Friday flurry - NIMBYs

rick_chasey

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?

Forget the currency for a moment. That's a red herring.

Britain has a say in how the Eurozone crisis is solved, since the crisis in its current form is a sovereign debt crisis - and British money will most likely be used, amongst others, to help. (IMF money, of which the UK contributes a lot, or ESSF money (or a combination of both).

But what the UK was veto-ing was nothing to do with the Euro currency. It was to do with financial regulation. Some in Europe (rightly) point a finger at poor financial regulation as a catalyst for the current problem, and so see it as part of the deal, but it's a medium term issue at its most immediate.

It's in the UK's interest to help shape the eurozone solution in a way that supports wider Europe (esp. the UK obviously) more generally.

I can't understand the advantage of giving up the potential for influence.

Influence or not, they're exposed to Europe. In the EU or not, they're just as exposed.

rick_chasey

Cameron chats about what he can get out of Europe.

Now, Britain can get less out of Europe than it did.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

Forget the currency for a moment. That's a red herring.

Britain has a say in how the Eurozone crisis is solved, since the crisis in its current form is a sovereign debt crisis - and British money will most likely be used, amongst others, to help. (IMF money, of which the UK contributes a lot, or ESSF money (or a combination of both).

But what the UK was veto-ing was nothing to do with the Euro currency. It was to do with financial regulation. Some in Europe (rightly) point a finger at poor financial regulation as a catalyst for the current problem, and so see it as part of the deal, but it's a medium term issue at its most immediate.

It's in the UK's interest to help shape the eurozone solution in a way that supports wider Europe (esp. the UK obviously) more generally.

I can't understand the advantage of giving up the potential for influence.

Influence or not, they're exposed to Europe. In the EU or not, they're just as exposed.

Poppycock, there are other Countries who aren't part of the Eurozone, who pay into the IMF and do not ask or want to have as much say on Eurozone matters as England does. So that answers nothing.

Furthermore:

Forget the currency for a moment. That's a red herring.

and

It's in the UK's interest to help shape the eurozone solution in a way that supports wider Europe (esp. the UK obviously) more generally.

It's either about the currency or not. Which is it? If it's about the Eurozone it's about the Currency. If it's about the EU then it's about the single market or harmonisation.

I thought this treaty was designed to save the Eurozone economy through better financial regualtion, which would have been unfair to Britain - I.e. currency.

DonDaddyD

I personally think this is a great article:

A good deal for the UK - or the Euro

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

Forget the currency for a moment. That's a red herring.

Britain has a say in how the Eurozone crisis is solved, since the crisis in its current form is a sovereign debt crisis - and British money will most likely be used, amongst others, to help. (IMF money, of which the UK contributes a lot, or ESSF money (or a combination of both).

But what the UK was veto-ing was nothing to do with the Euro currency. It was to do with financial regulation. Some in Europe (rightly) point a finger at poor financial regulation as a catalyst for the current problem, and so see it as part of the deal, but it's a medium term issue at its most immediate.

It's in the UK's interest to help shape the eurozone solution in a way that supports wider Europe (esp. the UK obviously) more generally.

I can't understand the advantage of giving up the potential for influence.

Influence or not, they're exposed to Europe. In the EU or not, they're just as exposed.

Poppycock, there are other Countries who aren't part of the Eurozone and who pay into the IMF that do not ask or want to have as much say on Eurozone matters as England does. So that answers nothing.

Furthermore:

Forget the currency for a moment. That's a red herring.

and

It's in the UK's interest to help shape the eurozone solution in a way that supports wider Europe (esp. the UK obviously) more generally.

It's either about the currency or not. Which is it? If it's about the Eurozone it's about the Currency. If it's about the EU then it's about the single market or harmonisation.

I thought this treaty was designed to save the Eurozone economy through better financial regualtion, which would have been unfair to Britain - I.e. currency.

It's about sovereign debt.

If nations within the Eurzone cannot afford to the debt they have accrued then they will have to leave the single currency in order to devalue > which is messy and causes general economic carnage.

That's not an issue about the currency per se. It's a sovereign debt issue, which isn't helped by the currency.

The solution has nothing to do with the currency. The values of the pound and euro are not fixed (well, the kind of are in the Euro, but only internally, between other eurozone nations), so that's why they're red herrings.

The solution is to make sure any nation in the eurozone doesn't default.

Re the IMF - that's only one of the proposed solutions. Another is the ESSF solution. Another again is the German solution. Why would you not want the UK to have a say in that, whether they're part of the Eurozone or not?

On the one hand, Euro-sceptics talk of "getting what Britain needs out of Europe" but on the other talk about the 'fairness' of Britain having a say in the solution.

Can't have it both ways.

rick_chasey

You also have to ask why the foreign office was left in the dark during the negotiations...

DonDaddyD

OK thanks for clearing that up.

When America was debating about raising their debt ceiling - which circles the remit of Government debt/Sovereign debt - the decision could have affected (and in some ways did affect) the entire World.

Britain did not and does not want more say or influence on what decisions America makes, right? Sure Cameron may write a strongly worded letter in green ink but that's as far as it goes. Britain doesn't have a sense of entitlement to tell or try and influence what America should do.

Yes if the Eurozone goes belly it would be catastrophic for Britain but the fact remains the same. Britain is not part of the Eurozone. So where does this sense of entitlement stem from.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

You also have to ask why the foreign office was left in the dark during the negotiations...

I think Cameron had no choice but to veto - as agreeing would lead to opening up other issues like the rehousing of EU financial institutions on Eurozone soil. So I think he was right to veto.

I think it wrong that it came to that point and by extension Cameron's actions were wrong leading up to that point.

This will be make or break for the Coalition, Britain on an international stage and Cameron - I think he is fighting a war on too many political fronts.

He lacks the subtlety and skill of the Dark Lord Blair

daviesee

Face it. The whole thing is a friggin' mess.

We lose money by propping up Countries that cannot support themselves.
We lose money by not propping up Countries that cannot support themselves.

I see trouble ahead...............

daviesee

PS - DonDaddyD, as much as I agree with where you are coming from, get over the England thing.

DonDaddyD

What England thing? Should I have said Britain?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK thanks for clearing that up.

When America was debating about raising their debt ceiling - which circles the remit of Government debt/Sovereign debt - the decision could have affected (and in some ways did affect) the entire World.

Britain did not and does not want more say or influence on what decisions America makes, right. Sure Cameron may write a strongly worded letter in green ink but that's as far as it goes. Britain doesn't have a sense of entitlement to tell or try and influence what America should do.

Yes if the Eurozone goes belly it would be catastrophic for England but the fact remains the same. England is not part of the Eurozone. So where does this sense of entitlement stem from.

It's not about entitlement. It's about the way Europe is structured.

In order for the Euro to survive, and right now that's in the world's interest, not just Europe (the telegraph reported a predicted 10% economic contraction in the UK alone if the euro collapses), the eurozone countries need to be more closely politically aligned, so that the correct bodies, institutions and powers are there to manage a single European currency, including sovereign debt, financial regulation (less important in my opinion) etc etc.

Germany wanted this to go through the formal route, and enshrine it in a new treaty, ala the Lisbon treaty, via the 27 full members.

The French, weary of its experience with the Lisbon treaty, wanted to bypass the formal routes and arrange a situation besides the EU bodies with just the 17(?) Eurozone countries. It is also in a much weaker position to Germany, and this solution lets it negotiate solutions that, for example, protect French bank's (excessive) exposure.

Now, the above makes it more difficult to police and to make sure it works. The German solution naturally Germany, since it will ultimately be stricter, and improve Germany's position (as the eurozone creditor).

As part of the German solution, they wanted stricter financial controls, which is (apparently) where Cameron veto'd, sinking that idea.

It's no coincidence those financial control demands came directly from France, who's preferred solution to this is now occurring.

It's not about entitlement. It's just how Europe works. The UK DOES has a say, a big say, in treaties, since it affects them, like Lisbon. It just so happens in this case, an important political solution to the Euro is a treaty, which the UK has a say in.

Now, I'm saying Britain did not have to blow Germany out of the water immediately and sink that idea. I'm saying as above, that these financial controls are not important to the Eurozone saviour, and could have easily been negotiated out - especially when you consider they can be passed totally separately from a treaty (with a majority, over a unanimous vote which you need for a treaty).

I'm also saying that a lot was suggested re these financial controls were the same as suggested in the Vickers report, commissioned by the current gov't.

I'm also saying that the cost to going along with the treaty, which in reality would have a minor effect on the UK, save for helping save the Euro which is a big plus, is pretty small, and is short term pain.

The cost to losing influence in Europe more generally, even outside of the eurozone, is big. The Sharon Bowles example illustrates the point.

Her losing her position also adversely affects the City, since, after all, the City wants a continual presence in financial regulation negotiation. After all, the City is just to Europe what HK is to Asia. What happens in Europe affects the City, whether it's aimed at it or not.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

So where does this sense of entitlement stem from.

It was more that 'we' didn't want the whole EU changed for the benefit of just the eurozone. The plan was to revise the Lisbon Treaty, which affects all EU members whether in the eurozone or not. We do have a say in how the EU is run. As a result of the veto, the eurozone countries have had to make intergovernmental arrangements outside the remit of the EU.

Cameron does seem to have burnt even more bridges in Europe with this move judging by some of the fallout being broadcast today.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Cameron does seem to have burnt even more bridges in Europe with this move judging by some of the fallout being broadcast today.

For me, the question is whether that was intentional or not.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

What England thing? Should I have said Britain?

Yup!

Actually, the whole England, Scotland, Britain thing is quite a good parrallel to the EU issue.

The British public sees Britain as part of the EU much the same as Alex Salmond sees Scotland in Britain.
The EU sees Britain much in the same way as England sees Scotland.

Stevo_666

Regarding the point about 'being on the menu if you're not at the table', do we really want to be in a club whose members decide to pick on you if you don't like the changes or decide to leave? Aside from all the other downsides of membership beyond those which encourage trade etc.

That said, I suspect that the darker intentions of Gemany, France and certain Eurocrats towards the UK would have been easier if we had signed up to a treaty as then there would be little choice but to go along with the changes. At least by vetoing we have a chance of fighting the necessary battles without our arms being tied.

deptfordmarmoset

Stevo 666 wrote:

Regarding the point about 'being on the menu if you're not at the table', do we really want to be in a club whose members decide to pick on you if you don't like the changes or decide to leave? Aside from all the other downsides of membership beyond those which encourage trade etc.

Hmm, is club the right word? Gang seems to be more accurate. Forced unanimity, intolerance of difference, clear gangleaders.

I sometimes describe myself as an european (without a capital letter) - because, as a mix of Celtic and Swiss parentage, I have no need for Europe as an Institution, europe is where I live, and european is what I am. I despair of all the main players in this fiasco.

jamesco

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Hmm, is club the right word? Gang seems to be more accurate. Forced unanimity, intolerance of difference, clear gangleaders.

Maybe, but if you were playing for your local soccer club and one team-mate decided he'd like to pick up the ball and run with it, spoiling the game for everyone, you might get a bit grumpy. Especially if this bloke kept saying that soccer is stupid and he was only in the team for what he could get out of it...

Anyway, if you describe yourself as "european" you're a success-story/victim of the EU, because 100 years ago few would describe themselves as anything other than their nationality. Your parents made love, not war, and that's a damn good thing!

Stevo_666

jamesco wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Hmm, is club the right word? Gang seems to be more accurate. Forced unanimity, intolerance of difference, clear gangleaders.

Maybe, but if you were playing for your local soccer club and one team-mate decided he'd like to pick up the ball and run with it, spoiling the game for everyone, you might get a bit grumpy. Especially if this bloke kept saying that soccer is stupid and he was only in the team for what he could get out of it...

It's the other way round - the rest of the football team have picked up the ball, spoiling it for the one (and it was the French bloke's idea to cheat ;-) ).

That said, this all assumes that all of the other 26 players will be able to get their democratically elected representatives to ratify this new way of playing, or that their electorate will approve it in a referendum (God forbid, some countries will actually let the people vote on whether they want any of this). Easier said than done thankfully, although in typical fashion I expect that the EU will ask these countries to vote again until they get the 'right answer' in their all-too-typical contempt of democracy.

daviesee

New addendum.

Last week we were 24 hours from the Euro going bust.
Drastic measures had to be taken.

Roll on to today. What has actually happened? Nothing. :?

I am not asking what has been said. Or what has been planned. But nothing has been ratified or changed really. Other than a wee trip and get together for (most of) the leaders what happened that saved the Euro?

Stevo_666

daviesee wrote:

New addendum.

Last week we were 24 hours from the Euro going bust.
Drastic measures had to be taken.

Roll on to today. What has actually happened? Nothing :?

Seems the markets think that what's been announced isn't that much different from what has already been put in place and the fundamental flaws of the Euro remain, so looks like the Eurozone is still heading for the proverbial brick wall - presumably at a faster pace now that Sarko has announced a 'two speed Europe' :-D

rjsterry

This may be relevant http://www.rte.ie/radio1/greentea/ Click on the 10th December edition

daviesee

Excellent find!

Very funny but scarilly close to the truth. That'll be satire then