From the Preamble to the treaty: "(2) On 25 March 2011, the European Council adopted Decision 2011/199/EU amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ... " Decision 2011/199/EU hasn't yet come into legal force; if MPs blocked the forthcoming Bill to approve it, that would also stop the ESM treaty. Plus also at the same time stop that EU treaty change being used for any other purposes, such as the eurozone states agreeing to a Tobin tax for the eurozone. Cameron pretends that the real purpose of the EU treaty amendment agreed on March 25th is not to free the eurozone states to do things like that, but to free us from any further participation in illegal eurozone bailouts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/9605621.stm "Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that, but right now that's not on the immediate agenda." And why should there be the need for any further EU treaty change for these purposes, if the EU treaty change already agreed on March 25th set the eurozone states free to do whatever they could agree to do, just among themselves, through intra-eurozone treaties?
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Some Germans appear to be getting mildly agitated about the intra-eurozone ESM treaty signed on July 11th.
"ESM_the_new_European_dictator.avi":
The quotations from the text of the treaty are accurate, as may be checked here:
The radical EU treaty change agreed on March 25th through European Council Decision 2011/199/EU:
would provide the new legal base in the EU treaties for the eurozone state governments to make that dictatorial ESM treaty among themselves.
"a treaty that's going through Europe right now that gets Britain out of the bailout mechanism that Labour got us into"
"a European treaty that's happening right now. This is the treaty that gets us out of the bailout mechanism that Labour got us into."
So Cameron thinks, or pretends to think, that he got an excellent price for his assent to that radical EU treaty amendment on March 25th, and it would have been quite wrong for him to ask for anything more.
I notice that Europe Minister David Lidington was on a panel debate at the Tory party conference yesterday, and reportedly said that if a change to the EU treaties involving all 27 member states were to take place the UK should use its negotiating leverage to promote its interest.
But apparently that didn't apply to the change to the EU treaties involving all 27 member states which was agreed on March 25th; it would only apply to some other EU treaty change which may or may not arise in the future.
And most probably not, according to Cameron again in his interview with Andrew Marr on Sunday:
"Prospect for further future treaty change is not an immediate prospect."
Posts
