[DaveO]

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:11 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Cameron's veto doesn't actually prevent the Eurozone group from enacting anything, it merely makes it less easy.
We now have a situation where he has stepped-out of any discussions, we don't even get to sit-in on the meetings.

He has achieved, not just nothing, but worse than nothing.

Way out of his depth and so used to getting his own way, he couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag.

If you watched Newsnight last night or you may have seen it on the BBC web site , there is a theory going that simple incompetence was a big factor in getting Britain's requests for various opt outs simply dismissed out of hand.

Apparently what normally happens when something like this summit is on the cards is that the Foreign Office machinery swings into action and the diplomats start forging alliances and basically softening up our partners priming them for the summit or whatever. It is supposed to be brilliant at this and it is how all UK governments have approached such delicate negotiations over all the time we have been in the EU.

Not this time. Instead of engaging the Foreign Office, briefing them on the objectives and letting them off the leash, No. 10 kept it all to themselves. Reasons as to why are possibly not to reveal DC's hand (going against the accepted practice described above) or because Hague was felt to Eurosceptic to be trusted (though that point is now completely moot!).

The upshot is the British proposals were only presented in any detail at 02:30 in the morning. Though other countries they were no doubt aware Britain had reservations they had no idea of the details. That was the first 26 heard of them in any detail. They had no time to digest what they were or the implications of them and so had little choice but to reject them.

In the past our natural allies in the EU such as Denmark, Sweden and the Eastern countries would have been fully briefed and if we assume our proposals were reasonable they would have backed them. This would have made it impossible for Sarkozy to block the proposals because if he did then it would have been him who put the spanner in the works of the agreement.

As it happened because we had no allies Cameron made it easy for our demands to be rejected which they were and now instead of having reached a negotiated settlement with our demands part of the deal, any financial regulations will be subject to qualified majority voting so the veto is useless anyway.

This saga shows just what a rank amateur DC is and what a spectacular own goal he just scored.

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:02 pm  

As much as I detested Tony Blair, the man, I've no doubt that if necessary, he'd still be locked in a room with them all until there was a deal acceptable to everyone.

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:52 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Staffs FC wrote:

DaveO wrote:

Why is he a weak leader? Because he has let the Eurosceptic tail of his party wag the dog and did what he did to appease them as much as anything. He should have told them to feck off and played a hand not influenced by any potential domestic rebellion of a bunch of nice but dim Tory MP's who are clearly too thick to appreciate the very simple truth Kosh has spelt out.

Although you may not agree with them the MPs you describe are democratically elected by the public to represent their constituents. Whilst democracy is not de rigeur at the moment in Europe (and never has been in Brussels) it's worth pointing out that we still vote for our representatives in Parliament and they represent a wide range of views reflecting a wide range of views in the country. Judging by recent surveys it seems the "thick" MPs you mention represent a significant proportion of public opinion, even if it doesn't match your own.

My comments about these Tory MP's being dim are based the facts of about how the single market works and how trade outside it works. Those things are facts and I find it astonishing some of them apparently think we can just leave the EU and if we do we will be just like Norway (which shows their ignorance of the Norwegian economy and how that works as well).

The fact they peddle this rubbish to an electorate the majority of which is basically ill informed on the issue as a possibility means they are really misleading people either deliberately or because they really are dim.

In a democracy like ours the elected representatives are put there to represent our interests not reflect opinion polls. The two are very different things. They are supposed to be in a position the rest of us are not to make informed judgements. What they are doing instead is peddling a myth that plays to nationalistic tendencies easily stoked up by a biased press. It's a vote winner but its an unrealistic myth of withdrawal that they peddle.

However as it is in many Labour strongholds, in some Tory areas you could put a blue rosette on a monkey and he would get elected. Having seen some of the Eurosceptic Tory MP's interviewed they struck me of such low calibre their constituents would have been better off with the monkey. I wonder how many people in some of these areas having seen their MP on TV for the first time are wondering how on earth anyone ever voted them in!?

One man's peddled rubbish is another man's belief I guess. In a democracy like ours elected representatives are not "put there" but are elected by citizens. Citizens have beliefs and views and would normally vote for the MP who will best represent them. You are quite right that often it's not actually the individual that is voted for but the party that best aligns with the view of the voter. Many of the MPs you refer to have been re-elected on multiple occasions so I'm not entirely sure you are right about people wondering why they voted them in.

On the point about a "biased press" there is a reasonable cross-political spectrum of views across the daily written media in this country. In a later post you refer to BBC's Newsnight programme to support your criticism of events last week. There are many in this country who would consider the BBC to be a left of centre broadcaster which promotes a left of centre viewpoint. At the end of the day it's all about opinions, thankfully these can all still be heard and judgements can be made by the people. Whether opposing viewpoints should be dismissed either as ill informed or too intellectually challenging for their holder is probably a matter for the individual but thankfully we still have ultimate determination over who governs us via our democratically elected MPs.

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:17 pm  

Kosh wrote:

... Not being in the EU makes business more expensive and therefore reduces the competitiveness of UK based companies. It really is that simple.

No, no. no!

The only thing that does that is nasty trades unions.



I would repeat, though, what I mentioned earlier. The Maastricht Treaty effectively enshrined neo-liberal economic policies in the EU – thanks to Caroline Lucas MP for pointing this out – and the plans announced by Merkel and Sarkozy effectively would outlaw any policy of stimulus. No country would, for instance, be able to grow its economy in the way that the UK did after WWII.

So one could say that it effectively says: 'you can elect social democratic governments in the future – but they'll legally have to follow neo-liberal economic policy'. Given the utterly undemocratic way in which unelected bankers are now at the helm in more than one European country, it does not suggest good things.

I very much doubt that Cameron has done what he has for these reasons – he's acted at the behest of his friends in the City, who do not want any increased regulation or any form of transaction tax, whether the latter is to bolster a currency that we are not part of or even to be used to cut the domestic deficit, stimulate UK growth or avoid the current austerity measures that are actually damaging our ability to grow the economy.

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:19 pm  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote: But it's overused, and I do appreciate it's populist appeal, but its token value to noddy arguments far exceeds it's real value in understanding international political economy. Casino banking does not of itself create unsustainable levels of sovereign debt, we're in the realms of boring government bonds rather than exotic financial instruments. It reflects a general feeling that people cannot trust banks in the way that they once could. It reflects an understanding – as we have seen noted several times here, by a number of posters – that however responsible one tries to be in saving money, it is still a gamble that is dependent on many other things and the whims of many other people. That much of what goes on is gambling – a former trader described it to me as exactly that just a few weeks ago. It reflects the insanity of selling and buying debts – FFS, this reminds me of someone being dumb enough to imagine that you could feed under-cooked meat to vegetarian animals with no possible negative outcomes ... It reflects too, I think, a general understanding of the reality that the economy as a whole no longer serves the people as a whole but the latter is expected to service the former for the benefit of a few – and a dislike of that. And despite the best efforts of some elements in the political and media worlds to pretend otherwise, people have not forgotten how the banks behaved and what their gambling behaviour caused. And this delightfully illustrates why people are still so completely f**ked off – and are right to be.

Kelvin's Ferret wrote: But it's overused, and I do appreciate it's populist appeal, but its token value to noddy arguments far exceeds it's real value in understanding international political economy. Casino banking does not of itself create unsustainable levels of sovereign debt, we're in the realms of boring government bonds rather than exotic financial instruments. It reflects a general feeling that people cannot trust banks in the way that they once could. It reflects an understanding – as we have seen noted several times here, by a number of posters – that however responsible one tries to be in saving money, it is still a gamble that is dependent on many other things and the whims of many other people. That much of what goes on is gambling – a former trader described it to me as exactly that just a few weeks ago. It reflects the insanity of selling and buying debts – FFS, this reminds me of someone being dumb enough to imagine that you could feed under-cooked meat to vegetarian animals with no possible negative outcomes ... It reflects too, I think, a general understanding of the reality that the economy as a whole no longer serves the people as a whole but the latter is expected to service the former for the benefit of a few – and a dislike of that. And despite the best efforts of some elements in the political and media worlds to pretend otherwise, people have not forgotten how the banks behaved and what their gambling behaviour caused. And this delightfully illustrates why people are still so completely f**ked off – and are right to be.

[DaveO]

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

One man's peddled rubbish is another man's belief I guess.

Not when you are talking facts as opposed to opinion. Kosh explained the pertinent facts regarding the single market and trade outside it very succinctly earlier in the thread. They are the facts of the matter because that is how it works. Yet the "nice but dim" crowd of Tory MP's ignore the facts and so peddle rubbish such as how we can be like Norway of we are outside.

In a democracy like ours elected representatives are not "put there" but are elected by citizens. Citizens have beliefs and views and would normally vote for the MP who will best represent them. You are quite right that often it's not actually the individual that is voted for but the party that best aligns with the view of the voter. Many of the MPs you refer to have been re-elected on multiple occasions so I'm not entirely sure you are right about people wondering why they voted them in.

Put there is a figure of speech for elected and you know it . As to wondering why they voted them in the fact they vote the way the do time after time is as we agree in many cases because they vote for the party not the individual. Many voters are tribal as opposed to floating voters and would vote for a brass monkey with the right rosette on. The point I was making was given the majority of voters never meet their MP they might be quite surprised at the low calibre of the MP they actually got when they see them on TV. He or she may be from the party they support election after election but that certainly doesn't guarantee they are any good as I think some of the ones I have seen on TV recently show.

Put another way just because we have a democracy and our MP's are elected does not mean it delivers the best or brightest people as our elected representatives. Enough of them from all sides have wound up in the clink for various reasons in the past to show this is basically true. It is therefore no bad reflection on anyone's voting preference or democracy itself to point out it sometimes delivers sub-standard MP's. As I said the ones lining up in the Eurosceptic back bench branch of the Tory party seem pretty low calibre to me with a poor grasp of reality in regard to leaving the EU.

On the point about a "biased press" there is a reasonable cross-political spectrum of views across the daily written media in this country. In a later post you refer to BBC's Newsnight programme to support your criticism of events last week. There are many in this country who would consider the BBC to be a left of centre broadcaster which promotes a left of centre viewpoint. At the end of the day it's all about opinions, thankfully these can all still be heard and judgements can be made by the people. Whether opposing viewpoints should be dismissed either as ill informed or too intellectually challenging for their holder is probably a matter for the individual but thankfully we still have ultimate determination over who governs us via our democratically elected MPs.

Regarding the BBC whether its left of centre or not, it does not peddle deliberately misleading lies on the EU issue. The story over the lack of foreign office involvement was not invented by the BBC in a biased editorial. It reported it.

In contrast rags such as the Daily Mail have been exposed as peddling outright lies on the EU in the past. With quality journalism you can form your own opinions whether you read the Guardian or the Telegraph. Unfortunately the word quality and journalism and even truth are not words that can be associated with the tabloid press views on the EU.

[DaveO]

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:47 pm  

Found this on the net which tends to back up the idea it was a screw up:

die Welt (right-of-centre German newpaper) editorial some quotes:

"Cameron wished to get "a guarantee" for the Financial Sector in London. Where did he search for allies for this position? Nowhere. ... the british sent their suggestions one day before the summit. One-to-One Discussions, such as Chancellor Merkel and her diplomats carried out in the week before the summit, didn't take place. It was naive to assume that they happen by themselves"

"In addition to naivety there was effrontery. For there was nothing to guarantee in a question, that was neither on the agenda of the Save-the-Euro summit, nor belonged to the urgent matters at hand. Cameron demanded Unanimity (Veto-Rights) on a range of upcoming decisions. This would have set europe's freedom to act back so far, that it should have been clear to him, that he couldn't get a majority"

So it seems I am not the only who thinks DC is a rank amateur.

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:10 pm  

Apologies if this has been pointed out already, I've only gone back 3 pages..................
I was amused to see a right wing commentator suggest that Prime Minister Cameron is certainly isolated after the recent summit; as isolated as a man left on the quayside when the Titanic sailed.

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:49 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

As much as I detested Tony Blair, the man, I've no doubt that if necessary, he'd still be locked in a room with them all until there was a deal acceptable to everyone.

For all Blair's faults, compared to Cameron, he was a political Titan.....Cameron and his little gang are, at present, coming across like novice swimmers, who are in just a little too deep....

Re: What now for the UK? : Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:55 pm  

cod'ead wrote: As much as I detested Tony Blair, the man, I've no doubt that if necessary, he'd still be locked in a room with them all until there was a deal acceptable to everyone. Wasn't that the guy who gave away a huge part of our rebate in exchange for an overhaul of the CAP ? Wasn't that the overhaul of the CAP that never actually happened ? A true titan.

cod'ead wrote: As much as I detested Tony Blair, the man, I've no doubt that if necessary, he'd still be locked in a room with them all until there was a deal acceptable to everyone. Wasn't that the guy who gave away a huge part of our rebate in exchange for an overhaul of the CAP ? Wasn't that the overhaul of the CAP that never actually happened ? A true titan.