In the light of the European Council which the Prime Minister will attend today, the European Foundation has today issued a 72-point report on the clear and present dangers posed by the post-veto EU summit.

There are serious obstacles that need to be addressed in relation to the crisis in the Eurozone, the proposed draft treaty and the impending economic, political and constitutional dangers it poses to the United Kingdom.

Crucially, France and Germany refuse to accept the failure of the Eurozone. It is time for David Cameron to redefine the terms of our relationship with the Eurozone and the wider EU. The draft treaty under consideration rewards the something for nothing culture.

The draft treaty will simply lead to even more rules for Eurozone countries which then go on to break those rules and seek even more money from EU, ECB and IMF bailout funds. The situation is no longer affordable.

As for the draft treaty, it is vital that the EU institutions are not used along with their buildings and staff, as the UK has explicitly vetoed these arrangements. They have no right to develop a role in any agreement outside the EU treaties, as this treaty attempts to do.

There is no legal basis to formally institutionalise the Euro summits, so where would the money to be allocated to eurozone summits come from?

It is not legal for the European Commission or the ECJ to attempt to enforce the draft Treaty on stability, coordination and governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, because it is simply not within their mandate.

It is not legal that a group of Member States without unanimous approval of the other member states to confer any new powers to the EU institutions outside the EU legal framework.

In light of the Prime Minister’s veto, David Cameron must now insist on a referendum. Several countries, including Denmark, Ireland, Czech Republic, Romania and Finland have indicated that, under certain circumstances, they may have to hold referendums either to change their constitutions or to simply accept what is on the table.

Please click here to read The European Foundation’s Report: No backsliding at EU summit

Download Backsliding PDF

The House of Commons held a debate, yesterday, ahead of the European Council meeting on 30 January. During the debate Bill Cash made the following speech and interventions:

The House of Commons debated, yesterday, the European Commission Communication, Towards an EU Criminal Policy. During the debate Bill Cash made the following interventions:

Last November, the European Court of Auditors published its report on the implementation of the 2010 EU Budget. It is well known that the Court has refused to sign off on how the money from the EU's 2010 budget had been spent. In this report, the Court also criticized the way the European Parliament has been managing its subsidy scheme for visitors’ groups.

According to a new YouGov opinion poll commissioned by Hugo van Randwyck “support for EFTA/EEA has increased to 44%, while support for EU/EEA membership has fallen to 21%.”

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) aims to reduce the impact of electrical and electronic goods on the environment. It increases re-use and recycling and reduces the amount of WEEE going to landfill. It makes producers responsible for financing the collection, treatment, and recovery of waste electrical equipment, and obliges distributors to allow consumers to return their waste equipment free of charge. This Directive has an impact on producers, distributors and recyclers of electrical and electronic equipment. In 2008, the European Commission has proposed revised laws on recycling and use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.

The House of Commons debated, yesterday, the European Commission’s draft regulations on the Connecting Europe Facility in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-20. During the debate Bill Cash made the following interventions:

As the European Union seeks to develop its security and defence policy, its parasitic usage of pre-existent military structures and assets continues apace. And when it comes to identifying cross-national structures with military implications in the European context, the obvious target is NATO.

William Cash: The Leader of the House knows that there will be a summit on European matters towards the end of the month—probably 30 January; my hon. Friend Mr Leigh raised the matter last week. The European Scrutiny Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide for a debate before that summit, on the Floor of the House, for a minimum of three hours. The last time I asked this question, I was told it should go off to Westminster Hall or should be dealt with by a Backbench Business Committee resolution. That is quite inappropriate; this is a serious matter, affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. It needs to have a general debate on the Floor of the House. Can we please have one?

At the December’s European Council the eurozone and other Member States agreed to “consider, and confirm within 10 days, the provision of additional resources for the IMF of up to EUR 200 billion (USD 270 billion), in the form of bilateral loans, to ensure that the IMF has adequate resources to deal with the crisis." The Eurozone leaders stressed they are “looking forward to parallel contributions from the international community.” On 19 December, the eurozone Member States agreed to provide EUR 150 billion of additional resources through bilateral loans to the IMF's General Resources Account. They are, therefore, expecting that non-eurozone member states will contribute with EUR 50 billion. The Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, and Sweden have already indicated their willingness to contribute additional resources to the IMF. However, it was not enough to reach the EUR 200 billion target.