EU fails to agree treaty - intergovernmental agreement instead. 2 tier Europe a reality

This is probably the best way forward for the EZ. It's hardly a huge failure and it lets those with no real interest in being active member states to continue on their own as they have been. Good news for British bankers, now lets see if they can help cause another global meltdown. It has to be on the cards as there was no change or nobody held accountable first time around.

Originally posted by ThorsBrother
reply to post by thoughtsfull

 

And we know what the results of said referendum will be, neigh!

Why do we persist on staying aboard a sinking ship...

Or should i say, why do we persist on staying aboard a ship underwater when we could be making a break for the surface for air

edit on 9/12/2011 by ThorsBrother because: (no reason given)

Since it is pretty straightforward what the response from a referendum would be I guess we'll only get one when they want a "no" vote..

But you do have to wonder why they are sticking around, my personal opinion is that no one wants to be seen and remembered as the leader that kicked the world in the goolies.

whats up with that uk? we can bail out banks and greece has to pass austerity but you feel entitled and that the uk needs no austerity?

reply to post by Ausar


The UK is in the midst of some very deep austerity cuts.. the current UK government is all about austerity and cuts, hence the rioting, hence the strikes and all the other problems the UK faces.

George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor of the exchequer, is to extend tough restraints on public sector pay for a further two years, as part of an attempt to keep his austerity plan on track amid much weaker growth than the government had expected.
Read more:

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

But you do have to wonder why they are sticking around, my personal opinion is that no one wants to be seen and remembered as the leader that kicked the world in the goolies.

I'm not sure that Cameron would ever be in a position to do such a thing anyway, the UK has been distancing itself from European policy making for years now and as a result hold very little sway.
Basically it turns out what I said yesterday in another thread was not far from the truth, Cameron effectively did nothing, nothing changed for the UK and he can come back claiming to have protected British soveriegn rights. If anything by doing nothing he has further distanced the UK from the EZ trade partners, not that I'm saying it's a bad thing.

Judus, Thoughtsfull. To some extent I agree that Cameron seemingly had no choice. I think if he had the stones to bring in a form of pan European financial services regulation that we wouldn't see the end of banking n the UK as an industry. Banks would adapt, US banks would create subsidiaries enmeshed in offshore ownership and obfuscation to continue trading in Europe.

A united front for the entire territory might be hard to bear initially, but stand tough and proud and accept the pain if needed, although as I said above the sneaky corrupt systems would adapt and they would still make fortunes.

Personally I would go radical and say ALL banks in Europe have to pay their entire profits for the last five years into the bailout 'fund' and they have ten years to do it or be seized by the state. That would solve the funding crisis, hone the banks minds as they competed to be the first to pay down in full. Oh and I would say current staff rates must not be dropped until five years money is in the can. Whatever is done, everyone has to be on he same page which is why I am so disappointed 'call me Dave' didn't seize the opportunity of the summit to really make a headline grabbing united statement to both the people and he banking sector.

reply to post by pazcat


While that is the outcome I expected as he is in between a rock and a hard place.. doing nothing is in his best interest. i disagree and feel that Cameron still has the power to kick the world in the goolies as does the leader of any EU state.

A call for a referendum now, be it in the UK or Greece would have dire impact on the EU and by extension the Eurozone from a market stability perspective which is after all where a lot of the crisis lays.

So I while I agree we may hold little sway in the EU, I still feel certain actions could start the dominoes moving which is why I still feel no leader, be they Greek or British would want to be seen as the Leader who set that ball in motion.

reply to post by pazcat


I think it actually should be interpreted as a withdrawal from Europe. The member states that are continuing are the new Europe and apparently their new treaty will be ready in March. I see fiscal unity, political unity as inevitable if the EU is going to survive longterm and think they should just get on and integrate entirely now. Can't be worse than it is now.

reply to post by spacedonk


While we wouldn't see the end of the City, why would they want to maintain any kind of presence in the UK? after all the center (which is where these institutions like to be based) will be somewhere else, so I can not for the life of me see a reason for them to sit on this Island when most of the EU is over the water.

While it might be a good thing to get rid of all the bankers in the long term, what about the here and now, which is what we are stuck dealing with.

When I worked at the BoE (as a contractor) in the late 80s/early 90s it was pretty visible to my eyes (as a nobody) that the City was moving from the real and tangible to the intangible and in effect (to my mind) became the financial paper pushing capital of the world.

What I think we need as an Island and nation is for the City to get back to the kind of framework that works with real industry to help rebuild our economy and help it diversify, pushing the financial center to another country will only make that aspect in my mind much harder to achieve.

we knew he was going to veto ! the MSM have had him all over the BBC talking about whats is right for us. The EU in my opinion is a dead horse and he has bailed before it goes boom. So when the EU does go we will be all over it like a rotting corpse scavenging what we can.

Whatever you think about David Cameron, I too believe he was between a rock and a hard place. If he had come back having agreed to closer fiscal union - such as having your budget scrutinised by an unelected European cabal, he would have been toast. There would also have been more calls for a referendum. And the result of such a vote is more or less guaranteed.
I'm glad his proposals for safeguarding Bitish interests were rejected because I wouldn't have wanted this financial control at any cost.
That said standing up to the EU bully boys has consequences because this is also standing up to the march towards a NWO.
Nor am I convinced we won't be pulled into this thing at a later date. My guess is we will get to desperate straits and closer financial integration will be sold to us as salvation at that point. Just now the great British public is not desperate enough.
That is the end game I believe.

reply to post by judus


He didn't veto anything and never had the chance to do so. And he certainly didn't force any decisions made.
What has he bailed you out of?
Absolutely nothing. You are in the same position as two days ago. The UK is still an EU member.

Originally posted by Ausar
whats up with that uk? we can bail out banks and greece has to pass austerity but you feel entitled and that the uk needs no austerity?

What are you talking about? We have our own austerity cuts and what is more we were responsible enough to impose them on ourselves rather than told we have to impose them.

reply to post by pazcat


The fact that he Cameron blocked, and disagreed with the, France/German proposal meant he did do something, he stopped in the tracks, the takeover of the UK by France and Germany. Now if it was Labour they would have sold us down the river by now.

Now maybe the UK can take back the powers signed away back the last Government and re look at our place and relationship with Europe as a whole.

Originally posted by pazcat
He didn't veto anything and never had the chance to do so. And he certainly didn't force any decisions made.
What has he bailed you out of?

Exactly Laurauk. See my post above. What we have done for the moment is avoided coming under the control of an EU Diktat. Btw the situation certainly has changed because UK is now one of only 2 countries outside this newly formed club - even though we are still in the EU. Hopefully this could be the catalyst to get out completely though I am not holding my breath. I feel we will be sucked in when we are desperate enough and it will be sold to us as our salvation. Ladies and gentlemen place your bets.

He wasn't the only one, there were other members who did the same thing, he shouldn't take the sole credit for that. And he didn't have any say in the important result.
And the end of the day seemingly everybody got what they wanted, the EZ can operate financially without the meddling of countries that have no business meddling in EZ affairs.
It's a win, win situation. The UK can continue to bail out it's bankers and the EZ can try at the least to fix the euro.

I understand that the British press can't make it seem like the UK primeminister is a powerless nobody, they have to get the public to have confidence in it's leader. But it doesn't change the fact that the UK in Europe just essentially get in the way.

reply to post by starchild10


Infact he did use his veto If I can point out from the bbc website:

Britain uses its veto

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg discussed the EU negotiations with the prime minister throughout last night and had agreed to the use of the veto, according to senior Tory sources. I have yet to confirm this with the Liberal Democrats.

BBC Politics

So we always threatened to use but never did. Cameron has become the first since Thatcher to try and hold the EU to ransom. But the difference this time being it is Germany who are calling the shots and not the UK.

One thing apart from what is going on the the EU. If Scotland ever became Independent, I do not want to leave one Union, just for it to be replaced by the Bigger dictatorship. Which is the EU.

reply to post by pazcat


The 3 other countries involved, did not use their veto, the have referred to go back to their own parliaments and discuss the situations with their own Parliaments before they agree to the proposals.

While the rest of them went along with the German/France proposal.

So Yes the UK was standing alone. As per usual. How history repeats itself.

Originally posted by pazcat
reply to post by judus

 

He didn't veto anything and never had the chance to do so. And he certainly didn't force any decisions made.
What has he bailed you out of?
Absolutely nothing. You are in the same position as two days ago. The UK is still an EU member.

edit on 9-12-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)

Really

David Cameron has vetoed EU-wide treaty changes to tackle the eurozone crisis, saying they were not in the UK's interests. A new "accord" setting out tougher budget rules will now be drawn up by eurozone countries. As well as the UK, Hungary looks set to stay outside it. Sweden and the Czech Republic will consult on the deal. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the move was "very sensible" and would not leave the UK isolated. He said signing up would have meant a loss of national sovereignty

www.bbc.co.uk...

Sounds like a Veto to me !

And yes you are correct in saying that we are in the same position as two days weather that is a good or bad thing only the future will decide

reply to post by pazcat

I understand that the British press can't make it seem like the UK primeminister is a powerless nobody, they have to get the public to have confidence in it's leader. But it doesn't change the fact that the UK in Europe just essentially get in the way.

You haven't implemented EU directives across the EU then

The UK along with most of the Northern states simply get on with implementing directives and working within the rules and Framework that has been set up and agreed.. Granted there is a lot of quibbling about small print (even in Germany, Holland, Sweden etc) but that does not detract from the fact that the Northern nations work together within the rules.

While those in the South (France onwards) generally promise a lot and end up doing little to meet the obligations they agreed to! Try implementing a directive in Italy and you'll see what I mean. This is in my mind the fundamental flaw in the Eurozone that desperately needs to be addressed and bridged otherwise it is inviting disaster.

Blaming Britain as being the one that gets in the way really ignores those nations who promise a lot and do nothing! and those are the nations the EU wants to police and sanction, which in turn will only create more animosity furthering the divide that already exists.

So say what you like about Britain but at least we are not promising something we have no intention on delivering like some of those sitting around the table agreeing with Merkozy have done time and time again.