What now? EU

madeupname1

gagahouse wrote: »

You may have read that in a paper but here on the ground that is simply not true. They do not adopt everything here in practice, that notion is just laughable.

Greater fiscal, monetary or political union with the EU is simply not on the cards here in Switzerland. The mood is increasingly anti-EU, anti-immigrant since the adoption of Schengen. The people recently voted to kick out foreign criminals and benefit cheats in direct conflict with the govt's free movement deal with the EU. This is being challenged by the EU but I doubt the federal govt will provoke a constitutional crisis by trying to reverse an irrevocable constitutional act of the people. The EU will retaliate and the Swiss people will say that's fine, that's the price we are prepared to pay for our independence.

The Swiss have a deal with the EU on their terms, it is like a call option they're happy to pay the premium on while never fully exercising it. They retain their currency and monetary policy power. They don't have any obligation to bail out their basket case neighbours. And the people retain the final say on any policy they feel strongly about. This is what is important to a very nationalistic nation, there is a limit to how much power the federal govt can try to cede to the outside.

From what I see around me, Switzerland pays relatively little cost and enjoy's much benefit from it's current deal with the EU outside the EU.

I am curious as to why the swiss (and the other countries outside of the Euro zone) have decided (or are expected to decide) to nonetheless agree the protocol agreed on Thurs / Fri? The way it is reported here is that it is an agreement towards greater fiscal unity by which governments agree that debt should not exceed x amount under penalty of financal sanctions. I don't really understand why any country would voluntarily agree to that if they don't need to be bailed out or are not otherwise part of the single currency.

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Interestingly, serious publications do not seem to see Cameron's veto as positive move:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/12/britain-and-eu-summit

They go as far as talking of a victory for sarkozy.

Especially that it now looks like all other 26 members have agreed.

Victory? It is a rout.

Even the losers are cheering. In fact they are cheering loudest.

DVardysShadow

madeupname1 wrote: »

I am curious as to why the swiss (and the other countries outside of the Euro zone) have decided (or are expected to decide) to nonetheless agree the protocol agreed on Thurs / Fri? The way it is reported here is that it is an agreement towards greater fiscal unity by which governments agree that debt should not exceed x amount under penalty of financal sanctions. I don't really understand why any country would voluntarily agree to that if they don't need to be bailed out or are not otherwise part of the single currency.

Agreeing to do what you do anyway is cheap. It really will be no skin off the nose of the Swiss.

jjlandlord

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Victory? It is a rout.

Even the losers are cheering. In fact they are cheering loudest.

Yes, victory.
Because now the uk is no longer in the way and they can move forward without having to bear with her.
I.e. exactly what sarkozy and friends wanted...

A._Badger

jjlandlord wrote: »

Interestingly, serious publications do not seem to see Cameron's veto as positive move:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/12/britain-and-eu-summit

They go as far as talking of a victory for sarkozy.

Especially that it now looks like all other 26 members have agreed.

The Economist? Serious?

Is there some element of satire that I'm missing there? Or did you perhaps mean to write 'seriously self-important', or 'seriously, serially wrong?'

DVardysShadow

jjlandlord wrote: »

Yes, victory.
Because now the uk is no longer in the way and they can move forward without having to bear with her.
I.e. exactly what sarkozy and friends wanted...

I mean it is more than a victory for Sarkozy. Not that it is the opposite.

Degenerate

jjlandlord wrote: »

Interestingly, serious publications do not seem to see Cameron's veto as positive move:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/12/britain-and-eu-summit

They go as far as talking of a victory for sarkozy.

Especially that it now looks like all other 26 members have agreed.

Sarkozy's "victory" will soon be forgotten once the reality dawns that:

1. This deal solves nothing, it's just more of the same.

2. This deal will fall apart as the 24 other countries that have "agreed in principle" digest the "minor details" that remain to be settled and realize it will emasculate their democracies and condemn the weaker nations to eternal decline.

As further details come out, it's becoming apparent just how desperately out of their depth Merkel and Sarkozy are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8946799/EU-Treaty-David-Cameron-makes-his-euro-stand-in-splendid-isolation.html

“At some point, 2,3,4 in the morning, it became clear to me we were not going to get the safeguards we needed,” Mr Cameron recalled. Quite how firmly that was made clear was suggested in reports in the Greek media that during the session, Mr Sarkozy became so animated he had to be physically restrained.

That's a description of a man losing his composure because he is not up to task at hand. The Euro-zone is f*cked. It's leaders are desperately clutching at straws and looking for scapegoats because the reality of their economic situation is either beyond their comprehension or too much for them to face up to. At this stage of the game, the only realistic choices are to manage an orderly break-up to minimise the damage, or bury your heads in the sand whilst everything disintegrates. Thursday night was when we found out they're going for the latter option.

jjlandlord

A._Badger wrote: »

The Economist? Serious?

Is there some element of satire that I'm missing there? Or did you perhaps mean to write 'seriously self-important', or 'seriously, serially wrong?'

Oh sorry. Yes I admit their page 3 is rather less visually appealing than other "newspapers". But you are supposed to read the text and not stop at the pictures

StevieJ

A._Badger wrote: »

The Economist? Serious?

Is there some element of satire that I'm missing there? Or did you perhaps mean to write 'seriously self-important', or 'seriously, serially wrong?'

Not as good as The Mail is it

DVardysShadow

Degenerate wrote: »

Sarkozy's "victory" will soon be forgotten once the reality dawns that:

1. This deal solves nothing, it's just more of the same.

2. This deal will fall apart as the 24 other countries that have "agreed in principle" digest the "minor details" that remain to be settled and realize it will emasculate their democracies and condemn the weaker nations to eternal decline.

As further details come out, it's becoming apparent just how desperately out of their depth Merkel and Sarkozy are:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8946799/EU-Treaty-David-Cameron-makes-his-euro-stand-in-splendid-isolation.html


That's a description of a man losing his composure because he is not up to task at hand. The Euro-zone is f*cked. It's leaders are desperately clutching at straws and looking for scapegoats because the reality of their economic situation is either beyond their comprehension or too much for them to face up to. At this stage of the game, the only realistic choices are to manage an orderly break-up to minimise the damage, or bury your heads in the sand whilst everything disintegrates. Thursday night was when we found out they're going for the latter option.

This is what I mean by the losers cheering loudest.

Actually, Sarkozy's victory was in getting rid of us and let us think it was our idea. We were never going to help in this crisis, just distract. So he has not made the prospects for a resolution worse by securing our departure, he's made them better by enabling those who remain to focus.