My first reaction was: 2017? Come on, get on with it already.
If UK decides to leave it will be a big loss for both EU and UK. I wouldn't be happy about it.
And I agree with Tony Blair's assessment of Cameron's speech:
“It reminds me a bit of the Mel Brooks comedy Blazing Saddles where the sheriff … holds a gun to his own head and says, ‘If you don’t do what I want I’ll blow my brains out’.”
(And can his EU promises be trusted?)
Now that Cameron has declared UK to be a Schrödinger's Member of EU I don't know why would Cameron's word be trusted in EU until UK finally sorts it's membership status out. According to his plan only in 2017 the box will be opened, uncertainty collapses, and we'll find out if UK is a member or not.
I'm certain the markets will love this new uncertainty about UK's future - because markets just love uncertainty, don't they?
And meanwhile in EU there's important issues to be solved and reforms to be made. The 26 other countries have lots of work to do and hopefully will not become hostages of UK's whims du jour - EU is about a lot more than just UK.
Cameron's speech is here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/full-text-david-camerons-europe-speech-8462592.html
The speech is quite obviously directed to the anti-European "High Tea Party" within Tories and it concerns more domestic politics and the schism within the Tory party. But it's not all rubbish as he does have some good points in there.
But this
I don’t just want a better deal for Britain. I want a better deal for Europe too.
is just ridiculous. His speech and his plan about a "renegotiation" and referendum is all about getting a better deal for Britain.
As a way of achieving reforms in EU or "a better deal for Europe" his plan is silly. The way you could do it is work
within EU by co-operation, forming alliances, diplomacy and negotiation. Those skills do not appear to be his strong suits and actually he has weakened his and UK's position with this speech.
By catering to the anti-Europeans of his party Cameron has stepped on a slippery slope where his ultimate position seems to be "failure is not an option". Look at his plan:
The next Conservative Manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative Government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next Parliament.
It will be a relationship with the Single Market at its heart.
[This is the step where undefined magic is supposed to happen]
And when we have negotiated that new settlement, 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.
What if: there will be no renegotiation or renegotiation fails or the result essentially no better or something else. Then what? What is Cameron's plan B?
There is no actual plan B. It's essentially "failure is not an option". Not a very strong position to negotiate, I'd say. And what exactly is supposed to happen in that magical step between "mandate to negotiate" and "that new settlement"?
Joschka Fischer puts it bluntly:
Cameron’s Speech and the Eclipse of British Reason
Cameron claims that he does not want the UK to leave the EU. But his strategy – “renegotiation” of EU membership, followed by a British referendum on the new agreement – is the product of two illusions: first, that he can ensure a positive outcome, and, second, that the EU is able and willing to give him the concessions that he wants.
In fact, there is good reason to believe that such a course would take on a dynamic of its own, possibly leading to an unintended British exit from the EU. That would be a severe setback for the EU; for the British, blundering through history, it would be a veritable disaster.
While Britain surely would survive outside the EU, the quality of its existence is another matter. By exiting the EU, the UK would severely damage its economic interests, losing both the single market and London’s role as a financial center. An exit would also harm Britain’s geopolitical interests, both in Europe (where, ironically, it favors EU enlargement) and, worldwide, in its global standing and special relationship with the United States (which has made clear its preference for a European UK).
...
But, while Cameron should know from grim experience what is looming, it seems that he has abandoned rational considerations. Indeed, the belief that the EU would renegotiate Britain’s membership terms – which assumes, further, that Germany would not object – borders on magical thinking. Such a precedent would be applicable to the other member states, which would mean the end of the EU.
With all due respect to the UK, dismantling the EU as the price of its continued membership is an absurd idea. Cameron should recognize that his strategy cannot be allowed (even if he fears that a few cosmetic corrections to the treaty won’t help him at home).
Cameron's suggestion
"But first, let us remember the past" gave me an inspiration to re-read a truly great speech Churchill held in
Zurich, 19th September 1946:
"We must build a kind of United States of Europe ... The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause."
And, like Cameron, I do hope that in UK his speech will lead to a fact-based and balanced public discussion about EU.
