Tuesday, December 06, 2011

A EUsceptic?

The Buttered New Potato has come out with a line designed to quiet the increasingly vocal EUsceptics in his party today.
David Cameron has said he will not sign any reworked EU treaty designed to solve the eurozone crisis if it does not contain safeguards to protect British interests.

The prime minister said there must be protection for the single market and the UK financial services sector.

The EU treaty may be rewritten to achieve greater fiscal integration within the eurozone.

But that would require the agreement of all 27 members, including the UK.

Unfortunately, as EUReferendum has repeatedly pointed out, this is a complete and utter lie.
Unfortunately, this Janet & John appreciation is somewhat at variance with the political realities of the European Union. Specifically, they lack any knowledge of the history of the Union, they are unaware of the "Craxi doctrine" which emerged from the 1985 Milan European Council, where Thatcher was ambushed, with the "colleagues" agreeing to an IGC against her will...

At the time, the rules for convening an IGC dictated that there should be consensus amongst member states, but what Craxi established was that, in the case of dispute, this meant simple majority voting by the leaders of the member states.

What has since emerged also, honed and refined during the shenanigans over the EU constitution and the Lisbon treaty, is that the agenda is also determined by "consensus", with the EU commission holding the pen. Thus, whether the UK would even be able to put her demands on the agenda would be a matter for the rest of the "colleagues".

Now, given that any forthcoming IGC will be convened to deal with the needs of the 17 eurozone members, which comprise the majority of the 27 states, it is unlikely that they will want the distraction of The Boy's political demands. Thus, the likelihood is that these will not even get onto the agenda. They will be blocked by a majority vote of the eurozone members, if need be.

This, of course, will leave The Boy stranded, with but one option – then to veto the conclusions of the IGC, blocking any new treaty. That would make him about as popular as an Israeli ambassador at a Hamas convention. Cameron would have to decide whether to incur the wrath of the entire collective, or cave in. And we know exactly what the result would be.

Thus, whatever the political motivation of The Boy is pursuing the current line – and we'll explore that in another post - it is not going to happen. As always, the only real options are two-fold: all in, or all out. Repatriation is not an option … not through negotiation, anyway. It is smoke and mirrors, not political reality.

So, we are forced to apply the Polly Conundrum—is Cameron totally fucking ignorant, or is he an unscrupulous, lying shit?

I'd vote* for both personally...

* A figure of speech. I would never vote for that massively-foreheaded spiv...


Suboptimal Planet said...

I don't really accept the analysis from EUReferendum.

It all comes down to David Cameron's character. Protocols about agenda items don't matter one bit. Because of the veto, Cameron holds the trump card. He could offer any ultimatum he likes. I expect they'd even allow favourable terms for a full withdrawal from the EU, if Cameron demanded it.

He won't, of course, which comes back to your Polly Conundrum.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

DK: Might I suggest a read of:


Yes, Cameron is a clueless idiot!

Michael Fowke said...

Cameron is a traitor. Anyone who believes anything he says is a fool.

Old Codger said...

Dave is obviously planning for an eminent position within the EU when he is chucked out of Westminster.

The Leekist said...



unfortunately the european peoples are so demoralised that they will vote for anything,even totalitarian control,but this is the plan after all.

CC Truckston said...

A "totally fucking ignorant…unscrupulous, lying shit."

After prodigious thought, I cannot identify a politician to whom your description of Mr. Cameron does not apply.

Suboptimal Planet said...

"I cannot identify a politician to whom your description of Mr. Cameron does not apply."

Norman Tebbit? Daniel Hannan? Douglas Carswell? Steve Baker?

Perhaps I'm hopelessly naive, but all strike me as reasonably well-informed, morally grounded, and honest.

The only American politician I'm aware of that ticks those boxes is Ron Paul, but I expect there are others.

RB said...

To be honest Im fed up now with EU referendum's continual carping with pages of semantic shite about the intracacies of EU protocols. Its starting to sound obsessive to say the least.

I know Cameron's a twat - but isn't he just saying, in effect, that if the EU wants a treaty that doesnt give Cameron what he wants, he wont sign it? Did he use a veto or not? Who cares? He "vetoed" a treaty proposal - so he got his dig in first.

Personally Im glad he did. The whole thing will unravel soon - and if you think that Cameron will cave in at a later date (which he personally probably would if he could) - he wont. (Bet you a tenner). If he did his career at home would be over.

We should be more intersted in the disgraceful way the BBC have dealt with this whole affair.

CC Truckston said...

"Norman Tebbit? Daniel Hannan? Douglas Carswell?"

As a provincial American not familiar with all British politicians, I must take your word for Tebbit, Hannan and Carswell.

I must concede that Ron Paul is the exception to my indictment of politicians. Though there may be other American politicians like Mr. Paul, none come to mind.