Felix Salmon is apocalyptic:
Europe’s leaders have set a course that leads directly to a gruesome global recession, before we’ve even recovered from the last one. Europe can’t afford that; America can’t afford that; the world can’t afford that. But the hopes of arriving anywhere else have never been dimmer.
Buttonwood is equally glum:
[T]o sum up, if the analysts are right, the leaders are tackling the problems in the wrong way, won't get enough support from the ECB, won't prevent downgrades from the rating agencies and won't stop Greece leaving. Oh dear.
Ezra Klein is slightly more upbeat:
Does it solve Europe's crisis? The answer to this is clear: No. But then, it was never going to solve Europe's crisis. The question is whether this deal persuades German and the European Central Bank to act to solve the crisis. Everyone thinks that the real bargain here is that if Germany and the ECB get what they want out of the long-term deal, they'll do what's necessary to ensure the short-term survival of the currency union. And so far, Germany and the ECB seem pretty happy with the deal. So now we see whether they ever intended to save the euro zone. If they don't act soon, the idea that they ever will act loses credibility, and then Europe really falls apart.
Alex Massie thinks British interests have been ignored:
The biggest winner of all, it seems to me, is France. Nicolas Sarkozy has rebalanced a Paris-Berlin axis that has been ever more obviously tilted in Germany's favour. Germany remains an indispensable nation (and the key to curing eurowoes) but France has reasserted herself this week too. And she has done so, at least in part, at Britain's expense.
Claude Moraes, a Labour MEP, disagrees:
The real danger here is that Britain’s relationship with Europe may now fundamentally change. For those who eventually want Britain out of the EU completely, this is a step forward. For those who want us to be still engaged, while fighting hard for our own national interests, it is a step back. Sometimes it’s right to say no to Europe. But not at the creation of a new, informal bloc inside Europe. This is because any changes in the way Europe will govern its finances will inevitably also mean changes to the way Europe governs its economies. It’s likely now that the Single Market, our main benefit from EU membership, will adapt and change along with any informal Eurozone solution. Decisions on trade in Europe will slip from our grasp without a seat at the table, and we could find ourselves politically and materially much poorer as a result.
Nick Robinson fears that Cameron's veto will have consequences:
This veto is not the end of something. It is the beginning of a story whose end is quite unpredictable.
Bagehot likewise studies Cameron's actions:
In my version of the English language, when one member of a club uses his veto, he blocks something from happening. Mr Cameron did not stop France, Germany and the other 15 members of the euro zone from going ahead with what they are proposing. He asked for safeguards for financial services and—as had been well trailed in advance—France and Germany said no. That's not wielding a veto, that's called losing.
Simone Foxman wonders about legality:
There is still a huge legal mess to sort out. Whether the new treaty will be enforced by EU institutions or not remains unclear, as is the UK’s role in future proceedings, but it looks likely to be a massive legal stretch to use the existing EU institutions for this new treaty.
Yglesias zooms out:
The bottom line here is that you can't make contentious decisions with winners and losers while operating under a 27 country unanimity rule. The smaller 17 country Eurozone seems to work only because they operate under an "if France and Germany agree then it's unanimous" version of 17 country unanimity. But the UK has a history of national greatness and a small independent nuclear deterrent so they don't play by those rules. The price is "isolation" but so what? Meanwhile, Merkel is left to try to work out a 17 country "intergovernmental" agreement of some kind. Just remember that not only is the euro a currency without a state, it's not even a currency with a supra-national entity behind it. It's a currency of a sub-set of members of a supranational entity.
I'm still absorbing the news and will have something up shortly.
The Dish 