In our article, Treaty? What Treaty? of 9th December, we questioned the validity of Cameron’s statement about vetoing a treaty that did not exist. Whilst readers may have felt we were being somewhat pedantic, subsequent events have proved that the British Gazette was right to opt for this initial questioning response over the goings on in Brussels.
One of the things that has typified British membership of the EC/EEC/EU since the country joined has been the continual dissembling aided and abetted by the Brussels Brainwashing Commissariat of the nature and impact of Britain’s EU membership. This was for two basic reasons:
1. British membership was unlawful and unconstitutional.
2. The British People were not supportive of handing the government of their country over to a foreign power.
Happily, European politicians have not been so hindered and in some of their statements one can actually glean what is actually going on!
This is the case with Olli Rehn, the European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro. Mr Rehen (who is also Vice President of the European Commission) has stated: “If [Cameron's] move was intended to prevent bankers and financial corporations in the [City of London] from being regulated, that is not going to happen. We must all draw lessons from the financial crisis, and that goes for the financial sector as well.”
Well there you have it. Straight from the Vice President’s mouth. Which confirms EXACTLY what the British Gazette has been predicting.
Of course Cameron was fully aware of this when he staged his coup de théâtre. The British Gazette is of the opinion that this is part of Cameron’s (not Baldrick’s) “cunning plan.”
The “cunning plan” actually is in two parts. Part A and Part B.
Part A is based on the assumption that the Euro and the EU survives for the next six months: allow the twenty six members of the EU to issue regulations and the Tobin Tax and for the UK to object, stating that the veto means that this cannot be. Of course the EU will state differently. Again to quote Mr Rehn: “….Our legal analysis is that by far the vast majority of measures decided on Friday can be introduced through [EU] legislation….”
Faced with this fait accompli, Cameron will appeal to the European Court of Justice – which will – as night follows day – give judgement in favour of the EU.
At this point the coalition will collapse if it hasn’t already done so. This of course will precipitate Mr Ed Miliband getting up on his hind legs to put a No Confidence Motion forward which will be carried. The Queen will be asked to dissolve Parliament and we will have a general election.
At that point the Tories will go to the country with a pledge to “RENEGOTIATE” the UK’s membership of the EU.
Cameron will be gambling on two factors:
1. the annihilation of the Liberal Democrats. This of course has been the thorn in the side of the Tories since the rise of the Labour Party in the early part of the twentieth century. Doubtless the reader will recall in previous elections the Tory mantra: “….if you vote Liberal [Liberal Democrat] you will let in Labour….” In many cases this has been true. Indeed the Americans who also use the First Past the Post system call it, “the two party system” because it works effectively when there are only two parties. Cameron knows that the Lib Dem vote will be split three ways. A hard core will continue to vote Lib-Dem. The soft “protest” vote (which forms the bulk of the Liberal vote) will go to Labour or the Greens.
2. The Scottish wildcard. Be under no doubt, the Alex Salmond and the SNP are watching these developments like a hawk. Mr Salmond has of course one objective: to remove Westminster government from Scotland and to hand the government of Scotland entirely over to the European Union. This is what Mr Salmond calls “Scottish Independence!”
Mr Salmond of course will go to the country – in the Westminster election – with the following message: Vote SNP. If Labour is the largest party at Westminster we will support the UK remaining in the EU. If the Tories win, we will put an independence referendum before the Scottish People. If won, we will secede from the Union and Edinburgh will then be in a position to take over from London as the financial centre in the British Isles. This last sentence is what is known as a Scottish pipe dream.
Of course, Cameron is gambling on most Scots (who are famously Europhile) to vote SNP thinking that they are safe from Tory rule. This will assist the Tories and damage Labour’s chances. Furthermore, if Scotland was to secede, Labour would find it far more difficult to come back in England.
Of course the reader may consider all this fanciful speculation but consider this: If Cameron had stayed at the table arguing his case – as Mr Ed Miliband says he would have done – several months would have elapsed. The others would have invested much time and political capital in producing a final version of the treaty. Cameron would then have had real leverage, because at this stage the others would not want to start all over again, with an intergovernmental treaty. He could have negotiated real concessions and come away with real achievements, instead of as now, where the “intergovernmental agreement” goes ahead anyway, but without UK involvement.
Part B of Cameron’s plan is this: It is highly possible that the long drawn out protracted discussions of the other 26 member states will be overtaken by events: that the markets will finally loose confidence in anything getting done and the markets will solve the problem of the Eurozone for the politicians. It is highly likely that Cameron will have come to the conclusion that he is best seen to be well clear of the looming disaster.
You see, if he had remained at the table, the other EU member states – and of course Mr Ed Miliband – will have tried to pin the blame for the disaster on Cameron’s obduracy. Mr Ed Miliband would have been shouting from the rooftops of the Palace of Westminster that in being obdurate in seeking to defend the British national interest Cameron will in fact have brought about the single most damaging economic crisis that is most damaging to British interests.
Mr Ed Miliband would of course have been talking complete bullshit. Nothing new there then. But there is another reason why Cameron has left the table early. To try and prevent the Europeans from going down the treaty route and forcing them into an international agreement. This is because the Eurozone countries have to act quickly to try and prevent disaster. A new treaty that would force referendums in Ireland and other countries would cause uncertainty. The Eurozone countries will use the mechanism of an international agreement in order to avoid referenda. Of course they will venture ultra vires and seek to implement powers beyond the scope of such, relying on the compliant ECJ to rubber stamp this.
It is the opinion of the British Gazette however that the EU has left it too late. The Titanic is too close to the iceberg and cannot avoid the collision.