One thought on “Melinda Snodgrass on Roger Zelazny’s wake:

  1. I do wonder if Cameron deliberately set an unrealistic negotiating position in the certain knowledge that he would therefore return home with no treaty to sign, and thus avoid the embarrassment of either debating whether or not to have a referendum on the new treaty (or indeed holding the referendum and losing it).

    Exactly this, I think – and it also reduces the risk of further cracks in the Coalition. There can’t have been much appetite for another referendum on which there are such differing views within the two parties, given how badly the AV referendum played out. Meanwhile, the Eurozone gets to go ahead with the next step towards fiscal union by a quicker route than amending the existing treaties – I can’t believe they seriously wanted to do something that could have given British voters a veto – and the UK gets the benefits of a more stable region without having to submit to the same budgetary controls. The idea of a structurally balanced budget is one I basically approve of, but retaining the freedom to set our own rules domestically while benefiting from the more coercive system imposed on the weaker Eurozone states strikes me as not a bad bargain at all. The argument that we’re losing influence in the EU doesn’t really concern me too much – our institutional influence is dribbling away with every move to majority voting anyway, and while we’ve undoubtedly lost some political goodwill, if we ever elect a genuinely pro-EU government, that should be entirely reversible.

    (I agree with you about Durban – the reason I’m focusing on the Eurozone in this comment is that I’ve had to follow those developments for work, whereas my interest in Durban is a personal one that I haven’t really had time to pursue.)

Comments are closed.