Earlier in the week, I wrote about how David Cameron wanted to use his leverage as a non-Eurozone member of the EU to wring concessions as a condition of signing treaty changes. At the EU summit, he presented his aims: basically, softening a financial transaction tax that the other countries in Europe want, and other policies that protect British banks. Because you need all 27 members of the EU on board with the preferred fiscal policies that really only affect the 17 countries in the Eurozone, Cameron thought he had the power to hold out. So Cameron vetoed the revisions to the Treaty of Lisbon. And then the Eurozone leadership, essentially France and Germany, went around Britain and negotiated a bunch of Eurozone side deals.
Britain is facing isolation in Europe after David Cameron vetoed a revision of the Lisbon treaty, prompting a majority of EU members to agree to draw up their own deal outside the architecture of the union.
In one of the most significant developments in Britain’s 38-year membership of the EU, the British prime minister said early on Friday morning he could not allow a “treaty within a treaty” that would undermine the UK’s position in the single market.
The move marked a victory for Nicolas Sarkozy, who had been pressing for an inter-governmental agreement among the 17 members of the eurozone to underpin tough new fiscal rules for the single currency. “We could not accept this,” he said of Cameron’s demands.
The French president, who has been pressing for the formalisation of a “two-speed Europe”, was pleased on Friday when the number of EU member states indicating their support for a separate treaty reached 23. Britain was joined by Sweden, which rejected euro membership in a referendum, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
So Britain ends up with nothing – although they may be able to veto any changes to financial rules that affect them down the road, given the byzantine rules of the EU I’m sure there’s some chance for a veto somewhere – and the EU moves toward their latest plan, though hobbled by the lack of consensus. The Eurozone countries, and those in central Europe which aspire to use the euro, may need to write their own treaty, which could take months and require referenda in some countries. Though all the countries present agreed to the fiscal consolidation, with the implication that a treaty along those lines would lead to acceptance, time is of the essence, and the possibility of referenda becomes a wild card. And the question of who would have the power to administer the new treaty if EU institutions cannot looms large.
The ECB decided to keep purchasing bonds, but still rejects the lender of last resort position that most central banks would take during a crisis. The ECB will run the various European bailout funds. And the IMF stepped in on behalf of its constituency:
European Union leaders dropped their demand that investors share the cost of bailouts as Germany abandoned a campaign that helped deepen the two-year-old financial crisis.
Limiting so-called private-sector involvement to the terms accepted in International Monetary Fund bailouts was part of a package agreed upon in Brussels early today as leaders met to forge tighter economic bonds to stem the crisis.
“As regards private-sector involvement, we have made a major change in our doctrine: from now on we will strictly adhere to the IMF principles and doctrines,” EU President Herman Van Rompuy told reporters at a briefing. “Or, to put it more bluntly, our first approach to PSI, which had a very negative effect on debt markets is now officially over.”
This was presumably the price for getting IMF support for the more troubled countries in the Eurozone (to which the EU sent €200 billion for the privilege). So the bankers and investors will pay no price for their bad lending. Only the people suffering under austerity will have to pay.





34 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Felix Salmon:
Don’t hold back, Felix, tell us what you really think.
He is not the only one worrying
I would take it as a vote for National Sovereignty and Social Democracy in lieu of Oligarchy.
I was afraid this chapter of World History 102 was not gonna end well.
This “alliance” and “entente” crap is what set up the mechanism for WW I. Does anybody remember that? And the big question then was whose side will the English be on.
man, we’ve been hearing about “a new world order” for some time now, we thought if something like that did happen it would involve some kind of violent overthrow
it seems they have figured out how to overthrow the entire world, including america, simply by imposing austerity
it’s genious
Can’t remember which Brit said it (maybe Churchill?): Channel in fog. Continent disappears.
“So Britain ends up with nothing – although they may be able to veto any changes to financial rules that affect them down the road, given the byzantine rules of the EU”
Not true at all. Britain keeps the best thing of all – their own currency, and therefore a set of foreign exchange rates appropriate to their own economy, something I bet Greece, Portugal, Spain, and maybe Italy would die for.
Cameron did the right thing but for the wrong reasons.
In order for the euro to work countries must give up significant national powers and hand them over to the EU. The national elites, other than the elites in the UK, may be in favor of this but their populations will raise holy hell if an implementation were to actually begin. There are two saving graces in this action. The first is that the EU parties are experts at passing regulations that sound good and then ignoring them. The second saving grace is that the EU parties action may kick the can far enough down the road that the economic consequences of the big euro fail may occur late enough that the full economic consequences aren’t felt in the US until after the 2012 election.
“Things fall apart. The center cannot hold.”
So. The long, slow collapse of the global financial capitalist system continues.
Good.
The Brits rightly rejected this and the only problem is that not enough countries in europe rejected this. The euros are looking at doing a Balanced Budget Admendment, which has been a Republican dream in the US for years and even the Guardian noted this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/09/eurozone-crisis-blundering-into-blind-alley
The euro should be breaking up, not running their economies based on policies that are so extreme that they couldn’t be passed here. Democrats should be openly opposing these things like euro balanced budgets amendments instead of tacitly supporting them.
I’d much prefer the econ consequences to the U.S. to be a couple of months before the 2012 election. Why not have the actual, you know, evidence in hand before voting O out of office.
All this austerity planned for the masses is because uber wealthy people refuse to take a loss on bad investments? If they accepted the risk and ate their losses what would happen then? Where is all the wealth and why is it there? I really don’t understand any of this on a macro scale. (And I understood the Rule against perpetuities better than my Law professor)
It’s about looting the poor & middle class. The austerity part is to get rid of all the social welfare programs so that the 1%ers taxes will go down.
I have problems with many of the things Obama has done but I still prefer him over any of the republican candidates. And blaming Obama for a second recession caused by failures of the Europeans is just bizarre.
eCAHN:
So, is this one of those things where we need to dig foxholes, or just throw the popcorn in the microwave?
You won’t find your opinion shared by many here.
And what makes you think O isn’t part & parcel of what’s going on in Europe anyhow?
I haven’t figured it out. I have no understanding of how the process works in Europe, and all this economic baloney gives me a headache & heartache, so I don’t have the fortitude to follow the details.
Piggybacking on what eCAHN said @17 regarding Obama’s role in this, remember Little Timmy Turbotax and the IMF have both been heavily involved in working out this scheme.
“So Britain ends up with nothing – although they may be able to veto any changes to financial rules that affect them down the road, given the byzantine rules of the EU”
So if the Brits can avoid the financial transaction tax, and the EU insists on imposing it, why won’t that enhance London as a financial center as large entities move any trading to London rather than being on the continent?
“And blaming Obama for a second recession caused by failures of the Europeans is just bizarre”
And what makes you think the US has no involvement in Europe? Conversely, if the US involved, isn’t that bad the Obama administration is being silent on the negative economic impacts of a euro-balanced budget?
Imagine the gridlock if amendments to the Constitution required unanimity. I just don’t understand why the EU members who want a more federal Europe let countries like the UK benefit from EU institutions. Obviously there are military and diplomatic reasons, but the federalist states really ought to be trying to change the UK’s domestic landscape about a United States of Europe.
I’m not sure if you’re accusing Obama of the gridlock in the EU, or the austerity measures, or whatnot. If you are, I think that’s kind of against all available information. If anything, the Obama administration would prefer if the Federal Reserve just steps in and fills the void the ECB refuses to fill.
I’m not sure why the Obama administration would support what is in effect a balanced budget amendment in Europe if he doesn’t support one for the United States. Either way, it’d be interesting to read any actual statements by US officials. I’m not aware of any that go into any more depth than, “Europe needs to solve this problem.”
“The ECB decided to keep purchasing bonds, but still rejects the lender of last resort position that most central banks would take during a crisis.’
The existing EU treaty forbids the ECB from monetizing the debt of member countries. This doesn’t mean they can’t purchase the debt, but it does mean that such purchases must be “sterilized” (made money supply net neutral) by sales of other bonds.
See comment at 20.
And just bc O sez or doesn’t say something has no bearing on what he’s doing.
Gridlock in Europe could be gridlock or it could be kabuki while they work out the deals behind our backs. How could we possibly know.
I think your tinfoil hat is a bit too tight. You make all this sound like a game of “Where Isn’t
WaldoObama?”YMMV
We have plenty of evidence that O is everywhere. It’s called hegemony. What’s the point of being the most powerful empire ever if you can’t influence every decision that every country makes.
If O prosecuted the banksters and made real changes so this can’t happen again in 2008 or 9 we wouldn’t be talking about the demise of European economies right now; so he should get some blame since he is the President of the United States not a candidate.
Those poor helpless Europeans. According to many commenters on this thread they are all victims of Obama. Frankly it sounds like one of those kooky conspiracy theories you hear on republican presidential debates.
Merk & Sark are playing their appointed roles for the banksters too.
They are victims of the rigged financial casinos called stock and bond markets. They are the victims of governments who have been bought and paid for by the casinos, the largest of which is located in Manhattan and had people occupying some of the land near it for a time.
Obama is owned by Wall Street investors, and once bought he stays bought. IOW, he’s a satirist’s example of an honest politician. So, yes, he and his administration have played an important role in Europe’s problems, but less so than their own governments, banks, and legal financial casinos.
Anybody who’s studied European politics could say with confidence that this gridlock is pattern that has repeated throughout history. It would be amazing if it was all a charade to hide backroom unanimous deals, but I don’t think government institutions are capable of a centuries-long charade to ensure a balanced budget requirement for eurozone members is written into the European Union treaty.
Appears the banksters have overthrown the elected leadership of Europe without firing a shot, with Germany and France acting as their agents. Here I thought it would be done country by country, but hey, what the hell Germany and France put the whole Eurozone on a silver platter for the banksters.
Yes, thank you, kafka. Brits approve of what Cameron is doing far more than if he’d agreed since the British position has always remained outside the Euro. It would have been a huge deal for Cameron to have agreed to what Merkel and Sarkozy proposed, might have brought down the government. Interesting that big business corp otherwise known as the BBC was painting the British stance in the bleakest terms; they didn’t like it one bit.
I do think all of this is surface shellgamery or what is commonly called kicking the can down the road. We’ve already seen what austerity measures do to national equilibrium, so probably these are a lot of facesaving moves just to hopefully let nature take its course and restore confidence and actual activity on the level of people going about their businesses and doing their thing so that maybe we can all admit to combined amnesia and just carry on. Then everyone can declare victory without causing the people to riot in the streets.
We may have already won without even knowing it; they’ll never admit it, you know.