Labour and the Euro summit

A._Badger

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

You need to join the reality-based community. You have to deal with how things are, not how you wish they are.

Precisely. And the reality is that the Euro could never have worked - nor can an EU state. The birds have come home to roost and another elegant theory has collapsed.

Sadly, unlike Swift's Laputans, there was no one around with an inflated pig's bladder to keep daydreaming Europhile theorists from their own stupidity.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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!

I agree, Britain isn't in a position to dictate terms to Europe any more and probably hasn't been since 1558.

It seems to me that every time that Britain gets an opt-out (eg the Social Chapter, the Euro) or fights her corner (eg Lady Thatcher's No, no, no) the claim is that the UK is not 'at the heart of Europe' and has surrendered influence.

IronWolf

Generali wrote: »

I agree, Britain isn't in a position to dictate terms to Europe any more and probably hasn't been since 1558.

Off topic, but seriously, 1558?? did you miss the whole British empire thing? We ruled the sea's of the world as late as the 19th century

pqrdef

IronWolf wrote: »

It's because we aren't in the Euro.

Quite. But if we'd got stuck into the Euro project enthusiastically from the start, back in the Thatcher era, instead of sitting back and allowing the Germans to call all the shots, then the ECB would have been governed by different rules and different people.

Even if we'd been reluctant latecomers to the party, the British media would have knocked the ECB off its pedestal and subjected its people and policies to much greater scrutiny and disrespect. For starters, any ECBanker we didn't like would have had his voicemail hacked and his private life put through the wringer.

IronWolf wrote: »

The reason we have a strong credit rating is because we have control of our monetary policy.

But the market's appetite for funny money isn't infinite, and we've already printed £275bn. With another credit crunch and another recession looming, we need that tap flowing, but we don't know how much more money we can print before we trigger a run on the pound.

A._Badger

pqrdef wrote: »

Quite. But if we'd got stuck into the Euro project enthusiastically from the start, back in the Thatcher era, instead of sitting back and allowing the Germans to call all the shots, then the ECB would have been governed by different rules and different people.

Even if we'd been reluctant latecomers to the party, the British media would have knocked the ECB off its pedestal and subjected its people and policies to much greater scrutiny and disrespect. For starters, any ECBanker we didn't like would have had his voicemail hacked and his private life put through the wringer.

But this happened - weren't you paying attention?

The problem is that when it did, those writers and commentators who raised the issues of corruption, greed and mismanagement, even when it concerned (nominally) British citizens like Mandelson and the Kinnocks, were castigated as 'little Englanders' and 'swivel-eyed right-wing loons' by the Europhilliac media, led by the BBC, desperate not to rock the Franco-German boat.

No matter when the UK had joined, the Euro would never have worked because it could never have worked. You cannot shackle a racehorse and a donkey to the same cart.

All your 'if only' would have achieved would have been even more certain ruin for the UK than it already faces.

Thrugelmir

pqrdef wrote: »

Fiscal union won't solve the problem anyway,

Fiscal union has always been a prerequisite for the Eurozone working.

chewmylegoff

A._Badger wrote: »

You cannot shackle a racehorse and a donkey to the same cart.

Yes you can. I guarantee it is possible. If you don't believe me buy a cart, a racehorse and a donkey and see for yourself.

michaels

So Britain was given a take it or leave it offer where clearly taking it was impossible - normally Europe offers optouts and rewordings to allow member states to get out of this sort of bind but even though there was no reason not to offer Britain an optout this was not done - surely the reason for this is all about internal French politics and the upcoming French presidential election. Seems odd for the BBC to criticise the British for allowing domestic politics to impact on its external policies (isn't that what democracy is all about? they were happy to suggest that domestic opposition to Iraq should have been listened to) but are ignoring the egrarious atttempt by Sarkosy to use the crisis meeting for electioneering purposes.

pqrdef wrote: »

Of course the whole plan is a nonsense, but that's nothing new where Europe is concerned. It's not the reason Cameron couldn't play along. He couldn't play along because that would have triggered a disastrous referendum. But that's the corner he's painted himself into.

sims01

michaels wrote: »

So Britain was given a take it or leave it offer where clearly taking it was impossible - normally Europe offers optouts and rewordings to allow member states to get out of this sort of bind but even though there was no reason not to offer Britain an optout this was not done - surely the reason for this is all about internal French politics and the upcoming French presidential election. Seems odd for the BBC to criticise the British for allowing domestic politics to impact on its external policies (isn't that what democracy is all about? they were happy to suggest that domestic opposition to Iraq should have been listened to) but are ignoring the egrarious atttempt by Sarkosy to use the crisis meeting for electioneering purposes.

Europe normally offers opt-outs from particular provisions of the thing they are currently proposing. If the UK had asked for that, it would doubtlessly have got an opt-out from whatever provision it wanted to not implement.

But what it asked for instead was an incredibly wide opt-out from something entirely unrelated to the proposals being discussed (i.e. any EU banking regulation at any point in the future, the treaty change proposal on the table does not even contain any provision for banking regulation). The closing statement of the summit containing the actual proposals for the new treaty at http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126658.pdf does not even mention either banking regulation, a transaction tax with one word. How can you ask for an opt-out from something that's not even being included in the treaty change proposal in the first place?

Masomnia

sims01 wrote: »

Europe normally offers opt-outs from particular provisions of the thing they are currently proposing. If the UK had asked for that, it would doubtlessly have got an opt-out from whatever provision it wanted to not implement.

But what it asked for instead was an incredibly wide opt-out from something entirely unrelated to the proposals being discussed (i.e. any EU banking regulation at any point in the future, the treaty change proposal on the table does not even contain any provision for banking regulation). The closing statement of the summit containing the actual proposals for the new treaty at http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126658.pdf does not even mention either banking regulation, a transaction tax with one word. How can you ask for an opt-out from something that's not even being included in the treaty change proposal in the first place?

If we're asking for something that's not there and so insignificant, why would they be so keen to refuse it?

They know the tax/regulation is coming, it's underhand of the EU to not put it on the table.