Thread: 2021: The New Europe

Originally Posted by Mihais

As expected,not a peep from our beloved leaders.If I weren't used with them,I'd die of shame.Good bye sovereignity,it was good to have you.Granted,in real terms it was gone long ago and the new servitude still needs a few scraps of paper to be signed,but these are mere details.

If Snapper and Tankie are going Cecil Rhodes I think I'll bribe them with the money from Kato to let me join them.

Btw,insert here whatever profanities I'm too gentleman to put in writing...WANKERS .................................................. ...

Hows that

I have pondered how to summarise this 'deal' best and this is my best go: "Everyone else can go to hell, while Froggy-Germans get you to pay more tax and accept get less spending to keep thier people happy. IF you are a good chappie they might send you some pennies. If you are a bad doggie you will have Mini Monti sent to oversee you! Our first rules screwed up colassaly; swallow the new ones that help us keep our people richer than you." Well excuse me, but F*CK YOU!



I apologise if anyone finds this offensive in advance.

Wow snapper , you swore , not like you , not like you at all ,,,,,even tho I agree

So, from what I understand, the first real crisis that the Euro has faced has lead to a whole bunch of non-elected officials decreeing that the two top dogs in the pack get the goodies, the rest get austerity and Britain can go f**k itself?

basically as i see it, yes, only part i´d replace is that one top dog won´t have to pay everybody else´s bills. but since the UK hopefully is really on their way out of the door, the whole Europe thing might yet survive. it might not look much now, but come back in a 300 years or so

300 years from now I'd like my clone or a cyborg-me to be opposed to the idea of United Planets Federation,thank you very much.

Long live the Empire


Now a bit more serious,there's nothing in the proposed treaty that actually addresses the causes of the crisis,which is debt.For the life of me,I can't see a way out,except growth can't happen under these circumstances.Now debtors owe money to banks.They might get money from Germany&rest via IMF to pay the banks,but in the end they're still in debt.IMF has a poor record in managing countries.All they know is cut,cut,cut so at times the peasants rebel against such cruel masters and show them the airport and the plane that takes them out never to return.We might see the northerners getting nothing for their effort.The others by the time they go Che Guevara will also have nothing.The eurocrat gang however gets to live its dream and since politics &finance are one and the same,the bankers also don't lose.Heck they even make a buck,because moving all those money around is profitable.

See ya europhiles in 2 years,when the market will take a look at Germany's rating.Round one is yours,as expected,but you also fired your last shot.Eurocrats played Monopoly as kids.My preference was chess.

Originally Posted by Parihaka

So, from what I understand, the first real crisis that the Euro has faced has lead to a whole bunch of non-elected officials decreeing that the two top dogs in the pack get the goodies, the rest get austerity and Britain can go f**k itself?

In one m8 , The merkozy pact

The whole point of the origional EU Treaties was to stop another war in Europe. Today we are so scared of another war that our politicians happily sign over sovereignties that previous generations died to preserve. It's a disgrace to our forefathers. Also the very reason WHY Europe become a model for the modern world was because we had many competing nations in a relatively small space. Sure this 'competition' lead to alot of wars but it also forced innovation and this put us ahead. This move toward 'harmonisation' and uniformity is the long term death of Europe as a competitive and innovative force.

Sadly as my MEP writes here; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...bre-being.html the vast majority of the British Civil Service are polite twerps (I have worked with them). Mr Hannan says "For these exquisitely educated officials, exclusion from the top table is personal, not theoretical. They will resist what they would regard as a downgrade with every fibre in their being" and he's about right from my experience.

Look at it from the point of view of a Foreign Office 'madarin'/Sir Humphrey: You have to advise your Minister, you know this lot over there are plotting something but as you're not invited you don't know what... How can you advise? Sure you may have a few contacts that will keep you privately briefed but you can't argue your Ministers view. This hurts their 'dignity' and professionalism no doubt. Small price, in my opinion, for our liberty!

I cannot any longer see why Britain should remain in the EU.

Interestingly I was discussing the Euro shambles with a Canadian friend, who I shall not name as he is attached to their High Commission (Embassy), about two months ago. I was actualy asking about buying property in Canada but our conversation rambled and we started chatting about possible Euro outcomes etc... He predicted that Britain would leave the EU within 2 yrs and seek a union with Canada... immigration rules would be aligned and the Canadian $ dollar used with a Central Bank in London. I must admit by this time he was somewhat overdone on cognac but the leaving EU bit does seem increasingly likely.

I think we are heading for a new election , Cameron's girlfriend and deputy PM Clegg has today said Cameron was wrong , doesnt Clegg have a say to decision making , if no , WTF use is he , the coalition is like ice melt now , full of cracks . Bet he's pissed at going with CONservative now instead of labour .

I think they'll hold it together for now. Realisticly if Cameron had agreed to the new Treaty we'd have to have a referendum (due to their own law) and that may have split the coalition. His 'f*g', Clegg, knows this and is just posturing for his own survival within his party. ('f*g' in the Etonian sense).

Presumably this new Treaty will trigger referenda in other countries who have 'signed up in theory' for it. If the Euro continues to have trouble (and they have done nothing that suggests it should not) there are quite likely to be rebelious 'no' votes in Ireland and Holland for starters.

Just have to suck it n see huh

On Friday Clegg called Camerons conditions for doing a deal “modest and reasonable.” Today he says “This is bad for Britain”. Which is it? Idiot man.

Originally Posted by snapper

On Friday Clegg called Camerons conditions for doing a deal “modest and reasonable.” Today he says “This is bad for Britain”. Which is it? Idiot man.

The bit I bolded snapper .If as I suspect , they are gonna split .

A long explanation , but it puts it all in some perspective , especially Clegg's role and just what he amounts to .


What is the deal?
Cameron's veto of the European initiative was not really a veto. As critics have pointed out, vetoes stop the process in question. In Cameron's case, the process simply took a new form, shrugged its shoulders and carried on anyway. The form is that of an intergovernmental treaty. While there is still a lot of uncertainty around it, it is likely to impose rules on all 26 EU members — not just the 17 countries which use the euro.
The treaty will hold members to strict new budgetary rules, including a cap of 0.5% of GDP on their annual structural deficits, a requirement for them to keep public deficits under three per cent of GDP and a rule that insists they must submit their budgets for European approval.
While it originally appeared that just the eurozone countries would be affected by the rules, it is now likely they will be imposed on all the EU countries. Most of the non-eurozone members have plans to join the euro eventually and they want to maintain their influence over its future direction in the run-up. Countries such as Poland are especially nervous about being left on the sidelines. The real wild card is how their national parliaments will react when they are asked. Countries such as Sweden, with enviable natural resources and a reliable tax base, have little to gain by deeper involvement, with all the loss of sovereignty that entails. Ireland may even need to hold a referendum.
The fact that the treaty is taking part at an intergovernmental level, rather than an EU one, significantly weakens the European Commission, which the UK had traditionally relied on as a counterweight to Franco-German influence. The fact the treaty will take place outside the EU has other ramifications as well, not least a dispute over whether the other 26 members can use the EU's institutions, especially for monitoring and enforcement. This British complaint has prompted EU lawyers to start digging around the ancient precedents they might use to prove their case. Britain is also seeking legal advice, but it will be wary of being painted as the international bad guy by further holding up the process or spooking the markets.
Will it work?
The fact the treaty will be intergovernmental, rather than institutional, was a major source of disappointment for Angela Merkel, who wanted fiscal discipline to be enshrined in EU law to placate the markets. The fact she failed was reflected in the lukewarm response of investors, who were not moved to confidence by the events of last week. European leaders are hoping the initiative will be enough to encourage Mario Draghi, chair of the European Central Bank (ECB) to open the money taps, introduce monetary easing and buy government bonds — the real moment the markets are waiting for.
European leaders also agreed to channel another 200 billion euros through the IMF, with an eye to boosting contributions from countries like Brazil and China. The European Stability Mechanism will have 500 billion euros at its disposal once it's up and running next year.
A German demand that bondholders lose some of their investment during any future national bail out was another victim of negotiations. These bondholders are mostly large European banks, who lost 50% of their investments in recent moves to save Greece. The new arrangements protect the banks extensively from future losses, while embedding fiscal solutions — basically austerity — into European law. For this reason it is opposed by many centre-left parties in Europe. One of the great ironies of Cameron's veto is that he is opposing a plan created by predominantly centre-right European governments which wholeheartedly accept his economic remedies.
Indeed, in one key area, Cameron was actually to the left of the European consensus. One of the concessions he lobbied for was for the UK to be able to apply tougher capital rules on its own banks than those proposed by the European Commission, in line with the Vickers report.
This protective attitude towards the banks has led many left-wing economists to doubt whether the deal will work, because it protects the very industry widely blamed for creating the financial crisis in the first place. Furthermore, many economists doubt whether austerity-driven economic policies can save Europe. All the evidence so far suggests they act as a brake on demand, thereby creating a death spiral as states fail to raise enough revenue to pay back their budget deficit.
On the right, economists are wary of the European plan, because it does nothing to address the unwieldy operations of a transnational currency. This has prevented countries such as Greece from devaluing their currency and attracting investment that way, because they are tied into the euro. Scepticism of the plan comes from every political persuasion.
Has Cameron even saved the City?
Cameron's main aim was to protect the City of London from a financial transactions tax — often referred to as Robin Hood tax or a Tobin tax, although these are two slightly different schemes. Many question whether this really was Cameron's aim, or whether he simply did the most sensible thing for himself politically and protected himself from the ire of eurosceptics in his own party. Assuming it was his real objective, it appears his tactics have failed.
EU financial regulation will likely be decided by majority vote, and the majority vote is likely to back a transaction tax. Britain will probably be powerless to stop it. Even a eurozone-only tax could be applied in a way that encompasses transactions in London. If it doesn't, it's not worth the paper it's printed on anyway.
If some of the more dire pronouncements turn out to be true, and Britain does find itself on the outskirts of European decision-making, many financial services providers are likely to want to move base to Frankfurt anyway. Furthermore, Britain's manufacturing industry is already complaining that firms such as Tata, of India, and Celsa, of Spain will be encouraged to head to the continent. So even if the financial sector holds firm in London, manufacturing might go elsewhere. Of course, all of that assumes the European gamble will work out.
Will Britain really be weaker?
Certainly, Britain will not be going to the monthly meetings where countries appraise current progress and will, in all likelihood, be excluded from key economic decision-making meetings. These groupings will meet before EU summits, meaning British prime ministers of the future will appear with most major decisions already wrapped up. Most single-market decisions are based on majority voting, so Britain will be unable to wield its veto as a last resort.
Culturally, there is also a distinct anti-British sentiment on the continent, with many feeling Britain has demanded exceptions and a seat at the high table for far too long. One did not need a doctorate in body language to see how alienated Cameron was during the summit last week. Combined with Britain's robust euroscepticism, the natural weight of political gravity is pulling Britain and mainland Europe apart.
Some — particularly senior Liberal Democrats — argue this will significantly weaken Britain's influence on America, which values the UK for its role in Europe, not as a country in its own right. This is probably overstated. The Anglo-American relationship is based, in large part, on British military and intelligence contributions. The former cannot be replicated by other European countries except, to a lesser extent, France, which anyway takes a more critical view of American adventurism. The latter will be unaffected. Britain's support for most American military operations also allows the US to 'internationalise' approval of their missions, a factor which will be important regardless of Britain's relationship with the EU.
The real setback to British influence on America is if Britain is seen as a roadblock to solving the eurocrisis, causing minor international pariah status. This is especially concerning given that Barack Obama seems considerably less close to the UK than the presidents which preceded him, seeing the world more in north-south terms than east-west.
Can the coalition survive?
Of all the differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, the Europe issue is probably the most substantial. With 2010's Tory intake even more eurosceptic thanits predecessors, their positions could not be further apart. Nick Clegg's confusing response to the veto — initial support followed by outspoken criticism two days later — typified the panic in Lib Dem ranks. On top of the tuition fees U-turn, senior strategists clearly believe the party could not survive support for such a historically eurosceptic foreign policy.
This will have been a disappointment to Clegg, who initially boasted of his role as a control on his coalition partner's attitude to Europe. Now, observers will be watching for whether his attacks on Cameron signal the green light for similar comments from his MPs, or whether that initial salvo will have been designed only as a PR stunt to placate Lib Dems' anger.
As ever, the main factor in the coalition's survival is fear of the alternative. While the Lib Dems could legally leave the coalition and team-up with Labour and a coalition of other parties to form a government, such a move would not be accepted by the country or the press. The fall of the coalition would therefore entail a general election, leaving the Lib Dems in the electoral wilderness if their current opinion poll results are anything to go by.
How will the veto affect British politics?
While the idea that the veto was Cameron's 'Falkland's moment' is over-enthusiastic, it has boosted his poll ratings among Britain's resolutely eurosceptic electorate. The Tory leader spent two hours preparing to face the press on that fateful night in Brussels, but he probably didn't need to be so nervous. While European and international news agencies widely reported that he was out-negotiated and generally out-manoeuvred, his domestic audience was considerably more sympathetic. One poll over the weekend even suggested the veto had wiped out Labour's poll lead.
Politicians are acutely aware of the British publics' view. For instance, Britons believe the UK loses 19% of its gross national contribution each year to the EU, when in fact the number stands at 0.12%. This has framed the Labour response, which has been confusing at best.
Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander has adopted a more eurosceptic tone over the last few weeks and even admitted Labour would also have vetoed the initiative, but he has attacked Cameron for his tactics and negotiating style. Central to the Labour attack is Cameron's isolation in Europe, particularly his decision to pull out the main centre-right grouping into a new party block when he was in opposition. They say this approach has reduced all his political capital on the continent and left him friendless and isolated as decisions are taken which affect the UK.
While it is being ignored now, that message could prove more potent later, especially if the European initiative works. In that scenario, Britain will spend years trying to get into the club it has just walked away from.
The political results, just like everything else, rely on the outcome of the economics. And the economics are as deeply unpredictable as everything else.