Did Davey do the right thing?

[johnb]

I've just put down some random thoughts from what I have been reading in the FT, etc - forgive the spelling, grammar, etc, etc:

Whatever one might think of the measures being taken by the EU to deal with the financial crisis, Cameron’s handling of this matter must be one of the UK’s biggest, and possibly the most far reaching, diplomatic failures in decades.

This goes back to Cameron’s decision to withdraw the Tories from the EPP (the EU’s largest and most influential political grouping) in a measure designed to placate the Tory Europhobes.

Before the Brussels summit there was a meeting of the EPP in Marseilles which was addressed by Merkel and Sarkozy and which formed a preliminary forum for the proposals then put forward at the summit. Of course the UK, because the Tories had withdrawn from the EPP, was not present.

Cameron had decided to keep his list demands very close to his chest, so nobody at the Marseilles conference really knew what they were. Into this vacuum Sarkozy put forward the view that Cameron wanted to exempt the UK from financial regulation. This was incorrect but it helped set the tone for the countries meeting there.

At the Brussels conference the British delegation decided to keep their demands secret until the last minute. There was no attempt to build alliances with other parties. What Cameron intended to do was to bounce the other countries into accepting his demands so that they could get a full 27 country agreement (which Merkel was pushing for but Sarkozy was against). When Cameron presented his demands it is reported that the other countries were completely baffled by those demands and, predictably, reacted badly.

What is curious is that Cameron, reportedly, used his veto and walked out at the start of the negotiations – not when they had been completed and there was a treaty to sign – leaving an empty seat while the rest of the EU continued their negotiations.

It is ironic enough that Cameron’s demands were to protect the UK’s financial services industry but, by using his veto, he achieved absolutely none of that protection. He merely absented the UK from the club that will draw up the financial regulations that suit the members of that club. And, the EU’s financial regulation measures are passed by qualified majority voting (unlike taxation measures which require unanimity)! How on earth does that safeguard the UK’s interests?

So, we have alienated most other countries in the UK (even those who are our natural allies) our financial services industry is more susceptible to “harmful” EU regulations than ever before, Sarkozy is cock-a-hoop and we are likely to be relegated to the outer fringes of the EU in a substantial and important part of its decision making.

For decades the UK has maintained a strategic involvement at the heart of Europe, whilst protecting its interests, by a combination of skilful diplomacy and the power of our economy. That policy has now crashed to the ground.

There is, of course, an explanation for all this could be that Cameron was desperate to avoid being pushed into having referendum triggered by a full 27 state EU treaty and blatantly and deliberately scuppered the proposed treaty to appease his party’s rednecks.

[vinteuil]

This goes back to Cameron’s decision to withdraw the Tories from the EPP (the EU’s largest and most influential political grouping) in a measure designed to placate the Tory Europhobes.
Before the Brussels summit there was a meeting of the EPP in Marseilles which was addressed by Merkel and Sarkozy and which formed a preliminary forum for the proposals then put forward at the summit. Of course the UK, because the Tories had withdrawn from the EPP, was not present.
Cameron had decided to keep his list demands very close to his chest, so nobody at the Marseilles conference really knew what they were. Into this vacuum Sarkozy put forward the view that Cameron wanted to exempt the UK from financial regulation. This was incorrect but it helped set the tone for the countries meeting there.
At the Brussels conference the British delegation decided to keep their demands secret until the last minute. There was no attempt to build alliances with other parties. What Cameron intended to do was to bounce the other countries into accepting his demands so that they could get a full 27 country agreement (which Merkel was pushing for but Sarkozy was against). When Cameron presented his demands it is reported that the other countries were completely baffled by those demands and, predictably, reacted badly.

.

Thank you, Johnb, for this - and am51 for the Economist link in his #45 above.

Yes, I am inclined to believe that there was a series of bad choices and lost opportunities in the diplomatic preparations going back many months before the Brussels meeting. Which is odd, because the British diplomats and civil servants normally have a very high reputation for their deftness in navigating the reefs of Euro-politics. We may never know whether this was local incompetence, or the product of policy choices worked down from above.

[Pilchardman]

I'm not holding my breath at Cleggers doing the right thing

No, I wouldn't do that. The LibDems have been the most enthusiastic hard-liners when it comes to wielding the torture implements. Vince rightwing-nut Cable and "making it easier to sack people"? Not expecting any help from that quarter.

[John Skelton]

It's interesting. Cameron wasn't vetoing the right thing. The signatories have agreed to constitutionally embed cuts on state spending on social services, social protection, education, health and so on. This is a further attempt to cement neoliberalism into the foundations of the EU .... The coalition is now planning further attacks of the same kind as the signatories, just in a way that is more politically advantageous to them. This is international capital entrenching its interests.

Indeed, which is why I find the position of those who vehemently criticise the austerity policies of the Coalition yet apparently have nothing critical to say about the programme put into action by the signatories so bizarre.

The enthusiasm of the wing of the Liberal Democrat Party in power for what is almost a neoliberal coup in Europe - "a requirement to incorporate this rule into the member states' national legal systems (at constitutional or equivalent level)" - is entirely consistent with their political / economic views (the inconsistency being their acceptance of Cameron's pseudo-veto. Which has prevented nothing, of course).

[Biffo]

France and Germany are 'up there' because we continually fail to influence in a positive way.

No, France and Germany are 'up there' because they founded the original version of the EU. They did it on their terms and to suit themselves; the other four members were there because it was beneficial to them but they never had the influence of the big two . We have been at a disadvantage ever since we joined and were never going to change that. We have always been 'isolated', we just have to put up with it (or leave).

[johnb]

We have been at a disadvantage ever since we joined and were never going to change that. We have always been 'isolated', we just have to put up with it (or leave).

Rather than being something inherent in the situation, could it just be that the UK has had an ambivalent attitude towards its membership of the EU and has failed to engage with it in the way most other European countries have?

Of course, it's much more satisfying to put all the blame on those nasty foreigners: the Frogs and the Krauts.

[MrGongGong]

indeed John
if the political rhetoric is always one of paranoia and thinking that somehow everyone else is trying to pull a fast one then I wouldn't blame the rest of the EU from booting us out and making Frankfurt the centre of finance !

The "little englander" mentality is pathetic, arrogant and counter productive

[Lateralthinking1]

The methods are unsatisfactory. It is outrageous that we the voters have to piece together what happened and will never know for sure. Televise it. Ditch the four course meals. Drop all the ballgown and bow tie nonsense. Nick Robinson reported that on one of these occasions, our Prime Minister hid an official under the table to pass notes. They think it is funny. Then we have: Quote: "The French are out to screw us," one source tells me. "Despite all the jollity, the fact is that Sarko doesn't gives a s*** about us. It's all bull***. They have their view that the Anglo-Saxon model is a disaster and was responsible for the crisis." For goodness sake. These people speak like Wayne Rooney on an off day. Where is the emotional stature? What the hell is their problem?

I agree entirely with Pilchardman - "The signatories have agreed to constitutionally embed cuts on state spending on social services, social protection, education, health and so on. This is a further attempt to cement neoliberalism into the foundations of the EU." Consider this then and without reference to old-style Tory sceptics. While Cameron's position was to the right of Thatcher, it is to the left of France and Germany who are increasingly to the right of Attila the Hun. I'm not sure they even realise. They are puppets of international finance and the poorer countries are now in turn puppets of theirs. This is not democracy and it is economic lunacy. Hitler has won the war on the killing fields of corporate finance. We with this move are only 99% his victim.

But what of Britain on the day? Cameron's politics were irrelevant. They don't exist. He does one thing one day and something else the next. See his "Green" agenda. And like Clarkson, he dishes it out but can't take it. We have just seen another exit to China. Clegg's position is clearer. He is Liberal as in the sense of Germany's FDP which was always to the right of the Christian Democrats and arguably Thatcher. Both needed to deal with the old style Lib Dems and the right wing Tories. They went in with a half-baked idea sort of in the middle. Clegg favoured a bit of diplomacy. Cameron was more instinctively ready to flounce off early if it didn't work. It is in his character. For this is a man of air who thinks he is more right than 6 million strikers and who feels affronted when he is not wholly entertained by the representatives of all of Europe. It really is as basic as this. There isn't much more to it.

“I wouldn’t trust him with my daughter’s pocket money”. (Jeff Randall). “I have heard he is not, sometimes, as nice in private as you might think”. (Michael Portillo). "He was obstructive”. (Patrick Hosking). "Nothing but a second-hand car dealer.” (John Prescott). Being an ex-journalist myself, I’ve worked for some nasty types in the past….. he was undoubtedly the nastiest”. (Source of Peter Hitchins). Cameron told “Grotesque Lies”. (Joan Bakewell). “Aggressive, sharp-tongued, often condescending”. (Chris Blackhurst). "He was a bombastic bully, dismissive of those who didn’t agree with him”. (Source in Central Office). “Naïve and vacuous”. (Simon Heffer). “He is an out-and-out opportunist. I don’t believe he believes anything”. (Robin Harris).

[Biffo]

johnb: I am not putting the blame on 'nasty foreigners' and you introduced insulting names. It has been a fact of life for our entire membership. Edward Heath was desperate for the UK to join the Common Market and we were sold the idea as a trade block. For many years membership was, on balance, advantageous, particularly after Thatcher won the famous rebate. It was never politically acceptable that we should join the euro just as now it is not acceptable that British businesses (however unpopular ie, the banks) should be taxed to prop up feckless countries such as Greece and Italy. Yes, I know our own record isn't brilliant on the debt front but at least we are trying to do something about it (as is Ireland and Spain).

For a long time British 'isolation' was convenient for countries who agreed with us but didn't want to use the veto; they preferred to let Britain to do the dirty work and be labelled 'non-communitaire' by po-faced French politicians. Supposedly all the other 26 countries are going to sign up to the new 'accord' and its ludicrously unrealistic targets. It remains to be seen how many will actually go through with it and how many will stick the course.

[ahinton]

The methods are unsatisfactory. It is outrageous that we the voters have to piece together what happened and will never know for sure. Televise it. Ditch the four course meals. Drop all the ballgown and bow tie nonsense. Nick Robinson reported that on one of these occasions, our Prime Minister hid an official under the table to pass notes. They think it is funny. Then we have: Quote: "The French are out to screw us," one source tells me. "Despite all the jollity, the fact is that Sarko doesn't gives a s*** about us. It's all bull***. They have their view that the Anglo-Saxon model is a disaster and was responsible for the crisis." For goodness sake. These people speak like Wayne Rooney on an off day. Where is the emotional stature? What the hell is their problem?

I agree entirely with Pilchardman - "The signatories have agreed to constitutionally embed cuts on state spending on social services, social protection, education, health and so on. This is a further attempt to cement neoliberalism into the foundations of the EU." Consider this then and without reference to old-style Tory sceptics. While Cameron's position was to the right of Thatcher, it is to the left of France and Germany who are increasingly to the right of Attila the Hun. I'm not sure they even realise. They are puppets of international finance and the poorer countries are now in turn puppets of theirs. This is not democracy and it is economic lunacy. Hitler has won the war on the killing fields of corporate finance. We with this move are only 99% his victim.

But what of Britain on the day? Cameron's politics were irrelevant. They don't exist. He does one thing one day and something else the next. See his "Green" agenda. And like Clarkson, he dishes it out but can't take it. We have just seen another exit to China. Clegg's position is clearer. He is Liberal as in the sense of Germany's FDP which was always to the right of the Christian Democrats and arguably Thatcher. Both needed to deal with the old style Lib Dems and the right wing Tories. They went in with a half-baked idea sort of in the middle. Clegg favoured a bit of diplomacy. Cameron was more instinctively ready to flounce off early if it didn't work. It is in his character. For this is a man of air who thinks he is more right than 6 million strikers and who feels affronted when he is not wholly entertained by the representatives of all of Europe. It really is as basic as this. There isn't much more to it.

“I wouldn’t trust him with my daughter’s pocket money”. (Jeff Randall). “I have heard he is not, sometimes, as nice in private as you might think”. (Michael Portillo). "He was obstructive”. (Patrick Hosking). "Nothing but a second-hand car dealer.” (John Prescott). Being an ex-journalist myself, I’ve worked for some nasty types in the past….. he was undoubtedly the nastiest”. (Source of Peter Hitchins). Cameron told “Grotesque Lies”. (Joan Bakewell). “Aggressive, sharp-tongued, often condescending”. (Chris Blackhurst). "He was a bombastic bully, dismissive of those who didn’t agree with him”. (Source in Central Office). “Naïve and vacuous”. (Simon Heffer). “He is an out-and-out opportunist. I don’t believe he believes anything”. (Robin Harris).

I have never personally met the Prime Minister so I am obliged to note these remarks from those who have not merely met him but also had dealings with him but refrain from expressing an unqualified opinion. What rather puzzles me, however, is that, if he is really as obnoxious as portrayed above by Tories and others alike, how on earth did he get to be Prime Minister at all, let alone in Coalition with another party? - and, again, if that's DC in his true colours, how on earth has he managed to avoid being divorced by Samantha?

As to the question itself, I cannot help but wonder whether the real question is whether or not there was even a "right thing" to be done in the first palce, irrespective of who was or might otherwise have been charged with responsibility for doing it.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

As to the question itself, I cannot help but wonder whether the real question is whether or not there was even a "right thing" to be done in the first place, irrespective of who was or might otherwise have been charged with responsibility for doing it.

my thoughts pretty much ahinton ....

[Serial_Apologist]

my thoughts pretty much ahinton ....

The words "devil" and "deep blue sea" come to my mind also - the latter, especially...

[MrGongGong]

What rather puzzles me, however, is that, if he is really as obnoxious as portrayed above by Tories and others alike, how on earth did he get to be Prime Minister at all,.

This doesn't puzzle me at all
even though i'm not a historian I can think of several examples of truly obnoxious individuals who become "leaders"
after all who is going to vote (apart from a handful of us !!) for Michael Palin as prime minister ???

As long as we persist in this ridiculous idea of having "strong" ,( for "strong" read arrogant bully ) leaders then that's the kind of people we will have in charge of things........

[johnb]

I know nothing about Cameron's character but I do remember that, a few years ago, Andrew Neil said (on Daily Politics I think) that David Cameron (or "Call-me-Dave" as AN likes to call him) turned decidedly unpleasant before the broadcast and flounced out of the studio.

I've also read reports of Cameron being quite different to his public image. However, I have no idea whether those comments truthfully reflected the man's behaviour or were gross distortions.

It is interesting though - David Cameron, like Tony Blair in his early years as PM, seems to walk on water as far as the media is concerned. We all know how attitudes to Blair 'somewhat' changed though.

[amateur51]

This doesn't puzzle me at all
even though i'm not a historian I can think of several examples of truly obnoxious individuals who become "leaders"
after all who is going to vote (apart from a handful of us !!) for Michael Palin as prime minister ???

As long as we persist in this ridiculous idea of having "strong" ,( for "strong" read arrogant bully ) leaders then that's the kind of people we will have in charge of things........

Michael Howard for example *shudder*