Background to David Cameron’s negotiations and their outcome, compared to the rationale of his Bloomberg speech (part 2)
The outcome of the negotiations
Well, given how clearly David Cameron laid out the need for fundamental reform of the EU, how did he do with his negotiations?
I set out a few thoughts about this below, which I shall go into in more detail over the coming month or so…. These are the main issues:
1. Protecting the single market in the circumstances of Eurozone and non-Eurozone members.
There are no proposals for structural change to a 2-tier EU. All that has been achieved is a statement that “Britain’s status outside the Eurozone will be protected”. This means absolutely what anyone wants to mean, and is a classic example of Euro-sophistry, especially as Britain is prevented from doing anything in its favour that might conflict with the needs of the Eurozone.
One must remember that, during the negotiations, President Hollande was arguing that nothing should be conceded that might not be in the interests of the Eurozone, and that the City of London should not be given preferential rights. The day after the negotiations were completed, Le Monde and Le Figaro presented the outcome as a success for France.
Furthermore, just a week before Mr Cameron started the final session of the negotiations, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg all clearly re-iterated their clear commitment to keep moving towards ever closer political and fiscal union. These countries are at the very heart of the EU machine, and I find it inconceivable that further changes and treaties (as necessary attempts to save the Eurozone project from collapsing) will not be forced through that will make the UK’s position even more untenable than it is now. Indeed, with the significant majority of EU member states being in the Eurozone, we cannot expect any majority decision in favour of non-Eurozone countries.
For the Eurozone to work, it necessarily depends on political and fiscal union – that is, if it ever does work. Lord [Mervyn] King, former Governor of the Bank of England, has just published a book, The End of Alchemy, in which he states his view that the whole Euro project is “doomed to failure”.
In 1998, William Hague, (for some reason, still part of the In camp), famously said that to be in the Eurozone would be “like being in a burning building with no exits”, and that the single currency could damage the stability of Europe by tying together economies that were too different. He followed this up in 2011 by saying that his earlier comments had been proved right, and that “the single currency would be written about for centuries as a kind of historical monument to collective folly”. Nothing has changed regarding the Eurozone since, and so why does he want to tie us into such folly?
The trouble is that the unelected powers that be in Brussels and Strasbourg necessarily see the survival of the Eurozone as of paramount importance (whether it can work or not), as the alternative is the failure of the European dream which, from the outset, has been the move towards a United States of Europe, as confirmed by the founder member countries just last month, and as envisaged by the 1957 Treaty of Rome. As a result, who knows what lengths they will go to in order try to protect this ill-advised venture? And these pressures will become worse and worse as more countries join the Eurozone, as they will do, given that it is a requirement for any new member state joining the EU to take up the Euro.
If Lord King and William Hague are right, why would we miss the opportunity in June to sidestep the inevitable conflagration when the Euro fails?
It is also interesting to note the almost indecent haste shown in calling the referendum as early as this June, when it could have waited well into next year. The Government specifically called it at the earliest opportunity, which speaks volumes for their lack of confidence about our membership of the EU over the coming months and years – if it was all so good for us, why not give everyone rather more of a chance to evaluate why it is good for us, so that we could enjoy more and more of the same, rather than rushing into an early referendum?
Mr Cameron’s deal allows the UK to call a review of any pro-Euro legislation if it may damage our position. The guarantee of a review in no way guarantees protecting the UK’s position, especially when Euro countries are in such a majority in the EU.
So, I am afraid that I simply do not believe that Britain, outside the Eurozone, has achieved sufficient protection from the pressures that will inevitably be brought to bear in this respect over the coming months and years.
In this respect, the demands in his Bloomberg speech have not been met.
2. Boosting competitiveness
Well, the negotiations concluded with a statement that the EU would work to boost competitiveness. This is an entirely abstract statement, as well as one which has been made before to no avail, and – without any metrics or targets to measure any subsequent outcome – shows absolutely no sign of any major reform in the EU.
The innate obstruction to business in terms of EU bureaucracy might explain why the EU growth has been so negligible over recent years compared to other economies, and why its position in world rankings is in steady decline.
A leopard cannot change its spots…
3. Sovereignty
We hear that the negotiations succeeded in protecting UK sovereignty, because of the “red card” system that is now proposed. For Britain to successfully prevent legislation being forced upon us against the wishes of our Parliament, no less than 55% of member countries have to agree with us in order. Given that, on the 72 motions that the UK has fought in the European Council over recent years we have been unsuccessful in every single case, this so-called reform is, to my mind, meaningless, especially when rather more than 55% of EU members are within the Eurozone. Why else would this percentage have been agreed?
If the UK objects to anything, it has the right “to put forwards its argument”. Well, all of its arguments at the European Council over recent years have been ignored in any case, so there is no significant reform here, if any.
The negotiations produced no outcome that, in real terms, protect British sovereignty.
In this respect, the demands in his Bloomberg speech have not been met.
4. Migration and benefits
Mr Cameron’s achievement was to gain a temporary ‘brake’ on in-work benefits paid to EU immigrants for up to 4 years from starting employment, if the UK can show that EU migrants are “putting an excessive pressure on the proper functioning of its public services”. This arrangement has only been agreed for a period of 7 years before becoming defunct, and so we will be back where we started by 2023. Rather than a total block on such benefits, these are now to be paid on a graduated scale over the 4 years, and so such benefits will start to become available after just 1 year, rather than 4.
It has been acknowledged that, until this agreement has been incorporated into a further EU Treaty, it, this brake is likely to be shot down by any legal challenge to the European Courts, which are only bound by Treaties.
He also had demanded that the payment of child benefits by the UK in respect of the offspring of immigrant EU workers’ children who were still living in their respective countries should be stopped. Well, this was not achieved, although it was agreed that these could be scaled accordingly to whatever the rate of such benefit rules in their country of origin. This arrangement will not be fully in place until 2020.
In these respects, the demands in his Bloomberg speech and the promises of the Conservative Manifesto have not been met.
Conclusion
Well, one can see why the Guardian said that David Cameron’s EU deal was “a triumph only in his own mind". In no way can this outcome be described as the ‘reformed Europe’ that should gain our support – I view the In campaigners continued references to supporting this ‘reformed Europe’ with some disdain.
There is no reform – my claim here is backed up completely by the pledge to move ever closer to a politically and fiscally United Europe made in February by the founder members of the EEC, and by the Five Presidents’ Report last summer.
What is more, whilst I feel that these ‘reforms’ are relatively worthless, we cannot even guarantee that they will be upheld. Whatever the In campaign have said that these reforms have without doubt been achieved, they are still subject to approval by the European Parliament. Indeed, after the announcement of the outcome of the negotiations, Martin Schultz (President of the European Parliament) said that he certainly could not guarantee that the European Parliament would approve the deal. One vice-president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe grouping in the European Parliament said, after the deal, that there was no way that any of their MEPs would support the restriction on benefits for EU workers in Britain. Of course, this agreement will not be put to the European Parliament until after the UK referendum.
So, we might well be back to the position that David Cameron found so unacceptable when he was drafting his Bloomberg speech….. Or if not, we certainly are not much further on……..
A moment to reflect
I apologise, as this posting is later, and longer, than I intended…. Why not pause to consider the almost total lack of reform, whilst watching this, clicking the arrow to play, and maximising the screen….
Coming up
After Barack Obama’s contribution to the referendum debate, my next brief posting will refer to the interference in our affairs by others and, after that, I will set out my thoughts on the security and defence issues.