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.

Biking catastrophe – don’t forget the influence of the eurosceptics.

Sure TJ. That probably plays a part too. But it is not the only reason for his decision. And not even the biggest reason either.

And no, I disagre that all decisions he makes should be seen in the light of his “promises” to the eurosceptics. Please tell me you really don’t believe that?

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

I’m not suggesting it is. I was just intrigued by the different opinions binners was expressing on this. It’s not the STW way!

your question makes no sense.

You’re so right, TJ

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

makes so much less sense than:

do you see it as giving up sovereignty or sharing it.

🙄

Can’t remember who said it yesterday but they described what the Euro politicians are doing as “saving the cancer and letting the patient die”.

For most of the history of the Euro project the use of scare tactics has been the principle weapon for ensuring our participation. History has shown this to be a nonsense.

Today, there is the usual clap trap of a two-speed Europe. Unfortunately, they are confusing which one will be the fast track and which one will be the slow one.

The new treaty at best buys time for the Euro but it fails to address the fundamental problem at its core. To quote Martin Wolf in the FT:

The German faith is that fiscal malfeasance is the origin of the crisis. It has good reason to believe this. If it accepted the truth, it would have to admit that it played a large part in the unhappy outcome.Take a look at the average fiscal deficits of 12 significant (or at least revealing) eurozone members from 1999 to 2007, inclusive. Every country, except Greece, fell below the famous 3 per cent of gross domestic product limit. Focusing on this criterion would have missed all today’s crisis-hit members, except Greece. Moreover, the four worst exemplars, after Greece, were Italy and then France, Germany and Austria. Meanwhile, Ireland, Estonia, Spain and Belgium had good performances over these years. After the crisis, the picture changed, with huge (and unexpected) deteriorations in the fiscal positions of Ireland, Portugal and Spain (though not Italy). In all, however, fiscal deficits were useless as indicators of looming crises (see charts).

Now consider public debt. Relying on that criterion would have picked up Greece, Italy, Belgium and Portugal. But Estonia, Ireland and Spain had vastly better public debt positions than Germany. Indeed, on the basis of its deficit and debt performance, pre-crisis Germany even looked vulnerable. Again, after the crisis, the picture transformed swiftly. Ireland’s story is amazing: in just five years it will suffer a 93 percentage point jump in the ratio of its net public debt to GDP.

Now consider average current account deficits over 1999-2007. On this measure, the most vulnerable countries were Estonia, Portugal, Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy. So we have a useful indicator, at last. This, then, is a balance of payments crisis. In 2008, private financing of external imbalances suffered “sudden stops”: private credit was cut off. Ever since, official sources have been engaged as financiers. The European System of Central Banks has played a huge role as lender of last resort to the banks, as Hans-Werner Sinn of Munich’s Ifo Institute argues.

If the most powerful country in the eurozone refuses to recognise the nature of the crisis, the eurozone has no chance of either remedying it or preventing a recurrence. Yes, the ECB might paper over the cracks. In the short run, such intervention is even indispensable, since time is needed for external adjustments. Ultimately, however, external adjustment is crucial. That is far more important than fiscal austerity.
In the absence of external adjustment, the fiscal cuts imposed on fragile members will just cause prolonged and deep recessions. Once the role of external adjustment is recognised, the core issue becomes not fiscal austerity but needed shifts in competitiveness. If one rules out exits, this requires a buoyant eurozone economy, higher inflation and vigorous credit expansion in surplus countries. All of this now seems inconceivable. That is why markets are right to be so cautious.

The failure to recognise that a currency union is vulnerable to balance of payments crises, in the absence of fiscal and financial integration, makes a recurrence almost certain. Worse, focusing on fiscal austerity guarantees that the response to crises will be fiercely pro-cyclical, as we see so clearly.

Maybe, the porridge agreed in Paris will allow the ECB to act. Maybe, that will also bring a period of peace, though I doubt it. Yet the eurozone is still looking for effective longer-term remedies. I am not sorry that Germany failed to obtain yet more automatic and harsher fiscal disciplines, since that demand is built on a failure to recognise what actually went wrong. This is, at its bottom, a balance of payments crisis. Resolving payments crises inside a large, closed economy requires huge adjustments, on both sides. That is truth. All else is commentary.

Of course, it is in everyone’s interests that the € does not collapse in an disorderly fashion and that an element of fiscal discipline is restored, but this alone will not sort out the mess. It is not being euro-phobic to argue that you do not want to tie yourself into this mess, it is common sense.

People argue on here that the current government fails to address the lack of growth in the economy and is too focused on deficit reduction (possibly true) and yet want to tie us closer into a system that does exactly the same.

We all know why its in Germany’s interests – the € makes their Xports much more competitive. But do they have the balls to take the other side of the equation ie, fiscal transfers to those they see as “idle, lazy, Southern Europeans”? This is the crux, the rest is a side show.

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.

But these economic decisions are only decisions that can be taken within narrow parameters that the market will “allow”. That isn’t independence

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.

Rewriting history?

Are you disagreeing that a major cause of the current economic crisis was the result of debts which had been graded AAA when they were actually very risky and should have been regarded as junk bonds? Simply collateralising risky debt together with other risky debt was enough to make the credit agencys give the combined debt AAA ratings which made it attractive for banks and governments to invest in as a relatively safe investment. But instead of that it just made the exposure to bad debt far greater than it would otherwise have been. It was a monumental oversight (and that is a kind interpretation) by the credit rating agencies.

These mistakes continue now – this year alone Standard and Poor accidentally downgraded France from their AAA rating and made a $2 trillion error in their accounting when they downgraded the USA. But none of this really matters, nor does their key role in the debt crisis, because they just continue on as before with all this power yet remain accountable to no-one.

Bikingcatastrophe

I do believe the influence of teh eurosceptics has a major role in Camerons decisions.

he is only leader because of promises he made to them, he withdrew the tories from the EPP because that was one of the promises. the law about having fa referendum was one of the promises. He knows that they are so deranged that if he does not toe thir line they will force him out.

surely if its a balance of payments crisis then having a solvent government that can bail out current accounts rather than going through the middlemen of the ECB is a better solution

is that not what the treaty is aiming for

id be wary of trusting anything written in the FT, they have a vested interest in maintaining the current deregulated casino system

Aracer

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

Whos independence?

Sharing sovereignty or stopping sharing it with who?

Are those the only possibilities? Is it a either / or?

The argument does seem to be getting quite polarised. I think one thing thats been demonstrated time and time again over the past couple of years in Europe is that nobody has a ****ing clue where this is all going to lead.

The law of unintended consequences seems to be dictating everything at the moment. I think that’s the problem. We’re in completely virgin territory. Both economists and politicians have absolutely no idea how this will pan out.

I think, without being too melodramatic, they are all painfully aware of what happened last time things started going a bit pear-shaped Europe-wide. The Second World War didn’t happen! It was a decline into war after ten years of economic decline, and the subsequent political fall out. I’m not saying owt as drastic as that would happen, but I wouldn’t like to make a prediction of what state Europe will be in in ten years. But I doubt its going to be pretty!

Cameron IS a Eurosceptic, he’s not pandering to anyone. And he’s right with public opinion on this…..anything from Labour? What would EdMil do?

TJ. Stop. You’re doing it again. Repeating the same thing over and over in the hope you’ll be right if you say it often enough. Ignoring the awkward questions others ask of you. Those who already agree with you agree with you. You’re not going to change the minds of those who don’t.

I’m far from being your biggest critic on here – I actually see you as a positive thing for the STW forum – but I totally understand the point of your critics.

Labour leader Ed Miliband

In a message on Twitter, Mr Miliband said: “Outcome at last night’s EU summit was a sign of weakness from David Cameron – why did he fail to build alliances before the summit?”

In a further comment on Twitter, he said: “David Cameron should be building alliances. The UK went into the summit without them and the outcome showed we lacked influence.”

from the bbc

THM you assume the euro fails and you consider this a fact at present even before the event. If they keep doing everything and never give up it wont fail no matter how much you want it to – I am not saying it makes sense but they seem to be just getting more and more entrenched and committed to the euro and sooner or later the markets may just realise this.

I dont know which will win out tbh and I would not like to bet on the outcome even if those on the right want to talk up failure in order to make it a self fulfilling prophecy.

Whos independence?

Scotland <sigh>

Sharing sovereignty or stopping sharing it with who?

The rest of the UK <sigh>

Are those the only possibilities? Is it a either / or?

I’m confused about the other possibility apart from sharing or not sharing. Though you’re misquoting my question – I was wondering whether it was gaining sovereignty or stopping sharing it.

Kimbers – there is an element of truth in that and unfortunate that DC allowed himself to be put in a “confrontational’ picture. But there is so much going on behind the scenes that he probably has little option.

In public, he should have stuck to one line, ” we have one objective – to ensure that the € survives (no mention of time frame” and left it at that.

The real backbenchers that actually matter are not in Westminster – they are in Germany. If you think DC has a hard sell, just think what Merkel has to do!

If they keep doing everything and never give up it wont fail

The thing is, that’s not what they’re doing at the moment. So long as Germany keep failing to put their hand in their pocket to save it, there will always be some doubt over their real commitment.

I note that nobody seems to have challenged the claim that Germany isn’t prepared to cough up the money they need to. Do I take it that this is an broadly accepted point?

a sign of weakness from David Cameron

He’s a bit like TJ, that there Milliband (of the Ed variety). Does he think if he repeats that often enough (listen to PMQs some day and he’s bound to say something similar at least half a dozen times) it will help deflect the idea that he’s a weak leader himself?

Note for TJ: that’s not a compliment 😉

THM you assume the euro fails and you consider this a fact at present even before the event. If they keep doing everything and never give up it wont fail no matter how much you want it to – I am not saying it makes sense but they seem to be just getting more and more entrenched and committed to the euro and sooner or later the markets may just realise this.

Yes – on any non political grounds, the € would fail. And there are good and obvious reasons for that. That is not to say that I wish that to happen BTW (at least not in the short run). If there is greater and greater political commitment to the Euro in its current (ie the new) format then I a more convinced than ever that DC should ensure that we remain on the sidelines. But maintaining the status quo (even with these latest adjustments) is merely consigning Europe the slow track of the global economy. If it takes a Euro-sceptic to point out what is good for Europe then so be it!

i think it would be fairer to say they dont want to and that they would rather avoid doing it. This is not to say they wont if they have to. What the German PM may be willing to do and what the German people want her to do are not necessarily the same thing so perhaps she is trying to entwine them to a degree where that become inevitable??

One cannot say with certainty that it will fail – I suspect all those who say it will also thought this form the start. Only time will tell us the answer and if the politicians and the people will swallow the medicine and pay the price it wont fail

THM your views are not neutral though and you just want this to happen. I dont know waht will happen and still think it depends.
I am neutral but mainly because i dont know enough economically or care enough politically.

JY – ultimately it may come down the the squeezed middle classes of Europe and what they are prepared to put up with.

Meanwhile, news from that other great European institution the EBA that European banks have a €115bn shortfall and Commerzbank may need to be nationalised.

“While Rome burns….”

[p.s. JY I want the Euro to collapse like a hole in the head. Honestly, c’mon, you’re better than that???!!!??]

Aracer

I am not ignoring the awkward questions

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

( in the context of Scotland and independence from England )

Its still a meaningless and unanswerable question. Its not a simple bi polar yes / no situation.

gaining sovereignty or stopping sharing it.

It would be helpful if this had any real meaning or you could define some but guessing at your meanings………..

Its not really the place to get diverted off into the Scottish independence question but scottish independence is partly driven by a pro EU stance. One thing the SNP want is for Scotland to have a voice in the EU which at the moment it does not have.

So – scottish independence would stop sharing some sovereignty with England, share more with the EU, repatriate some powers and share some.

So it would be stopping sharing some, gaining some and sharing some in a different way.

nationalising… comrade you say that like it is a bad thing 😉

Ask the German taxpayer, not me.

But I think YOU CAN assume my position in that one!!!