Are Labour two faced or two stupid?

ffacoffipawb

lvader wrote: »

Labour have criticised the Tories for vetoing a treaty that would require the UK to cut the deficit to no more than 3% of GDP and at the same time saying they are cutting too fast too soon.

Are Labour two faced or two stupid?

Both, like their voters.

chewmylegoff

angrypirate wrote: »

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.

The Fsa isn't being disbanded it is being reorganised, so that some of its powers (prudential regulation) move to the bank (along with the staff who currently do that work). The residual part of the Fsa will be renamed and carry on.

sheffield_lad

the 26 (if they get that many), can't go anywhere fast as they can't use the European instruments leaving the only outcome an invite back for Cameron.

This is only the start of the game he holds the trump card and without it any enforcement of new legislation would take years.

Game on!

chewmylegoff

Is that really a trump card? What will happen when the 26 just tell us to try to stop them?

sheffield_lad

I think he has the balls to say he would legally, lets see, many think this is over which is madness Cameron has just fired the opening strike. Germany will/would negotiate France are the stumbling block.

sims01

howee wrote: »

I think he has the balls to say he would legally, lets see, many think this is over which is madness Cameron has just fired the opening strike. Germany will/would negotiate France are the stumbling block.

On Cameron's core demand - the UK regaining the veto over financial regulation it lost 25 years ago - I very much doubt Germany would be willing to negotiate, they don't want to set a precedent of repatriation of powers, Cameron would just come with the next such demand at yet another crunch time summit a month later.

And this story about not being able to use any EU institutions is not as clear cut as you think anyway. There are plenty of precedents of treaties between a subset of member states working fine within the EU - e.g. the Schengen agreement. And the ECJ (which had one of the main roles of enforcing the budget controls) has an explicit clause that would allow it to be used in existing treaties.

klemutot

A._Badger wrote: »

Um.. can I choose 'both'?

Let me add to two-faced and stupid.

Deceitful, hypocritical, nannying, resentful, opportunistic, and wrong.

chewmylegoff

howee wrote: »

I think he has the balls to say he would legally, lets see, many think this is over which is madness Cameron has just fired the opening strike. Germany will/would negotiate France are the stumbling block.

i'm sure he does have the balls to say "you can't". i'm pretty sure that merkosy also have the balls to say "f*ck off david cameron". what will cameron's recourse be then? the european courts. well, good luck with that...

Rochdale_Pioneers

angrypirate wrote: »

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.

You seem to be equating "left wing" with "pro-EU". I'm growing increasingly euro-sceptic, albeit for completely different reasons to those on the right.

Fundamentally I'm a democrat, and the EU has become completely anti-democratic. The various referenda over the years where the country voting no were given opportunities to vote better next time were bad enough. But now we have the EU deposing democratically elected governments and replacing them with ECB appointees to execute the ECB programme for that country.

The new treaty being drawn up will only embed even more this withdrawal of democratic rights from member states, and as such has to be a bad thing. So I'm not aguing for UK participation in such a scheme. But as a non-Euro country we aren't involved like that anyway. Agreeing the principle of fiscal union for the loons who want it does not agree to applying that to the UK.

And again, criticising Cameron's strategy is not a left wing thing. Comparing his strategy to Major or Thatcher and finding him wanting is hardly a pro lefty argument. The crowing about his "triumph" will quickly be eroded. The massed voices of political grandees, diplomats and senior city types who are all aghast at this will get louder as the EU responds to Cameron by ignoring him and doing what they like anyway.

If your agenda is to leave the EU, this has been a good summit because thats where we're going. Politically Cameron has backed himself into a corner and will have no other options as Britain gets asked to pay out but no longer gets anything in return. I can cope with the idea of Britain being out of an anti-democratic dicatorship. But the impact on our economy could be massive, and there seems to be this "we'll be alright" attitude from exactly the same crowd who confidently predicted that the private sector would create new jobs to replace public sector ones. Political dogma does not equal realiy regardless of whether its left or right wing dogma. Reality is usually a mix of both....

Mr_Mumble

StevieJ wrote: »

Why do you say that applies to every signatory, member states in this context refers to euro members only

It would be the EU judges who decided the "context", guess who they'd side with? Those agreeing to the deal don't seem to know anyhow. From today's FT:

Franco-German hopes for a sweeping new treaty to bind the region’s economies more closely came under strain on Tuesday as several European Union leaders warned of difficulties pushing a far-reaching pact through their national parliaments.

Officials in several of those countries said their most pressing concern was whether the new rules giving Brussels powers to police national budgets would be binding only to eurozone governments or to all signatories.


“Right now, there is not much more than a blank sheet of paper and even the name of the future treaty might still change,” said Petr Necas, the prime minister of the Czech Republic. “I think that it would be politically short-sighted to come out with strong statements that we should sign that piece of paper.”

FT - EU Treaty hopes come under strain