Aside from specific news stories, there is a very real trend emerging here. David Cameron cares far more about the right-wing of his party than he does about Britain's long-term interests.
Our nation is floundering because of decades of piss-poor mismanagement, the prevailing theories of which the ruling coalition continuing to extol despite lip service to "increasing exports".
Europe is about to emerge as a super-power on our doorstep, and Cameron insists on not being a part of it. He'd rather be Panama than Texas, all for the sake of some vague notion of "national sovereignty".
Just for the record, I'd be more than happy for German technocrats to run Britain. Can't be any more than the piss-poor lot we have at the moment.
John Major got the same reaction the day he kapt the Uk out of the Euro. It worked out ok.
Cameron asked for a number of safeguards, all of which were refused primarily by Sarkozy. At that point he had no choice bow out or cave in. The Uk wasnt getting anything out of this so why commit to it. The Euro is someone elses mess, we have enough problems of our own.
Gordon Brown kept us out of the Euro, Major was nothing to do with it (it was about 10 years after he left office, for a start).
Why should Britain have "safeguards" (a concept invented soley to appease the right-wing press. It has no actual meaning) when Germany, a larger and more efficient economy, does not?
Joey wrote:Gordon Brown kept us out of the Euro, Major was nothing to do with it (it was about 10 years after he left office, for a start).
Gordon Brown simply continued what John Major already did. John Major refused to sign up to the Maastricht treaty. The Euro didnt appear overnight, the Maastricht settlement was the foundation on which monetary union was built. Imprementation was just turning on the switch in '99. By the time Blair came to power thus was widely acknowledged as a smooth move, by the time Gordon Brown came to power even Gordon Brown (and there is no 'leader' more economically incompetent in modern British history) knew not to join the Euro.
As for the safeguards. Have you wondered what they are. Very few in the press have, here is a quote from the Guardian, not exactly a pro Tory newspaper:
Cameron wielded the British veto in the early hours of the morning after France succeeded in blocking a series of safeguards demanded by Britain to protect the City of London. Cameron had demanded that:
• Any transfer of power from a national regulator to an EU regulator on financial services would be subject to a veto.
• Banks should face a higher capital requirement.
• The European Banking Authority should remain in London. There were suggestions that it might be consolidated in the European Security and Markets Authority in Paris.
• The European Central Bank be rebuffed in its attempts to rule that euro-denominated transactions take place within the eurozone.
Sarkozy rejected the demands out of hand.
Now Miliband is of course howling too, which I find offensive as the only reason we are in such a financial mess is due to the squandering of the government of which hwe was a willing part. His main 'point' is that we will be governed by the decisions made without consent, however this is blatantly not true. The whole point of a veto is that UK does not abstain but actively opposes, so whatever rules the rest of Europe puts together will not apply to the UK. This is legal in EU law and is what created the safeguard for us last time from Maastricht.
Joey wrote:Why should Britain have "safeguards" (a concept invented soley to appease the right-wing press. It has no actual meaning) when Germany, a larger and more efficient economy, does not?
Germany needs the safeguards because it is in the muck, through no fault of their own except by joining the Euro. The Euro is in danger of overall collapse, S&P has considered downgrading the credit rating of Eurozone countries. Besides we need safeguards because the current treaty proposals which are very vague a danger sign of itself to anyone with sense:
The UK is outside of the EU clique, we will be regardless of what we do, France will see to that and has done so since De Gaulle.
Just to highlight one clause from the above document
5. The rules governing the Excessive Deficit Procedure (Article 126 of the TFEU) will be
reinforced for euro area Member States. As soon as a Member State is recognised to be in
breach of the 3% ceiling by the Commission, there will be automatic consequences unless a
qualified majority of euro area Member States is opposed. Steps and sanctions proposed or
recommended by the Commission will be adopted unless a qualified majority of the euro area
Member States is opposed. The specification of the debt criterion in terms of a numerical
benchmark for debt reduction (1/20 rule) for Member States with a government debt in excess
of 60% needs to be enshrined in the new provisions.
So if we dont stick to defecit reduction targets there may be 'automatic consequences'. That normally means fines, which wont help. It can also mean external budget control, which is a surrender of sovereignty. Note that this can be appealed against or waivered by the EU. If you think such a waiver is likely to apply to the Uk guess again, such decisions will always be pplitical, Spain might get a freindly yes, the UK never will.
We already have problems of lobsided implementation of EU regulation, with the Uk getting fined for not implementing EU controls that are blatantly ignored in some areas of the continent. a good example of this is regarding EU food preperation standards, which is good legislation per se, but widely ignored in much of Europe, but finable, by for breaches in the UK with the UK finable if it doesn't persue those breaches.
Meanwhile back to the safeguards, Frankfurt and Paris would love to downpeg London as a financial centre, it would be great for them. Camerons 'safeguards' are needed to prevent that from happening, London is one of the two principle global financial centres, New York being the other one. Safeguarding the City is not just a matter of appealing to a clique, its preserving one of the few vestiges of global muscle we have left. I say thank God we dont still have Gordon 'spineless' Brown as PM at the moment, he might have agreed out of pure jellifishness.
Europe is about to emerge as a super-power on our doorstep
You are quite the optimist.
Eurozone combined population-330 million (USA-312 million)
combined economy-€9.2 trillion (USA €11.2 billion)
If the Germans get their way in Europe all the rubbish periphery countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal) will become more competative or thrown out of the euro.
There's also a shed load of Eastern European nations, Poland being the largest, that have massive potential for growth and are obliged to join the Euro soon.
Orlanth wrote:
Gordon Brown simply continued what John Major already did. John Major refused to sign up to the Maastricht treaty. The Euro didnt appear overnight, the Maastricht settlement was the foundation on which monetary union was built. Imprementation was just turning on the switch in '99. By the time Blair came to power thus was widely acknowledged as a smooth move, by the time Gordon Brown came to power even Gordon Brown (and there is no 'leader' more economically incompetent in modern British history) knew not to join the Euro.
No, when Gordon Brown was chancellor he told Tony Blair in no uncertain terms that he'd bring the government down if TB joined the Euro.
source-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947831
Orlanth wrote:
As for the safeguards. Have you wondered what they are. Very few in the press have, here is a quote from the Guardian, not exactly a pro Tory newspaper:
Cameron wielded the British veto in the early hours of the morning after France succeeded in blocking a series of safeguards demanded by Britain to protect the City of London. Cameron had demanded that:
• Any transfer of power from a national regulator to an EU regulator on financial services would be subject to a veto.
• Banks should face a higher capital requirement.
• The European Banking Authority should remain in London. There were suggestions that it might be consolidated in the European Security and Markets Authority in Paris.
• The European Central Bank be rebuffed in its attempts to rule that euro-denominated transactions take place within the eurozone.
Sarkozy rejected the demands out of hand.
The treaty is to save the Eurozone. Cameron asking for concessions is like going to an emergency town meeting about grit shortage to complain about council tax.
And the only reason he opposes European regulation is because he wants to leave British financial services unregulated so they can bring the rest of the economy crashing down again.
Europeans are not out to get the UK, and if they are it's because of our government's anti-european stance. The Europeans don't want to cripple London's financial services any more than they want to cripple German exports or Frence arrogance
Orlanth wrote:
Now Miliband is of course howling too, which I find offensive as the only reason we are in such a financial mess is due to the squandering of the government of which hwe was a willing part. His main 'point' is that we will be governed by the decisions made without consent, however this is blatantly not true. The whole point of a veto is that UK does not abstain but actively opposes, so whatever rules the rest of Europe puts together will not apply to the UK. This is legal in EU law and is what created the safeguard for us last time from Maastricht.
Well, Milliband is useless. No disagreement there.
Orlanth wrote:
Germany needs the safeguards because it is in the muck, through no fault of their own except by joining the Euro. The Euro is in danger of overall collapse, S&P has considered downgrading the credit rating of Eurozone countries. Besides we need safeguards because the current treaty proposals which are very vague a danger sign of itself to anyone with sense:
The UK is outside of the EU clique, we will be regardless of what we do, France will see to that and has done so since De Gaulle.
Just to highlight one clause from the above document
5. The rules governing the Excessive Deficit Procedure (Article 126 of the TFEU) will be
reinforced for euro area Member States. As soon as a Member State is recognised to be in
breach of the 3% ceiling by the Commission, there will be automatic consequences unless a
qualified majority of euro area Member States is opposed. Steps and sanctions proposed or
recommended by the Commission will be adopted unless a qualified majority of the euro area
Member States is opposed. The specification of the debt criterion in terms of a numerical
benchmark for debt reduction (1/20 rule) for Member States with a government debt in excess
of 60% needs to be enshrined in the new provisions.
So if we dont stick to defecit reduction targets there may be 'automatic consequences'. That normally means fines, which wont help. It can also mean external budget control, which is a surrender of sovereignty. Note that this can be appealed against or waivered by the EU. If you think such a waiver is likely to apply to the Uk guess again, such decisions will always be pplitical, Spain might get a freindly yes, the UK never will.
Then governments shouldn't spend money they don't have. It's my opinion that EU rules aren't stringent enough. I see no reason why any government in times of peace and stability should not run a surplus.
And the credit rating agencies can go hang. The German government is NOT about to default.
Orlanth wrote:
We already have problems of lobsided implementation of EU regulation, with the Uk getting fined for not implementing EU controls that are blatantly ignored in some areas of the continent. a good example of this is regarding EU food preperation standards, which is good legislation per se, but widely ignored in much of Europe, but finable, by for breaches in the UK with the UK finable if it doesn't persue those breaches.
That's because of piss-poor implementation in the peripheries. But they may not be in the eurozone in a year's time, we'll wait and see.
Orlanth wrote:
Meanwhile back to the safeguards, Frankfurt and Paris would love to downpeg London as a financial centre, it would be great for them. Camerons 'safeguards' are needed to prevent that from happening, London is one of the two principle global financial centres, New York being the other one. Safeguarding the City is not just a matter of appealing to a clique, its preserving one of the few vestiges of global muscle we have left. I say thank God we dont still have Gordon 'spineless' Brown as PM at the moment, he might have agreed out of pure jellifishness.
Any EU legislation that hurt London would hurt Frankfurt and Paris just as bad. The City isn't the hen that lays the golden egg that the whole world wants to lay their hands on.
I'd much rather have a booming export industry than the financial hocus-pocus of the city that's dragged us all down.
I suppose if your ideal includes a cosmopolitan society in which all Europeans hold hands in a multi cultural orgy of love and economic fornication you could always MOVE to the eurozone. I don't actually have a horse in this race but it seems to me the UK did right staying out of the euro and maintaining monetary sovereignty, perhaps continued caution will pay out as well.
AustonT wrote:I suppose if your ideal includes a cosmopolitan society in which all Europeans hold hands in a multi cultural orgy of love and economic fornication you could always MOVE to the eurozone. I don't actually have a horse in this race but it seems to me the UK did right staying out of the euro and maintaining monetary sovereignty, perhaps continued caution will pay out as well.
Yeah why bother being internationally competitive when we can just devalue our way out of recession.
Orlanth wrote:
Gordon Brown simply continued what John Major already did. John Major refused to sign up to the Maastricht treaty. The Euro didnt appear overnight, the Maastricht settlement was the foundation on which monetary union was built. Imprementation was just turning on the switch in '99. By the time Blair came to power thus was widely acknowledged as a smooth move, by the time Gordon Brown came to power even Gordon Brown (and there is no 'leader' more economically incompetent in modern British history) knew not to join the Euro.
No, when Gordon Brown was chancellor he told Tony Blair in no uncertain terms that he'd bring the government down if TB joined the Euro.
source-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947831
Still based on the work from Maastricht. The UK was in a position to refuse, other nations were having cold feet but post Maastricht could not really do anything but fall into the pot.
Joey wrote:
The treaty is to save the Eurozone. Cameron asking for concessions is like going to an emergency town meeting about grit shortage to complain about council tax.
And the only reason he opposes European regulation is because he wants to leave British financial services unregulated so they can bring the rest of the economy crashing down again.
If the goal is only to save the Euro why move the European Banking Authority, why prevent national vetos on transfer of regulator authorities? We are not part of the Euro so we dont need to surrender Uk regulatory controls to Brussels
Joey wrote:
Then governments shouldn't spend money they don't have. It's my opinion that EU rules aren't stringent enough. I see no reason why any government in times of peace and stability should not run a surplus.
And the credit rating agencies can go hang. The German government is NOT about to default.
EU regulation would have done nothing to stop the critcal squandering in the UK from 2007-9.
Also the crfedit rating agencies will not go hang. True Germany wont default, but Greece might, as might Ireland, Spain and Portugal. Germany is a watertight bulkhead on stern of the Titanic. Greece Ireland Spain and Portugal have met the debt iceberg. Suddenly the small boat Clegg was talking about Cameron just getting us into may well be the right thing to do.
Joey wrote:
That's because of piss-poor implementation in the peripheries. But they may not be in the eurozone in a year's time, we'll wait and see.
Then leave Germany and France to wield their axe, then negotiate with whats left. There will be a lot of bad blood if the Germans try, let alone kick out the sick men of Europe. Why be around to carry the can, its Germany's problem. Besides one of the nations on the kick list is Ireland, if we are seen as party to getting them kicked out of the Euro it might reignite the Troubles. Mass unemployment and anglophobia are a nasty mix that some extrmeists would like to stir.
Aye, every ecominst that seems to know what he is talking about is suggesting the Euro is doomed to fail, and with it the EU won't be far behind.
Do you really want to be on that boat when it starts sinking.
Personaly I hope they put it to a referendum, I'd rather be on our own, able to restrict the flow of who is coming into the country, as we currently can't if they are from Europe, and working with other partners like China, India and the US to get going again. Not that suddenly everyone in the EU wouldn't want to work with us anyways, but there you go.
Hell, the money we'd save on the EU sinkpit alone would make it worth it, and the idea that suddenly all these jobs are going to dry up, seems like pro EU propoganda to me, can't see it myself. With stricter border controls and a lack of folks sending benefits out of the UK, I can see only improvements.
Obviously it will be rough intially, but I'd rather weather a storm as the UK, than a faction in the blighted and corrupt EU.
France and Germany were able to greatly improve their exports under the Euro, and it's driven much of their success in the last couple of decades. So there's certainly plenty of reasons to continue to back the Euro.
But there's also no point in the UK moving closer to the Euro now. It'd be like holding off from investing in a company and watching it grow, and only jumping on board when the company faces its first cashflow crisis. I mean, the company will likely pull through, but the risk is there, and so are the high up-front costs, so you'd want a pretty good offer to jump on board. Cameron tried to bargain for that deal, and didn't get it, so he's out. Perfectly reasonable approach.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Aye, every ecominst that seems to know what he is talking about is suggesting the Euro is doomed to fail, and with it the EU won't be far behind.
The matter is really up for debate, and I've not read any sensible economist talking about doomed to failure, certainly not while Germany and France believe that the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Aye, every ecominst that seems to know what he is talking about is suggesting the Euro is doomed to fail, and with it the EU won't be far behind.
Do you really want to be on that boat when it starts sinking.
Personaly I hope they put it to a referendum, I'd rather be on our own, able to restrict the flow of who is coming into the country, as we currently can't if they are from Europe, and working with other partners like China, India and the US to get going again. Not that suddenly everyone in the EU wouldn't want to work with us anyways, but there you go.
Hell, the money we'd save on the EU sinkpit alone would make it worth it, and the idea that suddenly all these jobs are going to dry up, seems like pro EU propoganda to me, can't see it myself. With stricter border controls and a lack of folks sending benefits out of the UK, I can see only improvements.
Obviously it will be rough intially, but I'd rather weather a storm as the UK, than a faction in the blighted and corrupt EU.
I wouldn't trust the British public with a referendum on Europe. A vast chunk of them rely on the knee jerk stories from the press.
Basic example, I can't remember who posted it so sorry, but somebody posted something on the Human Rights Act. From what I can remember it wasn't the document of doom that it's been made out to be. Further to this there are plenty of British people that have used it to get justice in the UK, when the UK legal system has failed them.
The only way I would trust a referendum, was if all the papers printed all the major points / gripes in B&W (with no subtle word chances). No twisting of the words or phrases, no highlighting of headline grabbing sections.
I have no idea if Europe is good or bad, but what I do know is I want to base my opinion on facts, not a newspapers agenda.
There is a phenomenal amount of Euroscepticism in the UK from my experience. It's very interesting. There are many reasons to be sceptical of the EU (as with any political institution) but I see little discussion of the benefits of EU membership here. The usual response is a bitter rant against "EU Regulation" that is barely coherant. In truth, there are some EU regulations which have a positive effect for people here.
As to the fiscal union, I doubt strongly that most people in favour of it were some how economically prescient. In any case, if the Euro fails the UK is screwed too, due to the huge amounts of debt it has in many EU countries. Hell, if even Ireland goes down it will be extremely bad for the UK.
In any case, I feel that the UK could probably make it alone, and that does seem to be what people here want. If it were put to referendum I'm sure people would want to leave the EU. Which is interesting really. Norway and Switzerland get on okay without being in the EU, so the UK probably could too.
Churchill is usually dug out when it comes to Britain standing it's ground and fighting it's corner and I'm sure the "bulldog spirit" statements are alluding to this. From what I've read about Churchill, he was a big lover of Europe and had a soft spot for France. So I'd wonder what one of greatest leaders would think about recent events?
It would appear that even in those early years Churchill was for a united Europe, and although cautious, due to it being a new venture, it sounds like he would of been open to some transfer of powers, at the right time.
Could David Cameron have done anything other than walk away from a new EU treaty?
COULD David Cameron have done anything different at Thursday night's EU summit, when he refused to sign Britain up to new EU treaty rules overseeing taxation and spending in the euro zone, after failing to secure safeguards to shift key areas of financial regulation to vote by unanimity?
I was asked this question on the BBC today, and I did not come up with a good answer. During the interview, I had already set out the view that I still hold: that those in Britain cheering the Prime Minister for wielding a veto are missing the bigger point, namely that a true veto stops others from doing something you dislike, whereas Mr Cameron's decision to walk away from the table did not stop the majority of other EU members from agreeing to push ahead without him.
I mentioned the accusations from some other EU players that Mr Cameron negotiated and prepared his position clumsily, as set out in my last post quoting the scathing analysis of one (well-placed but avowedly partial) source.
But I also wanted to be fair to Britain's position. I think that a big part of the problem of Britain's relationship with Europe is that we genuinely are different. To simplify, as I said on the BBC this morning, I think that to some extent what happened on Thursday night was the logical end-point of a relationship based on distrust. Successive British governments have believed that on balance membership of the EU is in their interests (or is worse than non-membership). But because we are different (and because we take a common law as opposed to Napoleonic view of regulation, favouring a world in which everything is allowed unless it is expressly prohibited), we seek at every turn to pin down every detail of new rules or schemes being proposed, in case some of it turns out to be harmful. What was on the table on Thursday night was not clear in all its details when it came to the implications for the single market, so it was genuinely a tricky document for Mr Cameron. That being so, you can see why he wanted to secure some safeguards.
Since writing my last post, I have spoken to British officials who advance a number of arguments in defence of what Mr Cameron did. The request for unanimity decision-mkaing for the City was really pretty modest, one says. It was not sprung on other EU governments as a surprise. George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, had briefed colleagues extensively, for instance. What is more, France and Germany negotiated with real aggression, it is said: it was not Britain that was being unreasonable.
Mr Osborne was interviewed on the Radio 4 Today programme. He firmly dismissed talk of British isolation, saying that the country had "gained" by walking away. He told the BBC
"The integration of the eurozone, which we think is necessary to make the single currency work, is not taking place within the full panoply of the European treaties, with the full deployment of the European institutions enforcing those treaties. And because we were unable to get British safeguards that might have allowed that to happen, we're not allowing it to happen...If we had signed this treaty - if David Cameron had broken his word to parliament and the public, gone there and caved in without getting the safeguards he was looking for - then we would have found the full force of the European treaties, the European Court, the European Commission, all these institutions enforcing those treaties, using that opportunity to undermine Britain's interests, undermine the single market"
Mr Osborne added that Britain remained a full member of the EU of 27 countries, noting that he, along with government colleagues, would still be attending monthly meetings of ministers from across the club.
Read Mr Osborne's argument closely, and he is candidly describing a Europe that includes hostile forces willing to undermine Britain's interests. He is further suggesting that Mr Cameron's decision to walk away from a formal EU treaty has denied those hostile forces the ability to use the "full panoply" of EU institutions against us.
Now, I am not going to mount some blanket defence of the other EU countries and say there are no hostile forces at work out there. It is clear that France, for example, takes a radically different view of the City of London and whether Britain has any right to seek to secure it from intrusive euro-rules. The veteran Brussels correspondent for Libération, Jean Quatremer, describes on his blog, for instance, how:
"As Nicolas Sarkozy told a group of journalists [after the summit meeting], Mr Cameron wanted "to create an off-shore zone in the heart of Europe" by securing an exemption from financial market regulation, "when at the same time he insists that the single market's integrity must be protected."
That is a deliberate distortion of Mr Cameron's actual request, which in at least one area (the regulation of capital cushions for banks) sought to secure the right for Britain to impose tougher standards than those being proposed at the EU level.
But, here is the problem. To believe that Mr Cameron has done something to protect British interests by walking away from the table, you have to believe that Britain can continue to use its membership of the full EU to keep a firm grip on the new euro-plus club (membership at 23 so far, and likely to rise). On paper, legally, that belief works. It is certainly tricky to see the legal route that would allow a non-EU club within the club to start using the European Commission, European Parliament, European Court of Justice as regulatory battering rams against Fortress Britain.
Mr Osborne is also right that he will be invited to monthly gatherings of EU finance ministers, despite what happened on Thursday. But if five years reporting from Brussels taught me anything, it is that in Europe, (a) politics trumps law, and (b) in Europe, supreme political power flows downwards from summits of heads of state and government. Other bits of the machine have influence, but for the trickiest and most painful questions, only "heads" as they are known in diplo-shorthand, will do.
There is a grave crisis under way in the euro zone, which lots of European governments feel as an existential threat. That makes me doubt that any magic piece of paper exists that a single, dissenting country can brandish to stop 23 (or 24, or 25) threatened, panicking governments from using the tools they feel they need to save themselves. If the crisis deepens, and the euro-plus countries start to feel that they are being made to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their backs, they will not tolerate a legalistic British veto for very long. At that point, expect to hear lots of European politicians calling for the euro-plus 23 or 24 or 25 simply to become the new European club. (Indeed, reports Bruno Waterfield in the Telegraph, it has already started among low and mid-ranking Euro-politicians).
Can a legal way be found to do that? I am not a lawyer, but I do note that one of Mr Sarkozy's greatest boasts after Thursday is that he has secured agreement for heads of state and government from the euro-plus pact to meet every month for as long as the euro-zone crisis lasts. Britain will not be invited. And that will be an astonishing source of political power, I would argue, for just those hostile forces identified by Mr Osborne.
A final thought. The MPs, commentators and columnists cheering most loudly this weekend are Eurosceptics who do not believe full EU membership can work for this country. Many of them want to leave and negotiate a Swiss or Norwegian-style trading association. In other words, although they are hymning their praise for the government and Mr Cameron, they do not actually agree with the government's analysis as set out by Mr Osborne.
They do not believe, as the chancellor tells the BBC, that integration in the euro zone is needed to make the single currency work, and they do not believe that Britain's interests are going to be marvellously defended by British ministers going to Brussels for monthly meetings of the various EU councils of ministers. They think the euro is doomed, integration cannot and should not work. They hope that Britain is detaching itself from the folly that is the EU, and are already arguing that Mr Cameron must soon seek a radical renegotiation of relations, tested by a referendum of the British people.
Avowed "better-off-out" Conservatives are a (substantial) minority among Tory MPs. Most Conservative MPs would not want to leave the EU outright tomorrow, but want to try for the return of powers from Brussels. Yet it is that minority that is cheering most loudly right now, and which is asserting with great confidence that it was their pressure in recent weeks that made Mr Cameron realise that he could not risk presenting a new EU treaty to the House of Commons without huge concessions.
As Charles Moore writes in the Telegraph:
"Several factors gradually bore in upon Mr Cameron as the day approached. He learnt from his mishandling of the Commons vote on an EU referendum last month. Literally never have so many Eurosceptic Tories filled the lobbies against their party line. This was followed up by serious, though discreet, ministerial protest, most notably from Iain Duncan Smith and the Northern Ireland Secretary, Owen Paterson. The Prime Minister realised it would be impossible to return to Parliament promising his party a new treaty that they distrusted while refusing them the referendum that they demand.
Then he worked out that the Liberal Democrats, however fervent their europhilia, were not going to kill the Coalition for a treaty which was expressly being advanced by President Sarkozy (in re-election mode) as a means of making London pay for the euro.
Dreadfully late in the day – as is so often the case with Mr Cameron and his “government by essay crisis” – everything became clear to his cool mind. He could stave off a referendum, hold together his Coalition, win over his party and prevent further encroachments on British commercial freedom by the use of that one little, previously unsayable word, “No”."
At the top of this blog posting I said I felt I had not answered the BBC's question well, when they asked me what Mr Cameron had done differently on Thursday night. On the radio, I talked about how he could perhaps have prepared his negotiating position with more skill.
I think I should have said, on reflection, that his problems date back six years, and left him with very little room for manoeuvre long before Thursday night. Ever since his campaign to become Conservative leader, Mr Cameron has spent years saying he believes in the benefits of full EU membership while offering concessions and pledges to colleagues who not believe in full EU membership. That sort of political contortionism is not sustainable forever.
Perhaps, as one official suggested to me this weekend, France set a trap for Britain on Thursday. If so, I have a nasty feeling that by the time Mr Cameron walked into the room, he had left himself little choice but to walk into that trap, eyes open.
As I understand it, this is the only thing we could do and may turn out to be very good for Britain
The new treaty would have brought in the Tobin tax on all finacial transactions in europe. 65% of those transactions happen in the UK which would have been very bad as the City of London makes up most of our economy.
I agree that the banks need regulating and we need to be less reliant on the banks but sadly we're not right now and it means looking after them for the time being. We the UK should be regulating them not the EU because we can do it better.
We're still a member of the single market so there's no downside there.
Look at it from this point of view, if you're a corperation looking to set up a Centre of Excellence, you've got the UK with no tax on transactions, and the rest of europe which does. Who are you going to choose?
It wouldn't surprise me if Ireland really suffers from this treaty. Businesses will probably move from Ireland to the UK to avoid the Tobin tax
I think its better to wait and see what happens to the eurozone and join later if it works out. IMO a treaty made in a crisis and a hurry isn't going to work well.
Can I also say that its pretty rich of Nicolas Sarkozy not allowing us to wave the transaction tax saying it was lack of regulation that brought about the problems when it was mainly France and Germany who lent to Greece. Not us (we lent but not nearly as much)
Mr Cameron's decision has been backed up by The Economist, The Times, The Telegraph, and even the ridiculously anti Tory Guardian has been less than scathing in its criticism.
Basically, all of said writers have far more credibility than Joey.
As a result, I think it is fair to say that this is non other than an intellectually vapid name calling exercise because he doesn't like the bloke. Arent you the same bloke who called him "spineless" last week but couldn't actually give a reason why he was? No doubt if he hadnt used the power of veto he would have been "spineless" but because he did he is an idiot.
It is as laughably ridiculous and the ultra right wing Americans blasting Obama as "weak" on Tuesday and "too heavy handed" on Thursday, so I vote we no longer even debate the topic and start a new one.
I vote for...er..
Monster Munch, the best corn based snack of the century?
It seems to me that Cameron was not in a favouralbe position, France and Germany are exercising rather a lot of power in Europe and expect everyone to buckle to their demands. They weren't prepared to shift to meet Cameron's demands. The alternative was to simply give in to them because they weren't budging. The Euro is something in particular it appear wise that we avoided, even though at the time it probably would have been beneficial for us.
mattyrm wrote: Mr Cameron's decision has been backed up by The Economist, The Times, The Telegraph, and even the ridiculously anti Tory Guardian has been less than scathing in its criticism.
Basically, all of said writers have far more credibility than Joey.
As a result, I think it is fair to say that this is non other than an intellectually vapid name calling exercise because he doesn't like the bloke. Arent you the same bloke who called him "spineless" last week but couldn't actually give a reason why he was? No doubt if he hadnt used the power of veto he would have been "spineless" but because he did he is an idiot.
It is as laughably ridiculous and the ultra right wing Americans blasting Obama as "weak" on Tuesday and "too heavy handed" on Thursday, so I vote we no longer even debate the topic and start a new one.
I vote for...er..
Monster Munch, the best corn based snack of the century?
Bottom line is the City of London is what keeps the UK running, anything that threatens that is to be avoided wherever possible. It’s almost like this tax was designed to get London to pay for the Euro.
I don't even see how this will really help. If a country breaks the rules set out in the treaty then it gets sanctioned.
If a country is breaking these rules then it’s probably because it’s in trouble anyway and sanctioning it will just make things go downhill faster.
Howard A Treesong wrote:It seems to me that Cameron was not in a favouralbe position, France and Germany are exercising rather a lot of power in Europe and expect everyone to buckle to their demands. They weren't prepared to shift to meet Cameron's demands. The alternative was to simply give in to them because they weren't budging. The Euro is something in particular it appear wise that we avoided, even though at the time it probably would have been beneficial for us.
This, in a nutshell.
France and Germany are, naturally, attempting to use the crisis to not only prop up the Euro, but to gain the best concessions they can for themselves personally, under the guise of protecting the Euro and financial integration. Britain has long been the financial capital of Europe, and the currency here is stronger and more stable than that over the Channel. It is very much in France's interest (as can be seen in some of those tidbits above from Orlanth), to attempt to transfer some of that moneymaking capability and stability to themselves, especially now they are looking like their their triple A credit rating is to be downgraded. Therefore when they start producing Cameron with a fait accompli to begin such a process, he is well within his rights to take his ball and go home.
The eurosceptics are not such a minority as some might have you believe, I would have thought the 100+ MP's defying a triple line whip the other day would attest to that. The Lib Dems are seething, but Clegg is an ex-EU-MP, so to be expected.
No I believe it thoroughly in the interests of Britain to hold onto what we have for now. Our growth may be slow, and the recession biting hard, but we have our triple A credit rating, we are seen as a haven for European investors as one of the most stable economies in Europe at the moment, and out separate currency is still strong, and retaining a decent value. We have far too much to lose by tying ourself into a European financial hegemony that has already demonstrated its inherent instability.
mattyrm wrote: Mr Cameron's decision has been backed up by The Economist, The Times, The Telegraph, and even the ridiculously anti Tory Guardian has been less than scathing in its criticism.
Basically, all of said writers have far more credibility than Joey.
As a result, I think it is fair to say that this is non other than an intellectually vapid name calling exercise because he doesn't like the bloke. Arent you the same bloke who called him "spineless" last week but couldn't actually give a reason why he was? No doubt if he hadnt used the power of veto he would have been "spineless" but because he did he is an idiot.
Appeal to authority? Okay here's off the top of my head Will Hutton and Vince Cable, economists, not newspaper editors, are both pro-Europe. In fact the entire Liberal Democrat party are.
Anything that happens in Europe would have happened with or without the Euro. If the Italian government defaults on its loans to French banks, those banks will go bust Euro or not. An uncompetative private sector in Greece may be bad for the Greeks but it's not going to lower the value of German and French goods.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
obsidianaura wrote:Bottom line is the City of London is what keeps the UK running, anything that threatens that is to be avoided wherever possible. It’s almost like this tax was designed to get London to pay for the Euro.
That's because the economy outside of financial services has been underinvested and is globally uncompetative. If we weren't reliant on the city's tax revenue we might be able to institute proper regulation.
'Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?"'
Newspaper editors are not exactly an "authority". Even if they were it'd be irrelevant.
Not automatically a bad thing. If your car is fethed you take it to a mechanic, if he tells me the starter motor is shagged I'm not going to phone my mother in law up for a second opinion am I?
The Economist is an excellent, world renowned publication famous for it's relatively impartial reporting and opinions on world events. If they say that Cameron was pushed towards this position and he took the right and possibly only logical decision, that is better for me than some random bloke on a wargaming website.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Joey wrote:Appeal to authority?
So?
'Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?"'
Newspaper editors are not exactly an "authority". Even if they were it'd be irrelevant.
Er...
So, an appeal to authority is bad, because Richard Feynman said so and HE knows better than everyone else?
Not automatically a bad thing. If your car is fethed you take it to a mechanic, if he tells me the starter motor is shagged I'm not going to phone my mother in law up for a second opinion am I?
The Economist is an excellent, world renowned publication famous for it's relatively impartial reporting and opinions on world events. If they say that Cameron was pushed towards this position and he took the right and possibly only logical decision, that is better for me than some random bloke on a wargaming website.
The Economists has a very specific outlook on what is considered "good" and "bad". A few thousand people in the city making millions does not an economy make.
mattyrm wrote:
Er...
So, an appeal to authority is bad, because Richard Feynman said so and HE knows better than everyone else?
mattyrm wrote: Mr Cameron's decision has been backed up by The Economist, The Times, The Telegraph, and even the ridiculously anti Tory Guardian has been less than scathing in its criticism.
Basically, all of said writers have far more credibility than Joey.
As a result, I think it is fair to say that this is non other than an intellectually vapid name calling exercise because he doesn't like the bloke. Arent you the same bloke who called him "spineless" last week but couldn't actually give a reason why he was? No doubt if he hadnt used the power of veto he would have been "spineless" but because he did he is an idiot.
Appeal to authority? Okay here's off the top of my head Will Hutton and Vince Cable, economists, not newspaper editors, are both pro-Europe. In fact the entire Liberal Democrat party are.
Anything that happens in Europe would have happened with or without the Euro. If the Italian government defaults on its loans to French banks, those banks will go bust Euro or not. An uncompetative private sector in Greece may be bad for the Greeks but it's not going to lower the value of German and French goods.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
obsidianaura wrote:Bottom line is the City of London is what keeps the UK running, anything that threatens that is to be avoided wherever possible. It’s almost like this tax was designed to get London to pay for the Euro.
That's because the economy outside of financial services has been underinvested and is globally uncompetative. If we weren't reliant on the city's tax revenue we might be able to institute proper regulation.
I agree completely with what you're saying here. We shouldn't be so reliant. It's great that we have the city but it's terrible that we don’t have other things to fall back on.
The trouble is we are where we are now, so we can’t afford to damage the City when it's what we're dependant on now.
I'm not sure what we can do to balance the economy though. We can’t compete on manufacturing. We have the 2nd highest minimum wage in the world. China will always out compete us there.
Joey wrote:Appeal to authority? Okay here's off the top of my head Will Hutton and Vince Cable, economists, not newspaper editors, are both pro-Europe. In fact the entire Liberal Democrat party are.
If anything, that should be an argument against following their thoughts on this, they have an invested interest in seeing the European hegemony.
Anything that happens in Europe would have happened with or without the Euro.
So...you're saying that even if Germany wasn't tied to Greece economically, they'd still be bailing them out? Doubtful.
If the Italian government defaults on its loans to French banks, those banks will go bust Euro or not. An uncompetative private sector in Greece may be bad for the Greeks but it's not going to lower the value of German and French goods.
No, but a busy governemnt on the same currency as a financially stable one makes the financially stable one unstable. That's the problem.
That's because the economy outside of financial services has been underinvested and is globally uncompetative. If we weren't reliant on the city's tax revenue we might be able to institute proper regulation.
We tried it your way forty years ago, where we had half a dozen manufacturing industries being heavily subsidised by the government. It drove this country to the brink of economic ruin. Are you seriously suggesting we return to that?
Europe is about to emerge as a super-power on our doorstep
You are quite the optimist.
Eurozone combined population-330 million (USA-312 million)
combined economy-€9.2 trillion (USA €11.2 billion)
If the Germans get their way in Europe all the rubbish periphery countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal) will become more competative or thrown out of the euro.
There's also a shed load of Eastern European nations, Poland being the largest, that have massive potential for growth and are obliged to join the Euro soon.
Thats all well and good, and if the Euro is around in six months the Eurozone could go right back to it's standard growth patterns and the touting of a pan european hegemonic identity. If it's around in six months. As it is, little is being done to shore up the failing member states and austerity isn't solving the issues.
Goddammnit Shuma I hate it when you have valid points, and even more so when I agree with them.
Take your well reasoned statements back to whence thou came!
Personally I never had any favour with Europe and going by media coverage, the Germans are taking over anyway Which wouldn't surprise me either since I don't think that little niggle from what sparked WW1 ever left after WW2 No, I'd rather Britain was out of the Euro. It's pretty much a dud currency anyway - I would've thought a wiser move for most of the nations in the Euro (not us luckily ) to pla reintroducing their previous currencies because once the Euro goes, there goes your economy.
It's funny that the two news articles I've read on this had zero material on the actual provisions Cameron objected to. I've learnt a lot more from this thread than the news.
It's pretty rich the level of offense the EU diplomats seem to be taking to the UK not giving up everything for the Euro currency.
Aye, tbh I don't trust any of them. It oddly reminds me of Fifa, where the main power is held by a select group of 'Europeans' and we are barely tolerated on the sidelines.
It almost feels like they are looking for us to trip, or fall apart, and to be brutaly honest, I'd rather we risked it without them. I'm with Mr Hyena, the trade pact was fine, the idea we should be one big superpower, no thanks.
Then add to it the many programs and stories I've seen about the courruption of the EU parliment, that would be like sitting Everest next to Ben Nevis when compared to our own Goverments expenses scandals, I just lament on the money that is wasted to these other nation politicians who really don't give two figs about us.
mattyrm wrote: Mr Cameron's decision has been backed up by The Economist, The Times, The Telegraph, and even the ridiculously anti Tory Guardian has been less than scathing in its criticism.
Basically, all of said writers have far more credibility than Joey.
As a result, I think it is fair to say that this is non other than an intellectually vapid name calling exercise because he doesn't like the bloke. Arent you the same bloke who called him "spineless" last week but couldn't actually give a reason why he was? No doubt if he hadnt used the power of veto he would have been "spineless" but because he did he is an idiot.
It is as laughably ridiculous and the ultra right wing Americans blasting Obama as "weak" on Tuesday and "too heavy handed" on Thursday, so I vote we no longer even debate the topic and start a new one.
I vote for...er..
Monster Munch, the best corn based snack of the century?
I always liked Monster munch but i feel Doritos have more versatility in flavour...
On-topic: I agree with the general idea that the treaty seems to screw us over something awful...
As an American, I'm not remotely well-versed in this issue - I have a hazy recollection of a land mass across the pond called Europe, but that's about it. On the other hand, I caught Cameron answering questions about it during something that I believe is called "Prime Minister's Question-And-Answer Time" on C-SPAN as I was driving around today, and I have to say, that's an amazing tradition. We need that gak over here. How often does that happen? And why does everyone yell?
Pretty much every week while parliment is in session, seaward.
I've watched far too many of them than I'd care to admit. Sky News and BBC News are often on in the home, we've always been interested in whats going on in the world.
As to the 'yelling' its just something that is 'done' regarding parliment.
Not automatically a bad thing. If your car is fethed you take it to a mechanic, if he tells me the starter motor is shagged I'm not going to phone my mother in law up for a second opinion am I?
The Economist is an excellent, world renowned publication famous for it's relatively impartial reporting and opinions on world events. If they say that Cameron was pushed towards this position and he took the right and possibly only logical decision, that is better for me than some random bloke on a wargaming website.
The Economist's analysis was far from a ringing endorsement of Cameron. They basically said he couldn't do anything else, because he allowed himself to be manoeuvered into a weak position. Partly due to historical Conservative anti-EU sentiments.
That said, we can't build a time machine, go back 30 years and undo the past, and we have to move on from where we are now.
We can't ignore the Euro because Eurozone countries buy 40% of our exports. Also, British banks have a considerable exposure to Euro bonds. Thus it is in our best interests to help the Euro zone avoid a disastrous default.
At the same time, the UK is the second or third largest economy in the EU so economically we swing a lot more weight than places like Norway, Slovenia and Austria. Even the French would rather have us inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
What Cameron should have done IMO was to say the proposals were very interesting and he looked forward to discussing them with government and industry leaders. That would hopefully have bought time for Cameron to make contact with the other non-Euro countries and start to build an alternative approach.
The Economist's analysis was far from a ringing endorsement of Cameron. They basically said he couldn't do anything else, because he allowed himself to be manoeuvered into a weak position. Partly due to historical Conservative anti-EU sentiments.
That said, we can't build a time machine, go back 30 years and undo the past, and we have to move on from where we are now.
Of course, I didn't say it was a ringing endorsement, I said it pretty much exactly what you said!
mattyrm wrote:"If they say that Cameron was pushed towards this position and he took the right and possibly only logical decision, that is better for me than some random bloke on a wargaming website.
I don't know enough about the situation other than the article Melissa posted, the front page of the Times and the Telegraph today, and the good old BBC website. My point was simply that he may have made some errors, but no reputable news organisation or publication that I have yet seen has laucnhed a full blown scathing criticism of Cameron, not even the Guardian which is as left of centre as we tend to get before we start going into wackyland. And as a result saying he is "utterly incompetent" is flat out ridiculous, and is merely character assassination because of an individuals personal dislike.
I mean, I loathe plenty of people in politics, but I don't resort to the childish level of making ill informed obviously biased threads to basically call them names. I mean, sure I might chip in with a few choice insults during a thread, but I don't start one for the sole reason when there is nothing to discuss, otherwise the IRA supporting Red Ken Livingstone would be getting a thread on a weekly basis!
I don't think he is incompetent, but I think he (and Sarkozy and Merkel, and all the other leaders involved) are far more concerned with how things are going to play at home than with a sensible solution, and if anything will be the doom of the Euro, that's what will be.
Matty, It was me who called Cameron spinless last week, and I'm calling him spineless again this week!
It's clear that a mojority of people in the UK (myself included) want the UK out of the current EU, but Cameron hasn't got the guts to call a referendum.
This is not an anti-European rant. Europe is a great continent, full of great people, history and culture. But the EU in it's current form is corrupt, bloated and a serious threat to democracy. You may have a similar argument about the UK, but at least the people of the UK (if they could be bothered) can change this situation. If power is transfered to some faceless technocrat in Brussels, then the people of this great isalnd, become disenfranchised. Look to Greece and Italy for blantant examples of taking power from the people.
France and Germany have been running the show for too long, and it doesn't take a history teacher to know that the British people will never allow Paris or Berlin to impose a tax on one of their main industries. I seem to recall that the last country who tried taxing another country without giving them a say , had to resort to hiring Hessian mercenaries to fight for them.
Historically, we've always been a nation of traders and innovators. Britian could survive without the EU. We sell more to them, than they do to us, plus is anybody in their right mind trying to tell me that the EU would turn it's back on the 5th largest economy in the world? Japan has no trouble selling stuff to Europe.
Cameron should call a referendum, but he won't. Instead, maybe we should play the Germans at their own game. Let's propose a tax on the car making industry, and see how much of a fuss is kicked up, becuase that's what they tried to do to the UK.
Finally, to all Americans replying on this thread. You guys turned your back on the greatest nation on earth, so you have no say.
At the same time, the UK is the second or third largest economy in the EU so economically we swing a lot more weight than places like Norway, Slovenia and Austria. Even the French would rather have us inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
True, especially considering Norway isn't even in the EU to start with...
Also, IIRC, Norway's one of the few countries in the world that doesn't have a national debt. Their GDP/capita is enormously high.
mattyrm wrote:
I don't know enough about the situation other than the article Melissa posted, the front page of the Times and the Telegraph today, and the good old BBC website. My point was simply that he may have made some errors, but no reputable news organisation or publication that I have yet seen has laucnhed a full blown scathing criticism of Cameron, not even the Guardian which is as left of centre as we tend to get before we start going into wackyland. And as a result saying he is "utterly incompetent" is flat out ridiculous, and is merely character assassination because of an individuals personal dislike.
I mean, I loathe plenty of people in politics, but I don't resort to the childish level of making ill informed obviously biased threads to basically call them names. I mean, sure I might chip in with a few choice insults during a thread, but I don't start one for the sole reason when there is nothing to discuss, otherwise the IRA supporting Red Ken Livingstone would be getting a thread on a weekly basis!
The Guardian is left-wing compared to the Daily Mail but it's more of a North London liberal attitude than actually left-wing.
David Cameron was just throwing the toys out of the pram because the right wing press stir up hatred against anything with "European" in the name, so he has to troll Europe. The Europeans will remember this, let's just hope we never need their help.
Melissia wrote:He wasn't trolling Europe, he was acting in the best interest of his country.
Europe isn't exactly very stable right now.
So how does being a dick to our biggest trading partner help things? The financial crisis won't last forever. We'll weather the storm, with or without southern Europe, and after that Britain will need all the European goodwill it can get.
He was. Europeans now have contempt for Britain, Cameron makes a show of going to summits but in reality they want nothing to do with him and he doesn't actually do anything.
Joey wrote:Europeans now have contempt for Britain,
This is somehow different from before... how?
"Europeans" have contempt for a lot of things. Americans, British, Muslims, Jews... course, since you're probably thinking the entirety of Europe and I'm only referring to small subsections, meh?
I mean the governments of those countries. The UK tries to look like it's at the heart of Europe, while making a song and dance about how they want Europe to leave them alone.
Again, what's the difference? They obviously weren't respecting the UK much to begin with given the demands they placed upon Cameron, which is why he did what he did in the first place.
So to summarize: you just hate that your PM who politically represents the will of the largest segment or coalition of segments of your country's people; is continuing a decades long policy of holding European hegemony at arms length. A policy I might add that has to this point served you (collectively) well. In it's place you would like to join the wild goat feth of the eurozones economic and political overlordship that has served Italy, Greece, and Ireland (among others) so well. Seeing as if the EU fails the UK retains all of it's trading partners without the EU's labyrinthine regulation, but if the UK happily pulls down it's drawers and takes the EU wienie and the EU collapses you simply fail with them. Bravo. I can see where your seething anger draws from.
China will withhold aid to Europe unless it meets certain conditions, including its recognition of the Asian nation as a market economy, Yao Yang, director of the China Center for Economic Research at Peking University, wrote in a commentary in the China Daily today.
Failure of the euro would be bad for China, leaving the U.S. dollar as the single international reserve currency, he wrote. It would also mean the European market, China’s largest source of export demand, would be far weaker, he wrote.
China won’t provide substantial financial assistance to Europe without an “iron-clad” investment guarantee, Yao wrote.
..hmm..
well.. that could work out well for us. There's a fair few Chinese companies who are/about to float on the L.S.E. and, currently, the £ is seen as stronger than the euro.
England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions.
In short, the nature, the structure, the very conjuncture that are Englands differ profoundly from those of the continentals. What is to be done in order that England, as she lives, produces and trades, can be incorporated into the Common Market, as it has been conceived and as it functions?
It was David Cameron who said ‘Non’ in Brussels in 2011. Yet, as he wielded Britain’s veto in the small hours of Friday morning, the British Prime Minister could easily have taken his script from Charles de Gaulle’s famous 1963 press conference in which the French President explained why, since we could never be good Europeans, he was keeping Britain out.
Plus ca change. Now, pro-Europeans like Charles Grant who despair at Britain’s place on the edge of Europe and Eurosceptics like the Daily Express who believe victory in our crusade is near’. agree that the events of the last few days have been momentous. What happens next may well be messier and more complicated, but the nature of this crisis does reinforce a core Eurosceptic meme – that, ultimately, our identity and interests are different from theirs. There are many cogent and plausible arguments against this view, as a matter of rational interests, but the history of Britain’s reluctant Europeanism might now also be seen as the failure, across sixty years, to make that resonate, emotionally, as a matter of identity. As a result, even many pro-Europeans may well begin to feel that there is a certain sense of inevitability to Britain, consistently the most reluctant of the European nations, opting to remain in its recurring comfort zone of semi-detachment.
Downing Street briefings push the idea that it was all a deliberate French trap to push Britain out of the door. Blaming the French will always have some resonance, even when the truth is more complex. It distracts attention from why the other 25 were onside, nine of them non-Euro members. (The last Labour government tried it too, blaming Jacques Chirac when there was no security council majority for a second resolution over Iraq. And even Brits who agreed with Chirac over Iraq didn’t trust the French President’s motives). At one level, the British and French narratives and briefings are the mirror image of each other - with all of the fault on one side and only sweet reasonableness on the other. Was perfidious Albion typically uncommunitaire in seeing Europe’s problem as England’s opportunity, or did the sneaky French lace the proposed Treaty with booby-trapped red lines the British could never accept? As each government spins one half of this story of mutual mistrust, so the British and the French narratives converge on the common ground that these are irreconciliable differences, as a matter of identity, so that we can never really be any more than the best of enemies.
So the most eye-catching quote of this summit was that of an unnamed French government source who declared that David Cameron was “like a man who turns up at a wife-swapping party without his wife”. To British ears, this sounds quintessentially French, albeit amoral, sexist and broadly incomprehensible, approaching the Cantona ‘sardines and trawlers’ class of Gallic insouciance. If you attempt to decipher it, it would not appear to offer the most attractive image of the European project, perhaps that getting the chance to screw others depends on bringing along your own people to get screwed.
But the argument for British exceptionalism, which appears to have defeated pro-European efforts for now at least, runs deeper. It is a matter of national psychology, of political culture, and of what the European project was about, including whether it should have any final destination at all.
Firstly, the British psychological contract with the European project has been different, and less positive, than for its European partners. Just about every other member of the European Union gained something important, in its sense of itself, when it made the choice for Europe. For France and Germany, it was the foundation of their ‘never again’ compact after seventy years of recurring conflict, giving security to France and rehabilitating Germany in a constructive and peaceful role for a democratic federal republic. Ireland used Europe to escape the shadow of England, and emerged a more confident young country. For Spain, Portugal and Greece after the dictatorships, joining Europe was a sign of modernity and democracy, while the central and East European countries were completing the dissolution of the iron curtain which had isolated them from the other half of the continent, by choosing to join when the wall fell in 1989.
For Britain, ending up in the European club was a story of disappointed post-war hopes and the need to face up to the reality of relative post-war decline. Britain had been in favour of Europe for the other Europeans, as a benign outsider while itself having bigger fish at the top table of geopolitics. After 1956, that was clearly a mistake, yet it took another generation of agonised uncertainty, first about whether to join, and then whether we would be allowed to do so, leaving an indelible sense that we were turning up to a party that somebody else had organised. We joined because we had no choice. And we stayed in, in 1975, around the psychological nadir of British fortunes, not so much with Beethoven’s ninth in our hearts, because relative economic decline meant that it was no time to leave a Christmas club, still less the Common market.
Secondly, Britain does politics differently. “England does not love coalitions”, said Disraeli. The European Union is above all an exercise in the politics of coalition, across 27 countries no less. But our institutions and culture are winner takes all, not give and take as being in our enlightended collective interest. We look at our first peacetime coalition for decades primarily through the lens of whether the LibDems or the Tories are guilty of the greater betrayal of their principles or their followers through the necessary evil of political compromise. Offered a more pluralist political system, voters rejected it, fearing it would introduce more messy compromises. It is hardly surprising that our history of engagement with the European Union, whichever party is in power, is dominated by the shadow of the handbag, ‘game, set and match’ to Britain, and the apparently irresistible urge to see European diplomacy as the continuation of war by other means.
Thirdly, the British have never believed in “ever closer union”. A European crisis usually looks like a moment to slow down, and to ask whether the EU has bitten off more than it can chew. But the instinctive answer of other European governments is that the answer to a faltering Europe is usually ‘more Europe’ to try to make the system more effective or more legitimate.
A lack of democratic connection because Europe has been built from above? Elect a European Parliament. Write a Constitution. The common currency in peril? Fiscal union. The metaphor of the bicycle which must keep going or fall over is popular.
The irony here is that this was the big argument about Europe’s direction which the British were winning. Over the last decade, the federalising instinct appeared to be past its high water mark. The widening of the EU to eastern and central Europe changed the balance of forces over whether it could get ever deeper too. Europe was in many ways becoming closer to the British vision of it. As the French worried about the dominance of the English language in Brussels, the British had an important opportunity to create new alliances, bolstering the traditional support of the Dutch, Swedes and Danes for close British involvement as a vital counterbalance to an excessively strong Franco-German motor of ‘core Europe’. A growth in public Euroscepticism, in Scandinavia and Germany, narrowing the differences which had underpinned the historic sense of British exceptionalism. There was a move away from a focus on flags and anthems as the EU seemed to be settling down into something the British could, grumblingly, live with – but the current crisis has seen the Franco-German motor, eventually, splutter back into life.
There is still, probably, grudging public and political consent for remaining in the club., though Thatcher’s children in the Tory class of 2010 are considerably more Eurosceptic than their heroine was in office. An in or out referendum would more likely be won than lost, especially in times of high economic risk. But there appears to be no political appetite or legitimacy for Britain to engage in deeper integration. If the club changes shape, we can’t keep up with it.
So David Cameron was naked in the conference chamber in Brussels. Had he thought there was a deal which was in Britain’s interests, he could not have brought it home and survived, without perhaps irresistible internal pressure for a referendum. Being the toast of the 1922, the Mail and the Express, and even Norman Tebbit was the safer course. (There ought to be some Progressive Conservatives saying to him, that “all of the wrong people are cheering”, as Dora Gaitskell did to her husband after his tub-thumping “thousand years of history” speech in 1962. But the Cameroons have always been quiet Eurosceptics, more concerned about the perceptions of a party that seems obsessed with ‘banging on’ about Europe than necessarily. Among the uber-modernisers, Steve Hilton drops heavy hints that he thinks Britain would be better off out. That used to be blue sky thinking. Now, who knows?
But it would be a mistake to think this hardening of the sceptic arteries in primarily an issue of party politics. In the post-Blair era, it seems likely that any British government would do something pretty similar to Cameron in the end – before picking a row with the French to cover it up.
That the alternative case is weak reflects the deep failure of pro-European advocacy in Britain over the last 20 years. Tony Blair made the case occasionally, almost always in pro-European speeches in Brussels and Warsaw and almost never in Britain. Michael Heseltine was on the Today programme this morning, retelling the story of missing the boat at the Treaty of Messina., using soundbites which have not changed a jot since the early 1990s. But Heseltine and Ken Clarke have no obvious successors in the Tory party to whom they will pass the Europhile torch. The Cameron government resurrects the tensions of the Major government by an external coalition after the Tory internal coalition narrowed. Labour had a passionate pro-European generation among the social democrats of the 1960s and 1970s. David Miliband may be the only fully engaged serious pro-European of the Miliband/Balls generation. But were the opposition led by the elder Miliband, I expect his shadow Foreign secretary would be saying exactly what Douglas Alexander has been saying, which is broadly as little as possible, beyond ‘we wouldn’t start from here’. The Liberal Democrats have been our most sincerely committed pro-European party. That was the issue which did most to determine that the young Nick Clegg could not be a Conservative. But they are muted this weekend not only because of the Coaliton – which ought not to be any impediment to David Laws, Ming Campbell or Charles Kennedy – but because it is not clear what convincing alternative narrative pro-Europeans have, especially if looking for something that plays beyond a small if committed liberal pro-European elite. (And the political and media debate rarely reflects the that the public are actually considerably more pragmatic about this than the political classes. Fabian Society polling published a year ago found that the public combine anxiety about the idea of Europe with pragmatic support for more Europe on the economy, the environment, jobs and growth and foreign policy).
But the European debate has always been about identity as well as interests. There has been an alternative history, which understands that Britain is more European than we habitually think. Paul Kennedy points out that the central priority of British foreign policy since 1066 has been to prevent any single power dominating the continental European landmass. The choice to fight the second world war, clouded in Churchillian cigar smoke and the magnificent rhetoric of “never surrender” national independence was, above all, a choice for Europe, for which the price was to trade in the Empire, even if Churchill declared that he had “not become the king’s first minister to preside over the liquidation of the British empire. He was wrong; that was the price for opposing appeasement, but we have never fully understood the choice he made either, which is why The Sun dresses Cameron as Winston on its front-page this morning.
It is a story told magnificently in Hugo Young’s magisterial account of our reluctant Europeanism, not insignificantly titled “This Blessed Plot”. For Young, it is the story of “how Britain struggled to reconcile the history she could not forget with the future she could not avoid”. But nothing is inevitable in democratic politics without political consent. It now looks as though Britain’s pro-Europeans have failed to secure sufficient political consent to be more than half-way in to the new Europe now being sketched. Without one day winning a referendum – whether ‘in or out’ or something else – it is difficult to see how this would change. And perhaps it is too late for that now.
Perhaps one of the reasons Euroscepticism resonates more is that British identity has been a curious mix of having perhaps the most global and the most insular identity of any major nation. Britain had the world’s largest Empire, yet always liked to believe it had been acquired, by accident, in a fit of absent-mindedness. We invented most of the world’s sports, and exported them everywhere, yet always seemed to begin by saying no when invited to take part in new-fangled World Cups or European Cups, as if we couldn’t see the point of playing with foreigners or, more accurately, weren’t prepared to take part in such multilateral initiatives when the rules were not invented here (and, sometimes, as with the European Convention on Human Rights, even if they were!). A large part of the psychological appeal of Euroscepticism is that it can simultaneously access these different motivations. It has an undoubted appeal to the Little Englander, and yet can deny that by pointing to broader global horizons.
It will take a long time for the dust to settle on what the new shape of Europe might mean for Britain’s place in the world. But the fallout seems likely to strengthen the sense that halfway in and halfway out is where the British will always feel most comfortable.
Joey wrote:
The Europeans will remember this, let's just hope we never need their help.
Joey wrote:
So how does being a dick to our biggest trading partner help things? The financial crisis won't last forever. We'll weather the storm, with or without southern Europe, and after that Britain will need all the European goodwill it can get.
Joey wrote:He was. Europeans now have contempt for Britain...
Sorry Joey you sound like you think Europe is doing things 'right' and Cameron is just putting a spanner in the works, for one motive or another.
You are only right in that there is resentment towards the UK, and discrimination against UK interests is possible. However you are entirely wrong in thinking that Europe was 'driven' to that by Camerons actions. The Anglophobic feelings from some EU leaders go a lot deeper than that, deeper than previous Tory administrations, deeper than Thatcher even deeper than De Gaulle. Europe sadly is driven at least some of the time by race politics, and its all too easy to raise those sentiments.
You see this, or you wouldnt be taliking about European long memories. France, Spain, Italy and Germany do things each others dont like from time to time, but they get on. If the UK rocks the boat however even you see a long term spell of ill will.
Let us translate this into what it really means, even if you do not see the conclusion.
Europe saying: 'Do as we want, without concessions, or feel the hate.'
I read that quote by the French diplomat yesterday.. Gotta love him playing to the stereotypes.
No Baldrick we are stuck here. There's about as much chance of us moving as a Frenchman who lives next door to a brothel.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, The Sun made this, and everyone knows what a fine, impartial and reputable paper they are, so Cameron must be in the right.
The UK are just delaying the inevitable still thinking of themselves as a world power.
Just become the United States of Europe and let's get on with this Multi-polar world peopel have been harpingon a bout for a while now. This foot dragging is getting tiresome.
Easy E wrote:The UK are just delaying the inevitable still thinking of themselves as a world power.
Nobody in the UK thinks of our country as a "world power" and nobody really cares. What I find laughable is that you actually think it is important?
Norway, Sweden, Finland, fething Lichtenstein?
Why is having a big military so awesome on a personal level? I'm sure that all the millions of American kids who don't get to eat tonight are mega pleased that they have a really big Navy watching over them.
AustonT wrote:Does that picture mean "pluck you"? As in Poitiers?
I heard that it was down to when we used to be at war with the French our Archers when captured used to have their 2 fingers cut off so they couldn't draw a bow. So sticking up two fingers became an insult to the French.
Probably a myth but who knows?
As for the EU I would pull out as much as possible but keep in the single market so we can still trade cheaply.
Right now we pay for 12% of the EU budget and have very little to show for it.
Someone compared it to paying for gym membership and not using the machines.
WE ARE A GREAT POWER! And we'll be back for the Americas. Their treachery has not been forgotten!
Any, a lot of people: newspapers,commentators, etc have went to great lengths to flag up the economic set backs the UK may face. And yet, nobody talks about democracy in regard to this debate. Nobody mentions unelected comissioners, president, and every other lackey and lick-spittle in Brussels.
When Sarkozy does something about French farmers milking CAP until it's dry, then I might take the guy seriously.
Rant over
AustonT wrote:Does that picture mean "pluck you"? As in Poitiers?
I heard that it was down to when we used to be at war with the French our Archers when captured used to have their 2 fingers cut off so they couldn't draw a bow. So sticking up two fingers became an insult to the French.
Probably a myth but who knows?
Agincourt was what I was thinking of, it may or may not be a myth but in the rivalry between Briton and France I can see the cheecky Brits doing it, although it certainly isn't the root of the middle finger.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:WE ARE A GREAT POWER! And we'll be back for the Americas. Their treachery has not been forgotten!
Because if the Falklands taught us anything it's that the UK should be feared around the world after thier overwhelming victory over Argentina...
It's been a day or two now but the UKs last independent military experience wasn't exactly stellar.
I heard that it was down to when we used to be at war with the French our Archers when captured used to have their 2 fingers cut off so they couldn't draw a bow. So sticking up two fingers became an insult to the French.
Probably a myth but who knows?
As for the EU I would pull out as much as possible but keep in the single market so we can still trade cheaply.
Right now we pay for 12% of the EU budget and have very little to show for it.
Someone compared it to paying for gym membership and not using the machines.
The Agincourt thing is a myth.
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/fin_fwk0713/fin_fwk0713_en.cfm That's what EU money is spent on. Britain pays £4.7 billion a year, after rebates. Decide for yourself if that's worthwhile.
Note that this works out at £12.6 million per day, NOT the £40 million per day spouted by UKIP/tories.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:WE ARE A GREAT POWER! And we'll be back for the Americas. Their treachery has not been forgotten!
Any, a lot of people: newspapers,commentators, etc have went to great lengths to flag up the economic set backs the UK may face. And yet, nobody talks about democracy in regard to this debate. Nobody mentions unelected comissioners, president, and every other lackey and lick-spittle in Brussels.
When Sarkozy does something about French farmers milking CAP until it's dry, then I might take the guy seriously.
Rant over
The idea that our system is "democratic" is absurd. A handful of very wealthy people decided that David Cameron should be prime minister, and it was so. Elections do not equate to freedom and liberty, they just enthrall leaders to the whims of the hoi polloi.
AustonT wrote:
Because if the Falklands taught us anything it's that the UK should be feared around the world after thier overwhelming victory over Argentina...
It's been a day or two now but the UKs last independent military experience wasn't exactly stellar.
Argentina would have to be very foolish indeed to try to re-take the Falklands, Britain is militarily much more powerful than we were then, and Argentina is much less powerful.
AustonT wrote:
Because if the Falklands taught us anything it's that the UK should be feared around the world after thier overwhelming victory over Argentina...
It's been a day or two now but the UKs last independent military experience wasn't exactly stellar.
To be fair mate, modern warfare is nothing like it used to be. Could any country in the top twenty "easily" beat another one without using a nuke?
You could say the exact same about America's "overwhelming" victory in Iraq. We went at that place together with 150,000 Americans and 50,000 Brits and it's been emotional.
If America (biggest spenders) tried to invade Spain (15th biggest) it would be an impossibility to "hold" the place if that was your objective. The government would merely have to dish rifles out to all and sundry and let them crack on with the guerilla insurgency from hell. If your talking about absolutely smashing the gak out of somewhere, then the UK would easily be able to bomb the gak out of the Falkland Islands, but it was full of British citizens so that was a no go.
The fact remains that the only way to win the Falklands was by getting your feet dirty and yomping about the bastard place, and it is hard fething graft. I cant have seen the Americans having a much easier time of it, what advantage does hugely superior numbers get you there other than gak loads more blokes killed when they start shelling your enormous infantry battalions?
And disembarking from ships at San Carlos on East Falkland, Royal Marines yomped with all of their equipment across the islands, covering 60 miles in three days and carrying 100 pound loads and engaging the enemy all the while. You would breathe out of your hairy arse regardless of the flag stitched onto your uniform.
But this flag waving nonsense is beneath you, so lets not even bother with this tiresome "our military is biggest and therefore the bestest" debate shall we?
AustonT wrote:
Because if the Falklands taught us anything it's that the UK should be feared around the world after thier overwhelming victory over Argentina...
It's been a day or two now but the UKs last independent military experience wasn't exactly stellar.
To be fair mate, modern warfare is nothing like it used to be. Could any country in the top twenty "easily" beat another one without using a nuke?
Absolutely not. There's plenty of example to point to that a top 5 nation isn't even can't subdue a bottom third nation like Russia in Chechnya, or the US in Afganistan or Iraq. My comment was more directed at "rah rah we'll come for you Colonials" and the Falklands were a bit closer at hand than say 1783 or 1814.
You could say the exact same about America's "overwhelming" victory in Iraq. We went at that place together with 150,000 Americans and 50,000 Brits and it's been emotional.
You might say that militarily the war was a resounding success, what there was of it, but the occupation has been miserable.
If America (biggest spenders) tried to invade Spain (15th biggest) it would be an impossibility to "hold" the place if that was your objective. The government would merely have to dish rifles out to all and sundry and let them crack on with the guerilla insurgency from hell. If your talking about absolutely smashing the gak out of somewhere, then the UK would easily be able to bomb the gak out of the Falkland Islands, but it was full of British citizens so that was a no go.
As a point of fact for no particular reason I added up the defense spending of all current EU members and the UK (whatever your status counts as) it's roughly half the US spending. In a comparison what we are getting for that spending is dismal. Subject for another time.
When it comes down to it most modern governments lack the will power to commit to such an undertaking. There is a level of brutality and sadism necessary to subdue a hostile nation that requires more troops and innocent blood than any English speaking nation is willing to commit.
The fact remains that the only way to win the Falklands was by getting your feet dirty and yomping about the bastard place, and it is hard fething graft. You would breathe out of your hairy arse regardless of the flag stitched onto your uniform.
truer words have not been spoken.
But this flag waving nonsense is beneath you, so lets not even bother with this tiresome "our military is biggest and therefore the bestest" debate shall we?
to be fair what I wrote was entirely in response to something else, and I really had no flag waving intentions(it still happened).
I probably could have put this in the section above, but you and I can probably agree that a narrow victory in 82 was probably the best thing that happened to the Royal Armed Forces. The invincible was about to be retired, the army and marines were in general draw down. The Falklands gave that crazy old witch of yours the fire she needed to keep the UKs forces from being a shadow of what they are today. Nothing sells defense spending to proud Brits like "almost lost to a country around the world that speaks Spanish." now despite the numerical disparity betwixt your country's gun toting psychopaths and mine Britain maintains a force to be reckoned with at a fraction of the cost.
AustonT wrote: My comment was more directed at "rah rah we'll come for you Colonials"
Yeah but considering that is wholly ridiculous I thought his comment was in good humour and yours really wasn't, but either way it's a silly thing to talk about so ill happily shelve this increasingly off topic discussion.
AustonT wrote:The Falklands gave that crazy old witch of yours the fire she needed to keep the UKs forces from being a shadow of what they are today.
Hey I've no great issue with anything else you wrote, but leave Maggie be.
Just become the United States of Europe and let's get on with this Multi-polar world peopel have been harpingon a bout for a while now. This foot dragging is getting tiresome.
Why would we want to join a united europe that has no interest in the desires of the british people and in which we'd have no say? A place that has the weak Euro?
No thanks. Lets stick with whats kept us right so far. Let Germany get its WW1 dreams with other nations.
AustonT wrote: My comment was more directed at "rah rah we'll come for you Colonials"
Yeah but considering that is wholly ridiculous I thought his comment was in good humour and yours really wasn't, but either way it's a silly thing to talk about so ill happily shelve this increasingly off topic discussion.
Humor is not my strong suite, I was not attempting to respond in humor. It would be disingenuous for me to attempt to claim I did now.
Mea Culpa
AustonT wrote:The Falklands gave that crazy old witch of yours the fire she needed to keep the UKs forces from being a shadow of what they are today.
Hey I've no great issue with anything else you wrote, but leave Maggie be.
Ahh but you knew who I was talking about and the easily incited lefties doing their TLR scan didn't see: Margaret Thatcher...but now that balloon has gone up.
The last solid open source numbers I saw for RN Tomahawks put their numbers at or close to 100, and solely in the hands of the submariners. I was actually referring to the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales which should hopefully launch in 2016 and 2020. I am eager to see how the electric drive system operates on such a large ship.
Kilkrazy wrote:We only got a Vulcan over to bomb the airstrip in the Falklands by the skin of our teeth.
We couldn't have bombed the airfields in the mainland.
Oh ok, I thought the whole point of the Vulcan was it was supposed to be able to nuke anywhere (not that I'm suggesting we'd even consider doing that to Argentina)
Oh ok, I thought the whole point of the Vulcan was it was supposed to be able to nuke anywhere (not that I'm suggesting we'd even consider doing that to Argentina)
The Vulcan was due to be retired in 82 and only had range of a shade over 2000 miles (2500 maybe).
The other V Bombers the Victor and Valiant both outranged her (6000 and 4000 miles respectivly) The Valiant having already been retired at the time. They were essentially medium range bombers, The RN had the requirement to deliver nukes anywhere in the world.
The Royal Navy still has Trident, 200 nuclear war heads mounted on submarines capable of being anywhere in the world.
As others have said, Britain would never nuke Argentina over the Falklands but it's worth remembering.
Joey wrote:The Royal Navy still has Trident, 200 nuclear war heads mounted on submarines capable of being anywhere in the world.
As others have said, Britain would never nuke Argentina over the Falklands but it's worth remembering.
What relevance exactly did this bring to the table? That a missile system not in service in the RN until 1994 would have somehow impacted the war that ended 12 years before? Or that the conservative party that just vibrates you out of your skin on the original issue of this thread both procured them and saved them from the axe?
Joey wrote:The Royal Navy still has Trident, 200 nuclear war heads mounted on submarines capable of being anywhere in the world.
As others have said, Britain would never nuke Argentina over the Falklands but it's worth remembering.
What relevance exactly did this bring to the table? That a missile system not in service in the RN until 1994 would have somehow impacted the war that ended 12 years before? Or that the conservative party that just vibrates you out of your skin on the original issue of this thread both procured them and saved them from the axe?
Perhaps AustonT it may be that Joey is worried that Cameron is playing with the space time continuum. He would have a fairly strong case for 'incompetence' if it proves to be true.
Joey wrote:The Royal Navy still has Trident, 200 nuclear war heads mounted on submarines capable of being anywhere in the world.
As others have said, Britain would never nuke Argentina over the Falklands but it's worth remembering.
What relevance exactly did this bring to the table? That a missile system not in service in the RN until 1994 would have somehow impacted the war that ended 12 years before? Or that the conservative party that just vibrates you out of your skin on the original issue of this thread both procured them and saved them from the axe?
Perhaps AustonT it may be that Joey is worried that Cameron is playing with the space time continuum. He would have a fairly strong case for 'incompetence' if it proves to be true.
Here here. Because if the Tories can control space time and he hasn't gone back and fixed the British train system, of for no better reason than to be faster, more efficient, and as cheap as France's. Then he truly IS incompetent. Perhaps while he's back in the...let's say 70's he can tidy up some other items. Increased independence from the US in the manufacture of weapons, bomb Iran then, put money into apple (wait 80's?), tell the Queen she is never going to die...you know important things.
Joey wrote:The Royal Navy still has Trident, 200 nuclear war heads mounted on submarines capable of being anywhere in the world.
As others have said, Britain would never nuke Argentina over the Falklands but it's worth remembering.
What relevance exactly did this bring to the table? That a missile system not in service in the RN until 1994 would have somehow impacted the war that ended 12 years before? Or that the conservative party that just vibrates you out of your skin on the original issue of this thread both procured them and saved them from the axe?
Perhaps AustonT it may be that Joey is worried that Cameron is playing with the space time continuum. He would have a fairly strong case for 'incompetence' if it proves to be true.
I'm confused.
You actually think Cameron is a competent Prime Minister?
Joey wrote:The Royal Navy still has Trident, 200 nuclear war heads mounted on submarines capable of being anywhere in the world.
As others have said, Britain would never nuke Argentina over the Falklands but it's worth remembering.
What relevance exactly did this bring to the table? That a missile system not in service in the RN until 1994 would have somehow impacted the war that ended 12 years before? Or that the conservative party that just vibrates you out of your skin on the original issue of this thread both procured them and saved them from the axe?
Perhaps AustonT it may be that Joey is worried that Cameron is playing with the space time continuum. He would have a fairly strong case for 'incompetence' if it proves to be true.
I'm confused.
You actually think Cameron is a competent Prime Minister?
Relatively speaking. As someone who hates all parties equally, I think he's doing a decent job of it so far. He's not the next Disraeli but he's a fairly astute politician. Better certainly by a long shot than Clegg or Milliband.
There are turds floating in the Thames that would make better prime ministers than Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg.
I'm waiting for the labour party to wake up and vote Ken Livingston for party leader.
Comparing Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson, neither of them have managed to do a bang-up job of running London, and both of them have the principle attraction of not being the other one.
Literally everything Joey says is absolutely ludicrous, he is in a tiny minority, and if he asserts something as fact there isn't any evidence for it. It's pretty much all just mindless and usually factually incorrect drivel.
Needless to say, I doubt the vast majority of people agree with him, and fortunately, he isn't the supreme dictator of the UK, no matter how much he wishes that were so.
On what possible grounds then, is David Cameron, love him or hate him.. an absolute fool?
I would go even further, what about Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband? Why are they liekned to "turds"? I mean, I dont think much of Miliband (prefered his brother) but none of the three strike me or pretty much anyone, as utterly witless fools.
Are you just angry at everyone? What is the point of all these sentences you keep typing?
Joey wrote:There are turds floating in the Thames that would make better prime ministers than Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg.
I'm waiting for the labour party to wake up and vote Ken Livingston for party leader.
That would be the same Ken Livingstone who took money from Iran to present a show on their English-language state TV channel, correct? And you're saying that he should be PM?
mattyrm wrote:
I would go even further, what about Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband? Why are they liekned to "turds"? I mean, I dont think much of Miliband (prefered his brother) but none of the three strike me or pretty much anyone, as utterly witless fools.
Considering Clegg got picked up by Cameron for use as a bullet shield, and Ed got manipulated into taking charge of the party that's basically guaranteed to lose the next election, I must say, both have been completely outplayed by Cameron on the political field. He's far, far cannier than most people realise at spin, much moreso than New Labours hamfisted attempts during the last government.
No, he's a perfectly capable, astute politician, and one I have a certain amount of respect for. I may not like a number of his policies but he's far and away the best leader in the political class at the moment, and the inability of the opposition doesn't really detract from the political skill he's displayed thus far.
He's competent, and we could be in a worse position. I'll probably vote for him again next election, and then as the party becomes comfortable in power and publicly corrupt, vote him out at the election following that.
I agree Ketara, but then I think DC has done a good job so far, he seems to attack topics that I feel strongly about, and he has secured my vote next election. I was merely pointing out that even though I don't fancy voting for either Miliband or Clegg, I don't see them as being stupid, or claim that they are worse at politics than a turd.
Ive seen nobody who knows anything about politics, even the most left leaning columnist call Cameron " utterly incompetent" like our pal Joey here.
Seriously though, Dave Miliband is a far better party leader than chinless Ed though.
And he's got a speech impediment, its harder to take a bloke who speaks for a living seriously when he talks like Elmer Fudd.
Joey wrote:The Royal Navy still has Trident, 200 nuclear war heads mounted on submarines capable of being anywhere in the world.
As others have said, Britain would never nuke Argentina over the Falklands but it's worth remembering.
What relevance exactly did this bring to the table? That a missile system not in service in the RN until 1994 would have somehow impacted the war that ended 12 years before? Or that the conservative party that just vibrates you out of your skin on the original issue of this thread both procured them and saved them from the axe?
Perhaps AustonT it may be that Joey is worried that Cameron is playing with the space time continuum. He would have a fairly strong case for 'incompetence' if it proves to be true.
I'm confused.
You actually think Cameron is a competent Prime Minister?
Joey wrote:There are turds floating in the Thames that would make better prime ministers than Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg.
I'm waiting for the labour party to wake up and vote Ken Livingston for party leader.
Oh you're confused but it has nothing to do with me. But do press on, this is fantastically entertaining. God Bless your heart you make Melissa look like a pants on head, rabid ultra conservative.
Okay I had no idea the forum would gak itself over a throwaway remark about Ken Livingstone, or that disagreeing with the Prime Minister makes me a rabid leftist.
This OT forum is clearly a waste of time. Shall we discuss Britain's place in Europe? No let's just insist that because right-wing newspaper editors say something, it must be true, and not bother debating, or thinking, or illuminating ourselves.
I suppose everyone here learned everything they needed to know decades ago, it certainly seems that way.
Guess I'll go read the Sun. I've been wasting my time with all this textbook nonsense.
Joey wrote:Okay I had no idea the forum would gak itself over a throwaway remark about Ken Livingstone, or that disagreeing with the Prime Minister makes me a rabid leftist.
This OT forum is clearly a waste of time.
...
Now truly you have achieved "satori".
Automatically Appended Next Post: If people do want to continue the discussion, please remember that the regular DakkaDakka rules apply in the OT Forum.
This has nothing to do with right wing rags droning on about a right wing PM. We're talking about a United Kingdom free from continental entanglements that endanger her identity and sovereignty, whilst the same multinational goat feth ON the continent is in so much trouble that it is literally BEGGING to be saved. Rats abandon a sinking ship, they don't swim from shore to scuttle.
Right so Cameron vetod a treaty that would enforce rules about government spending on the member countries so as to prevent further government debt default fears.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with the city of London, or a financial transaction tax. Cameron's decision to veto it was an entirely political one and, surprise surprise, the Tories have surged ahead about 5 points in the polls.
Something endorsed by right-wing tories, newspaper editors, AND the British public, can't possibly be a good idea.
Going by what you have hitherto written in this thread, you haven't posted anything that remotely qualifies as 'textbook nonsense' beyond vapid, inflammatory, ill-informed opinion. You can hardly complain when you get called on it.
filbert wrote:Going by what you have hitherto written in this thread, you haven't posted anything that remotely qualifies as 'textbook nonsense' beyond vapid, inflammatory, ill-informed opinion. You can hardly complain when you get called on it.
Seconded, as a person who is actually vaguely political astute himself.
Even Angela Bloody Merkel acknowledges that Britian opting out doesn't send her sprialing next to Iceland.
Merkel said that, while she regrets the decision, "it is beyond doubt for me that Great Britain will in future continue to be an important partner in the European Union".
"[Britain] is a reliable partner for Europe not just in questions of foreign and security policy … [it] is also this partner in many other questions – in competitiveness, in the internal market, for trade, for climate protection," she said.
AustonT wrote:Even Angela Bloody Merkel acknowledges that Britian opting out doesn't send her sprialing next to Iceland.
Merkel said that, while she regrets the decision, "it is beyond doubt for me that Great Britain will in future continue to be an important partner in the European Union".
"[Britain] is a reliable partner for Europe not just in questions of foreign and security policy … [it] is also this partner in many other questions – in competitiveness, in the internal market, for trade, for climate protection," she said.
Hmm...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16164899 'German newspapers have been full of the triumph of Chancellor Angela Merkel and the demise of Britain. Television channels are running strap-lines reading "Britain against Europe"....The word "isoliert" (isolated) crops up everywhere. Tuesday's Tagespiegel has the British prime minister on the front page with the caption: "And now Mr Cameron? Great Britain has isolated itself with its veto on the treaty changes."...Peter Altmaier, one of Chancellor Merkel's inner circle and chief whip of her CDU party in the Bundestag, told the BBC: "We are looking forward very much to seeing Britain leading in Europe instead of staying isolated."..."The rest, led by Great Britain, are condemned to third-class status[in the EU]."'
Though of course the last line is telling "If the deal fails to convince the markets, it may be Chancellor Merkel who ends up in the rowing boat rather than David Cameron.".
Sarkozy already hated Cameron for his gimpishness "But in October he snapped at him during euro crisis talks in Brussels, suggesting he “shut up” and stop interfering." (http://www.iol.co.za/mercury/eu-finally-loses-patience-with-britain-1.1197119)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:I have to admit, I had a bit of a chuckle at the reports that Germany was printing off some spare Deutsch-marks 'just in case'...
In case a Greek/Italian default causes the Euro to rise? The Euro at the moment is low, which is a massive boost to German exports.
So please explain to me how a debt crisis will make the currency increase/decrease in value to the extent that Germany has to re-issue the Deutschmark.
filbert wrote:I have to admit, I had a bit of a chuckle at the reports that Germany was printing off some spare Deutsch-marks 'just in case'...
In case a Greek/Italian default causes the Euro to rise? The Euro at the moment is low, which is a massive boost to German exports.
So please explain to me how a debt crisis will make the currency increase/decrease in value to the extent that Germany has to re-issue the Deutschmark.
The Germans aren't worried that the Euro will rise - they are worried that the Italian/Spanish/Portugese/Greek debts will cause the Euro to fold completely.
He was further bolstered by one of his principal European opponents, German chancellor Angela Merkel, who dismissed suggestions that Britain was on the fringes and insisted that it had an important future in the European Union.
And it's not like Cameron or the UK are alone in thier skepticism.
It was revealed yesterday that the Czech government was sceptical about the plans and the Irish government restated its intention to put any changes to a referendum. In the Netherlands, the Dutch government was under siege from opposition parties over its support for changes and there were also doubts in Hungary.
the Dutch are so tall they can see the Future!
And a blatant eurosceptic piece because it's true.
We are paying too much (our net EU contribution is rising from some £3.5 billion in 2008-9 to £12 billion in 2014-15), and the vast body of EU regulation stifles business and the City of London. Rising powers like Brazil, India and China don't have these burdens. To recover, we have to make the UK competitive. We cannot do that without leaving the EU.
filbert wrote:I have to admit, I had a bit of a chuckle at the reports that Germany was printing off some spare Deutsch-marks 'just in case'...
In case a Greek/Italian default causes the Euro to rise? The Euro at the moment is low, which is a massive boost to German exports.
So please explain to me how a debt crisis will make the currency increase/decrease in value to the extent that Germany has to re-issue the Deutschmark.
The fact the Germans are printing their old currency is a demonstration of how much confidence people have in the currency right now. The Euro is on its way out - in effect it's a project that's not worked and as a consequence is failing. The fact that Ireland has needed a bailout, Greece 2 bailouts and a new PM, and Spain & Italy having trouble paying back their our debts, not to mention all the other collective debts countries in Europe have associated with the Euro, there's just no way it'll work.
The sooner countries using the Euro begin reinstating their previous currencies, the faster the Euro can be put to bed and left alone until another person decides to try something similar again. There's potential for a single currency certainly but now is not the time.
Juvieus Kaine wrote:
The fact the Germans are printing their old currency is a demonstration of how much confidence people have in the currency right now. The Euro is on its way out - in effect it's a project that's not worked and as a consequence is failing. The fact that Ireland has needed a bailout, Greece 2 bailouts and a new PM, and Spain & Italy having trouble paying back their our debts, not to mention all the other collective debts countries in Europe have associated with the Euro, there's just no way it'll work.
The sooner countries using the Euro begin reinstating their previous currencies, the faster the Euro can be put to bed and left alone until another person decides to try something similar again. There's potential for a single currency certainly but now is not the time.
It should be noted that the whole Deustchmark thing is probably largely unfounded rumour at this point. Apparently the rumour source is one Philippa Malmgren, a former economics adviser to George W. Bush.
However, the fact still remains that there is a very real and worrying concern amongst Eurozone members that the Euro is teetering on the brink of collapse.
You know the UK is actively trying to crush the EU of they demand immediate pay out of all foreign debt currently on the Euro, and Sarkozy's head on a platter...a gold platter of you will.
He was further bolstered by one of his principal European opponents, German chancellor Angela Merkel, who dismissed suggestions that Britain was on the fringes and insisted that it had an important future in the European Union.
And it's not like Cameron or the UK are alone in thier skepticism.
It was revealed yesterday that the Czech government was sceptical about the plans and the Irish government restated its intention to put any changes to a referendum. In the Netherlands, the Dutch government was under siege from opposition parties over its support for changes and there were also doubts in Hungary.
the Dutch are so tall they can see the Future!
And a blatant eurosceptic piece because it's true.
We are paying too much (our net EU contribution is rising from some £3.5 billion in 2008-9 to £12 billion in 2014-15), and the vast body of EU regulation stifles business and the City of London. Rising powers like Brazil, India and China don't have these burdens. To recover, we have to make the UK competitive. We cannot do that without leaving the EU.
We would flourish outside the EU.
The increase in EU contributions is in part to do with inflation, and isn't that important in the large sheme of things anyway.
If China, India and Brazil want completely unregulated financial markets, they're welcome to them. Let them create whatever asset bubbles they like.
Juvieus Kaine wrote:
Joey wrote:
filbert wrote:I have to admit, I had a bit of a chuckle at the reports that Germany was printing off some spare Deutsch-marks 'just in case'...
In case a Greek/Italian default causes the Euro to rise? The Euro at the moment is low, which is a massive boost to German exports.
So please explain to me how a debt crisis will make the currency increase/decrease in value to the extent that Germany has to re-issue the Deutschmark.
The fact the Germans are printing their old currency is a demonstration of how much confidence people have in the currency right now. The Euro is on its way out - in effect it's a project that's not worked and as a consequence is failing. The fact that Ireland has needed a bailout, Greece 2 bailouts and a new PM, and Spain & Italy having trouble paying back their our debts, not to mention all the other collective debts countries in Europe have associated with the Euro, there's just no way it'll work.
The sooner countries using the Euro begin reinstating their previous currencies, the faster the Euro can be put to bed and left alone until another person decides to try something similar again. There's potential for a single currency certainly but now is not the time.
I will re-iterate the point I made earlier since other people don't seem to grasp it.
A weak Euro is a massive boon to the German economy, a third of its GDP being composed of exports.
Another point that is being ignored by all and sundry is that a default by Italy or Greece, as damaging as it would be to the banks who lent them money, would not automatically bring down their respective economies.
The gap in productivity between the Eurozone is a major issue, but it's a)not being talked about by anyone and b)not an immediate problem.
The Euro will collapse if their leaders want it to, we aren't going to wake up one morning to "Eurozone in ruins, trillions of Euros of GDP somehow dissapear because of peripheral governemnts inability to pay debts".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:
Juvieus Kaine wrote:
The fact the Germans are printing their old currency is a demonstration of how much confidence people have in the currency right now. The Euro is on its way out - in effect it's a project that's not worked and as a consequence is failing. The fact that Ireland has needed a bailout, Greece 2 bailouts and a new PM, and Spain & Italy having trouble paying back their our debts, not to mention all the other collective debts countries in Europe have associated with the Euro, there's just no way it'll work.
The sooner countries using the Euro begin reinstating their previous currencies, the faster the Euro can be put to bed and left alone until another person decides to try something similar again. There's potential for a single currency certainly but now is not the time.
It should be noted that the whole Deustchmark thing is probably largely unfounded rumour at this point. Apparently the rumour source is one Philippa Malmgren, a former economics adviser to George W. Bush.
However, the fact still remains that there is a very real and worrying concern amongst Eurozone members that the Euro is teetering on the brink of collapse.
What do you actually mean by that? "Teetering on the brink of collapse" is a meaningless statement, what do you actually mean?
A weak Euro is not a massive boon to Germany when it is Germany propping it up. The German government has made it abundantly clear that are not going to keep bailing out member states a la Greece. In such a situation, it becomes more probable that Greece will need to drop out of the Euro and that will become catastrophic.
As for teetering on the brink of collapse, I'm not really sure what part of that statement is causing the confusion. There are a great deal of articles floating about postulating different scenarios and what-ifs, eg.
Hell, the BBC have been going on about the potential for Eurozone crash for months now - its not really a big secret that a great deal of economists are fearing the worse. There really is a rather large game of brinksmanship being played out at the moment.
He was further bolstered by one of his principal European opponents, German chancellor Angela Merkel, who dismissed suggestions that Britain was on the fringes and insisted that it had an important future in the European Union.
And it's not like Cameron or the UK are alone in thier skepticism.
It was revealed yesterday that the Czech government was sceptical about the plans and the Irish government restated its intention to put any changes to a referendum. In the Netherlands, the Dutch government was under siege from opposition parties over its support for changes and there were also doubts in Hungary.
the Dutch are so tall they can see the Future!
And a blatant eurosceptic piece because it's true.
We are paying too much (our net EU contribution is rising from some £3.5 billion in 2008-9 to £12 billion in 2014-15), and the vast body of EU regulation stifles business and the City of London. Rising powers like Brazil, India and China don't have these burdens. To recover, we have to make the UK competitive. We cannot do that without leaving the EU.
We would flourish outside the EU.
The increase in EU contributions is in part to do with inflation, and isn't that important in the large sheme of things anyway.
If China, India and Brazil want completely unregulated financial markets, they're welcome to them. Let them create whatever asset bubbles they like.
ROFLMFAO.
a FOUR HUNDRED percent increase is due to six years of inflation. 66.667% inflation per year?
Currently the London Economy is reckoned at 565B USD with an out lay of 5.428B to the EU, about 1%. By your reckoning that it's ok to raise contributions to the EU by 66.667% per year:
By 2025 the London economy is reckoned at 821B and by that silly "inflation" You'd be pushing a scosh over 62B to the EU. 13 and change percent of London GDP...oh that's a FANTASTIC deal for CoL, especially since it is only expected to grow 2.2% while Sao Paulo is predicted at 4.2% and Bueunos Ares 3.5%.
http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1562 In the large scheme of things it matters a great deal.
filbert wrote:A weak Euro is not a massive boon to Germany when it is Germany propping it up. The German government has made it abundantly clear that are not going to keep bailing out member states a la Greece. In such a situation, it becomes more probable that Greece will need to drop out of the Euro and that will become catastrophic.
As for teetering on the brink of collapse, I'm not really sure what part of that statement is causing the confusion. There are a great deal of articles floating about postulating different scenarios and what-ifs, eg.
Hell, the BBC have been going on about the potential for Eurozone crash for months now - its not really a big secret that a great deal of economists are fearing the worse. There really is a rather large game of brinksmanship being played out at the moment.
Right. I could give you a dozen nightmare situations about what happens if a volcano exploded in central london, or if there was a giant tidal wave. Articulating something does not make it likely.
Greece is irrelevent, Italy and Spain are really important...and their 10 year bond yeild is, very gradually, falling. The summits in the EU are irrelevent to the short-term, i.e. governments' ability to control spending and bring down deficits.
obsidianaura wrote:Most of our trade is reliant on europe. We need to really grow with markets in China.
Shame we dont make very much. Germany is in the best position BMWs Audis and Merc are selling well there.
We dont really make much that the emerging middle class over there would want.
We need to make electrical cars or something thats the ticket.
Sadly true. We really need more investment in education to produce that sort of high-tec workforce.
Joey wrote:
Right. I could give you a dozen nightmare situations about what happens if a volcano exploded in central london, or if there was a giant tidal wave. Articulating something does not make it likely.
Greece is irrelevent, Italy and Spain are really important...and their 10 year bond yeild is, very gradually, falling. The summits in the EU are irrelevent to the short-term, i.e. governments' ability to control spending and bring down deficits.
Well if it boils down to you articulating your scenarios and a bunch of well-respected and experienced economic experts voicing their opinion, I know which one I am more likely to trust...
Joey wrote:
Right. I could give you a dozen nightmare situations about what happens if a volcano exploded in central london, or if there was a giant tidal wave. Articulating something does not make it likely.
Greece is irrelevent, Italy and Spain are really important...and their 10 year bond yeild is, very gradually, falling. The summits in the EU are irrelevent to the short-term, i.e. governments' ability to control spending and bring down deficits.
Well if it boils down to you articulating your scenarios and a bunch of well-respected and experienced economic experts voicing their opinion, I know which one I am more likely to trust...
You really, really want a list of economists who DON'T think that the Euro will collapse (and therefore are not going to get articles in large newspapers or slots on tv)?
If you're going to listen to "well-respected and experienced economic experts" over everything else then why post here in the first place if it's impossible for you to broaden your mind?
IMO if we're not annoying the French and Germans, then we're doing something wrong!
We've always been a nation of buccaneers and swashbucklers. We singed the Spanish king's beard, we burnt down the White House, and we helped Texas achieve it's freedom and identity. You can't buy that kind of history. To quote Apollo Cree from the Rocky films: "we've fought the best, we've beaten the best, we've been the best."
Albatross wrote:Where has this myth that Britain doesn't manufacture anything come from?
Then closing of the coal mines, the steel industry, the car factories, and umpteen dozen other major manufacturing industries under Thatcher. We still make stuff, but not very much, and our major export these days are arms and some various pieces of high-tech aeronautical instruments.
Joey wrote:
You really, really want a list of economists who DON'T think that the Euro will collapse (and therefore are not going to get articles in large newspapers or slots on tv)?
If you're going to listen to "well-respected and experienced economic experts" over everything else then why post here in the first place if it's impossible for you to broaden your mind?
Well thus far you haven't offered anything other than your own opinion (and a vague hint about some sort of conspiracy that economists who hold contrary opinions aren't heard on TV) . I'm sure there probably is an economist or two who thinks everything will be sunshine and light but the overwhelming majority of economists and political commentators are feeling quite negative about the whole situation - whether or not the Euro will collapse is a matter for debate - trying to predict economic patterns is a little like driving a car using only the rear view mirror - but I think it is fair to say that few people are feeling positive about the situation.
I fail to see how believing your particular opinion is failing to broaden my horizons. If you have something to offer then do what everyone else does if they wish to base their opinion on a degree of credibility and offer some evidence to back it up - then perhaps people might start to believe your viewpoint.
I think Alb was refering to the fact that we di still make allot if thing mostly high tech goods. So what if China now makes knives and firks and knick knacks.
I think Manufacturing accounts for about 8% of the economy which is fairly hefty. Now compae that to the construction industry at about 5%. Construction is alaays where the money gets spent to reinvigorate the economy.
Obviously compared to when it historically a counted for a majority of the economy it could be said to be relatively dead but this doesn't reflect changes in the economy and tech.
Albatross wrote:Where has this myth that Britain doesn't manufacture anything come from?
It's a common enough complaint from within the industry itself. My dad has been in manufacturing all his life and its one of his frequently espoused topics. Of course, whether it has any basis in actual facts and statistics or not is another story.
Joey wrote:
You really, really want a list of economists who DON'T think that the Euro will collapse (and therefore are not going to get articles in large newspapers or slots on tv)?
If you're going to listen to "well-respected and experienced economic experts" over everything else then why post here in the first place if it's impossible for you to broaden your mind?
Well thus far you haven't offered anything other than your own opinion (and a vague hint about some sort of conspiracy that economists who hold contrary opinions aren't heard on TV) . I'm sure there probably is an economist or two who thinks everything will be sunshine and light but the overwhelming majority of economists and political commentators are feeling quite negative about the whole situation - whether or not the Euro will collapse is a matter for debate - trying to predict economic patterns is a little like driving a car using only the rear view mirror - but I think it is fair to say that few people are feeling positive about the situation.
I fail to see how believing your particular opinion is failing to broaden my horizons. If you have something to offer then do what everyone else does if they wish to base their opinion on a degree of credibility and offer some evidence to back it up - then perhaps people might start to believe your viewpoint.
Setting aside the fact that the only thing you have to support your argument is "a bunch of clever people said so" and I have tried to articulate the interaction of the variables involved in order to gain a better understanding of the situation, all of which you have chosen to ignore.
Regardless, how does your post relate to David Cameron poo-pooing the Europeans over a completely unrelated matter to the things he was saying in public?
If you want to disagree with the vast majority of the European elite and predict that the Euro will fail then that's fine, but there's no need to veto something that had nothing to do with Britain whatsoever (other than preventing the break-up of our largest trading partner, small things like that).
edit-Eurozone is weak compared to whom, exactly?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16207748
Joey wrote:
Setting aside the fact that the only thing you have to support your argument is "a bunch of clever people said so" and I have tried to articulate the interaction of the variables involved in order to gain a better understanding of the situation, all of which you have chosen to ignore.
To be honest, I was going to write a refutation to this but seeing as you fail to see the distinction between someone choosing to place more credence in articles written by economists and political scientists and the opinions of random internet guy #23456, I can't really be bothered.
Joey wrote:Setting aside the fact that the only thing you have to support your argument is "a bunch of clever people said so" and I have tried to articulate the interaction of the variables involved in order to gain a better understanding of the situation, all of which you have chosen to ignore.
I'd rather listen to 'a bunch of clever people' who get studied in this field and get paid to analyse it. Is that so strange?
Joey, I seriously sugest ditching this one. I say this as tactfully as possible, without genuinely meaning to cause offence, but you are talking nonsense. That is why nobody here is taking you seriously. Either you're a genius the likes of which we cannot comprehend, or you're probably saying something silly. One of those two possibilities is the case here.
So anyone who doesn't have a degree in economics isn't allowed to express an opinion? You disagree with me, ignoring what I'm saying, and quote someone else?
Sorry if I'm not Keynes, but being an inquiring mind it's nice to be challanged about the ideas that one holds rather than "these really really clever people [who usually aren't that clever by the way] disagree with you, so there".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:
Joey wrote:
Setting aside the fact that the only thing you have to support your argument is "a bunch of clever people said so" and I have tried to articulate the interaction of the variables involved in order to gain a better understanding of the situation, all of which you have chosen to ignore.
To be honest, I was going to write a refutation to this but seeing as you fail to see the distinction between someone choosing to place more credence in articles written by economists and political scientists and the opinions of random internet guy #23456, I can't really be bothered.
We could both have a list of articles in front of us written by clever people. What would that achieve? What would the point be?
By that logic nothing is knowable whatsoever, and no questions should ever be asked except "how can a higher authority answer my question".
I blame google.
Joey wrote:So anyone who doesn't have a degree in economics isn't allowed to express an opinion?
He didn't say that.
Most people here don't have a degree in economics, but the difference is simply that they give a sensible well thought out opinion, and you just say ridiculous gak all the time.
Scrabb wrote:I am simply shocked that a frenchman would say that the UK is in worse shape than france. Just shocked.
Yeah, the cheeky scamp. Time for another good old fashioned war with the French to show them who's boss... not with Hyena Joe though, he's alright.
EDIT - This will have to wait until after the Olympics though as I have just read that we are stationing our largest aircraft carrier in the Thames for security purposes
Joey wrote:So anyone who doesn't have a degree in economics isn't allowed to express an opinion? You disagree with me, ignoring what I'm saying, and quote someone else?
Sorry if I'm not Keynes, but being an inquiring mind it's nice to be challanged about the ideas that one holds rather than "these really really clever people [who usually aren't that clever by the way] disagree with you, so there".
Ok, in that case I'll challange the idea that Cameron vetoed a treaty that had 'nothing to do with Britain whatsoever' (your words). That's simply not true. If Cameron had agreed to it, that would have meant that the UK would have to submit its budget plans to Brussels for prior approval in future. It also would probably have meant the EU-wide imposition of a financial transaction tax - with London being the undisputed financial capital of Europe, we would have been hit disproportionately hard by that. Completely unacceptable, and probably political suicide. If Cameron had signed up to that treaty, you'd be in here crowing about how spineless he was in not standing up for British interests, and that he is totally incompetent in Eur...
Ah.
@notprop - Manufacturing makes up around 12% of our GDP, iirc.
AustonT wrote:It makes up 12% of GDP but I think the argument is that manufacturers are put out of work by increasing automation.
Well, someone's got to make the, uh, 'automatons'. It just so happens that high-end manufacturing is something that the UK does pretty well, thankfully.
I was listenening to the radio the other day when they announced about half of the US automotive plants that have closed since 1978 will reopen, but they will only employ a fraction of the workers.
So with all that high end manufacturing why is my flywheel coverplate such a piece of gak on my mini? Speaking of which...can you get me a flywheel (clutch) coverplate for a late model mpi A+ engine .
Scrabb wrote:I am simply shocked that a frenchman would say that the UK is in worse shape than france. Just shocked.
Yeah, the cheeky scamp. Time for another good old fashioned war with the French to show them who's boss... not with Hyena Joe though, he's alright.
EDIT - This will have to wait until after the Olympics though as I have just read that we are stationing our largest aircraft carrier in the Thames for security purposes
IMHOUK was right not to join the euro. Prices went up quite quickly in Ireland when it came in. There was much talk of it not being worth much. IE E5 = £4(irl) but would not get you £4(irl) worth of goods.
Most British people I've spoken to seemed to have little faith in the euro and I have to agree with them.
The EU generally doesn't like the UK anyway. When I was in Brussles about 4 years ago they were still sniping at the brits in the parliament.
Also I don't thinkg the 'veto' is a veto in the strict sense that it will go ahead without the British.
Also Ireland is buggered worse than a black jew in nazi germany...
you still have Illustrious although I still scratch my head as to why Ark Royal both newer and more recently refitted wasn't retained...
Kilkrazy wrote:HMS Ocean is basically a smaller version of the USS Tarawa class of vessel.
I get tue comparison but Ocean really has more in common with a handy cargo ship than true LHD. Not that there's anything wrong with that but she's constructed to civilian commercial standards. Considering it's not considered a frontline combat ship and it cost 1/4 what the Wasps are there might be a lesson to be learned in the US establishment here.
Phototoxin wrote:IMHOUK was right not to join the euro. Prices went up quite quickly in Ireland when it came in. There was much talk of it not being worth much. IE E5 = £4(irl) but would not get you £4(irl) worth of goods.
Most British people I've spoken to seemed to have little faith in the euro and I have to agree with them.
The EU generally doesn't like the UK anyway. When I was in Brussles about 4 years ago they were still sniping at the brits in the parliament.
Also I don't thinkg the 'veto' is a veto in the strict sense that it will go ahead without the British.
Also Ireland is buggered worse than a black jew in nazi germany...
They don't like us because we've always behaved like fethers.
You can't imagine they wouldn't like us if we were all pally-pally with Sarkozy, handing over £40 billion to the ECB and stuff like that. Handing back our EU subscription rebate, for example.
The point is that we are still too big to ignore, but if we continue to be complete fethers they will eventually give up. I don't know if that would be a good thing or not.
Mr Cable told the BBC the prime minister "got a short-term boost from it, but it doesn't actually deal with the big long-term problems in Europe"...Mr Cable agreed with the suggestion that the use of the British veto had not put the UK's financial sector in a stronger position
Well that's a very nice quote from one man in Government. Shame the Mayor of London doesn't agree, along with other support from Hungary, Czech Republic and Ireland.
Besides it appears My Cameron did the right thing because looky, the Tories are ahead in the polls, meaing quite a few people agree with what he did and not considering him as "utterly imcompitent".
Juvieus Kaine wrote:Well that's a very nice quote from one man in Government. Shame the Mayor of London doesn't agree, along with other support from Hungary, Czech Republic and Ireland.
The mayor of London is a right-winger who quite probably has designs on being Prime Minister himself.
Besides it appears My Cameron did the right thing because looky, the Tories are ahead in the polls, meaing quite a few people agree with what he did and not considering him as "utterly imcompitent".
Yes, the British public are fanatically anti-Europe. Point? Have you ever actually spoken to the British public? It's a wonder democracy works at all.
Lol, democracy doesn't work (in short - it's very difficultimpossible to deliver a programme of effective policies where the benefits can seen before the angry voters have kicked you out - plus most politicians are bastards out for their own personal short term gain), it's just better than an dictatorship.
Juvieus Kaine wrote:Well that's a very nice quote from one man in Government. Shame the Mayor of London doesn't agree, along with other support from Hungary, Czech Republic and Ireland.
The mayor of London is a right-winger who quite probably has designs on being Prime Minister himself.
Vince Cable is a Lib-Dem europhile with a history of speaking out of turn in order to accumulate political capital for himself, even if it negatively affects the government of which he is a member. That Cable is is attempting to attract favourable headlines by briefing against his coalition partners does not mean that what Cameron did was wrong.
Juvieus Kaine wrote:Well that's a very nice quote from one man in Government. Shame the Mayor of London doesn't agree, along with other support from Hungary, Czech Republic and Ireland.
The mayor of London is a right-winger who quite probably has designs on being Prime Minister himself.
Vince Cable is a Lib-Dem europhile with a history of speaking out of turn in order to accumulate political capital for himself, even if it negatively affects the government of which he is a member. That Cable is is attempting to attract favourable headlines by briefing against his coalition partners does not mean that what Cameron did was wrong.
Nor really does it mean Joey is right since I'd rather take the word of Boris Johnson than Vince Cable. See, personal opinions.
Unfortunately Joey you have an opinion that conflicts with others, which is why arguing on the Internet never works. I respect your opinion but I disagree with it, as do others here. I think what caused more upset was saying Mr Cameron was incompitent, because really a lot of the public think he did the right thing. On the face of things, the Euro is a dead weight in the mury waters of economy; it'll go when people let it go. And sadly politicians and bankers won't let it go because there isn't an alternative currency in place. And yes I reocgnise doing such a thing is both time-costing and incredibly expensive, not to mention very frustrating, but I really can't see a way to save the Euro.
Speaking of which, it was revealed the other day that the European Banks wanted the UK to pay out 30 billion (I think) euros to prop up the Euro and help bail out other countries. This is 20 billion more than the budget set out by the government, which is 40 billion total. 30 billion has already been paid out and Europe wants 30 billion more. Somehow I think avoiding that was a wise move.
Joey wrote:The idea that our system is "democratic" is absurd. A handful of very wealthy people decided that David Cameron should be prime minister, and it was so. Elections do not equate to freedom and liberty, they just enthrall leaders to the whims of the hoi polloi.
After reading through this thread, I've decided that there is no point in me adding anything as most of it has been said.
However! I shall add that the term "hoi polloi" actually means the commoners ("The Majority" in Greek) and NOT the Upper Class or wealthy.
Now, despite only being 16, I have made this thread a better, more correct place. Vote Iranna for PM!
Joey wrote:The idea that our system is "democratic" is absurd. A handful of very wealthy people decided that David Cameron should be prime minister, and it was so. Elections do not equate to freedom and liberty, they just enthrall leaders to the whims of the hoi polloi.
After reading through this thread, I've decided that there is no point in me adding anything as most of it has been said.
However! I shall add that the term "hoi polloi" actually means the commoners ("The Majority" in Greek) and NOT the Upper Class or wealthy.
Now, despite only being 16, I have made this thread a better, more correct place. Vote Iranna for PM!
That is nice, and thanks for waiting two weeks to respond btw, but your point isn't in disagreement with Joey's point, and actually reinforces it. The point being that Elections are essentially just shows for the masses.
That is nice, and thanks for waiting two weeks to respond btw, but your point isn't in disagreement with Joey's point, and actually reinforces it. The point being that Elections are essentially just shows for the masses.
You're welcome, I do try you know.
I never said I was taking sides, I just thought I'd define the term for any viewers or posters who didn't know what the phrase meant!
Love it!
Which wouldn't surprise me either since I don't think that little niggle from what sparked WW1 ever left after WW2 
) to pla reintroducing their previous currencies because once the Euro goes, there goes your economy.
