EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Cameron: 'We have opportunities to maximise what we want from Europe'

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 14 December 2012, updated 17 January 2013

Britain must use the upheaval created by the euro zone crisis to forge a new relationship with the European Union, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Friday as he fights a rising anti-EU mood at home that could threaten his chances of re-election.

Speaking at the end of a summit of EU leaders that secured the first part of a banking union, Cameron played down fears Britain's future lies on the margins of a two-tier Europe, while euro zone members build an ever-stronger core.

"I don't think Britain is in an uncomfortable position at all," he told a news conference in Brussels at the end of the two-day summit. "We're in a position where we have opportunities to maximise what we want from our relationship."

Cameron, trailing in the polls before a 2015 election, is under pressure from the anti-EU camp in his ruling Conservative Party to reshape Britain's role in Europe or leave the bloc all together after nearly 40 years in the union.

Along with the sluggish economy, Britain's ties with Europe will be one of the fiercest battlegrounds in the election. Polls suggest around half of Britons want to leave Europe and a third want to stay in, with the number of those who want out rising.

Cameron said the summit deal on banking supervision was a sign of the huge changes that lie ahead for the euro zone, a club that Britain does not want to join. Those reforms must be matched by a shift in Britain's position in Europe, he said.

"It will lead to opportunities for us in the UK to make changes in our relationship with the European Union that will suit us better, which the British people will feel more comfortable about," Cameron said.

Decades of division

In a sign of the sensitivity of the EU debate, Cameron has again delayed a setpiece European speech that was due to lay out his views on a subject that has divided the country for decades.

Cameron rejects the idea of an "in or out" vote in favour of a referendum on a new role inside the EU, Britain's biggest trading partner. Under a law passed in 2011, a major transfer of power from London to Brussels in any change to the EU treaty must be put to a public vote.

His talk of a new deal for Britain in Europe may not be sufficient to silence his party's eurosceptics, a powerful group that helped to bring down the Conservatives' last two prime ministers, Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

Anti-EU rebels gave Cameron his first major parliamentary defeat in October in a vote calling for EU budget cuts. The increasingly popular UK Independence Party, a fringe group that wants Britain to pull out of Europe, is also a threat.

Cameron must tread a delicate line between talking tough on Brussels to appeal to eurosceptics, and striking a conciliatory tone that will play well with often exasperated EU neighbours and his pro-EU coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.

In stark contrast to a summit last December when Britain was isolated after blocking a deal on closer fiscal ties, Cameron's role this time was more low key.

"This wasn't really our fight," one British official said, referring to London's position outside the euro zone.

EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • I can't see how Cameron can avoid the situation of negotiating a complete opt out. I don't think the British electorate will stand for him coming back saying he has got a good (re-negotiated) deal for the UK as all premiers have said that and have either been talking bollocks or have lied. The devil is always in the detail and these twat politiciand can't be bothered with the detail. I also can't see the British nation wanting to stay in the EU with the issue of further integration (if that happens at all). Interestingly, I'd like to hear what Wallace and Gromit (Milliband and Balls) have to say about theirpolicy for UK's future relationship with the EU. I'd huess that, right now, their policy is to fudge.

    By :
    Don Latuske
    - Posted on :
    14/12/2012
  • @ Don Latuske
    Hi Don,
    You pose interesting questions. However I think that our Mr Cameron is in a bugger's muddle. On the one hand he wants to stay in (regardless of rhetoric) and probably wants to re-negotiate the UK's terms and then put that in a referendum after the next election. To do that he needs the agreement of all the other 26 countries and the nuclear option of a veto works both ways. It is therefore fair to say that he is 'on to Plums' on that one. In my humble opinion the only friend he has there is Angela Merkel as the last thing she wants to see is a UK exit which would leave Germany exposed to the new Alliance of France Italy and Spain giving her grief. The only (honest) way that any major change in our relationship with the EU can be achieved is for a referendum, asking the people the simple question, In or Out. If it is Out then Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty comes into play and we negotiate our way out.

    You are absolutely right though as he has a huge problem within the electorate and the Conservative party. He is also worried about UKIP which looks like it maybe become a bit more than a protest vote. Many life long Conservative supporters like me will be voting UKIP next time around.

    Wallace and Gromit (Miliband and Balls) will do whatever is advantageous for Labour. I think Miliband instincts are very pro Europe but like all shysters he will wait as long as possible to see how the polls are shaping up before declaring his new found loyalty to the UK.
    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
  • When will Cameron learn that the UK is part of Europe and it is time we acted like it.

    By :
    Samuel Walker
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
  • @ Samuel Walker
    When will Cameron learn that the UK is part of Europe and it is time we acted like it.

    Samuel do you want to Flesh that statement out a bit? Are you saying that the electorate is not entitled to a say after being in the club 39 years? Are you old enough to have voted in the referendum in 1975. I know many, many under 55's who want to have their say.

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
  • You trivialise the decision by calling the EU a 'club' It is more than than that, it is an economic and cultural union which enables the UK to still be relevant. Without the EU we are a weak and relatively isolated country, and would be far more reliant on the US. In today's globalised world the UK cannot afford to stand alone.

    More to the point if we are going to be in the EU then we should be in it, not carping from the sidelines and making a difficult process even more complicated.

    Finally I'm not sure that the UK public are competent to make a decision. This is not only because of people lack of knowledge about the EU and it's institutions but also because almost any discussion about the EU is tinged with or based on xenophobia and nationalism. Both are irrelevant considerations and only serve to highlight how backward UK thinking can be.

    By :
    Samuel Walker
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
  • @Samuel Walker
    "Cameron: 'We have opportunities to maximize what we want from Europe'
    Samuel thank you for your thoughts on the UK's relationship with the EU. I hope you don't take this too much to heart but it tells me more about you and your thought process and beliefs than it does about the UK and Europe.
    When we joined the EEC in 1973 followed by a referendum in 1975 we were told 'don't worry its just a trading arrangement'. I am not going to do your homework for you but if you search the internet you will find copies of the leaflets that went through peoples letter boxes explaining just that. I am fully aware that the EU is no longer what our politicians claimed back then. That does not however give it legitimacy or make it democratic. You talk about an economic union which I understand but please do explain the cultural part!?
    You say that without the EU we are weak and you suggest we would need to rely on the USA if we were outside the EU. That I am afraid is just the most defeatist statement that gets repeated by Europhiles again and again.
    The EU is a fairly stagnant market and will probably stay so for a few more years yet. It is also a fairly mature market with little chance of matching the growth figures of the developing world. The BRICS countries are the obvious examples but there are others as well in the old and new Commonwealth.
    Britain was always a good trading nation and there are many reasons that we can do that again. Bear in mind that the EU agreement hinders us from doing trade with the rest of the world. We can not go out there and negotiate our own agreements and have to wait for Brussels to negotiate agreements which keep all 27, soon to be 28 countries happy. If you wish to draw a comparison look at the agreements that Norway and Switzerland have negotiated years ago with countries like Canada which the EU is still trying to close.
    I believe that Britain will be able to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU which leaves more powers in the UK or just leave and renegotiate with the EU as they do need us. Remember they sell more to us than we sell to them. We can then look to secure business and agreements around the world (BRICS plus old and new Commonwealth) where we share the same legal system. I believe that the IMF have forecast increases of 7.3% per year for the next 5 years for Commonwealth countries. We still have many good contacts with these countries where so many people still have kith and kin and affection for the old country. Not to mention the great advantage of the same language and a better understanding and affinity than we will have with France or Germany.
    Your final paragraph is a cracker Samuel “Finally I'm not sure that the UK public are competent to make a decision. This is not only because of people lack of knowledge about the EU and it's
    institutions but also because almost any discussion about the EU is tinged
    with or based on xenophobia and nationalism. Both are irrelevant considerations and only serve to highlight how backward UK thinking can be. “

    Well that's it sorted then, we are all too thick and stupid to understand what is good for us, coupled with our hateful points of view, this means democracy must be withdrawn immediately! Civil Servants and Technocrats will be appointed and we will be told what is good for us!

    If you think my last paragraph is a tad harsh lets compare it to somewhere not too far away from us, Brussels, the EU. There is a joke kicking around the EU HQ which goes along the lines that if the EU were a country trying to join itself, it would be rejected on the basis that it is undemocratic!

    Democracy depends upon a relationship between government and those being governed, on a sense of common affinity and allegiance. Please identify where and how that applies to the EU and UK citizens?
    Danial Hannan MEP has said that “Unsurprisingly, the people running the EU have little time for the concept of representative government. The (unelected) President of the European Commission, Jose Barroso, argues that nation states are dangerous precisely because they are excessively democratic. 'Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong,’ he claims, without a hint of irony.”
    Samuel, if you are a democrat recognise that others may have a different point of view and by all means lets have a national debate. This debate can be led by politicians and academics and then we can have a vote. I know what I want for me and my family. I am however prepared to accept the results of a vote on the matter, as a democrat.
    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
  • Issues of legitimacy are more complex than simply having a referendum. If a referendum was the only way to achieve legitimacy we would have to have one for each law drafted. Obviously there are other ways for something to have legitimacy, although this does not preclude a discussion on legitimacy. It does however raise the question of why people in the UK complain about the democratic nature (or lack thereof) for the EU, and hold a referendum as the solution when our own governmental system is not any more democratic. The House of Lords is a prime example as is the monarchy. If people we to support a referendum regarding the constitution of our state then I would give more credence to their demands for a referendum on the EU.

    This also goes to my final point about the competence of people to vote. From what you have said it seems you are a committed democrat. I am not. Democracy is doing a good job generally of enhancing individual liberty and prosperity. If an alternative presented itself that would do even more but was undemocratic I would have no problems with it in principle. Of course specific context would factor in but I do not hold democracy as valuable in itself.

    It seems that we do not have an alternative yet, and so must work under some sort of representative democracy. None of this changes that fact that if people do not actually know the subject they are voting on they cannot make an informed decision, and if they cannot make an informed decision then we might as well ask children what they think of it. So when you say "we are all too thick and stupid to understand what is good for us" that is both an oversimplification and inaccurate. It is not a case of knowing what is good for other but a case of knowing what you are deciding on and having factual data upon which you can draw conclusions. The lack of knowledge regarding the EU on the part of those who wish to decide the UK relationship to it is a serious problem. It is not different to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children because they believe that homeopathic medicine works, when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise.

    Regarding what I meant by cultural union is that European countries have not only a closely shared history, for example the rise of imperial European powers and the world wars, but we also face similar problems. Problems such as a highly dense populations, increasing numbers of non-working citizens such as pensioners and an economic system heavily reliant on the service sector (75% of the economy in the case of the UK). Moreover we are better placed to work together than we are with the US or China.

    Two minor points:
    1)The legal commonality we have with Commonwealth countries is not really relevant unless you are suggesting that having similar legal systems somehow makes it easier to have links with them? It also assumes that we would not be better of with a civil law system. Either way the EU is our biggest export partner and it seems extremely economically counter-productive to sabotage that by trying to reclaim legislative control.

    2)The UK is no longer a world power by any means, and certainly not if we are alone. This is one of the great delusions of people who fail to realise that the UK is a relatively minor actor on the world stage.

    By :
    Samuel Walker
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
  • @ Samuel Walker

    You said "This also goes to my final point about the competence of people to vote. From what you have said it seems you are a committed democrat. I am not. Democracy is doing a good job generally of enhancing individual liberty and prosperity. If an alternative presented itself that would do even more but was undemocratic I would have no problems with it in principle. Of course specific context would factor in but I do not hold democracy as valuable in itself."

    The above statement kills the debate for me Samuel and I suspect for the vast majority of people. We are on different planets. I was going to ask you what you would do if all of a sudden your new form of government was not going the way you wanted but suspect that may be a waste of time.

    I will leave you with a quote from Winston Churchill:

    It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
    Sir Winston Churchill
    British politician (1874 - 1965)

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
  • So because I do not refuse to rule out other forms of government and would consider non-democratic alternatives you have decided that there is nothing to discuss? Does that not contradict you democratic stance?

    Surely democracy does not ensure, require or necessarily entail that we will agree but to refuse to discuss candidly differences of opinion suggests you only want to hear about how there should be referendum on the EU rather than discussing and considering whether we can do well without one?

    Also I agree with the Churchill quote, but that does not mean that we couldn't do better.

    By :
    Samuel Walker
    - Posted on :
    16/12/2012
  • @ Samuel Walker
    Democratic government: Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people. Government by the people or their elected representatives.

    It is simple Samuel, not perfect but better than anything you or I can come up with. It has the built in safety valve which allows you to dispense with a Government that the majority disagree or disapprove of.

    History is littered with examples of alternatives to democracy all of which have ended in tears. I could debate with you all day but as life is short and I would prefer to direct my energies towards debate with people who are mainstream (the majority).

    I have already said that I am happy to have a National debate and will abide by the result of any vote. If a vote is required that usually suggests that there will be a difference of opinion, but that is Democracy. What are you scared of?
    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    17/12/2012
  • "I would prefer to direct my energies towards debate with people who are mainstream (the majority)."

    So you discount the minority views? It's had to read that any other way.

    My point is not that democracy is the worst or even one of the worst system that we have had. My point that is that democracy itself is only valuable because it provides a means to secure others things, and that if something better comes along that is not democratic then it should be rejected solely by it's undemocratic nature.

    Equally just because it currently the best we have do not mean it is working as well as it could. The childish behaviour in Parliament is one example. The general ignorance of the EU is another example. I don't know why you object to the idea that the people should, and perhaps under a democracy do have, a duty to be as fully informed about the issues they vote on. If they don't then perhaps they shouldn't vote.

    My concern is that without requiring some level of competence on the part of the voter we reduce our supposed democracy to ignorance.

    Moreover your refusal to consider whether our system needs or can be improved is a prime example of treating democracy as more than a means to an end.

    By :
    Samuel Walker
    - Posted on :
    17/12/2012
  • @Samuel Walker

    Can we just accept what Churchill said that we do not have a perfect system. Unfortunately it is a fact of life that not all things can be fixed or indeed that we have the luxury of time to do so.
    Problems arise which need to be dealt with so relatively unimportant things get put on the back burner or even or get forgotten totally.

    You say that people that vote should have a duty to be fully informed about the issues they vote on. No arguments there, in the ideal system that is. So do the electorate have to take an exam and get a pass mark of ??? 50%, 60%. 70% or do we allow politicians set that for each issue depending on the result they want. Perhaps we could disqualify people with a low IQ or people with mental illness or criminal records.

    Maybe we already have a good answer as we only got 65.1% of voters turn out for the last General Election. The Euro Elections were only 34.7% but before you say that is terrible the average voter turnout on the EU mainland was 43%.

    The system we have works and maybe we can improve it over time provided it remains democratic. The system in Europe is autocratic with the Commission all being appointed. How can anyone trust a system where people like that have power over your lives?

    Quite simply put the EU Commission are trying to falsely construct a Federal State from disparate nations whose citizens have not given their consent. Where the language, culture, beliefs and law to say nothing of religion or ethnicity are so diverse that we don't have lots in common. The Commission will tolerate no dissent and democracy does not fit with the 'Great Plan'

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    17/12/2012
  • Yes we could have some sort of testing system, perhaps similar to driving license test where a series of questions are answered, perhaps at the voting station. I don't really see what the problem would be with testing voters, although there would be significant practical problems, but if it would lead to a better informed electorate it may be worth it.

    An IQ require is also a possibility, as every age group works off of their own baseline 100 it would be possible to use it as a measurement system. I don't why you have linked criminality with intelligence, obviously financial fraud is not carried out by the unintelligent. Perhaps that is your own prejudices talking.

    " The system in Europe is autocratic with the Commission all being appointed. How can anyone trust a system where people like that have power over your lives?"
    You are also a republican then and oppose the UK system of governance. That at least is something we agree on.

    By :
    Samuel Walker
    - Posted on :
    17/12/2012
  • Yes we could have some sort of testing system, perhaps similar to driving license test where a series of questions are answered, perhaps at the voting station. I don't really see what the problem would be with testing voters, although there would be significant practical problems, but if it would lead to a better informed electorate it may be worth it.

    An IQ require is also a possibility, as every age group works off of their own baseline 100 it would be possible to use it as a measurement system. I don't why you have linked criminality with intelligence, obviously financial fraud is not carried out by the unintelligent. Perhaps that is your own prejudices talking.

    " The system in Europe is autocratic with the Commission all being appointed. How can anyone trust a system where people like that have power over your lives?"
    You are also a republican then and oppose the UK system of governance. That at least is something we agree on.

    By :
    Samuel Walker
    - Posted on :
    17/12/2012
  • Britain made the great mistake in her negotiations over the terms of EU membership, before joining the original 6 in 1972. After being blocked by the French twice, the conservative government of Ted Heath was in such a hurry that it really gave up lots of bargaining power in the process. Even worse for Norway, the great hurry in the British entry negotiations also created unfavorable conditions for the Norwegian negotiators.

    The resulting terms for Norwegian entry were disastrous. Government ministers were said to weep when the negotiated agreement was presented to them. The minister of Fisheries, a key negotiator in Brussel, resigned from government and adviced people to vote no to the entry terms in the referendum.

    Desperate to join, and seing the EU as mainly a peace project and unable to understand the opposition to membership, the social democratic government threatened to resign, if the majority voted no to EU membership. Even though the Bratteli government was quite popular, scoring over 50% in opinion polls, the majority voted no in the referendum.

    The flawed negotiations in 1970-72, mainly due to the lack of knowledge about Norway in the EU of 1972 and a hurried timetable for the process, created the impression in Norway of EU as arrogant, incompetent, unwilling to see the realities of economic conditions along the coastline and unwilling to accomodate a small applicant country (Norway had just found oil in the North Sea, but greatly underestimated how it would transform the Norwegian economy). The terrible image EU painted of itself in 1972, still survives in the great majority of Norwegians. The Nobel Peace Prize is well deserved. But its not the proof of a changed attitude towards EU in the people. And no government, or possible government, will dare raise the issue of membership again in the forseeable future.

    Is the explanation more or less the same among British voters? Did the flawed negotiations of 1972 make for an eternal sceptisism in the British people towards EU? If so, this is not only a British, but also a Norwegian and a European cause for concern. The whole motivation behind the broad cooperation initiated in Europe after 1945, was to create solidarity between former enemy nations. But the EU way of operation, laboriously struggling towards a less imperfect cooperation, creates the impression of conflict, continous quarreling, disagreement and incompetence.

    By :
    Olav Bergo
    - Posted on :
    18/12/2012
  • @ Olav Bergo

    A very thoughtful and interesting post.
    It is good to get views from outside the EU about the EU.

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    18/12/2012
  • Britain ought to leave a Union it never was enthused for.

    By :
    david tarbuck
    - Posted on :
    23/12/2012
  • Thanks Samuel Walker for your sensible points, which may not always match the mainstream ordinary believes, but which at least propose a genuine, honest and precise answer to the issues at steak, however one could or not agree with you. In so doing, you participate positively to everyone's understanding, were the majority of people supposed or not to share the convictions you develop, and were even the latter happenning to be wrong in the end.

    That's anyway much more worth reading for anyone than whatever position everybody may agree with, but which fails at responding to logical contradiction, ignores counter-argumentation, and refuses debate. These people who justify their believes just through claiming they have most of people on their side, as if this would allow them not to answer any challenging question, clearly have nothing more to share than stubborn ignorance, only meant to legitimise a weak opinion they already decided was the ultimate horizon in the first place, and which therefore can only be wrong.

    It is very obvious to any critical mind that your contradictor's approach is just passionate obstination and therefore as convincing (and democratic!) as the propaganda of such regims as Hitler's or the Hamas' (both democratically elected and certainly approved by most people, though nevertheless absurd intellectually).

    By :
    uk-skeptic
    - Posted on :
    25/12/2012
British Prime Minsiter David Cameron, speaking in Brussels on 14 Dec. 2012 (Photo: Council of the European Union)
Background: 

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s rhetoric at the EU summit differed from that of other leaders, using the opportunity to reiterate that Britain wants to seek a "fresh settlement" with Europe.

Cameron is facing increasing criticism for his general stance on Europe. On the fringe of an EU summit in October, Finnish Europe Minister Alex Stubb suggested that the UK was isolating itself.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Video General Promoted 4

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising