Friday flurry - NIMBYs

W1

It's simple, the UK should withdraw all funding from the EU.

DonDaddyD

If EU decisions and institutions become tools that solely benefit the Eurozone, I could see it coming to that.

rick_chasey

Which is why the UK should stay involved.

The UK vetoed stuff that could be put into place anyway by european council majorities anyway.

All that the veto has done has forced the eurozone nations to arrange a eurozone crisis solution between themselves, outside of the EU bodies, where the UK has no influence.

DonDaddyD

If the policies in the Treaty are carried over into the EU then I'd say England would need to consider pulling out of the EU altogether.

The Eurozone should solely focus on the Euro and it's matters. The EU should always be seperate from that and treated as such. The minute the EU becomes a tool for the Euro's progression then those countries that want to maintain their independence (and currency) should pull out as a matter of principle.

There I've said it, from the back bench.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

If EU decisions and institutions become tools that solely benefit the Eurozone, I could see it coming to that.

Give that it is our #1 trading partner, the Eurozone not being economically ruined would benefit us, right? Cameron just pulled a bit of a Farage. He's not particularly defending UK interests, and has alienated us from the group that actually makes the decisions. All just to keep his party happy and to comfort The City.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Which is why the UK should stay involved.

The UK vetoed stuff that could be put into place anyway by european council majorities anyway.

All that the veto has done has forced the eurozone nations to arrange a eurozone crisis solution between themselves, outside of the EU bodies, where the UK has no influence.

Being outside of the Euro, I don't think we had much influence. Eurozone policy has always followed the needs of the Euro. Were we disaffected?

I don't really know what the consequences of being an outside in Europe will be. I presume we'll still be able to buy BMWs and sell Nissans, I presume the borders won't be closed and I presume free flow of trade and people will continue. So we miss out on debating how best to save Greece - but given that those risks fall far firmly on the Germans (and the French), that process would have been lead with or without the UK's input.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

The minute the EU becomes a tool for the Euro's progression then those countries that want to maintain their independence (and currency) should pull out as a matter of principle.

It already is. The Eurozone countries are predominantly Euro countries. There is a conflict of interest that cannot easily be managed, and certainly won't be in the French of the Germans disagree. What can the UK do? Bleat in the background, little more.

DonDaddyD

I agree with you on this.

rick_chasey

The UK is ultimately part of Europe, and does the majority of its trading with it.

The benefits to being part of a single economic market are significant. Only need to look up any basic economics textbook to illustrate that. It improves market efficiency, improves the movement of labour and capital ( see the poles for example)

What happens in Europe directly affects the UK, whether part of the European institutions or not. I think this << is the salient point that many separatists seem to miss. The assumption is that being outside of the EU will isolate the UK from European problems. It won't. Norway is a good case example of that. No say in what goes on, but gets carried along by what happens in Europe.

As part of Europe the UK will have a stronger voice, and a stronger bargaining position in geopolitical terms. On its own it no longer has the economic or political clout to count.

For a European perspective, a liberalist market orientated large member would be a useful counterweight to some of the more static centrist politics that can occur in Europe.

Stevo_666

daviesee wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

daviesee wrote:

I may have over-achieved here.

This was only supposed to be a Friday troll thread.

Stand down.

Aww - it was just getting interesting again.

Stevo does what I say. :shock: Yeah!

For some reason the smilies don't work at the moment for me - unless I type them in manually ;-)

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

The UK is ultimately part of Europe, and does the majority of its trading with it.

The benefits to being part of a single economic market are significant. Only need to look up any basic economics textbook to illustrate that. It improves market efficiency, improves the movement of labour and capital ( see the poles for example)

What happens in Europe directly affects the UK, whether part of the European institutions or not. I think this << is the salient point that many separatists seem to miss. The assumption is that being outside of the EU will isolate the UK from European problems. It won't. Norway is a good case example of that. No say in what goes on, but gets carried along by what happens in Europe.

As part of Europe the UK will have a stronger voice, and a stronger bargaining position in geopolitical terms. On its own it no longer has the economic or political clout to count.

For a European perspective, a liberalist market orientated large member would be a useful counterweight to some of the more static centrist politics that can occur in Europe.

But what is the point of being "part of the European institutions" if the UK's view is not heeded?

We are part of Europe, and I don't think that separating is practical. But distancing? Yes, at the moment I think the greater distance we have, the more insulated we are. Practically speaking, if the UK's interests conflict with the Eurozone (read: Euro) interests, we are still going to have them forced upon us. So the options are to be there, weakly going with the flow, occasionally being shouted down. Or veto, make a strong point, show that we are able to go against the flow if it is not in our interests (whether it is or not is open to debate and will only be settled in hindsight).

I repeat, we are not suddenly going to have no trade with Europe, nor are the borders going to close. So what are the practical issues that you see for normal people in the UK because of this step?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree with you on this.

Slowly but surely the shadows are creeping over you.... :shock:

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

RJS still needs to chime in with renewed faith that his "Liberal High Lord Clegg" has finally grown a pair.

Cleggy boy was missing from PM question time today.

Rumours of his "pair" have been premature. :twisted:

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

The UK is ultimately part of Europe, and does the majority of its trading with it.

And that's the bit I think we all want - also it's what we originally signed up for when it was the 'Common market'.

Even before this last ruction, it seems that although we had a voice, it wasn't really being listened to as the rest of the 'club' were still determined to press ahead with ever more integration, transfer of power to Brussels etc. Which is what a lot of us (and probably the majority of the voting public in the UK) don't want. For me the price paid to 'have a voice' was too high on many levels.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

RJS still needs to chime in with renewed faith that his "Liberal High Lord Clegg" has finally grown a pair.

Missed that earlier I'm no great fan of Clegg and he is as chained to his MPs as Cameron - he had to make some sort of pro-Euro gesture as much as Cameron 'had' to use the veto. Personally, I think Cameron was stuffed before he even went to Brussels - Merkozy had already decided what they were going to do, and Cameron already didn't have enough influenceto be able to marshal support from other EU/non-euro members. I don't think anyone really knows how it will play out for us or the eurozone in the long term.

daviesee

I agree Steve.
However, our continental partners see it differently. Sooner or later the question will come.
Are you (all) in or (all) out?
The pick & choose partial entry will end one day.

jamesco

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The UK is ultimately part of Europe, and does the majority of its trading with it.

And that's the bit I think we all want - also it's what we originally signed up for when it was the 'Common market'.

Even before this last ruction, it seems that although we had a voice, it wasn't really being listened to as the rest of the 'club' were still determined to press ahead with ever more integration, transfer of power to Brussels etc. Which is what a lot of us (and probably the majority of the voting public in the UK) don't want. For me the price paid to 'have a voice' was too high on many levels.

There're two basic views of the role of the EU:

1. It's a free-trade area (the Tory view in Britain) 2. It's a project to harmonise Europe (the LibDem view, shared with almost the rest of the EU)

The free-traders are very much in the minority; the EU covers 500 million or so people and the right-wing English Euro-skeptics are heavily outnumbered. Cameron achieved nothing with his veto - a veto is meant to stop something from happening, after all, and he didn't - but he did manage to isolate the UK, all for the sake of a handful of banking spivs who royally f*cked up the world economy.

Unless British diplomats can somehow clean up the mess, the consequences can only be negative for Britain. It was so stupid.

W1

jamesco wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The UK is ultimately part of Europe, and does the majority of its trading with it.

And that's the bit I think we all want - also it's what we originally signed up for when it was the 'Common market'.

Even before this last ruction, it seems that although we had a voice, it wasn't really being listened to as the rest of the 'club' were still determined to press ahead with ever more integration, transfer of power to Brussels etc. Which is what a lot of us (and probably the majority of the voting public in the UK) don't want. For me the price paid to 'have a voice' was too high on many levels.

There're two basic views of the role of the EU:

1. It's a free-trade area (the Tory view in Britain) 2. It's a project to harmonise Europe (the LibDem view, shared with almost the rest of the EU)

The free-traders are very much in the minority; the EU covers 500 million or so people and the right-wing English Euro-skeptics are heavily outnumbered. Cameron achieved nothing with his veto - a veto is meant to stop something from happening, after all, and he didn't - but he did manage to isolate the UK, all for the sake of a handful of banking spivs who royally f*cked up the world economy.

Unless British diplomats can somehow clean up the mess, the consequences can only be negative for Britain. It was so stupid.

As no-one else has managed to, can you explain how? And what is the problem of being "isloated" when, as a non-Euro member, we are already on the fringes of Eurozone policy?

Just because something is popular in mainland Europe, does not mean that it should be imposed on the UK. I think the split in the UK is much more marginal - surely that is much more important to us than what the rest of Europe want?

Haven't we done "lets all blame" the bankers already? And concluded it's a nonsense argument?

jamesco

W1 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

There're two basic views of the role of the EU:

1. It's a free-trade area (the Tory view in Britain) 2. It's a project to harmonise Europe (the LibDem view, shared with almost the rest of the EU)

The free-traders are very much in the minority; the EU covers 500 million or so people and the right-wing English Euro-skeptics are heavily outnumbered. Cameron achieved nothing with his veto - a veto is meant to stop something from happening, after all, and he didn't - but he did manage to isolate the UK, all for the sake of a handful of banking spivs who royally f*cked up the world economy.

Unless British diplomats can somehow clean up the mess, the consequences can only be negative for Britain. It was so stupid.

As no-one else has managed to, can you explain how? And what is the problem of being "isloated" when, as a non-Euro member, we are already on the fringes of Eurozone policy?

Just because something is popular in mainland Europe, does not mean that it should be imposed on the UK. I think the split in the UK is much more marginal - surely that is much more important to us than what the rest of Europe want?

Haven't we done "lets all blame" the bankers already? And concluded it's a nonsense argument?

You asked, so here's one example: 49 billion pounds, and that's just for RBS.

Geographic location has nothing to do with influence on policy; being the 1 in 1 vs. 26 does. If the UK EU-skeptics keep wanting isolation, it's what they'll get, to the cost of all of us.

Stevo_666

I don't see why we need to be 'harmonised with' the rest of Europe (read: effectively run by a bunch of unelected european beaurocrats who don't have the UK's best interests at heart): this is where it would end up if we just rolled over every time the likes of France and Germany put the pressure on. And let's not pretend that they are doing it it purely to be good Europeans: since when have the French and Sarko been so altruistic and gone along with things that don't suit their interests. Too many Europeans share this rather naive view that the Anglo Saxon financial sector is to blame for the woes of the Eurozone, rather than the fundamental flaws in the Euro which will continue to cause havoc.

And there are countries in Europe who do very well indeed outside of the EU: Norway as mentioned which is in the EEA but not the EU; and Switzerland which is in neither. I imagine the UK could do pretty well without the constant interference and over-regulation from Brussels.

Stevo_666

daviesee wrote:

I agree Steve.
However, our continental partners see it differently. Sooner or later the question will come.
Are you (all) in or (all) out?
The pick & choose partial entry will end one day.

Possibly, although to some extent it may depend on how our European friends behave. If they start trying to 'do over' the UK with unwanted regulations or measures designed to damage our key industries ets, then we may have to reconsider whether it is in our best interests to stay. But it hasn't come to that - yet.

Stone Glider

The cost/benefit of being in the E U is pretty neutral BUT the largest landowners in this country do very well out of the C A P. Oddly enough they are also, largely, major donors to the Tories. Expect lots of soothing noises about 'business as usual' in the next few months. However the grandees and panjandrum's of our political/diplomatic elite will come to notice a slackening in the attention of their equivalents in the rest of the world. Britain will not be able to claim the role of 'gatekeeper' to the E U for the anglophone world that it previously enjoyed. Having to deal direct with France and Germany may be a pain initially but folks will get used to it soon enough. A life of diminishing influence and importance beckons. No more 'punching above our weight' thank goodness, perhaps a chance to realise the truth in our status as a post industrial country and theme park.

daviesee

Stevo 666 wrote:

Possibly, although to some extent it may depend on how our European friends behave. If they start trying to 'do over' the UK with unwanted regulations or measures designed to damage our key industries ets, then we may have to reconsider whether it is in our best interests to stay. But it hasn't come to that - yet.

My point is that they will behave like this:-

More harmonisation in the EU and the Euro in particular.
A central bank set up to oversee things. Logically that should have been done from the start.
Once that is set up the ultimatum will come that for the EU to work effectively all members have to be in the controlled Euro.
Britain then has to make the hard choice.

One thing is for sure. The status quo will not remain for long. Years rather than decades.

daviesee

jamesco wrote:

Geographic location has nothing to do with influence on policy; being the 1 in 1 vs. 26 does. If the UK EU-skeptics keep wanting isolation, it's what they'll get, to the cost of all of us.

We were already isolated. We are not in the Euro.
Anyone thinking we can influence the Euro whilst being outside it is deluding themselves.

Being isolated from the Euro may or may not be a bad thing. Fact being is that at this point in time no one knows.

rick_chasey

Saw this quote from Chris Huhne. Spot the Europhile..

"There is an old adage in Brussels: 'If you are not in the room, you are on the menu'."

S'what I've been saying.

rick_chasey

Some of the guys above are right to say that Britain didn't have much influence even before the veto.

I'd suggest that is in part systemic failure of the foreign office over many years.

You have to ask why there aren't any senior offials in Brussels who are from the UK. There are plenty from France and Germany. These positions and the nationality of those who hold it are intensely political - it's not much to do with talent.

More recently - the tory MP alignment not with the other centre-right parties in the EU parliament (Merkel and Sarkozy's parties especially) has deprived them of both influence and intelligence. Aligning yourself with super-far right parties who's only common interest is getting out of Europe is not conducive to influential policy. As far as I see, it, there's no value in this political alignment.

Now of course, as much as I think the Tories get it wrong and get irrational over Europe, they're not that stupid. The above may have been a tactic to reduce UK's influence so that they could leave Europe.

rick_chasey

Case in point.

One of the few UK MEPs in a strong position, Sharon Bowles who chairs the Economic and Monetary Affairs committee, is in danger of being totally side-lined.

She's supposed to be leading the negotiations across the EU for financial regulation, and some MEPs are now calling for her to leave because the UK's new position.

From the FT:

Although no formal request to change the committee chair has yet been tabled, some MEPs are openly calling for Ms Bowles to resign and are questioning whether a British MEP has the credibility to lead a committee dealing with the eurozone – a movement gathering momentum after Britain’s defiant stand at last week’s summit.
“This is not about her competence, it is about her nationality,” said one ally.
In a sign of the mounting pressure on British representatives in Brussels, Elmar Brok, a veteran German MEP, said it was time to “marginalise Britain, so that the country comes to feel its loss of influence”.

rick_chasey

Financial regulation is decided (AFAIK) by majority votes, not unanimity, so they can be passed anyway, UK veto or not.

DonDaddyD

One thing, why should England have an influence and a say on what happens to the Euro? Where does this sense of entitlement stem from? England isn't a part of the Euro, doesn't want to be nor should it be. Leave it alone and stop interfering. Do the Eurozone Countries influence and have a say - by way of directly voting for changes - on what happens to the Pound?

England has a financial interest in the strength of the Euro in the same way America or China has. Yes I'm of the view that the EU's role is a free trade area and our attention should focus and stop there.

The time will come when the EU and its institutions are solely driven by Eurozone (Euro) decisions and when it does then I think England will need to decide whether it should join the Euro and relinquish the Pound or consider itself an outsider (not part of Europe) like America/China et al.

I will say this, I'm of the thought that should England join the Euro it'll be over-powered by larger Countries with naturally stronger economies born out of the larger scale of their natural resources.

wookie6262

DonDaddyD wrote:

One thing, why should England have an influence and a say on what happens to the Euro? Where does this sense of entitlement stem from? England isn't a part of the Euro, doesn't want to be nor should it be. Leave it alone and stop interfering. Do the Eurozone Countries influence and have a say - by way of directly voting for changes - on what happens to the Pound?

England has a financial interest in the strength of the Euro in the same way America or China has. Yes I'm of the view that the EU's role is a free trade area and our attention should focus and stop there.

The time will come when the EU and its institutions are solely driven by Eurozone (Euro) decisions and when it does then I think England will need to decide whether it should join the Euro and relinquish the Pound or consider itself an outsider (not part of Europe) like America/China et al.

I will say this, I'm of the thought that should England join the Euro it'll be over-powered by larger Countries with naturally stronger economies born out of the larger scale of their natural resources.

Cameron isn't just the Prime minister for England. He pisses off a good few people to the north and west of England too