The penny appears to have dropped with Cameron

if this report is to be believed as from the tone it appears David Cameron has ceased 'demanding' and now appears to be 'pleading' to be heard. The irony of Cameron now pleading with the 17 eurozone countries is delicious when one realises that this entire problem is one he and Osborne helped create with his insistence that the eurozone countries sort themselves out. How he intends fighting to prevent closer integration of the Eurozone countries leading to anti-competitive regulations when he is now one of the minority countries remains to be seen. If he believes he can pull that off, then I would like to see him walk on water first.

"Stormin' Norman" posts a question I have previously raised:

"Last Monday, I asked in the House of Lords whether an agreement by the seventeen eurozone member states to make agreements outside the Council of Ministers and then to vote in the Council as a bloc for such agreements would constitute a transfer of powers sufficient to trigger a referendum here. Lord Strathclyde, the Government Leader in the Lords, understood my point clearly enough. That was that the eurozone group can always outvote the remaining member states. What we said or how we voted would have no effect on the decisions which they reached.
Tom Strathclyde confirmed that as no treaty amendment was involved, no referendum would be triggered. Now it seems that the Prime Minister has understood the problem. We and the other nine states outside the eurozone have been disfranchised on many of the key questions of taxation and commercial regulation."

Any loss of ability by a country to set it's own taxation and economic policies constitutes a loss of power, treaty change or no treaty change.

One point that I fail to understand in Norman Tebbit's post is his referral to a possible 'third way'. If we are one of the countries forming a minority group within the 27, just how do we try to develop an alternative European architecture to preserve open and free markets in our mutual interest? Off with your head is correct when she writes that the European Union has consistently tried to solve the eurozone crisis by making small and insignificant gestures, which quickly crumble under scrutiny.

Interestingly one of the aims of the European Union, in their wish to create a United States of Europe, has been their attempts to 'kill' any sense of nationalism, yet is that not the card Merkel and Sarkozy are playing in their desire to be 'top dog'? It is, in my view, nationalism that will contribute to the downfall of the EU and I can but echo Fausty:

"There's nothing inherently wrong with nationalism. Countries are nations. Countries' leaders used to act in the national interest, but now work for globalism, even if that works against the national interest.
Corporations write our laws - be they from the EU or from our own government. They write them to reduce competition from the little guy and to garner tax favours or waivers for immigration/settlement laws. These global entities have become too big to fail, and yet they themselves represent the very antithesis of the free market economy.
Your homework for tonight: Explore the true meaning of nationalism and discuss its use as a firewall in a global system. "

Norman Tebbit is correct when he reminds us that the history of this kingdom has been one of having to intervene in our own interest to save the masters of Europe from their follies. First though we leave and when Europe has 'gone up in flames' (be that literal or metaphorical matters not) then once again we can indeed go in and try and set them on the path of recovery (again!).