Has Britain Now Been Marginalised In Europe?

I think people making a couple of mistakes:

1) the Financial Transaction Tax
Though there is a lot of support for many quarters to introduce one, there is no agreement on what to use the money for
Some wanted to use this to solve African illnesses (Bill Gates)
Some wanted to use this to fund Green programmes
Some wanted to use this to solve world peace
Some wanted to use this to fix the €zone problems

None of these (bar the green initiatives) help the UK right now.
Within the Eurozone the UK would pay about 70% of the tax, but is uses £ sterling


2) The problem was at the level of 27 (EU) rather than 17 (eurozone countries)
This is a fiscal problem with countries using €, it is not a currency problem, there € is above the £ and $ from 5 years ago, but nor is it a EU issue.

3) The UK is playing a different game to the Europeans
We already have an austerity plan, the Germans want the Europeans to follow one.


Half the problem with the debate in the UK is that Euroskeptic Tory MPs (who falsely beleive their seats are under threat from others, UKIP?) keep bringing up this debate, when there is no real point.

It is not in the UK's interest to completely pull out. So if all that is required is a realignment (with some, few, powers coming back to the UK and some, few legislations being repatronated), then this should be done at a time when there are calmer seas...
 
It is not in the UK's interest to completely pull out. So if all that is required is a realignment (with some, few, powers coming back to the UK and some, few legislations being repatronated), then this should be done at a time when there are calmer seas...

People keep saying this, and I'm still naive as to why it is not in the UK's interest to pull out?

Genuine question, I'd really like to know because at the moment I've only heard the argument for why we should leave the EU and I don't have a clue about (inter)national economics
 
People keep saying this, and I'm still naive as to why it is not in the UK's interest to pull out?

Genuine question, I'd really like to know because at the moment I've only heard the argument for why we should leave the EU and I don't have a clue about (inter)national economics

The only benefit I can see is being part of a bigger political union will still give the UK some presence and influence on the world stage rather than going it alone and becoming an increasingly smaller fish against the likes of China, India, Brazil and a re-emerging Russia.
 
Blah blah isolated, blah blah blah standing alone, blah blah blah everyone else has agreed, blah blah blah a lonely figure, bah blah blah on the outside....

Waaaaahh!!!

Exactly what I thought when watching BBC news. Impartial :nono:
 
We may well become a 2nd class citizen of the EU now. It'll all depend on how the 17(?) Eurozone countries decide to implement financial measures for themselves, but I'm almost certain it will mean less trade for us as the Eurozone do each other 'special' favours.
 
In the smoke and noise of the UK veto, I think that the potential problems in the agreement that other states have signed up for are being overlooked. The bailout fund is still probably too small and the German "guarentee" isn't very solid. Above all, there is a massive unanswered question about how electorates across Europe are going to react to the new, tougher budgets that will in part be signed off by powers beyond their own governments.

I'm not saying that there aren't dangers in the government's actions last night. I'm not totally convinced that the agreement we rejected is going to do everything that is hoped of it.
 
People keep saying this, and I'm still naive as to why it is not in the UK's interest to pull out?

Genuine question, I'd really like to know because at the moment I've only heard the argument for why we should leave the EU and I don't have a clue about (inter)national economics

I don't think trade will be quite as free but on the ohter hand France and Germany won't be using our banks to prop the Eurozone (and the french and german backs) up. That was the dealbreaker.
Jaques Delore's comment that the conditions for the Euro weren't met so it should never been have introduced were interesting.
 
Last edited:
So, for Cameron and the Tories, the only thing that counts is the City and what they want.

pretty much like Obama singing wall street's tune.
The sooner the pigs that infest the City are forced into their own excrement the better IMO
 
The one great flaw in Merkozy's plans is if the voters across Europe accept the new Europe or not.
If the perception becomes that France and Germany are benefiting more than the rest, then that might cause civil unrest across Europe. There is only so much austerity a country can take before the people decide to revolt. Of course this might all be moot if the markets decide the Euro is dead as a currency.

UK Wise ? I think we need to have a proper debate about the EU and then have a referendum to settle the issue once and for all. I think Cameron has taken a calculated gamble that may or may not pay off. This could split the coalition apart, especially if the Euroskeptics Tories push for a referendum and the Liberal Democrats resist it. I'm no fan of Cameron, but he's got some balls saying no to Germany and France.

As for the Euro ? If the rules of the currency had been stuck to, Europe would not be in a pickle right now. It will probably be viewed as a grand experiment doomed to failure. I don't expect the Euro to last, given the amount of squabbling going on between the various EU leaders. The Markets will make the decision for them.
 
I'm no fan of Cameron, but he's got some balls saying no to Germany and France.
I don't think he had a choice - or any intention of signing. If he had signed up, the euro-sceptics in his own party would have crucified him. He would have had to have had a referendum, and that would be a royal mess, and the end of the coalition. So it was preordained that he would say no in Brussels. And if that wasn't enough, he doesn't even approve of the treaty in the first place. So I don't think it was a very tough decision for him, or at all ballsy.
 
Ok it's worse than I originally thought, looks like all the member states except the UK will join up to the new measures.
At this rate we might as well leave the union, as we aren't going to hold much influence apart from having a veto.
Maybe the thing to have done was to join up to the new plans, with a slight amendment that any financial tax on the City would be solely spent within the UK and not a penny would be seen by the EU.
 
I think it's sad that the Euro debate is so political and polarising, and people are so entrenched in their views, that compromising is no longer an option. It's all or nothing now - on both sides. That means there is no attempt to negotiate the terms of the treaty, even though a modified treaty might be beneficial to everyone to in the long run. Eg. drop the contentious parts, and just agree a framework for standardising banking regulations, or something like that. But that's not going to happen. It's being used politically - Cameron won't agree to any constraints on the city, and Merkozy want to use the treaty to extend EU integration (ie. control from Brussels) by the backdoor, under the guise of resolving the crisis.

So no wonder they don't agree.
 
I think the Germans are trying to construct a Europe that positions themselves as the controlling power. They clearly want a supra-state federal constitution that takes precedent over the autonomy of individual states.

This has some quite interesting parallels with the US moves towards Federal unity. That wasn't a particularly pleasant process.
 
There are two sides to every arguement, and europhiles have to understand that being a euro sceptic does not make you inherently wrong.

The one thing the events of the last couple of days has demonstrated is just how undemocratic the institution of europe has become.

Many argue that David Cameron should give the people of the country the chance to vote on the issue which I tend to agree with, but do those same people feel that the people in the other 26 nations should not have been given the same choice?

If David Cameron had said he would agree to it if every country held a referrendum on the issue and allowed the people to decide then the leaders of the other european countries would have backtracked in an instant as I doubt the people of europe would unanimously vote for this given the choice.

My wife is finnish and she is horrified that her government would sign away such large parts of its sovereignty without consulting its people.

One of the problems we have in the UK is that different areas need different policies. The economy in the south is very different than that in the north of the country, and what each needs in terms of interest rates etc can be quite different and that is on a country basis, imagine how that would translate to an area the size of europe?

What happens when Ireland needs low interest rates and germany needs higher ones? What happens when Greece is struggling financially and Germany is racing ahead?

In the past before the euro, currencies could devalue making exports cheaper, holiday destinations more attractive etc.

In the future we will be looking at german taxpayers money being given to greece etc by unelected bureaucrats in brussels. The people of europe are not one people and having artificial measures in place to redistribute wealth and competitiveness will not go down well in my opinion.

Then we have the issue of none compliance.

What exactly happens if a government sets a budget that breaks the fiscal rules they have signed up to?

If Ireland's economy goes into recession and tax revenues fall and their budget deficit is going to exceed 3%, are they really going to be fined for that? How would that help them?

There are so many arguements on this issue that it is ludicrous that 26 nations have signed up to an agreement without proper consultation in their respective countries.

And finally, on the issue of Britain only looking out for its best interests, well if people don't think that Germany are doing the same thing then they are deluded.

If the euro should fail and each country was forced back to its own currency the deutschmark would be so strong that german exports would become unaffordable in the other european states and their economy would falter, so a closer europe with tighter fiscal controls is in their interests.
 
I think the Germans are trying to construct a Europe that positions themselves as the controlling power. They clearly want a supra-state federal constitution that takes precedent over the autonomy of individual states.

This has some quite interesting parallels with the US moves towards Federal unity. That wasn't a particularly pleasant process.

All the Germans want is 'favourable' terms to keep their manufacturing firms alive. They need the Euro to succeed more than any other country. The way I've seen it is the old Deutsche Mark was a very strong currency (not good for an exporting economy), effectively the euro devalued the German currency making it better for export. This is somewhat true for the French too.
But don't think the Germans 'won' yesterday, the biggest winners were the French who've kept all their interests intact, while getting closer to the Germans. Which is ironic as Merkel was the first German leader I can think of that actually wanted to be closer with the UK when she was first elected.
 
I think the Germans are trying to construct a Europe that positions themselves as the controlling power. They clearly want a supra-state federal constitution that takes precedent over the autonomy of individual states.

This has some quite interesting parallels with the US moves towards Federal unity. That wasn't a particularly pleasant process.

not a bad idea imo,with an elected president.It could well be Germany would become the most dominant state but then they could certainly show us how to do a thing or two, like run things properly and efficiently.
 
not a bad idea imo,with an elected president.It could well be Germany would become the most dominant state but then they could certainly show us how to do a thing or two, like run things properly and efficiently.

That is exactly the problem and the very reason Cameron was right to refuse to take part in the charade. It's not just la gran siete's hated UK who would have to bow to Germany. Are we really expecting other countries to agree to have their budgets subject to approval by some sort of German/Euro apparatchik/overseer ?
 
Germany's not going to sell many BMWs and Mercs to their bankrupted neighbours on permanent austerity drives. So the Euro is going to bite them in the arsch too.

Sarkosy needn't look so smug either; The French banking system is teetering on the edge. Credit Agricole was within hours of going under last week. It's what promted the central banks' bailout that the Americans got involved with. It didn't stop Moody's from downgrading the 3 main French banks (BNP Paribas, Societe Generale, and Credit Agricole) last night.
 
Germany's not going to sell many BMWs and Mercs to their bankrupted neighbours ...

True but they are going to do good business selling them to the emerging economies. i.e. the BRIC nations are buying them up like hotcakes.
 
Might be a good idea if we all start learning german

Do not be so bloody stupid. Do you really think the euro will continue as is. I suggest you listen very closely what is been said regarding the euro and its chances of surviving the the next 6 months never mind 12. Markel is so worried about what will happen to the german economy when the euro fails she is ready to bankrupt germany to stop it happen.
Neither the ECB or the banks in germany have enought money to stop it falling. German exports will half due to the strength of the deutsmarke or euro (whichever currency germany goes with). My german friends are very very worried about what is happening to their money that the german goverment is gambling with.
 
If this goes through I'd expect a lot of banks and other financial institutions to move outside of the EU, some may come to Britain, but if the're making flight they might decide to go somewhere else entirely.

The amount of sovereignty given away by nations within the EU seems tantamount to treason, the budgets of countries are being decided by outside entities, seemingly unelected ones at that.

The financial tax seemed to be a way of getting Britain to pay to keep the euro afloat without even being in the euro.

I'm unsure of the long term affects this will have on us but I think the right decision was made by Cameron at the time. I'm not against the euro or even further integration with EU (when coupled with transparency and representation) but the deal on the table was not one we should have accepted and have yet to hear a good reason why we should have.
 
I'm not against the euro or even further integration with EU (when coupled with transparency and representation) but the deal on the table was not one we should have accepted and have yet to hear a good reason why we should have.

I think this is the main issue that the leaders need to address in order to demonstrate how a more integrated europe will work.

How will they replace the mechanisms that used to be in place for countries when they were struggling economically, currency devaluation, lowering interest rates etc.

They shouldn't be asking anyone to sign up for more integration until they have explained what that means in practical terms.

Now if they can get all the member states to rigidly stick to good economic policy then eventually there will be convergence and the system may well work but that is a big if.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom