Labour and the Euro summit

Sir_Humphrey

A._Badger wrote: »

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-with nutter, as we all agree. So, on to Chris Huhne's latest idea for foreign aid to combat Global Warmig. What do you think, John? Is it Ten Commandments good or merely staggeringly wonderful?'

Well, I don't think all right-wingers are nutters, but the some of the ones on the Tory right are actually bat$h!t bonkers. Trust me - I have been in the same room and in a couple of cases actually met some of these people.

I mean, comparing Cameron and Merkel to Chamberlain and Hitler like Edward Leigh did the other day? Surely only someone who is bonkers themselves would not see that as a bonkers comparison!

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

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.

The trouble is that the rabid right speak for a much larger part of the Tory Party than Millitant did for Labour IMO. That makes them hard to boot out.

The trouble is, to roll over to the centre leftists in Europe seems to be the only way to gain influence. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to be a funny sort of influence if you just end up rolling over to do what others want.

I bow to your better judgement on the political side.

dshart

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

If there is a treaty change, there will need to be a referendum in the UK. If that happens, the coalition falls apart and Cameron risks not being Prime Minister any more. But there is not going to be treaty change. Cameron does not want there to be a treaty change because he knows he would lose a referendum and the loons will destroy him.

As for not using existing bodies...dream on - if the 26 want it to happen it will happen. A way will be found.

As I say once again - has Cameron repatriated any powers? No. What has this achieved? A few good tabloid headlines. Will the Eurosceptics stop causing trouble for Cameron? Not on your nelly.

This ain't over yet.

I agree the thing DC wants to avoid is having to call a referendum, if he had signed up to the proposals then he would have had to put the deal before parliament and in doing that he would have to have called a referendum. I do not know what you think the outcome of a referendum would be but from majority of the people I have spoken to I think the referendum would have taken us out of the EU.

I personally think that would be the worst outcome possible, because I believe that Britain does have a role in Europe and it needs Europe, but I do not believe it should be a Europe where sovereignty has been handed over to France and Germany. The people of Britain are currently struggling to accept the budget cuts by our own government, how do you think they will react when those cuts are demanded by the EU and we have no choice but to implement them?

He may not have repatriated any powers but he has not given them away which is what the French and Germans wanted. It has yet to be seen what the nationals of the other respective countries think when they realise the full extent of the powers that have been given away to an unelected body in Europe controlled by Germany and France. Countries like Ireland are already facing years of austerity measures and this will be made worse when their ability to set a lower corporation tax is taken away.

Why is it that it is always a crisis that has to force Europe closer together. It's simple Europe is not ready to be united and will not be for a long time to come. All it takes at the moment is for just one of the countries in serious debt to realise that they may be better off with a complete default on their loans than years of austerity under the Euro, and the whole pack of cards will come tumbling down.

pqrdef

Hmm. News 24 is now talking about talks "collapsing", and "failed negotiations".

IronWolf

sims01 wrote: »

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.

Majority voting will only apply to selected policy areas. The most important like taxation and financial issues are still subject to unanimity, so don't peddle the myth that we are somehow going to be isolated from the EU and impose trade and tax on us, just not true.

ALso, the UK is still, and will be one of the most influential members of the EU. London is the largest financial centre in the world, our economy is the third largest in Europe, we contribute a huge amount to the EU budget. Enough with this b0ll0cks about us not having influence, we do have influence, the EU needs us to stay in it more than we need them.

dunstonh

What irrirtates me most is the way those that say it is a bad move do not say what they would have done. To most rational thinkers, there was only one option available and it was the one taken. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Yet those slagging off the decision made (or more commonly the decision marker), give no alterantive. They wont say that they would have given and signed the treaty. They give nothing.

It is looking increasingly like that Germany and France have intentionally blocked UK concessions to divert attention and blame to the UK. They had no issues giving concessions to other countries (Ireland able to keep its low corporation tax for example).

Personally, I dont think you will see anywhere near the things being suggested in some quarters. i.e. all future decisions being made by the rest. Eurozone issues quite probably and to be honest, they have every right. If you are not in the Eurozone then why should you have a say. However, EU issues are a different level and we will still be involved on those.

CLAPTON

On the broad assumption that the purpose of the european union is to increase the security, stability and prosperity of the european peoples then one need to ask in what way have the last few summit meetings made any contribution to the prosperity of the people of Greece?

Now Angela did end the meeting with a big smile and saying that she had achieved everything she set out to achieve and wished everyone a happy christmas.

But I didn't hear anything about how the agreement would improve the situation of the Greek (or Irish or Spanish etc) people.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

The trouble is that the rabid right speak for a much larger part of the Tory Party than Millitant did for Labour IMO. That makes them hard to boot out.

The trouble is, to roll over to the centre leftists in Europe seems to be the only way to gain influence. Perhaps I am wrong but it seems to be a funny sort of influence if you just end up rolling over to do what others want.

I bow to your better judgement on the political side.

Your first paragraph; I totally agree. This is a major problem for the Tories I think.

Re your second point, I am a bit confused. There are plenty of things which both Labour and the Tories did which was not "rolling over", not least of which was keeping us out of the Euro (good thing).

In reality they got concessions and gave concessions. Just like every other country in Europe. This is to preserve the national interest, which is to be part of the wealthiest trading bloc in the world.

Are you suggesting we can just stand around dictating terms to the rest of Europe or the World? Get real, the UK has not been that powerful for over 100 years!

dunstonh

Are you suggesting we can just stand around dictating terms to the rest of Europe or the World? Get real, the UK has not been that powerful for over 100 years!

100 years ago we were certainly powerful enough. Even in the 50s, had we gone in at the start of the European "adventure", we would have been the most powerful of the European countries (albeit one in continued decline). We are paying for the errors that started 60 years ago.

Sir_Humphrey

The argument over influence is as follows.

Either do deals in Europe and gain some influence over an economically powerful bloc.

Get out of Europe and have 100% influence over the policies of a weak country that no-one cares about. And probably end up getting screwed over by the Chinese and/or the rest of Europe.