The trouble with the EU and Britain

[Thanas]

Spiegel

Cameron's Empty Threat: Britain Risks Losing an Ally in EU Feud
It appears David Cameron's strategy has backfired. His campaign to derail Jean-Claude Juncker's appointment as the next EU Commission president is failing and the British prime minister may soon suffer a loss of face. Angela Merkel is his only possible savior.

In his 18 years as a participant at European Union summits, Jean-Claude Juncker has witnessed a battle or two. But never in his dreams would he become the focal point of a showdown between Germany and Britain.

On the one side in the battle over the former prime minister of Luxembourg stands a very broad coalition in Germany that includes politicians and media running the full spectrum, from left to right. This unusual alliance is demanding that the victor in the elections for European Parliament be appointed as the next president of the European Commission, the EU's powerful executive.

On the other side stands a no less determined British public, which considers a man who is the Brussels insider incarnate to be completely out of the question. The very idea that Juncker was elected by European voters is, to them, laughable.

British Prime Minister David Cameron is actively seeking supporters among the 28 leaders of the EU member states to block Juncker's appointment in the European Council. Last week, Cameron declared to fellow leaders that if Juncker, a federalist, is appointed Commission president, the chances would increase that the British people would vote to leave in a planned 2017 referendum on EU membership.

'Blackmail'

That is a common opinion in the United Kingdom, but it appears that Cameron has underestimated the effect his words would have. The threat could in fact ultimately cost him a decisive ally: Angela Merkel. For days now, furious politicians and the editorial pages of newspapers have called on Merkel to not put up with this "blackmail." Merkel feels forced to repeatedly ensure her support for Juncker, as she did again in parliament on Wednesday in an address in which she also reaffirmed her committment to Britain staying in the EU.

The German public's suddenly passionate enthusiasm for Juncker caught Cameron off guard. How, his strategists are asking, could the country Britain views as its most important partner when it comes to EU reforms, have fallen for this representative of the status quo?

The fact that even the tabloid Bild has thrown its impassioned support behind Juncker was a "real shock," said Mats Persson, the director of the Open Europe think tank. He says the debate in Germany has developed in ways that are very unfavorable to Cameron.

The British government emphasizes that the country isn't alone, noting that Sweden, Hungary and the Netherlands also want to prevent Juncker from becoming Commission president. But that wouldn't be enough to establish a blocking minority in the European Council. If a vote were to be held, the Juncker faction would likely win.

Merkel Wouldn't Risk Personal Defeat for Cameron

Merkel could tip the balance against Juncker, and in the immediate wake of the election, she seemed willing. But after the intense debate of recent days, ditching Juncker would now be seen as kowtowing to the Brits. As much as she would like to protect Cameron from a loss of face, she would probably not do so if it meant a personal defeat for her.

As such, it very much looks like Cameron has backed himself into a corner, left with no leverage to convince Merkel to change course. Tory members of the European Parliament have, to be sure, threatened to invite Germany's euro-skeptic AFD party to join their group in European Parliament should Merkel stick with Juncker. Cameron famously withdrew his party from the center-right European People's Party, of which Merkels Christian Democrats are members, five years ago to appease his Tories' EU-skeptic wing in a move that deeply angered the German chancellor.

But Cameron likely has little interest in magnifying the already significant differences between his party and Merkel's Christian Democratic Union. In the long term, he is dependent on Merkel's help should he move ahead with plans to renegotiate Britain's position in the EU.

Even the threat to leave the EU looks hollow upon further inspection. There is no doubt that installing Juncker as Commission president would be wind in the sails of EU opponents in the country. "Those who are in favor of leaving the EU are praying that Juncker will be named," Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform told the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Gideon Rachman, columnist for the Financial Times, wrote that the idea that the native of Luxembourg could become Commission president "evokes a strange, irrational rage in the British."

But that could also be said of José Manuel Barroso or Herman Van Rompuy. The probability that a new face in Brussels could even minimally influence British attitudes toward the EU is very low. Indeed, the majority likely doesn't care at all who becomes EU Commission president. It is hard to imagine the result of the referendum being influenced by this at all.

Some EU veterans believe Cameron's categorical opposition to Juncker to be a significant tactical error, with many saying that he misinterpreted the situation in Brussels. "If I were Mr. Cameron, I would go to Juncker and say: These are my conditions," says Richard Corbett, a Labour Party member who was just elected to the European Parliament and who previously was EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy's chief of staff. In his view, Juncker could adopt a reform mandate by the Council. If Cameron wanted.

One thing that is missing from the article is that Juncker being derailed is exactly what the opponents of a unified Europe want - it would allow them to claim that Europe is undemocratic and the plaything of national interests. In either case, it is a win-win for them even if he does not become president as apparently Britain hates Juncker. He cannot win with the British apparently.

My view is simple - Juncker's coaltion won the majority of votes, thus he should become President no matter what one might think of him. I don't like him that much but if we are ever to have a democratic Europe then we should honor the wishes of the electorate.

[Simon_Jester]

The converse of that is that if Juncker is in fact very unpopular in Britain (which the article claims), and if Juncker becomes president of the Commission, then that will have effects on the wishes of the British electorate.

If a man the British do not like is elected to a position of great power within the EU, common sense tells us that the British are more likely to want to leave the EU than they would be otherwise. I am always less likely to want to remain in a political body if that body is controlled by someone I oppose.

In which case Cameron is telling people something they should already have known, and his opposition to Juncker taking office is a quite natural outgrowth of his duty to represent his electorate. You may disagree with him, but apparently the people who voted him into office don't.

Is he supposed to ignore the opinions of his own people?

[Tribble]

As I've said before, there really is no point trying to force a country into a union that its citizens do not want. If the British people want to leave, then they should leave. Let the continent handle its own affairs without British interference, and let Britain go it's own way. Keeping them together in a political union is just hurting both sides.

I've always felt that the EU should have been a NAFTA-like agreement rather than a full political union.

[Captain Seafort]

I've always felt that the EU should have been a NAFTA-like agreement rather than a full political union.

That's what the EEC was, and that's what the UK voted to join. It's changed substantially since then.

[Zaune]

As I've said before, there really is no point trying to force a country into a union that its citizens do not want. If the British people want to leave, then they should leave. Let the continent handle its own affairs without British interference, and let Britain go it's own way. Keeping them together in a political union is just hurting both sides.

I've always felt that the EU should have been a NAFTA-like agreement rather than a full political union.

Yes, well, the British public doesn't have access to a great deal of accurate information on the subject! Between a popular press where the bloody advertisements are subject to more stringent fact-checking than the articles and an education system that appears to have abandoned critical thinking entirely it's damn near impossible to have any sort of sensible debate on the subject.

[Thanas]

I've always felt that the EU should have been a NAFTA-like agreement rather than a full political union.

That's what the EEC was, and that's what the UK voted to join. It's changed substantially since then.

Britain agreed to the Maastricht treaty and agreed to the treaty reforms later on which explicitly endorsed forming a closer union. This argument is saying "sure, if we ignore everything else we agreed on since then we only joined version X".

[Thanas]

The converse of that is that if Juncker is in fact very unpopular in Britain (which the article claims), and if Juncker becomes president of the Commission, then that will have effects on the wishes of the British electorate.

If a man the British do not like is elected to a position of great power within the EU, common sense tells us that the British are more likely to want to leave the EU than they would be otherwise. I am always less likely to want to remain in a political body if that body is controlled by someone I oppose.

In which case Cameron is telling people something they should already have known, and his opposition to Juncker taking office is a quite natural outgrowth of his duty to represent his electorate. You may disagree with him, but apparently the people who voted him into office don't.

Is he supposed to ignore the opinions of his own people?

There were Europe-wide elections. Does a single country (and not even the most powerful country) get to dispute the elections of a whole continent and subvert the democratic will of the people? Why should British votes count for more than the votes of everybody else?

Because that is what you are saying here.

[Captain Seafort]

This argument is saying "sure, if we ignore everything else we agreed on since then we only joined version X".

No, the argument is that there's been no national referendum for forty years.

[Thanas]

This argument is saying "sure, if we ignore everything else we agreed on since then we only joined version X".

No, the argument is that there's been no national referendum for forty years.

Since when was that required for international treaties?

Yes, I get that this is an internal british problem, but that should not discredit the EU if the Brits can't get their stuff together and furthermore, it is insane to blame the EU over something British politicians did, nor should it mean the UK should get a free card to complain whenever they want to. This is an entirely British problem, British made and British perpetuated. Not the EU.

[Siege]

The Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992. That's 22 flipping years ago. Since then there's been plenty elections and you'd think that if the evolution of the EU was such a big deal to the British then someone would've run on a platform of getting the hell out, won, and made it happen already. The clear fact that this has not happened makes me believe that British governments are fully aware of just how beneficial Europe is and only drum up anti-EU sentiment every once in a while to divert attention away from the failure of their own policies. It also makes me think the British public should quit whining about the big meanie EU if they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is and vote for people who'll get them out from underneath this terrible, terrible repression. If you want to get out, get out. If you don't then stop threatening to take your ball and go home every time you don't get your way, because it's deeply annoying.

[Crazedwraith]

I sympathise Siege but Europe is not the sole issue elections are fought upon, you know?

If the Tories win next year that's will be more or less what happens, and in/out referendum. Of course if we vote to stay in you're probably still stuck with our politicians trying to have things all their own way. Are other people's governments not trying to get the most out of europe for their countries?

[Thanas]

I sympathise Siege but Europe is not the sole issue elections are fought upon, you know?

If the Tories win next year that's will be more or less what happens, and in/out referendum. Of course if we vote to stay in you're probably still stuck with our politicians trying to have things all their own way. Are other people's governments not trying to get the most out of europe for their countries?

There is only one country that is obstructionist on this degree and only one country trying the childish "If you don't accomodate me I will take my ball and go home" spiel. Three guesses as to what country that is.

Even if you don't agree with Juncker (as I do not) you have to realize how significant this is.

[Thanas]

More to the point - the Brits have been whining about the EU being undemocratic. The moment a change towards a democratic EU happens, they try and block it.

You tell me how to describe such a stance.

[Siege]

I sympathise Siege but Europe is not the sole issue elections are fought upon, you know?

I take your point but if in 22 years no-one in power ever bothered to make an actual point of getting on with it, then it can't have been an actual, pressing issue. Consequently,

If the Tories win next year that's will be more or less what happens, and in/out referendum.

I'll bet you the money in my pockets against the money in your pockets that this won't happen even if the Conservatives win. I don't believe for a second Cameron is actually willing to pull Britain out of the EU and lose all influence on what happens on the continent, not to mention the benefits that come with being in the EU. He won't trust the electorate to not vote for a pullout, so even if some kind of referendum happens it'll be nonbinding and phrased in such an obfuscatory way he can weasel his way out of it.

[Crazedwraith]

I sympathise Siege but Europe is not the sole issue elections are fought upon, you know?

I take your point but if in 22 years no-one in power ever bothered to make an actual point of getting on with it, then it can't have been an actual, pressing issue. Consequently.

Oh yeah, there's never been an overwhelming majority of the general public that ones to get out enough that the government makes it happen. But there's never been such a lack of eurosceptics that politicians don't think they can win votes by playing up and acting tough in europe. However annoying it for everyone, because yes our politicians are idiots.

If the Tories win next year that's will be more or less what happens, and in/out referendum.

I'll bet you the money in my pockets against the money in your pockets that this won't happen even if the Conservatives win. I don't believe for a second Cameron is actually willing to pull Britain out of the EU and lose all influence on what happens on the continent, not to mention the benefits that come with being in the EU. He won't trust the electorate to not vote for a pullout, so even if some kind of referendum happens it'll be nonbinding and phrased in such an obfuscatory way he can weasel his way out of it.

B-but... it's an election promise. Fair point. Cameron's own preference should be 'we should stay in as long as i get to renegotiate the deal so its all about us'. So any referendum is likely to designed to give him a 'mandate from the people' to pull exactly the shit that pisses everyone off.

Sorry about that.

[Tribble]

Thanas, you are proving my point here. Do you honestly believe that the British electorate are going to change their minds anytime soon? Hell, even the UK itself is having a separation crisis with a Scottish vote on independence later this year. IMO if anything their demands to leave and their obstructionism will only increase over time as the rest of EU pushes through more legislation that they are opposed to. If Scotland seperates I feel that the rest of the UK will be even more inclined to have a referendum on remaining with the EU. And there's no hope in hell that Britain will ever join the Euro.

IMO the continent is being completely delusional and wasting their time. Rather than demanding "more Europe" while complaining that the British are resisting, they should simply allow the British to have their referendum and potentially leave. They'd be better off without British interference, and the British could do what they want without the EU's say so.

[Thanas]

How the heck is the EU forbidding Britain to have their referendum? Explain that one to me.

[Zaune]

Thanas, you are proving my point here. Do you honestly believe that the British electorate are going to change their minds anytime soon? Hell, even the UK itself is having a separation crisis with a Scottish vote on independence later this year. IMO if anything their demands to leave and their obstructionism will only increase over time as the rest of EU pushes through more legislation that they are opposed to. If Scotland seperates I feel that the rest of the UK will be even more inclined to have a referendum on remaining with the EU. And there's no hope in hell that Britain will ever join the Euro.

But that just raises further problems. If Britain severs ties with Europe, we'll inevitably be pushed into closer ties with the US. We'll have to, we haven't got the economic, industrial or military clout to stand entirely alone. That puts the EU in one hell of an awkward position if it finds itself seriously at odds with the US, which is more than likely once Arctic oil exploration shifts up a gear.

[Thanas]

The USA btw is firmly in favor of Britain remaining in the EU.

[Tribble]

@ Thanas Your point? No matter how much they want Britain to remain in the EU they're not the ones to decide. Just like how within Britain it's not up to the English and the Welsh to decide whether or not the Scots stay. The US can point out the benefits of remaining and encourage the UK to do so but ultimately it its up to the electorate (as it should be).

@ Zaune Presumably you are including Canada in there as well, as they have more territory in the Artic than the US does

And if anything, there is far more likely to be a showdown between the US/Canada and Russia than the EU. While it may be a bit more akward for the US/Canada and EU to negotiate if the Britain were separate, that pales in comparison to what they will have to face with Russia. If anything, if the Russians step up their game the EU and US/Canada would probably be willing to expedite matters with each other.

But that's besides the point. Whether they are right or wrong, if the majority of a country's citizens truly want to leave, then they should be allowed to leave. Ignoring their complaints and/or referendums "for the greater good" and claiming that leaving the EU is "verboten" is only going to make the British dig in their heels even more. Why should the rest of the continent deliberately keep a member that they know goes against their wishes at every turn? Why should Britain be forced to stay against their wishes? All you're going to do is keep the constant fighting going. I'm sure that causes a lot more problems than any potential conflict with the US/Canada.

[Thanas]

My point is that I would like you to explain how you think the EU is having any power about allowing or denying a referendum.

[Zaune]

The Obama Administration might be, but in another decade or two who knows what their policy might be? They could be making plans to use us as a forward operating base to bring FREEDOM!!! to the decadent liberal Commie Nazis for all we know.

And unless Canada develops an independent nuclear deterrent then that showdown will be extremely short and one-sided.

[Simon_Jester]

There were Europe-wide elections. Does a single country (and not even the most powerful country) get to dispute the elections of a whole continent and subvert the democratic will of the people? Why should British votes count for more than the votes of everybody else?

Because that is what you are saying here.

I'm not saying the British should succeed, I'm saying Cameron is in fact trying to do his job as (apparently) defined by his constituency.

If the rest of Europe tells him to go screw himself, fine by me.

If the UK goes into a snit, and leaves the European Union because they disapprove of Juncker, also fine by me. Their choice.

I'm not saying Cameron should win, I'm saying he's doing his job, as defined by the constituency to which he is responsible. Given the state of the EU's constitution he should fail to accomplish what he's trying to do, but that doesn't mean his actions are 'undemocratic' or anything like that.

Sometimes a democracy causes its politicians to do something dumb, purely because the electorate supports such a move.

It also makes me think the British public should quit whining about the big meanie EU if they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is and vote for people who'll get them out from underneath this terrible, terrible repression. If you want to get out, get out. If you don't then stop threatening to take your ball and go home every time you don't get your way, because it's deeply annoying.

That sounds like a good position.

More to the point - the Brits have been whining about the EU being undemocratic. The moment a change towards a democratic EU happens, they try and block it.

You tell me how to describe such a stance.

Obnoxious and borderline-separatist. People who want elections, but throw a fit when they lose.

I'm not saying they're objectively correct or reasonable, only that they are within their rights if they do decide to take their ball and go home because they decide they dislike how it's being played.

[Tribble]

@ Thanas

Perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. My point is that if a referendum is held and the majority of the British vote to leave the EU, then I feel they have the right to do so. If the EU refuses to recognize the referendum and tries to force Britain to stay, their attempt will be unsuccessful, not to mention being completely disastrous from a public relations standpoint. And the British government would be under so much pressure to leave that I think they would even if the EU tries to pretend that leaving is "verboten" (I don't think the EU would actually say that, but I'm not entirely ruling it out). If British citizens voted to leave, it would be much better and more expedient for everyone involved to have some kind of negotiated exit rather than trying to force them to stay against their wishes.

My other point is that keeping them in the EU is more trouble than its worth anyways, though that is debatable.

@ Zaune - The USA will likely be backing Canada's claims where they do not directly interfere with US claims. Which apart from the border with Alaska and perhaps the Northwest Passage (where I could see the US eventually making some kind of deal where they support Canada in return for getting unlimited passage), is pretty much all of the Canadian Artic. It's in the USA best interests for Canada to end up prevailing over Russia. Canada wouldn't be the major power at the table, but as it holds a lot more artic territory than the US does the majority of the North American claim will come via the Canadians.

[mr friendly guy]

From my impression in these threads, some of the dislike to the UK comes down to this
a) they are quite happy with a system only if it gives them practically everything they want (unrealistic as it can't satisfy every competing interest)

b) when point A occurs, they whine (why then did you sign up in the first place with such unrealistic expectations)

c) when a & b occur they threaten to leave the EU which leads to

i) since no one is stopping them, so why don't they leave instead of remaining and causing trouble for those who want to work within the EU framework? This looks like either spite or an attempt to strong arm the EU for more concessions which is unfair for those members who accepted the EU can't give them everything they want given competing interests.

and finally we get
d) instead of admitting its because they can't get everything they want, they make some other excuse like the EU is undemocratic. Not only is the statement dubious at best, its also dishonest to pretend that the reason the UK wants to leave is because of some other reason.

Ok so I will let some of the European board members correct me on where I am wrong. This is just my impression from the threads going on.