Q&A: David Cameron and the EU summit on the eurozone

 

Related Stories

Twenty five of 27 EU countries are joining a new treaty on fiscal discipline, aimed at avoiding a repeat of the eurozone debt crisis. The UK is not one of the them, after Prime Minister David Cameron effectively vetoed an EU-wide treaty change in December 2011. Here is a guide to what happened.

What has happened?:

In 2011 UK Prime Minister David Cameron blocked changes to the EU's existing Lisbon Treaty which would affect all 27 member states, arguing it was not in Britain's interests. Instead the 17 EU countries which use the euro, and eight other EU states, most of whom intend to join the single currency in future, have agreed to join an intergovernmental agreement - aimed at preventing a repeat of the current debt crisis. A month after Mr Cameron's veto, the Czech Republic - which is committed to joining the euro in future - also said it would not sign the new treaty, for constitutional reasons.

Why did David Cameron refuse to sign up?

Before the summit in December 2011, Mr Cameron said he would not sign up to any change involving all 27 member states that did not protect British interests - particularly on financial services and access to the single market. He sought a separate legally-binding "protocol" to protect the City of London from more EU financial regulations but didn't get one. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the specific protocol demanded "was a risk to the integrity of the internal market" and had made "compromise impossible". Mr Cameron later told MPs he had simply asked for a "level playing field for open competition for financial services in all EU countries".

What else did the UK government demand?

According to the Financial Times, Mr Cameron also wanted an agreement that the European Banking Authority would remain in London, protection for US financial institutions based in London that do not trade with the rest of Europe, and an agreement that any changes - including a financial transactions tax - would require the unanimous backing of all EU members. He didn't get any of those either.

What does it mean for UK financial services?

That is a matter for debate. The UK retains a veto on matters to do with EU-wide taxation, including the contentious financial transactions tax it has been opposing. However the new group is likely to discuss tax and financial regulation for the eurozone which could potentially undermine the UK's position. Without knowing what measures will be discussed - it is hard to say what the danger is. Labour say Britain has been left exposed because it will no longer be "in the room" when issues are discussed and none of Mr Cameron's safeguards were secured. Mr Cameron argues that a treaty involving all 27 states would have "changed the nature of the EU - strengthening the eurozone without balancing measures to strengthen the single market", he said. That was the biggest danger, he argues. And he said his actions had resulted in an "important safeguard" - arguing that a treaty "outside the EU cannot do anything that cuts across European treaties or European legislation".

Who is responsible?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy laid the blame squarely at Mr Cameron's door. He says he would have preferred a deal involving the 27 EU states but that wasn't possible "thanks to our British friends". German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on the day she did not believe Mr Cameron had really "sat with us at the table". Labour has suggested the PM never wanted a deal in the first place because he could not have sold it to his Eurosceptic backbenchers. But others have suggested European leaders had their own reasons for ruling out the UK's demands. Eurosceptic Labour MP Frank Field summed up that argument in the Commons when he asked: "At what stage of the negotiations did the prime minister realise that France and Germany would do their best for us not to sign?" Lib Dem David Laws argued in the Times that it was the "worst kept secret in Europe that President Sarkozy wanted Britain to overreach itself so that France could isolate the UK". Mr Cameron says he negotiated in "good faith" and had sought an agreement involving all 27 states.

What happened next?

At a summit in January, the treaty was finalised and is expected to be signed by the leaders of 25 EU states at their next summit in March. But it will have to be ratified by 25 national parliaments before it comes into force. There had been some doubts about the deal in other countries and Mr Sarkozy has said it will not be ratified before France's presidential election in the spring. His socialist rival for the presidency, Francois Hollande, had said if he was elected he would renegotiate the accord.

What is the agreement other EU states are pursuing?

It's called a "fiscal treaty" but under EU law it's an inter-governmental agreement, not yet written into EU treaties. The aim is to co-ordinate eurozone budget policies and impose penalties on rule breakers. For eurozone countries, it means they will have to enshrine in their own national constitutions tougher budget rules. These include an agreement that structural budget deficits never exceed 0.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), sanctions for those whose deficit exceeds 3% of GDP and a requirement that they submit their national budgets to the European Commission. More details about the treaty can be found here.

What is the row about EU institutions?

The new fiscal pact will also empower the European Court of Justice to monitor compliance and impose fines on rule-breakers and spells out the enhanced role of the European Commission in scrutinising national budgets. Mr Cameron has expressed concerns about the use of EU institutions by the new, smaller eurozone group. But he has since said he will not block the use of the European Court to enforce the fiscal pact - although he says he will "watch this closely" and may take legal action "if our national interests are threatened by the misuse of the EU institutions". Labour leader Ed Miliband said he had secured only a "phantom veto" which left Britain isolated without any safeguards.

What does it mean for the coalition?

The UK prime minister has faced a difficult balancing act on Europe - leading a party with a large number of Eurosceptics MPs in it and leading a coalition which also includes the generally pro-European Liberal Democrats. His stance has been welcomed by is Eurosceptic backbenchers.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, the deputy PM, was "bitterly disappointed" with the outcome of the summit - fearing the UK would become "isolated and marginalised" within the EU. He stopped short of blaming the PM, saying he was put in a difficult position by his own backbenchers and faced "intransigence" from France and Germany.

Despite tensions within the coalition, senior figures from the two parties are insisting that the coalition will not fall apart over the issue.

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 140.

    A quote from the BBC that Merkel allegedly said

    "We had to get some sort of agreement and we couldn't make compromises, "

    Interesting negotiating position.

    So the agreement was to be "Yes Angela, whatever you say"

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 139.

    France and Germany got what they wanted - no attack on French sacred cows CAP and Strasbourg as a ridiculous alternate to Brussels and Europe to adopt Germanic way of government.
    There was no serious attempt to make Europe viable and competitive and nothing done to address current issue of debt,austerity and overvalued currency for southern Europe- which will eventually blow up the whole Eurozone

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 138.

    Roll up, roll up!! There's a party on for bankers in Britain!! You can do what you like, coz our PM's so in awe of you, and we've sacrificed everything else just to be your mates. Want to smash our economy, pay yourself billions at our expense? Don't worry, we won't dream of regulating you. Please be our friends. PLeeeeease!!

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 137.

    I will smile for a week if they introduce a common language, Hmm let me think, Latin perhaps ?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 136.

    i wish our economy was as strong and diverse as the german economy , if it was we would be a powerhouse in europe and we could call the shots,
    we are not an empire anymore.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 135.

    Mr Cameron has vetoed being part of the most powerful Union in the World, or at least it could be ?

    I still have this silly grin & can not wait for the news tonight its going to be better than the Two Ronnies.

    Yes chaps carry on as normal theres nothing to be had here !

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 134.

    Subtle bias from the BBC yet again!
    You've got that wrong. They are not subtle at all

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 133.

    Sarkozy has manipulated the facts to justify his own position. The crisis was not caused by poor regulation, it was caused by governments borrowing too much and then lying about it in order to gain admission into a fatally-flawed currency union. His transaction tax would not have prevented that, but it would be a very convenient way of getting the UK to foot most of the bill.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 132.

    Still no clarity on what the whole disagreement is all about. The more I read, the more confused it all seems to become, can someone write a clear analysis please?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 131.

    Correct France and Germany run Europe. They want to tax the City to prop up their useless governments terrible financial policy. Remember in the 1950's they didn't want us. As DeGualle said he didn't want Britain dictatiing how the EEC was set up and run. By 1973 Franco/German had EEC the way they wanted it and let Britain in. About time we told the French and Germans on your bike

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 130.

    if Cameron was doing it to help the people of britain he wouldnt see most of people suffer under these deep hard cuts thats killing this economy.Thousands have lost thier jobs thanks to him.I got no time for a man thats seeing my mother freeze or miss meals.We are paying for bankers greed wake up he is not a nice PM

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 129.

    The european union is run by merkozy. Fact. Today our prime minister stood up for our country. To long member states have behaved like puppets to this corrupt, unelected bureaucracy. This is not what we signed up for. We as a country want to be in europe, not run by europe.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 128.

    I think Cameron has done the right thing. It's all very well Sarkozy&Co trying to blame him, but you can bet they'd have done the same thing if their national interests were threatened. Let's have a Commonwealth Trade Summit and look at rebuilding links with those outside Europe so that when the continent implodes, we're still going strong.

  • rate this
    +7

    Comment number 127.

    interesting how "What the future of the UK is" is what the Labour party say!

    Come on BBC you can do better analysis than that.

    Also where are the details, all your effectivly say is "Britain vetoed the treaty in order to protect the banks". Yet you provide no details analysis!

    Subtle bias from the BBC yet again!

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 126.

    As a Brit who lives away from the UK but in Europe I find something almost sinister in the way the E.U. is shaping up under Germany. One does not want to draw any comparisons to what happened 70 odd years ago but to have a Europe under the sway of a country that once had every member of the today's E.U. as an enemy must be very dis-quietening to the British.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 125.

    Perhaps we should be renamed "Billy No Mates" thanks Prime Minister. Still at least the City will continue to fund your party.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 124.

    Sarkozy argued that much of the financial crisis was down to a lack of regulation and it would not have been right to give the UK a "waiver".

    No much of the crisis is down to France and Germany recklessly lending too much to Greece Italy Spain and Portugal.
    Merkosy want to get their hands on Britains financial services so they can use it to drag themselves out of the mess they created.
    Nice try.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 123.

    Is Europe the only game plan...the Commonwealth is something still extant; As ever I was moved by the Remembrance Day wreath laying, and the number of Commonwealth members that are involved in this day. Should we not look at rebuilding this organisation to further develop the trading links that used to be so strong in the past? A crazy idea...or maybe not?

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 122.

    What I would like to know is that given that the Tory party does not have majority, where was his mandate to 'vetoe' or to walk away from the meeting without any real negotiation on Britain's role in the talks as opposed to the Tory party's preferences? Unlike the Swedish or Hungarian MEP's, who will be taking their decision back to their parliaments for debate, Cameron will not!

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 121.

    Hats off to you Mr Cameron for sticking to your guns. Too often have we seen the bully-boy tactics coming out of France and Gerrmany. I just hope that the Sarko-Merkel marriage has a pre-nuptial

 

Page 1 of 7

 

More Politics stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.