European Debt (Deutsch)Mark II

[quirksome]

Thanks for the articles, L. I still don't get the legal ramifications issue though, can anyone explain?

In my version of the English language, when one member of a club uses his veto, he blocks something from happening. Mr Cameron did not stop France, Germany and the other 15 members of the euro zone from going ahead with what they are proposing. He asked for safeguards for financial services and—as had been well trailed in advance—France and Germany said no. That's not wielding a veto, that's called losing.

Ooops.

On the other hand a financial transaction tax doesn't seem a terrible idea only Cameron has withdrawn from the discussions that would determine the way that tax would be shaped and implemented. Can't help thinking he'd have been better off staying at the table and using the threat of a veto if necessary to influence that process but instead to placate the anti-EUers he's withdrawn from the talks. Of course the anti-EUers won't be happy until the UK has withdrawn from the EU and some of them presumably would rather that we joined NAFTA instead.

Well we're left in a situation that if the other EU members cook up something that is thought to be disadvantageous to the UK we can't do anything about it accept beg nicely.

Yes this is the problem - no more Nice Guy diplomacy as we just dropped the nuclear veto.

On the other hand Cameron handled the situation fantastically if all he wanted to do was win goodwill from Tory MPs, but hey John Major was popular with his backbenchers when he came back from Maastricht too. At least at first.

Hah. Ahahahaha. :leaving:

[mormont]

An interesting blog from Bagehot at The Economist which, if true, would cause me to revise my sympathy for Cameron... key extracts:

Mr Cameron had two problems, as my source sees it. The first was the nature of his demand, and how it was made. In essence, the British did not ask for an "emergency brake" clause or opt-out for financial regulation.

What they asked for was a protocol imposing decision-making by unanimity on a number of areas of regulation currently decided by majority voting. (If you want to be really technical, the choice is voting by unanimity or the special Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) used in the EU, which is a sort of super-majority system taking into account a certain number of countries and also their populations).

As my source puts it, this amounted to a big winding-back of the clock for many EU leaders, setting a "horrendous precedent" that could unravel the single market. As they see it, common rules for the common market have been adopted (with few exceptions, such as tax) by QMV ever since the Single European Act approved by Margaret Thatcher in 1986.

The much-discussed Financial Transactions Tax issue already requires unanimity and therefore could never be imposed on the City of London without Britain's agreement. What is more, as was pointed out in Brussels with some vehemence, when it comes to financial services there have hardly ever been any cases of Britain being outvoted in the adoption of such legislation.

In simple terms, that means that Britain's request to move to unanimity was taken as a huge ask that had nothing to do with the subject at hand (saving the euro) or was a sign of bad faith (because it is driven by mistrust regarding future legislation). In my source's view, Britain also tabled its request very late in the day, simply sending a whole draft protocol to the European Council legal service the day before the meeting without talking the ideas through with key allies and national capitals.

If the bolded bit is true, then it does seem that Cameron could have handled the situation better: and if that's true, and the real issue is how Cameron handled the situation, then obviously he has to carry the can for that.

[Lummel]

I still don't get the legal ramifications issue though, can anyone explain?

which legal ramifications in particular? It gets messy because there are different implications for each country depending on how they integrate EU treaties into national law eg Ireland had to have a referendum on the lisbon treaty, but other countries only needed a vote in their parliament.

[Werthead]

The comments on The Telegraph article make me cry through their mind-boggling ignorance.

the Germans took over France without firing a shot during WW2

What. The. Hell?

[Slurms McKenzie]

It might make you unhappy, but it's probably true. Sarkozy successfully put Cameron in the position of choosing between a politically impossible decision and a really bad one. And make no mistake, although I'm giving Cameron a pass on it (because I don't think he could realistically have avoided it even if he wanted to), the situation we're in now is still a really bad one for the UK.

This makes me sad....... :frown5:

I agree with what your saying but it still makes me sad...I really don't like all the talk of an isolated Britain. One way or another I feel we should be involved in Europe, we always have been before, its a pretty crappy and stupid situation we are in....

Very stupid situation. Truth be told, I think it could have been avoidable, I mean I really don't understand what was so unnacceptable about Cameron's demands anyway. What Cameron was suggesting wasn't horrificably destabalising and the proposed financial transaction tax hasn't even been sorted out yet. Why did the French and Germans shoot it down in flames?

And for that matter Cameron shouldn't have been hopping around Europe these last few months and acting like an arse by continually nagging the eurozone countries, bashing their currency and telling them to Mend Their Ways. Twas bound to piss a lot of them off, nobody likes to nagged, bashed and be told to Mend Their Ways.

That said, Sarkozy shouldn't be such an arse to Cameron and Britain either.....bloody Gallic pygmy....

All in all, methinks this EU/UK divorce mess could have and should have been avoided.....

Ah well excuse my ramblings....

[polishgenius]

It might make you unhappy, but it's probably true. Sarkozy successfully put Cameron in the position of choosing between a politically impossible decision and a really bad one. And make no mistake, although I'm giving Cameron a pass on it (because I don't think he could realistically have avoided it even if he wanted to), the situation we're in now is still a really bad one for the UK.

It's only really that bad if you're looking for a purely European perspective. Of course, it's beneficial to the UK to be involved in Europe, but the thing about the UK is that it's not just locked into it. London is a world stage, not just European. It's got American links, the Commonwealth, and let's face it, when the world wants to play in Europe it plays in London.

That's what it's about really, protecting its place as a major financial center of the world. The only way the proposed financial transaction tax would benefit London was if every other major financial center implemented such a thing at the same time; otherwise business would leak elsewhere. Could well be that that influence is it's about, at least partially, from the other side too- it must gall the powers within the EU that, however much they want it to be Brussells, London is the capital of Europe when looking from outside and it's not under their control.

That's my inexpert take...

[Slurms McKenzie]

That's my inexpert take...

Well I liked it...made me feel a little better about Britain's situation.....though I doubt this good mood will last....*sigh*..its gone already...

[quirksome]

Very stupid situation. Truth be told, I think it could have been avoidable, I mean I really don't understand what was so unnacceptable about Cameron's demands anyway. What Cameron was suggesting wasn't horrificably destabalising and the proposed financial transaction tax hasn't even been sorted out yet. Why did the French and Germans shoot it down in flames?

See above.

1) Mormont has pointed out how Sarkozy outmanoeuvred Cameron:

...especially for France, on the brink of losing its AAA credit rating and now the junior partner to Germany, this is a famous political victory.

President Nicolas Sarkozy had long favoured the creation of a smaller, "core" euro zone, without the awkward British, Scandinavians and eastern Europeans that generally pursue more liberal, market-oriented policies. And he has wanted the core run on an inter-governmental basis, ie by leaders rather than by supranational European institutions. This would allow France, and Mr Sarkozy in particular, to maximise its impact.

2) the UK sent the the Protocol Demand way late and it also demanded to repeal some of the EU voting rules that had been painstakingly created to make the EU a fairer(!) place. FTT was just a fig leaf.

3) The French had no intention of letting the UK opt out of financial regulations:

Now, the EU is proposing quite a range of damaging and stupid new rules for financial markets. Anthony Browne, a chief policy aide to the Mayor of London (and key Cameron rival) Boris Johnson has a point when he writes this morning on ConservativeHome that:

Faced with a choice between an EU treaty to save the euro and retaining control of regulation of the City, President Sarkozy decided to retain regulation of the City...

[quirksome]

That said, Sarkozy shouldn't be such an arse to Cameron and Britain either.....bloody Gallic pygmy....

Ah well excuse my ramblings....

I know you're from UKIP and feeling pretty patriotic about all of this, but your comment is pretty offensive to short people, the French and maybe you could judge others on their actions/policies instead of their looks.

Like "that magnificent bastard scheming Eurointegrationalist Merkozoid".

[Stannis the Great]

It is interesting to see if the rage at Britain demonstrated by the various political parties in the EU is reflected by their constituents and whether the said constituents actually approve of handing sovereignty over taxation and economic policy to the EU. The whole point of the Euro was to force the EU countries to harmonise their economic policies and it is only now beginning to happen. I can't exactly imagine a complete change in economic policy would benefit the fringe EU countries or PIIGS but I do imagine it being very painful for those countries to adopt Germany's economic stance.

I personally am in favour of European integration however definitely not in its current form - an undemocratic, unaccountable, ineffectual mess. I'm nowhere near UKIP on the political spectrum but I do have to admit that the EU is not a positive influence on Britain.

With regards to Cameron's use of the veto, none of us will know if it was the correct move until a few years time. People are commenting that the UK is being sidelined however being sidelined while the EU crumbles isn't a bad prospect. The UK is still a member of the EU and now it doesn't have to alter its economic policies to benefit a currency that the UK does not use. Only time will tell if the Euro is doomed.

[Stannis the Great]

I know you're from UKIP and feeling pretty patriotic about all of this, but your comment is pretty offensive to short people, the French and maybe you could judge others on their actions/policies instead of their looks.

Like "that magnificent bastard scheming Eurointegrationalist Merkozoid".

Sarkozy should take some tips from Tyrion Lannister and not let his 'flaws' define him. Perhaps he shouldn't attempt to change himself ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/07/france-sarkozy-stands-accused-height ) and just accept his 'flaws' as part of him rather than seeing them as a weakness.

However I agree in that we should describe him for his policies rather than appearance - that snivelling, slimy egotistical, shallow man who just happens to be Merkel's bitch.

[CloudFlare]

Can someone explain a few of things for me?

1) Why is the EU so pissy with the UK for not agreeing to the financial transaction tax? Was it supposed to generate enough revenue to pull the rest of Europe out of its debt black hole? I know a bunch of finance flows through the city, but I don't think it's enough to save Italy.

2) How is fiscal discipline going to be enforced among all the various EU members? Is Germany going to be the mean daddy who takes away the allowance money? If it's a democratic process, won't the rest of the EU just keep spending?

3) What's the punishment for the UK? Being kicked out of the EU? That sounds like a _good thing_ at this point.

[Lummel]

1) a financial transaction tax wasn't on the table at this time.

2) there was an idea that the courts would enforce budget discipline, but since the other EU members haven't drafted the new treaty yet - who knows.

3) no punishment, just other members of the EU will go off and develop their own new treaty which may or may not disadvantage what may or may not be perceived to be UK or City of London interests but in any case the UK won't be able to guide, shape or influence that treaty.

[mormont]

It's only really that bad if you're looking for a purely European perspective. Of course, it's beneficial to the UK to be involved in Europe, but the thing about the UK is that it's not just locked into it.

Erm, yes we are. We're still in the EU. The majority of our trade is still with EU countries. Trade with the US and the Commonwealth is not ever going to replace trade with France, Germany, Ireland, and the rest of the Euro-area. We mostly trade with countries that use the Euro and there's no reason to suppose that will ever change. So, the fact that these countries will decide a large part of their economic policy without our being able to influence it is, objectively, a Bad Thing no matter what.

let's face it, when the world wants to play in Europe it plays in London.

At present. However, depending on how the Euro-area develops, this could change. That's another threat.

[ljkeane]

Probably best not to make too many assumptions about how permanent this situation is though. There's a pretty good chance that this solution to the Eurozone's problems is going to fail and then it's back to the drawing board.

That's why I'd not exactly call this a huge success for Sarkozy either, it might be a win for certain French objectives for the direction of Europe but the priority right now absolutely should be improving market confidence in the Eurozone and this situation definitely doesn't help.

ETA: Although I doubt there's ever going to be a solution that doesn't end up with something of a 'two speed' EU but there already is one with the Eurozone and the countries not in the Eurozone.

[quirksome]

Erm, yes we are. We're still in the EU. The majority of our trade is still with EU countries. Trade with the US and the Commonwealth is not ever going to replace trade with France, Germany, Ireland, and the rest of the Euro-area. We mostly trade with countries that use the Euro and there's no reason to suppose that will ever change. So, the fact that these countries will decide a large part of their economic policy without our being able to influence it is, objectively, a Bad Thing no matter what.

Yes. I can't emphasise the bolded part enough to folks thinking Britain being shunted to the side of the eurozone will solve all our problems.

At present. However, depending on how the Euro-area develops, this could change. That's another threat.

This is what keeps me awake at night.

[Slurms McKenzie]

I know you're from UKIP and feeling pretty patriotic about all of this, but your comment is pretty offensive to short people, the French and maybe you could judge others on their actions/policies instead of their looks.

Like "that magnificent bastard scheming Eurointegrationalist Merkozoid".

...? Don't want to start an arguement but I don't see where that came from, my earlier post was about how unhappy I was with this talk of a UK/EU split....doesn't sound remotely UKIPish....never been a UKIP supporter....don't know where you got the idea I was a UKIP supporter....because I'm not one...I've always considered myself largely pro-european, especially in comparison with the people around me...

You can be pro-european and still not like Sarkozy...and I never meant to sound malicious in my comment...not a jibe against short people, just him. Sorry if it sounded that way, didn't mean it like that. Sorry.

Friends now?

[quirksome]

...? Don't want to start an arguement but I don't see where that came from, my earlier post was about how unhappy I was with this talk of a UK/EU split....doesn't sound remotely UKIPish....never been a UKIP supporter....don't know where you got the idea I was a UKIP supporter....because I'm not one...I've always considered myself largely pro-european, especially in comparison with the people around me...

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, UKIP membership is a pretty bad insult... mea culpa.

You can be pro-european and still not like Sarkozy...and I never meant to sound malicious in my comment...not a jibe against short people, just him. Sorry if it sounded that way, didn't mean it like that. Sorry.

Friends now?

Actually this is a personal bugbear / Board style thing, and I would have said this to anyone: ad hominem attacks like saying "Sarkozy is a twit and also he's short and ugly" doesn't help to advance a discussion. Hence my suggestion of calling him an EU-raving manipulative Merkozoid (love this neologism) would be better as it focusses on his stupid policies rather than his personality or personal appearance.

PS. Welcome to the board! We like hazing new members. :)

[Slurms McKenzie]

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, UKIP membership is a pretty bad insult... mea culpa.

Actually this is a personal bugbear / Board style thing, and I would have said this to anyone: ad hominem attacks like saying "Sarkozy is a twit and also he's short and ugly" doesn't help to advance a discussion. Hence my suggestion of calling him an EU-raving manipulative Merkozoid (love this neologism) would be better as it focusses on his stupid policies rather than his personality or personal appearance.

PS. Welcome to the board! We like hazing new members. :)

Ah don't worry about! Shit happens! Friends now right? :cheers:

Oh and yes, glad to be on the boards....very iddictive they are.. :uhoh:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Considering his wife, I can't see much grounds for making fun of the guy's appearance anyway.