Germany, France and Spain tell Cameron: there is no room for negotiation on Europe

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...on-Europe.html

Germany, France and Spain tell David Cameron: there is no room for negotiation on Europe

Germany has warned David Cameron that Britain will not be allowed to “cherry pick” and renegotiate European Union membership by returning power from Brussels to London.

Prime Minister David Cameron after delivering his specch on Europe

Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, insisted that Berlin wanted Britain to stay in the EU but flatly rejected the Prime Minister’s demand that the condition of Britain’s continued membership was the return of sovereignty.

“Germany wants the United Kingdom to remain an active and constructive part of the EU. But cherry picking is not an option,” he said.

Mr Westwerwelle insisted that, in stark contrast to Britain, Germany is currently pushing for extra EU powers to tackle the eurozone debt crisis, a position that leaves little scope for a special deal for Britain.

"Germany wants an ambitious reform of the economic and monetary union in such decisive issues as the future of our common currency. We do not need less, but more integration," he said.

His comments echo those made by Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, who went further to suggest that France would “roll out the red carpet” for Britain to leave the EU.

“We can't have Europe a la carte,” he said.

“Imagine the EU was a football club: once you've joined up and you're in this club, you can't then say you want to play rugby.”

The comments suggest that France and Germany will call Mr Cameron’s on holding an in or out referendum on the EU by denying him the chance to negotiate a new settlement for Britain as the price for its continued membership.

Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, the Spanish foreign minister, accused Mr Cameron of playing a "very dangerous game" by feeding Euroscepticism by offering a popular vote on the EU.

“What Cameron has to understand is that you can't put the brakes on that train,” he said.

Joschka Fischer, the influential former German foreign minister, accused Mr Cameron of living in “ideological dream worlds”.

“The belief that the EU could be renegotiated and Germany would support this borders on a belief in miracles,” writes in Süddeutsche Zeitung today.

Mr Fischer, along with other EU officials and diplomats, is concerned that the British Conservative leader has let the genie out of the bottle with his promise of referendum, before any new EU deal is available to put on the table.

“There is much to suggest that the price of the British Conservative referendum will be difficult to control dynamics that could end in an unwanted withdrawal of Britain from the EU. For the EU, an British exit would be a serious setback but for the British a veritable disaster.”

EU officials are alarmed at Mr Cameron’s promise of a British referendum at a time when many Europeans would like a vote on developments in the EU, from imposed austerity to bailouts of Southern Europe.

"He's created a timebomb with the referendum. The clock is ticking. There is no renegotiation and no inclination to give Britain a special settlement at a time when the eurozone is having to do things that everyone dislikes," said a high-level EU official. "He has put the referendum back in European politics and no one is going to be grateful to him for that."

Martin Schulz, the German speaker of the European Parliament, said

"This was an inward looking speech that does not reflect European reality and will not impress many of the UK's European partners. The speech was more about domestic politics reflecting concerns of Eurosceptic elements of the Conservative Party.

Prime Minister Cameron with his referendum announcement is playing a dangerous game for tactical, domestic reasons. (He) resembles the sorcerer’s apprentice, who cannot tame the forces that he has conjured – forces that want to leave the EU for ideological reasons, to the detriment of the British people.

Attempting to revisit major parts of the Acquis Communautaire and picking and choosing the bits of which the UK approves, sets a dangerous precedent. Indeed, it could lead to piecemeal legislation, disintegration and potentially the breakup of the Union.

Any attempt by the UK government to repatriate powers to Westminster is likely to be a drawn out and cumbersome negotiation. I would question whether it is truly in the British and European long-term interest. However attractive repatriation may seem on the surface, it would involve long and complex procedures – with no guarantee of a favourable outcome - renegotiation is a two-way process where no artificial deadlines can be imposed by one side.

In a globalised world, it is not in the UK's interest to seek to downgrade to some kind of 'second class' EU membership and so choose to weaken its own influence on European and global affairs.

In clear daylight, here's the reality of it.

I keep saying it as do others - you can't negotiate any meaningful powers back from the European Union as the treaties state the entire point of the European integration is 'ever closer union'. In any meaningful serious referendum, a yes simply means a yes to an eventual country called 'Europe' (which is the point of the EU) and a no means leaving the EU and our continued independence as a nation state.

It's really that simple in terms of in or out, so, how would you vote today?

[Kardan]

I expect that if the referendum does go ahead (by either the Conservatives or UKIP winning the election) then I will probably have a different opinion, but right now, I see it as better to stay in the EU. As I said, it doesn't really matter on my thoughts now, and things could easily change between now and then. Quite frankly, I'd probably just not vote if it happened right now, but if I had to choose, I'd choose in rather than out.

On a more light hearted note, Germany, France and Spain are only concerned because if we leave the EU, they will have to pay more towards the cost of Eurovision (Although, this is a null point because you don't have to be in the EU, or even in Europe to take part in Eurovision...)

[-:Undertaker:-]

I expect that if the referendum does go ahead (by either the Conservatives or UKIP winning the election) then I will probably have a different opinion, but right now, I see it as better to stay in the EU. As I said, it doesn't really matter on my thoughts now, and things could easily change between now and then. Quite frankly, I'd probably just not vote if it happened right now, but if I had to choose, I'd choose in rather than out.

On a more light hearted note, Germany, France and Spain are only concerned because if we leave the EU, they will have to pay more towards the cost of Eurovision (Although, this is a null point because you don't have to be in the EU, or even in Europe to take part in Eurovision...)

But you must accept the premise that in voting to remain within the European Union you are committing this country to a process of 'ever closer union' which means the constant transfer of powers to Brussels and the eventual abolition of this country into a continental superstate? I mean if that's what you want then that's another matter altogether, but this is the fundamental question in this debate.

I'm not having a go or anything, I just don't think people quite understand exactly what this is all about and get sidetracked by other matters.

[Kardan]

But you must accept the premise that in voting to remain within the European Union you are committing this country to a process of 'ever closer union' which means the constant transfer of powers to Brussels and the eventual abolition of this country into a continental superstate? I mean if that's what you want then that's another matter altogether, but this is the fundamental question in this debate.

I'm not having a go or anything, I just don't think people quite understand exactly what this is all about and get sidetracked by other matters.

I agree with you, I don't think I do understand the full ins or outs, hence why I would choose not to vote. But then I suppose not voting gives the same result as voting to stay. If they did win the election and the referendum was confirmed, I'd look into it more. But you asked how I would vote today, so there you go I'm not good with referndums anyway, the only one I've ever voted in, it went the other way So I'd probably lose this one as well

[GommeInc]

If we were to vote today I simply wouldn't know what to choose. Unless other Member States start questioning membership then the only other option is to hold a referendum for in/out. As a single Member State we cannot renegotiate or "opt in or out" of certain areas of the EU because that is illegal under the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or the Treaty of Rome as it was when the EC became the EU).

A quick pro-tip Undertaker - the principle of "ever closer union" isn't necessarily in the TFEU to suggest a superstate. I believe the EU principle you're thinking of comes under the Lisbon treaty which is a ghastly bit of literature suggesting a superstate. The TFEU / Treaty of Rome suggests unification in a more mutually assisting sense (freedom of services, goods, people within reason) than a superstate (you must do this etc etc). The treaty of Rome/TFEU is quite a nice Treaty, but it's soiled by subsequent Treaties which completely ruin it by suggesting an end to individual sovereignty and democracy.

That said, negotiating the later Treaties (Maastricht, Lisbon etc) is possible, but requires a Community wide renegotiation and even then the TFEU is brought in. So there simply is no pleasing us either way. It's a shame as I quite like the EU as a concept (sharing ideas, not dictating them as if each country is stupid and barbaric). But alas, it's become too powerful and we only have our ridiculous Governments to blame.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A quick pro-tip Undertaker - the principle of "ever closer union" isn't necessarily in the TFEU to suggest a superstate. I believe the EU principle you're thinking of comes under the Lisbon treaty which is a ghastly bit of literature suggesting a superstate. The TFEU / Treaty of Rome suggests unification in a more mutually assisting sense (freedom of services, goods, people within reason) than a superstate (you must do this etc etc). The treaty of Rome/TFEU is quite a nice Treaty, but it's soiled by subsequent Treaties which completely ruin it by suggesting an end to individual sovereignty and democracy.

If every closer union is written in the treaties, then a centralised core (formal superstate or non-formal superstate) is what is intended to emerge. The founder of the European 'project' and the man who was behind the Treaty of Rome, Jean Monnet, purposely chose the supranational method of co-operation (or rather subjection) as opposed to classic inter-governmental conferences which most countries the world over use.

The Treaty of Rome remember was only the starting treaty, just as Lisbon is not intended to be the last. The entire project is built on a steady slice-slice-slice as had the current setting been presented in a treaty back in the 1950s, it would have never passed. You only need to look at what Monnet, Delors, Heath and other prominent 'founding fathers' have said what the final destination will be.

And thats why it's a simple yes to a supranational government or superstate or no and remain independent.

That said, negotiating the later Treaties (Maastricht, Lisbon etc) is possible, but requires a Community wide renegotiation and even then the TFEU is brought in. So there simply is no pleasing us either way. It's a shame as I quite like the EU as a concept (sharing ideas, not dictating them as if each country is stupid and barbaric). But alas, it's become too powerful and we only have our ridiculous Governments to blame.

But again it's not about sharing ideas and never was, it works on the basis of supranationalism - not intergovernmentalism.

[Wig44.]

You know, reading that has made me realise just how much they need us to stay and how much they have realised this themselves. It's obvious to me that we should leave the EU but it does make me smile to see other member states as good as admitting that they need us.

[Kardan]

Just been doing some searching around online, and it seems in other polls it's pretty much neck and neck with 'Stay in the EU' just winning it in most cases. So if we do get a referendum, it will be very interesting to see which one actually comes out on top, I must admit, I didn't expect it to be so close...

Also, I found out that if Cameron does win the next election in 2015, we will have to wait until 2017 for the referendum...

[GommeInc]

Also, I found out that if Cameron does win the next election in 2015, we will have to wait until 2017 for the referendum...

If at all There's no guarantee there will be a referendum if he won. The terms suggest a referendum will only be possible "at the right time" when no such time exists.

[Grig]

You know, reading that has made me realise just how much they need us to stay and how much they have realised this themselves. It's obvious to me that we should leave the EU but it does make me smile to see other member states as good as admitting that they need us.

and I can say the same for Britain.

Although I'm not a fan of how controlling the EU has become, there would be no clear winner wherever this result went. It could be haphazard for the economy in terms of trade flow with EU countries. The pound has lost some value already once this was announced.

It's hard to predict the exact effects and we still all are speculating. One thing I can say is Cameron is a complete and utter incompetent idiot, to make markets and the country's future volatile for the next 2 odd years simply as a tool of protection from the UKIP. It's making himself look more like an fool.