Kelvin's Ferret wrote:
Ultimately we live in the era of GATT and the WTO, and if we chose to renegotiate or even leave we would still end up being in a free trade zone, because the vast amount of trade we do with the rest of the EU is too important for either side to lose.
Rubbish. The single market of the EU is far easier to trade in than the rest of the world WTO or not. The yanks will quite happily indulge in protectionism against anyone including the Chinese despite it is they who basically have bailed them out financially for years if the Yanks think it is in their interests. That example is the sort of reality that exists outside the single market. In contrast it is as easy from a legal standpoint for a UK company to trade in the single market as it is for them to trade in the Uk. Trading in the single market and outside of it are vastly different by an order of magnitude. If the WTO trading area was just the same as the single market then the latter would not need to exist and it would not exist. It would be pointless. It is far from pointless.
Cameron would not have used the veto if he genuinely didn't have to......
Given the main reason he said he used it he definately didn't have to.
Supposedly it was to protect the City from the proposed Financial Transaction Tax. Well given taxation legistlaton of any kind is already subject to a Veto he did not need to veto the entire deal to prevent such a tax.
What will happen now is the other 26 will draw up a new treaty which will allow them to impose rules that will circumvent the current treaties and so impose one anyway. Want to trade stocks in Euros? Then pay up. Note that is not the same as imposing a tax outright but coming up with we rules for trading and such rules would not be subject to ad veto. We would have to get ally's to vote such changes down in a qualified majority voting scenario. Cameron has not got any ally's anymore.
If we were not excluded (as we are now) from the new 26 member club we could fight our corner and use vetoes within the club when necessary. Now we are out of the club they can do what they like without the UK putting the breaks on. That is exactly what Sarkozy wanted. The Uk is now out of the way and marginalised. Cameron has been completely outmanoeuvred.
Why did he fall for this? He didn't. He did it to appease his party and protect his position within it is my opinion as to why.
Cameron's best hope is actually that the Euro does fail. The very thing him and Osborne rightly say they do not want to happen. If it survives and the 26 forge ahead with fiscal union then Cameraon wil go down in history as the PM who finally relegated the status of the UK to be insignificant.
I think it's 60 40 towards failure myself so he could be "lucky" but if it does fail I certainly hope no one is daft enough to say Cameron was a great statesman due to what he just did. It wil be luck not judgement and you watch the 26 blame the uk for not backing the deal in the first place. That is the other way in which he has been out manoeuvred. Were we still in the club any failure would have been despite our involvement not because we abandoned the rest.
Whichever way the cookie crumbles Cameron has been exposed as the rank amateur he is when it comes to statesmanship. I detest Maggie thatcher with a vengeance but she was a constant thorn in the side of the EU and a reason she could be was because she was at the table. I doubt she would have been daft enough to remove herself from the negotiating table to appease a few nice but dim back benchers.