CAMERON HAS BLUNDERED INTO ISOLATION IN EUROPE
On his return today from China after a week-long trade visit to promote Scottish interests and industries, First Minister Alex Salmond has made a key intervention on the European issue, writing to the Prime Minister David Cameron with six crucial questions about the UK's isolation within the European Union as a result of the Prime Minister's veto of a new European Treaty.
The First Minister said:
"It is extraordinary state of affairs that while the Scottish Government and our agencies were working hard to promote Scotland's interests and industries in China, David Cameron was blundering into apparently changing the UK's entire relationship with the European Union – without even discussing it with his own Lib Dem coalition colleagues, never mind the devolved administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.
"Given that David Cameron took it upon himself to isolate the UK in Europe - from non-euro and the euro members alike - and without a word of consultation, he now needs to answer six key questions about the implications for Scotland of what he has done. As the price of playing to his own backbenchers, the Prime Minister now leads a riven administration - with zero credibility in EU negotiations across the range of policy areas where Scotland's interests are crucially affected.
"Last week's developments in Brussels demonstrate that Scotland urgently needs a voice at the top table when our vital national interests are being discussed, by becoming an independent member state, instead of being shut out of the room."
The First Minister's questions to the Prime Minister are:
1. What risk assessment, if any, did the UK government undertake of the likely impact of its veto decision on investment into Scotland and the UK, and on negotiations affecting key Scottish industries such as agriculture, fishing, and financial services - where qualified majority
voting already applies?
2. What assessment, if any, was made of how Scotland's interests will be affected in the EU by being represented by a UK government that is excluded from important decision-making meetings, which will impact directly on Scotland?
3. Given the serious impact of a UK treaty veto, why did you not consult with the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations on the use of an option which Mrs Thatcher and John Major in their negotiations both managed to avoid?
4. Can you confirm the reports in the Italian and UK press that you told the new Italian Prime Minister that your negotiating stance was based on the 'big internal problems' you would face if you had agreed to the Treaty change?
5. With key negotiations ongoing concerning the EU Budget, agriculture and fisheries, how do you believe that the important Scottish interests involved will be affected by being represented by a UK member state which has isolated itself?
6. Will you agree to an urgent meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, involving all four of the UK administrations, so that the full implications of your decision can be considered?
from
The Senior Special Adviser
First Minister of Scotland
St Andrew's House
Edinburgh EH1 3DG
Posts
shame he doesnt mention the shadow banking sector he is representing in London, I wonder what Alex Salmonds stance is on the widely known but oft not reported fact that London is the centre for the casino side of finance.
ReplyDelete2. They need to address the question of the quest for independence, for having the campaigned on fiscal powers only to hand this over to Brussels if they joined the Euro.
Thanks, Simonp.
ReplyDeleteWish I had the slightest clue what the implications of this is.
ReplyDeleteThebest I can offer is this, Jeanne -
ReplyDeleteCameron has prevented the EU from modifying the EU treaty to incorporate measures they regard as vital to save the euro by exercising the UK veto. Of the 27 countries in the EU, onyy the UK has done this - 3 others have decided to consult at home before agreeing.
The EU has said they will go ahead without the UK. The UK is techically still a member of the EU, but is now a pariah, effectively without influence.
The LibDems are wholly committed to the EU - the Tories are deeply divided and deeply ambivalent about th EU. This threatens the Coalition government.
Scotland, who at the general election didn't vote for a Tory (they returned ONE Tory MP) or a LibDem government but for a Labour one, had no voice whatsoever at the EU summit, despite having a devolved nationalist government. Scotland's economy could be deeply damaged by this.
An independent Scotland would be an equal member country of the EU, and would have had a seat at the bargaining table.
If Scotland becomes independent, it would be in the EU and the UK might be out of it. At the moment Scotand has the same currency as the UK - sterling, and had planned to keep this after independence until the time was right to adopt the euro. This places that in question.
The independence referendum is at least two and a half years away on the present timescale. Independence would not come until form 3 to 5 years after that. In that time the UK's -and Scotland's economy could be destroyed.
Can the Euro be saved? Where is the money to save Greece - again, Italy, Spain and the rest apart from printing more. China has only so many cute bears to hand out and are reluctant to risk backing what they seem to regard as the EU loser.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Mr Salmond is wise to hold the lack of inter-UK consultation (particularly that of Scotland) as paramount in the SNP 6 questions for Mr Cameron before the dust settles on this wrangle and we see what actual harm may be coming Scotland's way?
Does anyone know when AS returned from China?
ReplyDeleteMoridura - my take:
ReplyDeleteCameron knew to agree the treaty changes would be to bring civil war down upon the Tory Party. He hoped to head off the Redwood section who are still calling for a referendum on continued UK membership of the EU. It is clear from today's Torygraph the veto has only further encouraged Redwood and his sceptics.
In the background Sarkozy knows that Cameron and Osbourne helped him out of a hole last year by forcing RBS / Natwest / Lloyds to buy up French sovereign debt (estimated at around £35 billion) and agree to underwrite a sizable chunk of France's exposure to Eastern European defaults.
This in turn may explain Merkle's insistence on proper regulation and control of the EU sovereign debt situation by the ECB as part of a new treaty as under the current 'City of London' levels of regulation Cameron and Sarkozy would be able to continue to run rings round the ECB.
Sarkozy is now in what he sees as a win:win situation. A large chunk of French sovereign debt plus insurance against Eastern Europe default lies in the 'unregulated' City of London at a far better rate than on the international markets while the French Banks will get support from the ECB in terms of interbank exchange rates and liquidity.
In my view while Cameron and Merkle both think they have 'won', they have not, they are both losers to France and Sarkozy.
As for the EU: I sense more and more Scots would prefer an alliance with Norway and Scandinavia, join EFTA (Scotland already has all the regulatory requirements in place) and see what the EU can offer Scotland to make it 'worth our while' to join.
Given the current position of the EU and the Euro staying on the outside makes a lot of sense.
A Herald comment on this, is that AS has written to the PM, but does not go into the substance of these six questions, so, thanks Peter for putting this up in full light.
ReplyDeleteThe closing comment from the Herald writer is that AS would be wise not to hold his breath waiting for an answer - to which, if that is an accurate forecast, one can only say, damage limitation is urgently needed, by whatever form it takes.
Thanks, Barontorc.
ReplyDeletePeter, thanks for a very full analysis.
ReplyDeleteTo ask what the EU can offer Scotland is a question only asked by those who have no conception of the amount of trade we do with Europe, and the vital role of the European single market.
That does not, of course, preclude having alliance with Scandinavia, and currency is a related but different question
If the euro is not saved, Clarinda, the UK and therefore Scotland face a bleak future. That is the stark economic reality, in or out of the euro.
ReplyDeleteMoridura, thanks for the explanation.
ReplyDeleteI go back to the recent poll results that said Scots would vote for independence if they would be more secure (my interpretation) financially. If this is as bad as it sounds, will that affect how people perceive the lack of benefit in being in the union?
Moridura, you don't have to be in the EU to trade with it. What are the trade benefits of being in the EU?
I have heard quite a number of Scots talk about joining EFTA instead. I can't even begin to analyze the pros and cons of that. There might be benefits to that instead of the EU. It really is beyond my ken.
If this is as bleak a situation as you foresee, and a lot of people are saying it's bad even though I still can't say I understand it, might this cause AS to change the timetable for an independence referendum?
I am not quite sure why the economic reality would be bleak if Scotland itself was out of the EU, although the entire world economy is in no shape for the EU to fail, so I don't think I can entirely disagree, I just don't understand the situation fully.
EFTA comprises Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. It is a worthy organisation, but consider - Iceland has a total population less than Edinburgh! But EFTA does manage relationships with the European Economic Area (EEA)and allows 3 four the 4 (not Switzerland) to participate.
ReplyDeleteWithout the Eu - and EFTA - individual countries would sink back in to maze of tariffs, protectionism and would have to navigate through a multi-faceted legal maze that would make the EU look like a model of simplicity.
Heh, calling you Moridura. Sorry about that, not enough caffeine.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the necessity of trade organizations, just not sure that Scotland would be that much harmed by being a member of EFTA and participating through that.
I'm not sure how the size of Iceland relates. It is more important the amount of clout the members together can bring to the table, isn't it?Both Norway and Switzerland carry some clout (not too sure about Liechtenstein). As a group they have more. With Scotland added that clout would be increased and there is a lot to be said for small nations banding together in order to counter the power of the large nations in the EU.
It seems to be something to think about and something that a lot of Scots would be open to.
Jeanne,
ReplyDeleteScotland can't be a member of EFTA until it is independent. The purpose of belonging to a trade area is trade, and trade is what gives clout. But, yes, if in EFTA - and EU through that - your point is arguable.
I don't know the answer. Scotland is anxious to extend its relationship with Scandinavia, but it has very strong and very ancient - and modern - European links.
We'll see, as the situation develops. What is critical is whether the euro survives or collapses - that wil be the game changer ...
I am normally an admirer of Salmond's but these questions are appaling. What specific aspects of Scotland's economy is he talking about and how are they affected? What is his 'risk assessment'? What is his consideration of England's interests and how Scotland can support those? Has the EU in his view been good for Scotland's fishing industry?
ReplyDeleteDoes he somehow imagine that Cameron should not protect the UK's biggest employment and export sector? Do people reading this blog imagine that it is in Edinburgh's interest to have a financial sector migrating to Hong Kong. Or indeed to have the UK spiralling into economic collapse because the our greatest source of tax revenue is killed off.
Salmond is taking a canny but highly immoral and very unprinclipled position. He's trying to pick a fight to further his agenda.
If, as stated in the comments above, this decision will ruin the Scottish economy please enlighten me how? Specifically!
I haven't got time or space enough to enlighten you in a blog reply, Bud.
ReplyDeleteLook at the three videos in today's blog, listen to the financial services guy, read the Financial Times.
Cameron has protected nothing and damaged everything. He is an incompetent negotiator and an expedient politician.
Well of course you don't, because any time someone asks what the specific impact of the veto is we hear 'isolation' or 'bumbling' or 'little england'.
ReplyDeleteOur legal and trade relationship with Europe is exactly the same as it was last week. The relationship may now be fraught but so what. What tangible thing has actually changed. What tangible thing could change?
We are the 3rd largest contributor, the 3rd largest economy and we are not encumbered by the Euro. The pound is strengthening against all currencies and strengthened further after the use of veto. They can't afford to bump us.
So please 'enlighten' me because I have yet to read anything other than generalities. Or don't because there is no specific case.
Bud, I have no interest in converting your views, unless you have a vote in the Scottish referendum. My concern is to get Scotland out of the UK. From the tone of your emails, it would be a fruitless exercise anyway. Please save your breath - and mine.
ReplyDelete