With 25 of the European Union’s 27 states agreeing to join a fiscal treaty to enforce budget discipline, more questions are being asked about what exactly David Cameron’s December veto achieved. In Brussels yesterday, everyone bar Britain and the Czech Republic signed the new treaty, with the prime minister expressing “legal concerns” about the use of EU institutions.

Cameron added that “it’s good that the new treaty is absolutely explicit and clear that it cannot encroach on the competences of the EU”, insisting “they must not take measures that in any way undermine the EU single market”, and maintaining the treaty would impose “no obligations on the UK”.

However, shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander last night queried the wisdom of Cameron’s walkout:

“The unanswered question after this summit remains what exactly David Cameron achieved by walking out of the EU negotiations last month?

“With the EU institutions now involved, it seems clear that all his earlier phantom veto achieved was to undermine British influence, and so make it harder for Britain to protect its own interests in Europe and push for an effective solution to the eurozone’s problems.”

The new “fiscal comapct” treaty (pdf) states:

National budgets are required to be in balance or in surplus, a criterion that would be met if the annual structural government deficit does not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP. This balanced budget rule must be incorporated within one year into the member states’ national legal systems, at constitutional level or equivalent. In the event of deviation from this rule, an automatic correction mechanism would be triggered. It will be defined by each member state on the basis of principles proposed by the European Commission.

The EU Court of Justice will be able to verify national transposition of the balanced budget rule. Its decision is binding, and can be followed up with a penalty of up to 0.1% of GDP, payable to the European Stability Mechanism.

The treaty agreed today also reinforces fiscal rules for the euro area by extending reversed qualified majority voting to the decision on whether to place a country in excessive deficit procedure. Reversed qualified majority voting would also be use for imposing sanctions.

The new treaty also contains provisions on the coordination and convergence of member states’ economic policies and on governance of the euro area. In particular, Euro Summit meetings will take place at least twice a year.

Also at yesterday’s Brussels Summit, leaders signed a joint statement (pdf) on economic growth, “towards growth-friendly consolidation and job-friendly growth”, which pledged to:

• Step up efforts to promote young people’s first work experience and their participation in the labour market, with the objective that within a few months of leaving school, young people receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship, or a traineeship;

• Increase substantially the number of apprenticeships and traineeships to ensure they represent real opportunities for young people, in cooperation with social partners and where possible integrated into education programmes;

• Make renewed efforts to get early school-leavers into training; and

• Make full use of the EURES job mobility portal to facilitate the cross-border placement of young people, further opening sheltered sectors by removing unjustified restrictions on professional services and the retail sector.

These efforts will be supported by:

• As a first step working with those Member States which have the highest youth unemployment levels to re-direct available EU funds towards support for young people to get into work or training;

• Enhancing the mobility of students by substantially increasing the number of placements in enterprises under the Leonardo da Vinci programme;

• Using the European Social Fund (ESF) to support the setting up apprenticeship-type schemes and support schemes for young business starters and social entrepreneurs;

• Enhancing cross-border labour mobility, through the revision of EU rules on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, including the European professional card and the European Skills Passport, the further strengthening of EURES, and progress on the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension rights for migrating workers.

The need for Europe-wide cooperation on solving the economic crisis could not be greater; as the BBC’s Europe editor Gavin Hewitt wrote:

The warning signs are everywhere. Europe isn’t working. There are 25 million people out of work. Nearly six million of those are under 25.

Part of the focus of this summit will be youth unemployment, with a plan that within four months of leaving school, young people will receive an offer of employment or continued education or training.

If Europe is to recover, much deeper questions have to be answered. Are Europe’s welfare states sustainable? How will Europe compete with emerging nations? Does Europe and in particular the EU have to rethink its whole attitude towards regulation?

So Europe staggers on. The crisis is less intense than it was. The patient is no longer critical but remains dangerously unstable.

See also:

• Public support for Cameron’s EU walkout already unravelling – Will Straw, December 13th 2011

• What exactly did Cameron get from the EU summit? – Shamik Das, December 13th 2011

• Cameron turns Britain from an outlier into an irrelevance – James Denselow, December 12th 2011

• Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland savage Cameron’s anti-EU strategy – Ed Jacobs, December 12th 2011

• How Cameron traded influence for isolation – Ben Fox, December 12th 2011

• Look Left – Europe 26-1 Cameron: Britain isolated like never before – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

The Fresh Start group of eurosceptic Conservative MPs has issued demands that David Cameron ensures that the government repatriates some powers from the EU before the next election.

The Independent reports that the group:

Is drawing up a “shopping list” of functions that should be handed back to the UK by the European Union.

They could include control of employment laws; health and safety measures; farming and fishing; justice and crime; and structural funds for poor areas.

The group’s demands will be set out in an alternative “White Paper” in July.

They spoke co-chairman of the group, Andrea Leadsom, who said:

“We must seize the opportunity now; we must get on with it. Some Lib Dems might not like David Cameron’s use of the veto but the coalition is not going to break up over this.”

The paper adds:

Top of her shopping list is a new EU rule allowing member states to opt out of Brussels directives whenever they have a change of government. That would allow the coalition to end the maximum 48-hour week under the EU’s working time directive, agreed when Labour was in power.

Leadsom’s belief that the coalition would not break up over such a policy appears well founded.

As we wrote in December, after Cameron’s ‘veto’, it seems like the Lib Dems are in a position where they must compromise on even their most heartfelt issues:

Throughout this eurozone crisis, we’ve heard a lot about David Cameron’s ‘red lines‘ on Europe – the measures he absolutely will not agree to, no matter what the result. But what we have heard little of are the ‘yellow lines’; those areas which the junior partner in the coalition will not compromise on.

If you had asked grassroots Liberal Democrats twelve hours ago, they may well have told you that Britain’s role in the centre, rather than the periphery, of the EU was one of those lines.

The question on the lips of Liberal Democrats today must be: Are there any areas on which Nick Clegg will not compromise? It appears that the only lines Lib Dems won’t cross are the ones which Tories don’t want them to.

As Leadsom points out, the coalition agreement says that the government “will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences”, but for many Lib Dem supporters, switching to an ‘á la carte’ Europe, in which individual countries could opt-out of directives as they see fit, would be a step further than that clause implies.

The question for the Lib Dem leadership is whether they can afford to push a confrontation with the Conservatives to please their members. Past experience suggests they believe they can’t.

See also:

• Must the left give up on the EU? – Ben Mitchell, December 17th 2011

• Public support for Cameron’s EU walkout already unravelling – Will Straw, December 13th 2011

• What exactly did Cameron get from the EU summit? – Shamik Das, December 13th 2011

• What are Clegg’s yellow lines? – Alex Hern, December 9th 2011

• Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

Defending the EU is unlikely to win you many votes nowadays, if it ever did. It’s a bit like immigration: even the most blinkered could probably force themselves to see its benefits, but it’s just a lot more convenient and safe to rail against both, whilst politically of course being a sure vote winner.

David Cameron’s ‘veto moment’ won instant plaudits from 62 per cent of those polled straight after last week’s Brussels summit. On the ‘In/Out’ question, almost half would support Britain’s withdrawal from the EU if asked today, against only 33 per cent standing firm in the ‘Yes to the EU’, camp.

For all their posturing, a Labour government would have probably done what the prime minister did.

If Europhiles, such as myself, have been left aghast at what has happened, we shouldn’t really be that surprised. Standing up for the EU can often feel like a losing and lonely battle.

The British have always spoken of “Europe” as if it were something which existed elsewhere; an alien and remote entity, forgetting that we are also part of it, whether we like it or not. That may not be always the case with the EU.

But, for all its faults, and there are many, a future sliding further and further away from it is not something those on the left should be relishing.

Europhiles have never really been vocal or convincing enough in praising the EU. Just hiding behind words such as ‘jobs,’ ‘growth,’ and ‘prosperity,’ as evidence, doesn’t cut it with the electorate. Concrete examples have been sorely lacking. Here’s a handy list to help.

Commenting after UKIP’s strong showing at the 2004 elections to the European Parliament, The Independent wrote:

So used have we become to these [EU] advantages, that we forget to mention them. But they belong in the political debate.

It could be argued that some of the policies to have come out of the EU have been far more progressive, especially in terms of workers’ and consumers’ rights, that those ever passed by successive British governments. At least, there is a gold standard with which all governments must respect.

Yet, if pro-Europeans have been reluctant to wear their ‘Europeanness’ with pride, then maybe it’s because they never really believed it.

John Harris quotes this passage from one of Tony Blair’s biographies, neatly summing up Blair’s reticence to Europe; Blair was:

“…a pragmatic and competent manager of Britain’s membership of the union without ever committing himself fully to it and… without winning, or even entertaining, the argument in favour of membership with his own electorate.”

Certainly, its democratic deficit harms its reputation, and makes it that much harder for its supporters to stick up for.

A week later, things have become to look a little clearer. The debate has already started to shift away from the narrow focus on Britain’s veto, and the implications in using it, to the wider consequences of what was exactly put forward in Brussels. In essence, we are confronted with two challenges: Britain’s isolation from its EU partners, and where this leaves the left.

And for the left the picture is pretty bleak.

As far as the BBC’s Paul Mason is concerned, what was drawn up would make US Republicans swoon and dance with joy:

“…by enshrining in national and international law the need for balanced budgets and near-zero structural deficits, the eurozone has outlawed expansionary fiscal policy.”

The proposed EU treaty has to all intents and purposes “buried Keynesianism”.

Everything many on the left have been arguing against in recent months has found its way onto the ‘Merkozy doctrine’:

What is proposed, amounts to the same old mantra of “fiscal discipline”, based upon the stability and growth pact that was flouted from the start, but this time brutally enforced with painful sanctions and accompanied by dilution of democracy in the weaker nation states.

With perfect timing, Tuesday brought forth more grim news for Greece. Severe austerity has widened their budget deficit and deepened its recession.

In other words, from a left-wing perspective, ludicrous though it may sound, one could argue that in fact David Cameron may have ended up making the right decision for all the wrong reasons. Of course Cameron’s reasons for opposing were more to do with protecting the City of London from tighter financial control, whilst he breathtakingly ignores the calamitous lessons of 2008 and the perils of loose regulation. And yet, he may have badly miscalculated.

One analyst believes Cameron’s grandstanding could spectacularly backfire. Rather than protect the interests of the City, his stance could have the opposite effect and make the UK more vulnerable to EU law.

Furthermore, eurozone partners will take great delight in punishing Britain:

“Far from defending the City against ill-conceived initiatives originating in Brussels, the government may actively invite them. The reason is that it has marginalised itself politically, and that it has only increased long-standing suspicions in the rest of Europe that British Euroscepticism and the City of London are natural bedfellows.”

And this form of retribution could materialise in the form of the much resisted financial transactions tax. This past week has left the EU, and its supporters on the left, with something of a conundrum. Owen Jones rightly argues that it shouldn’t just be the job of the right to challenge it.

If an attachment to the EU borders on the romantic for some, for others it has been a priceless weapon against nationalism; as one commentator noted, on his last assignment in Brussels:

“…many of Europe’s worst follies can be blamed on the selfishness and cynicism of governments, not Brussels bureaucrats.”

Last week’s defiant act by the PM being just the latest example.

The EU is about to enter another new phase. Whether we like what happens or not, we’re going to be powerless to do much about it from the outside looking in. As Tory leader, William Hague liked to crow that Britain should be in Europe, not run by Europe.

Cameron’s veto has meant that we’ll be out of Europe, but run by it: virtually excluded from all the key decision-making, without influence, yet still answerable to it. It also leaves the left vulnerable in terms of safeguarding its own political and economic interests, whether they be at home or abroad.

Defending the EU just got that little bit harder.

See also:

• Public support for Cameron’s EU walkout already unravelling - Will Straw, December 13th 2011

• What exactly did Cameron get from the EU summit? - Shamik Das, December 13th 2011

• EU summitry is futile; this is a global financial crisis, not a eurozone crisis - Ann Pettifor, December 9th 2011

• Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent - Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• There is a role for the Left in the EU, if it wants it - Dr Dionyssis G. Dimitrakopoulos, October 29th 2011

Ian Hudghton MEP is the president of the Scottish National Party and SNP group leader in the European Parliament; he has served on the European Parliament’s fisheries committee since 1998

The tinsel is up in the shop windows of Brussels and the fairy lights are flashing. It means it’s that time of year again: the annual CFP circus comes to town where fisheries ministers from around the EU set the following year’s fishing opportunities.

The term “fisheries ministers” is of course used in its broadest possible sense – countries like Austria, Slovakia and Luxembourg don’t have any coastlines and so have minimal fishing interests.

But their ministers will still be in attendance, horse-trading the night away and winning concessions for their countries in other policy areas, such as agriculture.

Unlike in a real circus however, this clowning around isn’t remotely funny. The decisions taken each year have a direct impact on the livelihoods of tens of thousands of workers around Europe – and all too often for Scotland that impact is wholly negative.

Scotland accounts for three-quarters of the UK’s fish landings – and fisheries is therefore quite simply a low priority for the junior agriculture minister from England who will represent the UK at the talks.

When the UK was negotiating entry to the common market 40 years ago Ted Heath’s government famously stated that the fishing industry was “expendable” – and nothing has happened since to suggest that that attitude has changed.

This year however a whole new and sinister element has been thrown into the equation. A week ago David Cameron was seemingly walking a tight rope – trying to balance the views of his xenophobic Eurosceptic backbenchers on the one hand with the greater interests of all of Europe on the other.

But the boy was unfortunately a beginner – and mid-way through the performance he inexplicably dived head first off the rope, to the delighted cheers of the audience on the right. Unfortunately for him, there was no safety net – and potentially catastrophically for Scotland’s fishermen, we’re all being dragged down with him.

It is hard to overstate how serious this is for Scotland’s fishermen. The fisheries ministers from the Scottish and UK governments held urgent talks on Monday 5th December after the Commission took a decision in late November to slash the Scottish fleet’s days at sea.

Negotiations were ongoing – and it was always going to be a tough fight to reverse the Commission’s decision. Cameron’s nose-dive means things have just got much tougher – and this was perhaps evidenced by fisheries commissioner Damanaki’s comments to the European Parliament’s fisheries committee this week.

In a discussion on future funds for fishing, commissioner Damanaki claimed that some Member States have been failing to comply with fishing regulations and – unusually – singled out the UK for special mention. Could this be a glimpse of the future in the EU: a mere mention of the words “United Kingdom” guaranteed to get everyone’s backs up – and to allow the Commission to get its own way?

Welsh first minister, Labour’s Carwyn Jones, has said he is:

“…very worried that Wales could be disadvantaged by the prime minister’s anti-European rhetoric.”

 He continued:

“I don’t want investors to be put off bringing jobs to Wales because of concerns that their access to the EU market could be at risk.”

His Scottish counterpart, Alex Salmond, has written to the prime minister asking what risk assessment he had made ahead of exercising the veto and why he had not consulted the devolved administrations. In his letter Mr Salmond explicitly referred to the vital fisheries negotiations.

I suspect the answer is fairly self-evident and no risk assessment was made – no regard was had for Scotland’s coastal communities.

And so when Europe’s fisheries ministers gather at the end of this week they do so in an utterly changed Europe.  The UK government’s general low prioritisation of fisheries is now compounded by their new low standing within the EU.  Scotland’s fishermen have suffered under the CFP for some decades now; it is their further great misfortune that fishing is the subject of the first major negotiations after Cameron’s veto.

Ted Heath said that fishing was expendable; David Cameron seems to regard our whole relationship with our European neighbours as similarly expendable.

It’s time Scotland got off this sinking British ship – and joined the flotilla in the European mainstream.

See also:

• How Cameron traded influence for isolation – Ben Fox, December 12th 2011

• Is a ‘green populism’ possible, and can Labour help foster it? – Guy Shrubsole, September 26th 2011

• Bold consensus needed for a better future for Europe’s fisheries – William Bain MP, July 16th 2011

• Urgency of Now: Reforming fisheries policy, protecting biodiversity – William Bain MP, June 10th 2011

• Truth behind TaxPayers’ Alliance’s EU attack ad – Shamik Das, November 20th 2009

Backbench Conservative MPs drew attention yesterday to what they saw as broad public support for David Cameron’s actions in Brussels in the early hours of Friday morning. But while the headline findings support the prime minister, there are already signs that the public is wary of what has happened.

A new YouGov poll for The Sun this morning reinforces yesterday’s Times poll on the public’s broad reaction to Britain walking away from the Franco-German treaty revisions. Although a veto was not technically used, by almost three-to-one (58%-21%), voters think Cameron was right when asked ‘Do you think David Cameron was right or wrong to veto the treaty?’.

Yesterday’s Populus poll for The Times (£) found support at 57%-14% while a Survation poll in the Mail on Sunday found support at 62%-19%.

But more in depth questions by YouGov (pdf) show that the public do not think that the outcome will be a happy one for Britain.

As the charts below show, just 24 per cent think the outcome will be good for Britain (31 per cent say ‘bad’) while a meagre 15 per cent think the summit will be ‘good for the British economy over the next few years’ while 34 per cent think it will be bad:

The latest poll also finds the narrowest support for British withdrawal from the EU in months. Only 43 per cent now want Britain to leave while 36 per cent think Britain should remain a member. As recently as August, 52% said they would vote to leave, while 30% would remain a member.

In a recent IPPR report on ‘Euroscepticism in Britain’ (pdf) I explained the nuances of British public opinion on the European Union with voters deeply hostile to the institution but enthusiastic about closer working on a range of issues including counter-terrorism, climate change, and security policy.

In his commentary on the poll, YouGov President Pete Kellner discusses the long term implications:

What will people think when the dust settles? At the moment, voters are reacting to the dramas of the past week. In a year or two’s time they will be reacting to the consequences of Cameron’s actions.

If Britain’s economy does better than those in the eurozone, and some kind of calm, however awkward, returns to our relations with the rest of the EU, then the prime minister’s stance will have been vindicated, and his party is likely to be rewarded with extra votes and seats at the next election.

If, however, our economy stumbles and enough voters blame at least part of this on Cameron’s veto, then the Tories could well suffer.

Tory backbenchers would be wise to avoid being too triumphalistic about their leaders’ diplomatic moves.

See also:

• What exactly did Cameron get from the EU summit? – Shamik Das, December 13th 2011

• Cameron turns Britain from an outlier into an irrelevance – James Denselow, December 12th 2011

• How Cameron traded influence for isolation – Ben Fox, December 12th 2011

• Look Left – Europe 26-1 Cameron: Britain isolated like never before – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• The view from abroad: The day Britain locked itself out – Alex Hern, December 9th 2011

It now looks increasingly likely the EU26 will be able to use the full spectrum of European Union institutions – totally undermining one of David Cameron’s self-spun ’wins’ for Britain from last week’s summit.

The Economist’s Bagehot reports:

Mr Cameron was in sober form.

He seemed to many of us hacks in the press gallery to signal that Britain might yet give ground and allow the new euro-plus pact of 23 (and soon 24 or 25) countries to use at least some of the institutions of the full EU, in contrast with the early insistence of his chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, that the main point of Mr Cameron’s stand on Thursday night had been to veto the use of the “full panoply” of institutions by the new club.

With today’s Times (£) adding:

Downing Street signalled that Mr Cameron was ready to yield on one of Mr Clegg’s objections - the Prime Minister’s assertion that the new “euro-plus” group of up to 26 nations should not use the institutions of the European Union.

One of the stated reasons for Mr Cameron’s veto was to ensure that the new group could not pursue its interests with the force of Brussels law, an outcome described by Mr Clegg as “ludicrous”.

Downing Street is paving the way for Britain to accede to the group using EU institutions.

The government had received legal advice and Mr Clegg’s objections had to be taken into account. There was “a sense of inevitability” that the group would gain access to the EU’s institutions, said one aide.

All a far cry from just a few days ago, when George Osborne insisted:

“The integration of the eurozone, which we think is necessary to make the single currency work, is not taking place within the full panoply of the European treaties, with the full deployment of the European institutions enforcing those treaties.

“And because we were unable to get British safeguards that might have allowed that to happen, we’re not allowing it to happen.”

So, when all’s said and done, what exactly did Mr Cameron gain from his brattish petulance?

See also:

• Cameron turns Britain from an outlier into an irrelevance – James Denselow, December 12th 2011

• Cameron sells out UK manufacturing for his loony backbenchers – Tony Burke, December 12th 2011

• How Cameron traded influence for isolation – Ben Fox, December 12th 2011

• Look Left – Europe 26-1 Cameron: Britain isolated like never before – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• The view from abroad: The day Britain locked itself out – Alex Hern, December 9th 2011

James Denselow is the director of the New Diplomacy Platform

Cameron’s decision to deploy the veto and push Britain to the periphery of Europe should not come as a surprise to veteran Tory watchers. What makes the decision harder to stomach is that the nettle which was a public debate and defence of Europe was not truly grasped under the previous Labour administration, with Tony Blair regularly seen as great at talking about Europe to the Europeans but not necessarily his own public.

A new report (pdf) into Labour’s future foreign policy priorities released today suggests a future Labour government must stand up for multilateralism and Europe more effectively than ever before with Cameron’s cack handed attempts to play the statesman providing the party with fresh political space to compete over.

Over a three month period in the spring and summer of 2011 we interviewed more than 30 MPs, former ministers and political advisers, newspaper editors, foreign policy specialists, and former civil servants to garner their opinions on Labour’s record in office over the past 13 years, what its foreign policy focus should be, and how it can reclaim its position as the agenda-setting party on international affairs.

There was near-unanimous despair, even among non-Labour affiliated interviewees, about Europe. The shortsightedness of the government’s rhetoric and action on Europe was highlighted as a particular cause for concern. Among others, David Rennie, political editor of The Economist, and Charles Grant both highlighted the anti-European legislative and diplomatic action by the current government.

Grant warned:

“Britain has opted not to attend meetings of the ‘euro plus’ group Of the 27 EU member states only the UK and two or three others are choosing not to attend these meetings, following last week’s events that could now be narrowed down to the UK alone.

“There is also a danger that, when the ‘euro plus’ group starts to hold summits, the UK will arrive at an EU summit and find 26 countries have already fixed their position on a key economic policy issue. This is damaging for our national interest.”

Rennie echoed these sentiments:

“We have always been an outlier but we are now risking becoming completely irrelevant.”

As Chatham House Director Robin Niblett put it:

“In every other area of the world the nation-state is being empowered. The only exception is the EU where member states will become increasingly reliant on its collective leverage.”

The bottom line for the UK is that as the world’s power shifts across the globe the only way to remain influential is by being at the leading edge of the EU. The Chinese, Indians and Brazilians for example will respect and listen to the UK only if they see us as being a leading player in the EU and a key liberalising force when it comes to market access.

Labour has always prided itself on its internationalist values; former Blair Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell told us:

“Values can be placed on a matrix that defines principled idealists against pragmatist realists, and open internationalists against closed little Englanders.”

Cameron’s decision must be seen as an opportunity in opposition to both lead and win a debate on the twin issues of the future of multilateralism and the EU.

See also:

• Cameron sells out UK manufacturing for his loony backbenchers – Tony Burke, December 12th 2011

• How Cameron traded influence for isolation – Ben Fox, December 12th 2011

• Look Left – Europe 26-1 Cameron: Britain isolated like never before – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• The view from abroad: The day Britain locked itself out – Alex Hern, December 9th 2011

• Will Van Rompuy save Cameron from a referendum? – Ben Fox, December 8th 2011

Having expressed his bitter disappointment at the outcome of last week’s EU Summit, Nick Clegg can take some comfort in knowing his view is shared by much of the press and political leaders from across the devolved nations, of which there is clear unanimity – that the prime minister utterly failed to represent the national interest.

David Cameron’s actions were bad for the UK, made for all the wrong reasons, a message likely to echo from the Lib Dems and opposition parties alike as he reports back to the Commons later today.

In Northern Ireland, the Belfast Telegraph has sought to highlight the harm to Tory leader’s Europhobic antics in Brussels will have on its ability to strengthen its exports market.

In an editorial, the paper explained:

This has been a lonely time for Cameron who was virtually in a no-win position in Brussels this week. In possibly his worst hour since he became prime minister, he was hedged in by his right-wing Conservative euro-sceptics.

On the other hand he was desperately keen to protect Britain’s lucrative financial sector from yet further European regulation. In the end the new European initiative proved a step too far, and the fall-out from such a decision will take some time to evaluate properly.

Mr Cameron has sent out a clear message that this country is effectively detached from the European economy. Major decisions will be made without us, and that will be bad for UK business, particularly in Northern Ireland where we must develop a more export-dominated mix for our economy.

For the SDLP, meanwhile, former leader Margaret Ritchie MP MLA argued Cameron has sought to put the interests of his “Eurosceptic mob in his own party” before the needs of Northern Ireland.

In declaring the SDLP as “proud supporters of the EU”, Ritchie concluded:

“With the prime minister once more kowtowing to the interests of the financial services industry which precipitated the current crisis, rather than listening to the needs of his people, we must ask whether the citizens of the North of Ireland can trust him to protect their interests at this precarious time.”

Over in Scotland, the Sunday Herald declared Friday’s developments a “worrying moment” for Britain.

Its editorial said:

The veto may have appealed to eurosceptic Tory backbenchers, but to anyone concerned for Britain’s economic future, and for the political stability of Europe, this is a worrying moment.

Half of Britain’s exports are sold to Europe, and this country has benefited greatly from the single market. The EU has been a major force for peace, uniting the sometimes fractious and defensive nations of Eastern Europe, the Baltics and shortly even the Balkans.

The PM would do well to consider how the European and American press have viewed his declaration of independence. Britain is seen to have opted for isolation - a vainglorious nation, with an anachronistic sense of its own importance, acting in pique because it didn’t get its way.

While The Scotsman, though perhaps not quite as condemnatory in its language, cautioned against any sense of vitriol within the Conservative rank and file, using its editorial over the weekend to declare:

Mr Cameron’s decision will undoubtedly have very serious implications for the UK.

It is clear 26 members of the EU, including those outside the currency zone, are intent on pressing ahead with the German plans. The obvious danger is the UK will not be consulted on the potentially serious implications for this country.

Further, if the UK is ignored on this, it might be ignored on other major decisions, even in areas where it has a right to be at the heart of decision-making, for example on the single market. It is clear there has been a sea-change in British-EU relations, forced on a reluctant prime minister who is not himself an extreme Eurosceptic.

Mr Cameron’s task now is to ensure that his decision does not result in Britain being marginalised from the EU bloc with which, whatever our differences, we have vital trade and political links.

And the Daily Record sought to highlight both the UK and Scottish jobs that depended on the country engaging fully with the EU; dubbing David’s Cameron’s actions as shameful, the paper explained:

David Cameron shamefully exiled Britain from mainstream Europe as he put the demands of 80 backbench MPs and City gamblers ahead of the interests of this country’s 62 million citizens, including 3.5million whose jobs rely on trade with the EU.

The powerful band of Tory Eurosceptics and their allies, including London mayor Boris Johnson, may think they have triumphed in removing us from top table talks but they have not. And Scotland has much to lose if the euro crisis deepens.

An estimated £9.6billion of all Scottish exports are destined for the EU – around half. Our manufacturing industries and whisky producers depend on the Netherlands, France, Germany, France, Spain, Ireland and Belgium.

You don’t need to be a Nobel Prize-winning economist to see what would happen if these eurozone countries reached meltdown. They’d take us with them too, including countless jobs, leaving families unable to pay their mortgages, rents and bills.

Over in Wales, meanwhile, following the declaration by Lib Dem MP for Cardiff Central, Jenny Willott, on Radio Wales’s “Sunday Supplement” programme that the actions of David Cameron were “disappointing” and Plaid Cymru’s attack on the prime minister for putting his political interests before those of Wales, the former Labour first minister, Rhodri Morgan, argued Cameron’s reasons for using the veto last week were all wrong.

In his regular column for Wales Online, Morgan writes:

“David Cameron will, without question, pick up popularity among his increasingly Eurosceptic backbenchers. Many of them, in turn have to face their own party membership in selection conferences, when their constituency boundaries are redrawn.

“I’m the most Eurosceptic candidate before you tonight” will be the battlecry that will win the tight contests. That’s not the best basis for deciding on Britain’s future relationship with our main export markets.

“For Wales I always used to start from “What’s best for Airbus?”, not “What’s best for the City”; Airbus is as important for Wales as the City is for London and the Home Counties.

“You could widen that to what’s best for Tata Steel and other big employers in Wales, not forgetting what’s best for the maximum flow of European Structural Funds into Wales. That’s our “national interest”.”

See also:

• How Cameron traded influence for isolation – Ben Fox, December 12th 2011

• Look Left – Europe 26-1 Cameron: Britain isolated like never before – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• The view from abroad: The day Britain locked itself out – Alex Hern, December 9th 2011

• Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• Farage should check his own funds before accusing others of being in it for the money – Alex Hern, October 24th 2011

David Cameron is already reaping the results of his spectacular misjudgement at Thursday’s EU summit. The Liberal Democrats are furious, while Conservative Eurosceptics will soon realise Cameron has isolated Britain without winning any safeguards for the City of London.

Left Foot Forward understands that Cameron’s team arrived at the summit with a draft protocol on financial policy. The problem was that, unlike President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel – who publicly agreed their position and circulated it to all governments - Cameron gave no warning of his demands.

For a legally binding protocol to have had any chance to be agreed, it would have to have been formally discussed before the summit.

Another oddity was that Cameron’s proposal involved shifting financial regulation from majority voting to unanimity. This would have involved unpicking the Single European Act agreed by Margaret Thatcher.

For example, if unanimity existed, legislation on bankers’ bonuses, capital requirements, hedge funds and speculative short selling would all have been blocked by Britain or other countries.

Cameron’s demand for a right of veto on all financial sector legislation was opposed by all other EU countries on the grounds it was nothing to do with the eurozone crisis (which was the purpose of the summit) and because, in any case, it was unjustifiable.

At it was, Cameron’s position was so extreme he found no allies. With no back-up strategy Cameron threatened to veto the deal. The other 26 countries called his bluff and then proceeded without him.

A month ago, the main priority of Cameron and his ministers was for was the eurozone to get its act together. Through arrogance and cack-handed negotiation it ended up trying - and failing - to block the eurozone from doing so.

The irony is that Cameron extremism and failure to negotiate has delivered the one thing he feared, namely that the eurozone 17 would become an integrated group that caucuses and predetermines subjects that properly belong to the EU-27. This fear was shared by many of the other nine countries not in the euro - yet, at the end of the day, it has driven almost all of them to join with the 17 leaving the UK in a minority of one.

But Cameron has actually done his party no good. Although dramatically wielding the veto guaranteed 24 hours of positive coverage from Eurosceptics, the reality is Cameron didn’t win any of the safeguards for the City that he promised. In fact, City institutions (including many Tory donors) will almost certainly pay a large price. The EU-26 will now press forward with proposals on corporate tax and a financial transactions tax with or without Britain.

Moreover, as Tory Eurosceptics realise they have less influence but are still bound by EU legislation, more and more will shift to more extreme parties like UKIP and the BNP. It is now almost inevitable separate structures will be set up for the 26 countries who either agreed the deal or are awaiting approval from their national parliament, with Britain on the outside.

That will be bad for Britain and for the EU, with a whole new panoply of bodies, some with their own separate presidents.

But Britain has suffered the worst of all worlds. On policies for the EU-27 our MEPs will have fewer allies and we will have less negotiating clout in the Council of Ministers. On economic policy, and anything the EU-26 want to talk about, we will be shut out completely. Cameron has achieved splendid isolation – with nothing in return. Nice work, Dave.

See also:

• Look Left – Europe 26-1 Cameron: Britain isolated like never before – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• The view from abroad: The day Britain locked itself out – Alex Hern, December 9th 2011

• Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• Farage should check his own funds before accusing others of being in it for the money – Alex Hern, October 24th 2011

• Tory dependence on City money should come as no surprise – Shamik Das, February 9th 2011

While Eurosceptics cheer David Cameron’s non-veto, the judgement of the worlds press on the Cameron’s ‘diplomacy’ is that it has locked Britian out of where the decisions are really made in Europe.

Der Spiegel reported:

British Foreign Secretary William Hague sought to limit the damage on Friday morning, telling the BBC that Britain would continue to play a major role in foreign and economic policy.

Formally, Britain will remain a full-fledged member of the EU – and it will zealously insist on its rights. But Cameron will not be able to prevent his country from increasingly becoming a second-class member.

That’s because European economic policy is likely to be determined in the future by the euro zone and its associate members.

Liberal Conspiracy has a translation of Le Monde’s leader:

Let’s be fair. The British are not in favour of a crisis in the Euro. They do not carry any responsibility for the impotence of the leaders of the zone to resolve their problems of sovereign debt.

But there is a reason why the British distanced themselves from a movement towards more economic integration. They do not believe in it. They do not believe in the European idea. Today, they are isolated from this project, but it appears to be more essential than ever to forge a unique entity that can compete with other centres of power in the 21st century.

There can be no regrets over what happened in Brussels. There was ambiguity at the start. At the end, the British – who entered in 1973 in what was the then European Economic Community – are no longer interested in a unique market. The remainder of the European project is of no concern to them.

El Pais was running with the headline (apologies for the translation):

UK stands out of the agreement to strengthen the European Union.

Further afield, the New York Times was agreeing with the general assessment:

Twenty years after the Maastricht Treaty, which was designed not just to integrate Europe but to contain the might of a united Germany, Berlin effectively united Europe under its control, with Britain all but shut out.

Domestically, not all Liberal Democrats agree with Clegg’s appraisal of the day.

Chris Davies MEP, their leader in Europe, has broken ranks to speak out against Cameron’s handling of events:

David Cameron has today relegated Britain to the second division of Europe. He has guaranteed that we will lose our influence at the top decision-making table over issues that are bound to affect us. Imagine the scene in the soulless Council of Ministers building, in Brussels.

Around the table, amid the detritus of a dinner that had gone on far too long, were 26 leaders working to protect Europe’s economy – plus one, who seems to have been interested mainly in keeping Tory Europhobic knives out of his back.

Meanwhile, Sharon Bowles MEP was on BBC news insisting that the Liberal Democrats were still the party of Europe, and threatening to take up Irish citizenship to demonstrate just how dedicated to the EU she was. Now that is drawing a yellow line in the sand.

The London-based, but global-minded, Economist, perhaps summed it up best:

In my version of the English language, when one member of a club uses his veto, he blocks something from happening.

Mr Cameron did not stop France, Germany and the other 15 members of the euro zone from going ahead with what they are proposing. He asked for safeguards for financial services and – as had been well trailed in advance – France and Germany said no.

That’s not wielding a veto, that’s called losing.

See also:

• What are Clegg’s yellow lines? – Alex Hern, December 9th 2011

• EU summitry is futile; this is a global financial crisis, not a eurozone crisis – Ann Pettifor, December 9th 2011

• Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent – Shamik Das, December 9th 2011

• How bankers’ bonuses are contributing to the new credit crunch – Cormac Hollingsworth, December 6th 2011

• Osborne starts to panic about the chance of a Robin Hood Tax – Owen Tudor, November 9th 2011