Background to David Cameron’s negotiation and its outcome, compared to the rationale of his Bloomberg speech (Part 1)
It seems to me that the starting point in all of this should be the brilliant speech that David Cameron gave in 2013, referred to as the “Bloomberg Speech”. In this, he set out why the EU could not possibly work going forwards, if it tried to combine the needs of those member states within the Eurozone and those without. I am setting out my thoughts on this particular subject in detail, as I believe that it really does emphasize the underlying issues in the debate. I have decided to split this into 2 parts, in order to avoid people nodding off….
In this posting, I am not arguing the position of VoteLeave, Grassroots Out or UKIP but, instead, am setting out the considered thoughts of the Prime Minister 3 years ago.
What he said:
In 2013, he said:
“We have the character of an island nation – independent, forthright, passionate in defence of our sovereignty.” He describes Britain as always having been a country that reaches out, turns its face to the world, and leads the charge in the fight for global change and against protectionism. He describes three major challenges confronting us today:
-
First, the problems in the Eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe. -
Second, the crisis in European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead. -
And third, the gap between the EU and its citizens, which has grown dramatically in recent years, and which represents a lack of democratic accountability.
He definitively stated that, if these issues are not properly addressed, Europe will fail and the British will drift towards the exit.
He said that the Eurozone clearly needs to work, but that that there should be proper safeguards for those countries outside the Eurozone. He acknowledged that Europe’s share of world output is projected to fall by a third over the next two decades, much of the weakness in meeting this competitiveness challenge being self-inflicted. He commented about the over-regulation within the EU.
He also acknowledged that the EU is seen as being something that is “done to people, rather than acting on their behalf”.
He said: “More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the Eurozone. More of the same will not see the EU keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the EU any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same – less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs.”
More of the same will make our countries far weaker rather than stronger, unless fundamental reform is achieved.
He describes the EU as being an organisation whose sclerotic, ineffective nature holds us back. He questions the huge number of expensive peripheral EU organisations that get ever larger, and do nothing to control ever more wasteful expenditure. He queried why, in a single market, there are all sorts of councils, at great expense, but not a single market committee itself.
His second argument was on flexibility. One size will never fit all. And the EU must act with the flexibility of a network, rather than the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc. "Those of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely to make some big institutional changes”.
His third argument was that power must be able to flow back to the member states, not just away from them. This was promised by European leaders at the Laekenen summit in 2003, it was put in the treaty but, a decade later, Mr Cameron declared that the promise had not been fulfilled.
He also rightly argued that there should not be a single European ‘demos’ but, instead, national parliaments should remain as the true source of democracy.
His final argument was for the principle of fairness for countries outside the Eurozone, and the ability for Britain to defend the single market as the Eurozone crisis rewrites the rules on fiscal coordination and banking union.
He recognised that the people in Britain feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to, and that they resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulations, that people feel that the EU is heading for a level of political integration that is far outside Britain’s comfort zone. He said that the British see treaty after treaty changing the balance between member states and the EU, and never being given a say.
He feels that democratic consent for the EU is now wafer thin in the UK, and ignoring this will not change the situation.
"Simply asking the British people to carry on accepting a European settlement over which they have had little choice is a path to ensuring that when the question is finally put, it is much more likely that the British people will reject the EU”.
He admits that the EU is in a state of flux, and that we don’t know what the future holds and what sort of EU will emerge from the crisis. He questions how one can answer ‘what it is exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?’, and that the EU that emerges from the Eurozone crisis will be transformed beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the Eurozone.
Mr Cameron also said "Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we choose to do so”.
What would be a reasonable understanding of his Bloomberg speech?
The clear message of this speech was a call for significant changes in the structure of the EU, especially to address the position of non-Euro countries within a club that necessarily has to make major changes to ensure the survival of the euro. Mr Cameron made clear that if significant reform is not achieved, the EU will fail and Britain will be likely to leave.
This was a clear demand for major reform in the EU. Reform that would in effect create a 2-tier EU, addressing both Euro and non-Euro members’ needs. Reform that would significantly return sovereignty to national Parliaments. Reform that would address the three major challenges facing us, described by him as the problems in the Eurozone, crisis in European competitiveness, and a lack of democratic accountability.
Mr Cameron subsequently vociferously campaigned that he would support Britain staying in a ‘reformed Europe’. Anyone who had taken in the Bloomberg speech would have clearly understood him to use the term ‘reformed Europe’ to refer to the major reforms that he had demanded in 2013.
How was this followed up in the Tory manifesto?
Indeed, David Cameron followed this up with strident comments insisting that he would take back control of our borders and immigration. The Tory manifesto clearly stated that migrants from the EU would not receive any benefits until they had worked for at least four years in the UK, and that no child benefits would be paid in respect of immigrant workers’ children living outside the UK.
The Tories would reform the workings of the EU, which is “too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic”. The manifesto states that “the EU interferes too much in our daily lives, and the scale of migration triggered by new members joining in recent years has had a real impact on local communities”. It also talks of reclaiming powers from the EU, and “stopping terrorists and serious foreign criminals who pose a threat to our society from using spurious human rights arguments to prevent deportation”.
Where are we now?
Well, in my view we are nowhere near the state of EU reform that I imagined that David Cameron was aiming for. I believe that it would be naive to think that such reforms have happened, and the repeated statements of intention of the EU elite to move to 'more Europe rather than less' suggest the opposite. Had his negotiations clearly addressed the reforms he stated as so necessary in his Bloomberg speech, I myself would not be speaking out for Brexit, on the grounds that, following such reform, the status quo argument could prevail. This was a brilliant speech and, if such reforms had been achieved, there would be little appetite for leaving the EU.
However, it was clear to all that the outcome of his negotiations have been anything other than significant. The British press – across the political spectrum – acknowledged that very little had been achieved. Indeed, the Guardian described David Cameron’s EU deal as “being a triumph only in his own mind”.
It seems to me that we simply are not now in a position that the call for reform in the Bloomberg speech has been addressed to any material extent, nor, indeed, have the ambitions of the Conservative manifesto been met.
Moment to reflect on all of this
Why not reflect on all of this in some soothing contemplation, by clicking the arrow to play, maximise the screen, and consider the force of Mr Cameron's arguments, and press 'Done' at the end?
In my next, shorter posting, I shall look at the detail of Mr Cameron's achievements in the February negotiations.