Friday flurry - NIMBYs

daviesee

Okay, so in the past we have given away:-

Coal mining, Steel manfacture, Shipbuilding, Fishing, Farming, plus more.

Now that the "City" is being attacked it is time to presesrve an industry at all cost.

So are politicians NIMBYs at a world scale or just doing what's best for the country.

Debate............

DonDaddyD

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

On the strength of today Cameron could now 'ignore' EU Laws that limit the above British indutry. Capitalism isn't meant to be fair it's meant to be competitive and Britain isn't part of the Euro (Eurozone).

British pound vs The Euro

nuffsaid.

rick_chasey

Pfft.

Cameron f*cked it in Europe last night.

No other way to describe it, unless you think British political and geopolitical isolation is a good thing, in which case, go take your tinfoil hat and go sit over there in loserville.

Paul E

He was right to veto, the euro as a currency has nothing to do with us as a country so why should we sign upto new measures that will help the euro out and we get nothing back for it, okay yes we need it to be stable but the blame lies in the people that allowed countries with economies that were completely unsuited to being in a continent wide currency system.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

No other way to describe it, unless you think British political and geopolitical isolation is a good thing, in which case, go take your tinfoil hat and go sit over there in loserville.

Oh hai!

Paul E wrote:

why should we sign upto new measures that will help the euro out

okay yes we need it to be stable

DonDaddyD

England has always resisted European rule.

We need a stable Euro, yes. Not at the expence of the British economy/industry.

The treaty didn't benefit the £. It was a maverick move but better to be a lone maverick than bent over and taken from behind by Germany and then France in that order.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

We need a stable Euro, yes. Not at the expence of the British economy/industry.

The treaty didn't benefit the £.

But when Britain's biggest trading partner is making economic decisions further down the line (that may not be Eurozone crisis related), what's Britain's position going to be?

Oh wait, it doesn't matter, since they'll have no influence anyway.

This could have easily been handled without becoming isolated.

A two speed Europe was already happening. Might as well get on board and have a say, rather than be isolated.

Cross and intercontinental financial regulation is the way forward anyway. Monkeys in banks, brokers, CCPs, HFs, can't be trusted to regulate themselves.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

We need a stable Euro, yes. Not at the expence of the British economy/industry.

The treaty didn't benefit the £.

But when Britain's biggest trading partner is making economic decisions further down the line (that may not be Eurozone crisis related), what's Britain's position going to be?

A competitive one born out of our own freedom from European rule.

This could have easily been handled without becoming isolated.

How, any deal/treaty will always be weighted to benefit the Euro, which England isn't a part of. It's ludicrous to agree to sanctions that will benefit a currency/market over and above our own.

I'm not saying England should leave Europe. But we have a seperate currency so we should think of ourselves as a seperate Country with our own interests.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

We need a stable Euro, yes. Not at the expence of the British economy/industry.

The treaty didn't benefit the £.

But when Britain's biggest trading partner is making economic decisions further down the line (that may not be Eurozone crisis related), what's Britain's position going to be?

A competitive one born out of our own freedom from European rule.

This could have easily been handled without becoming isolated.

How, any deal/treaty will always be weighted to benefit the Euro, which England isn't a part of. It's ludicrous to agree to sanctions that will benefit a currency/market over and above our own.

I'm not saying England should leave Europe. But we have a seperate currency so we should think of ourselves as a seperate Country with our own interests.

#1 - If Britian is isolated in the discussions, they won't have a position.

If the slow down has showed anything is that a) enormous parts of Britain's economy isn't competitive, and b) it's pretty f*cking closely correlated with what goes on in Europe. So it makes sense to have a say in what goes on in Europe.

#2 A stable Euro is in the interest of the UK right now. Furthermore, it's quite OK to negotiate contentious issues OUT of the agreement, rather than get in and Veto it. You've got to play the long game in politics always.

A veto so early on is a way of saying 'don't include me' which is madness. France and Germany want this anyway, since it makes their position within Europe so much stronger. Britain provided a counter-weight to the Franco-German axis.

#3 Britain was already considered separate, and it was already away from the currency. That's not the issue here. The issue is about influence and political presence, in a collection of nations which are, like it or not, very close and important to Britain, politically and economically.


#4 - Financial regulation is needed anyway. You should make it cross and inter-continental to make it work. The EU is a great place to sort this out.

Zachariah

I'm a left-leaning hippy-sympathiser with family on the continent and a great respect for the French and German way of doing things, but even I think there wasn't any alternative for Cameron. There were no good options, and staying out of the Euro support group is the least worst at this time.

jds_1981

I've not got much of an overview of what was discussed, but from the list of requests that was blocked I understand and agree with him using a veto.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011 ... de-britain

• Any transfer of power from a national regulator to an EU regulator on financial services would be subject to a veto.

• Banks should face a higher capital requirement.

• The European Banking Authority should remain in London. There were suggestions that it might be consolidated in the European Security and Markets Authority in Paris.

• The European Central Bank be rebuffed in its attempts to rule that euro-denominated transactions take place within the eurozone.

The last point looks particularly interesting.

rick_chasey

They've all been discussed before.

Banks SHOULD face a higher capital requirement.

The other requirements were used by France to get the UK to veto, since France are backing a two-speed Europe solution.

You'd think Cameron & the foreign office would have seen that one coming.

The UK fell right into France's hands in that one.

il_principe

He clearly made the right - and frankly only choice. Germany enjoys an unfair advantage within Europe as it is. It's only right that we retain as much control over our FS as possible.

What really f*cks me off about Europe (and I'm not anti-Europe) is the amount of money they waste - things like the Strasboug parliament which costs £150 million a year, let alone the time wasted in travel etc. I do not see how this can continue to be justified, but of course the French will never agree to scrapping the gravy train.

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

Banks SHOULD face a higher capital requirement.

The other requirements were used by France to get the UK to veto, since France are backing a two-speed Europe solution.

The guardian claims that these were Cameron's demands...

As Il Principe says, it was the only choice he could make.

rick_chasey

No.

He shouldn't have gone in with a menu of what he 'wanted to get' out of Europe, like he's some kinda benefit scrounger.

Firstly. The menu misses the point. This isn't about financial regulation (yet). This is about a national solvency issue.

That stuff should have never had to come up. It could have been brushed aside, since, in the scheme of the Eurozone crisis, those demands are pretty f*cking small fry.

The French and Germans saw Britain coming from a mile way, and promptly dispatched him. Now the UK are out of the loop, and that's not in the interest of Britain, and is with France and Germany.

Like the Germans and French give a sh!t about regulation over currency deals in the City.

It totally misses the big picture. Germany and France need to solve the Eurozone crisis. Britian should have gone in with a plan to stay as influential as possible, within the constraints of being out of the Euro.

Instead, they went in with petty demands on FS sh!t that no-one other than Britain gives a sh!t about, and now they're out of the loop.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

We need a stable Euro, yes. Not at the expence of the British economy/industry.

The treaty didn't benefit the £.

But when Britain's biggest trading partner is making economic decisions further down the line (that may not be Eurozone crisis related), what's Britain's position going to be?

A competitive one born out of our own freedom from European rule.

This could have easily been handled without becoming isolated.

How, any deal/treaty will always be weighted to benefit the Euro, which England isn't a part of. It's ludicrous to agree to sanctions that will benefit a currency/market over and above our own.

I'm not saying England should leave Europe. But we have a seperate currency so we should think of ourselves as a seperate Country with our own interests.

#1 - If Britian is isolated in the discussions, they won't have a position.

If the slow down has showed anything is that a) enormous parts of Britain's economy isn't competitive, and b) it's pretty f*cking closely correlated with what goes on in Europe. So it makes sense to have a say in what goes on in Europe.

Actually parts of Britain's economy isn't competitive because of European legislation. Lets take fishing, fishermen have a limiting quota and have to throw back (or throw away) any fish caught (usually tons) over the quota due to EU Legislation. This limiting how much they can make.

Just how competitive due you think our Financial sector would be if bound by this Euro treaty?

#2 A stable Euro is in the interest of the UK right now. Furthermore, it's quite OK to negotiate contentious issues OUT of the agreement, rather than get in and Veto it. You've got to play the long game in politics always.

The agreement was weighted against the UK, which isn't in the Eurozone. The deal would have gone ahead as it was beneficial to the Euro. It couldn't be both beneficial to the Euro and the Pound. It was better to veto and benefit the Pound while still allowing the Euro to stabilise itself.

rick_chasey

If it's weighted against, you NEGOTIATE, you don't Veto.

Better have the EU in the tent pissing out than them pissing in.

il_principe

Rick Chasey wrote:

If it's weighted against, you NEGOTIATE, you don't Veto.

Better have the EU in the tent pissing out than them pissing in.

Sorry but in order to negotiate you have to be offered concessions in return, otherwise it's not a negotiation, it's a shafting.

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

Instead, they went in with petty demands on FS sh!t that no-one other than Britain gives a sh!t about, and now they're out of the loop.

Well, if no-one cares, why didn't they just accede?

W1

Il Principe wrote:

He clearly made the right - and frankly only choice. Germany enjoys an unfair advantage within Europe as it is. It's only right that we retain as much control over our FS as possible.

What really f*cks me off about Europe (and I'm not anti-Europe) is the amount of money they waste - things like the Strasboug parliament which costs £150 million a year, let alone the time wasted in travel etc. I do not see how this can continue to be justified, but of course the French will never agree to scrapping the tray train.

let alone the corruption - they haven't been able to sign off their accounts for a decade!

We should only be "in" europe once they get their house in order. Until then, it's a massive money pit of waste and corruption.

rick_chasey

Fishing? Oh c'mon. That's negligable. I doubt legislation relating to concerns about over-fishing is what's holding the UK back.

The UK does more trade with Europe than any other economic zone, by miles and miles.

And can we stop refering to benefits to the 'pound'? The currency is left to float. It's about British and economic long term interest.

Like I said, financial regulation is not the issue in Europe today. It might be tomorrow, but not now. Even then, some financual regulation is needed.

The demands made by the French were totally designed to exclude and isolate Britain, since a) they're without any good logic and b) they only hurt the UK.

You don't just fall hook line and sinker for it. You get to the other countries and say ' look here, you want a Franco-German axis bullying everyone, like they have Italy and Greece, or are we going to have an inclusive Europe?', and take that line.

It's just so basic. Britain got properly outmanoeuvred by euro-sceptic naivety.

rjsterry

Did Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary not agree with us? Not the biggest players in Europe, granted, but it's not just us.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Did Sweden, the Czech Republic and Hungary not agree with us? Not the biggest players in Europe, granted, but it's not just us.

il_principe

Sorry but France and Germany have made their bed. We shouldn't have to lie in it. The Euro hugely favoured Germany (as the largest manufacturing/exporting) nation. They lent freely to Southern Europe who of course took advantage of cheap borrowing, despite have relatively far weaker economies. They were never gonna be able to compete, et voila Clusterfuck.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

Sorry but France and Germany have made their bed. We shouldn't have to lie in it. The Euro hugely favoured Germany (as the largest manufacturing/exporting) nation. They lent freely to Southern Europe who of course took advantage of cheap borrowing, despite have relatively far weaker economies. They were never gonna be able to compete, et voila Clusterfuck.

You don't have to lie in it to be part of the discussion and the process.

It's only like that if you go in with binary objectives > which is schoolboy.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

Fishing? Oh c'mon. That's negligable. I doubt legislation relating to concerns about over-fishing is what's holding the UK back.

The UK does more trade with Europe than any other economic zone, by miles and miles.

And can we stop refering to benefits to the 'pound'? The currency is left to float. It's about British and economic long term interest.

Like I said, financial regulation is not the issue in Europe today. It might be tomorrow, but not now. Even then, some financual regulation is needed.

The demands made by the French were totally designed to exclude and isolate Britain, since a) they're without any good logic and b) they only hurt the UK.

You don't just fall hook line and sinker for it. You get to the other countries and say ' look here, you want a Franco-German axis bullying everyone, like they have Italy and Greece, or are we going to have an inclusive Europe?', and take that line.

It's just so basic. Britain got properly outmanoeuvred by euro-sceptic naivety.

It's an example. An example that demostrates that any legislation designed to benefit one economy (in this case the Euro) is never going to benefit those economies outside its own. Why would it? That's not how economics work, it's not how capitalism work. The Euro has to go it alone to succeed - the Pound cannot be bound by it nor should the Euro be bound by the pound.

As for Britain having an influence. Poppycock! Britian was running the risk of being accused of interfereing and ridculed with the "Your not in the Euro so why should have so much say" rhetoric.

Having an influence in the European Union is more important at this stage than being able to say what a group of countries can and cannot do with their currency when we are not part of it.

il_principe

Ok then, you tell me, what where the options we should have taken/negotiated? Even Labour have admitted they would not have signed.

jzed

Interesting, according to Wiki, the net contribution to the EU per head for the UK is higher than the French. 25% more.

Even more interesting, whilst each UK citizen contributed €1000 a head, each Greek received €2,000 a head.

il_principe

This is what I was trying to say:

Trevor Greetham, director of asset allocation, Fidelity Worldwide Investment

We have another euro agreement but one that misses the point. What is going on in the euro area is not a crisis of government profligacy. It is a balance of payments crisis of a fixed exchange rate regime.
Moves to enshrine balanced budgets in national constitutions are fair weather policies not able to deal with current imbalances, which again were not primarily related to government spending but to a lack of competitiveness.

Steven Barrow, Standard Bank

EU leaders have misidentified the causes of the crisis. German leader Merkel essentially said yesterday that the crisis has come about because governments did not respect the Stability Pact, which was meant to enshrine good budget practice in the region....
The reason the euro zone has a debt crisis is because it lacks the transfer mechanisms that compensate for the fact that national policymakers can no longer run an independent monetary and currency policy. And bailouts don’t substitute for proper transfer systems.

Merkel/Sarkozy have been the architects of their own downfall. We do not need them meddling in our affairs. Esp Sarkozy.

rjsterry

JZed wrote:

Interesting, according to Wiki, the net contribution to the EU per head for the UK is higher than the French. 25% more.

Even more interesting, whilst each UK citizen contributed €1000 a head, each Greek received €2,000 a head.

That said, our farmers (as well as the French ones) would struggle to survive without EU subsidies. Some deprived areas of the UK also get a fair bit of EU funding.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

Ok then, you tell me, what where the options we should have taken/negotiated? Even Labour have admitted they would not have signed.

It's all about the groundwork.

Go in making noises that you're willing to help.

Go in making big noises that financial regulation, right now, has nothing to do with it.

Go in, making a strong micro & marco economic argument re- the bizarre French demands. They're easy to make.

When he's chatting to Merkal 3 weeks ago, he should be saying "look, you don't want 2 speed. The French do. We don't like these French demands - therefore, we can work with something"

DON'T go in saying "we're going to get out of Europe as much as we can" like it's some kinda bank you're planning to rob.

DON'T use the veto so soon. Get in there, and argue your face off, not with a menu of demands, but taking the broader macro-policy into play. Say, keep the two speed policy, but only restrict it to pure ESSF or other debt-reducing schemes. Leave the regulation bullsh!t that isn't relevant on the side.

The short term gain from getting out of this is a long term cost. It's the end of a 50year policy that the UK gets stuck in.

The Eurozone may be the Eurozone nation's problem. But if it f*cks, the UK is f*cked.

Like it or not, Britain is involved economically. So it pays get stuck in politically.


The problem the UK has is that the electorate don't like Europe. Which is a problem > in the same way the Germans don't want to prop. up the Euro with their own cash, even though that's would solve it all and it'd be, generally, better for everyone.