Labour and the Euro summit

CLAPTON

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that being part of a 'powerful' economic block is better economically than being a 'weak' country

does it make us richer being part of a 'powerful' block that can't even sort out it's own debt problems?

would being part of the euro have been to our advantage?

does anyone care that Singapore isn't part of a strong economic block? are they poorer because of that?

how are Greece or Ireland benefiting at the moment from being part of this 'powerful' economic block that thinks it's salvation is chinese money?

the choice of words 'powerful' and 'weak' sadly adds nothing to the substance of the argument.

Masomnia

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

Do we have any influence anyway though?

We ask for the concession of having control over our own financial sector, which compared to signing away sovereignty seems a small ask, and they won't budge.

Yet when it comes to Eurobonds or QE by the ECB which would make a real difference to the situation, the French and Germans won't give any ground.

The argument might hold if they were willing to negotiate, but they aren't.

A._Badger

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

That is precisely the pusillanimous 'managed decline' codswallop beloved of the F.O. 'elite' (and others) that has consistently sold this country short since the 1960s.

Dan Hannan had it right today, didn't he?

"Sir Humphrey will already be fighting this with every fibre of his being"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2072651/Sir-Humphrey-fighting-fibre-being.html

IronWolf

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

weak? You've made it quite clear you are pretty ignorant in your view of the world but even this is surprising for its profound stupidity

- We have the seventh largest economy in the world, third largest in the EU
- We have the second largest military in the EU
- We are ranked number 1 in Europe, and fourth in the world on the World Banks "ease of doing business" index
- London has the largest GDP of any city in Europe, and is the largest financial centre in the world
- We have the second largest aerospace industry in the world
- The UK has the third largest stock of both direct inward, and outward investment in the world

to name just a few

Interesting how you never answered my earlier questions either, just what is the eurozone going to do now that we have veto'd the treaty that will disadvantage us compared to the rest of the EU? What are these crucial things we are now "isolated" from?

pqrdef

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

I can't envisage the point where a monthly meeting of the 26 is going to say "oh, this could affect Britain, so we can't discuss it now".

pqrdef

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

In fact I can't figure out what's better now than it was on Thursday. The best one might say is that from certain points of view maybe the politicians haven't done as much damage as they might have done. But they'd have done less by all staying at home.

pqrdef

CLAPTON wrote: »

would being part of the euro have been to our advantage?

Well we could have joined at 1.60, instead of 1.15, so the stuff we buy in dollars, like oil and subprime mortgages, would have been a lot cheaper.

But the big difference is that Germany couldn't have dominated the management of the euro if Britain had been in it. London, not Frankfurt, would have been the financial epicentre of the eurozone, and the undoubted financial capital of the world, and the home of the ECB. Frankfurt would have been completely marginalised. The political consequences would follow. By not joining the euro, we passed up our chance to take real power in Europe.

dshart

pqrdef wrote: »

Well we could have joined at 1.60, instead of 1.15, so the stuff we buy in dollars, like oil and subprime mortgages, would have been a lot cheaper.

But the big difference is that Germany couldn't have dominated the management of the euro if Britain had been in it. London, not Frankfurt, would have been the financial epicentre of the eurozone, and the undoubted financial capital of the world, and the home of the ECB. Frankfurt would have been completely marginalised. The political consequences would follow. By not joining the euro, we passed up our chance to take real power in Europe.

And what good did the being in the Euro do for Greece or Ireland? It took away their powers to devalue their currency and make their exports more attractive which would have helped them out of the mess they are in. The only reason Britain is not in the same mess as Greece is they still have control over the currency.

Have you ever noticed with currencies that they are never at just the right level. Either the pound is too strong or it is too weak, but never just right.

pqrdef

dshart wrote: »

And what good did the being in the Euro do for Greece or Ireland?

Strangely though, nobody wants to leave.

dshart wrote: »

And what good did the being in the Euro do for Greece or Ireland? It took away their powers to devalue their currency and make their exports more attractive which would have helped them out of the mess they are in. The only reason Britain is not in the same mess as Greece is they still have control over the currency.

My point was, if we'd joined the euro we'd still have had control over the currency. We'd have been running the euro show instead of the Germans.

CLAPTON

pqrdef wrote: »

Well we could have joined at 1.60, instead of 1.15, so the stuff we buy in dollars, like oil and subprime mortgages, would have been a lot cheaper.

But the big difference is that Germany couldn't have dominated the management of the euro if Britain had been in it. London, not Frankfurt, would have been the financial epicentre of the eurozone, and the undoubted financial capital of the world, and the home of the ECB. Frankfurt would have been completely marginalised. The political consequences would follow. By not joining the euro, we passed up our chance to take real power in Europe.

I find this scenerio unlikely. I don't recall that when we were part of the EMU we suddenly became the natural leaders of europe.

and no, I don't wish for a 1.60 exchange rate that would devastate our export trade and make us a wildly uncompetitive as Greece, Spain etc.