Blimey

[Tangled up in Blue]

Fast lane to what though???

The EU's response to the financial crisis and the emerging economies has been to retreat towards protectionism and a total failure to fix their monetary union. The UK remains a global trading centre and one of the most internationally focused countries in the EU whilst the Eurozone is currently on the path to ruin and causing another global recession.

How exactly does the UK opting out of a new Treaty on fiscal issues and financial regulation cost jobs in the UK? That's what I don't understand at all.

There seem to be a large group of people who think that the UK should just go along with everything the EU says because then we "maintain our influence." Glossing over the fact that a party who always complies has no negotiating power, I simply want to know is there anything the EU could propose that the "influence crowd" wouldn't sign up for?

I agree about the "retreat towards protectionism" that you mention and look forward -as a convinced Keynesian-to a plan for growth to be announced in short order.As I understand it,the Franco/German position is, that this can only be embarked on, once the Euro problem is solved first.Presumably the other EU countries-whether inside the Eurozone or not-(and certainly Spain)think it's worth hanging on for the ride.

 

[Holy Joe]

I would expect to see the City's influence gradually decline if eg in the future Eurobonds can only be traded among Eurozone countries..

This is one of the key reasons why Cameron didn't agree with France and Germany - France and Germany would not compromise on this issue - so the decline of the city will possibly happen regardless of lack of agreement. I also doubt in the immediate future we will see 26 (or 25) countries in the fast lane in terms of economic growth.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Thank God for that!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-at-camerons-spectacular-failure-6275512.html
A slight difference in tone to what was being published yesterday.

 

[Neil_F]

A slight difference in tone to what was being published yesterday.

A change of tone? A full U-turn I think. On Friday Clegg gave interviews blaiming the French but supporting Cameron, now he's turned on him as well.

He's clearly been forced into it by his party, so it is a bit rich for him to accuse Cameron of giving in to his right wing.

I don't understand their position at all. Are the Lib Dems saying that they would have accepted a Treaty without any concessions? This would have triggered a referendem in the UK as it involved a transfer of power, and it clearly would have been lost. Clegg then says that Cameron didn't negotiate properly but then claims France weren't prepared to negotiate. What do these people want?????

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

A change of tone? A full U-turn I think. On Friday Clegg gave interviews blaiming the French but supporting Cameron, now he's turned on him as well.

He's clearly been forced into it by his party, so it is a bit rich for him to accuse Cameron of giving in to his right wing.

I don't understand their position at all. Are the Lib Dems saying that they would have accepted a Treaty without any concessions? This would have triggered a referendem in the UK as it involved a transfer of power, and it clearly would have been lost. Clegg then says that Cameron didn't negotiate properly but then claims France weren't prepared to negotiate. What do these people want?????

The coalition agreement that the Lib-Dems signed up to, states clearly that the UK will stay in the heart of Europe.That situation has now changed.
Interesting to see commentators like Will Hutton saying this morning(in The Observer)that there is now no chance that the coalition will last until 2015.Make no mistake Cameron's veto last week was a game changer.I wouldn't even rule out that EU referendum that the Tory right so desperately want, either.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

This is one of the key reasons why Cameron didn't agree with France and Germany - France and Germany would not compromise on this issue - so the decline of the city will possibly happen regardless of lack of agreement. I also doubt in the immediate future we will see 26 (or 25) countries in the fast lane in terms of economic growth.

As I understand it,Cameron could still have signed up to the compact and prevented a FTT being imposed on the city(if necessary at a later stage in the negociations).As it is, he's walked away with nothing and certainly won't be able to prevent a FTT being imposed on Eurozone countries in March.
The image of 26 countries in the "fast lane in terms of economic growth" was a metaphor to illustrate Britain's not so splendid isolation and was not meant to be taken seriously,as such.

 

[canveyshrimper]

The coalition agreement that the Lib-Dems signed up to, states clearly that the UK will stay in the heart of Europe.That situation has now changed.
Interesting to see commentators like Will Hutton saying this morning(in The Observer)that there is now no chance that the coalition will last until 2015.Make no mistake Cameron's veto last week was a game changer.I wouldn't even rule out that EU referendum that the Tory right so desperately want, either.

Three questions.
Is this deal a new treaty or not? Our Europhile BBC is stating it is on many of the bulletins I've seen? If it is it has to go to a referndum in some of the Eurozone countries, and if so the treaty won't become enshrined in law until all countries have agreed.

I doubt if it's the Tory right that want to seea referndum, there's plenty on the left that either want out or at worst want a referendum, and I think that the public in general want one, we've moved a long way since 1975. What's wrong in putting a referndum to the British people? We should have one after Lisbon but as ever Brown bottled it.

Thirdly what do you make of the rumour that Germany are printing Deutschmarks in preparation for the collapse of the Euro?

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

A change of tone? A full U-turn I think. On Friday Clegg gave interviews blaiming the French but supporting Cameron, now he's turned on him as well.

He's clearly been forced into it by his party, so it is a bit rich for him to accuse Cameron of giving in to his right wing.

I don't understand their position at all. Are the Lib Dems saying that they would have accepted a Treaty without any concessions? This would have triggered a referendem in the UK as it involved a transfer of power, and it clearly would have been lost. Clegg then says that Cameron didn't negotiate properly but then claims France weren't prepared to negotiate. What do these people want?????

I think that this really highlights the problem of being a minor partner in a coalition where you attempt to apply a moderating influence and yet sometimes find yourself in the unpalatable situation of having no influence at all. At the worst it seems to display a bit naîvety on Clegg's part, one would have thought that he would have learnt from the Electoral Reform fiasco, where he was stitched up by Cameron. As always there is a complexity to these things that are not fully understood. Apparently, Cameron and Clegg agreed a negotiating position prior to the summit, the claimed difference between the two would now seem to be that negotiation was negotiation and not a take it or leave it approach, followed by Cameron. From what I understand, Clegg would have prefered delay to total breakdown and I think a seperate veto on Financial Regulation, one of the main stumbling blocks for Cameron, could have been considered. It is true that France and Germany weren't exactly very accomodating to the UK government's position. Yet Cameron and his party haven't exactly gone out of the way to ingratiate themselves with European leaders of the same political hue in France and Germany. I would cite:-
1) Cameron's promise to move Tory MEP's out of the main centre right group in exchange for support in his 2005 leadership
campaign.
2) Osborne's cretinous joke about Sarkozy's height.
3) The sabre rattling from the Eurosceptics in his own party.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Three questions.Is this deal a new treaty or not? Our Europhile BBC is stating it is on many of the bulletins I've seen? If it is it has to go to a referndum in some of the Eurozone countries, and if so the treaty won't become enshrined in law until all countries have agreed.
I doubt if it's the Tory right that want to seea referndum, there's plenty on the left that either want out or at worst want a referendum, and I think that the public in general want one, we've moved a long way since 1975. What's wrong in putting a referndum to the British people? We should have one after Lisbon but as ever Brown bottled it.
Thirdly what do you make of the rumour that Germany are printing Deutschmarks in preparation for the collapse of the Euro?I d

1)No,as I've said before it wasn't a treaty it was a "compact,"apparently.Therefore,no referendums are necessary,as there hasn't been any treaty change as such..

2)I'm sure you'll remember that the 70's referendum was supposed to be a once in a lifetime affair.(Incidentally I voted no back then but have changed my mind since,mainly because of my positive experience of living in mainland Europe).In the present climate the relationship between UK and our European partners will inevitably worsen-hardly the best circumstances for a referendum on our European future.IMO,we're paying the price for a (mostly)Tory and right wing tabloid press.which have had an anti-European agenda for nearly 40 years now.

3)I haven't heard anything about this rumour but then again I don't read the Tory press.:winking:

"When you wake up to the fact that your paper is Tory,
Remember,there are two sides to every story."
Billy Bragg.It says here.

[video=youtube_share;BKDWQ9awP5M]http://youtu.be/BKDWQ9awP5M[/video]

 

[canveyshrimper]

1)No,as I've said before it wasn't a treaty it was a "compact,"apparently.Therefore,no referendums are necessary,as there hasn't been any treaty change as such..

2)I'm sure you'll remember that the 70's referendum was supposed to be a once in a lifetime affair.(Incidentally I voted no back then but have changed my mind since,mainly because of my positive experience of living in mainland Europe).In the present climate the relationship between UK and our European partners will inevitably worsen-hardly the best circumstances for a referendum on our European future.IMO,we're paying the price for a (mostly)Tory and right wing tabloid press.which have had an anti-European agenda for nearly 40 years now.

3)I haven't heard anything about this rumour but then again I don't read the Tory press.:winking:

"When you wake up to the fact that your paper is Tory,
Remember,there are two sides to every story."
Billy Bragg.It says here.

]

1. It's the "august" voice of the BBC stating it's a new treaty.

2. It's strange how many of the left have changed their views ovf the EU over the years. People like Kinnock vehemently opposed, yet somewhere along the road he has had a Damascene conversion, pretty much all the old school Labour such as Wilson, Callaghan & Healey were generally opposed.

3. The Deutschmark rumour was again on the BBC hardly a bastion of the right wing.

I've read a lot of comments in todays papers left & right and in generaly most say thatCameron was probably right in using the veto.

Personally I don't want us to leave the EU but Norway & Switzerland operate well enough outside of it, and despite the prophets of doom we do trade well enough with therest of the world.

 

[osymandus]

They should have enough by now they've been printing them since may 2010 ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...e-meltdown-heaps-misery-on-Angela-Merkel.html .

As a few things other then finical services have been missed , there has been discussion on our industrial and engineering from the industry saying this could well be disaster for them as if the Euro is sorted and the rest of Europe pull together then engineering manufacture will not be viable from the UK. As mentioned in the Independant the Obama administration is not happy due to the impact a defaulting Euro-zone , and as Radio 4 was saying a Oxford Law professor of EU law was stating this is virgin terrirtory for any legal implications , it simply has no precedent .
Also as pointed out by David Dimbleby on Any Question on Saturday any country at any-time could refuse to accept the tax on financial transactions anyway (its part of the agreement).

 

[osymandus]

Personally I don't want us to leave the EU but Norway & Switzerland operate well enough outside of it, and despite the prophets of doom we do trade well enough with therest of the world.

We cant be like Switzerland they are the worlds bankers , have been for centuries . So we compare them to two countries we have some hope of being like . Sweden and Norway.
Two things to remember about Sweden and Norway .
Sweden Population est 9 Million
Norway est 5 Million

Sweden has a caped property market your wealth is not judged or based solely or comes from property .
Norway invested all its oil and gas .
Neither have wasted money on pointless wars .

 

[canveyshrimper]

Two things to remember about Sweden and Norway .
Sweden Population est 9 Million
Norway est 5 Million

Sweden has a caped property market your wealth is not judged or based solely or comes from property .
Norway invested all its oil and gas .
Neither have wasted money on pointless wars .

Sweden? :nope:

 

[osymandus]

Sweden? :nope:

Yes comparing us to Switzerland is ridiculous , Sweden and Norway are both outside of the Euro and have the free trade we want . It would be impossible to be like Switzerland so I was using two countries that make some sense .

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

1. It's the "august" voice of the BBC stating it's a new treaty.

I agree and it's just plain wrong.It was a "fiscal pact" according to the BBC's own website.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/


2.

It's strange how many of the left have changed their views ovf the EU over the years. People like Kinnock vehemently opposed, yet somewhere along the road he has had a Damascene conversion, pretty much all the old school Labour such as Wilson, Callaghan & Healey were generally opposed.

I've explained my own personal reasons for changing my mind.There are certain unreconstructed elements of the Left that have never changed in their opposition to Europe(Dennis Skinner springs to mind).I was a Politics student in Birmingham at the time of the referendum and saw a lot of people from the left eg Kinnock,Foot and Benn speak for the no camp along with Enoch Powell(not on the same platform)from the right.

3.

The Deutschmark rumour was again on the BBC hardly a bastion of the right wing

.
I don't disbelieve you but I've just watched the BBC news and haven't heard any reference to this.
.

I've read a lot of comments in todays papers left & right and in generaly most say thatCameron was probably right in using the veto.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.Politicians are supposed to lead,not follow public opinion.

Personally I don't want us to leave the EU but Norway & Switzerland operate well enough outside of it, and despite the prophets of doom we do trade well enough with therest of the world

.

I don't think the Norway or Switzerland examples are relevant to the UK(for reasons I've already mentioned).I hope you're right about our trading prospects if we leave the EU but I seriously doubt it.Remember that just over 50% of our current exports go to EU countries(and this percentage is increasing).Incidentally,of that figure 40% is to Eurozone countries.What new markets would we turn to outside Europe?

 

[canveyshrimper]

Yes comparing us to Switzerland is ridiculous , Sweden and Norway are both outside of the Euro and have the free trade we want . It would be impossible to be like Switzerland so I was using two countries that make some sense .

Yes Norway are so far out of the Eurozone that they aren't even in the EU, which was the point of my post saying that both countries operate well enough without the "benefits" of the EU.

What is your understanding of free trade?

 

[canveyshrimper]

I don't think the Norway or Switzerland examples are relevant to the UK(for reasons I've already mentioned).I hope you're right about our trading prospects if we leave the EU but I seriously doubt it.Remember that just over 50% of our current exports go to EU countries(and this percentage is increasing).Incidentally,of that figure 40% is to Eurozone countries.What new markets would we turn to outside Europe?

I disagree about politicians following public opinion, after all that's how Blair changed Labour. However politicians should listen to their constituents, after all they elect them. I think Norway & Switzerland are relevant, Norway in particular as their people opted out of joining the EU.

We have plenty of markets outside of the EU, primarily the Arabian Gulf countries, and also the USA & China. There's also many of the FSU countries opening up and there are plenty of Oil & Gas projects in the offing which will (hopefully) be beneficial to UK companies.

 

[osymandus]

Yes Norway are so far out of the Eurozone that they aren't even in the EU, which was the point of my post saying that both countries operate well enough without the "benefits" of the EU.

What is your understanding of free trade?

Aside from knowing they have free trade agreements due to knowing some Norwegians involved in international business . Their trade agreements arnt that different from being in the EU , they just kept all the pluses and not having to accept things they didn't want to be forced with :P . But they will be the first to say they need the rest of Europe for commerce and trade . They do not go it alone and enjoy far lower tax then trading with the rest of the world.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Aside from knowing they have free trade agreements due to knowing some Norwegians involved in international business . Their trade agreements arnt that different from being in the EU , they just kept all the pluses and not having to accept things they didn't want to be forced with :P . But they will be the first to say they need the rest of Europe for commerce and trade . They do not go it alone and enjoy far lower tax then trading with the rest of the world.

Sounds like you've made a good case for the UK to be outside of the EU with Norway.
The benefit of the single market is that there are no trade barriers, all freight moves free of duty & vat or other possible taxes and therefore does not have to clear customs at border checks.

If you are intimating that Norway pay lower levels of duty then you are wrong, duties for cargo are set in International Tariffs and most countries are signed up, however there are variances and of course vat or gst are set by the individual country.

 

[osymandus]

Sounds like you've made a good case for the UK to be outside of the EU with Norway.
The benefit of the single market is that there are no trade barriers, all freight moves free of duty & vat or other possible taxes and therefore does not have to clear customs at border checks.

If you are intimating that Norway pay lower levels of duty then you are wrong, duties for cargo are set in International Tariffs and most countries are signed up, however there are variances and of course vat or gst are set by the individual country.

Im not and as they have started to help fund the EU it goes for more then just a levy on tax . The thing your all missing is this . Norway still have a lot of money ... and they didn't just **** off their best customers .