David Cameron facing backlash from Conservative MPs over euro pact

[T_i_B]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16807226

David Cameron is facing a backlash from Eurosceptic Conservatives after he agreed to the use of the European Court to enforce the eurozone fiscal pact.

The prime minister - who will address MPs later on the issue - said the pact would not "encroach" on UK interests.

But Tory MPs said his "retreat" over the court could weaken the UK and see it "hauled into" closer fiscal ties.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said Mr Cameron had "sold us down the river on a lot of things".

[DeSwiss]

1. Mr Cameron had "sold us down the river on a lot of things".

- Why the surprise Eddie, Labour has always been treated like a slave.........

[Owlet]

2. This is confusing

'The key point is that this is not an EU deal. It will just be a treaty between various European governments. As such, Mr Cameron made clear in December that the EU institutions should not be used to enforce the new rules. But the words he used - namely that the government will insist that the EU institutions will work for all 27 nations of the EU - allowed him some flexibility.

He has now used that flexibility to change his position. He accepts that the European Court of Justice can be used to enforce the new fiscal rules. But he reserves the right to challenge this legally if he feels that the UK's national interests are being threatened by the new eurozone-plus group." (same link as OP)

It would appear that Cameron is taking a logical stand. Britain is still a member of the EU and this new treaty is simply that: a treaty signed by 25 countries (not the UK or Czech Republic) which also happen to be members of the EU. Should that treaty contain new rules that might threaten Britain's financial industry, Cameron seems to be reserving the right to seek redress in the European Court of Justice.

How is this a retreat or sellout? What other remedy would Mileband et al propose?

[pampango]

3. Can Cameron say that the UK accepts the use of the ECJ to enforce new fiscal rules, UNLESS

it threatens "UK's national interests" in a particular case?

Isn't that like saying that I accept the legitimacy of the court's role in this matter unless it rules against me in which case I will challenge the legality of the court involvement?

[Owlet]

4. Well, yes

That is, cannot one have one's cake and eat it, too?

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. No, not exactly

Cameron's position is that the ECJ is part of the EU; but this new agreement is not part of the EU. It happens to be between 25 of the 27 EU members. In theory, they should set up a new mechanism to sort out disputes between the 25. Cameron is saying "OK, use the ECJ to sort things out, as long as the implications are limited to the 25, because that's easier than setting up a whole new court; but any decision which affects the UK brings this back into the EU, and in this area, any country has a veto."

I think Miliband is being opportunistic here. I'm not surprised at the Eurosceptic Tories criticising Cameron; they want to hurt the EU any way they can, and are disappointed that Cameron is not actively making things difficult for other European countries. But Miliband, and Labour in general, are not knee-jerk anti-Europeans, so his talk of being "sold down the river" seems rather out of place.

[pampango]

6. Thanks for the explanation. n/t

[T_i_B]

7. As with a few other areas of policy.....

...Labour's European policy seems fairly confused. There is an element of opportunism here (also par for the course with Miliband). Labour are more pro-European then the Tories, but it's not generally a pet issue form them like it is for right wing Tories, and as such it has often seemed to be the case over a number of years that The Labour Party hasn't engaged with the public on the subject.