tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post4006711983184089038..comments2024-01-16T08:40:53.682+00:00Comments on <a href="http://www.openeurope.org.uk">Open Europe</a>: Why the 26 vs 1 narrative is simplisticOEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00556463374230498875noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-21123338864155523482011-12-14T20:52:33.767+00:002011-12-14T20:52:33.767+00:00The comments do not meet the central point that I ...The comments do not meet the central point that I am making. From the outset, it was made clear by both Sarkozy and Merkel that if they could not proceed at the level of the 27 they would proceed at the level of the 17 with it being open to others to decide whether or not to follow. That remains the situation. It is even true of laggards within the 17 as the ESM "will enter into force as soon as Member States representing 90% of the capital have ratified it" (paragraph 13 of Euro Area statement).<br /><br />It remains to be seen what the ratification arrangements will be for the "stability union" treaty but it seems to me to be highly unlikely that it will be subject to unanimous adoption.<br /><br />Team; it is time to wake up and smell the coffee!<br /><br />By the way, Cameron did not exercise "the veto". He simply did not agree to a step requiring unanimous agreement. The "veto", if it still exists, is the "Luxembourg compromise" which simply stipulates that, when a matter is the subject of a decision by QMV, a Member State can demand, if a very important national interest (usually described as vital) is at stake that no vote be taken and that discussion continue until the state concerned is happy with the situation. If enough Member States to constitute a blocking minority think that this position is reasonable, a vote is obviously not taken. Some, indeed, notably the French who invented the compromise, think that the test of reasonableness does not apply and will support the state in question in all circumstances. The other large countries take the same position. They recognise that it is an emergency cord that they themselves might need to pull.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-91097902811119050852011-12-14T14:56:59.393+00:002011-12-14T14:56:59.393+00:00The 26 to 1 comment is not simplistic: it is simpl...The 26 to 1 comment is not simplistic: it is simply false. No one has authorised Merkel and Sarkosy to speak for the continent or for the Eurozone. They do not do so. Merkel speaks to try to reduce the amount the Germans will have to pay out to save the Euro. Sarkosy speaks to try to save the French banks and AAA rating; and to attempt to look like a big player. The other nine non Euro members will not end up agreeing to help either of them. And the 16 eurozone countries, on reflection, will not agree to hand over their sovereignty to this jumped up pair of ignoramuses.Rollohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18255460090580758354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-86379291730335190382011-12-14T14:16:57.361+00:002011-12-14T14:16:57.361+00:00Thanks Anonymous, but this isn't an assessment...Thanks Anonymous, but this isn't an assessment of Cameron's negotiation position vis-a-vis Protocol 12 - as we've mentioned several times in our coverage, there are legitimate questions to be asked about that. Rather, it's showing how, even absent Cameron's veto, the deal is politically complicated, riddled with uncertainties with several countries, also inside the eurozone have reservations and concerns. A large chunk of these concers don't stem from the situation created by the UK veto, ie Finland (ESM voting weight), France (ECJ jurisdiction and Hollande's remarks), Ireland (referendum question), Estonia (IMF contribution). If anything, to reduce this important discussion about the interaction between domestic politics across Europe and EU-level attempts at solving the crisis, to 26 vs 1 is, misdirected.Open Europe blog teamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298566546867244328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36227136.post-83642443393949613272011-12-14T13:51:01.895+00:002011-12-14T13:51:01.895+00:00This exercise by Open Europe is misguided. It is ...This exercise by Open Europe is misguided. It is quite obvious that there would have been, in all probability, a majority of Member States in favour of the compromise proposal tabled by Van Rompuy - i.e. to use the capacity of the Council by unanimous decision to convert elements of Protocol 12 on the Excessive Deficit Procedure into legislative instruments which would have applied only to the EA17- had Cameron decided to run with it (despite the curious sabotage of the idea by Berlin ahead of the summit through references to "legal trickery" etc.). But he chose not to or was too blinkered in his approach, with his advisers, to see the value of it.<br /><br />Most of the institutional crockery can be repaired by what has now been agreed. But it is hard to see how the political damage can be undone, assuming that the benighted trio that caused it would even admit that such damage has occurred.<br /><br />Rounding up opposition to a deal which can go ahead without the opponents being rounded up is as pointless as the presentation by Cameron of his shopping-list at precisely the wrong moment because it is based on an equally mistaken assessment of the negotiating situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com