Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2011/12/12 04:10:46
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
2011/12/12 04:13:42
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/12 04:16:11
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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?
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
2011/12/12 04:34:02
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/12 04:59:03
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
2011/12/12 05:15:17
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
2011/12/12 05:23:25
Subject: Re:David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2011/12/12 05:39:27
Subject: Re:David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
2011/12/12 05:40:56
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2011/12/12 06:16:41
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/12/12 06:20:35
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/12 08:05:14
Subject: Re:David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/12/12 08:59:26
"That's not an Ork, its a girl.." - Last words of High General Daran Ul'tharem, battle of Ursha VII.
Two White Horses (Ipswich Town and Denver Broncos Supporter)
2011/12/12 09:59:26
Subject: Re:David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/12/12 10:00:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2011/12/12 10:05:54
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
www.wulfstandesign.co.uk
http://www.voodoovegas.com/
2011/12/12 10:11:12
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
www.wulfstandesign.co.uk
http://www.voodoovegas.com/
2011/12/12 10:59:18
Subject: Re:David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/12/12 13:21:53
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/12/12 13:24:53
We love what we love. Reason does not enter into it. In many ways, unwise love is the truest love. Anyone can love a thing because. That's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.
Chaos Knights: 2000 PTS
Thousand Sons: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Tyranids: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Mechanicus: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Custodes: 2000 PTS - In Progress
2011/12/12 13:22:06
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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?
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/12/12 13:33:07
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
2011/12/12 13:44:07
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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?
Wait what happened Tuesday and Thursday.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2011/12/12 13:47:11
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
Er.. On Tuesday he lost an arm wrestle against his wife, and on Thursday he threw a Jewish lady down three flights of stairs.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/12/12 13:51:49
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
We love what we love. Reason does not enter into it. In many ways, unwise love is the truest love. Anyone can love a thing because. That's as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.
Chaos Knights: 2000 PTS
Thousand Sons: 2000 PTS - In Progress
Tyranids: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Mechanicus: 2000 PTS
Adeptus Custodes: 2000 PTS - In Progress
2011/12/12 13:52:09
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2011/12/12 14:35:09
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
2011/12/12 15:06:07
Subject: David Cameron is utterly incompetent in Europe
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/12/12 15:08:17
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Love it!
