UK allies turn cold shoulder on Cameron

No one in the UK with some common sense left, has the intention to leave the EU. Cameron knows this as well.
He needs, however, some ammunition to fire on the way how Brussel is operating and spending taxmoney.
The 'Treaty on the functioning of the European Union', an adddendum to the 'Treaty of Lisbon', gives any Council Member this right.

Goodbye David Cameron! Goodbye Tony Blair! Europe is better off without you and/or your Wall st masters.

Stephen Oliver, please link to whatever you think the Swedish PM said that apparently presents a different interpretation of events? As for the Czech PM, go and have a look at his corruption record, the record unpopularity of his government in opinion polls and the ideology of his party's founder, Vaclav Klaus. So, go and seek an alliance with Petr Necs and see how far that gets you. It's like saying Berlusconi praised Cameron's speech! (By the way, the Czechs are upset about efforts to cut the EU budget.)

Nonetheless, Sweden and the Czech Republic are still in Schengen, which for some inexplicable reason the UK is not.

What goes on the menu is what all EU member-states decide together, not just Britain on its own telling the rest of the EU what to accept. If you don't like the menu, please leave the table. And take your anti-euro nonsense with you, because that is certainly not what those of us in the eurozone think. Haven't you noticed that the UK is at the fringe of everything that happens in the EU, with your opt-outs and refusal to join the euro and Schengen? You do not understand what the heart of the EU is about, that is why you criticise it and think it's all a "catastrophic error". No euro, no Schengen, constant opt-outs and opposition to further integration means you are on the fringe of the EU. But, you cannot understand that and get upset that your ideas aren't taken seriously

Reinfeld, the Swedish PM, said:
“I think David Cameron…means what he is saying. He needs to take an initiative to make it possible for the United Kingdom to stay inside the European Union and he is pushing his political weight behind that idea…In these parts I can understand him,” Mr. Reinfeldt said on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.

“But on my behalf and I think that is also true for a lot of our colleagues–we are ready to listen but it has to be clear what he means,” he said. “I don’t think we have the answers. I don’t think he has the answers still to that.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/davos/2013/01/23/sweden-pm-i-understand-camerons-referendum-decision/

Sally, can you please indicate to me just who these millions of people all over Europe who agree with your British anti-EU views are? Also, I mentioned the corruption of the Czech prime minister, more specifically of his government. The outgoing Czech president is a different case. Your misplaced criticisms of Schengen simply illustrate that the UK thinks it is special or different or above the rest of the EU: why don't the other EU countries and also the non-EU countries that are in Schengen have these same criticisms of Schengen? Why are all other countries happy to be in Schengen and recognise that it is nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with an open Europe without borders? The deep-down psychological reason the UK is not in Schengen is because it does not believe in an open Europe without borders.

By the way, did you know that in 2004 when the former Eastern European countries joined the EU that the old members had the right to prevent people from those countries entering and staying for seven years? All the old countries took that choice, except for three, one of which was the UK, so blame your own government for all the "foreigners" that have "flocked" there, it was your government's choice, not the EU's. Moreover, even if you move from one EU country to another you still have to register and have to fulfil local conditions for the health service, benefits, etc. So, if you think the "foreigners" are going over the "steal" your benefits, then that's because of the conditions your own government has laid down, not the EU.

I am all for making sure that the EU budget is spent correctly - but that means improving the way that EU institutions work, not attacking them. I have heard no suggestions from the UK as to how we can ensure the EU budget can be better monitored and the funds better spent. By the way, the EU has in fact criticised the Czech government, yours and Cameron's allies, for the way in which they use EU funds and has even suspended EU funds to the Czech Republic because of the corrupt use of these funds by the Necs government. Read the interesting article at the link, where you can learn that "This past spring, the European Commission suspended payments for most funding programs to the Czech Republic among suspicions of corruption and mismanagement."
http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/eu-criticizes-czech-republic-for-inefficiently-drawing-funds

The problem in the UK is that you are so badly informed about what is going on in the EU, all you are fed by your media and your own "elites" is hatred of it, that you end up believing and talking rubbish about it.

Who are these ordinary European citizens who supposedly share your views? Do you not realise that the claims that are made in the UK are not made anywhere else in Europe? The Brussels bashing, the rhetoric about elites, the complete negativity, you don't find it anywhere else, only in the UK. Being critical of certain EU policies or particular actions by individual EU institutions is not the same as the weird British attitude towards the EU. We're all critical of things from time to time, of our own governments especially, but that doesn't mean we want to "withdraw" from our own countries or "renegotiate" the terms of our constitutions all the time.

And, as someone from Greece, I can tell you that the vast majority of Greece want the euro and are wholly in favour of the EU and we also know that our country's economic problems are due to internal problems, not the EU.

As for the changing menu, etc. British opposition to the EU is nothing to do with changes in the EU. The British have always hated the EU and only joined it in the end because they felt forced to, because they would have been locked out of this trading bloc, but even then they were not being honest about what joining it really meant. Times change, situations change, of course the EU is going to change. How can the EU be flexible, open, competitive, etc. if it doesn't respond to the demands of new globalised world but continues as though we were still living in the 1950s when it was first started or the 1970s when Britain joined? Perhaps the biggest change in the world that is at the root of British hatred of the EU is that the UK no longer has its great empire anymore but still thinks it's "top dog". Get used to it, you're not the leaders of the world's greatest empire, you're just another European country.

So, again, just who are these millions around Europe who agree with you?

You are quite right "European" 24/01/2013
Britain does not have an Empire,but it has the 'Commonwealth of Nations' i.e som 54 independent nations who want to be very strongly associated with the UK, and naturally we with them. The UK did not lose the empire, we relinquished it. Compare this to the other empires e.g. Ottoman (last), Austrian, Persian, Greek Roman, etc. The Eurozone maybe the last of the empires!! However, the 27 EZ member states are quite small compared to the 54 'Commonwealth of Nations' so who is inward looking now?
'European' are you a member of the Brussels brigade by any chance?

It's a union with clear game rules.” said Birgitta Ohlsson.
However the main document of the Union Lisbon Treaty has defects:
1. Annex I to the Lisbon Treaty -- is based on non-existing FOR MORE THAN 25 YEARS (!!!) BRUSSELS NOMENCLATURE.
2. Art 175 and 178 refers to "European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section" which was repealed from January 1, 2007

Funny seems to be this clearness of "Union's game rules"

@ Stephen Oliver.

Good post but don't confuse Euractiv with unbiased reporting.

We all know that there is not nearly as much support for the way the EU is being led by Brussels and the Commission. It is sometimes hard to find information to prove this unless your are a total 'anorak' and spend your whole life researching the net.

However in the interests of a bit of objectivity I have pasted below from the German quality magazine, Spiegel (English version), their summary of other German papers comments on Cameron's speech.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-press-review-of-cameron-call-for-british-eu-referendum-a-879434.html

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"Cameron has made his European partners a promise that has a slight whiff of blackmail to it: If the EU isn't reformed and there is no 'deal,' then Britain will be pushed to exit. Cameron doesn't want that, or for euroskeptics or enemies of Europe to clog up his country, and his European partners don't want it. Once the agitation has settled over real or meant British excursions, the country's European partners should quietly sit down and study Cameron's wish list and not just immediately discount it as cherry picking."
"Cameron's strategy may be dangerous, but his analysis isn't wrong. Euro-zone integration is getting ever deeper and that has consequences for EU countries that are not part of the common currency. In general, the competitive capacity across the EU leaves a lot to be desired. And the people are growing more and more distant from 'Europe' and its institutions. None of this can be disputed. A few things need to be settled. Is it imperative that we continue transferring more power to 'Brussels'? In what areas is it essential, indispensable in fact, that we act together? What role should national parliaments play in European policies? What's clear is what the British do and do not want: They want an internal market and cooperation between member states, but they do not want an 'ever-closer union'."
"What's nice and attractive about Europe is its diversity. But not everything can neatly fit inside the box. Nevertheless, the community (of shared destiny) needs EU regulations and institutions that formulate common ground and balance out conflicts of interest. That is laborious and not always satisfying, but a firm framework is essential. At the same time, this framework needs to reflect diverse traditions, mentalities and goals. In other words: It can't work without flexibility. Europe's trick is to find a way of combining that flexibility with commitment. Pragmatic British and other skeptics should be able to warm others to that idea."
The conservative daily Die Welt writes:
"Cameron is in no way alone in his analysis of the changes that are coming for the EU, which one cannot address as being 'business as usual.' The overdue plans to stabilize the euro zone bring with them a deepening of the EU that also will have wide-reaching consequences for the countries not belonging to the euro. Those need to be not just discussed, but also most likely negotiated. It is not anti-European when the British prime minister brings these up. It is also not anti-European of Cameron to point out the threatened competitiveness of the EU and to blame, among other things, the 'sclerotic' state of management in Brussels -- the overboard rules and regulations that hinder many creative forces, not just in commerce."
"And it is not at all anti-European of him to note the insidious democratic deficit and the lack of trust in the citizens in the EU and its institutions. That has undermined a lot of what European integration was actually meant to achieve."
"Great Britain is approaching the EU question in a 'practical' not emotional way, Cameron says. That would do us all some good."
The center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"David Cameron has spoken, but Europe isn't trembling. Why not? For the British prime minister, it was mostly about quieting the euroskeptics in his own party. And a lot of water will flow through the Thames before a referendum in four to five years. Who knows who will be in 10 Downing Street then. And even if the British go to the polls in 2017, it is not a foregone conclusion that they will vote 'no.' When the going gets tough, they have always been a reasonable people."
"The statement currently heard in Brussels that Britain needs Europe more than Europe needs Britain is foolish and dangerous. Because without the United Kingdom, Europe would have less esteem in the world, not more. It is in the interest of the Germans and the French, especially, to not just pull the British along, but to instead bring them to the center of the debate over Europe. Because the reality in Europe is such that the opinions over what is the right path to take are divergent across the EU."
"Cameron expects a lot from the EU, but he also acknowledged being a European. It would be wrong to give him the cold shoulder."
The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:
"It was above all a speech aimed at domestic politics. The anxiety it has caused in other EU countries has therefore been exaggerated. Cameron avoided naming the concrete demands, other than abandoning the EU's working time directive, against which the success of his new negotiations would have to be measured. And although it was rumored before his speech that he would insist on a new EU treaty, instead he plans to push through his goals in negotiations with other member countries if necessary."
"That gives him a lot of room for maneuver. It doesn't prevent the possibility that some powers will be returned from Brussels to London, an eventuality that also wouldn't cause the EU to break up. It strengthens the chance for Cameron to sell his strategy as a success, and for him to strongly support a 'yes' on the referendum, assuming he is still in office when it happens."
Offering a populist take on the UK developments, the tabloid Bild offers eight reasons why the EU doesn't need the British:
"… because they drink stale beer +++ because they drive on the wrong side of the road. +++ because they consider black pudding, Marmite and vinegar and chips to be delicacies +++ because their electrical plugs are different from those on the Continent +++ because they don't use the metric system +++ because Germany's currywurst (sausage) tastes better than fish and chips +++ because they have greater debts than Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland together +++ because even without your bagpipes, we will still have plenty of idiots in Brussels."

Dear George Mc, I'm glad you've noticed that the European media, far from being Britain's enemies, are waiting to hear just what he has to say and we are all willing to oblige if Cameron has some useful suggestions to make. So far, we haven't heard any, however. There's nothing wrong, for example, with having a two-speed Europe where, for example, the UK could be in the outer lane, and the rest of us could get on with further integration. The problem is, Cameron and the British then want to keep poking their noses into what the rest of us are doing and trying to stop us from proceeding with our own choices. The British eurosceptics are very hypocritical in this way. The Spiegel article you linked to is not particularly different at all to what the Euractiv article, which is quoting Cameron's counterparts not analysts, is saying. Presumably you only read two sentences that you thought agreed with your opinion and ignored the rest. That's typical British eurosceptic behaviour. Here's another Spiegel article on Cameron's charming speech:

Europe's Scaredy-Cat

By Christoph Scheuermann in London

Fear drove David Cameron to promise Britain a referendum on EU membership. Fear of his party, fear of voters, and fear of the EU itself, which he neither fully understands nor has ever really been interested in. He wants Europe to be a free trade zone with beach access. He missed an opportunity on Wednesday to haul Britain back to the center of Europe.

In Britain, the golden rule of giving speeches is this: Whatever you do, don't be boring. Why did David Cameron forget that?

The British prime minister missed a great opportunity when he on Europe on Wednesday. He could have pulled his country from the periphery of the Continent back to the center. He could have proved that Britain's international clout is more important to him than getting patted on the back by his friends in the Conservative Party. He could at the very least have surprised his audience on this ice-cold Januaray day in London. But he didn't even do that.

Instead, Cameron promised a referendum on Britain's European Union membership after the next general election -- if he wins it. The referendum isn't a replacement for a true strategy on Europe. It merely represents an attempt to shake off a troublesome issue by postponing it to a later date.

The important questions still haven't been answered. What exactly does Britain expect of Europe? What laws and regulations does Cameron want to change? What parts of the treaty does he want to opt out of? And above all: How in heaven's name does Cameron propose to persuade the German chancellor, the French president and all the other European leaders that he should get to pick the raisins from the cake while everyone else gets the crumbs? Britain should remain in the EU, says Cameron, but he doesn't say under what conditions.

The essence of his speech was "yes, but."

No Values, No Vision

Cameron's vision of Europe is a free trade area with access to the beaches of the Mediterranean. Beyond that, he doesn't associate the project with a past or a future. Apart from vague demands like competitiveness, flexibility and fairness, he has no idea how the EU should develop. His thinking on Europe is indecisive and chained to the present. What Europe witnessed on Wednesday was a speech delivered by a politician prone to knee-jerk reactions who lacks values or a vision. He lacks gravity. Cameron floats above Europe like an astronaut.

He's isolated partly because his interest in Europe stems from fear rather than any desire to shape it. He's driven by fear of the euroskeptics in his party, of the voters, of the populist United Kingdom Independence Party and of the strange Brussels behemoth which Cameron feels threatened by because he doesn't understand it.

His party still hasn't forgiven him for failing to clinch an absolute majority in the last election. They see the coalition with the Liberal Democrats as a humiliation. The EU is their way of exacting revenge on Cameron for that. It's part of the reason why Cameron sees Europe mainly as a party political problem.

By trying to satisfy his radical backbenchers with the referendum pledge, he's launched into a game he can't win. The EU's other 26 governments won't let him opt out of parts of the existing accords because that would prompt others to demand concessions of their own. The Europe-haters in Cameron's party won't be satisfied because the leeway they want from Brussels isn't politically achievable.

What makes it all the sadder is that even though Cameron's motives are wrong, the timing of his speech is spot on. Britain has been waging a lively debate on Europe for months and one would wish that Germany and other countries showed similar passion -- though perhaps not such bitterness -- on the issue.

Europe must dare to address the fundamental questions, not despite the crisis but because of it. Cameron is right to question the growing budget of the European Commission, the EU's executive. How can one explain to the Spaniards, Greeks and Portuguese that Brussels should get more money while they are being subjected to cutbacks? And Cameron is also right to point to the lack of democracy in EU decision-making.

One could almost be inclined to take the speech seriously, if one didn't know how bored and passionless Cameron has been about the European debate in the past.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/commentary-on-david-camerons-s-pledge-to-hold-eu-referendum-a-879299.html

P.S. Only the British eurosceptics are obsessed with hatred of Brussels. The rest of us find the Commission a necessary institution.

Gregory Mc

You wrote
" I would suggest to all out there that the amount of pressure coming from all parts of the compass only goes to prove how important the UK is and that it is in the interests of all concerned to anchor us inside the EU."

Isn't this a part of your colonial attitude?

In the other hand yes all the member states are Equaly important for us who want's to be a part of the new Europe