Are Labour two faced or two stupid?

Rochdale_Pioneers

dlk wrote: »

Ed Milliband (in fact the whole Labour party) has come across really badly in my opinion over this whole matter. It's not even their policy (or lack of) that's irritated me, it's the fact that they proclaim this to be such a catastrophe and the economy will crumble around us if we upset Europe, but then just spend the whole of prime ministers questions trying to score silly political points rather than discussing seriously what they claim to be such an important discussion.

And yet this is hardly a viewpoint exclusive to Labour - add in the LibDems, half the city, our diplomatic core and best practice as used by Thatcher and Major.

Perhaps so many people have come out suggesting that Europe won't come running after Cameron because, err, it won't. THIS is the breaking point where we lose. The other 26 carry on without us, and make zero provision for UK wishes because we're not involved. The summit at the weekend didn't agree a treaty as is clear in the few days following - just the agreement that a treaty was needed. It hasn't been fully negotiated yet, and various countries have problems either constitutional or political which will cause changes to be made to the basic premise. They all have a say, we don't

What would Labour have done differently? The same as any other EU government and the same as any previous UK government - set out our position well in advance, discuss it with allies in Europe in advance, start trading for support. Not turn up at the session with a lot of technical clauses unrelated to the agenda and then act surprised when the other 26 scratch their heads. The "Cameron stopped the EU vetoing our budget" argument deployed by commentators on the right would have merit other than for the fact that as a non-Euro country that wouldn't have affected us anyway.

And a final word on regulation. Cameron spent 3 years in opposition berating Brown for over-regulating the city. He then spent 2 years in opposition berating Brown for under-regulating the city. He's now spent 18 months as PM making very minor changes to city regulation, and has just walked out of EU negotiations because they wanted stronger regulation for the city. Are the Tories pro or anti-regulation?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Isn't all this a party politics side show? Where are the answers to the big questions about the future of the Euro and what happens to Italian debt?

Rochdale_Pioneers

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Isn't all this a party politics side show? Where are the answers to the big questions about the future of the Euro and what happens to Italian debt?

There are no answers. The EU cannot afford Italy or Spain to pop, nor can they afford to bail them out to stop them going pop.

Mallotum_X

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

There are no answers. The EU cannot afford Italy or Spain to pop, nor can they afford to bail them out to stop them going pop.

Its all long ball, keep kicking the problem into the future and let inflation do its work.

The longer we go without a meltdown the more the small repayments on debt can chip away, the closer we will be to the other side of the recession and the more impact inflation will have had.

CLAPTON

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Its all long ball, keep kicking the problem into the future and let inflation do its work.

The longer we go without a meltdown the more the small repayments on debt can chip away, the closer we will be to the other side of the recession and the more impact inflation will have had.

as most of the eu countries have budget deficits, delaying action won't necessarily deduce debt even in 'real ' terms as the debt is still growing.

also the debt needs to be constantly 'refinanced' so the cost (interest rate) of refinancing is very important.
In the case of Greece, their debt is essentially impossible to refinance unless Germany, ECB or IMF lend/give them money.

So whether the EU like it or not some decisions will have to be made. Either to let a EU country default and refuse to repay debt that's due or provide some sort of financial help.

Mallotum_X

Greece is more symbolic than a real danger to the financial markets. The actual levels of debt could be defaulted without a melt down. The risk from that is then if other countries follow. Greece cant afford to pay back its debts, quite how this is managed has yet to be seen, but repeated partial defaults may turn out to be how its handled. Assuming that Greece stays in the Euro.

Italy has been running a budget surplus, its big problem is a lack of confidence has driven up rates. Lower Italian borrowing rates would kick that problem. There could be serval ways of doing this, either some security on its debts from the ECB/Germany. Or at the more extreme end Italy playing hard ball and refusing to refinance debt, and either carry on paying what it has previously pay in interest or deciding its own rates, unlikely but not impossible.

The long term approach however would work if interst rates can be controled somehow, inflation can take hold inteh short term, and longer term we all gradually come out of recession. Inflation would reduce the real term value of debt, but more importantly increase tax take, and thus allow more Euros to pay the debt.

Ultimately I think the only way out is interest rate control, inflation and some partial defaults. All of these could be in the power of the EU/ECB.

Jennifer_Jane

There are several countries which have 'agreed' to the treaty, but everyone knows they still have to go back to their Parliaments. So, to my mind, Cameron just did what he was forced to do - he could not have returned to the UK saying, ah well the EU will now be telling us what taxes to have, fining us for having deficits and so on. He would have returned as a coward having given away even more power to Brussels. I wonder if other countries (Sweden, Poland?) were just being diplomatic and saying "Yes, all fine", knowing their Parliaments would eventually reject?

They haven't made any decisions in reality, have they?

France can posture about the whole thing, but possibly Sarkozy won't be in power for much longer anyway, and really the whole thing is just about Merkel. I'm very surprised about where are the Dutch in all this? Keeping their heads down and going with the flow? Why aren't they in the same power position as France is with Germany?

ChiefGrasscutter

sims01 wrote: »

Some countries e.g. Sweden are usually amenable to the UK viewpoint, but Cameron didn't even manage to convince one single country to support his demands.

.

Sweden has to get it through their parliament first - their agreement was conditional
The likely French presidental challenger to Sarkozy has also indicated they would like to "renegotiate it"

angrypirate

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And yet this is hardly a viewpoint exclusive to Labour - add in the LibDems, half the city, our diplomatic core and best practice as used by Thatcher and Major.

Perhaps so many people have come out suggesting that Europe won't come running after Cameron because, err, it won't. THIS is the breaking point where we lose. The other 26 carry on without us, and make zero provision for UK wishes because we're not involved. The summit at the weekend didn't agree a treaty as is clear in the few days following - just the agreement that a treaty was needed. It hasn't been fully negotiated yet, and various countries have problems either constitutional or political which will cause changes to be made to the basic premise. They all have a say, we don't

What would Labour have done differently? The same as any other EU government and the same as any previous UK government - set out our position well in advance, discuss it with allies in Europe in advance, start trading for support. Not turn up at the session with a lot of technical clauses unrelated to the agenda and then act surprised when the other 26 scratch their heads. The "Cameron stopped the EU vetoing our budget" argument deployed by commentators on the right would have merit other than for the fact that as a non-Euro country that wouldn't have affected us anyway.

And a final word on regulation. Cameron spent 3 years in opposition berating Brown for over-regulating the city. He then spent 2 years in opposition berating Brown for under-regulating the city. He's now spent 18 months as PM making very minor changes to city regulation, and has just walked out of EU negotiations because they wanted stronger regulation for the city. Are the Tories pro or anti-regulation?

I dont know why im bothering to argue with someone whom is so left wing, as im sure this will fall on deaf ears, but we are still in the EU.

There is still free movement of goods, trade and people with us to other EU countries.

The only thing that has changed is that the rest of the EU have agreed in principal to have each others economic policies strictly scrutinised by each other - all this agreement is, is for everyone to monitor each others country's spending.

The so called "Tobin" tax that this agreement is planning on intruducing across the EU would have seen 70% of its income come from London alone. And all of this tax would have gone to support the failing Euro. Why should taxes raised on money in London go abroad to support a currency we arent even part of. Quiet frankly, the UK should be likened to the people who stood on the docks waving goodbye to the Titanic.

angrypirate

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And yet this is hardly a viewpoint exclusive to Labour - add in the LibDems, half the city, our diplomatic core and best practice as used by Thatcher and Major.

Perhaps so many people have come out suggesting that Europe won't come running after Cameron because, err, it won't. THIS is the breaking point where we lose. The other 26 carry on without us, and make zero provision for UK wishes because we're not involved. The summit at the weekend didn't agree a treaty as is clear in the few days following - just the agreement that a treaty was needed. It hasn't been fully negotiated yet, and various countries have problems either constitutional or political which will cause changes to be made to the basic premise. They all have a say, we don't

What would Labour have done differently? The same as any other EU government and the same as any previous UK government - set out our position well in advance, discuss it with allies in Europe in advance, start trading for support. Not turn up at the session with a lot of technical clauses unrelated to the agenda and then act surprised when the other 26 scratch their heads. The "Cameron stopped the EU vetoing our budget" argument deployed by commentators on the right would have merit other than for the fact that as a non-Euro country that wouldn't have affected us anyway.

And a final word on regulation. Cameron spent 3 years in opposition berating Brown for over-regulating the city. He then spent 2 years in opposition berating Brown for under-regulating the city. He's now spent 18 months as PM making very minor changes to city regulation, and has just walked out of EU negotiations because they wanted stronger regulation for the city. Are the Tories pro or anti-regulation?

Oh, and on the Tories regulation, as of next year the FSA is being abolished and its powers of regulation are being returned to the Bank of England - the very institution who had it 10 years ago. Gordon Browns FSA was completely pointless - an authority which didnt have any authority over anything. Basically a toothless dog - it could bark but it had no bite.