The Bewilderness

The approaching Juncker moment

Cameron appointed Lord Hill as his Commissioner prospective, a pro-European Tory and a former special adviser to Kenneth Clarke. After the isolation, the Prime Minister may have viewed this appointment as an ameliorative measure. It cut no ice with the head of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz. Forgetting the limits of his constitutional power under the treaty, Schulz thundered that Hill would never become a Commissioner because he was a Eurosceptic Tory. Having only the power to vote down the entire set of Commissioners, Schulz soon sulked and backtracked muttering that gender balance was more important. Yet, for Britain, an important moment, reinforcing the Juncker moment. The visceral dislike and instant assumption of British Euroscepticism as an ideological taboo for EU positions means that negotiation for reform is unlikely to happen.

Now, Juncker is seeding the press with further comments on the British position and possibly preparing to render Lord Hill a non-entity. The choice of portfolio marks a clear sign of European perceptions in regard to the position of the UK in Europe. A minor portfolio suggests that Brexit is considered a positive option and there will be no compromise on a halfway house. A decent portfolio marks a negotiating concession. And if Britain doesn't leave, we are then sidelined as a walkover: this is known as the Miliband option and is the preferred future of the supine Liberal Democrats (the party without a backbone so they can U-turn as fast as possible).   

Time to brew the sweet smell of that Brexit coffee

Labour supported the Conservatives in opposing the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker to President of the European Commission. As a federalist, they were also unwilling to support further integration. Yet the headlines of "Britain isolated" brought some rich comments from Ed Balls on television this morning. As he stated, never had he seen such a "cack-handed" negotiation. (This seemed rather surprising, since there are so many examples from the previous Labour administration: General Practitioners, Treaty of Lisbon, etc etc).

Whilst the news from the continental press remains quiet in the aftermath of this repeat (Britain versus the rest), Labour's opportunistic spin falls on sterile ground, given the messenger (just as Cruddas bemoans his leader's leadership in the Sunday Times). The two initial conclusions from the appointment of Juncker is that there is no European constituency for the repatriation of powers and the appetite for real reform is retreating.

Given the choice between ever closer la la land and reality, the European Council chose a make-believe country called Europe and took the brakes off Brexit.   

Europe Juncked

A story that we have not seen for a long time: A British Prime Minister isolated in Europe with the spin of principle attempting to obscure the overwhelming defeat. And the battle chosen over the new European President was symbolic but a diversion.

When Cameron had the opportunity to retain powers, especially in the field of criminal justice, he signed them away. I reserve nothing but contempt for a government that upholds the European Arrest Warrant and puts our population at the mercy of laws which are not a criminal offence in this country. His whole performance is a tactical charade designed to appease his backbenchers.

Juncker, the 'leading candidate' of the Christian Democrats in the European Parliement, has interpreted the results of the European elections as a legitimation of the leading candidates. However, as more decisions of the Commission, undermine British national interests, the elite on these islands is becoming ever warier of Brussels.  

Some would argue that a Union which no longer takes the interests of one of its largest members into account (and has economically devastated most of its southern periphery) is beyond reform. The rejection of the populist protests in many countries is indicative of this. 

Cameron has been bruised by his encounters with Europe. It is not clear what his next steps will be, but a further dilution of Member State powers has taken place with the co-operation of EU leaders who have become further ciphers in a process where obscure non-entities are elected by a clownish Parliament who claim to represent a people that could not recognise them. 

No negotiation says Rompuy

Van Rompuy is the latest EU personage to make a statement about the theoretical 'Brexit'. Again, the line has been adopted: the treaties are not up for amendment and an 'a la carte' menu is not allowed. To force this momentum, Van Rompuy emphasised that the option was in or out. 

"The wish to redefine your country's relationship with the Union has not gone unnoticed," said Van Rompuy, a former premier of EU founding member Belgium. "I cannot speak on behalf of the other presidents and prime ministers, but I presume they neither particularly like it, nor particularly fear it."

Perhaps Van Rompuy thought that his line was a clever construction: emphasize the costs and introduce the notion that other members of the European Council are not particularly bothered. This could be defined as an emotional defence. Describe the exit as a form of petulance and indulge in personal metaphors as a descriptive narrative. If you judge this possible exit in a cold light: one of the biggest members leaving; Van Rompuy's speech trivialises the whole process and avoids an actual debate both here and in Europe.

The same symptoms are also displayed in debates over the Euro: an inability to engage with the catastrophic problems of the currency zone and rhetoric that puts forward stories without meaning. Sometimes, the utterances of EU spokespersons rival Comical Ali in their distance from reality.

How does this affect Cameron's wish to renegotiate relationships with the European Union? These statements prove that the ideological underpinnings of 'ever closer union' prevent the Commission and the European Parliament from supporting realistic changes to membership status. Their adherence to all or nothing leads those opposed from in to out. A truer question is how far their adherence will take them if political events within the Eurozone starts to undermine that glue?

All politicians are scum

The record of the Coalition government and contemporary politics. A minority partner called the Liberal Democrats. They vote for illiberal measures and decided that non-equalised constituencies stand; a squalid organisation placing petty imagined slights above social justice. It is neither liberal nor democratic to retain an unequal system of representation.

A majority party called the Conservatives. The only conserve they have stuck to is the jammy bind we find ourselves in. They forget that Labour policies don't really work. So we seem to be at the Heath stage of the crisis here. And as for Labour: the party of the non-working classes; either public sector or benefits.

A whole swathe of mediocrity: spending our money and impoverishing us by majority rule. 

Cameron should set out his stall in Berlin

How to break news? Especially news that some may view as good and some may view as bad. Even worse when most of your own voters are not that interested and would prefer you to be concentrating on the economy. The general questions prancing round David Cameron's as he wrestles with six impossible Eurosceptics before breakfast. His right wing are (rightly) enraged by puffed up parliamentarians from Germany and some US functionary from the State Department telling us what they would prefer. These people do not get a veto or a vote; and Cameron better not give them one.

The FT (a pink paper if ever there was one) notes that Cameron's timing could upset the Germans and the French. They will be celebrating their postwar treaty and the speech could draw attention away from the day "hundreds of French and German politicians gather in Berlin" to trough away on another taxpayer paid shindig. How dare Britain prevent the media from providing coverage of this extravaganza? I expect it to make page seven (maybe ten) in Bild.

The FT, after the usual roster of anti-referendum Europhiles (Heseltine, MacShane and Cable) also lays out the location: Brussels, perhaps, or the Netherlands. Location, location, location! If we are going to upstage this Franco-German anniversary, why not hold it directly in Berlin at the embassy? If Denis MacShane is right and the relationship is viewed in religious terms, then heresy at the gates appears an appropriate response. We may get as much spluttering and squawking as we have had from the talking heads in this article.

Alas, the carping may be the most exciting aspect of this speech. Cameron will satisfy no-one and will enrage his critics. The compelling message is "Better off out" and all the scaremongering from the relics is nonsense. 

If we leave the EU, we will face declining trade, permanent depression, poverty and mass unemployment ...like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland.....

Cameron faces up to the clerisy

The challenges that developments within the European Union's political framework pose to the coalition are now arriving more frequently. Despite favourable statements supporting a banking union and greater integration for the Eurozone, the Conservatives find that their unforgiving stance on the European budget acquires greater opprobrium. They face a concerted effort on the part of poorer countries to use development budgets as a tool of redistribution.

This firm stance (with an elaborate and symbolic utterance of veto, echoing Thatcher's handbag rhetoric) seems to combine domestic rhetoric with an aggressive demand for the repatriation of certain powers. The repatriation has focused upon areas of criminal justice and the repeal of the European Arrest Warrant. Yet, such rhetorical tactics are known to harden the resistance of other European politicians and rarely meet the expectations of the radical backbenches. So why do it? Why cause yourself so much pain?

Perhaps European negotiations are zero sum games: to win, one must trade some perks for others. To allow a European budget, perhaps Cameron is signalling that he wishes to obtain concessions in other areas. Yet repatriation is such a betrayal of ever closer union that Angela Merkel of Germany does not seem to be able to entertain the notion, preferring cancellation of the summit.

Could Cameron have overplayed his hand? He may not be dealing with rational players (also known as politicians), willing to horsetrade for their goals. His counterparts could be described to ideologues, determined to foster further integration and unable to countenance any deviation in that ideology. Cameron is no longer viewed as a trader but as a heretic and deviant, head of a schismatic sect. This latter view may help Brexit, since the troublesome critics are expelled.  

The core of Europe's rotten apple begins to harden

During Cameron's interview on the Andrew Marr show, the Prime Minister endorsed teh development of a second and separate budget for the Eurozone. Such a pot of money would ease pressure on Britain to appease the hard core if all decisions were channelled through the current institutions.Short term political expediency and the advantage of diverting integration to a new set of parallel institutions prove attractive to all political parties in Britain.

The division commenced when the fiscal treaty was signed by most Member States last year. Britain vetoed and then stood to one side. Now early critics like the French socialists have passed the treaty: the Eurozone emergency proving more persuasive than principle.

Now, the core and periphery, so successfully modelled in the currency union, will be replicated in the EU's arrangements. Enthusiasts are still attached to the term 'two speed', but the reality is a inner and outer zone. Given current troubles, stop and reverse appear attractive directions when confronted with the Eurozone. Britain, France and Germany all, for different reasons, support this development. 

Yet, is this a permanent development or flotsam discussed and soon to be blown away under the pressure of events. I regard all current proposals as temporary, subject to deformation, and hostage to the fortunes of the single currency

Multishambles

The European Parliament is unhappy with the lack of consultation by the Council of Ministers and the Commission in regards to the proposals for economic and monetary union. Talk of a new treaty to achieve this goal is viewed as an attempt to sideline all Parliamentary assemblies (how does this tally with the dominant role of the Bundestag?). Some of the usual suspects like Elmar Brok and Daniel Cohn-Bendit have been agitating for a seat at the table. This development comes as the Commission's budget dries up under the twin pressures of overspending and austerity. The coffers have run dry.  

Meanwhile, Cameron appeared on the BBC to rile Eurosceptics further with his list of empty promises. He will try and keep increases in the Commission's budget to a minimum and look at reducing immigration from the European Union (shooting himself in the foot on defending the single market) On, and the next election could be a plebiscite on membership instead of acknowledging the People's Pledge. A good example of how to forsake friends and irritate people. He is a shambles! 

Accounting for Scotland in a new settlement

David Cameron has decided that, in the event of Scotland voting against independence, a new constitutional convention will be established to examine the instabilities (and injustices) that affect the current structure. Any political party that does not derive partisan advantage from the current set-up would recognise that 'bilateral devolution' is limited and would wish to rebalance the powers of devolved assemblies and Westminster.

Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour leader, told the MPs devolution is not a “human shield against nationalism” and a further transfer of powers should be considered completely separately from Scotland remaining part of the UK

The Telegraph reports that the convention is being established against the backdrop of the SNP devolved government. Its aims are to define a unitary state and what can be undertaken by national or provincial administrations and municipal authorities. An attempt to deal with the West Lothian question will also be undertaken.

One concern is that Cameron prefers the convention to acquire a permanent existence: acting as an arbiter for the Constitution. That should reside with the law courts, a proper Supreme Court for the entire land. It marks a further step towards the adoption of Montesquieu, the world following the book.