University of Puerto Rico Rio Piedras Campus College of Social Sciences Department of Political Science

Rule Britannia: The United Kingdoms Relationship with the EU in the Wake of Camerons Veto

David A. Rodrguez Daz

Rule Britannia,
Britannia rule the waves, Britons never will be slaves!

Thus, sung the guardian angels in Thomas Arnes masque Alfred. Indeed, since the Norman Conquest, Britain has never been successfully invaded by any enemy. Proof of this is the battle with the Spanish Armada of Phillip II of Spain, Nelsons victory in Trafalgar and the Battle of Britain during the Second World War. However, the military campaigns have ended and it is now facing another political challenge that will be another of the defining moments in its history. Following the Eurozone crisis, Frances Nicolas Sarkozy and Germanys Angela Merkel proposed changes to the Lisbon Treaty, calling for further integration of the Eurozone economies, in which national budgets would be inspected at a European level, and sanctions would be imposed on those who overspend. This crisis stems from the economic mishaps in the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) economies and has called for massive bailouts. The proposal for further integration is seen as an attempt to fix the problem. The proposal also called for stricter regulations in the financial sector, which is a sector that employs, according to Prime Minister David Cameron 100,000 people in Birmingham, and a further 150,000 in Scotland1. According to the Prime Minister, the financial sector ...supports the rest

Taken from the Prime Ministers Statement as it appears in The House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Dec 2011 (pt0001) : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111212/debtext/1112120001.htm#1112127000001

of the economy in Britain and more widely in Europe.2 What occurred during the EU Council Summit will no doubt shake the foundations of the European Union in the days to come.

Richard Shepherd, conservative Member of Parliament for Aldridge-Brownhills and one of the Maastricht Rebels who opposed John Mayors government against the Maastricht Treaty, spoke in an interview on the BBC Daily Politics on December 12 saying Angela Merkel said exactly what we said all those years ago this is a political project and yet were looking at an economic catastrophe...and when you hear people say its political when its economic, you know youre in big trouble. And last week-end, Friday, thats what we saw...3 Mr. Shepherd points out what some seem not to notice: the eurozone crisis is economical, not political, yet Sarkozy and Merkel bring a political proposal to solve an economic crisis. Shepherd goes on to say that both the Maastricht Treaty and the proposals set out by Merkel and Sarkozy pose the questions about who governs in Britain (in this case, but it applies to the other EU member states). The proposal that calls for all national budgets to be evaluated and approved at a European level means that national governments cede more sovereignty to the EU.

However united they might seem, Merkel and Sarkozy saw things in a different way. Merkel wanted all 27 member states to join the proposal. Sarkozy on the other hand seems satisfied with at least the 17 eurozone member states.
2 3

Much criticism has come up over

Taken from the same statement Transcript from the interview heard in the BBC Daily Politics from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics16144092

Camerons handling of the situation. Alexander Graf Lambsdorff a German MEP said in an interview that it was a mistake to let the British into the EU 4 If anyone, the Germans have all the right to be angry, as the EUs largest country (in population) and economy, and being the one that has shouldered the greater burden of bailing out the floundering economies in the EU the Germans seem to believe that their position is the correct one. Another point is the fact that Germany and France have invested too much in the EU to see it all go to waste. However, Shepherd has the right of it this is a political project and yet were looking at an economic catastrophe...when you hear people talking about the political when its economic you know youre in deep trouble.

The Franco-German proposal was bold in its undertaking. The two largest member states looked to have a voice and a hand in managing the financial aspects of the other member states. They looked to the third largest member state, Britain, for support. Britain, not a eurozone member, wanted safeguards in return for its support, trying to defend its financial sector, which would have been affected. However, when these safeguards were not accepted, it vetoed the proposal. Either way it could have gone, veto or no veto, the relationship between the EU and the UK was going to change.

Taken from the bbc.co.uk article Euro crisis: Europe reacts with anger http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16114902

The problem in discussion is to a certain point a non issue. Britain is not in the eurozone, so it technically did not need to be in the summit after the veto. Also, the Franco-German proposal is a political manoeuvre to solve an economic problem. The problem with the Franco German proposal is that it looks to integrate a fragmented continent. The legitimacy within those nations that adopt the proposal is fragile at best. It poses the (hypothetical) question: what right does Germany have to approve Italys budget? What right does Spain have to vote on Greeces budget? It is a question not only of principle, but of international ethics. The problems in the European Union began when the European Parliament was created. By giving political muscle to what was originally an economic project have only caused European countries to be pushed into a path that will be very hard to turn back on. The symbolic meaning of Camerons veto is that apart from defending the national interest of Britain, it protects her sovereignty.

There are a variety of consequences that might follow, Britain might begin to ask for a repatriation of powers from Brussels to Westminster, or it might not. The eurozone economies might make there agreement individually and it will be left to time to tell if Cameron was right or wrong. The immediate consequences were expected and others surprising. It was expected that the veto would create uneasiness within the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, and Nick Cleggs absence during Camerons Statement in the Commons was noted. While Miliband accuses Cameron of responding to the biggest rebellion of his party in Europe in a generation Polls

show that the Conservatives overturned Labours 4 point lead in to a 2 point lead for them. 5 The feeling with the Liberal Democrats is mixed, to summarize the response former leader Sir Menzies Campbell said in the Commons May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his unequivocal statement that our membership of the European Union is vital to our national interests, and express the hope that he may give it some wider currency in his own party 6 As mentioned before, the coming days are now uncertain.

Within the EU there should be discussions to really solve the issue of political and economic problems. Both the European Commission and UK governments need to be careful where they tread, one wrong decision and either of them might do something that will create an even bigger problem. The challenge for Cameron will be dealing with those backbenchers that keep pushing for a referendum for the massive overhaul of powers from Brussels to Westminster. The Challenge for Barroso, Sarkozy and Merkel will be try to forge a solution that does not include the UK. The reaction by those countries that are not in the eurozone and were Britains main allies: Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary etc. and the fact that they left Britain alone does not mean that Cameron lost however. Yes there is a division in Europe, but they (might have) understood that even if the UK had a legitimate point, the worst they could have done was create a noticeable rift and lack of confidence in the European Markets. Britains veto

5 6

Taken from http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/ according to Ipsos-Mori for Reuters, ComRes and YouGov polls Taken from the House of Commons Hansard Debate 12 Dec 2011

was subtle in a sense, they made their point but had a positive effect both in Europe and the EU. The Franco-German proposal is, as Shepherd believes, not the right path. Politics cannot interfere in an economic project and the proposal should change and only offer an economic solution to the economic problem, and ideally should be worked by those member states in the eurozone. The EU should work on a massive restructuration and reformation if it wants to succeed as a political project or it should disintegrate as a political institution and stay strictly as a common market for free trade amongst member states. Pooling sovereignty in a fragmented continent with a long history of armed conflict is to bold an undertaking even in our globalized world. In the end Arne may be right Britons never will be slaves.

Bibliography

United Kingdom Polls: UK Polling Report http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Prime Ministers Statement: House of Commons Hansard Debates 12 Dec 2011 Column: 519

From the BBC website: Q&A: David Cameron and the EU summit on the eurozone http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-

16086019

Sarkozy: There are now clearly two Europes http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16138375

France and Germany stand by eurozone plan http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16045668

Maastricht rebel Richard Shepherd on UK Europe relations http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-

16144092 Euro crisis summit: Deal means less sovereignty http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16111165

As it happened: EU Summit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16093316