This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Complete David Cameron Statement On European Veto
"I went to Brussels with one objective: to protect Britain’s national interest. And that is what I did"
Introduction
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council.
I went to Brussels with one objective: to protect Britain’s national interest.
And that is what I did.
Let me refer back to what I said to this House last Wednesday.
I made it clear that if the Eurozone countries wanted a treaty involving all 27 Members of the European Union we would insist on some safeguards for Britain to protect our own national interests.
Some thought what I was asking for was relatively modest.
Nevertheless, satisfactory safeguards were not forthcoming and so I didn’t agree to the Treaty.
Mr Speaker, let me be clear about exactly what happened, what it means for Britain what I see happening next.
What happened
Mr Speaker, let me take the House through the events of last week.
At this Council, the Eurozone economies agreed that there should be much tighter fiscal discipline in the Eurozone as part of restoring market confidence.
Mr Speaker, that is something Britain recognises is necessary in a single currency.
We want the Eurozone to sort out its problems.
This is in Britain’s national interest because the crisis in the Eurozone is having a chilling effect on Britain’s economy too.
So the question at the Council was not whether there should be greater fiscal discipline in the Eurozone, but rather how it should be achieved.
There were two possible outcomes.
Either a treaty of all 27 countries with proper safeguards for Britain.
Or a separate treaty in which Eurozone countries and others would pool their sovereignty on an intergovernmental basis…
…with Britain maintaining its position in the Single Market, and in the European Union of 27 members.
We went seeking a deal at 27 and I responded to the German and French proposal for Treaty change in good faith, genuinely looking to reach an agreement at the level of the whole European Union, with the necessary safeguards for Britain.
Those safeguards – on the single market and on financial services – were modest, reasonable and relevant.
We were not trying to create an unfair advantage for Britain.
London is the leading centre for financial services in the world. And this sector employs 100,000 in Birmingham, and a further 150,000 in Scotland.
It supports the rest of the economy in Britain and more widely in Europe.
We were not asking for a UK opt-out, special exemption or generalised emergency brake on financial services legislation.
They were safeguards sought for the EU as a whole.
We were simply asking for a level playing field for open competition for financial services companies in all EU countries…
…with arrangements that would enable every EU Member State to regulate its financial sector properly.
To those who say we were trying to go soft on the banks, nothing can be further from the truth.
We have said that we are going to respond positively to the tough measures set out in the Vickers report.
There are issues about whether this can be done under current European regulations.
So one of the things we wanted was to make sure we could go further than European rules in regulating the banks.
The Financial Services Authority report on RBS today demonstrates how necessary that is. We have problems in this country that this government inherited and needs to sort out.
And those who say that this proposed Treaty change was all about safeguarding the Eurozone – and so Britain shouldn’t have tried to interfere or to insist on safeguards – are also fundamentally wrong.
The EU Treaty is the Treaty of those outside the Euro as much as those inside.
Creating a new Eurozone treaty within the existing EU treaty without proper safeguards would have changed the EU profoundly for us too.
It’s not just that it would have meant a whole new bureaucracy, with rules and competences for the Eurozone countries being incorporated directly into the EU Treaty…
…it would have changed the nature of the EU – strengthening the Eurozone without balancing measures to strengthen the Single Market.
Of course an intergovernmental arrangement is not without risks but we did not want to see that imbalance hard-wired into the Treaty.
And to those who believe this wasn’t a real risk, France and Germany said in their letter last week that the Eurozone should work on single market issues like financial regulation and competitiveness.
That is why we required safeguards and I make no apologies for it.
Of course I wish those safeguards had been accepted.
But frankly I have to tell the House the choice was a treaty without proper safeguards or no treaty.
And the right answer was no treaty.
It was not an easy thing to do but it was the right thing to do.
As a result, Eurozone countries and others are now making separate arrangements for co-ordinating their budgets and making sure there is more surveillance of what they do and the fiscal integration they need to solve the problems in the Eurozone.
They recognise this approach will be less attractive, more complex and more difficult to enforce and they would prefer to incorporate the new treaty into the EU Treaties in the future.
Our position remains the same.
What this means for Britain
Let me turn to what this means for Britain.
Mr Speaker, Britain remains a full member of the European Union.
And the events of the last week do nothing to change that.
Our membership of the EU is vital to our national interest.
We are a trading nation and we need the single market for trade, investment and jobs.
The EU makes Britain a gateway to the largest single market in the world for investors. It secures more than half of our exports and millions of British jobs.
And membership of the EU strengthens our ability to progress our foreign policy objectives too…
…giving us a strong voice on the global stage in issues such as trade, and as we have seen in Durban this weekend, climate change,
So we are in the European Union and we want to be.
This week there will be meetings on the councils on Transport, Telecommunications and Energy, and Agriculture and Fisheries.
Britain will be there as a full member at each one.
But I believe in an EU with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc.
We’re not in the Schengen no borders agreement and neither should we be…
…because it is right that we should use our natural geographical advantage as an island to protect us against illegal immigration, guns and drugs.
We’re not in the Single Currency and while I am Prime Minister we will never join.
We are not in the new Euro area bailout funds, even though we had to negotiate our way out it.
And we are not in this year’s Euro-Plus pact.
When the Euro was created, the previous government agreed there would need to be separate meetings of Eurozone Ministers.
It is hardly surprising that those countries required by Treaty to join the Euro chose to join the existing Eurozone members in developing future arrangements for the Eurozone.
Those countries are going to be negotiating a treaty that passes unprecedented powers from their nation states to Brussels.
Some will have budgets effectively checked and re-written by the European Commission.
None of this will happen in Britain.
But just as we wanted safeguards for Britain’s interests if we changed the EU treaty, so we will continue to be vigilant in protecting our national interests.
An intergovernmental treaty, whilst it doesn’t carry with it the same dangers for Britain, nonetheless is not without risks.
The decision of the new Eurozone-led arrangement is a discussion that is just beginning.
We want the new Treaty to work in stabilising the Euro and putting it on a firm foundation.
And I understand why they would want to use the institutions.
But this is new territory and does raise important issues which we will need to explore with the Euro plus countries.
So in the months to come we will be vigorously engaged in the debate about how institutions built for 27 should continue to operate fairly for all member states, and in particular for Britain.
The UK is very supportive of the role the institutions – and the commission in particular – play in safeguarding the Single Market.
So we will look constructively at any proposals with an open mind.
But let’s be clear about one thing: if Britain had agreed Treaty change without safeguards, there would be no discussion.
Britain would have no protection.
Where next
Mr Speaker, let me turn to the next steps.
The most pressing need is to fix the problems of the Euro.
As I have said, that involves far more than simply greater medium term fiscal integration, important though that is.
Above all the Eurozone needs to focus at the very least on implementing its October agreement.
The markets want to be assured that the Eurozone firewall is big enough, that Europe’s banks are being adequately recapitalised and that the problems in countries like Greece have been properly dealt with.
There was some progress at the Council.
The Eurozone countries noted the possibility of additional IMF assistance.
Our position on IMF resources remains the one I set out at the Cannes G20 summit.
Alongside non-European G20 countries, we are ready to look positively at strengthening the IMF’s capacity to help countries in difficulty across the world.
But IMF resources are for countries not currencies, and can’t be used specifically to support the Euro.
There also needs to be greater competitiveness between the countries of the Eurozone.
But let’s be frank – the whole of Europe needs to become more competitive.
That is the way to more jobs and growth.
Many Eurozone countries have substantial trade deficits as well as budget deficits.
If they are not to be reliant on massive transfers of capital they need to become more competitive and trade out of those deficits.
The British agenda has always been about improving Europe’s competitiveness.
And at recent councils we have achieved substantial progress on completing the single market in services, opening up our energy markets and exempting microbusinesses from future regulations.
This has been done by working in partnership with a combination of countries that are in the Eurozone and outside it.
We will continue to work with like-minded countries to push forward this agenda.
Those countries such as Holland, Sweden and Germany want these issues discussed as a full 27 – as they will be – because they want our support in the debate against some other members who don’t share these views.
Similarly on this year’s EU budget it was Britain in partnership with France, Germany and Holland amongst others that successfully insisted on no real increase in resources – for the first time in many years.
On defence, Britain is an absolutely key European player whether leading the NATO Rapid Reaction Force…
…or tackling piracy in the Indian Ocean.
And our partnership with France was crucial in taking action in Libya.
Britain will continue to form alliances on the things we want to get done.
We’ve always had a leading role in advocating the policy of enlargement.
And at this council, we all celebrated the signing of Croatia’s accession Treaty.
That’s one European Treaty I was happy to sign.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, let me conclude with this point.
I do not believe there is a binary choice for Britain: that we can either sacrifice the national interest on issue after issue…
….or lose our influence at the heart of Europe’s decision-making processes.
I am absolutely clear that it is possible both to be a full, committed and influential member of the European Union…
…and to stay out of arrangements where we can not protect our interests.
That is what I have done at this Council.
That is what I will continue to do as long as I am Prime Minister
It is the right course for this country.
And I commend this statement to the House.
»
- 8489 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Unfortunately, that's against "european UNION".
Darn, I've lost track of my script, can anyone tell me... is Cameron playing the role of Chamberlain, or Churchill today?
Max Keiser's take on it complements of Press TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo9o6g1-nkM&list=LLDqTwQ_Aj90G1wgtmXVbQxA...
really can't stand this mouthy bandwagon jumping cunt
You mean Chamberlain who declared war on Germany in 1939 or Churchill who bankrupted Britain in 1925 by returning to The Gold Standard and instigating The General Strike 1926 ?
Or perhaps you mean the Chamberlain who as Chancellor of The Exchequer 1931-1937 tried to undo the chaotic mess Winston Churchill left behind from his time as Chancellor 1924-1929 !
NotApplicable asked:
Cameron is playing the role of Dalek, with the City of London playing the role of the Dalek Supreme.
Cameron (in a monotone metallic voice played through a ring modulator): "I hear and obey"
Cameron just got one thing wrong: The reason Europa wants the EU is not just selfishness and monetary gains. If Britain does not want to be part of continental Europe now, one must ask the question: has it ever wanted to be part of something other and greater than just a trade union? Look at the history of british politics slowing the European integration. If there is no interest in integration, just get out. There is one thing though: don't come knocking once people realize that your economy is in shambles...
Pretty shortsighted decisions taken by ultra-right nationalists who dream of an empire when as a matter of fact they are on a tiny island drifting in some big cold ocean.
cheerio 'ol chap
When Britain's interests do not align with European Union, fuck the European Union.
Fuck the European Union anyway. It was a banker-led ploy to get rich quick. Sustainability was never the idea. It was rape-and-pillage from the get-go.
Like most banker ploys (ie: bubbles, monetary unions, IPO's, ponzi-schemes of all kinds) the idea is to fleece the system and get out before the scheme collapses. The EU is just one such ploy. The politicians went along with it because they were promised an entire continent to rule when the smoke cleared.
Popo Correcto
Excellent background on this is "Tragedy of the Euro" by Philip Bagus.
Right, kinda. Now, how is this different from the city of London exactly? Maybe a quick peek UK's financial debt to UK GDP would clear things up for you.
No disagreement here. They're next on the implosion list.
But at least the players are pulling back and entering defensive mode. That's the first step along the way to the great collapse.
Right. Again with all this sequencing... [sigh]
Who's next? Could be any of the following: Japan, China, UK, US, France. My guess? It stays in Europe.
some bets I'm aware of are building up on Japan and UK.
Japan still unsinkable, methinks, it strategically pays to have your debt internal
Agreed on Japan. I'm not seeing anything on UK. You watchin' CDS?
yeah but, London is the banker capital... so what is really going on here?
Popo, you realize that your statement is not falsifiable. And not your best, if I may say...
Res ipsa loquitur?
lol. no, I mean the bankster's "scheme". too simple, too easy, just to put all fiat currency "in the same basket".
after the last two currency wars and Tricky Dick (remember Nixon?) we had no chance of getting back to gold-backed - so we did set up the next best thing - the EUR. If you don't understand it in this context, then you have read too much one-sided-US-only-goldbug-literature.
Same goes with the EU - just read up on the trade wars around Microsoft, for example.
Remember the discussion we had that at the end, the USD is backed by the control of oil? Well, we, the Europeans, never had this luxury.
This stance from the City of London should be an eyeopener - the banks there fear the Treaty the 23 are contemplating... why? eh?
G-man,
Again, I repeat myself, you and I are in Europe. ZH is US-centric. ZH is imperfect, EU even more so.
Uh.. I'm certainly no goldbug. The EU scheme was deeply flawed according to any number of critics from day one. The separation of monetary from fiscal policy, the vast differences in member economies, the terribly dated ideology of Ricardo used to paper over a massive bubble in credit and justify truly insane projections of long-term prosperity. The sole rationale of course was the expansion in credit. What's good for credit expansion is good for the cartel -- longevity be damned. Its an old game.
Yes, there were rational reasons to seek consolidation. And the fundamental premise of a United States of Europe could have worked -- but the combination of banker greed and Eurocrat ambition drove the whole thing forward when it was dangerously premature.
The rest is history. The motivation behind the Europe that we got was definitely not "the next best thing". But yes... we agree (I think) that "a unified Europe" was at one point a strong idea.
oh, but we never wanted a "Unified Europe" - never
it was always to be something more properly called a Confederation of Sovereign States (albeit sharing facilities, some regulations, markets, perhaps a currency, etc.). Think of it as a Club.
but never a Union, never a Nation. Never a Police, never an Army, never a Navy.
----
And the Cartel? Well, methinks we can start to see where the Cartel really is, and I tell you in Europe this parasite is identifiable and separate from the rest of the (sadly somewhat stupid) banking system.
The massive bubble of credit? Well, if we had really opened the spigots in the US/UK way, then how do you explain 60% of Germans living in rent? Or an Italian property market with only 15% debt on it? I could go on and on...
but never a Union, never a Nation. Never a Police, never an Army, never a Navy.
You really don't know your facts, do you ? It was ALAWAYS going to be a UNION ever since Salter and Monnet designed it modelled on The League of Nations. It was to be a Transnational Entity ruled by a Permanent Commission unelected. If you have difficulty understanding go read THE GREAT DECEPTION by Christopher Booker and Richard North, the only history of the European Union
mmmhhh... it reminds me to the argument that the ECB will print lots and lots... in the future!
yes, I've read the book - question: how far in the future are we talking here? I live in the EU since quite a while now...
The Euro was designed to create DEEP and WIDE capital markets to compete with New York and bring funding to Frankfurt or Paris. The supreme irony is that French Banks are short Dollars !!! It is just like postwar Europe when the Marshall Plan was designed to send Dollars to Europe.
The Euro was the French price for German Reunification in 1990 so they could get control of the Bundesbank and so far it has worked with BUBA funding French banks and running out of collateral
Interesting. So what you're saying is that they formed a transnational entity that had a deep alliance with the banking cartel?
Truly diabolical stuff. The Germans are very clever unlike those dumb Brits and Yanks who don't engage in anything like that...
Nick is obviously very very cross with David
The best description of Cameran's position that I've heard was that he feels as lonely as the guy who wouldn't board the Titanic. How poinient:)
US equities are on a cliff... when they fall, we need the deer. Might be today or tomorrow. This week is about to be even more exciting than last thanks to options expiration!
Tyler, you're right - Parliament is way more entertaining than the US pols.
Well done David old chap! Tell the French to sod off and have cold tea and crumpets! Now go and slap the Queen with a wet Salmon!
This will be the only sensible thing Cameron does while serving as PM
Well, good for him and the UK! I wish our "leaders" would spend more time worrying about the interests of actual US citizens. Instead, most are more worried about how many illegals they can import to dilute wages (cheap help = good) and ensure their re-election.
Pretty sure he is looking out for the interests of the banksters, not the citizens of the UK. If their interests are also served... this is a bonus, or at least easier to sell.
Tyler.. Euro has broken 132.00..it's over. This is it. The Collapse is on!
You are aware it was at 1.18 in 2010 right?
Yep, parity is the goal now. Setting up the U.S. union of Europe or the European Union of the U.S. or something. Banker rule number one; When you have bled all the suckers in your current market dry, force more suckers into your market. The world is long past polite letters to their political "representatives".
Parity? Think again. I'd love to see it. US exports would come to a standstill. Bernanke would have an aneurysm. Obama would turn white... and Christian, NO! Jewish.
if it tends towards parity, I think the Bernank will print ... gotta keep below the competition!
And it's gone. It's all gone.
I've come up with an equation in case someone misunderstands:
Merkel = Honeybadger.
Bankster slapping bitch...Britain = Financial Liberia
I'm waiting for the London/Monrovia pic?
Did you guys here get to watch Thrive? It isn't exactly connected to this, but again it is, it is a two hour long doc, and one of the most incredible things I've ever seen, talk about connecting the dots!!
http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie
for once cameron displays some sanity, and the world gives him shit for it.
humanity is fucked
Cameron will go down in history: the guy that put the spark to the hay barn. The whole globalist apple cart tumbles
The EU just needs to find a new sugar uncle...
Who in their right mind would willingly cuddle up to the apparatchiks in Brussels? I mean, unless your Greece and have no intention of paying the money back anyway. Who else? He did the right thing. Merkozy et al are fucktards.
http://vegasxau.blogspot.com
Looks like the next stop for EURUSD is 1.29.
Right on Cameron!
Fuck the thieves, sorry, I meant Banksters and don't mean to lower the status of the common thief to the depths of evil scum sucking banksters.
does it matter? the city of london is full to the brim of thieves....
Off topic, The Deer is in play and it's a good day!
EU was doomed from the start...silly Europeans thinking they can create a super-state to rival the US...but they lack the homogeneity and common heritage necessary to pull it off...now the economic wheels are flying off the cart and people act surprised...
(yawn)
No time for feeling smug in our fully-import dependent, debt-leveraged economy.
No smugness intended, and yeah, sure would be nice to put our own house in order...so much for setting a nice example...
"Common heritage" my ass...American ancestors emigrated from Moon back in 16-17th centuries?
Moonies?
LOL!
Trouble is Cameron cut off his nose to spite his face. Without the globalist system, the UK economy is in trouble.
I'd rather cut off my nose than my whole head.
How to say a lot without saying much at all, "I went to the meeting, they didn't offer much and I said no to what they offered." The end. Well big deal.
It doesn't much matter now what Britain does or does not do about the EU. They just want to find a fire hose big enough to save their own burning house. Fook the neigbors.
You notice that he never gives any specifics....Cameron is nothing but a bought and paid for spokesman for the bankers. Imagine after all of this mess created by the banker overlords he still has the gall to say how they are so important to the UK economy and how they must be protected!!! Unbelievable!!!!!
How about encouraging UK to start moving towards a real economy again Cameron you traitor?
I am confused is this good or bad? Or is it like Good we got sovereignty but Bad for business?
"It supports the rest of the economy in Britain and more widely in Europe."
Gag me.
Well...what's good for the market is not always good for business and the opposite applies as well...having said that equities are filling their diaper again, and the EU crises is getting the blame...warnings from Moody's blah blah blah...
It's a race to the bottom with the Eu and China and Japan out in front!.. US may win by being the least bad..? Sometimes you have to think like the herd.. they will stampede into the USD eventually.
In a panic the herd groups together. It's what they do.
moo
When asked to clarify his new attitude towards the EU and the eurozone, the Prime Minister uncharacteristically burst into song:
Bless 'em all, bless 'em all
The long and the short and the tall
Bless the Merkozy, the Frogs and the Huns
Bless all the PIIGies, the penniless ones
'Cause we're saying goodbye to them all
As back home to Brussels they crawl
We'll have no New Order
This side of the border
So cheer up my lads, bless 'em all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf4jhb9p2v8
At least he's honestly looking them in the face when he says "fuck you ... we're looking out for ourselves" ... rather stabbing them in the back like the Americans favour doing
"I went to Brussels with one objective: to protect City of London Corporation interests. And that is what I did"
Fixed it.
"Euro 118 in 2010"? Yes ... BUT the USD had not put in a cycle low like it has now. It's a big BUT, there's always a yes.. BUT.
the priMini carefully equates britain's national interests w/ the interests of The City, does he not? these pastes all point to something in that area, i think:
in conclusion: We were not trying to create an unfair advantage for Britain. [We are trying to protect the ones we already have!]
no surprises, here...britain is printing up a storm, but the last batch didn't quite do the trick, according to recent reports, so moMoney, soon, as their "national interest" leads them forward on "the path of good intentionz"...
Thanks for making me money David, have a nice day.
Meaning we are ground zero for the fraud that is the financial system and that stuff people confuse liquidity and capital formation: [re]hypthecation. Double your collateral, double your perceived collateral, double your enjoyment, double your crash.
Good on you Cameron!
A British politician acting in the best interests of the British people. Good god, whatever next....
I hope at the next summit he now dons a strap-on and gives Sarkosy a right royal rogering for being a whining cheese eating French surrender monkey.
I also hope it's fimed and placed on Youtube.
The city is at the heart of today's market manipulation and bankster enrichment mechanism. No wonder they did not want to be regulated by Europe.
The downside for the UK is, and that's what everyone is forgetting, that as the city implodes further, UK will run out of money to save their banks. and Europe will do nothing to bail them out, while they are happy to bail out European banks.
I think Cameron chose the bigger of two evils. Bank bail are criminal, but they will happen anyway. But Europe has Germany, and the UK are all on their own.
Good luck British fuckers, and don't expect anyone hearing you knocking on the door when you come crawling back to the EU.