Brits up the creek without a paddle
by our secret columnist in Brussels
12 December 2011
Following the historic deal of the EU 26 and Britain's veto, we overheard this conversation in a restaurant in the Grande-Place, Brussels – or, if Schadenfreude didn't, somebody certainly did
X: It is worse than we could have imagined.
Y: And especially for the Brits and their own goal.
X: How's that?
Y: It's as clear as daylight that they could never have signed up to the Merkozy Plan. If it had meant changing the Lisbon Treaty, they would have opted out. Everything they have said proves it – control of their budget, borrowing and spending, "no, no, no" as the Iron Lady herself used to say.
X: And the rest is also bunk. The British PM said it was all about safeguards. What he meant was: "If you want a new treaty, I also want a change. You people want to push through a raft of new regulations on financial services. If you want treaty change, change at the same time the rules on how these regulations are decided."
Y: You mean he wasn't really talking about new damage, but about what he already can't block.
X: Exactly right. There is a lot in the pipeline as things stand. Then the only one he can block is the Robin Hood tax, which needs unanimous agreement. Everything else is single market regulation and goes through on a majority vote. So when he says that he went to Brussels to safeguard British interests, the only way he could have done so is by getting the rule changed to give him blocking power. In fact, he was on a hiding to nothing when he said - if I simplify – "you can have what you want as a change in the EU Treaty, but I want it changed for something I need". No deal.
Y: So he hasn't protected the city of London against its rivals. By vetoing the Merkozy deal, he is no forrarder. Worse for him—the caucus of the 26 will be keen to show common purpose by pushing through the package of financial service regulations. Didn't the Brits sponsor majority voting because unanimity was hard to get in the enlarging union?
X: And now it has caught them out in the well-known law of unintended consequences.
Y: They are trying to queer the pitch by arguing that the others can't use EU bodies or even buildings to draw up and apply their plans. This is bunkum. The Lisbon Treaty says that there can be "enhanced co-operation", among a group of member states, using the apparatus of the EU – including the European Commission, the European Court of Justice; the lot. Just as long as they don't muck up the single market.
X: I believe there is an English expression: Up the creek without a paddle. Let's get the bill.
X: It is worse than we could have imagined.
Y: And especially for the Brits and their own goal.
X: How's that?
Y: It's as clear as daylight that they could never have signed up to the Merkozy Plan. If it had meant changing the Lisbon Treaty, they would have opted out. Everything they have said proves it – control of their budget, borrowing and spending, "no, no, no" as the Iron Lady herself used to say.
X: And the rest is also bunk. The British PM said it was all about safeguards. What he meant was: "If you want a new treaty, I also want a change. You people want to push through a raft of new regulations on financial services. If you want treaty change, change at the same time the rules on how these regulations are decided."
Y: You mean he wasn't really talking about new damage, but about what he already can't block.
X: Exactly right. There is a lot in the pipeline as things stand. Then the only one he can block is the Robin Hood tax, which needs unanimous agreement. Everything else is single market regulation and goes through on a majority vote. So when he says that he went to Brussels to safeguard British interests, the only way he could have done so is by getting the rule changed to give him blocking power. In fact, he was on a hiding to nothing when he said - if I simplify – "you can have what you want as a change in the EU Treaty, but I want it changed for something I need". No deal.
Y: So he hasn't protected the city of London against its rivals. By vetoing the Merkozy deal, he is no forrarder. Worse for him—the caucus of the 26 will be keen to show common purpose by pushing through the package of financial service regulations. Didn't the Brits sponsor majority voting because unanimity was hard to get in the enlarging union?
X: And now it has caught them out in the well-known law of unintended consequences.
Y: They are trying to queer the pitch by arguing that the others can't use EU bodies or even buildings to draw up and apply their plans. This is bunkum. The Lisbon Treaty says that there can be "enhanced co-operation", among a group of member states, using the apparatus of the EU – including the European Commission, the European Court of Justice; the lot. Just as long as they don't muck up the single market.
X: I believe there is an English expression: Up the creek without a paddle. Let's get the bill.
COMMENTS
