[Closed] Cameron kicks EU in the nuts - right decision?

Denmark haven't accepted and it would be taken to parliament before accepting.

No mention of this in the UK news I've read

Last night most of Europe's governments gave up a chunk of their sovereignty. In the future, tax and spending plans will be shown to European officials before national governments.

Lovely use of pejorative language. How about "pooled" or shared"

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

It's interesting to note that anyone anti or sceptical about Europe is immediately branded a "xenophobe". Almost a tacit cry of "RACIST!" isn't it?

Indeed! Its akin to shouting troll when you have nothing to say.

Xenophobia - an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange

My point wasn't related to the Germany/WWII issue, by the way. More of a general one.

This isn't an Essex swingers party with sovereignty thrown into the ash tray, you either have the right to set your own tax and spending priorities or you don't.

from the same blog

For the UK this marks a fundamental change in its relationship with Europe. Never has the UK been so on the margins.

deregulation of the banks was gordons big failure according to the right wingers (tm) at the time of the crash

now cameron has jeopardised our position in europe to protect that deregulation hes a hero?

Lovely use of pejorative language. How about "pooled" or shared"

Why would anyone need to "share" budget/taxation details with unelected EU officials ahead of a national government ?

It's Merkel's intransigence that's causing the problems at the moment, not Cameron's.

This. Has anybody actually read what they're agreeing to. If you don't get your finances in order you get penalised. So those countries who can't get their finances in order (because they're constrained by the straitjacket of a single currency without any of the normal central things a currency has to support itself) get hit with a double whammy. All because Merkel doesn't has short arms and deep pockets and doesn't want to make the tough decisions to sort out the currency which has been so beneficial to her country (and would rather get somebody else to pay to support the German economy).

I don't know why people don't just come out and say exactly what everyone is thinking and tell Germany that they should pay as they owe the rest of Europe a few favours!

Maybe I don't instinctively see everything as racist/xenophobic, but I assumed this was referring to how well Germany have done out of the single currency rather than something much longer ago.

Lovely use of pejorative language. How about "pooled" or shared"

In the context "pooled" or "shared" are weasel words. They imply that you can choose to un-share.

i am sure that is what they will say now but Germany has been doing ok for some time now

To balance some of the emotive opinions expressed on this subject, here's the facts of the agreement summary signed by the 23 countries:

Here's the source (bbc.co.uk)
"0920: To read about what exactly the eurozone leaders have agreed, see this statement from the summit last night."

In the context "pooled" or "shared" are weasel words. They imply that you can choose to un-share.

Exactly right....and those are Gavin Hewitts words. Never mind about answering an uncomfortable question TJ.

100!

what uncomfortable question?

Pissing in Merkels and sarkozys shoes is not doing us any good

Just don't say anything about "owning with bombers" 🙂

Even the [url= http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/12/britain-and-eu-summit?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/parted ]Economist[/url] is sceptical about how the potential consequences might benefit the UK:

After much studied vagueness on his part about Britain's objectives, Mr Cameron's demand came down to a protocol that would ensure Britain would be given a veto on financial-services regulation (see PDF copy here). The British government has become convinced that the European Commission, usually a bastion of liberalism in Europe, has been issuing regulations hostile to the City of London under the influence of its French single-market commissioner, Michel Barnier. And yet strangely, given the accusation that Brussels was taking aim at the heart of the British economy, almost all of the new rules issued so far have been passed with British approval (albeit after much bitter backroom fighting). Tactically, too, it seemed odd to make a stand in defence of the financiers that politicians, both in Britain and across the rest of European, prefer to denounce.

Mr Cameron said he is “relaxed” about the separation. The EU has always been about multiple speeds; he was glad Britain had stayed out of the euro and out of the passport-free Schengen area. He said that life in the EU, particularly the single market, will continue as normal. “We wish them well as we want the euro zone to sort out its problems, to achieve stability and growth that all of Europe needs.” The drawn faces of senior officials seemed to say otherwise.

The 23 members of the new pact, if they act as a block, can outvote Britain. They are divided among themselves, of course. But their habit of working together and cutting deals will, inevitably, begin to weigh against Britain over time.

Mr Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, have given notice of their desire for the euro zone to act in all the domains that would normally be the remit of all 27 members—for example, labour-market regulations and the corporate-tax base.

Britain may assume it will benefit from extra business for the City, should the euro zone ever pass a financial-transaction tax. But what if the new club starts imposing financial regulations among the 17 euro-zone members, or the 23 members of the euro-plus pact? That could begin to force euro-denominated transactions into the euro zone, say Paris or Frankfurt. Britain would, surely, have had more influence had the countries of the euro zone remained under an EU-wide system.

So what's the problem with Europe deciding upon our fiscal and social policy? Anyone?

I'm not looking to start an arguement, but I don't fully understand the opposition to a federal Europe.

So what's the problem with Europe deciding upon our fiscal and social policy?

That's the job of our democratically elected government.

That's the job of our democratically elected government

But we do also vote for our MEPs don't we?

what's the problem with Europe deciding upon our fiscal and social policy

Nothing, provided we have collectively decided in a democratic way that this is what the country wants. There is, however, plenty wrong with this being imposed on us by the EU in order to prop up a flawed implementation of a currency.

The 23 members of the new pact, if they act as a block, can outvote Britain. They are divided among themselves, of course. But their habit of working together and cutting deals will, inevitably, begin to weigh against Britain over time.

That's pretty disingenuous. The 17 members of the Eurozone could also if they acted as a block outvote Britain. Or indeed any other group of countries with a common interest. Either it happens already, or consensus amongst a disparate group of countries (all looking out for their own personal interests - yes I'm talking about you Angela and Nicolas) isn't about to break out now.

Hey if you want to form a fully federal United States of Europe go campaign for that. I look forward to that election result.

PJM

One of the critical issues is do you see it as giving up sovereignty or sharing it.

Its a philosophical position. Glass half full or empty sort of thing

"Last night most of Europe's governments gave up a chunk of their sovereignty. In the future, tax and spending plans will be shown to European officials before national governments."

Does anyone on here actually want this for Britain? Anyone?

TJ - this question.

There is, however, plenty wrong with this being imposed on us by the EU in order to prop up a flawed implementation of a currency.

...in lieu of making the difficult decisions and actually doing something meaningful which would solve the problem (but would involve Germany breaking open its piggy bank).

Do those that support the decision really think this means we have more sovereignty over tax and spending plans?

This whole crisis should show that states have virtually no sovereignty of their own economically. Countries under speculative attack, unaccountable debt rating agencies (who if you remember were one of the main causes of the crisis in the first place) with the power to change credit ratings at a whim meaning those that want to keep a particular rating have to operate within a very narrow economic policy, democratically elected governments getting replaced by unelected technocrats, hundreds of billions of £/$/€ worth of stimulus packages disappearing into black holes rather than being directed to the 'real' economy.

What remains of sovereignty? You are looking at only being able to do things at the margins when radical reforms are needed, but they are going to be almost impossible to carry through in the current political and economic model.

One of the critical issues is do you see it as giving up sovereignty or sharing it.

Do you see independence as gaining sovereignty, or stopping sharing it?

That's the job of our democratically elected government.

This is the great tradition of listening to the people we need to protect

For balance Blair and iraq etc
IMHO we are only arguing over where we should be ignored from

mcboo

Thats a very biased and pejorative interpretation of what might happen

so the only answer to that is to say its a nonsensical question designed to elicit a particular answer thus there is no real answer

This whole crisis should show that states have virtually no sovereignty of their own economically.

Maybe for Eurozone countries - one of the big causes of this particular crisis is that they weren't on a tight enough reign. I don't see any particular reason why the UK needs to be on as tight a reign when we have our own currency, so are in a position to make independent economic decisions.

unaccountable debt rating agencies (who if you remember were one of the main causes of the crisis in the first place)

Whilst you're rewriting history, could you just go back to 1939 and get rid of all the uncomfortable stuff about Czechoslovakia and Poland. We wouldn't want to upset those fragile Germans.

so the only answer to that is to say its a nonsensical question designed to elicit a particular answer thus there is no real answer

How about my question then?

Yours - the same answer applies - I have no idea what yo are actually refereing to -what entity.

TandemJeremy - Member
mcboo

Thats a very biased and pejorative interpretation of what might happen

so the only answer to that is to say its a nonsensical question designed to elicit a particular answer thus there is no real answer

Still practicing to be a politician then TJ.

What I find incomprehensible is any of the later-entrant Eastern European countries agreeing to all this. As this, as Slovenia has already pointed out, amounts to poorer eastern countries subsidising the lifestyles of Greeks and Italians. - Who have enjoyed far better standards of living than them

I wouldn't be reet happy about that. In fact I can't see how they're getting that one past their electorates! Or in true European fashion, are we dispensing with democracy (again!) when there's the chance it might deliver the 'wrong' result?

Oh come on TJ. Are you really telling me you haven't read all of these threads this morning? I'm not the first to refer to this issue. What does the word "independence" bring to mind, and where would you be most likely to use it?

binners - I may have missed something, but your posting seems very bipolar this morning. One minute I find myself agreeing with you, the next totally disagreeing. Or are you just more complex than the rest of us? FWIW your latest is one I agree with.

Aracer - yoy will have to spell it out because no matter if you are referring to Scotland, Uk or EU your question makes no sense.

aracer - my tiny mind is barely able to handle the complexities of the issue, to be honest. Hence the contradictory position.

When you get into it, its clear to see why the politicians are faffing. Every decision seems to have a knock-on effect that delivers a completely contradictory outcome. But you don't realise it until you vocalise (or type) it.

I'm buggered if I can come up with any answers

aracer
Why would a polarised opinion be better than thinking about different issues and possibilities with an open mind?

LHS - Member
The Euro is already finished, its not a matter of if but when.

I heard a good quote not long ago on Radio 4 along the lines of

The UK is as isolated as somebody who refused to join the Titanic just before it sailed.

Given the potentially cataclysmic impact for the UK of Eurozone banks or worse a country defaulting, that quote, while punchy, misses the point. Cameron's veto last night leaves the UK as a third class Titanic passenger below decks while everyone else is on the bridge. Don't forget, in this case, we really are all in it together.

More importantly, I've got Euro 1000 sat in a drawer, should I change it back to sterling before it's worthless?? 😯

Yes you should. However, the timescale over which it will become worthless could be a year, or a few centuries. If it becomes worthless in a shorter timescale you'll likely have bigger issues... like finding a wheel barrow to keep all your leaves in.

As with most things though this is not a simple argument. To say that CMD is pandering to his city pals and that's the only reason for the decision taken last night is surely political thinking of the primary school playground. Looking at the bigger picture I am fairly sure that the main thing he is probably standing against is to avoid us being leaned on to provide greater revenue to the EU to sort out the mess they are in. Germany are putting pressure on anyone who looks like they may have some money to avoid having to prop up the Eurozone by themselves. And CMD doesn't want to do that. And why should we? We are already one of the biggest net contributors to the Eurozone. Why should we stump up more? Where would the money come from? Where would it be going and what guarantees would we have of it coming back? Do we want to have a voice and influence in Europe? Of course we do. Do we want it at the cost of losing control and sovereignty over how we deem it best to manage our own economy to a group of people who will be looking at those decisions on the basis of at is best for them and not what is best for us? No way. Difficult enough to trust our politicians to make the right decisions for this country by themselves without introducing a more remote and disinclined group of people. Why would we want to do that??

Cameron is just protecting his mates in the city. Funny really that the 2 countries that have had to bail out their banks the most, US and UK are the ones that are dragging their heals so much when it comes to financial regulation. Not really surprising that both governments are largely made up of ex bankers or have very close links to financial institutions.

Personally I think we should get on a be in the middle of europe and fight for what we want like what the French and Germans do. We should be taking a leaf out of what the Germans do as I read recently that they have the lowest unemployment levels for something like the last 20 years and their economy is booming, hence why they are bailing everyone else out. David Cameron should be getting as many advisor and minister on the plane to Berlin to find out what they are doing it and how they are doing so well.

Christ if we came out of europe we would be stuffed as a country and the government would never do all those little things that make life so much better and safer. Can you really see the government ever bringing in laws to ban light bulbs, regulate the hours you can work, investigate anticompetitive behaviour of Apple and Microsoft, bring in laws to reduce the price of cross network mobile phone calls. The EU is not perfect and costs us a hell of a lot of money but they certainly stick up for the consumer and citizen unlike the government that plays the fiddle to bankers, business and their chums. I say this about all politicians not just the conservatives, Labour were just a as bad, just look at all their arse kissing to Maxwell.

Its just one big game for politicians n this country they come from the "political class" and all they are really bothered about is getting and staying in power. They are not really that bothered about improving the the country. If they were they would take the hard decisions that might not be popular but that would be in the best for the long term. e,g. winter fuel allowance, nearly everyone says it should be means tested as billions is wasted on giving it to people that do not need it, but they won't reform it because they are scared on the grey vote. Well if they really cared more about the country they would reform it, save money and spend it on the poor sods that really do need the cash.

Sorry about the rant, feel better now.

As I work around EMEA, I was all for joining the Euro and signing up for Schengen. As a card carrying lefty I wouldn't wee on a Tory were he on fire.

But I can't help but think 'our friend' Dave had little choice.

Not sure why we should get a seat at the table anyway, being as we aren't playing the game. It may be important and effect us, but if we aren't signed up the best we can hope for is to shout from the sidelines anyway - it's not like any other country will put our interests above their own?

Is there a possibility that being 'out' will mean more revenue will flow our way from the countries that are in?

My brain is too tiny to take it all in :-/

Biking catastrophe - don't forget the influence of the eurosceptics.

Cameron is only leader of the tories because he made promises to them, he removed the tories from the EPP grouping at their behest, they have the power to topple him.

All the decisions he takes in Europe have to be seen in the light of that.

He is acting to prevent the tory eurosceptics from removing him as PM.