Reply to: The beginning of the end for Cameron?

[BlasterBates]

No, as I recall John Major signed the Maastricht treaty, and the Eurosceptics didn't applaud him for it, they ended up wrecking his government. He famously called them bastards for it.

Margaret Thatcher signed the main treaty which was the Single European Act. That is where the UK gave up it's "sovereignty", the Maastricht treaty was mainly about the single currency, which the UK didn't sign up to, but even though Margaret Thatcher signed away Britain's sovereignty it was John Major who got the boot by the "bastards" because he "didn't swing his handbag around"; even though he conceded nothing. It does seem Cameron will probably get away with a pro-European stance, as Margaret Thatcher did, as long as he blusters out some anti-European rhetoric.

The single European Act

The Treaty was drafted with the aim of implementing parts of the Dooge report on institutional reform of the Community and the European Commission's white paper on reforming the Common Market. The resultant treaty aimed to create a "Single Market" in the Community by 1992, and as a means of achieving this adopted a more collaborative legislative process, later known as the cooperation procedure, which gave the European Parliament a real say in legislating for the first time and introduced more majority voting in the Council of Ministers.[1] Under the procedure the Council could, with the support of Parliament and acting on a proposal by the Commission, adopt a legislative proposal by a qualified majority, but the Council could also overrule a rejection of a proposed law by the Parliament by adopting a proposal unanimously.[2]

i.e. the UK gave up it's rights to the EU.

[Doggy Styles]

For the Eurosceptics to prove they're rational will have to ensure this doesn't happen. I don't think they will; they applauded Margaret Thatcher when she signed away most of the UK's powers which as you know is the Maastrict treaty. But they accepted it because she waved her handbag around and made Eurosceptic rhetoric when she did it.

No, as I recall John Major signed the Maastricht treaty, and the Eurosceptics didn't applaud him for it, they ended up wrecking his government. He famously called them bastards for it.

[d000hg]

But we don't know yet if it is irrevocable - Most likely behind the scenes EU officials and foreign leaders are still putting pressure on the UK and making offers and this that and the other, and almost as likely (IMHO) that Cameron and co might sneakily start backtracking.

Well if they make a better offer and he accepts it, then he got what he wanted to start with - maybe walking away is just a tough bargaining tactic.

[Doggy Styles]

The eurosceptic squeals are economic and based on history, so dont try and pull that one. It is interesting that Europhiles NEVER argue a logical point on supporting the EU or the EURO, they instead try to marginalise critics by calling them nationalistic, and talk about being in or being out and other meaningless cliches. Take for example the EURO. The Eurosceptics have been proved right from the moment it started. Not only have they been proved right but they actually explained why they thought it would not work rather than make throwaway predictions. Again they have been proved correct.
Furthermore, sceptics are faced with hard facts about the competence of the EU who's accounts let us remember have not been signed off by auditors for 16 years. So this stuff about sceptics being driven by emotion is a complete lie.

Absolutely.

Particularly the meaningless cliche of being 'left behind' or 'isolated'.

[BlasterBates]

The eurosceptic squeals are economic and based on history, so dont try and pull that one. It is interesting that Europhiles NEVER argue a logical point on supporting the EU or the EURO, they instead try to marginalise critics by calling them nationalistic, and talk about being in or being out and other meaningless cliches. Take for example the EURO. The Eurosceptics have been proved right from the moment it started. Not only have they been proved right but they actually explained why they thought it would not work rather than make throwaway predictions. Again they have been proved correct.
Furthermore, sceptics are faced with hard facts about the competence of the EU who's accounts let us remember have not been signed off by auditors for 16 years. So this stuff about sceptics being driven by emotion is a complete lie.

If Cameron allows EU institutions to enact the new treaty, there will be no difference than if the UK had signed up to it. Lets see what he does, if the Eurosceptics swallow that one then either they're incredibly stupid, or they're simply playing to the gallery with a fairly toothless strategy.

If this is the case it would be ironic indeed if the Eurosceptics were happy with a situation which pro-Europeans think is a perfectly acceptable. Doesn't that sound like a defeat? It does to me. What would they have achieved with this veto? answer absolutely nothing. The veto only has meaning if the EU institutions don't enact it.

For the Eurosceptics to prove they're rational will have to ensure this doesn't happen. I don't think they will; they applauded Margaret Thatcher when she signed away most of the UK's powers which as you know is the Maastrict treaty. But they accepted it because she waved her handbag around and made Eurosceptic rhetoric when she did it. Same thing here Cameron coming out with rhetoric, the Neanderthals on the back bench cheering and then soaking their brains in whiskey, and in the back rooms business as usual.

All toothless hand waving and blustering. Still it's what people want to read in the newspaper, which is the whole point of it.

[DodgyAgent]

Yep I think this is exactly what is going to happen. The key is to allow the Eurozone to let them use the EU structures. If they do that it may get smoothed over when no-one is looking. I think the Eurosceptic squeals are more emotional than rational, so as long as they can gloat about the veto they may not notice/mind if it all goes through the back door.

The eurosceptic squeals are economic and based on history, so dont try and pull that one. It is interesting that Europhiles NEVER argue a logical point on supporting the EU or the EURO, they instead try to marginalise critics by calling them nationalistic, and talk about being in or being out and other meaningless cliches. Take for example the EURO. The Eurosceptics have been proved right from the moment it started. Not only have they been proved right but they actually explained why they thought it would not work rather than make throwaway predictions. Again they have been proved correct.
Furthermore, sceptics are faced with hard facts about the competence of the EU who's accounts let us remember have not been signed off by auditors for 16 years. So this stuff about sceptics being driven by emotion is a complete lie.

[Doggy Styles]

Not sure about the beginning of the end:

"Conservatives have overtaken the Labour opposition in an opinion poll for the first time this year, enjoying a bounce on the back of Prime Minister David Cameron's veto of a new European Union treaty, the latest Reuters/Ipsos MORI poll showed on Wednesday.

The rise in support for Cameron's Conservatives is all the more remarkable given Britons' increasing pessimism on the economy, with only 12 percent expecting it to improve in the next year, the lowest figure since the credit crunch began to bite in September 2008.

Support for the Conservatives rose by seven percentage points to 41 percent, while backing for centre-left Labour slipped two points to 39 percent."

[Arturo Bassick]

Yep I think this is exactly what is going to happen. The key is to allow the Eurozone to let them use the EU structures. If they do that it may get smoothed over when no-one is looking. I think the Eurosceptic squeals are more emotional than rational, so as long as they can gloat about the veto they may not notice/mind if it all goes through the back door.

That might just be it. The UK then gets to be involved in any negotiations and has a veto or opt out on any given policy.

[BlasterBates]

But we don't know yet if it is irrevocable - Most likely behind the scenes EU officials and foreign leaders are still putting pressure on the UK and making offers and this that and the other, and almost as likely (IMHO) that Cameron and co might sneakily start backtracking.

Yep I think this is exactly what is going to happen. The key is to allow the Eurozone to let them use the EU structures. If they do that it may get smoothed over when no-one is looking. I think the Eurosceptic squeals are more emotional than rational, so as long as they can gloat about the veto they may not notice/mind if it all goes through the back door.

[AtW]

What else could they have done, after the election? Presented as they were with the once-in-a-lifetime chance to make a coalition, potentially with either of the other parties, if they failed to do so then they would never be taken seriously after that.

They did the right thing to get into coalition but they forgot that they were a junior partner, yet they acted as if they got veto on everything.

It was Lib Dems (in my view) who caused increase in CGT and prevented taper relief coming back, it's them who object to reduction on taxes - effectively they blocked new Govt to make changes necessary to make this country competitive and so far it's not much difference to Nu Liebor winning elections (unless you are a banker - NL would certainly take harsher approach which I'd agree with).

Cameron should pick the phone and book a meeting with Her Majesty at the earliest possible date to dissolve the Parliament to elect new Govt with majority that will make it effective, even if that Govt is Nu Liebor.

Clegg is a dead man walking - the reason you don't hear his party members wishing to replace him is because nobody wants his position.

[doodab]

This could be the making of Clegg IMO.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Clegg and Lib Dems are finished. Clegg now has to suck up to Europe and hope they reward him with a cushy number in 2015.

Lib Dems will not see power for a generation.

Then they have more reason than ever to curse the unfairness of the British electoral system.

What else could they have done, after the election? Presented as they were with the once-in-a-lifetime chance to make a coalition, potentially with either of the other parties, if they failed to do so then they would never be taken seriously after that. And, while for various reasons they had to go through the motions, they dared not make a coalition with Labour: both Labour and the voters would see them as doing nothing more than allowing the Labour Government to continue, so Labour would walk all over them while in government, and the voters would at the next chance they got. The LibDems could do nothing but make a coalition with the Conservatives, short of Cameron playing so hard that they had a get-out from accusing him of not being serious.

[OwlHoot]

Whether history shows him to be right or wrong, I do admire a PM actually making a tough call.

But we don't know yet if it is irrevocable - Most likely behind the scenes EU officials and foreign leaders are still putting pressure on the UK and making offers and this that and the other, and almost as likely (IMHO) that Cameron and co might sneakily start backtracking.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Clegg and Lib Dems are finished. Clegg now has to suck up to Europe and hope they reward him with a cushy number in 2015.

Lib Dems will not see power for a generation.

WHS - Clegg will sit it out no matter how bad it gets because he must realise the next election is the end of his career.

[BlasterBates]

Firstly I think people in the UK underestimate the influence the EU has on states outside the EU:

Britain is tightly locked into a system of European regulation in which decisions taken in Brussels in setting common standards are also be applied by countries outside the bloc. That even applies to those that have no intention of joining, such as Norway and Switzerland, because their economies are so interlinked with those of EU nations.

Cameron

I see this first hand in Switzerland. EU rules and regulations dominates their political debate as much as it is in the UK. There are just as many anti-EU sceptics in Switzerland foaming at the mouth that they're selling out, and their economy will be just as much in the sh*te if the Euro implodes as Germany.

Secondly in the UK they underestimate that the UK was up until now highly respected and got an awful lot of concessions so they could stay on board; the rebate springs to mind. The UK isn't in Schengen, but Switzerland is! and that isn't because Switzerland wanted to be.

In other words if the UK were to leave the EU it would change very little indeed, but without the advantage that the UK can shape the debate. The biggest employer in the City is Deutsche Bank and that bank will be affected by Eurozone legislation, regardless of what rules the UK has, just as an example, there are many more.

If you do business in the EU you're affected by the rules, and over 50% of the UK's trade is with the EU, so it's fait a compli, you have to live with it, but surely better to influence it than have it imposed on you.