Lucky Cameron!
Peter Watt argues that Cameron got lucky over European negotiations.
10 Dec 2011, 19:05
Was he lucky?
“If one is lucky, a solitary fantasy can totally transform one million realities.”
So said Maya Angelou, and I am wondering if this applies in bucket loads to David Cameron. Of course you need some luck if you are to be a successful Leader. But the events in Brussels on Thursday evening and Friday morning may have rewritten the record books in terms of degrees of luck. I say ‘may have rewritten’ because it is much too soon to be sure. The early newspaper headlines post-summit have broadly been positive for Cameron and only time will tell if this will last.
He set off for Brussels with the taunting of the Labour Leader at PMQ’s in his ears. ‘What powers will he repatriate?’ asked Ed and the PM blustered. His back benchers squirmed as they knew he was blustering and anyway many didn’t think that he could or would deliver anyway. It was why they rebelled in such numbers earlier this year in the Euro referendum vote. So Cameron wanted and needed an agreement to stabilise the Euro. He wanted to be seen as influential. He didn’t want a new treaty that would mean a referendum and ideally he wanted to have some token of claw back of power from Brussels that would slightly appease his own side. All a tough order and expectations would’ve been low for Team Cameron as they packed their toothbrushes.
But he seems to have had a success, so why is he ‘lucky? Didn’t our Prime Minister give those German and French upstarts a bloody nose? It wasn’t luck; they tried to impose their funny Euro regulatory ways on our financial sector and he said ‘veto!’
Well reports emerging from behind the scenes paint a different picture. Well sourced accounts, such as the one in the Economist from Bagehot, tell a story of cock-up. David Cameron was showboating trying to look tough domestically by demanding protections for the City in return for supporting Euro stability plans. But in reality the extra protections weren’t needed as the proposed financial transaction tax for instance couldn’t be imposed without unanimity. He could still have supported the proposals to stabilise the Eurozone without undermining the City but he needed some meat to throw to his sceptical backbenches. Cameron eyeballed his fellow Leaders around the table and decided that they couldn’t do anything without unanimity. That meant that they needed his vote, so he figured he had the whip hand and dug his heels in determined to get his meat. But by now he had annoyed the other Leaders, Britain’s proposals had been tabled very late and patience was running thin. So they vetoed his veto and decided to do their own thing. The ultimate power of the nation state within the EU was at a stroke neutered.
The very thing that that he didn’t want, a two speed Europe with Britain side-lined had happened. And it was a self-imposed disaster. Decisions have and will continue to be taken by the other members that have a profound effect on our economy. And David Cameron has reduced our ability to have any influence. A huge success – not! He should have been criticised from all sides. The pro-Europeans would obviously be upset. But more importantly the sceptics would use this to show how he had been out-manoeuvred. Far from being a success he had been humiliated by the French. Not even the Germans, the bloody French!
But that is not what (at the moment) has happened. Of course the Europhiles are condemning him. And one or two Euro geeks have unpicked the technical and process issues that led to his 5am press conference in Brussels. But otherwise he seems to have not just got away with it but is being lauded! He has been incredibly lucky.
The story right now is not one of humiliation but of David and Goliath. It goes something like this. All the other Euro Leaders tried to gang up on Dave and He toughed it out. We have all been in a situation where everyone seems to be against us. Where the pressure to do what we don’t want to is intense. So we can literally imagine how difficult it must have been to stand up alone to all the other Leaders. And he did it all in the national interest.
He then struck the right balance of regret and resolve at the press conference after the Summit and the result is that newspapers are on the whole praising him for his toughness and Leadership. Poor Ed Miliband is left to condemn Cameron as allowing Britain’s position to be weakened. It may literally be true but is totally at odds with the sense of toughness that now exudes from the PM. It it is Ed who ends up looking weak. ‘Would you have signed Ed?’ they ask. And his reply is either ‘no’ and his attack on Cameron is blunted. Or his answer is ‘yes’ and he looks weak. The only thing worse would be to try and give a clever answer that looks like weasel words and weak. And that is what he did do.
Cameron is now the man who was publicly shunned at the summit by the French President refusing to shake his hand. But then tough Cameron got the last laugh by vetoing the Merkozy federalist demands. It doesn’t matter that the so called ‘snub’ was not a snub at all. The TV pictures say something different. And impressions can stick in minds. A few days ago Cameron’s stock appeared to be falling and his big positive of being seen as a strong Leader was being undermined.
Time will tell if the new toughness sticks. And more importantly what the impact is of our changed relationship with Europe is. But what a difference a cock-up at a Euro Summit can make if you are a lucky Leader!
Comments (9)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
"But in reality the extra protections weren’t needed as the proposed financial transaction tax for instance couldn’t be imposed without unanimity."
That's exactly the point of a veto. Cameron didn't want the Franco-German plans for a Tobin tax, Sarkozy demanded it. Both positions had been established weeks, if not months, in advance. So the veto was applied. So the rest have made their own, much weaker deal. Best situation for all concerned, surely? Except Sarkozy's grand plans to nail the Anglo-Saxons are worthless, since 70% of the EU financial sector is now out of his control. Cameron has neutered the biggest challenge to his control, namely the EU with the LibDems as enforcers. The precedent has been set. Sarkozy didn't want a UK in the EU, but opting out of rules as it saw fit. That's exactly what's just happened.
And, quite frankly, there's little that the 26 can do. They couldn't enforce the old ones (cf. Germany's deficit, Greece's lying), they have nothing to enforce the new (since it's a treaty separate from the EU).
Their taxes are now tied together, so the EU-26 becomes an easy target for asset-stripping; 450 million people, all we (or any other country next-door) have to do is keep our corporation tax below theirs and we can asset-strip a continent. Any bets on how long Ireland will keep Microsoft, now its corporation tax will go high, and stay high?
10/12/2011 21:47Read the Economist article. He didn't need to demand the extra protection. And where we end up is that the veto has been neutered.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/12/britain-and-eu-0
10/12/2011 22:11I have read it, and I've read others besides. We have several columnists all claiming to have the 'truth', even though they contradict quite fundamentally. Bagehot is a good source, but his views on Euroscepticism are not secret.
But I must ask: if it was a fig-leaf, why did the 26 give up the Treaty structures and organisations so that they could keep the fig-leaf? Others have suggested that he demanded more, but I can't believe that easily since Clegg agreed to it beforehand, so repatriation sounds like a no-no. Either I believe that the meeting became too irrational (which might explain the 5-minute breather at 3.30am), or something much grander was put on the table (e.g. a transaction tax) that was a sticking point.
My suspicion is that France won its 'core states' argument quite handsomely, but lost the Tobin tax argument. Let's see if there will be a transaction tax in the 26.
10/12/2011 23:02The truth is that poor little Miliband did his "Very, VERY cross sixthformer act (again!) huffed, puffed, did his little trick when he pretends he listened to the answer of a question, then asks a supplementary which is in response to something that wasn't said, so makes him look even more out of his depth than he really is. Which is pretty bad, anyway.
10/12/2011 23:49The Bagehot article is being clung to by the Left like a comfort blanket.
Before the author penned under that nom de plume, he penned under Charlemagne as the Economist's EU correspondant.
He is a strong EU supporter so unsurprisingly is seeing things through that prism.
11/12/2011 11:41Plato - but putting Bagehot aside the point still stands. The outcome wasn't what he was looking for and he played his hand badly (or was played). But despite that he's been lucky in terms of how it has played out thus far.
11/12/2011 11:51'Putting Bagehot aside' - you are talking cobblers.
None bigger than this 'two speed Europe'. We are not in the Euro and never will, be that was always a dividing line; nothing has changed.
11/12/2011 17:35This is nan issue that has to be faced sometime. Good luck to the 26 as they dance to Germany's tune. They want a shared economic policy, they want to order the rest around but they do not want to share the debts.
It's not at all certain that 'the 26' will remain as numerous. Several countries have to submit the deal to their parliaments, and Ireland may have to have another referendum.
A great deal of the 'progress' in the EU organisation has been countries being expected to go along with changes for fear of being left out. Once a few start to question the sedate progression to a federal superstate who knows what might happen?
11/12/2011 20:39http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4435
Initial polling indicates public support for Cameron's 'tough' stance. But will it last? I suspect it will.
12/12/2011 07:16