevin O’Rourke has a very good point: what European leaders are describing as “fiscal union” is very nearly the opposite:

With this in mind, the most obvious point about the recent summit is that the “fiscal stability union” that it proposed is nothing of the sort. Rather than creating an inter-regional insurance mechanism involving counter-cyclical transfers, the version on offer would constitutionalize pro-cyclical adjustment in recession-hit countries, with no countervailing measures to boost demand elsewhere in the eurozone. Describing this as a “fiscal union,” as some have done, constitutes a near-Orwellian abuse of language.

Maybe it was always thus, but the relentless wrong-headedness of the Europeans, their insistence on seeing their crisis as something it isn’t, and responding with actions that deepen the real crisis, has been a wonder to behold. In the 1930s policy makers had the excuse of ignorance; there was nobody to explain what was happening. Now, their actions amount to a willful disregard of Econ 101.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting read. What do you think about this situation?

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

He used the British right to veto the new deal, No, he veto the treaty change they wanted. Cameron couldn't have signed it even if he wanted to. He changed the law
There are already shrieking voices raising their pitch about "Cameron's guilt", some of them coming even from within the ruling center-right coalition.
Why is this such a surprise? There are always shrieking voices. Just because people are in the same party doesn't mean they'll agree with what the party leader does. In this case they aren't in the same party. The Lib Dem's are going to be decimated at the next election anyway, so it's not like their opinion counts for anything with the bulk of the electorate. Interestingly their party leader agreed with Cameron. As have a few other senior lib dems.

And at these times when every penny in the treasury matters, this could be the game-changer which would eventually compel Britain to put its tail between its legs and return to Brussels like a good puppy
LOL. Hell will freeze over before that happens.

I think it is too simplistic to say that it is 26 - 1. It may look that way on paper but some countries don't have a choice but to vote with the EU. There are divisions between the countries. This new deal is doing nothing to solve the root problem, it's just papering over the cracks. We'll see how long it lasts shall we? We're on what? Plan 7?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

That's a good point about the 26-1 being only a technicality, as Htpcl explained above.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Then leave the EU. I'm all for the UK leaving the EU and being a small nimble independent nation, just like Norway or Switzerland.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I have to admit, I haven't read much about this package, but from what I saw, there doesn't seem to be anything to make it different from the previous three packages that have been signed this year to rescue the Euro. I did note that the ECB would be stepping up to stabilize things (i.e. to print money until the debts are paid if necessary). This makes me think that Britain will have another chance within a couple of months to participate in the next rescue package, so it's not that big of an opportunity lost.

Unless things change, the Euro will probably be dead within two years (that's eight rescue packages to you and me).

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Ready to bet money on that? ;)