What David Cameron should say to the EU summit

 

          I would like David Cameron, in the privacy of the  meeting to say:

        “The UK wishes Eurozone members success with their currency. We will not be providing unhelpful remarks or commentary in public on it. As the Eurozone sells us many goods and we sell into the zone, it is in our interests that the future of the zone is handled with a view to restoring growth and greater prosperity.

          The UK does not think further Treaty changes demanding greater austerity and financial discipline are either needed or will work. The current Treaties make it clear what is expected of Eurozone members. The problem is one of enforcement, not a shortage of law and guidance.  Imposing fines on countries with large deficits that can no longer borrow money in the markets to pay their bills, let alone pay the fines, is not going to improve things.

          The Uk sympathises with the German view that each Euro member state has to solve its own budgetary problems and accept the common discipline. The German people are understandably reluctant to pay more money to help the weaker countries. But the UK also has sympathy for the countries currently unable to balance their budgets or to trade themselves out of the large trade deficits they are incurring, owing to their membership of the Euro and the present state of their accounts.

          The Eurozone is being stressed by trade imbalances, by a lack of competitiveness in some peripheral countries, by state debts and banking weakness. All of these issues need tackling urgently. Some countries may need to leave the zone and to devalue to sort out the scale of the problems they face. That is a matter for them and the zone.

         Meanwhile the UK is ready as  a member of the EU to lead an attack on too much EU level government, excessive EU budgets, too much regulation, and other EU levels matters which are impeding a common recovery in European economies. The EU needs to contribute to the spending cuts needed for sensible austerity in public sector budgets. It has much more scope than member states to cut its own budgets.  It needs to promote  policies which help enterprise and innovation, instead of constantly looking for new ways to tax and regulate business”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

65 Comments

  1. Posted January 29, 2012 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    What he really should be doing is to remind them of the fact that the history of a ‘one last heave’ approach to problems by any government has only ever resulted in making a bad situation worse and that they should work towards as orderly a dismantling of the Euro as possible instead.

  2. Posted January 29, 2012 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    Indeed I agree fully with all you say above.

    It does indeed “need to promote policies which help enterprise and innovation, instead of constantly looking for new ways to tax and regulate business.” As indeed should the socialist Cameron’s/Clegg’s government too – start by cancelling HS2 and the silly energy nonsense, firing one in two in the state sector, get rid of 52% and IHT, introduce easy hire and fire for all (with maximum pay offs of 6 months). Those measures, on their own, would start a recovery and set an uplifting vision and win an election. Only 3 years left to do anything positive now two years nearly wasted already.

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      Is anything still left of Cameron’s EU veto and if so what exactly was vetoed? It just looks more and more like it was another of his PR stunts.

      • Posted January 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        lifelogic: “Is anything still left of Cameron’s EU veto and if so what exactly was vetoed?”

        No, nothing.

        lifelogic: “It just looks more and more like it was another of his PR stunts.”

        Yes.

        Add it to the list; riding a bicycle to work, windmill on the roof, huskies to the North pole to look at the ice, etc depressingly etc.

        The Tory party is the wrong tool to use to extricate ourselves from the quagmire.

        • Posted January 29, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

          It may well not be the best tool – but it is the only one available given the “democratic” system that pertains.

          • Posted January 30, 2012 at 8:39 am | Permalink

            life logic: “but it is the only one available given the “democratic” system that pertains.”

            Then we are absolutely screwed. Even Redwood says he while he doesn’t like these particular European treaties, he would negotiate other ones that still oblige us to the EU but he assures us, in the face of all the evidence that the new treaties he would negotiate would be sooo much better.

            Anyone who believes that, after our experience of the EU, the ‘single market’ which instead of an instrument to dilute the influence of the EU has been twisted into a diabolical instrument of closer integration and greater cultural cleansing, … is sadly deluded.

            Vote independent. We need to destroy the existing two party duopoly, and replace it with independent candidates utterly dependent on their local supporters.

      • Posted January 29, 2012 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        The Foreign & Commonwealth Office clarified the details of the veto in a response to an FOI request from bloggers4ukip (see link):

        http://bloggers4ukip.blogspot.com/2012/01/fco-no-eu-treaty-was-drafted-at.html

        +++

        • Posted January 30, 2012 at 8:44 am | Permalink

          Bob: “The Foreign & Commonwealth Office ..”

          Oh, you mean David Cameron lied ( but carefully not in the Commons, you should note – suggesting he knew there was no treaty too ) and regretfully, John Redwood supported him in his attempt to dupe a few more Eurosceptics into believing this EuroRABID Tory party is the answer to our prayers.

          Did everyone enjoy being gulled by the Tory party and it’s so called Eurosceptic MPs ?

          Again.

          Reply: I tell you the truth as I see it. I and my Eurosceptic colleagues are the only Parliamentary army you have fighting your cause, as UKIP never gets anyone elected to Westminster. Being unpleasant to us does not help your cause. You could try fighting the federalist parties, and helping our cause for a change.

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

      Just tell them we are going to have a referendum to leave. The benefits: £10 billion net saving on our contributions, £9 billion saving in admin costs annually to our businesses in directives and laws, 1000,000 starter jobs back for our young people (16-24) not Eastern Europeans, control over our borders and immigration, billions in savings on our public services (Health, housing, education etc), return of 400,000 jobs in our fishing industry, stop the French CAP and the billions in additional food costs, trade with poorer nations giving them a hand up NOT a £11.5 billion foreign aid handout. With a £50 billion trade deficit last year alone what they going to do? Stop selling us their goods? All this threat to 3 million jobs nonsense doesn’t hold water Mr Clegg

      • Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:07 am | Permalink

        The net cost of the EU to the UK is £3 billion because we get back most of the money we give to them. So the amount you believe we will save is wildly optimistic.

        Unless there is more control over immigration leaving the EU will have little effect on the number of Eastern Europeans working this country. Non-EU immigration is currently very high according to the Migration Advisory Committee and between 1995 and 2010 160,000 British-born workers’ jobs were “displaced”.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16484918

        Unless leaving the EU causes fish to rapidly multiply it won’t result in any more jobs for our fishing industry, which is still being overfished.

        The CAP will continue even if the UK leaved the EU.

        Trading with the developing world will only work if they have things for us to buy and the ability to transport them to the UK. Their lack of industry means that they do not make the products the UK wants or needs.

        53% of the UK’s exports go to the EU, which is worth 10% of GDP; however of the other 25 EU states will lose 10% of their GDP if they stop trading with the UK. The 25 EU countries will easily withstand losing 1 market but the UK will suffer major problems from losing 25 markets.

        Leaving the EU is not a solution to all the UK’s problems and will cause many additional problems.

  3. Posted January 29, 2012 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    All very sensible suggestions, which of course they would absolutely ignore. Their prime goal is a political union and you can’t have a political union without a common currency.

    Merkel has admitted it:

    “My vision is one of political union … We need to become incrementally closer and closer, in all policy areas … Over a long process, we will transfer more powers to the [European] Commission, which will then handle what falls within the European remit like a government of Europe. That will require a strong parliament. A kind of second chamber, if you like, will be the council comprising the heads of [national] government. And finally, the Supreme Court will be the European Court of Justice”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/angela-merkel-eu_b_1235889.html

    They’re not giving up their dream of a Eutopia, even if it means people starving, dying of cold, losing their homes, becoming bankrupt, committing suicide and rioting. These things are all happening now, especially in the Med and East Europe.

    You just don’t get it, THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE.

    We have no alternative but to leave. Of course if we keep falling out with them, they might just throw us out (fingers crossed).

    http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-2093265/At-weve-currency-Prince-Andrew-pokes-fun-EU-nations-suffering-collapse-Euro.html

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      Prince Andrew is reason enough argument for Britain to become a republic.

      • Posted January 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        Bazman “argument for Britain to become a republic.”

        And Neil Kinnock, John Prescott, Michael Martin, Michael Hestletine, David Cameron are equally forceful argument against a Republic with an appointed head of state.

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

      There are not that many large net contributors. Cold calculating hard logic,power lust and therefore money drives this. If we were to even suspend our contributions or even delay them i suspect the pressure on the EU/Germany would become immense. Full integration and probable exit- or exit now.Then later try and gain with the horse(political union) in front of the cart.

      They cannot afford democracy but without it the EU dreams of union are just a nightmare.

      • Posted January 30, 2012 at 8:48 am | Permalink

        sm: “If we were to even suspend our contributions ”

        Not an ice cubes chance in hell of that happening while David Cameron leads the Tory Party and while the leader of the Tory party included people like Kenneth Clarke in the Cabinet, while leaving nominally Eurosceptic people like John Redwood out.

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

      Sue, I totally agree.
      As a Brit, I want to see open discussion done in public. This applies to all these secret “summits” where our representatives can say anything they like behind our backs and then pretend they haven’t.
      It applies to the law where family courts are totally secret and we are not allowed to know anything about what goes on in them.
      It applies to local Council meetings which are indeed public, but no longer reported so the Council can say and do exactly what it likes.
      Apart from you and me, and of course, Mr Redwood our host, I trust absolutely nobody at all.
      Ever.

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

      Sue,

      The link you provide to the Mail on Sunday seems to be another example of air miles andy living it up in Davos at a cost of £39,000 to the UK taxpayer. It seems every time I read about his travels the story is links him to (some undesirable-ed). How does this promote British values abroad?

    • Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink

      “A kind of second chamber, if you like, will be the council comprising the heads of [national] government.”

      This sounds like the European Council, which is comprised of the heads of national governments. Though the European Council can also be made up of various ministers, such as agriculture or transport.

  4. Posted January 29, 2012 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    I would prefer him to say : ” Ladies and Gentlemen of the EU we fought for centuries to maintain our independence from continental Europe. We bankrupted ourselves to free Europe in the last century and I have seen the light and want out of this disastrous, imploding, wilfully blind organisation. The UK will have an in/out referendum on 21st October this year and I will be campaigning vigorously for our exit.”

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

      21st October – Trafalgar Day. How apposite…

  5. Posted January 29, 2012 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    what should he say?

    we will not sign up to the EU/India “Free trade” agreement because its little about free trade and much about forcing us to print even more work visas for Indian nationals

  6. Posted January 29, 2012 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Dear John,

    thank you for your suggestions to Dave Cameron.

    Sadly, your advice comes too late.
    Have a look at this:
    “The EU will have to agree the national budgets of heavily indebted countries under a deal to be signed tomorrow at a summit in Brussels attended by David Cameron.”

    Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9047124/Brussels-takes-control-of-taxation-and-spending-in-eurozone-countries.html

    Note well that this ‘agreement’ applies to the whole of the EU, not the €-zone.

    The time for gentle speeches has run out. The time for nudging the EUrocrats towards a solution acceptable to us was never there to start with.

    Do you want Barroso and Rompuy and the unelected, unaccountable Kommissars to tell our sovereign Parliament what our budget should be like? You do know that the budgets for the EU have not been signed off by auditors for years and years.

    Isn’t it time, dear John, to remind your colleagues in Parliament and in the Tory Party that our cousins in then colonial America rose up for just that reason?
    In case you forgot, here’s the war cry: “No Taxation without Representation”.
    Do the Brussels Kommissars ‘represent’ us? Did we elect them? Can we hold them accountable? The answer is no, no and no!

    Time for you all to work on giving us the in/out referendum.
    No more shilly-shallying in Parliament – we, the people, we who pay your salaries, want out of the EU!

    • Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:20 am | Permalink

      “Do the Brussels Kommissars ‘represent’ us? Did we elect them? Can we hold them accountable?”

      The UK’s EU Commissars was chosen by our Government and ratified by the EU Parliament (which includes UK MEPs). If they do a poor job they will not be reappointed by the UK. So to answer your questions the answer are yes, partially, and yes.

  7. Posted January 29, 2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    He should add as the bottom line. “If the EU is not prepared to reform, as I have suggested, then I will reluctantly reach the conclusion that membership of the EU is not in British interests and will propose a Referendum on British membership.”

  8. Posted January 29, 2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    There’s no excuses, you’ve written his speech, all Mr Cameron has to do is deliver it.

  9. Posted January 29, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    What he should say Mr Redwood, I am off to give my country a referendum .
    In or Out!!

  10. Posted January 29, 2012 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    What you propose, JR, is pretty good as an opening statement.

    Supplementary advice in the event that having politely listen to what he has to say Eurozone members politely ignore him, David Cameron should interject in more strident, but still measured tones, words of wisdom relating to the imposition of fines.

    “Fining those for not having enough of their own money is a bad idea and will never achieve anything worthwhile. It is blindingly obvious it is a bad idea. It was always blindingly obvious it is a bad idea. You must do better.”

  11. Posted January 29, 2012 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    In a word, too much Eurogulation.

  12. Posted January 29, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Re the final paragraph, this could be another major step in David Cameron’s learning about the reality of the EU.

    We seem to have had a succession of Prime Ministers since Heath who come to power flushed with the euphoria of achievement, and with the conviction that they are the one to make the difference: the EU would be good for the UK, if only…. If only the EU would adjust to the influence of some good old British common sense. If only the EU would rebalance the institutions to give a sensible approach to what should be done at EU and National levels. If only the EU would adjust its direction of travel to a more sensible objective. If only….

    With time there comes the growing realisation that the EU is not driven by sense but by ideology. “Ever closer union” is not just some neat turn of phase but it REALLY is the chosen objective. All the talk of fast and slow trains, inner and outer cores and so on is not and never can be a answer because they are only different means of reaching the same destination. The fundamental problem is that the destination is wrong for Britain.

    So if David Cameron finds that the “attack” he is ready to lead is an attack no one else wishes to join he will have taken another big step in learning about the reality of the EU.

    Of course, the EU being the EU, other member states may acquiesce in the UK spending time and effort in preparation for an “attack” which when it comes to it they do not have the inclination to support. Some lessons can be hard learnt!

  13. Posted January 29, 2012 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    I believe that you have stated a reasonable position. I do not believe it would gain much, if any, traction with the EUligarchy. Their prevailing view is to attempt to get others to bail out the EZ, via the financial transaction tax substantially at the UK`s expense being the prime example. One way or another they will continue to attempt to get the UK to pay for the failures of the EZ – as they are fond of saying “If you are not sitting at the table, you are on the menu.” That, however, is not a reason for not saying it. And it does have implications for the conduct of UK policy towards the EU which may be beyond the will of the Coalition.

  14. Posted January 29, 2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    A grown up voice among the blather of idealistic sixth form prefects.

  15. Posted January 29, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Sounds reaonable and sensible to me.

    Perhaps we should also add, we will not be making any contribution to any bailout fund for the Euro either now or in the future.

    • Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:22 am | Permalink

      Given how many of our exports go to the Eurozone it is in our interests to bail them out so they can get back to buying our products.

  16. Posted January 29, 2012 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Can we also say that treaties among <27 members are unconstitutional and the mechanisms they set up can't be run by the Brussels/Strasbourg bureaucracy?

  17. Posted January 29, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately your sentiments are supported by the majority of people, but not the Government. Cameron cannot be trusted. Therefore I suggest you and the other Tory Eurosceptics act with haste and dispose of Cameron. Tomorrow will lead to the EU being able to control the taxation and spending of countries. The people concerned are not elected and are unaccountable to those who pay the tax. No one in this country should pay tax so it can be spent in other countries without the taxpayer having any say whatsoever. I want my money spent in my country and if the government of the day wastes it, as the previous Labour government did, then I can influence them being dismissed from office. The EU is colonising all nation states in a determined fashion.

    Cameron and Osborne before the election and even recently made promises to the people that they are now breaking. Cameron stated quite clearly the EU institutions would not be used. This is has now been quietly removed, not like the fanfare of the veto that never was. Osborne clearly told us in October that the UK would not be giving money directly or indirectly through the IMF to save the Euro. He is now talking as if it is inevitable. Why should the UK taxpayer pay for something that has nothing to do with them? Clegg and his very small group of minority activists should not be given any credence. It would be in the national interest for a referendum whether to be in or out of the EU. Too much money is being spent with little in return. The money could be better used in the UK.

    If the LibDems did not accept the Tory view of a referendum or not to participate in this madness it would also be in the national interest for a general election to be called so the people can decide whether to be inside or outside Europe. After the deceit used by the main political party leaders to get office, hopefully the people will be more discerning who they vote for.

    Reply: We know there are 90 Conservative MPs who either voted for a referendum or abstained on principle over that 3 line whip vote. This means a majority of Conservative MPs agreed with Mr Cameron that we should not have a referendum, or voted with him under whips pressure. Mr Cameron does not face a vote on his Leadership this Parliament unless 15% of the Parliamentary party demand a ballot. That is not about to happen, as there is no 15% minority of the MPs wanting a ballot.

    • Posted January 30, 2012 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      Re. Mr Redwood’s Reply

      I’m not sure it does mean that the majority of Tory MPs agree that we shouldn’t have a referendum.

      It would only be a valid claim if the vote had been free. By wielding the stick of the three line whip, the only ones who voted against were the ones who were principled enough to stand against and demand a referendum.

      The rest either agree, or are self-servingly putting their career prospects ahead of the national interest – and we have no way of telling the proportions.

    • Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:26 am | Permalink

      “The people concerned are not elected and are unaccountable to those who pay the tax.”

      Please name who these people are so I may determine whether they have been elected and who they are accountable to.

      “No one in this country should pay tax so it can be spent in other countries without the taxpayer having any say whatsoever.”

      The EU already does this.

      “Why should the UK taxpayer pay for something that has nothing to do with them?”

      Our trade with the Eurozone means that it has a lot to do with the UK.

  18. Posted January 29, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    As you say one of the problems is the lack of implementation of EU laws across the whole of the EU. The British Parliament needs to take action within the UK on this problem.
    They should not implement new EU laws ahead of the required dates unless it is of particular advantage to the UK to do so.
    They should follow the policy of most of the other governments in Europe and drag their heels in implementing new laws which the UK thinks are to its disadvantage.
    Play them at their own game. While we don’t want to be seen as the slowest nation to implement new rules we don’t need to be first particularly when it would be in our interests to be last.
    The UK parliament are experts at delaying internal legislation let’s use that expertise.

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      David, what you say only makes a sort of sense if you believe that the UK’s future is as a member of the EU.

      In complete contrast, I think it is pointless wasting time and energy to become the best at one game when our resources would achieve far more playing a completely different game, i.e.one outside the EU.

      • Posted January 29, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

        The problem is that countries in Europe but outside the EU who want to continue to trade with the EU find themselves taking on their rules with no influence what so ever on the content of those rules.
        I can’t agree with you as I don’t think it is practical for the UK to survive outside the EU. We need to increase our exports to the EU not reduce them.
        After all there is very little difference between rules created in Westminster and those created in the EU.

        Reply: The problem with being inside with our present deal is we have to follow bad rules which make us less competitive outside the EU, where the prospects for trade growth should be much better. When did the UK last stop a stupid EU rule?

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

      Then there’s the gold plating of EU laws. I believe in restoring full sovereignty to our parliament to accept, reject or modify EU diktats but will our parliament have the interest or energy to do so.

      That parliament does not currently reject the gold plating gives me little confidence that if full sovereignty was restored their apathy would change.

    • Posted January 31, 2012 at 1:29 am | Permalink

      Not implementing EU laws promptly will result in the UK being taken to the European Court of Justice and being fined for failing to implement EU law.

  19. Posted January 29, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    All of this is sound advice, however, it is based on the premise that the EU project is a rational undertaking. I do not believe that it is rational, since we see repeated evidence that economic reality is being trumped by political delusion. For example, the Euro elites seem to be relaxed about the significant economic contraction in southern Europe and the associated unemployment rates of ca. 20% (higher for young people), when the obvious solution to the lack of competitiveness in many of these countries is a controlled exit from the Euro and devaluation. Repeated bailouts will not solve problems of competitiveness, but will condemn these countries to years of stagnation, debt and political turmoil.

    Experience suggests that the EU has no reverse gear since competencies acquired are not given up, so the only serious question for Britain is whether we wish to remain on a train that is speeding to political union and relative economic decline.

  20. Posted January 29, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Those of us who think the BBC is strongly biased in favour of the EU can be please to acknowledge that between 13:30 and 14:00 today on Radio 4 the balance was nudged slightly back towards equilibrium. In the programme “Europe’s Choice” Allan Little took the first look at the transformation of Europe following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Two further programmes are to follow.

    The first programme leaves the listener in no doubt that the single currency project was driven far to quickly forward by political manoeuvring and had nothing to do with seeking an optimum economic model for the members of the Euro. The irony is made clear in that the French objective of neutering Germany and keeping France at the heart of the EU has had the opposite effect.

    If you missed it I recommend the iplayer for half an hour well spent, and put the programme in your diary for the next two weeks.

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      Alan, thank you, I will get it via Iplayer.

  21. Posted January 29, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    This is what Cameron should say, but of course he won’t, nothing like it –

    I remind you that I am only here today because our Parliament has passed Acts to approve the EU treaties and incorporate them into our national law.

    Parliament has thereby authorised me to act within the EU, including within this European Council, but only in accordance with the treaties it has approved.

    It has not authorised me to act in contravention of those treaties; therefore to do so would be to break our national law, which I may not and will not do.

    I must make it clear that whatever may have happened in the past I will henceforth demand the strictest application of those treaties.

    I will not accept any breach of them without an express authorisation from our Parliament, and I will not hesitate to publicly denounce any such actual or even proposed breach.

    If you feel that my attitude is too uncompromising, I would point out to you that above all it was an excessively lax attitude to the requirements of the treaties which has led to the present intractable crisis in the eurozone.

    Firstly, therefore, I will not tolerate some EU member states making unauthorised use of the EU institutions for the purposes of a treaty made outside the EU treaties as approved by our Parliament.

    Above all, I will not tolerate an attempt by some member states to extend the competence of the Court of Justice beyond that conferred on it by all member states through the EU treaties.

    I therefore insist that all references to the Commission and the Court be completely removed from the so-called “fiscal pact” before it is signed by the representatives of those member states.

    To conclude, I would also ask to you to recollect that while I readily – some say, far too readily – agreed to a major treaty change last March, so that the member states whose currency is the euro could legally set up a permanent bail-out fund, the European Stability Mechanism, that treaty change has not yet been approved by our Parliament.

    I will decide whether a Bill for that purpose will be introduced, and if so when; and that will depend on what progress has been made with the proposals for other treaty changes which I am tabling today.

    Reply: As you well know, the Euro area responsibilities are already much wider than non Euro area EU members, are incorporated in the EU Treaties and are justiciable at the ECJ

    • Posted January 30, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      Yes, but they are obligations under the EU treaties.

      The EU member states have agreed, through their EU treaties, that the ECJ shall have the power to interpret and enforce those EU treaties and laws based upon them.

      With certain stated exceptions, an example which is relevant in this context being the Article 126(10) TFEU exclusion of the ECJ from any role in the excessive deficit procedure.

      The EU member states have “conferred” those powers on the ECJ, and therefore its use of them conforms to the basic principle of “conferral” enshrined in the treaties and in particular in Article 13(2) TEU:

      “Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties”.

      However the EU member states have not conferred power on the ECJ to interpret and enforce the “fiscal pact”, which is not an EU treaty but a treaty made by some but not all EU member states outside the EU treaties.

  22. Posted January 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Oh dear John, these are your ideas you’d like to say to Mr Cameron, well you should tell him, before it’s to late. Many more of you fellow MPs should also begin to realise the danger this country is getting into, with the Scotland question, the EU, and contributions to the IMF, which appear higher by the day. This country is sick of ideas, it wants action. Cameron should first call a referendum on the Scotland issue, and be done with it. It’s his call not Salmonds as the latter claims. Lets be done with it once and for all, if only to shut the silly man up.
    As for the EU, most Tory MPs now know what the country want, a referendum, how much longer are they going to deny this democractic right to the people of these islands? They are a defuncted system, debts so large, created by their mishandling of enconomies and greed. Germany allowed them to borrow to buy their goods, and when the bills came in will take no responsiblity. That’s wrong.
    I cannot see Cameron’s way forward in this, he’s not told us really what he intends, come to think he’s not told parliament either. They intend political union, we can all see that, we don’t want that and won’t be led into it blindly.
    I just hope the Tory MPs won’t agree to more loans to the IMF and vote it down, when the time comes, and on Europe, tell Cameron what we expect. It’s certainly not the way he’s going. The veto is almost void, so what next? Its time for some honesty.
    Trade yes, anything else NO,NO, NO. Do yout think Cameron as got the message? If so please tell us all and put us out of our misery.

    • Posted January 29, 2012 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

      Say one thing in public and another in private?
      What duplicitous nonsense from John Redwood.
      Shameful stance.
      Is that what happens in the Commons too…talk tough, but as been borne out by years of failure, nothing ever delivered but more costly EU

      Reply No – say little in public on this and say more in private. Keeping the Euro together requires confidence. A government should not be in the busienss of saying things in public which may be construed as trying to undermine a currency, but should be free in private to speak the truth.

  23. Posted January 29, 2012 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Hear hear, sir.
    The perfect speech, and I wish Mr Cameron would deliver it.

  24. Posted January 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Of course he will say exactly what he feels he can get away with, always preserving the friendship which exists between himself and the other leaders with whom he is closeted.

    The good thing is that I am beginning to sense that the tide is turning. I am beginning to feel that the mood is swinging away from Europe being simply common sense (as it has been up to now with most of our senior politicians and, I read, bureaucrats) towards a more critical and democratic approach.
    Am I kidding myself?

  25. Posted January 29, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Apropos Mr Wheatley’s post, I listened to the programme but, like all of Mr Little’s oeuvre, one always expects him to blub and he never does but only just…not..

  26. Posted January 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Possible Greek default in March?

    ….Ah, but what do we have here, at 3:36 AM (via my London partner, Niels Jensen), but an article by Nick Doms on Examiner.com, asserting that, yes indeed, Greece will default:
    “Greece plans an orderly exit out of the Eurozone according to two sources close to Mr. Papademos, Greek Prime Minister, who spoke on condition of anonymity earlier today.

The sources confirmed that plans are ready to return to a legacy currency given the current circumstances and that such exit would be dealt with, quote ‘in as orderly a fashion as possible’ unquote….

    “A Greek exit strategy will probably not be announced officially until early March when the EU finance ministers meet.”

    Well then, we shall see.

    Reply: It would be strange indeed if sources close to a PM seriously considering such a dramatic course decided to leak this in advance.

  27. Posted January 29, 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Come on, John. You’re expecting politicians to speak plain, simple truths and common sense. Their only interest is the ability to continue drawing public money – and plenty of it.

  28. Posted January 29, 2012 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    John, I do so wish you could be PM.

  29. Posted January 29, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    If Ladbrokes were pricing up the odds of David Cameron saying that I think you could safely get 1,000,000 to 1.
    Why? Because he is a lying, treasonous, Europhile bully who conned his way to the top of the Conservative Party by deception. I should know I voted for him over David Davies when I used to be a Tory Party member!

  30. Posted January 29, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    I have a helpful suggestion to add to John’s statement.

    Cameron should say that the (ludicrously) tight corset of the German sponsored restrictions on budget deficits and concomitant system of fines, will certainly bring the delinquent nations to heel ….. but is rather one-sided.

    Therefore, I (Cameron) suggest that there should be a symetrical system of equivalent restrictions and fines, for those countries which insist on running excessive trade surpluses with fellow Eurozone members.

    I believe Germany (for example) runs a trade surplus equivalent to about 6% of GDP, about half of which with Eurozone countries,
    Let’s say fines begin with any country with a surplus of more than 0.5%,
    (like the budget deficit limits).

    That should help southern European “economic balance”.

  31. Posted January 30, 2012 at 3:38 am | Permalink

    There is a time to act decisively and suddenly and a time to act carefully and gradually. What is the time now?

    Brutus puts the dilemma to us:

    There is a tide in the affairs of men,
    Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
    Omitted, all the voyage of their life
    Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
    On such a full sea are we now afloat;
    And we must take the current when it serves,
    Or lose our ventures.

  32. Posted January 30, 2012 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    You have two chances to get the EU officials to agree to down size

    1) no chance
    2) fat chance

    The only way is force.

  33. Posted January 30, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    John,

    Sadly we have been sold down the river by Hague again.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16785973

    • Posted January 30, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

      Nigel Farage must be cock-a-hoop this morning. Now that Cameron has added fecklessness to his duplicity, betrayal to the disillusion, how can anybody seriously imagine that this government might, at some point, repatriate powers?

      I hate to say it — really I do, because there is no possibility of UKIP ever winning an election — but I cannot imagine how any Eurosceptic can conscientiously vote for anyone else. And if that lets labour in, well, the Tories will sell us down the river anyway, so it makes very little difference in the long run.

      • Posted January 30, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

        Sadly, another example of Cameron siezing failure from the jaws of victory.

        So, Mr Redwood, please help me undestand what the point of that supposed veto was?

        God speed to the peoples pledge. I presume you’re in favour of actually asking the electorate what they want and will endorse it?

        Reply I want a referendum and voted for one

        • Posted January 31, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

          Yes, quite. I’d like the chance to vote in one.

          Now, what about that supposed veto and what are you 80 going to do about it?

          As ever, my suggestion is to resign on mass, stand for re-election, maybe force a general election…etc etc. But you are not willing. Makes me wonder what it will take?

          Reply: How could by elections in seats where pro referendum MPs are already sitting help? We need the by elections in Labour federalists’ seats, and they are not going to resign to test this out.

  34. Posted January 30, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Meanwhile Portugal blows through record CDS levels of 22% and to the same level as Greece in the Autumn. Portugal will be eyeing the Greek default (to be announced any day) but with the much better protection for bond holders, Portugal is going to prove a much more explosive default than Greece.

  35. Posted January 30, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Now we know that Cameron will cave in on his “veto”, and give the EU everything it wants, no strings attached, I wonder what argument you would make for voting Conservative, Mr Redwood.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page