is that he appears to have weakened his bargaining position within Europe.

Or am I wrong? Insofar as he is clearly preaching for a minimalist EU in which he would be (for example) free to bring back slavery without being scolded by Brussels, or opt out of the EU energy framework, or whatever. I can't see any other country co-operating with a strategy of gutting the EU systematically, whatever they may think about the issues taken separately.

So for the the next few years, I see Cameron posturing ineffectually from the sidelines while others negotiate Europe's future.

Then, if he were to win the next election, he presents his shopping list of demands which is roundly rejected; then we have a referendum in which Britain votes to leave the more-integrated EU that has been negotiated. But more likely, a Labour government, forced into a pro-EU position because there's nowhere else to go, making the unpopular but sensible decision to stay.

Either result is OK by me, as long as Cameron doesn't get to maintain his spoiling position with respect to EU integration.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}

There's also the possibility that Labour is more or less forced into holding a referendum themselves (the media can be quite hysterical about Europe over here). They would campaign for staying, presumably, which would be difficult, but the Tories might be so reviled then that who knows? Although at the moment it's mostly the Lib Dem that suffer, and they are seen as the most pro-Europe.

Anyway, one has to hope indeed that the EU will not cede to the UK tantrums -they have so many times in the past, to disastrous effect. With a continent in depression, parasites should not be tolerated.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

How likely is it that Britain would end up leaving the EU while remaining in the EEA, like Switzerland?

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

Guy Verhofstadt puts it in a very simple way:

Verhofstadt: "Cameron is playing with fire over Europe issue"

"By holding out the prospect of renegotiating the terms of Britain's membership of the European Union and subjecting it to a referendum, David Cameron is playing with fire. He can control neither the timing nor the outcome of the negotiations and in so doing is raising false expectations that can never be met."

There will be nothing to vote on by 2017. By then a new EU structure will already by in place and on the current tack the UK will be out of it. In the following 5 years the member states outside the Eurozone will have to chose on either joining in (perhaps with different degrees of integration) or be left out. With his failed gamble in November of 2011, Cameron has already marginalised the UK from this process. This speech is nothing but a show for the internal politics of the UK and way of luring UK citizens.

Vencit omnia veritas.

Minister Radosław Sikorski about David Cameron`s speech; Polish Press Agency news 24.01.2013

MFA Chief Radosław Sikorski was asked on Thursday about how he assessed Wednesday's speech by the British PM David Cameron, who declared that an ever closer union to which Europe is now heading was not in Great Britain's interest and reaffirmed his intention to renegotiate London's relations with the EU, and to put the result of such efforts to a referendum before the end of 2017.

 

 

Minister Sikorski said that it was an important speech, one which made things crystal clear.

 

 

The MFA chief believes that Cameron has moved his country in the EU hierarchy from a member of the triumvirate composed of Great Britain, Germany and France to a category of "a country under special care" requiring special attention so it does not do something unwise and exit the EU.

 

 

Sikorski emphasized that on this account "the group wielding power in the EU will have a different make-up".

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

Cameron misreading Merkel

Quentin Peel offers a useful reminder in the Financial Times of a long history of British misjudgements of German policy, following Angela Merkel's restrained reaction to David Cameron's speech, which the British government interpreted as a willingness to compromise. Peel says not only the referendum is a gamble, but also the assumption that Germany is willing to help Britain secure a new agreement. Peel recalls other episodes when Downing Street misread German policy, and quotes a German official as saying that Merkel will enter the treaty negotiations (if she is still the chancellor by then) to achieve more Europe, subjecting any changes to the euro stability test. She is already backing away from the need for big treaty change. She may even eschew a treaty change altogether. One of the reasons is that President François Hollande is desperate to avoid any referendum in France. Peel quotes a German official as saying that the most Germany could offer to Cameron would a very limited treaty change, much less than what he wants.

Eurointelligence e-mail briefing.

Jute:

Many opponents of currency union believe that Merkel is publicly opposing currency union to cover up the series of small steps towards it.

afew:

Cameron misreading Merkel

eurogreen:

I had interpreted Merkel's willingness to "talk" to Cameron as a proposal to take him behind the woodshed for a good talking-to.

She does it on purpose. In a few months, when it has become clear which options will get a bashing and which are successful, the successful option will have been the right interpretation, the thing she has always said.

I am interpreting her words as: where Cameron has the same aims as she: "increasing competiveness" and so, she is very much willing to compromise (and let him take the blame, if any). If everyone agrees not to compromise with him, well, she has always advocated the same.