Willy gets it wrong again

Worse, we have made it significantly harder for the 17 members of the eurozone rapidly to put in place the cluster of policies needed to save the euro. Chancellor Merkel said the compromise was workable – to widespread German scepticism; the European Central Bank warmly welcomed the progress, but announced no new measures. If the euro breaks up because its members have to move clumsily and slowly outside the formal EU treaties and institutions because of Cameron\’s veto, the resulting series of bank collapses and consequent depression will hurt Britain badly. What\’s more, fellow Europeans will not forgive us for a generation. This is a catastrophic moment in British and European affairs.

For someone who so loves the euro and the EU it\’s amazing how little Willy Hutton seems to know about how it works.

If the changes had been with all 27, through the mechanisms of the EU, then those changes to hte Treaty have to be ratified by all 27. This includes such things as a referendum in Ireland, parliamentary votes at minimum everywhere else and almost certainly a referendum in the UK.

This would take a couple of years minimum and good luck in getting a referendum through in Eire.

Having an agreement outside the EU structures is much easier and much faster.

Hutton\’s simply got the whole thing bassackwards: not for the first time.

4 thoughts on “Willy gets it wrong again”

  1. and yet – a new treaty outside the existing EU framework would find it very difficult/impossible to (for instance) make the ECB into a lender of last resort to governments, would it not?

  2. That’s not the only piece of idiocy in that very silly article. A referendum is an anti-democratic device only used by governments who are certain of the result, is it? Shame Harold Wilson didn’t know that when he had that referendum on EU membership – which he lost.

  3. OK, Hutton overstates his case but, as H implies, there are all sorts of legal, procedural and technical problems in an EU agreement outside existing EU frameworks. Or so I’m led to believe by all the lawyers and constitutional experts who’ve been opining over the weekend.

    So…”easier and faster”? If so, it would seem odd that this approach wasn’t adopted in the first place.

  4. I’m still confused by this situation.

    Last week I was being told that Cameron was humiliated and isolated by Sarkozy and Merkel. Now I hear that he has forced them to take a difficult and unpalatable path.

    If this is such a bad deal for the 26, why didn’t they just give Cameron his opt-outs?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *