The European summit conclusions


Mr Cameron succeeded at the summit in getting the following paragraph added to the conclusions:

“The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed.

In this context, the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those who want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.  etc”


This careful prose is a prelude to the renegotiation the UK is going to need, given the centralising drive of much else in the document and in the Commission work programme. In the Commons yesterday Mr Cameron reaffirmed that the UK does not wish to move to political union at a slower pace than the rest, but wishes to go in a different direction, with the restoration of powers to the UK . The UK wishes to see accountability and legitimacy for government through national Ministers  and elected national Parliaments, not through the Commission and European Parliament.

Elsewhere in the document the rush to more EU power and policies continued. Problems with migration gives us the statement

“the EU needs an efficient and well-managed migration, asylum and borders policy, guided by the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility… Europe must develop strategies to maximise the opportunities of legal migration through coherent and efficient rules…”

This is clearly a situation where the UK will need domestic control of its own arrangements.

The document also reaffirmed the need for an integrated energy market with more mutual dependence and connectivity between states. The aim is to share what we have rather than taking steps to increase supply of cheap energy sufficiently.


  1. Alte Fritz
    July 1, 2014

    When some contributors describe the EU as a dictatorship, their remarks seem far fetched. Then one reads extracts as Mr Redwood has posted. One remembers repeated referenda until the “right” answer is given. One remembers that this is a project and projects are supposed to start from one position and reach another come what may. So, the description of the EU as a dictatorship, albeit relatively benevolent, is not that far fetched at all.

    1. lifelogic
      July 1, 2014

      The EU benevolent?

      benevolent:- kind, kindly, kind-hearted, warm-hearted, tender-hearted, big-hearted, good-natured, good, gracious, tolerant, benign, compassionate, caring, sympathetic, considerate, thoughtful, well meaning, obliging, accommodating, helpful, decent, neighbourly, public-spirited, charitable, altruistic, humane, humanitarian, philanthropic;

      Power seeking, over regulation seeking, avoiding democratic accountability, often corrupt and money grabbing more like!

      1. Hope
        July 1, 2014

        Robin Harris, former advisor to Mrs Thatcher, gives a good analysis in the DM.

        Interesting how Hesltine wants to keep his Euro fanatic friend Clarke in the cabinet.

    2. Anonymous
      July 1, 2014

      AF – The EU HAS to be benevolent – for the moment. It isn’t quite in charge yet.

      What Mr van Leeuwen doesn’t understand is that the English are highly individualistic (as reflected in our art and music) and don’t find homogeny easy. This is the reason for mass migration – to get rid of this particular problem.

      1. Peter van Leeuwen
        July 2, 2014

        I do not see the English nor their art and culture as more individualistic than French or Germans.
        If you look weel, you’ll see more regional diversity in the EU than decades ago. The major threat to the celbration of European cultural diversity is more likely to come from America (TTIP negotiations) than from the EU, which subsidises diversity.
        When getting rid of your “mass migration” will you also send home all the foreign medics which keep your NHS running? They are just as neede in their home countries.

        1. Lifelogic
          July 6, 2014

          We just need selective immigration, we allow the ones we need to stay why on earth would they all leave?

    3. Peter van Leeuwen
      July 1, 2014

      @Alte Fritz: A ‘dictatorship’ exercised by 26 “democratically elected heads of government” (citing Cameron here).
      To me that sounds more like a child not getting his or her way and throwing a tantrum. Endless repetition of terms like ‘dictatorship’, ‘EUSSR’, ‘anti-democratic’ etc. etc. doesn’t make these terms true, but a measure of brainwashing does start to kick in. It were better to take an interest and look at the far more complex content and context in all these matters.

      1. Lifelogic
        July 1, 2014

        “Endless repetition of terms like ‘dictatorship’, ‘EUSSR’, ‘anti-democratic’ etc. etc. doesn’t make these terms true.”

        Indeed repetition does not, but nevertheless they are true, to a very large and increasing degree.

      2. APL
        July 1, 2014

        PvL: “(citing Cameron here).”

        snigger. Cameron’s words carry about as much weight as a weather balloon.

      3. Hope
        July 1, 2014

        Junker not elected by any citizen from any of the 28 nations. The only country appearing to have a majority voice is Germany. Quite ironic really as the project was essentially set up to stop them going to war and expanding to the east. Will the Germans ever change their desire to rule Europe?

        1. Peter van Leeuwen
          July 2, 2014

          @Hope: That would have been exactly the same if Cameron had had his way, no difference there, and worse, it would have been secret horse-trading. Did Cameron appear on any ballot paper in Scotland? Even in England he featured only on ballot papers in the Witney safe-seat. What a democracy!

          1. Hope
            July 4, 2014

            Peter, you really need to concern yourself with what the Eu means to your country not ours. Your views are wasted and have no purpose here. I am glad you realise how the backroom secret ballot is central to the EU ideal of democracy, not.

      4. Anonymous
        July 1, 2014

        Peter – Our ‘democratically’ elected head of government has lost 60% of his party’s membership. He couldn’t win a majority and so sits in coalition with another federalist party. His own party is torn over EU membership to the extent that a renegade group (UKIP) has formed in the absence of a Eurosceptic main party (there are none for people to choose from)

        The response to this UKIP challenge ? Childish name calling yes. BUT BY OUR DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED – PRO EU – HEAD OF GOVERNMENT. Not to mention the utter hysteria throughout the political and media class – particularly the BBC.

        It appears we are not allowed to have a choice. Correction. We may have a choice so long as it’s blue with yellow stars on it.

        I cannot be the only one here tiring of your condescending manner, Peter. And I’ve noted your barbed comments and twisting of fact with regard to UKIP supporters. You seemed to suggest that UKIP voters were xenophobic in an earlier comment. I responded gently even though it caused me to be offended.

        1. Peter van Leeuwen
          July 2, 2014

          @Anonymous: If I sounded condescending, I’m truly sorry. It must have been my own emotions, when I read British talk down on the EU or other democracies. Let’s try again: if UKIP had been a party in the Netherlands system (proportional, no threshold) it would have had many seats in parliament for over a decade, like the Dutch Freedom party has had 10% and 15% of the seats in previous general elections (almost a hundred seats would be the UK equivalent for 15%). I argue that oyur system of democracy is not something to write home about (half your parliament unelected and the other half unrepresentative of the popular vote) and that it is better to look at your own system first before making derogatory comments about the EU system.
          I won’t say that UKIP voter are xenophobic but I do think that xenophobic voters vote for UKIP, similar to xenophobic voters in the Netherlands preferring Geert Wilders’ Freedom party.

          1. Anonymous
            July 3, 2014

            Peter – I live in a country where humour is becoming increasingly difficult.

            Saying the wrong thing (and not by much) can have one sued, prosecuted, fired and ostracised.

            Therefore I am less tolerant of ad hominem attacks on my sanity, niceness, fairness and general personality. I’d prefer to be more light hearted about it but I see the danger in the power grabs going on by people going on the offensive by taking offence. I’m simply redressing some balance rather than letting it pass without comment as I would before. There seem to be new rules these days so they should apply to me equally.

            Apology accepted. Thank you.

            Your comment on UKIP containing xenophobes is unfair. A minority may be but there has always been the xenophobic BNP party to opt for but our people rejected it – they are not xenophobes.

            It would be as irrational as me stating that the Liberal party is a party of paedophiles (over recent scandals) or that the Labour party is full of communists.

            We can’t label the many because of the few.

          2. Anonymous
            July 3, 2014

            To clarify:

            “Your comment on UKIP containing xenophobes is unfair. A minority may be but there has always been the xenophobic BNP party to opt for but our people rejected it – they are not xenophobes.”

            Unfair in that I ask why mention xenophobes in relation to UKIP at all ?

            The ‘kick-em-all-out’ mentality is not satisfied by UKIP policy and those attracted to UKIP form a measurably tiny minority. We can safely say far less than the historically puny BNP (seeing as the BNP have kept some of their votes.)

      5. Anonymous
        July 2, 2014

        Peter – We can substitute your ‘complex content’ with the word esoteric. Remove politics beyond the masses.

        But why ? The issues are quite simple. Our country is becoming dangerously overcrowded because of the EU and we dislike it but cannot deal with it as we are tied up with complexities . Our country’s one economic saving grace is what it doesn’t have in common with the EU rather than what it does (our currency.) so we – quite reasonably – infer that the EU is bad for us.

        The Eurocrat thrives on complexity. It’s where he hides and it buys him time to do things.

        There can’t be anything more brainwashing than the relentless, overt (but more often subliminal) pro EU messaging from the BBC.

        And those too independently minded to be affected by it ? Brand them as xenophobes – thereafter they are sub-humans and don’t need to be listened to.

        1. Peter van Leeuwen
          July 2, 2014

          @Anonymous: “because of the EU”??? Why did the UK decide in 2005 not to have any limits on immigration like the Netherlands and other countries did? It wasn’t the EU, it was the UK there. Easy to blame it on the EU.
          If you want to leave, we are not stopping you! You just don’t manage to command a majority for that view in Britain under the British system of deciding this. The EU cannot keep you against your will, hasn’t that sunk in yet?

          1. Anonymous
            July 3, 2014

            Peter @ 9.29

            Our politicians throw their arms up and blame the EU.

            Oh yes. It has ‘sunk in’. That this is by our own government’s hand. Hence the defections to UKIP and the 60% losses to the Tory party membership. The media may blame the gay marriage issue but really this was the last confirmation to Conservative voters that Mr Cameron is a liberal and not a Tory – it was certainly a strange prioritisation at a time of economic catastrophe.

            A hijacking has taken place. The electorate is without true choice. We are down to insulting the opposition leader on physical traits so little else is there to discern.

            A huge proportion of voters remain at home because, they say, ‘They’re all the same.’ and they are right. The three main parties all want federalism. As the EU is a left wing construct then all that is on offer is leftism or, at best, MPs stating “You elected me on this right wing manifesto but I can’t deliver it because I have to represent ALL constituents.

            A total sell out for sure.

            Of Europe ? I don’t really care much what people in other countries decide – I don’t want it to be my business – but it seems to me that negative referenda are ignored and repeated until the right result in achieved.

            The bigger things are the more complex and esoteric they become. I’m sure that this suits federalists to the ground. The politics of attrition and boredom rules.

      6. Lindsay McDougall
        July 2, 2014

        But we don’t want to share institutions of government with continental Europe, and no amount of name calling by you is going to alter that fact.

        1. Peter van Leeuwen
          July 2, 2014

          @Lindsay McDougall: which name calling, I haven’t done any that I know of. Apparently your view has been a minority view until now, and there were all these treaties where you could have decided not to sign but leave. It may still not happen in 2017.

          1. Hope
            July 4, 2014

            Peter, read you comments on previous blogs before you write utter rubbish.

  2. Mark B
    July 1, 2014

    There was no ‘Summit’, it was just a meeting.

    Prey tell Mr. Redwood MP sir, what part of, “Ever CLOSER UNION” do you, and for that matter, the PM, do not understand ?

    You may slow the pace of integration but, you simply cannot stop and turn around. It has something to do with the ratchet effect which, those that set up this project a long time ago, for saw as a necessary requirement.

    Reply I fully understand closer integration, am against it for the UK, and want an In/Out referendum. What part of that do you not understand. I voted against the Treaties of Rome (referendum), Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.

    1. Mark B
      July 1, 2014

      Reply to reply

      I find it interesting that you use the word, “integration”, but that is just splitting hairs.

      The part of the IN/OUT referendum I do not understand is, the need for it. The first line of Article 50 says;

      “1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

      Where in our constitution does it say we must hold a referendum to leave the EU ?

      In fact, even if we were to win an OUT vote, there is nothing that we could do if the Government of the day decided to ignore the result.

      1. Denis Cooper
        July 2, 2014

        We were told that there was no need for a referendum before we joined the EEC; referendums did not form part of our time-hallowed constitution; we were a representative democracy, and it would be thoroughly un-British to hold a referendum, “a device of demagogues and dictators”.

        Similarly we’ve been told that there’s been no need for a referendum on any of the subsequent treaties to deepen or widen the EU.

        But apparently leaving the EU would be a very different matter, in that case it would be essential to have a referendum rather than having the government just put in our Article 50 notice that we’re leaving.

    2. Hope
      July 1, 2014

      Cameron thinks he won some sort of victory from his humiliating slap down and thinks this will help him in his negotiations. He is deluded. Read the analysis from a Robin Harris, he is spot on the money. Cameron failed politically, diplomatically and has only led the other countries to realise he is all hot air and no bargaining chips because he wants to stay in the EU with all his heart and soul.

  3. ian wragg
    July 1, 2014

    Now more than ever is it obvious that CMD will achieve absolutely nothing in negotiations with the EU. The man must be smoking something very strong or be completely deluded to think the other countries give a toss about what he wants. It will be no good him coming back waving a bit of paper having secured control of paperclip procurement. After Wilson that will no longer wash.
    There is absolutely no reason why he can’t declare a referendum within 6 months of the next election and he would probably win a majority government but he won’t do that. He doesn’t want a majority government and 2017 is just delaying tactics to entwine us even lore into the tentacles of EU integration.

    1. BobE
      July 1, 2014

      Exactly, and three more years of new people arriving will increase the YES vote.

    2. Denis Cooper
      July 1, 2014

      “After Wilson that will no longer wash.”

      I agree with Cameron that it might.

      1. Mark
        July 2, 2014

        Hogwash or whitewash?

        Cameron washes whiter…

  4. Lifelogic
    July 1, 2014

    Cameron has still not even set out what power he wants back his speech on it was pathetic and vague. He also says he want to retain totally uncontrolled EU immigration.

    When asked by Douglas Carswell yesterday: “What would have to happen for you to come back from your renegotiations and recommend people vote ‘out’?” Cameron replied in typically evasive style: “I think it is in the national interest to renegotiate our position in Europe, to secure the changes I have set out. I don’t start the negotiations believing we won’t achieve those things, I set out wanting to achieve them… but I will always do what is in the national interest.” A typical non answer and anyway he has set out nothing beyond vague trivia yet.

    David Nuttall asked “Many millions of British people want a relationship based on trade and co-operation and if the rest of the European Union do not agree it would be no surprise if the British people vote to leave the EU?” Cameron replied: “Ultimately this is going to be a choice for the British people. My job is to make sure we secure the very best renegotiation so that people who want to stay in a reformed EU, who believe it’s in our national interest to do so, get the best possible choice.” Another vacuous, meaningless statement of nothing.

    He is very clearly in the people who want to stay in a reformed EU, who believe it’s in our national interest to do so, get the best possible choice.

    Cameron judging by the betting odds has only about a 10% chance of an overall majority, the system is against him too. He has a pro EU wing of perhaps 100 MPs who probably will not let him do anything sensible anyway. The chance of a sufficient majority to out vote this Ken Clarke wing is virtually zero. Cameron anyway is very clearly the leader of this wing.

    Cameron has no chance whatsoever of getting anything near what is needed to justify staying in. His negotiation technique is totally useless, indeed the whole negotiation ruse is clearly just a pathetic long grass strategy.

    1. Lifelogic
      July 1, 2014

      Interesting to read that Vince Cable’s departments student loan company also uses Wonga style collection techniques. I cannot help thinking that the problem with Wonga is the huge interest rates they are allowed to charge, rather than the collection techniques. Loans at these rates just cannot help anyone.

      It surely is now time for Prince Charles to copy his excellent parents’ lead and keep fully out of politics, stop pushing his silly views on GM crops, green energy and quack medicines on the NHS – especially given his huge personal energy and travel arrangements.

      Jeremy Hunt alas also seems to think taking money off taxpayers to fund duff NHS treatments is a good idea.

      1. Bazman
        July 1, 2014

        Will this apply to landlords rates if the rate they charge is no use to anyone such as massive rents for slums and if not do tell why it should be one rule fo one source of exploitation and one rule for another source of exploitation. You are laughably going to tell us there are no slum landlords?

      2. Hope
        July 1, 2014

        Cameron is on his EU journey without a route map or destination. Clueless and roaming in the wilderness.

    2. cunctator
      July 2, 2014

      to Lifelogic. Why do both Europhiles and Eurosceptics still persist in using terms and
      language inappropriate to discussing the future and current intentions of the EU.
      The use of the words ‘our interests’ is wrong; with the further integration and homogenisation through immigration and free movement there will be no ‘us’ to which the word ‘our’ in, its current use by Cameron and others, is applicable. If you carry forward the argument based on this false
      ing premise then the EU Nomenklatura will take over. You and I, and all others will be
      citizens of the EU all subject to the same govern regime, which must eventually suppress any
      criticism of any of it actions. Perhaps the most ironic aspect of this is how corporate global
      business has crawled into bed with the basically totalitarian EU elite. The EU will raise one
      finger to big business and nationalise and control it as it sees fit. In order to function, the
      whole of the EU will become basically corrupt in order to survive at any level whatever. When
      it becomes big enough it will be able to engender conflict and war through it own
      “Foreign Office” and through it sole representative at the UN. Remember, it like America will
      have one representative in the UN replacing the thirty or so national UN representatives now
      Cameron is in tune with the deluded majority, who mistakenly assume that there will still ‘our interests’ to renegotiate. One army, one system of justice based on Napoleonic and Roman law
      codes. The increased interest in diversity is a red herring and a sop along the way to achieving monolithic status for the power base believed achievable by the EU autocrats.
      I merely point out the future; it may be that the majority of Britons favour what I have
      described and so have every right , while they still have that right , to decide to go down the
      path of becoming inhabitants of one of several new regions which will be formed from the
      former UK. Others may not wish this to happen. Which ever view one takes and which ever
      future one favours the arguments pro and con for any particular action must be based on the
      correct premises and the correct use of language.

    3. Lindsay McDougall
      July 3, 2014

      The 2015 General election is the last chance for us to avoid being sucked into the emerging European SuperState against our will. It’s also clear enough that to attract sufficient UKIP supporters back to the Conservative Party, the latter’s negotiating stance must be hardened to give UKIP a lot of what they fancy, which will include ‘red lines’. I would have thought that full control over immigration was a sine qua non.

      Bearing this in mind, perhaps Mr Redwood and his fellow Eurosceptics will consider when parliament will be in session during the rest of 2014. It will be in session:
      – Until 22 July
      – From 1 to 12 September
      – From 13 October to 11 November
      – From 17 November to 18 December
      The remainder of 2014 will consist of recesses for the summer, for party conferences, for a November ‘half term’ break and for Christmas.

      That gives a limited amount of time to impose a detailed and concrete renegotiation stance upon the Prime Minister – and for Eurosceptics to decide what to do if they meet resistance. They dare not leave it until next year.

  5. Boudicca
    July 1, 2014

    Frau Merkel – the only Leader who counts in the EU – made the situation absolutely plain.

    She said that the principle of Ever Closer Union applied to every member of the EU. It was only the pace at which a member nation achieved the goal (of a Federal EU) which differed.

    The EU hasn’t spent 60+ years painstakingly accruing power – Treaty by Treaty – just to give it back because Cameron asks for it.

    There will be no significant repatriation of power: the Aquis Communautaire forbids it. There will be no change to the Treaties – the 4 freedoms will be maintained – because the EU (as Merkel has stated) “refuses to reopen the Treaties.”

    Cameron is lining up a deception along the lines of the one Wilson perpetrated in 1975. He will achieve nothing substantial, but will claim a massive victory, “peace in our time” and The British Establishment will line up to bully, bribe and scare the British people into voting to surrender their Sovereignty in perpetuity.

    If they think there is any chance of losing a Referendum, Cameron will resign (or be sacked) and the Referendum will be scrapped.

    1. A different Simon
      July 1, 2014

      In the case of Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” and Churchill when the allies betrayed Poland at Yalta after WWII , Britain on it’s own at those times was powerless to do anything else .

      It didn’t have the military or economic power to do anything even if the political will had of been there .

      The cases of Wilson and David Cameron supposedly renegotiating the treaties with the EU are fundamentally different : Britain has the power to be an independent sovereign nation again by leaving the EU .

      What I can’t understand is why the British Establishment and Elites so desperately want Britain to be absorbed into a United States of Europe and cease to exist as anything more than a postcode .

      Anyone any ideas ?

      1. alan jutson,
        July 1, 2014



        It means that politicians can always blame someone else for the problems they encounter, problems they make for themselves, or fail to sort out.

        The more layers of unaccountability, the more the chance of getting away with It !.

        We already hear in Budget speeches we cannot do this, we cannot do that, etc etc..

      2. Hope
        July 1, 2014

        Because the US wants this to happen and will bully and coerce the UK to remain in it as will the other EU countries.

        Peter Hitchens makes a good case why the Us is not our special friend. Fact as. Cry good reading.

      3. Excalibur
        July 2, 2014

        A leftist agenda for World Government, Simon. It is easier to merge large blocs than individual countries.

        1. cunctator
          July 2, 2014

          Thank goodness more and more people are beginning to small the coffee

  6. Duyfken
    July 1, 2014

    I wonder how long before these avowed aims of Cameron can be achieved, perhaps it would take years or even decades, if at all. Yet the disadvantages the UK suffers from its EU membership are both acutely and chronically with us now. Cameron’s slow-motion progress is costing the nation dearly, where by contrast we need prompt, decisive action.

    1. Duyfken
      July 1, 2014

      Replying to myself, I note that a slew of Tory MPs has expressed “congratulations” to Cameron for the stance he took over the Juncker election:

      Sir Peter Tapsell, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Sir William Cash, Sir Richard Ottaway, John Redwood, Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir Gerald Howarth, Peter Lilley, Cheryl Gillan, James Duddridge, Sir Edward Leigh, Christopher Chope, James Clappison, David T.C. Davies, David Nuttall, Stewart Jackson, Stephen O’Brien, Margot James, Nadhim Zahawi, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jesse Norman, Andrew Selous, Peter Bone, Julian Smith, Penny Mordaunt, Simon Kirby and Nigel Evans.

      What hope do we have with the evidence of this sycophantic nonsense? Cameron’s grandstanding may fool some but not, I hope, many. A bit like his “veto” most will remember. If the Tory Eurosceptic wing is to be distracted by such play-acting, Cameron will forever be able to run rings around us.

      1. acorn
        July 1, 2014

        You left out the rest of the Boston (Lincolnshire) Tea Party. A ragbag of political neo-conservatives (MPs, MEPs), who worship Sarah Palin.

        Now, “we-the-people”, need to get organised. The question is, do you want to be in the EU or out of the EU. The only mechanism we have to register our demands is the 2015 general election. All other stuff you have been promised by politicians should be considered null and void. Any brave new (negotiated) world promised; total bollocks. It ain’t gonna happen and “we-the-people” have to proceed on that basis.

        The most refreshing thing to do would be to not vote for any incumbent MP. (Sorry JR).

        Just vote for a new face; dump the legacy politicians; we are talking “Brave New World” here. My Jag XK8 has just had an engine oil flush; you should have seen the crap that got washed out of that V8. Our Parliament needs similar treatment.

        The “get-out-of-Dodge” vote is simple, UKIP. The stay in the EU vote needs some thinking about. We don’t want any legacy party politicians getting back into Westminster.

        So how do we register a stay in vote, that would not return an austerity mad ideological dinosaur, to the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer? 😉 😉 😉 .

      2. Hope
        July 1, 2014

        He did not stop Eurozone countries using EU institutions, he did not stop £90 million being spent on Strasbourg, he has not cut the UK contribution to the EU budget, they forced him to pay another billion for rising the issue! No control of our borders, no stopping Jihadist entering back in there country and he thinks opting back into the EU arrest warrant will stop terrorism! He is deluded and treating the public with contempt.

    2. Lifelogic
      July 1, 2014


      We see even the tiny pathetic stand he took against Juncker has given him some electoral bounce. Cameron is very lucky, despite his ratting, his throwing of the last election and his broken compass on nearly all policies (greencrap, taxation, the size of the state, over regulation, the EU, the equality drivel, HS2, Maria Millar, gender insurance insanity, IHT, David Laws, Ed Davey, Chris Huhne, Andy Coulson …..).

      The UK economy and London especially has benefited from the Euro problems and the worldwide troubles, the non dom rules for the rich. Also Labour is led by Wallace and Gromit who want a new rent act and to fix prices by government decree!

      If only he could get a new heart and soul transplant he might be in with a chance. I suspect he would still revert to his genetic type though, post election.

      1. Bazman
        July 1, 2014

        You propose to set loan company interest rates by government decree so whats the problem?

  7. Mike Stallard
    July 1, 2014

    Are you surprised that the Council wants More Europe?

    Do bears…

    1. BobE
      July 1, 2014

      Do turkeys…..

  8. Old Albion
    July 1, 2014

    More words, more bluster. The EU will carry on toward it’s totalitarian destination. The (dis)UK will go with it despite the hyperbole from David Cameron.
    The only way to be free, is out.

  9. Andyvan
    July 1, 2014

    Domestic control of it’s own arrangements?

    You mean like the Border Agency debacles, or the current passport disaster or maybe the Environment Agency flooding spectacle? How many other shambolic cock ups have we seen by domestically controlled arrangements? The answer is not changing which gang of incompetents run government in the UK, it is simply to have less government.

  10. Peter van Leeuwen
    July 1, 2014

    Having antagonized his 26 colleagues in a call for voting, precluding more creative ways to avoid Juncker for those leaders with doubts about him, Cameron will pay a price in due time. Many cheers and congratulations for this bulldog spirit by the home crowd, but Cameron may be viewed more as liability in Europe, whatever the kind patching up words.

    1. cosmic
      July 1, 2014

      I never saw anything more to this than a performance for the home crowd, entered into on the assurance that Juncker wasn’t going to be nominated, so it was a safe thing to kick up a fuss over. It was a sham to demonstrate influence in Europe and lend the renegotiation line credibility,

      Then horror of horrors, Juncker was going to get the nomination, so there’s an attempt to position Cameron as a hero fighting on principle and standing up for Britain. It seems to be working a bit. Nobody ever made a million by overestimating the intelligence of the general public.

    2. Bulldog
      July 1, 2014

      Peter – Mr Cameron had to make a bit of a show of it because of the UKIP presence.

      That’s all it was. A show. I’m sure the 26 realise the pressure he’s under and will forgive. Without UKIP or an election year Mr Cameron wouldn’t have made a fuss about Junker.

    3. Robert Taggart
      July 1, 2014

      YIPEE !…
      Europe could be forced to ‘set us free’ – without the bovver of a referendum.
      Fear not PvL – we will still visit you – if only for the ‘highs’ Amsterdam has to offer us !

  11. alan jutson,
    July 1, 2014

    Well the short paragraph is better in than not being present at all.

    Time will tell if Mr Cameron gets anything out of such negotiations, as when and if they ever happen.

    In my opinion we have really simply just wasted 5 years talking about possible negotiations, instead of actually doing something positive about it.

    Yes I appreciate the numbers in Parliament are at the moment stacked against you John.

    i think Cameron is finding out rather too late how popular standing up to the EU could have been for his Party.

  12. mick
    July 1, 2014

    What i saw yesterday in the debate was all you tories breaking your necks to praise the PM, but not one of you had the courage to ask why he is`nt going to bring a referendum forward now Mr Juncker is appointed, and don`t come back to me with the old line it is because your in with the lib/dem`s, because the PM knew this when he made the statement on 2nd June 2014

  13. Timaction
    July 1, 2014

    Free movement of people? This is one of the key rules of the EU. Our borders are open to 485 million people and growing! Thus allowing them unrestricted access to all our public services and benefits. You cannot have a welfare state and an NHS with open borders. When are the Legacy Parties going to decide on their policy? If not move over and let another patriotic party set the pace and the rules.

  14. cosmic
    July 1, 2014

    The careful prose has been constructed so that it might mean something but actually means nothing. Similar statements were churned out following referendums in Ireland, France and Holland and we saw what they actually meant later.

    It’s been made abundantly clear by various EU luminaries that there won’t be any fundamental change to the EU in the way that Mr. Cameron has been talking about and when you think about it, there can’t be; all roads lead to further integration, which is logical, as that’s the basic purpose of the EU.

    As for the rest of it, the EU may be hand-wringing about immigration, but in other ways it’s doing its best to increase the pressures which lead to immigration in the first place, e.g. by rapacious fishing agreements in West Africa which damage the local economies and destroy jobs. The Libyan adventure has also made things worse. The left hand clearly does not know what the right hand is doing.

    The mania for green energy, is clearly something which the EU sees as a tool for extending its reach, although the useful fools in Westminster have risen to the occasion to make it worse for the UK than it need be.

  15. Alan Wheatley
    July 1, 2014

    I am pleased to read “In the Commons yesterday Mr Cameron reaffirmed that the UK does not wish to move to political union at a slower pace than the rest, but wishes to go in a different direction …”. This is a welcome change from the rhetoric of many years with the talk of inner/outer and fast/slow, all of which failed to understand that the pace of change was not the problem but the direction in which it was taking us.

    This conveniently leads us to the next logical issue: can the EU accommodate members heading in different directions. And if different directions are accommodated how much of a union is there?

    But the far more important and fundamental issue for the UK is whether the best future for the UK is as a member of such an organisation. The UK has options. The UK is plenty big enough a country to stand on its own, taking a World-wide view to it relationships. The UK already has a friendly relationship with the members of the Commonwealth, as testified by the “Friendly Games” that will be taking place shortly. We have 1000 years of history throughout which trial, tribulations and wise councils we have honed what good governance works for us (most of the time) so we do not need the prop of being part of an organisation that takes the decisions for us.

    THE ISSUE is what is best for the UK taking account of all the possibilities. It is not narrowly limited to what is the best deal we can get the power-brokers in the EU to give us.

  16. AndyC
    July 1, 2014

    Careful prose indeed! There’s nothing there for anyone who finds the status quo unacceptable. It’s reminiscent of William Hague’s constitutional lock, or whatever he called his non-legislation.

    I’m just about prepared to believe that Mr Cameron is serious about this renegotiation process. What I’m not prepared to believe is that he has any chance of success. It’s a puzzle. I wonder what he thinks he’s up to, and where he thinks this is all going to end.

  17. matthu
    July 1, 2014

    The document also reaffirmed the need for an integrated energy market with more mutual dependence and connectivity between states. The aim is to share what we have rather than taking steps to increase supply of cheap energy sufficiently.

    I have a huge issue with this if it is what I suspect it is.

    This encourages e.g. the UK to invest in vastly overpriced wind farms in neighbouring ‘states’ (what are they? Countries?) while guaranteeing to import huge quantities of energy at vastly overpriced rates delivering profit to people unseen by the UK electorate and paid for bu artificially concealing the charge on our home energy bills.

    Just another way of redistributing wealth in other words without any democratic overview of what’s going on.

    1. Mark
      July 1, 2014

      All these links across the sea that they want to install are expensive, and have to be paid for. If we are to be importers, that means we’re the ones paying for the links – on top of whatever it costs to provide the supply elsewhere. It would make much more sense to develop our own supplies – whether of shale gas or power generation from cheaper sources.

      1. stred
        July 3, 2014

        So we are going to pay for thee link to Iceland, proposed by DECC, and the Icelanders must be laughing all the way to their bust banks.

  18. oldtimer
    July 1, 2014

    The quoted reference to “not deepen any further” with respect to “ever closer union” implies that the ratchet is firmly in place. Namely it implies there will be no back tracking on the QMVs that will be introduced in November under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. If this reading of the statement is correct, then there is no chance of a successful renegotiation.

    I remain of the view that the attempt to renegotiate the return of substantial powers to the UK should be made. But I doubt it will be enough to persuade sceptics, like myself, who believe that past governments have lied to the electorate about what they were really up to and that the only solution will be “better off out”.

    1. Denis Cooper
      July 1, 2014

      oldtimer, there are no “QMVs that will be introduced in November under the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty”, those QMVs are already there and have been since December 1st 2009 when the treaty came in force; and that is not in any way changed because some people did not notice it happening at the time.

      1. cosmic
        July 1, 2014


        I admire your fortitude and persistence in trying to shoot this hare which has been set running. However, this appears to not just an ordinary hare, this is a cybernetic organism, flesh over a hyperalloy battle chassis, Cyberdyne Systems model 123, microprocessor controlled and very tough, and it absolutely will not stop.

        I note that our host JR, has also given it a barrel at point blank range, and it still reassembles itself and continues to run.

        Seriously, this is a piece of nonsense which seems to persist because people want to believe it’s true. I blame the ‘Repeal the ECA and it’s a proper job Boss’ crew.

        1. Denis Cooper
          July 2, 2014


          The Terminator Hare.

      2. oldtimer
        July 2, 2014

        Thanks for comment on my sloppy wording. IIRC Labour did say there would be a referendum and did not deliver one.

  19. Brian Tomkinson
    July 1, 2014

    In summary, the juggernaut trundles on as usual with an ambiguous and ultimately meaningless “paragraph” to allow Cameron and you to pretend that he achieved something. One of the worst aspects of all this is the sheer predictability; a failure is always a success; there is always a pretence that people are being listened to, whilst the process trundles on unabated; we are lied to ad nauseam and treated like fools. Politicians in this country continue to claim that they want the EU to be changed and in the next breath make it abundantly clear that they don’t just want to keep the UK in the EU they are determined to do whatever the terms. This duplicity is rife in Westminster from MPs who accept transfer of power to the EU on a daily basis whilst pretending they support the opposite.

  20. stred
    July 1, 2014

    Like most people, I was ignorant about the machinations of the EU until quite recently. I thought that ministers of various member countries thrashed out policies, then told commissioners to act on them and this would be discussed and amended, if eventually agreed, by the European Parliament.

    Looking into the reasons behind the sudden decision to legislate for homosexual marriage and the determination to ignore debate in the UK and France, it turned out that a British Libdem MP, with the blessing of Cameron, had arranged for the European Council to meet in the British gay capital and agree to bring the EU up to date with other liberal countries. And so a deadline was set and that was that, whether any plebs agreed or not. I was not surprised to find that members of the European Council are not chosen by any electorate, other than EU politicians.

    More recently there was an interview on Russian TV in which the overthrow of the Ukrainian oligarch president and installation of a new one, willing to sign the EU trade agreement, was between a young member of the European Council and one of their smart ladies. He tried to argue that the various referenda held by the Eastern dissidents were illegal and undemocratic, and he was unable to argue a logical case. The Council had also been protesting about the anti democratic actions by Russia and invasions etc. Since then, the civil war has caused much death and destruction and they have been trying to calm things down. It seemed odd that a bunch of unelected politicians were able to condemn a vote which was won with far higher proportions, even if not in accordance with EU norms.

    Last week, through JR’s blog, I learned that the European Councillors are not chosen in proportional to populations. Instead, each member country is allocated a seat. The little tax haven of Luxembourg now has as much say on the Council as Germany or the UK and their ex- PM, who organised this tax haven is the next president of the whole expansionary club. And he is chosen by the Parliament and no longer by the leaders of the member countries-never, of course, by the electorate.

    A few weeks ago, I learned that EU commissioners are allowed to insult European politicans and voters who are against their aims, calling them racists and zenophobes, while ignoring their opinions. At least the British civil servants only do so behind the scenes and would be in trouble if they openly did the same.

    I wonder how many other plebs have realised how democracy works in Europe.

  21. Chris S
    July 1, 2014

    At last some of the fault lines are emerging.

    The two sticking points will be free movement of people and “Ever Closer Union”

    The other 27 Nations will not unanimously concede the principle of either because, as Christopher Booker wrote the other day, there will then be several other Northern European Countries that will want the same and that won’t be tolerated.

    We will have to accept that we can have restrictions only on the movement of people from new member states joining, maybe for up to 10 years rather than five, but no restriction on people from current member states.

    As for ECU, we would have to make do with the principle remaining in place but an acceptance that, in our case, the pace will be close to a standstill.

    There will be no rolling back of QMV and certainly no agreement on a National Veto on all legislation. This would have to apply to all, not just the UK and would make the EU unworkable.

    At the end of the day, we will be asked to vote to leave or stay in having been given a few bland assurances and nothing concrete. Sadly, I think the majority in Britain will fall for it and vote to stay in.

    Everyone contributing to this Blog knows that Juncker and Co will then employ every trick in the book to continue progress towards a United States Of Europe and by stealth they will continue to make headway.

    Eventually the Euro will implode or we, along with the people in France and Germany will finally bring our politicians to book and elect parties that will force a reversal of this trend.

    I hope that in the case of the UK this will be a revitalised Conservative party in the Thatcher mould.

    Not sure which will happen first, probably the Euro will bring an end to the whole sorry mess.

  22. margaret brandreth-j
    July 1, 2014

    The idea of sharing energy is very noble yet having been in sharing situations many times, this country understands the disparity in proposed egalitarian modes of intention. I do not see why things have to be one way or its diametrically opposite contraway. We should be able to have both our own cheaper energy and buy what we need from the abroad . The problem remains, although the time scale is perhaps stretched out and is still one of finite resource.

  23. MikeP
    July 1, 2014

    John, given all that has frustrated us about the EU over the years I can’t help feeling that the phrase “do not want to deepen any further” will be taken to mean different things to different camps.
    The UK would have it mean we do not – ever – wish for total political and economic union but are happy to agree to lots of other trade and growth-based policies in the meantime and play a strong role in the development of the single market.
    Juncker and his parliamentary cronies however will doubtless think it means that the UK, and everyone else, is on the trajectory for ultimate union but has reserved the right to take longer, I just don’t think they’ll give up on this – flattering perhaps that they still see a chink of light at the end of the tunnel for us but infuriating nonetheless.

  24. Denis Cooper
    July 1, 2014

    Well, JR, it’s certainly some progress that other EU leaders have been prepared to put that passage into the Conclusions from the meeting:

    “… the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those who want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.”

    However – and you would no doubt expect my next sentence to start with “however” – this is only a political declaration, a statement of current intent, sincere or insincere, by the political leaders in the EU, of no more legal weight than an election manifesto.

    Moreover what they claim to be “the concept of ever closer union” will not be the same concept as that held by the eurofederalist lawyers on the EU’s Court of Justice, who will no doubt, and quite rightly, continue to base their judgements on the legal reality that through the preambles to their treaties ALL of the EU member states have solemnly committed themselves to a process of “ever closer union”.

    And moreover “do not wish to deepen any further” does not admit of any member state going backwards through the repatriation of powers, as Cameron says he wants.

    So, some progress, but it needs to go much further, and it needs to be enshrined in the treaties rather than being in a political declaration of no legal value.

    And there is actually no reason why Cameron should not propose such a treaty change now, is there?

  25. Bert Young
    July 1, 2014

    Yes , I agree these pronouncements at the Summit meeting are a good start . Spelling out where we stand and what we want in our relationship with the EU may placate public opinion to some extent ; the nitty gritty is in the follow up detail and the way we make it clear we will not accept any compromise ; we must be tough and stick to our guns . Germany – knowing what the extra burden of cost will mean to them if we exit altogether , will endeavour to come to terms ; the knock-on consequences to them go beyond economics – they will face more political unrest . Basic animal instincts still count for a lot in human behaviour today ( Morris – “The Naked Ape “) and surviving and staying alive is very much in evidence in the way various countries posture and negotiate ; if one country is able to build a big enough pot of food they are most unlikely to share unless there is something really worthwhile at the end of it for them . It was a very foolish stint to have the Ukraine sign up to some sort of a deal with the EU when its Eastern provinces clearly want to link with Russia – this signing on the same day that we were put to one side ! If the EU were at all sensible , they would negotiate and come to a deal with Russia ; – Moldova , Georgia and Serbia are equally of interest to Russia and are all knocking on the EU door looking for hand outs . A deal with Russia would go a long way to solving the energy cost and supply problem .

  26. Denis Cooper
    July 1, 2014

    Incidentally, I noticed that Cameron told an untruth in the Commons yesterday, telling MPs that the Lisbon Treaty “gave the European Parliament greater power.”

    Absolute rubbish; the Lisbon Treaty merely added the words:

    “Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations”,

    it did not give the European Parliament any more power than it had before, which was the same power as it had after the treaties had been amended by the Amsterdam Treaty, which was essentially the same power as that which Major originally agreed should be granted to MEPs through the Maastricht Treaty –


    If Cameron objects to MEPs having the power that they have now on this matter then he is objecting to essentially the same power that Major agreed should be granted to them through Maastricht; so is he going to propose a treaty change to take that power away from the EU Parliament, and revert to the position which had always obtained before that “Game, set and match for Britain”?

    1. Brian Tomkinson
      July 1, 2014

      It really is too much for you to expect our Prime Minister or indeed any MP to know the facts. Those who do understand these things, including our host, are too embarrassed to highlight Maastricht because, to their sheme, whenhe called their bluff and called a vote of confidence they put party before country and allowed Major his treaty.

  27. Robert Taggart
    July 1, 2014

    Liebore under Bliar gave away our veto on many matters – but not all, also, that shower sacrificed our rebate in part – but not all.
    Cameo should take every opportunity open to him to veto any forthcoming proposals – hold them to ransom – they may then ‘let us go’ !

  28. Fausty
    July 1, 2014

    “In the Commons yesterday Mr Cameron reaffirmed that the UK does not wish to move to political union at a slower pace than the rest, but wishes to go in a different direction, with the restoration of powers to the UK .”

    If that is the case, then why is Cameron determined to sign up to the EAW? This would hand the justice ‘competence’ over to the EU, in perpetuity.

    I don’t know how you can continue to defend Cameron and his policies when these very obvious and very serious contradictions occur.

    Can you not see that he is stringing you along?

    I hate to say it, but that you continue to support him, when his arguments don’t hold water, puts a question mark against your own credibility.

  29. Ex-expat Colin
    July 1, 2014

    Solved: Eurocorps

    A truly sickening sight yesterday I thought.

    Another reason to turn your back at the European Parliament opening and anything else they spit out.

    Lord Tebbit says Cameron might get some small goodies (for us) out of a negotiation. That about sums it up.

    1. Lifelogic
      July 1, 2014

      As far as I can see Cameron is not even asking for anything substantive at all.

  30. Lifelogic
    July 1, 2014

    Off topic it is good to read in the Economist Leader about the long overdue shake up in education and Universities with MOOC, or “Massive Open Online Course”. About time so many education establishments get away with such low standards, countless largely pointless & highly subsidised courses/degrees and high fees to boot.

    1. Hope
      July 1, 2014

      Willets and Cable are already doing their best to reduce university standards by promoting context given to people from poor background with low grades, instead of places based on merit and grades obtained. What an insult to people from poor backgrounds! Schools still in a mess and declining and now the Tory led coalition wants to to put universities in the same trajectory of decline.

      Perhaps we could impose Sharia law, more segregation as well. Or turn a blind eye as they are doing now? How else did the country arrive with the mess in Birmingham and elsewhere?

  31. The PrangWizard
    July 1, 2014

    Do you agree with Murdo Fraser, Conservative MSP’s view that England should be split into regions, yet Scotland should stay as a unity? Read his speech. Was this a Party approved statement? Is this not the aim of the EU? Who wishes to stop it? He said this in the Scottish parliament. Do you think the Scots should keep out of English affairs? I think you have said they should. What will you do or say about this? It can only be stopped by England having its own parliament. Otherwise Cameron will let it happen.

  32. Mark
    July 1, 2014

    Apologies for an off-topic thought.

    Do you consider that the UK Statistics Authority ought to be encouraged to criticise the BBC publicly in the way they do for politicians who misuse ONS statistics? The BBC acting as its own judge and jury does not seem to be appropriate to me.

  33. Richard
    July 1, 2014

    “In the Commons yesterday Mr Cameron reaffirmed that the UK does not wish to move to political union at a slower pace than the rest, ……”

    This is a very clear statement that Mr. Cameron wants the UK to not only deepen its integration with the rest of Europe but to do so at the same speed as all other countries, just as all Conservative governments have done in the past.

    The rest of the sentence :

    “….but wishes to go in a different direction, with the restoration of powers to the UK .”

    Is just meaningless nonsense, a true paradox or contradiction in terms.

    “the EU needs an efficient and well-managed migration, asylum and borders policy, guided by the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility… Europe must develop strategies to maximise the opportunities of legal migration through coherent and efficient rules…”

    I presume this paragraph is referring to migration from outside the EU.
    So there is no wish to restrict EU migration.

    “The document also reaffirmed the need for an integrated energy market with more mutual dependence and connectivity between states. The aim is to share what we have rather than taking steps to increase supply of cheap energy sufficiently.”

    The idea of sharing our energy supply with the whole of the rest of the EU is not something with which I would agree. Neither do I like the idea that sharing energy is a preferred alternative to attempting to find ways of providing cheap energy.

    This paragraph appears to be preparing us for a future of expensive and intermittent energy.

  34. Bazman
    July 1, 2014

    Nice to be a boss who’s department cannot afford pay pay rises to minimum wage employees protect the council tax payer.
    Tell again whos living standards are rising? The top whether it be state run or private of state owned private and the thing is in this case they have been trying to hide it whilst make cuts of 80 million affecting thousands. Tax and waste on the already well to do. Retiring at 55 with over 400k in ‘benefits’ as if she is some sort of medium company owner.

  35. Kenneth R Moore
    July 1, 2014

    I note once again my earlier comment hasn’t been posted – If comments critical of Dr Redwood or the Conservative party are to be delayed then this site will just descend into pointlessness . I hope Mr Redwood takes them in the spirit they are intended – nothing personal.

  36. Merlin
    July 1, 2014

    The EU has 750 MEP’s, the UK has 73 MEP’s, approx 9%, that means that there are 91% of MEP’s who are not necessarily going to agree with the UK. Conclusion, there will be NO CHANGE at all over the next 5 years. I wish contributors to this website would face reality, there is going to be NO CHANGE in the EU over the next 5 years.
    The only possible change may be a new treaty, this may take several years to come to fruition.
    The only possibility of short term change is by this government invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, this will only happen if the Tories are re-elected, and enact a referendum, which, by the way cannot happen in 2017.
    If a Labour a Government is elected, once again there will probably be, once again NO CHANGE.
    Conclusion, the likelihood for the next 5 years will be ever closer union, and nothing will stop it, this is the starting point for further discussion.

  37. Max Dunbar
    July 2, 2014

    I am assuming that you are busy wiping the blood off your bayonet having prodded the leader in to some semblance of action, but would a blunt rather than a sharp point be more effective in future?

  38. John Wrake
    July 2, 2014

    Comments on this post continue to accept that the answer to our ills is to encourage our representatives in Parliament to read the small print in the E.U. Treaties more carefully, seek ways to convince other members that we are not happy, encourage our Prime Minister to fight meaningless battles, shrug off their responsibilities to lay them on electors in referenda, argue with each other about who was responsible, until such time as a majority of those who claim to be in power can be persuaded to agree that they cannot do anything about it.

    Should you ever be unfortunate enough to find yourself being used as a dupe by a gang of crooks intent on committing a major crime, the only sensible course of action is to extricate yourself. Never mind the details of the plot – just get out.

    If you get lost on a cross-country hike, use your common sense – retrace your steps to your last known location and think again about where you should head from there.

    As a nation, we have a known location in our written Constitution based on Common Law. Our present course has deviated from that set out in our Constitution and our current ills stem from the unlawful decisions made by deceitful leaders, by which our people have been led astray and by the carelessness of those of us who have accepted their lies.

    We are not governed by treaties. We are not governed by political dogmas. We are governed by individuals subject to the same law that is common to us all in this country. If such individuals are in breach of that law, they hold no authority over us and they must answer for their law-breaking. We are not subject to anyone who is not subject to our common law, so that rules out Continental judges, rulers and bureaucrats.

    We are not a nation of mincing girls, we are English men and women who are capable of holding our own against all comers, as has been demonstrated many times.

    Time to do it again.

    John Wrake.

  39. Lindsay McDougall
    July 2, 2014

    If the Prime Minister wants to reduce the current amount of EU integration and doesn’t want the EU to develop its immigration policy further, why did he authorise the communique? It’s better to leave dissent on the record.

Comments are closed.