Donald Tusk disagrees with Donald Tusk

The Remain camp is clearly in panic mode. Donald Tusk tells us in future the EU should drop its plans for political union. Yet this is surely the same Donald Tusk who as one of the 5 Presidents wrote and published an official EU Report on the next steps to political union. This advocates a Euro Treasury and much greater EU integration.


So which Donald Tusk view is the right one? I still believe the 5 Presidents Report, which stays on the website and is official. The latest Donald Tusk speech is clearly just for the referendum campaign. Why did the media run it without pointing out the original Donald Tusk signed the 5 Presidents Report and does believe in much greater EU integration?


If Mr Tusk has truly recanted he should begin by withdrawing the 5 Presidents Report, and replacing it with a vision of a very different EU. That of course would require negotiating an entirely new vision of the EU with all the other Presidents, governments and grandees pressing on for much more EU government.


  1. Denis Cooper
    June 2, 2016

    “Why did the media run it without pointing out the original Donald Tusk signed the 5 Presidents Report and does believe in much greater EU integration?”

    That’s the kind of question which pops into my mind more or less every day when I see the mass media uncritically repeating and often embroidering Remainder fallacies.

    1. Know-dice
      June 2, 2016

      Not enough is made of the “5 Presidents Report” by the leave campaign.

      Shout it from the roof tops – Remain is not for retaining the status quo, a “semi-detached” UK WILL get sucked in to the black hole that is the EU – just read the report…. 👿

  2. Lifelogic
    June 2, 2016

    Indeed, the EU are desperate and will say anything to keep the UK fish in their drag net. If the UK votes to remain the EU will walk all over the UK. It will be dragged again into further EURO bail outs, will have no control over our destiny, our immigration, our laws or any else much.

    For safely, security, to be better off and for democracy vote Brexit.

    Even those who wish to remain should do so as a better deal (how could it not be better) will follow as night follows day. We should reject that too if it is anything more than free trade.

    1. Lifelogic
      June 2, 2016

      Another agenda of the remain advert last night was that the UK was so pathetic that it had to have its employment laws and the bogus climate alarmism agenda dictated from Brussels. UK democracy it seems (they think) simply cannot do this without being ordered too by bureaucrats overseas.

      In fact OTT employment laws do not even help employees in the end they just destroy or export jobs.

      There has been none of the predicted warming for 18 years, so let us move back to half priced gas and other energy anyway, stop pensioners from freezing and stop our energy intensive jobs from being exported.

      Their computer model are clearly wrong and bogus. A little warmer and more co2 is better anyway on balance for crops, plant growth, the economy and the greening of the planet.

    2. Scott Williams
      June 2, 2016

      I think that I have found an overwhelmingly powerful argument for remaining in the E.U. If Remain were to win it will greatly reduce the crushing burden of democratic duty carried by each and every British Subject. No more will social life, education and worship be regularly disrupted as Village Halls, schools and Churches are commandeered for use as Polling Stations. In future, a Citizens only duty will be to vote online for the Eurovision Song Contest. . . . .
      Thank you for your diary – I find it a great comfort and sanity check. It motivates me to get out the door and keep campaigning for Brexit. Kind regards, S.

  3. Brexit
    June 2, 2016

    An interesting slant Dr Redwood and you make excellent points.

    We took a different slant from the same speech by President Tusk, which readers can view here:

    There is one further slant which could be put on this. Just who is Tusk referring to when he blames “lyrical and in fact naïve Euro-enthusiastic visions of total integration”? It seemed to us that this speech puts him in direct opposition to President Juncker.

    We didn’t cover this latter point because we try to keep our news boxes as short as possible to appeal to the maximum number of voters, as you and your readers know.

    1. Lifelogic
      June 2, 2016

      They will say anything to try to keep the UK in the trap.

    2. Colin Hart
      June 2, 2016

      “It seemed to us that this speech puts him in direct opposition to President Juncker.”

      Exactly how I read Tusk’s speech. It was also a warning to Merkel. Shame it didn’t get greater coverage in the UK.

    3. anon
      June 2, 2016

      I understand Tusk is Polish. Perhaps he is preparing a fallback plan if he needs to return to more local politics.
      Our Polish friends probably could add more comment perspective.

  4. agricola
    June 2, 2016

    You will have to be prepared to depose Cameron and his fellow travellers before actions post Brexit can become meaningful. Their agenda will not change just because they lose, nor will their negotiating skills improve markedly.

  5. Denis Cooper
    June 2, 2016

    Off-topic, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has an article in the Telegraph today:

    “Leave camp must accept that Norway model is the only safe way to exit EU”

    Well, I would accept that leaving the EU but staying in something like the EEA would provide a smooth transition to something much better than we have now, and could put us on the path to where we really want to go. My doubt is whether we would then ever elect a government which wanted to complete the job, and in particular get the EU’s “four freedoms” split into the three that we want – freedom of movement of goods, services and capital – and the one that we don’t want – freedom of movement of persons.

  6. Dame Rita Webb
    June 2, 2016

    Keen students of Polish politics know that Tusk would sell out Poland too if given the opportunity. Unfortunately for Donald (his grandmother was a big fan of things Scottish) the political elites of the Visegrad countries stand up for their national interests unlike here I would not trust him with 50 groszy.

  7. Denis Cooper
    June 2, 2016

    However I do not entirely go along with Ambrose Evans-Pritchard when he writes:

    “The Treasury claimed that a “vote to leave would cause an immediate and profound economic shock”. The hit to GDP ranges from 3.6pc to 6pc, with a loss of 800,000 jobs in a ‘severe’ scenario, comparable in scale to the collapse of Western banking system in 2008.

    What is striking about this ghoulish document is that it did not model the Norwegian EEA outcome, even though this ‘off-the-shelf’ option is the most likely counter-factual. The reason is obvious. Had the Treasury done so it could not have come up with such alarming figures.”

    As I have pointed out, firstly the EU Commission itself, and then the UK government, have accepted that the EU Single Market has added only 2% to the collective GDP of the EU member states, and a report by a German research body suggests that the benefit to the UK has been well below that average at only 1%.

    And there has just been an article in the Independent which may at least partly explain the puzzle I have mentioned, that according to the Treasury and others it would cost us far more if we left the Single Market than we have ever gained from the Single Market:

    “EU referendum: Why the economic consensus on Brexit is flawed”

    “A former senior International Monetary Fund economist says the arguments that leaving the EU would cause permanent damage to the UK are not supported by evidence”

    “So how do the Treasury, OECD and the IMF conclude that Brexit could reduce GDP by between 6 and 10 percent forever? The vast bulk of those large estimates come from the further assumption that reduced trade will shrink British productivity growth. This is disingenuous. There is simply no evidence that less trade lowers productivity growth – and there is not even a logical connection between productivity growth and a shift in trade from Germany to the United States.

    The costs of transition will be modest and short-lived

    More trade has been associated with higher productivity growth when countries have emerged from economic isolation. But for the sophisticated British economy, this possibility should be completely dismissed.”

    I can’t say whether that is the correct technical explanation of how the models have been adjusted to predict dire economic outcomes from Brexit, but I can say that the results do not pass what the author refers to as “the smell test”.

  8. Denis Cooper
    June 2, 2016

    I would add that the explanation offered by Ashoka Mody in his Independent article:

    “The vast bulk of those large estimates come from the further assumption that reduced trade will shrink British productivity growth. This is disingenuous. There is simply no evidence that less trade lowers productivity growth … ”

    actually ties in with the empirical observation that the rate of natural growth of the UK economy was unaffected one way or the other by either our accession to the EEC or the creation of the EU Single Market, as can be seen from the chart here:

    “GDP Annual Growth Rate in the United Kingdom averaged 2.47 percent from 1956 until 2016”; and all the measures to increase trade with our European neighbours have had no practically observable effects on that trend growth rate, and even in theory have amounted just to a given level of prosperity having been achieved some months earlier than would otherwise have been the case – a very small mess of pottage for which our politicians have been perfectly willing to sell our national birthright.

  9. Ex-expat Colin
    June 2, 2016

    Where are all those unskilled jobs for multi lingual spoon whittlers and cheese choppers in europe. Those are the job types that may have to score points in Spain and Holland it seems…you did it to me yesterday so I’ll do it you you today.

    The EU simply promotes irresponsibility at ever opportunity.

    Clearly gun/drugs running, people trafficking won’t be affected by points!

  10. Ian Wragg
    June 2, 2016

    As the man in Brussels said…..when things go wrong we lie….

  11. Dioclese
    June 2, 2016

    Shurely you’re not suggesting that politicians tell lies in campaigns just to influence voters?

  12. bigneil
    June 2, 2016

    Do we see Mr Tusk as someone who has changed their mind – or a liar? Given that lying has worked so well for our trustworthy ( cough cough – immigration, tens of thousands etc ) leader, I’d go for the second. Birds of a feather do what?

  13. Chris Brown
    June 2, 2016

    “The latest Donald Tusk speech is clearly just for the referendum campaign. ”
    We’ll see. If the other leaders turn on him for breaking groupthink unity, then it’s more likely to be genuine, and he has actually woken up, somewhat.

    David Cameron has said “…I will make the arguments about Britain’s future in a reformed European Union…” Which is another “is he awake” statement. Where is this “reformed EU”? No-one else can see it, though perhaps some intending to vote “remain” imagine that it exists.

    Reply Mr Tusk has not withdrawn the 5 Presidents Report which he co signed. That is still official EU policy!

  14. alan jutson
    June 2, 2016

    The EU saying one thing in public, but really doing something else behind the scenes !

    Surely not !

    But they have a record of doing exactly that for over 40 years, so they have form !

  15. formula57
    June 2, 2016

    The One Person, Two Views phenomenon seems to be a common enough theme on the Remain side.

    By way of another, well-recognized example, we have Mr Cameron wishing to “pave the way from Ankara to Brussels” as he is Turkey’s best friend pushing for EU membership and then in referendum mode he tells us there is “not the remotest chance” of Turkey joining, at least before the year 3000 (so I suppose he still thinks joining is in prospect, to be strictly fair).

  16. forthurst
    June 2, 2016

    The two positions of Donald Tusk are clearly poles apart. However, from its conception, the EU has been about “Forcing lyrical and in fact naïve Euro-enthusiastic visions of total integration” on the rest of us without consideration of the economic and societal damage it has inflicted along the way. The only difference between the Brussels regime and the Bolshevik Empire is that hte former currently lacks gulags and an NKVD so it has to implement its onward march to total dominance by deceit and the collusion of traitorous domestic politicians like CMD.

  17. paul cohen
    June 2, 2016

    Well, let the media press Donald Trusk to explain this contradiction then. I think he is in awe of Juncker & Co, and his malign ambitions.

    The referendum campaigns are mainly disappointing – simplistic and misleading, an insult to the intelligence. The possibility that mobile roaming charges could be a factor is pathetic.

    As usual the JR comments are insightful and compelling, let’s hope his audience becomes
    more widespread and convinced.

  18. Bert Young
    June 2, 2016

    Tusk knew very well that his speech would be reported and that he stood on very thin ice . He is scared out of his wits at the thoughts of “Brexit” knowing full well that the consequences will lead to a break up of the EU . The loss of our presence is one thing , the loss of our nett contribution is another nail in the EU coffin . When snowflakes fall in the summer they don’t last for more than a few seconds .

  19. Denis Cooper
    June 2, 2016

    More nonsense here, this time from the ECHR rather than the EU, but then arguably if you want the EU then you’re stuck with the ECHR as well, pace Mrs May:

    “People cannot be deprived of their freedom of movement under article 5 of the European Convention of Human rights, even if for only two or three days.

    In 2002, the commander of a French frigate was ordered to intercept a merchant ship near Cape Verde. The boat, which was registered in Cambodia, was hauling cocaine.

    Once caught, its crew was confined to their quarters under military guard while tugged back to France.

    Eight years later, the Grand Chamber at the Strasbourg court ruled that France had violated article 5 of the Convention by confining the crew on the boat. The Chamber said France had taken legal jurisdiction over the boat when they apprehended it. It meant article 5 applies.

    Another case is now being discussed that involves a Syrian who is stuck in a transit zone at a Russian airport since September.

    The Russians argue his freedom is merely restricted and that this is not a violation of article 5. They say he can freely can go back to Syria. His lawyers argue the transit zone is under Russian jurisdiction, which means the Syrian has his rights.

    The Russians are likely to lose. In 1996 the Court ruled in favour of Somali defendants under similar circumstances at the Paris-Orly international zone.

    It means any migrant or asylum seeker taken on board a boat in the Italian floating hotspot cannot be deprived of his or her liberty.”

    Perhaps Cameron could explain why he is misusing our Royal Navy to rescue illegal immigrants in the Mediterranean when according to the unaccountable lawyers on Planet Strasbourg they and any other criminals must then be released to go wherever they want, as well as explaining what is going to happen to any illegal immigrants or other criminals apprehended or rescued up in the Channel should any of our few remaining naval vessels be available to do that.

    But we know the answer, which is that they will be ferried to the UK and then allowed to stay here; and we also know that Cameron and May no more cars about that travesty than Blair and Brown ever cared about it. Any Britons who still think this is “their” country need to realise that most of our elected politicians do not agree with them.

  20. Denis Cooper
    June 2, 2016

    My God, is this chap Corbyn ignorant and stupid, or deceitful, or what?

    “The NHS will face “irreversible” privatisation if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is adopted by the EU, Jeremy Corbyn has claimed in direction contradiction to David Cameron.

    The Labour leader said he shares concerns about the “secret” deal and pledged to repeal the agreement if he made it into power.”

    The deal being “secret” so far there is no way of knowing whether the treaty will even include any provision for withdrawal by a state which has signed up to it; if not that would require Parliament to authorise the government to unilaterally abrogate the agreement in breach of the treaty. Would Corbyn be prepared to do that?

    However there is less uncertainty about the attitude of the EU towards any member state which wanted to withdraw from a trade agreement which it, the EU, had negotiated and concluded on behalf of all the member states, and to which the EU was itself a party alongside each of the member states, and which the member state in question had freely accepted and ratified. So would Corbyn be prepared to also defy the EU by taking the UK out of TTIP, which could be seen as tantamount to taking the UK out of the EU?

    June 2, 2016

    Actually Mr. Tusk did a volte-face when he visited Greece recently. He went in vowing to compel the Greeks to accept more and more migrants. But after talking with many Greek town and city mayors, who simply explained that even with extra money they could not physically deal with the problem he declared EU administrative officials to be sent from Germany and elsewhere and the idea of negotiating more forcefully with the Turks.

    Also, Mr Tusk came under intense pressure and indeed a much publicised threat ( within Poland, unreported by and large in our wonderful media ) by the Polish Government that if he “did not START standing up for Poland in the EU, his Polish nomination for his EU post would most definitely not be given. They had a little talk with him and the Government came out with wall-to-wall smiles. Mr Tusk’s face was not shown

  22. ian
    June 2, 2016

    The European fund strategic investments also known as the Juckers plan which the treasury has given 8.5 billion euro to last year has all been wasted and now junckers is calling for more money this year for the fund and wants it now to include Syria and Africa also to last another two years to 2020, so I would of thought another 8.5 billion to be sent this year, look it up.
    That’s on top of are contribution we already send, so that was 24 billion pounds we sent to the eu last year.
    It could be lot more with other things.

  23. turbo terrier
    June 2, 2016

    When are the British electorate going to be informed about the ever growing financial problems causing real concerns in both France and Italy?

    I would respectively suggest that Mr Trusk and his friends concentrate on how they are going to keep the EU together and who will have to fund the bail out.

    How can CMD and the remainers want to be part of this Micky Mouse club rapidly for the wall without our help is beyond me.

  24. Vanessa
    June 2, 2016

    I think it was Donald Tusk or similar from the EU being interviewed on the BBC who said that the idea of nationalism was barbaric and the EU federalism was civilised !!!! I don’t think the 100+ countries in the world, including India, USA, Russia, etc. would view themselves as barbarians and those puny little countries which are members of the EU the only civilised lot on the planet !!! Who are these people and who do they think they are? Trust the BBC never to come back with a question!

    1. Denis Cooper
      June 2, 2016

      He was addressing the EPP, which is overtly federalist.

      “The European People’s Party (EPP) is the political family of the centre-right, whose roots run deep in the history and civilisation of the European continent and which has pioneered the European project from its inception. Tracing back its roots to Europe’s Founding Fathers – Robert SCHUMAN, Alcide DE GASPERI, and Konrad ADENAUER – the EPP is committed to a strong Europe based on a federal model that relies on the principle of subsidiarity.”

      It was precisely this commitment to a federal Europe which led Daniel Hannan and others to press for the Tory party to dissociate itself from the EPP.

      Reply And me!

  25. Anonymous
    June 2, 2016

    The section on fiscal union in the 5PR should scare anyone who otherwise thinks the EU will make them prosperous.

    Redistributive taxation without representation. Communism well describes the planned EU.

  26. ian
    June 2, 2016

    Needless to say we made the biggest contribution to the new EFSI fund also known as the juckers fund

Comments are closed.