Some quite good ones there :D
26 prawn sandwich and one BLT. Go figure.
Printable View
Some quite good ones there :D
26 prawn sandwich and one BLT. Go figure.
from teh economist
seems to me as if the brits have been really really stupid about this.Quote:
In the nick of time, a well-placed source (a senior official who is broadly neutral towards the British government in this fight) has given me his reading of what happened, and where it all turned sour for Mr Cameron. It rings true to me.
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.
Then, says my source, came the second crunch moment for Mr Cameron. Once the 27 EU leaders gathered in the summit room, a sense rapidly emerged that a lot of countries did not share Germany's enthusiasm for full-blown treaty change, a process which is slow and fraught with risks (the markets might not wait that long, Ireland might have to hold a referendum, Britain would have to get a vote through the House of Commons and so on).
By a certain point on Thursday night, I am told, a majority of countries were growing interested in a quick and dirty legal fix, suggested by the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The fix was dreamed up by lawyers working for Mr Van Rompuy. They said that a legal device, known as "Protocol 12", would allow the 27 leaders of the EU to agree most of the new rules and mechanisms for fiscal union in the euro zone by a simple, unanimous decision among themselves.
Suddenly, Germany looked isolated. Mr Van Rompuy, a former Belgian prime minister elected by EU leaders to chair their summits, decided to see if he could sweeten the deal for the wavering EU leaders, and asked Mr Cameron if he would consider dropping some of his requests. This made sense to some leaders in the room. Mr Cameron's demands were already more than many of his colleagues would tolerate, and Britain had already said publicly it would tailor its demands to the scale of the treaty change on the table. Mr Cameron said he would not lower his ambitions, and that his demands would be the same in the event of Protocol 12 being used, or a full-blown EU treaty.
A hostile view of this is that Mr Cameron overplayed his hand. In this version of events, the British prime minister thought the mood of the room was running towards Protocol 12, and because Protocol 12 is decided by unanimity, he thought he had the whip hand.
Instead, my source tells me, the room turned on Mr Cameron. This, I am told, "was the point at which the Protocol 12 route, which requires unanimity, was effectively closed down and one country after another accepted a new treaty at 17+."
Did Mr Cameron miscalculate? Did he want to end up with a treaty being crafted at almost 26, with Britain on the outside? My source is certain that was not Mr Cameron's goal, and my source is not alone in this thinking.
It is now almost inevitable that separate structures be set up, with Britain on the outside, it seems. Talk in London of preventing the "Eurozone-plus" from using the Court of Justice is also a mistake, I am told. Article 273 of the treaty allows just this.
You can choose to believe this account or not. It comes from a single source, who is well-placed but clearly viewing this from a particular perspective.
Time will tell. But what a mess.
btw Rand: yuo joined the EU. When the EEC/EC changed into the EU Britain stayed in the club rather than not taking that step. So there really no need for the semantics.
Yes we joined the EU. But not Schengen, the Euro etc
If that is true, and it does have the air of truth to it, then Cameron has just fucked up massively. Sounds like he was listening too much to the idiots, to whom it is perpetually 1938, on his own back benches. The narrative in the media makes it seem like an outright Franco-German power grab with Cameron offered a deal he couldn't accept to get Britain out the way, whereas the story told in the Economist makes it seem like Cameron was thinking too much about the Euroskeptics retarded fantasies about using the crisis to repatriate powers and ended up pissing everyone off by his refusal to compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy_Ivan80
His body language coming out of the thing certainly didn't seem like a guy who was terribly pleased with how he'd done.
Hey Genius, let me tell you a secret you haven't figured out yet; The UK is not in Asia, and Asia needs the UK for exactly nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which is big difference from saying that Britain didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Frankly I'm not too happy about the perpetual British aloofness/hostility to the European project. It's an attitude that allows France too much leeway, after which -ironically- Brit Eurosceptics get the whine about the influence of France.
*sigh* That's how it'll be I guess.
Hey Genius, let me tell you a secret you haven't figured out yet; The UK is not in the 19th century. Geography means squat nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Its not about need, it's about want. Asia's biggest bank is headquartered in London at Canary Wharf. We need to stay competitive and efficient, not slow and sclerotic. I'd be more worried about HSBC deciding to move to Hong Kong or Shanghai than Paris or Frankfurt.
Sarkozy now is making talks about protectionism and trade barriers against Asia. I'd have no interest in being involved with a project so stupid as to do that.
I does for HFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I said it earlier, I don't believe in Hazir's opinion about the financial sector in London. But honestly the UK should have more to offer than the city of London. And this decision weakened UK's place as gateway to Europes markets.
Even if you don't agree with me on the European role for London I can't imagine you thinking it could ever seriously be considered a contender for the trading place of choice for Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
The idea that the UK could simply start all over without being totally dependent on the EU still is the hallmark pipedram of the halfwits that call themselves eurosceptics overthere.
FYI; as of january 2012 there will be a monthly europlus meeting where all sorts of issues will be put on the agenda. If those concern a QMV matter, the decisions by the europlus group then merely needs to be announced to the Counil. Cameron will not be welcome at the europlus meetings. At the Council what he thinks will no longer matter.
The regulation of the financial markets is a QMV-area. Rather than defending the City, Cameron has exposed it to regulations writ in Brussels.
The UK does have more to offer than the City of London, just the City is incredibly important globally. Europe only represents between about 40% and half of our international trade and is declining in importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
And who would expect to be having phone calls being answered in India? You're just showing your closed-mindedness. Services are one of the most important areas for the UK economy, or any major developed nation. The UK is one of the only major developed nations to have increased its share of global services trade between 1990-2010 (as emerging markets like India/China etc have gained a lot). We have the second-highest export of services in the world behind only the USA. Asia's market share of our exports is increasing year-on-year every year so to just brush it off shows your own faults nothing else. Over the last decade China, Russia and India have jumped up dramatically as exports for Goods let alone services. The UK has always traded with europe and always would, but the real growth potential is not looking inwards but outside to the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Even in QMV areas, the Eurozone+ is by no means an harmonious group. In many areas Germany agrees more with the UK than it does with France. QMV will still continue to allow the UK to be a key player.
Ah, I totally misunderstood the plan was to undercut call centers in India and the Phillippines. Well maybe then you have a fighting chance, given that your mickey mouse money is under permanent attack from the BoE.
Also, let me explain the QMV issue to you one more time so that you may get it in your thick skull. A matter will be discussed in one of the monthly europlus meetings. No representative of the UK will be present at those meetings. The UK does not have any say in what is on the agenda. Then after debate and much wrangling the europlus group, without having consulted the EU, comes to a common position.
If the matter then comes up at the following Council, you have two positions. One the europlus position, which represents all the votes needed to pass the measure. The other would be the UK position which doesn't really matter as a carrying majority has already been established. In the most extreme case the UK can ask for an actual vote, in which it will be outvoted 26-1.
You know, you europhobes consistently told us you would prefer a Swiss-like arrangement between you and the rest of the EU. And guess what? Here you have it; like with the Swiss we set the rules and they execute them.
And don't take my word for that; your own PM had preventing a caucus like that from coming about as one of his main goals when he got on the train to Brussels last thursday.
Ha, ha, ha - no the intention is not to undercut call centres.
On the latter you're making two mistakes:
1: That the Eurozone+ would have any desire or interest to be unanimous and present a "common front". If say Sweden opposes something at the Eurozone+ meeting, then if we call for a vote you really think they'll now back it?
2: That decisions are only made at Council and not primarily in advance.
If something controversial is being discussed, there is no reason why a common position can not be agreed in advance before the Eurozone+ meeting which we don't need to attend. Just as Merkozy made is abundantly clear this time that they decided their opinions in advance of Council.
Keep on dreaming the old dream of divide and rule.
Remember the last time you lot you thought you were leading the 'outs'? (that would be last thursday) Of course if you set your goal low enough (like leading yourself by the nose) you're always a relevant party.
I never said we were leading any outs, just that on individual matters different nations have different priorities (as has always been the case). You still haven't said what alternative you think the UK should have done.
You're not leading anyone sure as hell. You can also bet the countries in the eurogroup will have a priority when they come to the council with something that has been decided upon already in the europlus council; and it won't be re-negotiating so that you Brits can get a foot between the door. Being seen to side with the UK has become so toxic that even countries that don't want the euro rather be part of a europlus group than be seen as an outspoken 'out'.
What you should have done? You should never have become member of the EU.
So, just to clarify here, restricting the fiscal budget to 3% of something something would not have been applicable to the UK if they had accepted the deal?
If the procedure would have been according to Merkel's plan, then no.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
If they at some point sign up to the deal that happened, I suppose that would take this government to be brought down and the new government eating big portions of humble pie, then yes.
Gee, somewhere between Hazir and Rand is the more functional future of Europe? It won't be about the euro as a shared currency, if nations keep their own, or the eurozone as a bunch of political misfits trying to look like economic partners, if they keep their own political processes.
IMF and ECB can't use monetary policy to unite fiscal or political disparities among nations, even if their leaders signed contracts and accords, can they? :confused:
If it was Germany bowing out for their own national interests (instead of the UK), pulling their nationalist card to protect "their own" instead of propping up "others", would that be the end of it? Or would it lead to so much social and economic unrest, the kind of thing that spawns Wars, that they don't dare?
The difference between Germans and Brits is that Germans actually are willing to act for the common good, the Brits are just arrogant and aloof only when it comes to application of rules. They consistently demand very vocally they should be allowed to shape rules for everytbody, for which they then demand an opt out for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
This time they went too far, and everybody said 'screw you'. Not just the Germans or the French, everybody who possibly could have been harbouring doubts against the German-French proposal made it very clear they wanted nothing of the British plan. Even presumed 'out' Orban (PM of Hungary) went to great lengths telling everybody and his mother-in-law that they were not against the agreement and Orban didn't even want to be seen close to Cameron.
Actually, isn't it true that Germany is the strongest nation, with the smallest amount of sovereign debt...and is being expected to carry the whole damn eurozone (along with France)? You can say Germans and Merkel are willing to act for the common good, but they've also balked at those not using the same German thrifty principles--pretty much everyone outside Germany--while acknowledging they're carrying the loads of those other nations.
The looming problem in the eurozone looks like rising nationalism, the break-up or fracture of unity, and the demise of the euro as a shared currency. I don't say that as a 'euro skeptic', but based on what's happening in real time.
That is ludicrous, this entire problem is due to the flaws of the Eurozone (which we wisely chose to stay out of given those flaws). Furthermore the key parts of this new treaty is just supposed to be re-establishing what was already set in the Growth and Stability Pact. And who was it who tore shreds through the Growth and Stability Pact by being a member of the Eurozone, flouting its rules then refusing to let it be applied to them?
Germany's Schroeder and France's Chirac.
The UK could have not existed and this crisis would still be happening.
I still don't know why you're still in the EU. We don't need you.
Trade. What else?
We're in it for the Common Market. All the other Mumbo-Jumbo that joined in with Maastricht (eg the Euro) we stayed out of.
The nationalism of the Brits have always been paramount, and you are probably right there was a bit of a nationalist backlash when this crisis started. But now that people start to see what really is at stake thay are turning around. The sole exception of course being the selfish Brits.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Inside the eurozone everybody knows there will be common bonds and there will be limited activism by yhe ECB to weather this storm. But everybody also knows we don't want to go the way of the US by just printing our debt out of existence to the detriment of savers. Germany by no means is alone in this and with the exception of Greece and maybe Portugal the agreement will be bearable. It will also reduce public borrowing overall thus making it cheaper for businesses to finance their operations.
I for my part am happy the Brits are being shoved aside as they consistently have been a negative force in the Union. Unlike what Randblade claims, I was the one who said that at some time the other members of the EU would say enough to the eurohaters accross the Channels and relegate them to insignificance. That seems to be coming about and I have little doubt soon the markets will understand that the mickey mouse money overthere is a much easier target if they want to make bets against a currency.
Oh and that claim of the resident eurohater of course is false again; the UK signed up to all of the EU except the Euro. What their bulldog in charge tried to pull off last week was to roll back QMV on the financial sector of the single market.
When the average Tory opens his mouth about Europe expect some serious lies to come out.
It's extremely funny how one part of the British government is gloating over their non-veto, where the other part is fuming over it and calling it a major blow for Britain's position.
Funny how the "other part"'s leader originally backed the decision at first until the extremists in his party started mouthing off and backed him into a corner to complain.
Hey, it's not my government, don't shoot the messenger right? :D
By the way, the Scottish government is also fuming over Cameron's fail.
From what I've heard, he did not support a complete blockade...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Oh diddums. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
That's about as meaningful as saying that the governor of Alabama opposes Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Except that this 'governor of Alabama' has a fighting chance of taking his part of the country out of the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Would be extremely funny if the eurohaters in their attempts to bring down one union destroy another union :D
Oooh, I hope so :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Serious question for Hazir: Supposedly this veto has left us isolated, but I'm pretty sure you've been calling us isolated for the last decade so I'm not sure what you think has changed.
In order to have become isolated on Friday, we must have not been so before then. Please can you name some rules or regulations drawn up to the benefit of the UK and against the wishes of France/Germany in the same was a FTT would be in their benefit and against ours.
EDIT: The serious crisis in the EU is not the stance of the UK, it is the fundamental failings of the Eurozone that have been exposed over the last year. This Merkozy plan does not address those. Already Francois Hollande has denounced it and said that if he is elected President of the French Republic then he'll "renegotiate" it. Funny I thought only crazy Brits wanted to renegotiate and it could never happen. The crisis has not been resolved, the yield on French and Spanish debts have actually increased since the deal was announced and not come down. It is just a matter of time until this all comes back into sharp focus again, while this Accord seems little more serious than the Growth and Stability Pact with the French already undermining it.
There are more important crises in Europe than the Anglo-Saxons, being isolated from the Eurozone is like complaining about being on a lifeboat instead of the Titanic so now we can't rearrange the deckchairs.
EDIT2: While its true that the UK alone can't block a QMV decision by the Eurozone+, its actually true that not just the UK but even the 10 non-Euro nations combined already couldn't block a QMV decision by the Eurozone. So no change there.
all the french are nationalists. They can't be trusted.
It's bad mojo all around
You see, this again shows that you don't understand the EU. The thing is that the EU isn't very much into voting at all in the intra-governmental circuits of the institution. Even in those areas where QMV technically applies there is a consistent search for consensus. That is especially true for matters that are somehow 'essential' to one or more memberstates. Since everybody knows they can be outvoted, nobody has an interest in a maximalist approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
British governments, up till the yahoo's who run the show now, have always understood that. They knew that by a little push here, a little pull there directives could be bent in a way that they were acceptable for all. That process works for as long as you are at the table when the issue is discussend and there is good will between all parties.
By walking away last friday, thus forcing the others to strike a deal bypassing the UK, the UK has effectively ushered in a new forum where it won't be welcome and where the same process of concensus building will continue. That concensus will be standing before the UK is asked to join the negotiations. The concensus can not be outvoted, ever. And I think it's pretty clear that the UK lost what little good standing it had with the rest of the EU last friday. The europlus group will simply not care about outvoting the UK.
That is not the same as when the eurozone would have had to deal with 10 other countries within the EU. Then the eurozone would have the leverage of its votes of course, but it would still not have been in its interests to go maximalist and be unwilling to really negotiate, with the possibility of offending the 9 countries they do want to absorb at some time in the future.
You're still ignoring the real issue. We don't know if the Eurozone will even still exist as it does 12 months from now.
Getting back to reality and away from your superstate daydreams, the markets have been distinctly unimpressed with the Accord and now Italian yields are back above the critical 7% threshold while all day today the Euro has been losing value to Sterling and the Dollar. I would think now its about a 50-50 shot that when we go to the polls next in 2015 all 17 nations currently in the Euro still will be. I would hate to call it either way right now.
15 minutes ago Italian yields were 7.18% - well done!
http://markets.ft.com/RESEARCH/Marke...t-Bond-Spreads
If the eurozone does not exist any debate about the EU is moot. The EU will not survive a collapse of the eurozone.
Why not? The EU is more than the Eurozone and survived decades without it.