Veto is a powerful word. It sounds presidential. It smacks of decisiveness. It rings with defiance. So in every interview he has given since the Brussels summit, David Cameron has boasted of wielding "the veto". For a day or two, it might just gull the more simple-minded Eurosceptics in his party that their prime minister did something tremendously strong when he left himself and his country in a minority of one.
Yet in all the dictionaries that I am familiar with, "to veto" is to prevent something from happening. While it is technically true that he "vetoed" an EU-wide treaty, the prime minister did not actually stop anything meaningful at all. The only thing he has blocked is British influence over negotiations vital to this country's future.
The rest of the European Union simply shrugged at his "veto" and will now proceed to try to fashion a new regime for the eurozone without a British voice in the room. The prime minister's agenda is left in shreds. He did not get the protocol he wanted to exempt the UK from European regulation of financial services and Britain's exclusion from the negotiations means that he is now even less likely to secure one in the future. He may get a hero's welcome from some of the Tory Eurosceptics who are exulting in Britain's isolation and celebrating this as the most magnificent performance since Margaret Thatcher wielded the handbag. But that is likely to prove to be very short-lived. They forget that Mrs T never made the mistake of leaving an empty chair where Britain ought to be sitting. Once their initial euphoria has worn off, Tory sceptics will discover that this outcome does not advance their ambition to repatriate powers from Brussels – it has made it even harder to achieve.
This abject defeat for British diplomacy, arguably the worst reverse in many decades, is the more striking because what he sought in Brussels was not that extravagant. He did not go to the summit – as some of the frothier sceptics in his party had been demanding – seeking the immediate and unconditional return of a fistful of powers. He argued merely to be allowed to hold on to some rights that Britain already has. The British demands were – at least from a British perspective – really very modest. One cabinet minister describes them as not much more than "a fig leaf" so that the prime minister wouldn't be left naked before his Eurosceptic backbenchers. » | Andrew Rawnsley | Sunday, December 11, 2011
