The press have devoted much coverage to Cameron’s apparent veto of changes to EU treaties. The only problem is, you can’t veto a treaty that doesn’t exist. Cameron effectively admitted as such in the House.
As Richard North explains,
The Boy answers,
As I said in my statement, the eurozone members wanted to create a new treaty within the EU, which has all sorts of dangers. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the letter that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy sent, he will see that they specifically wanted the 17 to look at issues such as financial services and the market within that treaty. Without safeguards, a treaty within a treaty would have been far more dangerous than a treaty outside the EU.
Up against the wall – and given free opportunity to set the record straight – all Cameron can assert is that “eurozone members wanted to create a new treaty within the EU”. He adds: “They specifically wanted the 17 to look at issues such as financial services and the market within that treaty”.
This was a treaty to come – not one that was in existence that he could sign up to, much less veto. In column 534, we get further prevarication. “There would be a threat if there were a treaty of the 17 in the EU without the proper safeguards”, he says. “That is why I vetoed that approach”.
Note the precise phrasing: “if there were a treaty of the 17 in the EU”, he says, then adding that he vetoed not a treaty but an “approach”.
One is not surprised at politicians being loose with the truth – it’s just a shame so much of the media are happy to go along with the lie rather than expose it.