Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Suggested Interventions - EU Summit Debate
Suggested Interventions - EU Summit Debate
Suggested Interventions - EU Summit Debate
Interventions
Headline:
Does
the
Prime
Minister
still
believe
that
a
change
to
the
EU
Treaties,
with
some
safeguards
on
the
single
market,
is
still
the
best
outcome
for
the
UK?
And
if
so,
what
plans
does
he
have
to
pursue
this
and
reverse
the
isolation
that
the
UK
now
finds
itself
in?
Would
the
Prime
Minister
be
prepared
to
return
to
the
negotiating
table
over
securing
an
EU
treaty
change,
which
he
himself
has
said
is
his
preferred
outcome,
so
long
as
some
safeguards
can
be
secured
on
the
single
market?
Given
the
single
market
and
competiveness
safeguards
that
are
provided
through
the
EU
treaties
for
the
use
of
EU
institutions,
does
the
Prime
Minister
believe
that
allowing
the
institutions
to
link
with
the
new
intergovernmental
agreement
between
26
of
the
27
member
states
is
in
the
national
interest
or
not?
The
reports
I
hear
from
Brussels
are
that
Nicholas
Sarkozy
was
deeply
opposed
to
the
linking
of
the
intergovernmental
Treaty
to
the
EU
institutions.
Does
the
Prime
Minister
not
agree
that
allowing
for
this
link
is
vital
means
to
ensure
that
the
26
member
states
do
not
make
decisions
amongst
themselves
that
affect
UK
national
interests
and
that
will
help
to
safeguard
the
rights
of
the
UK
as
a
full
EU
member
state?
There
is
a
lot
of
confusion
and
myths
floating
about
over
what
happened
at
the
weekend.
For
the
avoidance
of
doubt,
can
the
Prime
Minister
confirm
that
at
no
point
in
the
Summit
was
the
UK
being
asked
to
transfer
any
powers
of
competences?
That
the
UK
was
simply
being
asked
to
allow
Eurozone
countries
to
amend
the
Treaties
to
allow
them
to
improve
the
fiscal
coordination?
And
that
there
was
nothing
in
the
deal
that
would
have
obliged
the
UK
to
agree
to
an
EU
financial
transaction
tax?
Does
the
Prime
Minister
believe
that
the
fallout
from
the
summit,
is
that
the
UK
has
so
badly
damaged
relations
with
our
core
European
partners
that
we
will
find
it
more
difficult
now
than
ever
to
build
the
alliances
we
need
to
secure
British
national
interests?
Can
the
Prime
Minister
name
another
time
in
time
in
history
where
the
UK
has
found
itself
isolated
in
Europe
by
a
factor
of
26
to
1?
What
implications
does
the
Prime
Minister
think
this
will
have
for
how
the
UK
is
viewed
in
Washington
who
have
always
looked
to
the
UK
as
a
key
partner,
precisely
because
of
our
influence
on
the
continent?
While
Thatcher
was
not
exactly
a
fan
of
the
EU,
she
never
left
Britains
chair
empty
as
she
knew
that
British
interests
could
only
be
pursued
by
having
a
strong
British
voice
at
the
table.
How
does
the
Prime
Minister
plan
to
ensure
that
the
UK
continues
to
have
a
strong
British
voice
at
the
European
table
in
future?
What
does
the
Prime
Minister
say
in
response
to
a
poll
in
the
Times
today
that
shows
that
shows
that
56%
of
the
public
believe
that
the
UK
will
be
less
influential
in
the
EU
as
a
result
of
26
other
member
states
manoeuvring
around
the
UK?
Rather
than
protect
British
interests,
does
the
Prime
Minister
not
think
that
he
has
effectively
gone
to
Brussels,
snubbed
and
angered
26
of
our
closest
allies,
brought
back
no
safeguards
whatsoever
and
left
the
UK
a
diminished
force
in
the
EU?
Eurozone: While I am concerned about the longer term impact of the decision to veto a Treaty deal, the number one immediate concern threat to the British economy remains the possibility of a Eurozone collapse? Does the Prime Minister believe that the deal agreed at the Summit is enough? And what action is he considering for the UK to do to help a collapse of the single currency, and the appalling economic consequences that would have for the British economy? The Prime Minister and I agree that the Eurozone crisis remains the most serious threat to the UK economy at present. But by not allowing the Eurozone to use the EU Treaties and EU institutions, does he believe he helped or hindered the resolution to the Eurozone crisis? City of London Safer? Rather than protecting the City of London, does the Prime Minister not believe that he has made significantly more vulnerable? We have no extra safeguards, our allies our furious with us and we now have no seat at the table where many of the decisions that will affect the City can be made? How does he propose to get the UK, and the City of London, out of the ditch he has dug for us? Can the Prime Minister name a single EU financial services regulation or directive that the UK has voted against? I think there will be very few, if any. In which case, what was the huge threat that the Prime Minister to the City that he was so concerned about? And does he not think that he has made the likelihood of us being outvoted in the future more not less likely? Does the Prime Minister believe that the prospects for safeguarding the interests of the financial services industry in the UK are now stronger or weaker, and can he explain why? What threats to the City of London does the Prime Minister believe that he has now protected the City of London from as a result of refusing to allow a change to the EU Treaties and forcing them to pursue a separate Treaty among 26 other member states? Does the Prime Minister think that the City of London is really safer as a result of removing the UK from the negotiating table and giving the green light to Sarkozy to push the 25 others others towards an intergovernmental setup without us? Does the Prime Minister agree with Tom Brown, from the Norddeutsche Landesbank, one of the many large European banks with a very sizeable presence in the City of London, that the City would be finished if it were not in the Single Market? What message does he have for those many banks and financial institutions in the City that are nervous about the implications of his decision to block EU treaty change for them? The Prime Minister should be aware that as a result of the outcome of the Summit, Sharon Bowles MEP, Chair of the Economic & Monetary Affairs Committee and of the most influential British voices on EU financial services legislation may lose her Chairmanship of that Committee? Is this not another example of, rather than protecting the City of London, the Prime Minister has left it exposed? Broader Single Market: As a result of his decision on Friday, there is a significant risk that the 26 other member states of the EU will be meeting on a regular basis to discuss economic and business matters, many of which will affect the single market. How then, does he plan to ensure that Britains voice is heard in those
discussions and that we can continue to retain our full influence and ability to pursue the British national interest, as one of the biggest member states in the Union? The UK, under Margaret Thatcher, was at the forefront of driving forward the single market programme, in particular by introducing qualified majority voting, which has led to the dramatic removal of barriers to free trade within the EU and delivered an extra 3,000 in income per British household per year. How does the Prime Minister plan to pursue further jobs and growth in the UK through deepening and expanding the single market if the UK is not at the table for many of the key discussions? Does the Prime Minister not think that, with the EU-26 now meeting regularly to discuss economic and business matters, the ability to pursue the UKs interests, particularly on the single market, are now severely reduced? How does he consider this to be in the UKs national interest? How can the Prime Minister reassure those businesses around the UK, many of whom are concerned that his decision on Friday to remove the UK from the table and encourage 26 others to go on around us will, over time, damage the ability of the British Government to pursue the national interests in the future? The UK is a globally attractive destination for foreign direct investment for many reasons. But chief among them is the fact that we are part of and highly influential over the worlds largest single market. If our influence over the single market is put in doubt as a result of being increasingly isolated in Europe and absent from the key discussions, what impact does he think that will have on the UKs ability to attract global investment in the future? International Standing: The UK has long stood tall in Washington because of our influence on the continent. What impact does he think that being isolated by 26 to 1 will have on the special relationship with the US? How important does the Prime Minister believe our relations in the continent are for pursuing British foreign policy interests, and what impact does he believe a permanent divide, should it emerge, between the UK and the other EU 26 member states would be for our ability to pursue our foreign policy interests in the future? Contrasting Diplomatic Styles: When the Prime Minister compares the constructive and positive diplomatic leadership shown by the Energy & Climate Change Department, working with EU partners to secure a superb deal at the UNFCCC Meeting in Durban over the weekend, with his own performance at EU summits of late, what conclusions does he draw about the best way to pursue the British national interest in the future? When the Prime Minister compares the constructive and positive diplomacy of Business Department which has led to the new commitment by the Commission to exclude all micro-businesses from all new EU regulations, the EU patent, a uniquely ambitious free trade deal with South Korea and substantial progress on digital and services sector liberalisation, with his own performance on the European stage of late, what conclusions does he draw about the best way to pursue the British national interest in the future? What effect does the Prime Minister believe the very serious spat we saw on Thursday and Friday with President Sarkozy has for the bilateral defence cooperation, which he has said is important for British defence and security interests?