Well done Mr Cameron!!

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
This seems almost unbelievable.
Are you sure of this, joll?
The UK would have the loss of sovereignty that goes with being an EZ member, without the benefits, small as they now seem.

The shock is that Joll is correct.

The EU is working flat out towards the creation of a United States of Europe with a technocratic government, ie a limited democracy. The nation states are being marginalised - they can take fewer and fewer decisions of any consequence - while the EU parliament has a democratic deficit, single-party government, and anyway has only limited influence over the fiscal management structures that are now being proposed. IMO the world needs to wake up. We have an unelected PM and cabinet in Italy, that gets near unanimous support from the elected parliament - now where else do we see this sort of thing?

Cameron has played a blinder. He has looked a bit of a fool - Dave-no-friends, marginalised, on the side lines - yet this has been a small price to pay for the achievement. The Coalition isn't going to split on this. The unravelling of the present situation is that the UK will either renegotiate or leave. The UK is running a budget deficit at present, of 4.5%, which it is hoped to get down to 2.5% by 2015. The proposed Treaty (for March 2012) will require all budgets of nations with a deficit of 3%+ to be pre-approved by the Brussels bureaucrats. So the UK 2012 and some subsequent budgets would have to be pre-approved by Brussels technocrats before being presented to UK parliament, and parliament would then be able only to make trivial changes. Looking a bit of a prawn is a small price to play to avoid this. Had Cameron given the budget of the UK to the technocrats he would - rightly - have been condemned as a traitor. He does not have a manifesto to end the UK. He has done the right thing - and without the UK government falling.

Pure genius!
 
Last edited:
S

superbot

Guest
I think Cameron is perceived here as a typical baby-face representative of privileged classes that rule the UK while keeping a good portion of the country as CHAVs etc. Democracy "mon cul" (please excuse the vulgarity).
Well ignorance is nothing to be proud of,neither are cliches!!
 

eurotop40

Admired Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
4,430
Media
0
Likes
977
Points
333
Location
Zurich (Switzerland)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
...
The EU is working flat out towards the creation of a United States of Europe with a technocratic government, ie a limited democracy. ...

Again, when Mussolini and Hitler were in power, the UK and the US might have been entitled to give lessons of democracy. Now it is the UK that is less democratic than many many other continental European nations. Wake up, sleeping beauties (so to speak...).
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The britains wants a veto when it comes to financial laws...
Cameron does, but I read something which suggested right now he does not have a veto?

This british nationalistic thinking was one reason for the first world war
It was certainly one reason we joined in, but war had been declared widely around europe at the time the British decided whether to join in or not. Technically we joined in to support the neutrality of Belgium.

Cameron has handled this entire issue like an amateur.
I dont know. It is fair enough to say he cannot act unless he can carry parliament behind him. He might carry parliament, but could not carry the conservative party. He might therefore have set terms acceptable to the conservative party knowing them unacceptable to europe, with the expectation they would be turned down. Europe could then proceed to a separate treaty without further wasted effort trying to get britain on side.
 
7

798686

Guest
Again, when Mussolini and Hitler were in power, the UK and the US might have been entitled to give lessons of democracy. Now it is the UK that is less democratic than many many other continental European nations. Wake up, sleeping beauties (so to speak...).
Really? How do you work that one out? Perhaps Europe was more democratic when they forced countries into Lisbon against their wishes. :rolleyes:

As far as I can tell - we were perfectly happy to help the eurozone to solve their crisis, and to not stand in the way of further integration between them, since it is in their interests and also ours to put this situation right - in exchange for opting out of the financial transaction tax. This was the position we put forward before the summit.

However, what was actually expected, was that we'd join up for further integration ourselves, budget scrutiny, harmonised taxes, etc - with absolutely nothing in return. Not only is it not in Britain's interests (or even necessary in solving the euro crisis), it's essentially ridiculous. Cameron couldn't sell it at home whether he wanted to or not, as it would almost guarantee calls for a referendum which couldn't be won.

I also don't see it as being selfish. We want the EZ to solve its problems, we don't want to see them suffering, and we're not expecting any unfair advantage - we just aren't interested in further integration ourselves.

Financial transaction tax is an interesting one - the UK view is that to implement it in Europe only, would just lead to loss of business to outside the EU. I agree that the banking sector needs regulating - but to create a self-defeating tax and unnecessarily decimate financial business would seem foolish (especially at a time of high debt and low growth). Also - if we do remain outside that zone (at least until the tax is rolled out further across the world - or until the UK's reliance on the banking sector is reduced) then as you say, Europe will still get the taxes on UK/EU transactions. If we're included in the tax - a huge amount of business would be driven out of the EU entirely.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I disagree Euro. Sure, the banking crisis in the US (and UK) was a big problem and kicked off the whole financial mess of the past few years ...However, the position the eurozone now finds itself in, is to a great extent self-inflicted: The euro was never going to work without a single economic government
I dont think I can agree. The eu is already quite tightly integrated financially. The system as it stands is capable of adjusting between members. What happened was a sudden and severe shock affecting all member countries. maybe greece was heading for a fall, but it was pushed over the edge. The other states have been unable to help because although they have more or less survived the push, they are severely weakened. Some are still toppling. It was by no means clear the EZ would have had difficulties had ordinary trading conditions continued. This goes to the heart of the current problem and possible reforms. Reforms must prevent the possibility of a future bank crash, but Britain specifically is resisting such measures.

the differing economic conditions of the countries were too divergent to manage without full fiscal union, and large transfers from North to South.
well, this is rather what we had. The free banking market decided it was perfectly safe to transfer vast amounts south. Then it decided it wasnt. This is the problem. Banks. Why exactly did banks decided this was safe? Because they knew damn well Germany would in the end be forced to bail them out? How could Germany allow this to repeat? The problem was transfers were too great.

Weighting euro policy in Germany's favour to allow an artificially low exchange rate for German exports, meant there was no way of stopping the economies of Ireland and Greece et al, from overheating (exacerbated by reckless behaviour). So the PIIGS were able to borrow at unacceptably low rates to buy German goods.
I dont understand. All I have heard says that the PIIGS pulled down Germany's exchange rate, but to the same extent Germany must have pushed up that of the PIIGS. So before all this happened, the effect would have been to slow the PIIGS economy. If they overheated, it wasnt for this reason. (...banks...)

Being trapped in the euro meant struggling countries didn't have the flexibility to withstand the storm (by changing interest rates, devaluing, QE, etc)
interest rates are very low and have been. Couldnt have done much better there. Devaluing? increases the costs of borrowing? Increases costs of imported raw materials. Increases inflation. Increases an upward spiral of wage denands. Honestly believe Greece would be doing better now if had Drachma?

Added to Germany's obsession with low inflation which further stifled growth.
Germany...you mean the one place in europe which seems to be financially still solvent? What did you say they are doing wrong and eveyone else is doing right?

Remains to be seen whether the ECB will, even now, intervene in a way that's necessary and adequate
Yes it will. It has already intervened as necessary (well, it has.) and will intervene more once Germany is satisfied fundamental guarantees are in place. I almost see the solution in place here.

I can't understand the non-euro 9 joining in (if indeed they all do) - they're locking themselves into a depressive austerity club, much closer budget scrutiny, loss of sovereignty, with little or nothing to show for it. Cameron could never have signed Britain up to it
Cameron's view is swayed by an obsession with the UK finance industry which no one else shares. Also, his own anti EU rabble. I repeat what Portillo said the other day, parts of the conservative party would pay any price, financial or political, to be out of europe. So they dont care if what Cameron does is bad for the UK so long as it drives a wedge between the UK and europe. In the UK we have seen the results of growth based on borrowing. There are many economists now saying it is impossible to continue this. So how are the europeans wrong?

The reason Cameron said no (I don't believe the EZ would try to force tighter fiscal policy for Britain when we aren't in the EZ) is because the EZ wanted to introduce a Tobin tax and increase financial regulation throughout the Europe - effecting London. Cameron did not find this acceptable, so he has put the interests of the finacial and political elite above creating a sustainable and balanced economy.
Exactly so.

From now on it will look like that the ez makes a desition for them self and offers it then to the eu... If not all eu countries confirm the ez will make it by them self by intergoverment treaties and offers every eu nation to join.
Nothing has changed then. This is exactly how the eu has always grown. Eventually people tend to join the centre block.

With this way we dont need a yes from all eu countries any more...
Again this is the historic trend. As more people have joined it has been accepted that decisions must be by majority.Who has a parliament where every member has a veto on legislation?

As you see from now on its the ez who makes the rules.
Notice it isnt just the ez countries planning to join the new treaty. You exaggerate. Also, wait a bit until the borrowing crisis reaches Britain and see how things look then.
 
7

798686

Guest
The shock is that Joll is correct.
Cheeky bugger! That could be taken two ways, hahaha. :biggrin1:

I know what you mean tho - I was astonished too, to find we were expected to be included in the emergency integration.
 
7

798686

Guest
I dont understand. All I have heard says that the PIIGS pulled down Germany's exchange rate, but to the same extent Germany must have pushed up that of the PIIGS. So before all this happened, the effect would have been to slow the PIIGS economy. If they overheated, it wasnt for this reason. (...banks...)
The euro meant Germany's exports were much more competitive then they would have been had they retained the Deutschmark (because, as you said, the other nations dragged the overall exchange rate down).

The PIIGS, had they been outside the single currency, would have been able to raise interest rates to stop excessive borrowing when their property booms kicked in. As it happened, they couldn't do this, so money (they didn't have) was easy to borrow, at low rates - to fund building sprees and also a lot of buying of (cheaper than usual) German exports.

If you consider the money Germany raked in from its neighbours in sales, during the boom years - then compare it with how much they've stumped up so far to prop up the failing economies, I wonder if there'd be much discrepancy between the two figures?? Maybe they're just repaying money they earned during the time ECB policy was skewed in their favour. I doubt Ange has mentioned this to her voters.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
However, what was actually expected, was that we'd join up for further integration ourselves, budget scrutiny, harmonised taxes, etc - with absolutely nothing in return.
This is not how I have heard it reported. I heard the sticking point is controls on the financial sector, and Cameron was even trying to repatriate existing powers in this area. I would agree the way to handle new budgetary controls would be to allow opt-outs for non ez countries. Rather as now.

Financial transaction tax is an interesting one - the UK view is that to implement it in Europe only, would just lead to loss of business to outside the EU. I agree that the banking sector needs regulating - but to create a self-defeating tax and unnecessarily decimate financial business would seem foolish (especially at a time of high debt and low growth). Also - if we do remain outside that zone (at least until the tax is rolled out further across the world - or until the UK's reliance on the banking sector is reduced) then as you say, Europe will still get the taxes on UK/EU transactions. If we're included in the tax - a huge amount of business would be driven out of the EU entirely.
I would imagine any new eu collected tax would automatically come under the UK rebate, so we would get it back. For banks to say they should not be taxed is utterly insane and a road to national ruin. The truth is there is no good reason any more for London to remain a world financial centre. So it will not, whatever happens. The only reason it exists now is because most of its its business is or has been in europe, and all this business will remain. You seriously reckon other countries around the world will allow the UK to dominate such an important area for much longer?
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
. The PIIGS, had they been outside the single currency, would have been able to raise interest rates to stop excessive borrowing when their property booms kicked in. As it happened, they couldn't do this,
There are other ways to stop borrowing. Insist on more security, limit borrowers liability to repay. Limit liability to the sale price of a defaulted property. Taxes on investment property. Stuff to scare off lenders. Who exactly was trying to stop the property booms? We still arent! The problem is that all this was perceived at the time as being good and was encouraged.


If you consider the money Germany raked in from its neighbours in sales, during the boom years - then compare it with how much they've stumped up so far to prop up the failing economies, I wonder if there'd be much discrepancy between the two figures?? Maybe they're just repaying money they earned during the time ECB policy was skewed in their favour. I doubt Ange has mentioned this to her voters.
So basically the EU is indeed a fiscal union where money gets redistributed if there is disparity between regions. Just accompanied by a lot of moaning.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
@dandelion i guess we allready had a discussion what the reasons were why the war started and the single reasons for every country... No need to start it again here ;)

@joll
Its not cause you dont want a deeper integration... Its that you want a veto right if we change the way europe makes desitions. Thats selfish!

Also the empiric shows that a growing finance industry isnt a benefit for the rest of the economy but every contraction of the finance industry isnt good for the rest economy... So dont worry if a new tax or new laws wouldnt let the finance industry grow. Cause it wouldnt effect 90% of the employees. Even in this situation ;)
 
7

798686

Guest
@joll
Its not cause you dont want a deeper integration... Its that you want a veto right if we change the way europe makes desitions. Thats selfish!
Why are we pissing about with how Europe makes decisions (again), instead of saving the euro?

And why is it selfish? I'm sure Germany wouldn't be quite so keen to implement these decisions if it was likely to be catastrophic for Frankfurt. Plus, what difference does a UK veto make in terms of the provisions for saving the euro - which is what the summit was supposed to be about?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
This is not how I have heard it reported. I heard the sticking point is controls on the financial sector ...

This is the line the Conservatives are happy to have reported. It is spin.

I don't doubt the are all sorts of issues around financial sector controls. But the true sticking point is IMO that the Treaty of the 26 is a big step towards the creation of a single sovereign state. By his veto Cameron has:
a) prevented this happening
b) changed the trajectory of the UK - the trajectory is now towards repatriation of powers and ultimate departure.

If the Conservatives had a big majority Cameron would have made some speech stating just this. But he is trying to give the LibDems a fig leaf. He has to make the coalition work, so he has to shut up about his achievement. Some hard to understand guff about financial regulations bores everyone to sleep, and that's what it is supposed to do.

What Conservative activists will now demand is exit from the EU written in the next Conservative manifesto. Conservative Associations all over the country will reflect the national sentiment and only select Conservative candidates who are EuroSceptic. We're looking at a 2015 election and a 2017 UK withdrawal. Of course this assume the EU will last until 2017.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Why are we pissing about with how Europe makes decisions (again), instead of saving the euro?

And why is it selfish? I'm sure Germany wouldn't be quite so keen to implement these decisions if it was likely to be catastrophic for Frankfurt. Plus, what difference does a UK veto make in terms of the provisions for saving the euro - which is what the summit was supposed to be about?


Dont be so sure that germany would act like britain in case of frankfurt... We offered allready our last national symble, the DM... And frankfurt is the second largest market in europe. So every desition against the finance industry would "hurt" us also...


The reason why it warnt good that you veto the new regulations about the national spending is, that it would mean a new "law" by the eu and no country could work against this treaty... Now we have just something like a gentleman agrement and the eu court of law plus the ecb has to proof it... I dont think britain is to blame that they didnt agree to the new spendin treaties. But you also didnt agree to change the way the eu does desitions... 100% to 80%...


And why we are pissing about? Cause we see that the old way is to slow to handl this crisis... Just a majority insted of 100%... Could make it a lot faster


And believe me if i could choose britain would stay in the eu... Britain was often a strong partner for germany in moments of a union of spain italy and france with some ludicrous claims. So in this way it would be bad for germany... So dont be stupid and distroy everything
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
However, the position the eurozone now finds itself in, is to a great extent self-inflicted:

The euro was never going to work without a single economic government

....

Being trapped in the euro meant struggling countries didn't have the flexibility to withstand the storm (by changing interest rates, devaluing, QE, etc). Added to Germany's obsession with low inflation which further stifled growth.

Exactly. Both reasons still exist and are not likely to be answered soon which means we will be right back here again (real soon). The loss of sovereignty and monetary flexibility will ultimately prove disastrous in my opinion. Germany indeed has an obsession with low inflation I'm sure dating back to it's history with hyper-inflation. Nevertheless it may well prove its undoing in this century.

Merkozy failed to save the euro zone
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
My issue with Cameron was how he handled the negotiating. Actually he didn't negotuate at all. I believe that we needed some brinkmanship. Perhaps he is capable fo this and so you have to conclude that they went to this meeting with no intention of taking part.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
My issue with Cameron was how he handled the negotiating. Actually he didn't negotuate at all. I believe that we needed some brinkmanship. Perhaps he is capable fo this and so you have to conclude that they went to this meeting with no intention of taking part.

The emerging story is that Sarkozy refused any discussion whatsoever of the British concerns and that he became so violently aggressive towards Cameron that he had to be physically restrained. There was no negotiation. The 26 followed the Merkozy line, and with Sarkozy refusing any negotiation that was that.

If this story has any truth in it the will be 25 heads of state wondering if they should have considered Cameron's concerns. After all a UK semi-detached from the EU doesn't actually help any nation as the UK is one of the few net contributors.

I think Cameron believed he had modest aims pre-agreed with LibDems, Sarkozy and Merkel, then Sarkozy threw a tantrum (literally) and Merkel decided to keep quiet. In a way the UK was given an ultimatum - have UK budgets pre-checked by Brussels or veto. This issue has nothing to do with saving the euro.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Conservative Associations all over the country will reflect the national sentiment and only select Conservative candidates who are EuroSceptic. We're looking at a 2015 election and a 2017 UK withdrawal.
This is of course exactly what Cameron was desperate to avoid before the last election, because he knows it will push some voters away from the conservatives, and indeed some conservative MPs.

And believe me if i could choose britain would stay in the eu... Britain was often a strong partner for germany in moments of a union of spain italy and france with some ludicrous claims. So in this way it would be bad for germany... So dont be stupid and destroy everything
I wouldnt panic yet. Jason's view has existed in Britain before and all during the time the UK has been a member. It will be interesting to see how the current tussell, where effectively the conservatives are aligning themselves with banking, turns out.The eu may not be popular, but nor are banks.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Hadn't a referendum already be held in the UK on EU membership?

No.

In 1972 the UK held a referendum on membership of the EEC, and joined in 1973. This was a free trade area and little more. The incremental increases have led to the UK being a member of the EU despite polls consistently showing majority opposition.

The Labour government made a manifesto commitment to hold a UK referendum on the proposed EU Constitution. They broke their promise on the technicality that the Lisbon Treaty was different - subsequently a UK court process demonstrated that the differences were not substantial. There is no reasonable doubt that Lisbon would have been rejected had the UK voted. Indeed all those nations who did have a vote rejected it (then ignored the vote.)

Both main political parties are split on the issue, and both have tended to feel that it is in the economic interest of the UK to sign up to whatever the EU wants. Right now the Coalition agreement with the EuroPhile party the LibDems includes an agreement not to hold a referendum but instead to engage positively with Europe. Holding a referendum may split the coalition and bring down the government. Arguably the Conservatives should instead call an election in order to get a mandate to call a referendum - but the Coalition agreement rules out an early election.

What needs to happen is for all three parties to realise that the demands for a referendum are so loud that it is not in their interests to oppose them. If the parties don't do it then it needs enough backbenchers in both Conservative and Labour to work together to get a majority for a referendum.