My in-depth review of the full, disappointing speech by David Cameron

Two days ago I already published my review on the designated speech by British PM David Cameron.

However, today the actual speech was held and it contained aspects that have not been dealt with in my first article. My article, as you might know, was based on the highlights of the speech as collected last Friday by press bureau Reuters. These parts have probably been leaked as a teaser for the real thing.

Today the full speech was published in the Guardian. I will pick out the highlights that have not been discussed yet in my first article and enhance them with my comments. The parts that have been discussed in the first article will be skipped. As hereunder will not be the complete speech, I gladly refer to my first article (2nd link) and the article in the Guardian.

[…] today the main, overriding purpose of the European Union is different [from the purpose in the beginning – EL]: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity.

The challenges come not from within this continent but outside it. From the surging economies in the east and south. Of course a growing world economy benefits us all, but we should be in no doubt that a new global race of nations is under way today.

So I want to speak to you today with urgency and frankness about the European Union and how it must change – both to deliver prosperity and to retain the support of its peoples.I don't just want a better deal for Britain. I want a better deal for Europe too.

I don’t like the arrogance in this part of the speech: what is good for the United Kingdom is good for Europe. And what Cameron wants is good for the UK. That dog don’t hunt. 

Cameron – of all persons – should understand that different countries and people have different needs. Those are not Cameron’s needs.

The [European] union is changing to help fix the currency – and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.

Britain is not in the single currency, and we're not going to be. But we all need the eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term. And those of us outside the eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the single market is not in any way compromised.

The UK made a choice to not enter the Euro. It had of course the right to do so. But please, Cameron should not complain when the rules within the Euro-zone are changed and not in his favor. If you go to the prom, but don’t dress up to it, you should not complain that the prom queen won’t dance with you. So simple is that.

The UK will probably keep its safeguards as long as it stays in the EU, as the EU doesn't have a history of closing out countries. However, the country will not be pampered extra for keeping its own currency. It had drawbacks to enter the euro-zone and it had/has drawbacks to stay outside it. Accept those and don’t whine about it,  

Second, while there are some countries within the EU which are doing pretty well. Taken as a whole, Europe's share of world output is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades. This is the competitiveness challenge – and much of our weakness in meeting it is self-inflicted.

Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that's been visited on our businesses.

He is right here, but he (hence: Britain) has not been an outsider in creating these rules and regulations in the past. The EU are 27 frogs in a wheel-barrow and Cameron wants it to remain that way. Those rules and regulations were created to keep all 27 countries happy; not one central government in Brussels. If some rules go too far, then Cameron must try to convince the other member states in a democratic and political fashion. If he can’t do so and he doesn’t want to live by those rules, get out of the EU.

So let me set out my vision for a new European Union, fit for the 21st century.

It is built on five principles.

The first: competitiveness. At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the single market. Britain is at the heart of that single market, and must remain so.

But when the single market remains incomplete in services, energy and digital – the very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy – it is only half the success it could be.

Putting the single market in the core of the EU, is underestimating what the rest of the EU stands for. This is a very simplistic view from an islander, who doesn’t understand how important the other European goals are for the other countries in Europe.

The subjects “services, energy and digital” are important for Britain, but are they equally important for the rest of Europe? Germany, Austria, France and Italy for instance are very INDUSTRIAL, but also Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) oriented nations and earn their money with that. 

Spain and Greece are moving away from agriculture towards industrialization and green energy. The East-European state suffer from a totally obsolete industry and widespread poverty and behindness. They currently see their people as their most important export product. 

Britain’s priorities are not their priorities (yet). 

And does Cameron want centralized steering to achieve the goals towards these sectors Energy, Services and Digital? He, who was against centralized steering?

I want us to be at the forefront of transformative trade deals with the US, Japan and India as part of the drive towards global free trade. I would ask: when the competitiveness of the single market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport council, an education council but not a single market council?

The last sentence is a good question. What Cameron fails to understand is that “global free trade” gives many workers and lower-class citizens in Britain (and abroad) the willies. Global free trade will cost them their job or a large share of their salary, when knowledge workers from low-wage countries work for a bargain price. Or when Chinese or Vietnamese factories produce household appliances for a price far below the costprice in Europe. 

I’m not per se against global free trade, but here Cameron is confusing the interests of his Tory grassroots with the interests of Europe.

The second principle should be flexibility.

We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – north, south, east, west, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal.

I accept, of course, that for the single market to function we need a common set of rules and a way of enforcing them. But we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest developments and trends.

Competitiveness demands flexibility, choice and openness – or Europe will fetch up in a no-man's land between the rising economies of Asia and market-driven North America.

The EU must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.

Also here Cameron is confusing the interests of him and his grassroots with the interests of Great Britain and the EU as a whole. This is quite arrogant again. The “EU as a network” sounds quite nice for the “financial dudes in the London city”, but for the jobless ex-miner in Yorkshire or the low-paid factory worker, this sounds probably much less attractive.

We must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach which implies that all countries want the same level of integration. The fact is that they don't and we shouldn't assert that they do.

Instead, let's start from this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency.

The European treaty commits the member states to "lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European court of justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation.

We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain – and perhaps for others – it is not the objective.

We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions and pursue together the ideal of co-operation. This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union – but it is just as valid.

Cameron has a point with the first paragraph. Still, his focus on the single market ignores the political meaning behind the single currency and the history before this currency came. Yes, the Euro is not perfect at all, but a lot of people in Europe feel very comfortable having it. They would hate to go back to the situation of the Europe with the 27 currencies.

The flexible union is like the political version of the drive-in restaurant. You can order what you want and leave the rest behind. That is not the foundation that the EU is built upon and it is a mirage that you can change the EU to something like this. Forget it, Mr. Cameron.

My third principle is that power must be able to flow back to member states, not just away from them. This was promised by European leaders at Laeken a decade ago.It was put in the treaty. But the promise has never really been fulfilled. We need to implement this principle properly.

In Britain we have already launched our balance of competences review – to give us an informed and objective analysis of where the EU helps and where it hampers.

I can understand Cameron in the first paragraph. Europe decides on a mighty lot of subjects and not all decisions (“the maximum curve in a cucumber”) are very useful. However, what Europe did is giving people (human) rights and (when necessary) protection against their own government. One more thing. If we would investigate in The Netherlands which government body makes most rules: the Dutch government or the EU, I know who would ‘win’ this contest. And it is not the EU… I cannot imagine that the situation in Great Britain differs much from The Netherlands. 

I wonder if the British 'Commons is not also a regulation machine, like the Dutch government.

The EU is not the drive-in restaurant where you can take out what ‘helps’ and leave behind what ‘hampers’. This is naive and stupid.

Countries are different. They make different choices. We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.

In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.

Cameron must not forget that it were/are the EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT LEADERS who had/have the final word in almost any decision on regulations and legislations! Not a nameless apparatchik in the Supreme Soviet. Brussels is not Moscow in the seventies. Cameron, Merkel, Sarkozy, Mark Rutte and Silvio Berlusconi were all part of Brussels!

He must also not forget that many European rules and legislations are about protection of people. From their government, but also from themselves and from people they are confronted with (bosses, colleagues and managers, but also other citizens, people in the traffic around them, civil servants and central government representatives).

To reside with the "hospital doctor" from Cameron's example: how sharp is a doctor after a 60 hour working week? Would you like to be the person on his operating table, when this doctor is exhausted?!  The 48 hour working week as regulated by the EU has a clear purpose. However, if the UK does not like it, they can always try to renegotiate those regulations. 

Ultimately, they could choose to leave the EU, as it is not a prison camp where you are involuntarily kept hostage. The British made a well-considered choice to enter the EU and they could now make a well-considered choice to leave it.

My fourth principle is democratic accountability: we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national parliaments.

There is not, in my view, a single European demos.

It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.

It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek parliament that Antonis Samaras has to pass his government's austerity measures.

It is to the British parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.

I also would like the EU to be much more democratic. Still, this is a part where I’m utterly in conflict with Cameron. Currently, the national parliament of Germany (“Der Bundestag”) and the constitutional court in Karlsruhe could decide over the future of the EU, through Germany’s veto. How democratic is that?! 

For the UK the national parliament is an important source. The UK is large enough to use its full democratic force within the EU. However, if you live in… say Lithuania: how much influence you think that your national parliament has in the EU?! Close to… nothing?!

The sad truth is that Europe’s future direction is decided upon by a few countries with a disproportionate large amount of influence: France, Germany, Italy and… the UK. If Cameron would not have messed up in December, 2011, he still would have had much influence. The relatively poor, “small” countries, like Greece, the Baltic states and the former Eastern Block countries (except for Poland) have the least influence, while they are at the same time the most dependent on the EU for their future.

I’m an advocate of the “one man, one vote” principle and I would like to have much more democratic influence on the European government bodies.The European Parliament is unfortunately a toothless tiger with too litle power. The European Commission consists of too many (weak) politicians that are often appointed as a favor for their glorious past, not for their brilliant future. Or they are chosen, because they offend nobody with their personality.

These circumstances made the EU and the European Commission such a disliked and distrusted institute. The representatives of these institutes are untouchable and invisible, because “we” made them untouchable and invisible. We includes you, Mr. Cameron!

My fifth principle is fairness: whatever new arrangements are enacted for the eurozone, they must work fairly for those inside it and out.

Our participation in the single market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal reason for our membership of the EU.

This is again an egocentrical and very narrow-minded look at Europe and the Euro-zone by Cameron. EU is not the single market alone. So don’t treat it like it is.

And don’t cry about new arrangements for the Euro-zone. The UK decided that it (probably) never wants to be part of it. That was their own deliberate decision.

However, the large majority of the EU decided that it wanted to be in the Euro-zone. They now set the rules for the Euro-zone. The Euro-zone has more than enough courtesy to respect the rights of the countries without the Euro. 

This has happened in the past and it will remain happening in the future. However, you can’t fly business class if you don’t want to pay extra for the ticket. Therefore you can’t decide on the future of the Euro-zone when you didn’t want to be part of it in the past. That is simple…

Today, public disillusionment with the EU is at an all-time high. There are several reasons for this.

People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. Put simply, many ask "why can't we just have what we voted to join – a common market?"

They are angered by some legal judgements made in Europe that impact on life in Britain. Some of this antipathy about Europe in general really relates of course to the European court of human rights, rather than the EU.

Is this the opinion of whole Great Britain? Or the opinion of Cameron and his Tory friends? Let’s ask Nick Clegg of the LibDems. The bashing of the European court of human rights might be logical, but in my humble opinion it is not fair.

At the same time Cameron is right about the disillusionment with the EU. This is a logical result of the trying and pessimistic times that we are in currently. People are more focused inside. It is also a result of the lack of democracy of the current EU.

National politicians are also to blame: good and favorable European regulations were their achievement, while “bad” and unfavorable EU regulations could be blamed on the Supreme Soviet in "Brusselgrad".

There is, indeed, much more that needs to be done on this front. But people also feel that the EU is now heading for a level of political integration that is far outside Britain's comfort zone.They see treaty after treaty changing the balance between member states and the EU. And note they were never given a say.

The result is that democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer-thin.

Some people say that to point this out is irresponsible, creates uncertainty for business and puts a question mark over Britain's place in the European Union.But the question mark is already there and ignoring it won't make it go away.

Again, Cameron is right here. This can also be blamed on the current political structure of the EU, that causes the enormous influence of a few, large countries on the political process.

That is why I am in favour of a referendum. I believe in confronting this issue – shaping it, leading the debate. Not simply hoping a difficult situation will go away.

The European Union that emerges from the eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the eurozone.

We need to allow some time for that to happen – and help to shape the future of the European Union, so that when the choice comes it will be a real one.

A real choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain shapes and respects the rules of the single market but is protected by fair safeguards, and free of the spurious regulation which damages Europe's competitiveness.

A new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where member states combine in flexible co-operation, respecting national differences not always trying to eliminate them and in which we have proved that some powers can in fact be returned to member states.

In itself, I am not very much opposed to this referendum. However, be a man and don’t organize it in the distant future, while you use it to influence and even blackmail the EU partners.

And look too at what we have achieved already. Ending Britain's obligation to bail out eurozone members. Keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact. Launching a process to return some existing justice and home affairs powers. Securing protections on banking union. And reforming fisheries policy.

Hurrah! We profited from the single market. We have also profited from our exports to the PIIGS-countries. Our banks in the City were able to push these countries full with ridiculous loans for real estate and excess imports they should better not have purchased. We have made many billions of money on their misery. But we don’t pay one penny to help solving the shit that we created ourselves. We leave it for other countries instead. On top of that, we were able to keep our London City a fiscal place for freebooters and fortune-hunters. We are heroes!

[…]I agree […] with what President Barroso and others have said. At some stage in the next few years the EU will need to agree on treaty change to make the changes needed for the long-term future of the euro and to entrench the diverse, competitive, democratically accountable Europe that we seek.

I believe the best way to do this will be in a new treaty so I add my voice to those who are already calling for this.My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain.

I really wonder if the rest of the EU is waiting for Britain’s voice these days. I guess The Netherlands is, but I wonder if this is true for Spain, Hungary or Rumania.

[…] we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.

It will be an in-out referendum.

Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.

It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.

If the UK doesn’t want this referendum: vote Labour or LibDems. It’s up to you.

Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other member state.

But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?

If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe. It will remain for many years our biggest market, and forever our geographical neighbourhood. We are tied by a complex web of legal commitments.

Perhaps Cameron could try a large outboard engine of 21 trillion HP. Mount it at Dover and put the pedal to the metal.

This was a bad joke. 

The real question is: what does Cameron want?! And does he really think that he can change the EU in such a way between now and 2017, that people who want to be out of the EU now, do change their mind in 2017?! Is he really that naive?!

Cameron has a habit of changing my opinion 180 degrees in a matter of days.

I was impressed by the speech that was leaked through Reuters. I didn’t agree on anything, but I thought it was a very balanced and eloquent speech.

Today, I saw a different Cameron: a bit of a spoilt child that was whining and blackmailing his parents about the cookie he didn’t get and how unhappy it would make him.

I am truly disappointed about this speech and I am convinced that he shot himself in the foot with it. The EU will never be the drive-in restaurant where “you can order what you like”. 

The EU is also so much more than just the single market alone. Cameron is to blame for not seeing this point. He talked about the Elysée treaty in his speech, but he didn’t truly understand one syllable of it. He also doesn’t understand what the ex-Eastern Block countries went through in the not too distant past and why these wanted so much to be a member of the EU: definitely not for the single market alone.

Therefore Cameron should have better followed my advice and forget the darn speech after all. Both the EU and the Tories (not even to mention Nigel Farage’s UKIP) will dislike it: the EU because it goes too far and the Tories and UKIP, because it doesn’t go far enough.

I warned him for that in my first article on his speech:

These preceding circumstances make David Cameron’s speech very precarious, especially as a possible British referendum on the EU membership is like a giant elephant in the room: very much there, but supposedly not seen by anybody present.

If Cameron’s speech is too much anti-EU, then he passes a point-of-no-return that hardly leaves him any other option then heading for the door of the EU. In this case, not only the EU, but also the US will be angry with the UK, thus further isolating the island.

However, when his speech is not sufficiently aggressive and critical towards the EU, he will not only lose the confidence of a large part of the British population, but also within his own Tory party and grassroots he might become a ‘persona non grata’.

If I was David Cameron, I would start to suffer from a political pneumonia that keeps me in bed until the 23rd of January, hoping that everybody forgets about this doomed speech.

It’s sad that he didn’t follow-up a good advice!

David Cameron and his designated speech on Europe: my in-depth analysis.

Prime Minister David Cameron is now planning his long-anticipated speech on the relation between the United Kingdom and the European Union this Wednesday, January 23, 2013 in London.

I already wrote two articles on this speech:

• Is David Cameron a party pooper on the 50th anniversary of the Elysée treaty?!;
• David Cameron shows his variety of the diplomatical pneumonia and cancels his Dutch speech;

The first focussed on the poor planning of his speech and on the fact that Cameron must please two parties with his speech that almost can’t be pleased both at the same time: the European government leaders and his Tory grassroots at home.

In the second article I stated that it would be a great idea for Cameron to just forget this speech. Something that he obviously didn’t do.

Nevertheless, as the Romans said: “Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari”. You have to give Caesar (i.e. the emperor) what is his!

Most populists all over Europe and (I truly regret to say it) some of the European government leaders too (a.o. Finland, The Netherlands), talk almost exclusively about their pet topics, when it comes to Europe and the European Union: 

• Who to blame for the euro-crisis in the PIIGS countries; 
• How to help Greece without losing one penny on it; 
• The lazy South of Europe versus the greedy North; 
• Which country should be kicked out of the Euro-zone; 
• The dangers of the open borders within the Schengen zone; 
• The “invasion” of workers from the low-wage countries in Europe (Bulgaria, Romania etc.) and the consequences of this invasion for their own workers; 
• Those bureaucrats in Brussels that mess everything up; 
• The importance of keeping the European budget within the thresholds of the Stability and Growth Pact.

In this way, these interesting topics (in theory) became platitudes, uttered by politicians that didn’t listen to each other anymore, but just delivered their own punchlines and soundbites.

I have to admit that PM David Cameron is not such a person in these eyes. To the contrary, I think he is an erudite man, who is currently in a very awkward position.

Cameron has well-considered and outspoken opinions on the European Union. Opinions that I often agree with and sometimes not.

After my two, very critical articles about him, I owe David Cameron an in-depth analysis of his designated speech. Last weekend, Reuters printed a synopsis of it. Here are the pertinent snips of this article, combined with my comments:

Britain to drift out of EU without reforms -PM Cameron

Britain will drift out of the European Union and the European project will fail unless the bloc tackles three serious problems it faces, British Prime Minister David Cameron had planned to say in a postponed speech on Friday.

Ernst: Britain drifting out of the EU is a serious risk currently, but I don’t see how the EU could reverse this process easily.

One of the trademarks of this crisis is: people, focussing on their own country, home town and white pickett fence. As the United Kingdom is an island society, these inbound pointed feelings are often stronger than with people who live on the continent and meet their neighbours abroad very regularly.

The globalisation and neoliberalisation policy of the last few decades in the EU and beyond went much too quickly for many European citizens. In the years before the crisis there was already a movement towards more nationalism and regionalism (think about the anti-globalistic movement and the failed referendae about the European Constitution in France and The Netherlands).

Idealism about Europe and the EU was replaced with dissatisfaction about the democratic level of the EU and a feeling that “Europe” decided everything for the people, not with the people. 

This dissatisfaction has been force-fed by the many populistic politicians that came up like weeds on freshly ploughed turf and by spineless government leaders that didn’t want to take responsibility for their own decisions, but instead blamed Brussels for it.

Cameron had been planning to say that the EU faces three major challenges: the euro zone debt crisis, faltering competitiveness and declining public support, particularly in Britain.

Ernst: Concerning the declining public support, that is a logical and unfortunately yet unstoppable process (see the previous comment). The only thing that the EU can and must do is making all necessary moves to become more democratic and transparent on the shortest possible notice.

The EU should not be France, Germany and the rest anymore… There should be a really democratic foundation underneath it that entrusts the European citizens with real decisions on the future of the EU and not the ‘token’ democratic layer that is the current European Parliament: a “fake” institution without any real democratic power.

However, as the EU is like the proverbial twenty frogs in the wheel-barrow, this process will take lots of time. In the meantime the EU – i.e. the government leaders (!) – should manage the process of the declining support in their home-countries.

Everybody knows that the solution of the Euro-crisis takes way too long time. However, this remark by Cameron is a bit cheap. He knows that the Euro-zone consists of 17 countries with 17 independent governments who all have a right to veto: a democratic nightmare. On top of that, Cameron is very much responsible for politics having sometimes been out of control within the EU, since 2011.

Cameron is totally right about the faltering competitiveness.

One thing that I blame the European leaders for, is the single focus on the financial and fiscal aspects of the Euro-crisis and the almost total lack of attention for the economic aspects of this crisis. 

• Greece and Spain are both post-touristical, post-agricultural and post-dictatorial economies that suffer from excess debt and a massive (corrupted) government apparatus. Besides that, both have huge unemployment problems and totally lack competitiveness within Europe in any kind of way.

• France and Italy both have theoretically strong economies, with a vivid, innovative industry and a healthy financial system. Their problem is, however, that these economies have been faltering for decades and their politicians fail to find a solution for this longterm economic stand-still.

• The Eastern-European and Baltic countries are still in a build-up phase in which they have to deal with:

•        “post-communistic stress syndrome”;
•        a generally low standard of living in combination with (often) an extremely rich top-layer of the population;
•        widespread corruption;
•        (in a number of cases) populistic, clientelistic and amateuristic local and central governments.

• The other countries, like the BeNeLux countries (Belgium / Netherlands / Luxemburg) , Austria, the Scandinavian countries, The Germany and the UK are more or less doing fine. However,  they also struggle with the consequences of the current crisis and they are more and more reluctant to pay for the EU countries in need.

What currently happens is that countries are willing to help other countries when it (indirectly) benefits their own country and banking system, but refuse to pay when only the receiver benefits from it. 

The result is that the EU misses a general master-plan (“a Marshall plan”) to make all  European economies more competitive: it is more or less “everyone for themselves and God for us all”.

Cameron’s intentions here are good, but talk is cheap. He does not only have to show good will, but also well-executable ideas and good money too. That didn’t happen yet.

"If we don't address these challenges, the danger is that Europe will fail and the British people will drift towards the exit," Cameron had been due to say, according to extracts of his postponed speech released by his office.

"I do not want that to happen. I want the European Union to be a success and I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it."

But, he intended to say there was growing frustration about the widening gap between the EU and its 500 million citizens and that the status quo was untenable.

Ernst: Again, Cameron’s analysis is spot on, but he fails to shed light on his own role in these proceedings. Almost never, during the last three years, the government leaders made the impression that they really wanted to solve the Euro-crisis and the (fatal) flaws of the European Union. If this attitude doesn’t change among all European leaders AND Cameron, the latter might be right after all.

Harsh austerity measures imposed in many European states are making the problem worse, Cameron planned to say.

"There is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf. And this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic problems," he was going to say.

Ernst: Regular readers of my blog know that I totally and utterly agree with him on this topic. However, his “buddy”, PM Mark Rutte of The Netherlands and German chancellor Angela Merkel have been the people most responsible for this doomed policy.

In this case, France had not enough influence on Merkel to stop this policy and Cameron’s performance in this matter also did not make a lasting impression.

To make things worse, there is the Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe, Germany (i.e. the constitutional court).  This respectable institute is holding the German government and thus the whole European Union hostage with its unrealistic demands concerning the German approval of EU policy versus the German constitution. If every small and medium decision, concerning the EU, needs to be approved in advance by the German parliament, then the EU will become a lame duck. Talking about total lack of democracy…

"People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent."

Ernst: Cameron is true about this, but still I don’t agree with him. The United Kingdom and especially the London City has profited enormously from the EU free-trade zone too and they were always there to profit from the benefits, structure-funds and subsidies of the Union. Then you cannot chicken out when other countries are in need. The marital vows say: for better and for worse. Perhaps Cameron should remember this.

"There is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years and which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is - yes - felt particularly acutely in Britain," he was to have said.

"Europe's leaders have a duty to hear these concerns. And we have a duty to act on them," he was going to say.

Ernst: Amen… (see my previous comments)


All in all this is not a bad speech and there is either not much in it that needs to be argued with or that people could really be offended about. 

On the other hand, Cameron downplays his own role in the political chaos that seemed to emerge within the EU and the Euro-zone during the last years. 

It would have been a really strong speech if he would have looked at his own flaws too.

France shows Dutch Finance Minister Dijsselbloem who to listen to, if he wants to be chairman of the Euro-group.

Everything is hunky dory with the appointment of Dutch finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem as the next chairman of the Euro-group. The designated successor of the current chairman, Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxemburg, will enter the appointment process without even a formal opponent, making it nothing more than a walk in the park.

Juncker wanted to quit his job after more than seven years as chairman and for various reasons, it was in the interest of almost all euro-zone countries to put the Dutch freshman finance minister in the lead for this position.

In the first place, it was again “time” for The Netherlands to receive a prestigious position within the political job machine, called the EU: I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine.

Besides that, it has been my realistic, if not somewhat cynical opinion, that Dijsselbloem has been chosen to put The Netherlands on a leash within the Euro-group and not so much for his specific qualities, as these qualities were hardly known after just two months as a finance minister.

This demands perhaps an explanation:

During the last two years, Prime Minister Mark Rutte and former finance minister Jan Kees de Jager had to deal with the strong influence of the Party-for-Freedom leader Geert Wilders. This populistical politician felt infallibly that the Dutch voters had been turning away from the European integration process and turned this into a key selling point of his political program. This anti-EU stance yielded him a lot of votes in the 2010 elections and eventually a position as silent partner of the Dutch VVD/CDA (i.e. liberal-conservative vs Christian-Democrat) cabinet.

Although Wilders was not an official member of this minority cabinet, his approval in domestic questions was paramount for the survival of it. This gave Wilders a unique position as the shadow-Prime Minister of The Netherlands: he had an important voice in every cabinet decision, but could say whatever he wanted, as he was not bound by the government agreement of the cabinet..

In his usual, blunt gungho style, Wilders warned De Jager and Rutte that they better not give in too much towards Europe and the EU or else... The result was that the not per se anti-European Rutte and De Jager acted like Wilders’ puppets-on-a-string.

De Jager (“I am Dutch, so I may be blunt”) and Rutte (“Not one cent more for rescuing the Greeks”) turned into the Waldorf and Statler of the Euro-zone, which undoubtedly hampered the political processes within the Eurogroup, especially when it came to rescuing the PIIGS countries (i.e. Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain). Even at times when the cautious Germans thought that it was time for action in favor of the PIIGS, there had always been Mark Rutte to delay the process with some extra demands and constraints for financial aid.

Currently, the influence of Geert Wilders is virtually non-existent within the new VVD/PvdA (i.e. Pvda is Dutch Labour) cabinet, which operates from a healthy majority in the Dutch Second Chamber of Parliament.

However, there is still the large conservative section within the VVD grassroots that wants to keep Mark Rutte firmly away from further integration of the European Union and further financial aid towards the PIIGS countries and other countries in need. If Rutte either would donate too generously to the EFSF/ESM rescue funds or would move too boldly towards European integration, then this section will run to the PVV during the next elections. Rutte knows this fact and this strongly influences his stance within the EU.

The other government leaders knew these circumstances too and therefore decided to make Dijsselbloem the candidate of choice for leading the Euro-group, in order to prevent him (and Rutte) from hampering the necessary processes within the Euro-zone: the chairman, after all, is more a proces-manager than a leader who decides on the direction for the Euro-group. In other words, they put Dijsselbloem and The Netherlands on a leash.

And this will definitely not be a very long leash: even before Dijsselbloem could think that he owed his appointment to his own masterful qualities, France – impersonated by Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici – was present to explain him the rules of being the chairman of the Euro-group.

Moscovici complained that Dijsselbloem’s position towards the Euro-zone and towards further integration was not outspoken enough. He demanded that Dijsselbloem wrote him a letter, explaining his motivations towards the Euro and the Euro-zone. Before Dijsselbloem had done so, there would be no appointment!

Here are the pertinent snips from an article in Het Financieele Dagblad (www.fd.nl):

France needs more time for appointment Dijsselbloem

France demands a further explanation from Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem about his vision on the Euro-zone. Dijsselbloem is candidate for the position of chairman of the Euro-group. This decision would be confirmed next Monday, during a meeting of all Finance Ministers. France wants to postpone this decision.

Moscovici states that Dijsselbloem’s vision is not clear to him yet. He wants to know how Dijsselbloem thinks to maintain the Euro-zone in the current form and improve the outlook for economic growth. If I have to vote for someone, I want to know his program, according to Moscovici.

“Personne joue un mauvais tour à les Français” – Nobody messes with the French. These are the first words that come into my mind after reading Moscovici’s statement.

French diplomacy is still top of the bill; with this somewhat rude, but effective intervention, Moscovici will make sure that Dijsselbloem will do what he is told as a chairman!

Ulko Jonker, the savvy EU-correspondent of Het Financieele Dagblad, thought that this French intervention had diminished Dijsselbloem’s chances of becoming the next chairman and wrote this in an interesting article in the FD: 

Adieu Jerôme,

His French colleague Pierre Moscovici wants that Finance Minister Dijsselbloem writes an official application for the position as chairman of the Euro-group. The direction of the appointment seems to be gone.

What is wrong with Jeroen Dijsselbloem. Seemingly he didn’t make a very good impression on Moscovici during his applicational visit to Paris one week ago. He didn’t show a clear vision on the large issues of the Euro-zone:

• How can the Euro-zone be maintained as a whole?
• How to get to better growth prospects for all Euro-zone members?
• How to further develop the banking union? 

Dijsselbloem should answer these questions on paper and send them to Paris sixteen-fold, according to Moscovici in an interview with the Frankfurther Allgemeine Zeitung. Then the appointment procedure can be started!

The act of the Frenchman is surprising and unheard of, from a diplomatic point-of-view. Right at the time that Dijsselbloem started to believe in his appointment, Paris built a blockade.

This points to poor directions from (especially) PM Mark Rutte. Rutte conveniently “forgot” that he needed the approval of French president François Hollande for Dijsselbloem; maybe he thought that Angela Merkel would arrange this.

Also Juncker himself could have done some sabotage work possibly, last week in the European Parliament, where he stated that Dijsselbloem’s chairmanship would become “a disaster” when he doesn't listen to the southern European countries sufficiently.

What Moscovici made clear, is that the southern Euro-zone countries don’t trust Dijsselbloem yet. Unless he changes the Dutch attitude of the last number of years towards the Euro-zone, he will be in for a hard time.

The formal voting procedure for this particular position states that the chairman is chosen by a regular majority of votes: 9 out of 17 votes would be sufficient. However, when Dijsselbloem fails to capture the hearts and minds of the southern European countries, his chairmanship will be dead-on-arrival.

This is a must-read analysis of which I unfortunately had to skip some lines. Please use Google Translate and read the whole article.

Ulko Jonker saw Moscovici’s outburst as a problem for Dijsselbloem’s appointment. I happen to disagree with him, although I fully endorse his analysis. My conclusion: France wants to teach Germany and The Netherlands a lesson, by appointing Dijsselbloem as a chairman under their command!

Moscovici therefore showed Dijsselbloem that he has two inches of leeway in continuing the disastrous Dutch policy of the last two years. He must represent the whole Euro-zone and he must find answers to the economic challenges of the southern countries. If he continues to alienate the southern countries, like Rutte and De Jager did, he will become a lame-duck chairman.

I happen to fully agree with Moscovici on this topic, as my regular readers know!