The Speed of Progress

So I've had a day to read, listen and mull over the events going on in Brussels.

Now, I should declare I'm not exactly an expert on Europe. It is something I'm interested in and something I'm keen to learn more about, but at the moment my knowledge is very elementary.

I woke up this morning, read the news on Twitter that the EU was about to collapse and quickly turned my laptop on to read more about it. It quickly appeared that Twitter was exaggerating slightly, but it was clear that the EU was facing a major upheaval.

My instinctive reaction to learning that Cameron had vetoed a new EU treaty was one of concern. As a europhile, federal aspirationalist, I sympathised with those saying that DC had isolated us on the national stage. "Stronger together, weaker apart" was the slogan of the 2009 Lib Dem European election campaign, and its a notion I endorse myself.

Then, of course, there's the maxim "its better to be on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in," which, as crude as it is, is true enough too!

As a Liberal Democrat, I want Britain to be part of a stronger Europe, and a key player at that. But I want Europe to be heavily reformed. It has a huge democratic deficit at the moment, is not in the least bit transparent and has a really long way to go before it is a truly viable supra-national governmental organisation.

But, if the EU did reform I'd support move towards European federalism. Proper federalism, that is, not just giving more powers upwards. That isn't federalism. Federalism recognises the relative autonomy and individuality of member states. But Britain cannot help reform the EU in a way that it needs to be reformed if we're not a member of it - which is why I support our continued membership as essential for getting to where we need to be.

But vetoeing a key treaty and creating a 'club within a club' does risk isolating us from the rest of the EU, weakening our ability to achieve changes in other parts of the EU.

But then I started to look into what had been vetoed and I began to wonder if maybe Cameron was right to stand firm. The headlines, the brief summaries in the online press gave a strong impression that what was being proposed would have been a great detriment to Britain's national interest. It genuinely seemed like the prime minister had had enough, and would not let Britain be carried away with changes that were not going to be good for Britain.

That's how I've felt for most of the day. Regrettable that we're isolated, but that's a price worth paying for making the right decision. I even quoted Tony Blair in support of this position!

"If we are isolated and we are in the right, then that’s the correct position." Tony Blair, Helsinki, 1999, vetoing plan for withholding tax.

Blair's principle (who knew he had some??) here is sound. There is only so far one can put up with being on the inside pissing out before one has to accept that its not quite working, that the wind is blowing in the wrong direction and you're essentially being taken for a ride.

But I'm not so sure that was the case here. I've not seen the precise details of what DC was demanding, or what was on offer, but it does strike me as a bit cheeky to be pushing for specific exemptions on financial regulation for just one country. Equally, the proposals on offer seem on the face of them to be designed to ensure greater stability in European economies. They are intended to save a single currency (which I support) and represent another stepping stone towards the stronger Europe that most Liberal Democrats desire.

So, having been critical of Cameron's actions in Brussells this morning, then supportive, it seems like I've settled on being critical again, doesn't it?

Think again. Take flip flop number three of the day for me...

All this really picked up momentum when Sarkozy and Merkel met earlier this week and fleshed out the basics of a proposal. Then, days later, the 27 heads of governments meet to decide whether or not to agree to them. Cameron does not get his key concessions met and 23 of the 27 decide press ahead without Britain, while another three of them go back to their nations and seek approval.

In less than a week, we've gone from an idea hatched in Paris between two heads of state, to a Treaty being so far advanced that it is being vetoed in principle by one nation.

Can we just put that into perspective for a second?

This is a drastic change to the make up of the European Union, it is going to involve a very significant shift in the nature of power within the eurozone countries and their sovereignty over their own economies.

Essentially agreed in principle within a week.

A week.

On the 14th of May 1787, the founding fathers of a nation met in Philadelphia to draw up the terms of a new federal government. They practically locked themselves in a room and didn't focus on much else at all until they had come to an agreement and worked out all of the minor details.

That process took four months. Of being locked in a room.

And here, we're looking at drastic changes to the way the eurozone is regulated in just a few days. I'm sorry, but that's just not going to work.

Frankly, as much as I support a stronger, more federal Europe, I don't trust the ability of European leaders (including our own) to make such a substantial step towards that in such a short space of time. If anyone reading this made even the vaguest attempt to read the EU Constitution that was proposed a few years ago, you wouldn't trust them to do it either.

Maybe Cameron was putting his own party unity before the national interest. Maybe he has squandered our negotiating position to keep the eurosceptics in his own party happy. Maybe he did have unreasonable demands that were motivated by standing up for the bankers in the City of London.

But I do have to seriously question: where's the scrutiny? Where's the genuine debate? Can something this significant really be rushed through in an 'emergency' situation?

Where's the democratic debate about this? Is it really acceptable for two heads of states out of 27 to get together, agree what they want and then impose it on the other 25?

I must say, I like the idea of what is being proposed, but it all seems very immature at the moment, and I'm sorely worried about the speed of progress.

But, as I said at the start, I'm very much a fledgling in the world of european politics. Would love to hear your thoughts on the matter, but please be sensible and constructive!