What now? EU

paulmapp8306

howee wrote: »

Depends what you want
cheap holidays = strong £
cheap exports = weak £

Happy to pay a little bit more for my Meythos if it helps the manufactures with the exports.

Im the other way. The UK imports far more than it exports - so fo rhte majority of UK citizens its better to have a strong £

kabayiri

I've given up trying to predict the future really.

When things move from the domain of economics into politics just about anything is possible.

Go back one decade. If you'd told me we would have a trillion pound debt set to become 50% larger in just 5 years I would not have believed you.

Nowadays, the term 'billion' floats past us like finding an extra tenner in your wallet.

setmefree2

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

But my favourite so far is:

"The UK is "as isolated as somebody who refused to join the Titanic just before it sailed" following treaty veto, says Terry Smith of the money brokerage firm, Tullett Prebon on BBC Radio 4."

Love it! :T

Kennyboy66

Wookster wrote: »

I take Labour's comments with a pinch of salt, after all they would have had us in the Euro were it not for Brown's stubbornness.

Good show to Cameron for this, it is really clear that the Eurozone leaders just don't understand how markets function, they think they can legislate and that markets will follow.

As opposed to the Tories who actually started us down the road of joining the Euro by being part of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Butterfly_Brain

Isn't it strange that the ones screaming are those who have the most to lose because they have so much personal interest in the EU and stand to lose out on a lucrative income, that ordinary tax payers who are struggling have to pay, and don't have the benefit of an off shore account.

This country stood alone for a thousand years without the need to be in an eye wateringly expensive club.
If we left Europe the money that we pay in every year would clear our deficit in no time.

vivatifosi

So we've left the party early. Does everyone else really think that those remaining are going to be standing round, holding hands and singing Auld Lang Syne when the clock strikes 12? Now the important schisms will appear. What the UK does/doesn't do will become a mere side show.

Yorkie1

manchesterred wrote: »

The failure to get the financial services protocol inserted leaves the UK with no mechanism to stop the EU (through majority voting) emasculating the City.

This point was mentioned on the bbc site earlier today and its significance seems to have got lost in the rest of the wider discussion.

As I understand it from what I've read (but am no expert), David Cameron exercised the veto that we presently have in the current treaty.

However, going forward, qualified majority voting applies to the financial side of things. So Europe can in future pass measures which have a significant impact on our financial markets - and we will have a decreasing amount of influence (particularly as more members join).

Malcolm.

Politically people have short memories. The UK is currently flavour of the day. Soon, under the new treaty, european infighting will take over.

julieq

Careful, the EU is not in itself very expensive, net cost is a very small part of the tax take. What's a little amusing about this situation is the confusion of some elements of the great British public trying to work out whether they hate the banks more than the EU and deciding which way to go, but either extreme is dangerous. It is necessary to ensure we're not removed from the single market which is very important to us, but it is also important to support the banks in the City. I think the government are aware of that and are playing this quite carefully.

The proposals are here, and there are some chilling aspects:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126658.pdf

Movement to qualified majority voting essentially means France and Germany can do pretty much what they want. Tax and spend in local areas - including outside the eurozone for countries having signed up - is subject to scrutiny centrally, and there is a clear commitment to financial policy integration. That won't directly apply to us, but you can imagine that if the 26 signatories feel the UK is offering tax advantages to attract investment there will be the most almighty pressure applied.

We're far better out of this. There's no question at all that this will be run for the benefit of the Franco German axis - why wouldn't they ensure that? - but that's the case whether we're in or outside. I have a suspicion that when the smaller countries - Eire in particular - see their investment tax breaks removed and preferential treatment given to France and Germany, there will be far more dissent.

I would like to see Milliband taken point by point through this and asked which bits he agrees with.

A._Badger

julieq wrote: »

Careful, the EU is not in itself very expensive, net cost is a very small part of the tax take. What's a little amusing about this situation is the confusion of some elements of the great British public trying to work out whether they hate the banks more than the EU and deciding which way to go, but either extreme is dangerous. It is necessary to ensure we're not removed from the single market which is very important to us, but it is also important to support the banks in the City. I think the government are aware of that and are playing this quite carefully.

The proposals are here, and there are some chilling aspects:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126658.pdf

Movement to qualified majority voting essentially means France and Germany can do pretty much what they want. Tax and spend in local areas - including outside the eurozone for countries having signed up - is subject to scrutiny centrally, and there is a clear commitment to financial policy integration. That won't directly apply to us, but you can imagine that if the 26 signatories feel the UK is offering tax advantages to attract investment there will be the most almighty pressure applied.

We're far better out of this. There's no question at all that this will be run for the benefit of the Franco German axis - why wouldn't they ensure that? - but that's the case whether we're in or outside. I have a suspicion that when the smaller countries - Eire in particular - see their investment tax breaks removed and preferential treatment given to France and Germany, there will be far more dissent.

I would like to see Milliband taken point by point through this and asked which bits he agrees with.

Well, yes. But at what point wasn't this run by (and effectively for) the Franco-German axis?

Truly, why is anyone with half a functioning braincell in the least surprised by these developments? The inherent contradictions in the Euro project were pointed out when it was first mooted. Almost exactly what the 'little Englanders' said would happen has come to pass.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in today's Telegraph raises an interesting prospect - a Nordic, Swiss, UK alliance - an 'outer tier' he calls it.

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

.