Labour and the Euro summit

Sir_Humphrey

Another point. The UK relationship with the USA is based on us being a bridge with Europe. If we disengage from Europe, we also risk the USA disengaging with the UK. The UK is not in a position nowadays to achieve anything without alliances. This is because we are not a major power as we were 70 years ago.

Rather than being tough, we have just shot ourselves in the foot.

sims01

dshart wrote: »

Remember also that Britain is still a signatory to the original treaty and so they still have a say. If the FrancoGerman alliance want to break away they will have to sign a completely new treaty. Any changes to the current treaty would have to be ratified by all members and DC has already said that the current eurobodies for administering the EEC cannot be used to administer the changes that France and Germany have proposed, so they would have to set up new bodies to administer that.

Britain still has a say until the voting arrangements of the Lisbon treaty come into force in a few years. At that point, virtually all EU law including financial regulation will become subject to majority voting.

So unless the UK manages to get a few more countries on its side, good luck.

If the UK tries obstructionism like legal challenges against how EU institutions are being used by the remaining 26 members, it will only alienate others and make the subsequent loss of influence more severe.

A._Badger

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Another point. The UK relationship with the USA is based on us being a bridge with Europe. If we disengage from Europe, we also risk the USA disengaging with the UK. The UK is not in a position nowadays to achieve anything without alliances. This is because we are not a major power as we were 70 years ago.

Rather than being tough, we have just shot ourselves in the foot.

There speaks the true pusillanimous voice of the man from the ministry!

We are talking about a country that is still one of the top ten manufacturing nations in the world. We have the sixth largest economy and host the world's financial centre, in London (which is what Merkozy were gunning for).

Sadly, the Left, riddled with post-imperial guilt like an auto immune disease, has convinced itself we cannot survive without crutches and a drip-feed.

It's twaddle and it's time we stopped being conned by it.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I write this after just watching Douglas Alexander talk about how David Cameron has failed the country, put us at risk, and not got what he planned to get.

When asked, but more told that Labour would have had to have done exactly the same, this was ignored, and we were back to "we are isolated, Cameron has isolated us".

What do Labour want? What is their issue? Would they really have bent over backwards, accepted a TOBIN tax? Accepted Brussels overlooking our budgets before we are "allowed" to go ahead with them?

How could David Cameron have forced the rest of the countries to accept what we said? Douglas Alexander seems to believe David Cameron could have simply stated how things were going to work.

Seriously, can anyone relate to where labour are coming from on this one? Apparently Ed Milliband is on the attack also for the same thing.

If sarkozy etc are not going to accept our wants, what could David Cameron do? What's the point in even giving labour airpsace any more? They simply take the opposite viewpoint no matter what we do. Trying to make out David Cameron has failed us because Sarkozy etc wouldn't accept our wants is desperation beyond belief.

I agree whole-heartedly with this.

Politically I find all this fascinating and things might not quite be as being portrayed.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/12/britain-and-eu-1
(claims to be a write-up of the views of an impartial insider)

Never assume a PM is an idiot, they don't get the job by accident. Even Brown was a very clever bloke politically. He presided over a massive redistribution of income yet is and was considered to be some sort of closet Tory, continuing the Thatcher revolution.

I suspect that Cameron got a big chunk of what he wanted which could well have been to isolate the UK from a large part of EU decision-making which in turn means that the anti-EU fringe of his party cause him less trouble. It may or may not turn out to be the best thing for the UK but I think it will turn out to be the best thing for Cameron.

Joe_Bloggs

Where is this alleged treaty that Cameron said no to ? It really does not matter as this still has to be sold to the rest of the EU voters.

What has the disagreement been about ? When will the non UK, EU voters find out about the agreement that is to be agreed ?

J_B.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Another point. The UK relationship with the USA is based on us being a bridge with Europe. If we disengage from Europe, we also risk the USA disengaging with the UK. The UK is not in a position nowadays to achieve anything without alliances. This is because we are not a major power as we were 70 years ago.

Rather than being tough, we have just shot ourselves in the foot.

Surely the USA is interested in the UK being able to speak English (the failings of the British educational system not withstanding) and the UK being a part of a free trade bloc with Europe. I strongly suspect that they don't give a flying fox about the UK's relationship with the French and Poles.

I agree with your analysis of the rest of it but don't let your hatred of all things Conservative blind you to the realities of the world and the UK's position in it. Unless you are seriously trying to argue that Cameron has put the UK's place in the Single Market at risk by his actions, your argument holds no water.

A._Badger

sims01 wrote: »

If the UK tries obstructionism like legal challenges against how EU institutions are being used by the remaining 26 members, it will only alienate others and make the subsequent loss of influence more severe.

What influence would that be? Europhiles have been peddling this myth about 'influence' since Heath pulled off his three card trick and yet all we have seen since has been a progressive decline in Britain's influence over its own affairs.

'The project' continues, regardless of what people want - institutionally undemocratic, driven by myths and lies - foremost of which is the fantasy about 'influence'.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

I suspect that Cameron got a big chunk of what he wanted which could well have been to isolate the UK from a large part of EU decision-making which in turn means that the anti-EU fringe of his party cause him less trouble. It may or may not turn out to be the best thing for the UK but I think it will turn out to be the best thing for Cameron.

There is no way that the Eurosceptics are going to leave him alone now. They have just forced his hand once.

The objective of these people is for the UK to leave the EU. They will be back with more demands on repatriation of powers which simply cannot be achieved. We no longer have any leverage. Then they will give him hell.

No Tory Prime Minister will be able to operate in Europe free of the nutter influence on their right-wing unless they do a purge like Labour did with their far-left loons (Militant) back in the 1980s.

Surely the USA is interested in the UK being able to speak English (the failings of the British educational system not withstanding) and the UK being a part of a free trade bloc with Europe. I strongly suspect that they don't give a flying fox about the UK's relationship with the French and Poles.

If we are only a minor player in the EU with little influence over decision making, the Americans would bypass us and go direct to the Germans.

Thanks for the link to the Bagehot article. I read it a few days ago - it is very good.

sims01

A._Badger wrote: »

What influence would that be? Europhiles have been peddling this myth about 'influence' since Heath pulled off his three card trick and yet all we have seen since has been a progressive decline in Britain's influence over its own affairs.

'The project' continues, regardless of what people want - institutionally undemocratic, driven by myths and lies - foremost of which is the fantasy about 'influence'.

Did you read the first half of my post? From 2014, according to the Lisbon treaty which the UK has ratified, any EU legislation relating to the single market (such as regulation, a transaction tax etc.) will be decided by majority vote.

Such laws will apply to any country that is part of the single market, including Switzerland and including the UK, even if it were to leave the EU (unless it also wants to lose access to the single market and leave that also).

Right now the UK has a veto on such things, but unless it can manage to not antagonise and get at least 3 other countries on its side to at least have a blocking minority, it will become entirely sidelined.

A._Badger

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Tthe nutter influence on their right-wing .

So, there we have it (as they say). Pretty much beyond rational debate here, aren't we?

It's almost like being in an editorial meeting at Today: 'Anyone who questions the value of the EU is a right-wing nutter, as we all agree. So, on to Chris Huhne's latest idea for foreign aid to combat Global Warming. What do you think, John? Is it Ten Commandments good or merely staggeringly wonderful?'