Meanwhile, in Europe . . .

Amidst the wall-to-wall coverage of the Florida primary, it would have been easy to miss a critical moment in Europe.

Yesterday, British Prime Minister David Cameron presented his view on the new Fiscal Union Treaty (which he had earlier vetoed because it would be too damaging to the UK). This treaty, which includes everyone except the British and the Czechs, remaining 25 EU members agree to balance their budgets (and amend their constitutions to that end) or face penalties from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and/or be forced to rewrite their budgets under the supervision of the Eureaucracy. Additional, the Eureaucracy will administer their agreement; what that means depends on your source of information.

As it happens, when it comes to what goes on in Europe, I rely on three Brits above all: naturalized American Andrew Stuttaford, MEP Daniel Hannan, and MP John Redwood. Stuttaford hasn’t chimed in (yet), but Hannan and Redwood have. There’s only one problem: these very similar Euroskeptic Tories have vastly different interpretations of Cameron’s actions.

Hannan is bitterly dissapointed:

December’s ‘veto’ turns out to be nothing of the kind; at best, it is a partial opt-out. Britain had asked for concessions in return for allowing the other member states to use EU institutions and structures for their fiscal compact. No such concessions were forthcoming, but we have given our permission anyway. The only difference is that, because the deal was done in a separate treaty structure, the PM doesn’t have to put anything through the House of Commons. We had a generational opportunity to improve our relationship with the EU. That opportunity has passed.

Ouch! Terrible reversal by Cameron, unless one reads Redwood’s take:

Mr Cameron used the veto , refusing a UK signature on the proposed new Treaty before Christmas, and then renewed the same veto this week. He has made it crystal clear that the UK will not sign the proposed Treaty, will not surrender more powers, will not submit its budgets to Euro style controls. I for one am relieved Mr Cameron was doing the negotiating rather than the Labour leader. Labour in office gave away huge powers at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.

Confused? I know I am. These two men usually have very similar opinions; this time they managed to have completely different facts.

So yours truly tried the Spectator (UK) to get some idea of who might be right . . . and Peter Hoskin split the answer down the middle:

If you wanted proof that Cameron has softened his stance towards Europe since the hard chill of December, then just look to the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg, unlike then, was sat next to the Prime Minister  as he gave his statement to the Commons this afternoon. And the questions that followed from the likes of Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes were generally warm and approving.

. . .

Miliband (RWL note: leader of the Labor opposition) did suggest that Britain’s  interest would be better served by somehow, maybe, possibly, being more involved with the new treaty than we are. But it’s a much less clear position than Cameron’s own ‘We are not signing  it, we are not part of it, we are not ratifying it, it doesn’t place any obligations on Britain…’ even after the softening exercises of the past few days.

One other thing I noticed in Hoskin’s report was the muted reaction of other Euroskeptic MPs. It may be that the MPs, who are close to Cameron, know his steel on this subject and, for now, trust him. Hannan is not an MP, but as an MEP, he knows and fears the ability of the EU to maneuver around any assurances they make to member states. Those both Redwood and Hannan may be biased by what is nearest to them (understandably so).

In the end though, other points Redwood makes tip the balance:

Some of us will also be very surprised if this Treaty comes to pass in anything like its current form. It will presumably need the referendum approval of the Irish and maybe others. The front runner for French President says he wants to scrap the current version and wants fundamental revision. Other countries are keeping a low profile but may have ratification problems ahead if it comes to that. The Czechs have jumped ship since Christmas.

This one will run and run. It is good that the UK has consistently placed a veto on any of this applying to us. The UK now needs to play its hand well over any extension of ECJ power over other members.

The mention of the ECJ’s power hunger is exactly the sort of thing Hannan fears, and I share that fear. If this “Treaty of 25″ was set in stone, I’d be shocked at Redwood’s complacency.

As it is, though, Redwood’s point about the Treaty’s problems is more telling. Unless I miss my guess, France will have a new president soon, as Redwood suggests. Ireland has shot down EU treaties before, and that was when they still liked Europe and trusted their Europhilic politicians (neither of which holds today). A couple of other Parliaments may have a harder time passing this thing than their governments would like to admit (the Netherlands and Finland jump to mind).

This is not to say I like European deficit spending; it does say that I think budget decisions are for a nation’s electorate, not the unelected Eureaucracy. Should this treaty come into force, 25 nations will effective put their independence on the clock to extinction. Redwood and Hannan both want to avoid that happening to Britain, and rightly so.

Cross-posted to the right-wing liberal

Advertisement