This blog is faintly sympathetic to Cameron. As per previous posts, the Euro crisis can, I think, only be averted, even in the medium term, by a combination of fiscal union and a massive injection of funds, this money to come from either the Germans coughing up themselves or permitting the ECB to act as a lender of last resort. Obviously the Germans don't want to do this, but I have had a bet with a friend that they will crack in the end. I think it will happen because the markets will get more and more nervous of lending to countries and Berlin will be faced with the choice of seeing its beloved Eurozone break up or agreeing to set the printing presses rolling.
In this context the weekend's summit seems like an increasingly desperate attempt to reach a solution which defers that German decision. The idea that there will be strict rules in place - rules which will be actually enforced - to make countries restrict their borrowing strikes me as preposterous. I remember the Stability and Growth Pact, which was broken with impunity by France and Germany among others. You can hardly see fines being imposed under a regime of Qualified Majority Voting. Countries will let each other off. I doubt very much that the markets will take this seriously for long.
I am also staggered that European leaders are apparently so eager to subscribe to a system which subjects their budgets to EU scrutiny and approval. What makes them think that their electorates will put up with that? And do they not think it might be an idea to ask them first? When this kind of thing goes through on the nod you know that politicians have lost the plot.
But should we have signed up to it anyway? Clarion voices are telling us that we should. We need to have a voice at the discussions, they say. But getting our views heard is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. The end is getting policies which are good for us. Cameron found himself in the unenviable position of having to decide whether to avail himself of the means (being able to take part in the decision making process) even though it meant swallowing policies which he believed were bad. His decision not to do so doesn't seem on the face of it unreasonable. His critics have mistaken having a voice as an end in itself. It isn't. The true goal lies elsewhere.
Another friend has sent me an email reading, "Rejoice! Rejoice! We're on our way out of Europe!" I think she's being a bit premature. Some of the Euro leaders hate us because we said the single currency wouldn't work, and we were right. Some of them are jumping up and down because Cameron refused to go along with their hollow and temporizing attempt to paper over the cracks in their grand project. But that'll pass. I'd be willing to have another bet: that in chancellories across Europe apparatchiks will soon be saying to one another, "Actually, it's a shame that we couldn't keep the Brits onside". I don't believe Merkozy or their associates ever actually believed that we would refuse to sign up; and they were unprepared when Cameron did just that.
Watching Eurogeddon unfold is like I imagine watching a train crash in slow motion. It is terrible, terrifying and fascinating in turn.
PS - As of 16th Dec it turns out that Hungary and the Czech Republic are having doubts about signing up too: annoyingly for Merkozy they are dubious about giving up autonomy over tax. And the Irish think they may have to have a referendum. Moreover, British officials are apparently to be invited to further discussions on the treaty early next year. So maybe we are not so alone after all.
