Taking stock after Cameron's failed EU tactics

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/29/cameron-failed-eu-tactics

Version 0 of 1.

So Mr Cameron is taking Britain closer to the exit door of the European Union (Report, 28 June) and he faces an uphill struggle to convince the British people to remain inside. Now why is that exactly? Could it be because he forgot the provision in the Lisbon treaty for the European council to recommend their chosen candidate for the presidency; that this provision was based on the principle that the European elections should be seen as an expression of broad political support, represented by parties of right, left and centre; that the centre-right European People's party, having won most seats, believed, quite reasonably, this gave them the right to nominate the candidate for the presidency – a view shared by the other largest elected parties; that leaving the EPP meant that Mr Cameron no longer had a say in choosing the centre-right nomination; that much of the British media built up Mr Juncker into a bogeyman seeking to drive all Europe into a super-state; that the same media decided that the best way to increase British influence was to personally denigrate Mr Juncker and naively accepted Mr Cameron's fantasy that his views were shared by other leaders to the point they would support his opposition to Mr Juncker; that the media also reported the fact that just 10% of European voters turned to nationalist parties as if it represented a tidal wave against the European project when the vast majority of voters continued to vote for parties broadly committed to working for change within Europe; that, in fact, the European council had a perfect right to suggest and appoint a different candidate, but didn't? To make one serious misjudgement may be regarded as a misfortune. To make a dozen or more is surely worse than carelessness.

And now, Jeremy Hunt, in a pathetic attempt to boost his leader's dismal performance, accuses other European leaders of cowardice and suggests it is up to them to convince British voters to stay in the EU. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first drive mad – and they are doing an excellent job with this government.Peter LuffFormer chair, European Movement UK

• Cameron does not deserve the bad press he's had recently over his opposition to Mr. Juncker's appointment. Too much bureaucratic European legislation is issued from Brussels with little or no debate at Westminster. It affects business, the environment, even charities and every one of us as individuals. Ukip is entirely wrong: the UK must remain part of the EU; and Cameron is right to warn that national parliaments must have more influence.David OwenBovingdon, Hertfordshire

• I don't believe Cameron was defeated in trying to avoid an unelected leader being chosen to rule over 480 million Europeans. I believe it's all a charade by him to pretend to renegotiate membership, despite knowing the rules and despite frequent put-downs by other EU leaders. I believe it is his master plan to pretend in order to gain votes. First, he has never made any ministerial appointments of anybody remotely anti-EU. Second, in Kazakhstan last year, he made a speech saying he wanted the EU to extend to the Urals (a mountain range 600 miles into Russia). Now he is reported to be supporting desperately poor crime-ridden Albania's accession to the EU. Reginald Smith Hadleigh, Suffolk

• David Cameron is right that the Euro elections showed people wanted a different direction for Europe, but wrong to conflate this with the kinds of reform he is seeking as recompense for his junk Juncker debacle. The parties that gained the most new seats in the European parliament were those opposing the free flow of people within Europe and those rejecting the disastrous austerity programmes. Both of these sources of voter concern were made possible by the treaty of Rome abolishing controls over the free movement of people, goods, money and services. It was the unfettered flow of money and goods which largely stoked up the continent's debt bubble and resulting credit crunch. To pay for the state bailouts that followed, the mainstream parties then demanded austerity measures which sacrificed the living standards and social infrastructure of those least responsible for 2008's free market economic disaster. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in even more migration from southern and eastern Europe, adding to social tensions across the continent.

The reforms needed are not the rightwing agenda of more labour flexibility and evermore ruthless competition. This is just code for the usual neoliberal priorities of less workers rights and a roll back of social and environmental regulations. It's time that Labour countered this by taking seriously the majority's concerns about uncontrollable European immigration and rising economic insecurity and so start a debate with its allies in Europe to turn the treaty of Rome into a "treaty of home". This would allow countries to cooperate to take back control of their borders for progressive goals, such as reducing inequality and rebuilding flourishing local economies, and which could result in increased political support for a reformed Europe which actually addresses the majority's fears for the future, rather than making them worse.Colin HinesEast Twickenham, Middlesex

• In the midst of the petulant threats to leave the EU from (mainly) rightwing English Tories, it takes an American with some historical perspective to remind us what lies at stake should the Union fracture. Here is Adam Gopnik writing in the New Yorker in May 2012:

"The truth needs restating: social democracy in Europe, embodied by its union, has been one of the greatest successes in history. Like all successes, it can seem exasperatingly commonplace. There is something uninspiring about the compromises and the dailiness of a happy marriage, and something compelling about one that is coming apart: it looks more like the due fate of all things. Yet the truth ought to remain central. A continent torn by the two most horrible wars in history achieved a remarkable half century of peace and prosperity, based on a marriage of liberalism properly so called (individual freedoms, including the entrepreneurial kind) and socialism rightly so ordered (as an equitable care for the common good)."Robert MeikleBirmingham

• Cameron's failings may be grist to the internecine struggle in the Tory party but viewed from a national perspective they constitute a looming disaster. The country is on course to leave the EU, to watch while Scotland secedes from the union and to experience the collapse of foreign policy as swaths of the Middle East are trashed in jihadist chaos. If he succeeds in his little England mission we will then have the significance and political clout of, let's say, Luxembourg.Neil BlackshawLittle Easton, Essex

• David Cameron is tactically confused. Faced with a choice of being on the outside of the tent and pissing in, or on the inside pissing out, he seems to have chosen to be on the inside pissing in. No wonder he's isolated. Blaine StothardLondon