Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 85

Thread: UK vetoes EU Treaty Change

  1. #1

    Default UK vetoes EU Treaty Change

    Hazir said it could never happen, but overnight the British PM David Cameron has vetoed the proposed EU treaty change.

    I said all along there was not a chance in hell the UK could or should sign up to the proposed ludicrous changes, including a mendacious and devastating tax aimed at crippling the City. Glad we actually have a PM who is willing to see sense rather than cowtow to wanting to be "in the club".
    David Cameron vetoes EU-wide treaty change
    UK PM David Cameron has effectively vetoed an EU-wide treaty change to tackle the eurozone crisis, saying it was not in the UK's interests.

    Instead a new "accord" setting out tougher budget rules will now be drawn up for the eurozone and at least six other EU states which want to sign up.
    France's Nicolas Sarkozy said the UK PM had made "unacceptable" demands.
    But UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the move was "very sensible" and would not leave the UK isolated.
    He said signing up to a change to the Lisbon Treaty - the treaty which governs the running of the EU - would have meant a loss of national sovereignty.
    National budgets Signatories to the deal will need to have "balanced budgets" - defined as a structural deficit no greater than 0.5% of gross domestic product. There will be automatic sanctions for any country whose deficit exceeds 3% of GDP.

    Governments will also have to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised.

    Nearly 10 hours of overnight talks could not produce an agreement involving all member states.
    French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would have preferred a treaty change involving all 27 EU members but "that wasn't possible, given the position of our British friends".
    Tobin tax Mr Sarkozy said Mr Cameron had made "unacceptable" demands for exemptions for the UK over financial services.
    The UK has long resisted calls from other EU leader for a Europe-wide tax on financial transactions - a so-called Tobin tax - which it argues would hit the City of London disproportionately.

    The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said the consequences of Mr Cameron's veto "could scarcely be greater for Europe and for Britain's relationship with Europe".
    He said there was no denying now that a two-speed Europe - those inside the new deal and those outside - was inevitable and predicted a series of legal challenges about what the new euro "club within a club" could discuss, and whether it should be allowed to use EU resources and officials.
    Mr Cameron told a news conference after the discussion that the deal on the table was not in Britain's interest "so I didn't sign up to it".
    'Tough decision' "We want the eurozone countries to come together and solve their problems. But we should only allow that to happen within the EU treaties if there are proper protections for the single market, for other key British interests" he said.
    "Without those safeguards it is better not to have a treaty within a treaty, but have those countries make their arrangements separately.
    "It was a tough decision but the right one."
    Mr Sarkozy said the eurozone countries would sign an intergovernmental accord aimed at stabilising the currency in the face of the debt crisis, along with any other EU members that wanted to join.

    He said the sticking point had been Mr Cameron's insistence on a protocol allowing London to opt out of proposed change on financial services.

    "We were not able to accept [the British demands] because we consider quite the contrary - that a very large and substantial amount of the problems we are facing around the world are a result of lack of regulation of financial services and therefore can't have a waiver for the United Kingdom," he said.

    The head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, said the planned accord would lead to much more discipline in economic policy.
    'Not isolated' Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hague said the UK had rightly expressed concerns about the implications of the deal and other European countries had made "nothing like enough of an effort to meet those concerns".
    He said he "would not use the word isolated" about the decision Mr Cameron had taken, because the new club was not one the UK would want to be part of.
    "What they've committed themselves to here is to giving up more national control over their budgets, and us standing apart from that is not being isolated from them, it is a very sensible thing to stand apart from that," he said.
    Mr Hague said there were already a number of different groups within the EU who co-operated on different subjects and this would be another case of that.
    But he insisted "the decisions of the European Union" would continue to be made in institutions that include all 27 members, and "no treaty made outside of those institutions can undercut or override the treaties of the European Union".
    The foreign secretary said Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg - who, as leader of the Liberal Democrats, is much more pro-European than Mr Cameron - had "signed up" to the use of the veto.
    A spokesman for Mr Clegg said he had been "consulted throughout".
    Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson told the BBC: "David Cameron has played a blinder and he's done the only thing that it was really open for him to do."
    European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he regretted that unanimity on treaty change had not been possible. But he added that it was the "proper decision to go ahead at least with those ready to commit immediately".

  2. #2
    You're a sucker for the BBC, Rand. Here's an extract of another article they wrote:

    The wrong answer: Europe's troublesome referendums

    Greece's prime minister appears to have thrown a spanner in the works of the project to rescue the Greek economy - and arguably the whole eurozone - by announcing he will put a hard-negotiated bailout package to the Greek people in a referendum.
    Here's one of the supposed core principles of democracy in play - offering people a chance to vote on policy - and the best the yapping british press can do is condescend?

  3. #3
    No link?

    In case you forgot or weren't paying attention to that:

    1: It was a lot of people who complained about the Greek's referendum.
    2: That was cancelled.
    3: The Greek PM was replaced.
    4: The Greek's were so far up shit creek without a paddle they had no choice on what they could or could not accept.

  4. #4
    You're right - but perhaps you could balance your viewpoint with some facts from the opposition to your opinion? You're coming across a bit biased.

    That's what I was suggesting, though I did it badly.

  5. #5
    It's not my job to oppose my own position, are you kidding? I think Hazir will feel either confident enough to oppose it. Or if even he realises he can't, then just come over and make snide remarks while calling me stupid. Let's wait and see.

  6. #6
    The other non-Euro EU members follow the Euro members, the UK is de-facto isolated. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7B30AO20111209
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It's not my job to oppose my own position, are you kidding? I think Hazir will feel either confident enough to oppose it. Or if even he realises he can't, then just come over and make snide remarks while calling me stupid. Let's wait and see.
    I never said you couldn't try some more obstruction in the usual way. I told that it wouldn't matter any longer. The UK has been hurtling towards insignificance and now it has finally landed. You could not convince a single other EU country of your position. And the reason why you couldn't is because you consistently refuse to accept the reality of the EU. The EU was never intended to be 'just a free-trade zone', and it will never be. Maybe you managed to wreck that particular incarnation, but that is by and large not relevant any longer.

    Now you will have to live with the reality that you are an irrelevant island off the coast of Europe, and you will live by the rules that Europe sets for you or be shut out from its markets. I also foresee rules in the forseeable future that effectively makes it impossible to trade for Europe from London.
    Congratulations America

  8. #8
    To be honest, Hazir, I'm not sure what you think the Brits should have done. IMO they have very solid reasons for (a) not wanting to be in the eurozone and (b) not have their own fiscal policy hands tied because some countries in the eurozone can't be trusted to follow the rules (France and Germany included). Given this reality, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place - either abdicate responsibility and control over a very important policy lever for no good reason (and lots of bad ones), or get effectively isolated from EU decision-making.

    What really rankles to me is that UK policymakers and economists (not to mention a whole slew of US economists) have long been predicting the specific problems that have been happening in the euro - the vagueness, lacks of explicit mutualism/guarantees, lack of safeguards on the fiscal rules, poorly coordinated monetary policy moves, etc. And the UK sensibly stayed out of the mess. Yet they're being burned now out of meaningful European leadership because they were so sensible. I know some euroskeptic hawks will rejoice, but I think a lot of people - including lots of pragmatists in the Conservative party - have much more mixed feelings about this.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    The other non-Euro EU members follow the Euro members, the UK is de-facto isolated. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7B30AO20111209
    No mention of Hungary, Sweden, and the Czechs, who also didn't want to agree?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  10. #10
    Loki, the sources I'm reading imply that all three are really consulting with their parliaments/etc. but that they may come around. It's quite likely they will since they're afraid to be left out in the cold.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    No mention of Hungary, Sweden, and the Czechs, who also didn't want to agree?
    Good you used the right tense.

    The moment I posted was when my news-ticker said that Hungary, Sweden, and the Czechs have changed their minds.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    To be honest, Hazir, I'm not sure what you think the Brits should have done. IMO they have very solid reasons for (a) not wanting to be in the eurozone and (b) not have their own fiscal policy hands tied because some countries in the eurozone can't be trusted to follow the rules (France and Germany included). Given this reality, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place - either abdicate responsibility and control over a very important policy lever for no good reason (and lots of bad ones), or get effectively isolated from EU decision-making.

    What really rankles to me is that UK policymakers and economists (not to mention a whole slew of US economists) have long been predicting the specific problems that have been happening in the euro - the vagueness, lacks of explicit mutualism/guarantees, lack of safeguards on the fiscal rules, poorly coordinated monetary policy moves, etc. And the UK sensibly stayed out of the mess. Yet they're being burned now out of meaningful European leadership because they were so sensible. I know some euroskeptic hawks will rejoice, but I think a lot of people - including lots of pragmatists in the Conservative party - have much more mixed feelings about this.
    The real reality is of course that with 40 years of British obstruction you can't expect effective government at the EU level. The didn't 'sensibly' stay out. They stayed out because they are against the idea of closer union. They tried to sabotage the euro as they are actively sabotaging joint foreign policies. What I think they should have done is a past station; they never should have joined the EU. And you can bet your ass I am happy their bluff has been called and that they are effectively put on their way to the exit.
    Congratulations America

  13. #13
    Euro politics are a bit new for me, but isn't the veto process considered a basic principal of federal democracy? How can Britain be "punished" for participating in the political process the way they are allowed to do so? Simply because you don't like their answer doesn't mean that the rest of the EU should ostracize them. [/naivete]

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Now you will have to live with the reality that you are an irrelevant island off the coast of Europe, and you will live by the rules that Europe sets for you or be shut out from its markets. I also foresee rules in the forseeable future that effectively makes it impossible to trade for Europe from London.
    Rules making it effectively impossible? That would be in violation of WTO standards, would it not?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Rules making it effectively impossible? That would be in violation of WTO standards, would it not?
    like taxation as the US does it? Or denying certain euro denominated trades being cleared outside the eurozone? Also i am not aware of WTO rules on services.
    Congratulations America

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by coinich View Post
    Euro politics are a bit new for me, but isn't the veto process considered a basic principal of federal democracy? How can Britain be "punished" for participating in the political process the way they are allowed to do so? Simply because you don't like their answer doesn't mean that the rest of the EU should ostracize them. [/naivete]
    Yes it was a big mistake letting them participate in setting the rules for a game they never intended to play. That mistake is being fixed now. It is our monetary union and countries that don't want to be part of it won't be heared when we set the rules for it.

    The 'punishment' merely is ending allowing them to treat the EU as an a la carte restaurant.
    Congratulations America

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by coinich View Post
    Euro politics are a bit new for me, but isn't the veto process considered a basic principal of federal democracy?[/naivete]
    No it isn't. I don't see how a single US state, a German bundesland or a Swiss canton could block a federal reform. What you mean is a confederation.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Anyway, using a veto that results in what you veto still happening with you being reduced to being a bit player is called losing.
    Congratulations America

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    like taxation as the US does it? Or denying certain euro denominated trades being cleared outside the eurozone? Also i am not aware of WTO rules on services.
    Funny, I wasn't aware that those shut countries like Brazil, the US, or China out of your markets, or made it effectively impossible to trade in Europe from Rio, New York, or Shangai and Hong Kong. So why would they do so for the UK and London again?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #20
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    I'm not quite sure why the UK is in the EU at all. They don't have Schengen, they don't have the Euro and they're vetoing everything.

    Maybe they simply should get the hell out of the EU if they don't like being there?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Funny, I wasn't aware that those shut countries like Brazil, the US, or China out of your markets, or made it effectively impossible to trade in Europe from Rio, New York, or Shangai and Hong Kong. So why would they do so for the UK and London again?
    Because they actvely tried to sabotage finding a solution to a problem that is theathening the foundations of the EU. You can try to make this about 'me' again, but this is pretty much mainstream in Europe now. The Brits have gone too far this time.
    Congratulations America

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I'm not quite sure why the UK is in the EU at all. They don't have Schengen, they don't have the Euro and they're vetoing everything.

    Maybe they simply should get the hell out of the EU if they don't like being there?
    you forgot how happy they are not to be really in the EU.
    Congratulations America

  23. #23
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Well, then maybe we'll simply reconstitute the EU without Britain. The position of the Brits is currently a little bit like wanting to be "a bit pregnant". Or as our German saying goes: "Wash me but don't make me wet!"
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by earthJoker View Post
    No it isn't. I don't see how a single US state, a German bundesland or a Swiss canton could block a federal reform. What you mean is a confederation.
    I was referring to the idea of a veto being a basic feature of democracy, not federalism. The last time a state tried to nullify (closest analogy to veto) a federal decision was a major incident prior to our Civil War. A state governor has a veto feature but within his/her level of government, as does the head of most executive branches I think.

  25. #25
    There are no vetos on any level in the Swiss political system. Parliamentarian republics often have a motion of confidence instead of vetos.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Well, then maybe we'll simply reconstitute the EU without Britain. The position of the Brits is currently a little bit like wanting to be "a bit pregnant". Or as our German saying goes: "Wash me but don't make me wet!"
    well I am happy it has come to this point.
    Congratulations America

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I'm not quite sure why the UK is in the EU at all. They don't have Schengen, they don't have the Euro and they're vetoing everything.

    Maybe they simply should get the hell out of the EU if they don't like being there?
    We didn't join the EU, we joined the EC/EEC.

    We're not interested in Schengen, or the Euro, or having our budgets decided by Brussels/Berlin. We are interested in Single Market.

    We're not just interested in trading with Europe, we're interested in trading with the rest of the world.

    The fact is now that even if it is the EU-26 (all nations bar UK) that sign up to this Treaty including implementing a ludicrous Tobin Tax that in all 26 nations combined there isn't a single top financial city in ANY of those nations. The City of London matters to the UK, it is the pre-eminent financial city in the world.
    ____________

    I think as wiggin says, there was in this instance no alternative. The reality is the deal on the table, which would have meant the devastation of London, was not a deal any Brit could sensibly accept. Cameron is in this instance a "lucky general". There was in this instance 5 realistic options:

    1: An excellent deal that got everything we wanted. Many headbangers in this country would have sold this as bad anyway.
    2: A mediocre/bad deal that he could make begrudgingly and then have to sell it to the country in a referendum
    3: A mediocre/bad deal that he could make begrudgingly and then refuse to hold a referendum taking a lot of criticism with it.
    4: Rejecting a mediocre/good deal splitting the party, the country and the pro-EU Lib-Dem coalition allies causing a huge mess.
    5: Rejecting a terrible deal everyone could agree could never happen.

    The last has happened. Sarkozy could not have been a better fall-guy. Not only did Merkozy make it abundantly clear that this was about what they wanted only in the build-up to this, but Sarkozy especially was outright about it and the UK. Given the UK would refuse to sign-up to anything so devastating to London anyway, given that the UK isn't in the Euro anyway, it would have been eminently reasonable to give the UK an opt-out to the financial regulations coming from this. The UK would have been obliged then either to sign up or be viewed as unreasonable, and a load of people would have been upset from one side or another (or both). Sarkozy has done Cameron a massive favour here.

    Flippantly: The UK has a history of never agreeing to bow down and following the orders of a short French leader. I don't think anyone could have been a better cartoon foe.

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    You British euro-haters sure like your lies don't you? You joined the EU under the previous Conservative government. Also nobody thought you had any business demanding something in change for a deal that would save your asses too. You Brits are just too bloody tone-deaf to hear what was said with more emphasis by leading politicians all over Europe; the Brits can't have something for nothing. And then your idiot in charge wielded his impressive veto. And Europe shrugged it off. The only thing that saddens me is that we didn't do that 20 years ago.
    Congratulations America

  29. #29
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Well, Rand, then what are you waiting for? Get the fuck out of Europe! What exactly do we need you for?

    By the way, you're glossing over the fact that there's also a very large part of your populace which, while they don't quite like the EU, are quite unhappy with this obstructionism. Oh well. Have fun being the pariah.

    And, oh, "the City of London" matters? Heh. I guess you have to be that way because your country has nothing else that really matters in the world...
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Well, Rand, then what are you waiting for? Get the fuck out of Europe!
    I'm not someone who wants out of Europe.
    What exactly do we need you for?
    Trade, funding.
    By the way, you're glossing over the fact that there's also a very large part of your populace which, while they don't quite like the EU, are quite unhappy with this obstructionism.
    Who?
    Oh well. Have fun being the pariah.
    Name a better alternative?
    ________________________________
    A part of me wonders if all this was not about the British, but rather the Irish. This was always unacceptable to the Brits, it wouldn't have taken much to get us onside. An opt-out (which we'll now essentially have anyway) isn't a sacrifice. But the British were forced to veto a Treaty change, meaning the deal is not an EU Treaty change.

    Irish law dictates that EU Treaty changes must go to referendum. Ireland is being asked to sacrifice a lot for this treaty, chances are the Irish would for the third time reject it blowing the whole crisis wide open and leaving great uncertainty. Does anyone know if an "intergovernmental treaty of 26 nations" needs an Irish referendum or not? If not, this looks quite deliberate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •