[Closed] Cameron kicks EU in the nuts - right decision?

teamhurtmore - Member

Yes - on any non political grounds, the € would fail

really? Its stronger than teh £ and backed by ahuge % of world GDP in economies that are doing fine. By your definitions the £ must fail as well and as for the dollar?

is merely consigning Europe the slow track of the global economy.

Really - any evidence for that - given that the Eurozone economy as a whole is outperforming the UK.

Its not really the place to get diverted off into the Scottish independence question

Well it is quite a neat parallel if you're going to suggest that the UK is better off being more integrated with a larger political entity, rather than less.

One thing the SNP want is for Scotland to have a voice in the EU which at the moment it does not have.

Like the UK would no longer have a voice on the world financial market if it "shared" it's sovereignty with the EU?

So - scottish independence would stop sharing some sovereignty with England, share more with the EU

Ah - you want to be in the Euro? Well good luck with that one.

Oh Goody. Scottish Nationalism again!

[img] [/img]

glitchy thingy going on so fromthe other EU thread ( which might as well be allowed to die)
[img] [/img]

Glitchy, glitchy

Can I suggest to the STW developers that the make the code for putting a post on a new page, and the code for selecting the last page of a thread use the same algorithm? Hint: at the moment one appears to use the total number of posts made on a thread, the other the number of posts left after some have been deleted.

TJ - the exchange "rate" is not the issue, It is the structure of the exchange rate system that matters and that is why it will fail ultimately - actually probably split into two. Don't wish a strong £ on us on the thinking that this is a good sign. Why do you think all major economies are trying to weaken their currencies?

Germany is of course a huge beneficiary of the € since her xporters have a much weaker currency that would otherwise be the case...this is one of the key reasons for the rel. strength on the German econ. But for the rest of Europe (mainly the peripherary) its a disaster that has made them woefully uncompetitive.

Unlike you to support policies that will result in sustained UN and impoverishment for large parts of Europe?

Well it is quite a neat parallel if you're going to suggest that the UK is better off being more integrated with a larger political entity, rather than less.

No its not as there is no parallel as the SNP want more integration in the EU

Like the UK would no longer have a voice on the world financial market if it "shared" it's sovereignty with the EU?

Nope its teh complete opposite- as at the moment Scotland is excluded from EU talks in areas that affect it.

Ah - you want to be in the Euro? Well good luck with that one.

And I said that where?

No more on Scotland. its a whole other debate done many times over and the parallels you draw do not exist as one of the drivers for scottish independence is an internationalist viewpoint.

I'm happy to see an end to free trade and a franco DM kick people's butt. Trade barriers now! Bring back protectionism.

Unlike you to support policies that will result in sustained UN and impoverishment for large parts of Europe?

I am not.

No its not as there is no parallel as the SNP want more integration in the EU

🙄

Are you deliberately missing the point, or is it going straight over your head?

the parallels you draw do not exist

So one country wanting to be independent of a union of countries is totally different to a union of countries wanting to be independent of [s]a federal state[/s] another union of countries?

Neither - the point you see does not exist. The parallel you see is simply not there - you only see it because your assumptions about the drivers and case for scottish independence are wrong.

email me off list if you want to discuss this further

So one country wanting to be independent of a union of countries is totally different to a union of countries wanting to be independent of a federal state another union of countries?

Coprrect - because the motivations and desired end product are radically differnt

From Wolfgang Munchau at FT (admittedly a € sceptic - I will acknowledge this upfront :wink:)

So we have two crises now. A still-unresolved eurozone crisis and a crisis of the European Union. Of the two, the latter is potentially the more serious one. The eurozone may, or may not, break up. The EU almost certainly will. The decision by the eurozone countries to go outside the legal framework of the EU and to set up the core of a fiscal union in a multilateral treaty will eventually produce this split....

... The fiscal union likely to be agreed in March may not initially be very effective in resolving the crisis. It focuses on all the wrong issues, mostly fiscal discipline, which is not the real reason why the crisis has spread to Spain or Belgium, for example.

But the eurozone nevertheless made an important political statement. It will not allow outsiders to stand in the way when it needs to act. For the monetary union to survive, its one-sided, ill-conceived fiscal union will have to become more effective. Over time it will have to usurp central EU roles, especially in the internal market. I would expect it to create its own internal market inside the existing one. It will have to develop a highly integrated financial market with a single financial supervisor. In particular, I do not believe that the eurozone will allow a situation to persist where its main financial centre is located offshore. It will also want to set labour market rules and co-ordinate tax policies. In all of those areas, the eurozone and the EU will get into a permanent legal and political conflict, in which the EU acts as a break on the eurozone’s development.

One way or the other, this conflict is bound to lead to an eventual split of the EU. I have no idea when or how this will happen. The technicalities are not all that important. Of course, no member can be ejected from the EU. But there is nothing that can stop others from taking action that protects their interest. The new Lisbon treaty makes it possible for countries to leave the EU voluntarily, which means that legally it is possible for the eurozone plus the aspiring members to set up their own rival organisation – in theory. In pratice, that is not likely to happen, but the mere existence of a divorce procedure is probably sufficient to bring about this eventual outcome.

Thursday’s European Council meeting has demonstrated that a monetary union cannot co-exist with a group of permanent non-members in unified legal framework. The EU with its current treaties and institutions has proved to be an insufficiently flexible framework to run a monetary union and a disastrous framework for a monetary union in crisis.

These latest developments have reaffirmed my conviction that the only way to save the eurozone is to destroy the EU. But European governments may, of course, end up destroying both. All they did in the early hours of Friday morning was to create a new crisis without resolving the existing one.

FT today.

aracer
Sorry to pull your leg on that one, this does seem to be one of the more open minded STW debates I've witnessed. 🙂
I do like binners' Law of Unintended Consequences and think it quite appropriate for the complexity of all the different interwoven issues here.
There was a theory on BBC that maybe Cameron and Merkel over bluffed each other on what they were prepared to accept in the treaty, leaving a stalemate neither really wanted and no room for manouvre at all.
On the other hand, perhaps he had other reasons to want out completely.
Whatever happened, it doesn't reflect well on his negotiating skills to come out of a meeting of a 27 parties without having had any influence on the agreement, and know that he's effectively uninvited himself from the next meeting which now looks like being 26 parties.

so the EU cannot vote for the Uk/others to leave be booted out ...I would like to see Dave veto that vote and then not call a referendum

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, which campaigns for the UK's exit from the EU, said Mr Cameron could have obtained concessions by threatening to hold a referendum on Britain's EU membership.

"It's quite untenable for us to remain in a union alone, on the outside, having laws made for us, [while we're] in a permanent voting minority.

"This is the worst of all worlds for the UK."

see even UKIP see what dave has achieved as the worst possible scenario

Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP

"Cameron is to be warmly congratulated on reaching his goal of second-class membership of the EU."

Where will CRC and wiggle move their businesses to when europe have to pay import duty on their products?

JY - the dep editor of the FT phrased it much better than me (in terms of will it work)

Any supranational scheme, whether enshrined in treaty or otherwise, that condemns much of Europe to indefinite austerity will not survive the realities of national politics.

(and remember of balance the FT is pro-Europe)

and remember of balance the FT is pro-Europe

The FT plays to the crowd, its crowd being eurosceptics.

Sorry to pull your leg on that one

No apology needed - I'm not that easily offended!

There was a theory on BBC that maybe Cameron and Merkel over bluffed each other on what they were prepared to accept in the treaty, leaving a stalemate neither really wanted and no room for manouvre at all.

A Mexican stand-off? Yes, it certainly seems that way - though I'd argue that Angela had put down her line in the sand (one which she'll still have to cross someday - I'm assuming here she doesn't actually want the Euro to fail) well before Dave.

Whatever happened, it doesn't reflect well on his negotiating skills to come out of a meeting of a 27 parties without having had any influence on the agreement, and know that he's effectively uninvited himself from the next meeting which now looks like being 26 parties.

You assume there was scope for him to negotiate. From what I'm reading, Germany are immovable on the fundamental issues (I'm still shocked that nobody has challenged me on my anti-German rhetoric!) which still need to be sorted to solve the crisis. If there's somebody being really pig-headed here in the face of reality, it's not CMD. He had the option of signing up to an agreement he'd had no influence on or walking away. BTW, the headline figure appears to be 23, not 26, and at least one of those 23 is more than likely to pull out.

aracer - an intersting article in the Guardian today

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/08/eurozone-endgame-european-fiscal-union?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2Frss+%28Comment+is+free%29 ]no endgame in sight[/url]

Summed up with the quote:

[i]Tampering with the complicated EMU edifice resembles an attempt to repair a complex, many-sided piece of machinery where every component influences in a different way every other element in the mechanism. Apparently benign, constructive action to improve the workings of one small cog in the machine produces a negative outcome elsewhere. John Major, Britain's prime minister at Maastricht, referred then to juggling with different countries' sensitivities as "12-dimensional chess". Since then, with 27 countries in the European Union, the convolutions are still greater.[/i]

And I can't see all 26 other countries agreeing to this either. Dave won't be alone in saying enough IMHO. As I mentioned before, I think it'll be the Eastern European countries who won't bother. Why the hell should they subsidise the comparatively cushy welfare states of Italy and Greece? I mean: what are they actually getting out of this? Certainly not what they thought when they entered the EU, I imagine

I think the press are being somewhat disingenuous to suggest that its only Britain that has reservations about the whole project

aracer - Member
I note that nobody seems to have challenged the claim that Germany isn't prepared to cough up the money they need to. Do I take it that this is an broadly accepted point?

maybe they dont want to end up paying for the markets reckless behaviour

its a funny kind of communist capitalism they want, ie its fine to gamble away with other peoples money (or debt) until theres a crash at which point the ECB (germany) have to step in, bail out the countries theyve fuct over and let the games carry on

Interesting that several countries who have 'signed up' to this have already said it will probably need to go to a national vote to be agreed.

So the uk could yet be far from the only one....

:

"We chose to pick up the ball and leave the pitch before the game started", according to Lord Kerr, Britain's former ambassador to the European Union under Margaret Thatcher and then John Major. He told the BBC that he found it "odd" that Prime Minister David Cameron had chosen not to negotiate on the new treaty, saying it is "conceivable that the management of the Conservative party was a factor in his thinking"

maybe they dont want to end up paying for the markets reckless behaviour

But Germany is the country that has now put in the treaty that the 'Markets' no longer need to take a 'haircut' on their exposure to Greek debt. Prior to this agreement, that has always been the case.

I'd think that this is due to the 'Markets' in this case mainly being German banks who recklessly fueled a southern European property bubble.

If it was British, or American banks that were mainly exposed, do you think the present agreement would have the same clauses?

Love this pic

[img] [/img]

Wonder what CMD was thinking there 😆

I think the press are being somewhat disingenuous to suggest that its only Britain that has reservations about the whole project

Disingenuous is what the press do - they're professionals. It suits their agenda (and that of numerous other countries - notably Germany and the others who haven't signed up or might pull out) to have a baddie though.

aracer
On the figures, latest news now shows 24
(Hungary added to the earlier 23 from here

)
with 2 (Sweden and the Czech Republic) putting the proposal to their respective parliaments.
I'm not "making assumptions" about scope for Cameron to negotiate, just observing that 26 other national leaders , all with their own complex political issues and independant agendas, found scope to negotiate before forming a mutally acceptable agreement.
Cameron did the opposite and chose to have no influence on the formation of the ageement, just veto it. Choosing that option is completely different to " walking away from an ageement he had no influence on". It also severely undermines the UK's power of veto in future European negotiations, as now there is a new Treaty under which 26 members can hold negotiations without UK representation.

(BTW I'm not surprised you've not been challenged on anti-German rhetoric, there's plenty more of it in the British media today)

EDIT: I agree our Euro Sceptic media like a baddie, hence my comment above.

I'm not "making assumptions" about scope for Cameron to negotiate, just observing that 26 other national leaders , all with their own complex political issues and independant agendas, found scope to negotiate before forming a mutally acceptable agreement.
Cameron did the opposite and chose to have no influence on the formation of the ageement, just veto it.

Did they? Or did they just accept the agreement which was cooked up by Merkozy? My reading also suggests that CMD did attempt to negotiate, but Merkozy were unprepared to yield at all to his suggestions. Given the same agreement whether or not he signed, I don't really see how much more influence he'd have had if he'd agreed to it.

It also severely undermines the UK's power of veto in future European negotiations, as now there is a new Treaty under which 26 members can hold negotiations without UK representation.

Repeat after me: it's not a new treaty.

William Middendorf in Berlin, Germany emails: The summit will surely resolve the euro-crisis. There is no EU crisis apart from Britain being foolish and not looking towards the future. The euro can easily live without Britain, but can Britain live without the eurozone?

Just because the Eurozone leaders* have agreed some loose, wooly agreement in theory, means eff all. It doesn't mean for a second they'll be able to get it past tehir electorates or parliaments

What the rolling crisis of the Euro-zone constantly proves is that every single one of these summits always ends with 'the solution', but within ten days its all fallen apart again. Cue the next 'crisis. As none of the underlying structural problems are actually being addressed

This will be no different. It'll give them a weeks grace. 2 weeks tops!

Daves probably got out just so he can save the air fares on dragging everyone to another summit every other week 😀

* as always the word is used figuratively, and does not infer any actual leadership taking place

Both Finland and Sweden have both said they may yet withdraw. Finland does not want qualified majority voting and Sweden has said this

Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has given his backing to David Cameron's position, saying it would be "unreasonable" for a non-eurozone country to sign the treaty that was presented last night.
"It seems a bit odd because the whole text is written to make eurozone members submit to certain restrictions and do certain things," he told Sweden's TT newswire. :"A non-eurozone country can't reasonably sign up to that.”
Mr Reinfeldt said he still had to discuss Sweden's participation in the inter-governmental treaty with the national parliament, but hinted that Sweden, like the UK, would stand outside.
“Sweden, which isn't a member of the euro, does not want to tie itself to rules which are completely tailored for the eurozone,” he said.

according to Lord Kerr

I wouldn't listen to him, his first name is wayne.

Sweden has said this

Sounds like we're not alone. From an economic perspective, I'd far rather be aligned with Sweden than Italy, Portgual, Spain, Ireland, Greece.

Reading around this, I've found a suggestion that Sweden is "obliged" to join the euro, but it seems the majority of Swedes oppose this, and they're putting it off. Is there some timetable saying they have to join by a certain date, or can they just put it off indefinitely (in which case the "obligation" isn't worth the paper it's written on)? Anybody have any more details?

It takes the Telegraph to get to the heart of this

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100013758/europes-blithering-idiots-and-their-flim-flam-treaty/

In short, there is no breakthrough of any kind that will convince Asian investors that this monetary union has viable governance or even a future.

Germany has kept the focus exclusively on fiscal deficits even though everybody must understand by now that this crisis was not caused by fiscal deficits (except in the case of Greece). Spain and Ireland were in surplus, and Italy had a primary surplus.

As Sir Mervyn King said last week, the disaster was caused by current account imbalances (Spain's deficit, and Germany's surplus), and by capital flows setting off private sector credit booms.

The Treaty proposals evade the core issue.

Did France and Germany really have to cause this rift by throwing in an assault on the City that has precious little do with the EMU crisis? Yes, I suppose they did.

Given that Merkozy cannot bring themselves to accept that Europe's debacle stems from the euro itself, from a 30pc currency misalignment between from North and South, and from an over-leveraged €23 trillion banking bubble that German, French, Dutch, Belgian regulators allowed to happen… given that, yes, I suppose they have to find a scapegoat.

They have to whip up a witchhunt against somebody, so why not Anglo-Saxon bankers? Nasty reflexes are at work. German and French politicians in particular should be very careful about inciting populist hatred against a group that makes such easy prey. We have been there before.

aracer - Member
William Middendorf in Berlin, Germany emails: The summit will surely resolve the euro-crisis. There is no EU crisis apart from Britain being foolish and not looking towards the future. The euro can easily live without Britain, but can Britain live without the eurozone?

Was this guy in an A'stad coffee bar when he wrote this (and then posted it from Berlin)? How many errors in one para:

Error 1: The summit will resolve the crisis
Error 2: There is no crisis...
Error 3: Can Britain live without the eurozone?

Britain can't live with a 888888 Europe but that is a different story

mcboo - Member

It takes the Telegraph to show eurosceptic xenophobia

Christ on a bendybus! I never thought this would happen! I've just read an editorial piece in the Telegraph and found myself nodding in agreement with pretty much all of it.

Where did it all go wrong 🙁

Its yer age binners - slippers, stopping smoking, torygraph - all goes together

As it this is not enough, listen to the mild response from Le Monde is France:

“Let us play fair. The British aren’t to be blamed for the euro crisis. They carry no responsibility in the inability of eurozone leaders to solve their sovereign debt problems.”

Le Monde goes on to say that the real reasoning behind Britain’s unwillingness to tie its fate to that of the EU is that British “don’t believe in the European idea. They are strangers to this project that is today becalmed, but which appears to be more vital than ever”. The British have always been only interested in one thing– the single market.

“They are indifferent to the remainder of the European project, as long as it is not hostile to them.”

Apparently the cold shoulder clip between DC and NS was take out of context (otherwise it was an amazing clip), they had just shaken hands off screen according to the FT.

I am puzzled? The FT reports Christine Lagarde claiming that EU leaders have committed $200m in a bilateral loan to the IMF so that the IMF is in a position to be able to fun (effectively) the EU???? What am I missing here, is this just another ponzi scheme?

mcboo - Member

It takes the Telegraph to get to the heart of this

😆

Pulled off the BBC feed

Latest from the Italian markets: Stocks have jumped more than 3% in trading towards the end of Friday's session. Shares in Italy's biggest bank, UniCredit, led the rally.

The New York Times says Prime Minister David Cameron's "fateful decision to veto the idea of renegotiating the European Union treaty on Friday has left Britain as isolated as it has ever been in postwar Europe and effectively left out of future European decisions".

Former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, who is currently an MEP, tells the BBC that Britain's David Cameron made a "tactical and at the same time a strategic mistake" in putting Britain outside the new European deal.

Asked by BBC World Service if Britain would lose power by taking the position it has, former Italian PM Romano Prodi replies: "Of course. you've gained freedom but you've lost power!"

glitchy bumpy thingy

As Madame just commented: Cameron is trying to do a Thatcher. Thatcher though was renegociating an unfair deal, Cameron is refusing to sign up to a fair one. Her other comments would get me a ban.

Sorry, double post.

Edit: I take it your first attempt didn't appear then appeared when you reposted TJ?

TandemJeremy - Member
Pulled off the BBC feed

Latest from the Italian markets: Stocks have jumped more than 3% in trading towards the end of Friday's session. Shares in Italy's biggest bank, UniCredit, led the rally.

[u]So the markets think the deal will work[/u]

That's quite a leap you have made there.

Yeah? Italy in trouble according to teh doom mongers - shares in italian banks rise says to me the markets think italian banks are OK now. To simplistic?

shares in italian banks rise says to me the markets think italian banks are OK now.

😯

You'll be OK TJ, Scotland will declare independence and join the Euro...

The more Cameron takes the Uk away from the EU the more likely it is that Scotland will vote for independence [i]in europe[/i] as a part of the consensus here is internationalist and outward looking.

I'd rather be 'in' with the yanks than part of rapidly loosening collective of nations that had massacring each other as a national pastime until 65 years ago.

The Euro will fail (eventually) or the southern countries will be kicked out.

Whatever you think, remember Harold MacMillan's quote when De Gaulle refused Britain EU entry after reeling us in for a couple of years - 'the French always betray you in the end'.

So the markets think the deal will work

And of course the markets always know best 😀

If only we had deregulated the markets and allowed them to operate freely without government interference, then we wouldn't be in this mess today 😉

Although it yet remains to be seen whether the EU has done enough to appease the "markets".

But on the face of it, it was indeed a bold move by the EU. After experimenting with limited democracy for a 100 years, and very effectively stifling any moves to replace it, capitalism in Europe has now started to seriously roll back the burdensome process of allowing people to have a say in the policies of their government.

The EU (read global financiers) have now decided that the previous arrangement was untenable and in future all major economic and social policies affecting member states will be dictated by unelected EU commissioners.

So it seems that the threat by global financiers to undermine the creditworthiness of countries such as Germany and France has paid off. And everyone is falling into line, with Germany and France bullying the smaller states into submission.

Of course none of this will work long term, eventually global capitalism will be consigned to the dustbin of history. The only question which remains unanswered is how much misery will ordinary people have to endure before enough is enough.

And of course the markets always know best

When they move to suit!! More likely short positions merely closed over the weekend?

Please do read the details especially the bit about enforcing fiscal discipline - look at juts how this is going to be done. Then shake your head, sigh, sit down and have a drink. Its soo European (ie a complete fudge)

Uncle jez - your position on this confuses me somewhat. Your clearly an avowed democrat. Yet what's happening in Europe is the side-lining of the democratic process. And increasingly the unelected European comision issuing dictatats from a centralised bunker! And imposing their rule on countries that refuse to adhere to their orders

It's bankers and financiers and technocrats that will be increasingly controlling European policy. How do you square that? it's inherently contradictory

About the only correct decision he has made so far !
We heavily really on the Banking sector for taxes and to
let that go would be more than mad.

The eluded €uro is no way out of the dumps yet and still
on borrowed time.

There is no way we should go into it and should be scrapped all together
Just make the trading between countries easier

The €uro is a bottomless pit for other countries to bleed us dry

this is an act of pure folly & fake pique by our prime minister. it would be one thing not to sign this agreement it's complete childish stupidity to walk out of the first meeting, what a knob.

So klunk, what would you have done ?

And walk out of the meeting ? Didn't hear/see him doing that.

So (out of interest) Klunk, do you believe that he should have voted for the EU to have the prior say on the fiscal policy of the UK, before our elected representatives?

in future all major economic and social policies affecting member states will be dictated by unelected EU commissioners.

^^This^^

The EU is moving away from any sort of democracy. This is not a good thing.

Klunk without being present at the meeting and knowing what was said, it's unfair to judge.
So now we have a bunch of elected(well nearly!) morons running GB rather than a bunch of unelected morons. Small mercies, eh?

Mostly, I'm glad we're not in the Euro. At least we have some semblence of control over our monetary policy. I say semblence, because we are at the mercy of the aforementioned markets and particularly the bloody credit ratings agencies.

Whisper it quietly, but this is what I think is going on here. Britain finds itself in the cart. The major cause being individual greed on an international level being fed by corporate greed on an international level - underwritten by unsustainable growth. However, years of government overspeding previously has made the situation a good 25% worse than it would have been othewise.

Now, because of the instantaneous flow of information, anything we do is factored into our credit rating. If we do nothing, we lose our rating, our interest payments go up and it doesn't matter how many nurses we sack, we can't get out of it. So here's what we do. We announce a horrible short-term programme of cuts - we have to. Then we drag our heels over actually implementing them because all the time, we are praying for worse economies than ours to go under. When enough of these have happened and they have dragged their allies/trading partners down to our level, we are closer to the mean average of crapness than we otherwise would be. Then hey, we are, in real terms only marginally less crap than we used to be, but in relative terms we are better off.

Sorry to reduce our national economic policy to a game of brinksmanship, but isn't that what we've always done in a crisis. Threatening to let Greece (there they are again) go communist unless the US helped us out with a loan is a good example.

[i]And walk out of the meeting ? Didn't hear/see him doing that. [/i]

that empty chair is not going to protect our interests is it. There be nothing to sign for months. But hey what do we care, nothing to do with us now is it.

So you would have merrily* signed up to the deal on offer ?

* artistic licence.

we are at the mercy of the aforementioned markets and particularly the bloody credit ratings agencies.

really the agencies follow the markets, not lead them.

Ratings will follow the apparent direction of the spreads.
Where they dont help is when institutions have automatic triggers based on ratings. Whilst they can hold a bond with a notionally sub-standard yield, as soon as the agencies drop the rating they have to sell that bond, compounding the problem by increasing the supply.

Automatic triggers are the most dangerous exacerbator of volatile markets.

[i]So (out of interest) Klunk, do you believe that he should have voted for the EU to have the prior say on the fiscal policy of the UK, before our elected representatives? [/i]

[i]Klunk without being present at the meeting and knowing what was said, it's unfair to judge.
So now we have a bunch of elected(well nearly!) morons running GB rather than a bunch of unelected morons. Small mercies, eh? [/i]

as i said fake pique, he could have easily bided his time and said as the Czech andSwedes I need to take this back to my parliment for consideration, keep a bargaining position and a seat at the table. I say again how does the empty chair protect our national interest ?

Am I the only person who finds it amazing to watch so many people, so much time etc being spent in these discussions with the result that remains so far behind the real world and the financial markets that it beggers belief? It is quite extraordinary that so many able people can continue to misunderstand and misdiagnose the current crisis.

cant beat the hubris of politicians THM.

[img] [/img]
recommended reading.

[i]So you would have merrily* signed up to the deal on offer ?[/i]

there was nothing to sign, how long do you think the legals would take on a reworking of the EU treaty ? bit longer than 10 hours.

THM - how do you think the end game will play out ?

you know your PM is a buffoon when Boris is cheering him on.

So you'd agree to unelected EU commissioners vetting (and potentially rejecting) UK budgets/legislation ahead of our own elected parliament ?

It is quite extraordinary that so many able people can continue to misunderstand and misdiagnose the current crisis.

Yup, but they assure us that they now have a complete understanding of what went wrong and what is required to rectify the situation.

.

dannyh - Member

Then hey, we are, in real terms only marginally less crap than we used to be, but in relative terms we are better off.

😀 I like that. For some reason it reminded me of this letter in the Guardian last week :

[i][b] I note that the chancellor says that every household will "save £144 on petrol costs this year". This is good news indeed, but surely he has missed a trick. Since this "saving" is a result of announcing and then cancelling a 3p per litre price rise on petrol, why didn't he announce a £1 per litre rise, say, and cancel it? Then every household could "save" £4,800 this year. [/b][/i]
Karl Sabbagh

allthepies - Member
THM - how do you think the end game will play out ?

I have no idea, but its nice to speculate. I guess three scenarios:

1. Euro crisis before end 1Q12 (25% chance): including sov defaults (Greece, Italy...?), banking failures/nationalisation, deep social unrest, deep and extended recession
2. Europe muddles thru (65% chance), sustained period of very low/negative growth, social unrest, democratic pressure for orderly restructuring of € zone, introduction of different currency blocs (2 or none at all) - within this 70% chance this is disorderly, 30% orderly
3. Europe recovers and prospers in current form (10% chance)

The big unknown is the social impact in all this. There is an almost irreconcilable gulf between the politics and the economics of the € zone with the politicians lacking the insight/foresight and ability to credibly get ahead of the financial markets and the rapidly deteriorating economies (look what is happening this week in Greece and Italy). The losers are the public and the big question is at what point do they crack and demand change. The potential for revolt among the European middle classes will be a key factor. Tensions will continue to grow between national and pooled sovereignty (with the latter being the ultimate loser)

There will be an over-reaction to the excesses of the past 10-15 years - the main losers in the Uk will be the public sector and financial services being the main losers - aggressive cuts (deficit reduction) and over-regulation and state interference (banker bashing). The financial system will continue to malfunction weighed down by over-regulation, the toxic legacy of asset quality, and inability to grow out of the crisis. Credit starvation will condemn the real economy to a sustained period of low growth. Government participation in economic life will increase in the misguided view that this was simply a failure of capitalism (while emerging economies will continue to adopt capitalism and accelerate further ahead leaving Eur in their wake). The Austrian School (Hayek and friends) will make a come back in the field of economics after lag. Hopefully this will not be accompanied with excess nationalism (but economic nationalism will be inevitable - tariffs, protectionism etc)

Enough for now!!! Look forward to others (much better) ideas!!

p.s. watch what happens to Commerzbank over next 48 hours for more clues. A possible nationalisation of Germany's second biggest bank?

he was always onto a looser, im glad he vetoed it , we wait now to see if its the correct thing to do all they politicians will do is argue at pm question time , and we will not be any further forward anyways, oh and i suppose now we will never , ever win the eurovision song contest. 🙂

while emerging economies will continue to adopt capitalism and accelerate further ahead leaving Eur in their wake

What do you mean "adopt" ? And the emerging economies couldn't be more varied.

In fact I don't how many of them subscribe to your vision of capitalism.

Although it's debatable what you class as an "emerging economy" it should be included in the list below. A fair few of those aren't neoliberal free-market economies of the same mould as the UK and the EU.

Some in fact, including the one with the fastest growth in the world after China, are positively "tax and spend" economies.

Argentina
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Czech Republic
Egypt
Estonia
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran
Jordan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Morocco
Nigeria
Oman
****stan
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Qatar .
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovakia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
South Korea
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
UAE
Vietnam

interesting post THM (as ever. bro-cuddle? 😉 )

toxic legacy of asset quality

Domestically I think this is key. No bank wants to lift any heavy weights for fear of shittin' their pants.

Ive seen some ugly loan books that are a long way from being marked to market.

Id love to see some leaks of the terms of a transaction tax that was being proposed and then the analysis on how far it would reach and to which trades. And of course, how quickly trades could be navigated outside of it's purview.

It is quite extraordinary that so many able people can continue to misunderstand and misdiagnose the current crisis.

You're referring to the euro politicians? I suspect quite a few (if not all) of them understand it a lot better than you'd think from the "solutions" they're coming out with. It's all a game of brinksmanship though - who will blink first, as exemplified by all the commentary that the UK doesn't want the Euro to fail so should do our bit (ignoring that others have far more to lose, so won't let it fail whatever we do). That and a bit of putting off the dirty work in the hope that it will either magically solve itself or become somebody else's problem. I do wonder how (and for how long) Angela thinks Germany will get away without doing what they're going to have to do eventually.

What strange times we live in when I agree with everything ernie is saying (apologies if that conflicts with some of my earlier statements or what you might think my position is - in my defence binners started it).

Ernie. Very good point and sloppy (quick) writing on my part. There is no such thing as emerging economies and indeed the whole terminology is out of date. I threw that point in slightly haphazardly merely to spike some debate 😉

EM is similar to capitalism - prone to misuse!!

aracer. I really hope that you are correct and I am wrong! My concern is simply to look at the misunderstanding or outright lying about fiscal positions as one example. This is the fourth or fifth summit to save Europe and yet again the real issues are not being addressed.

Prior to today we had a euro crisis. Now we still have a euro crisis AND a political crisis in the EU. Very depressing.

I like the game of chicken idea. Is this an example of neither driver jumping?!?

There is no such thing as emerging economies and indeed the whole terminology is out of date.

Not according to the FTSE.

Apparently there are not only "emerging" economies but "Advanced Emerging", "Secondary Emerging" and "Frontier" economies.

All very complicated for a simple soul like me.

Ernie. Sorry it's not you being simple, it's me being sloppy. Of course the terminology exists but it is wrong to think of EM as a homogenous group. Plus as the founder of the BRICs concept point out it is extremely patronising to call many of the as emerging. Rather they should be called (high) growth economies.