teamhurtmore – Member

Yes – on any non political grounds, the € would fail.

really? Its stronger than teh £ and backed by ahuge % of world GDP in economies that are doing fine. By your definitions the £ must fail as well and as for the dollar?

is merely consigning Europe the slow track of the global economy.

Really – any evidence for that – given that the Eurozone economy as a whole is outperforming the UK.

Its not really the place to get diverted off into the Scottish independence question

Well it is quite a neat parallel if you’re going to suggest that the UK is better off being more integrated with a larger political entity, rather than less.

One thing the SNP want is for Scotland to have a voice in the EU which at the moment it does not have.

Like the UK would no longer have a voice on the world financial market if it “shared” it’s sovereignty with the EU?

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

Ah – you want to be in the Euro? Well good luck with that one.

Oh Goody. Scottish Nationalism again!

glitchy thingy going on so fromthe other EU thread ( which might as well be allowed to die)

Glitchy, glitchy

Can I suggest to the STW developers that the make the code for putting a post on a new page, and the code for selecting the last page of a thread use the same algorithm? Hint: at the moment one appears to use the total number of posts made on a thread, the other the number of posts left after some have been deleted.

TJ – the exchange “rate” is not the issue, It is the structure of the exchange rate system that matters and that is why it will fail ultimately – actually probably split into two. Don’t wish a strong £ on us on the thinking that this is a good sign. Why do you think all major economies are trying to weaken their currencies?

Germany is of course a huge beneficiary of the € since her xporters have a much weaker currency that would otherwise be the case…this is one of the key reasons for the rel. strength on the German econ. But for the rest of Europe (mainly the peripherary) its a disaster that has made them woefully uncompetitive.

Unlike you to support policies that will result in sustained UN and impoverishment for large parts of Europe?

Well it is quite a neat parallel if you’re going to suggest that the UK is better off being more integrated with a larger political entity, rather than less.

No its not as there is no parallel as the SNP want more integration in the EU

Like the UK would no longer have a voice on the world financial market if it “shared” it’s sovereignty with the EU?

Nope its teh complete opposite- as at the moment Scotland is excluded from EU talks in areas that affect it.

Ah – you want to be in the Euro? Well good luck with that one.

And I said that where?

No more on Scotland. its a whole other debate done many times over and the parallels you draw do not exist as one of the drivers for scottish independence is an internationalist viewpoint.

I’m happy to see an end to free trade and a franco DM kick people’s butt. Trade barriers now! Bring back protectionism.

Unlike you to support policies that will result in sustained UN and impoverishment for large parts of Europe?

I am not.

No its not as there is no parallel as the SNP want more integration in the EU

🙄

Are you deliberately missing the point, or is it going straight over your head?

the parallels you draw do not exist

So one country wanting to be independent of a union of countries is totally different to a union of countries wanting to be independent of a federal state another union of countries?

Neither – the point you see does not exist. The parallel you see is simply not there – you only see it because your assumptions about the drivers and case for scottish independence are wrong.

email me off list if you want to discuss this further

So one country wanting to be independent of a union of countries is totally different to a union of countries wanting to be independent of a federal state another union of countries?

Coprrect – because the motivations and desired end product are radically differnt

From Wolfgang Munchau at FT (admittedly a € sceptic – I will acknowledge this upfront :wink:)

So we have two crises now. A still-unresolved eurozone crisis and a crisis of the European Union. Of the two, the latter is potentially the more serious one. The eurozone may, or may not, break up. The EU almost certainly will. The decision by the eurozone countries to go outside the legal framework of the EU and to set up the core of a fiscal union in a multilateral treaty will eventually produce this split….

… The fiscal union likely to be agreed in March may not initially be very effective in resolving the crisis. It focuses on all the wrong issues, mostly fiscal discipline, which is not the real reason why the crisis has spread to Spain or Belgium, for example.

But the eurozone nevertheless made an important political statement. It will not allow outsiders to stand in the way when it needs to act. For the monetary union to survive, its one-sided, ill-conceived fiscal union will have to become more effective. Over time it will have to usurp central EU roles, especially in the internal market. I would expect it to create its own internal market inside the existing one. It will have to develop a highly integrated financial market with a single financial supervisor. In particular, I do not believe that the eurozone will allow a situation to persist where its main financial centre is located offshore. It will also want to set labour market rules and co-ordinate tax policies. In all of those areas, the eurozone and the EU will get into a permanent legal and political conflict, in which the EU acts as a break on the eurozone’s development.

One way or the other, this conflict is bound to lead to an eventual split of the EU. I have no idea when or how this will happen. The technicalities are not all that important. Of course, no member can be ejected from the EU. But there is nothing that can stop others from taking action that protects their interest. The new Lisbon treaty makes it possible for countries to leave the EU voluntarily, which means that legally it is possible for the eurozone plus the aspiring members to set up their own rival organisation – in theory. In pratice, that is not likely to happen, but the mere existence of a divorce procedure is probably sufficient to bring about this eventual outcome.

Thursday’s European Council meeting has demonstrated that a monetary union cannot co-exist with a group of permanent non-members in unified legal framework. The EU with its current treaties and institutions has proved to be an insufficiently flexible framework to run a monetary union and a disastrous framework for a monetary union in crisis.

These latest developments have reaffirmed my conviction that the only way to save the eurozone is to destroy the EU. But European governments may, of course, end up destroying both. All they did in the early hours of Friday morning was to create a new crisis without resolving the existing one.

FT today.

aracer
Sorry to pull your leg on that one, this does seem to be one of the more open minded STW debates I’ve witnessed. 🙂
I do like binners’ Law of Unintended Consequences and think it quite appropriate for the complexity of all the different interwoven issues here.
There was a theory on BBC that maybe Cameron and Merkel over bluffed each other on what they were prepared to accept in the treaty, leaving a stalemate neither really wanted and no room for manouvre at all.
On the other hand, perhaps he had other reasons to want out completely.
Whatever happened, it doesn’t reflect well on his negotiating skills to come out of a meeting of a 27 parties without having had any influence on the agreement, and know that he’s effectively uninvited himself from the next meeting which now looks like being 26 parties.

so the EU cannot vote for the Uk/others to leave be booted out …I would like to see Dave veto that vote and then not call a referendum

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, which campaigns for the UK’s exit from the EU, said Mr Cameron could have obtained concessions by threatening to hold a referendum on Britain’s EU membership.

“It’s quite untenable for us to remain in a union alone, on the outside, having laws made for us, [while we’re] in a permanent voting minority.

“This is the worst of all worlds for the UK.”

see even UKIP see what dave has achieved as the worst possible scenario

Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP

“Cameron is to be warmly congratulated on reaching his goal of second-class membership of the EU.”

Where will CRC and wiggle move their businesses to when europe have to pay import duty on their products?

JY – the dep editor of the FT phrased it much better than me (in terms of will it work)

Any supranational scheme, whether enshrined in treaty or otherwise, that condemns much of Europe to indefinite austerity will not survive the realities of national politics.

(and remember of balance the FT is pro-Europe)

and remember of balance the FT is pro-Europe

The FT plays to the crowd, its crowd being eurosceptics.

Sorry to pull your leg on that one

No apology needed – I’m not that easily offended!

There was a theory on BBC that maybe Cameron and Merkel over bluffed each other on what they were prepared to accept in the treaty, leaving a stalemate neither really wanted and no room for manouvre at all.

A Mexican stand-off? Yes, it certainly seems that way – though I’d argue that Angela had put down her line in the sand (one which she’ll still have to cross someday – I’m assuming here she doesn’t actually want the Euro to fail) well before Dave.

Whatever happened, it doesn’t reflect well on his negotiating skills to come out of a meeting of a 27 parties without having had any influence on the agreement, and know that he’s effectively uninvited himself from the next meeting which now looks like being 26 parties.

You assume there was scope for him to negotiate. From what I’m reading, Germany are immovable on the fundamental issues (I’m still shocked that nobody has challenged me on my anti-German rhetoric!) which still need to be sorted to solve the crisis. If there’s somebody being really pig-headed here in the face of reality, it’s not CMD. He had the option of signing up to an agreement he’d had no influence on or walking away. BTW, the headline figure appears to be 23, not 26, and at least one of those 23 is more than likely to pull out.

aracer – an intersting article in the Guardian today

no endgame in sight

Summed up with the quote:

Tampering with the complicated EMU edifice resembles an attempt to repair a complex, many-sided piece of machinery where every component influences in a different way every other element in the mechanism. Apparently benign, constructive action to improve the workings of one small cog in the machine produces a negative outcome elsewhere. John Major, Britain’s prime minister at Maastricht, referred then to juggling with different countries’ sensitivities as “12-dimensional chess”. Since then, with 27 countries in the European Union, the convolutions are still greater.

And I can’t see all 26 other countries agreeing to this either. Dave won’t be alone in saying enough IMHO. As I mentioned before, I think it’ll be the Eastern European countries who won’t bother. Why the hell should they subsidise the comparatively cushy welfare states of Italy and Greece? I mean: what are they actually getting out of this? Certainly not what they thought when they entered the EU, I imagine

I think the press are being somewhat disingenuous to suggest that its only Britain that has reservations about the whole project

aracer – Member
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?

maybe they dont want to end up paying for the markets reckless behaviour

its a funny kind of communist capitalism they want, ie its fine to gamble away with other peoples money (or debt) until theres a crash at which point the ECB (germany) have to step in, bail out the countries theyve fuct over and let the games carry on

Interesting that several countries who have ‘signed up’ to this have already said it will probably need to go to a national vote to be agreed.

So the uk could yet be far from the only one….

:

“We chose to pick up the ball and leave the pitch before the game started”, according to Lord Kerr, Britain’s former ambassador to the European Union under Margaret Thatcher and then John Major. He told the BBC that he found it “odd” that Prime Minister David Cameron had chosen not to negotiate on the new treaty, saying it is “conceivable that the management of the Conservative party was a factor in his thinking”

maybe they dont want to end up paying for the markets reckless behaviour

But Germany is the country that has now put in the treaty that the ‘Markets’ no longer need to take a ‘haircut’ on their exposure to Greek debt. Prior to this agreement, that has always been the case.

I’d think that this is due to the ‘Markets’ in this case mainly being German banks who recklessly fueled a southern European property bubble.

If it was British, or American banks that were mainly exposed, do you think the present agreement would have the same clauses?

Love this pic

Wonder what CMD was thinking there 😆

I think the press are being somewhat disingenuous to suggest that its only Britain that has reservations about the whole project

Disingenuous is what the press do – they’re professionals. It suits their agenda (and that of numerous other countries – notably Germany and the others who haven’t signed up or might pull out) to have a baddie though.

aracer
On the figures, latest news now shows 24
(Hungary added to the earlier 23 from here http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126658.pdf )
with 2 (Sweden and the Czech Republic) putting the proposal to their respective parliaments.
I’m not “making assumptions” about scope for Cameron to negotiate, just observing that 26 other national leaders , all with their own complex political issues and independant agendas, found scope to negotiate before forming a mutally acceptable agreement.
Cameron did the opposite and chose to have no influence on the formation of the ageement, just veto it. Choosing that option is completely different to ” walking away from an ageement he had no influence on”. It also severely undermines the UK’s power of veto in future European negotiations, as now there is a new Treaty under which 26 members can hold negotiations without UK representation.

(BTW I’m not surprised you’ve not been challenged on anti-German rhetoric, there’s plenty more of it in the British media today)

EDIT: I agree our Euro Sceptic media like a baddie, hence my comment above.

I’m not “making assumptions” about scope for Cameron to negotiate, just observing that 26 other national leaders , all with their own complex political issues and independant agendas, found scope to negotiate before forming a mutally acceptable agreement.
Cameron did the opposite and chose to have no influence on the formation of the ageement, just veto it.

Did they? Or did they just accept the agreement which was cooked up by Merkozy? My reading also suggests that CMD did attempt to negotiate, but Merkozy were unprepared to yield at all to his suggestions. Given the same agreement whether or not he signed, I don’t really see how much more influence he’d have had if he’d agreed to it.

It also severely undermines the UK’s power of veto in future European negotiations, as now there is a new Treaty under which 26 members can hold negotiations without UK representation.

Repeat after me: it’s not a new treaty.

William Middendorf in Berlin, Germany emails: The summit will surely resolve the euro-crisis. There is no EU crisis apart from Britain being foolish and not looking towards the future. The euro can easily live without Britain, but can Britain live without the eurozone?

🙄

Just because the Eurozone leaders* have agreed some loose, wooly agreement in theory, means eff all. It doesn’t mean for a second they’ll be able to get it past tehir electorates or parliaments

What the rolling crisis of the Euro-zone constantly proves is that every single one of these summits always ends with ‘the solution’, but within ten days its all fallen apart again. Cue the next ‘crisis. As none of the underlying structural problems are actually being addressed

This will be no different. It’ll give them a weeks grace. 2 weeks tops!

Daves probably got out just so he can save the air fares on dragging everyone to another summit every other week 😀

* as always the word is used figuratively, and does not infer any actual leadership taking place

Both Finland and Sweden have both said they may yet withdraw. Finland does not want qualified majority voting and Sweden has said this

Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has given his backing to David Cameron’s position, saying it would be “unreasonable” for a non-eurozone country to sign the treaty that was presented last night.
“It seems a bit odd because the whole text is written to make eurozone members submit to certain restrictions and do certain things,” he told Sweden’s TT newswire. :”A non-eurozone country can’t reasonably sign up to that.”
Mr Reinfeldt said he still had to discuss Sweden’s participation in the inter-governmental treaty with the national parliament, but hinted that Sweden, like the UK, would stand outside.
“Sweden, which isn’t a member of the euro, does not want to tie itself to rules which are completely tailored for the eurozone,” he said.

according to Lord Kerr

I wouldn’t listen to him, his first name is wayne.

Sweden has said this

Sounds like we’re not alone. From an economic perspective, I’d far rather be aligned with Sweden than Italy, Portgual, Spain, Ireland, Greece.

Reading around this, I’ve found a suggestion that Sweden is “obliged” to join the euro, but it seems the majority of Swedes oppose this, and they’re putting it off. Is there some timetable saying they have to join by a certain date, or can they just put it off indefinitely (in which case the “obligation” isn’t worth the paper it’s written on)? Anybody have any more details?

It takes the Telegraph to get to the heart of this

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100013758/europes-blithering-idiots-and-their-flim-flam-treaty/

In short, there is no breakthrough of any kind that will convince Asian investors that this monetary union has viable governance or even a future.

Germany has kept the focus exclusively on fiscal deficits even though everybody must understand by now that this crisis was not caused by fiscal deficits (except in the case of Greece). Spain and Ireland were in surplus, and Italy had a primary surplus.

As Sir Mervyn King said last week, the disaster was caused by current account imbalances (Spain’s deficit, and Germany’s surplus), and by capital flows setting off private sector credit booms.

The Treaty proposals evade the core issue.

Did France and Germany really have to cause this rift by throwing in an assault on the City that has precious little do with the EMU crisis? Yes, I suppose they did.

Given that Merkozy cannot bring themselves to accept that Europe’s debacle stems from the euro itself, from a 30pc currency misalignment between from North and South, and from an over-leveraged €23 trillion banking bubble that German, French, Dutch, Belgian regulators allowed to happen… given that, yes, I suppose they have to find a scapegoat.

They have to whip up a witchhunt against somebody, so why not Anglo-Saxon bankers? Nasty reflexes are at work. German and French politicians in particular should be very careful about inciting populist hatred against a group that makes such easy prey. We have been there before.

aracer – Member
William Middendorf in Berlin, Germany emails: The summit will surely resolve the euro-crisis. There is no EU crisis apart from Britain being foolish and not looking towards the future. The euro can easily live without Britain, but can Britain live without the eurozone?

Was this guy in an A’stad coffee bar when he wrote this (and then posted it from Berlin)? How many errors in one para:

Error 1: The summit will resolve the crisis
Error 2: There is no crisis…
Error 3: Can Britain live without the eurozone?

Britain can’t live with a 888888 Europe but that is a different story

mcboo – Member

It takes the Telegraph to show eurosceptic xenophobia
I invoke Godwins law

Christ on a bendybus! I never thought this would happen! I’ve just read an editorial piece in the Telegraph and found myself nodding in agreement with pretty much all of it.

Where did it all go wrong 🙁

Its yer age binners – slippers, stopping smoking, torygraph – all goes together

As it this is not enough, listen to the mild response from Le Monde is France:

“Let us play fair. The British aren’t to be blamed for the euro crisis. They carry no responsibility in the inability of eurozone leaders to solve their sovereign debt problems.”

Le Monde goes on to say that the real reasoning behind Britain’s unwillingness to tie its fate to that of the EU is that British “don’t believe in the European idea. They are strangers to this project that is today becalmed, but which appears to be more vital than ever”. The British have always been only interested in one thing– the single market.

“They are indifferent to the remainder of the European project, as long as it is not hostile to them.”

Apparently the cold shoulder clip between DC and NS was take out of context (otherwise it was an amazing clip), they had just shaken hands off screen according to the FT.

I am puzzled? The FT reports Christine Lagarde claiming that EU leaders have committed $200m in a bilateral loan to the IMF so that the IMF is in a position to be able to fun (effectively) the EU???? What am I missing here, is this just another ponzi scheme?

mcboo – Member

It takes the Telegraph to get to the heart of this

😆