Brits and EU

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Yeah, that could make the countries happier that are unhappy with the huge trade surplus of Germany.
The Euro is a huge advantage for exporting.

 

[Swifty's Cakes]

true - but does Britain need to be inside the EU for that benefit? Thats the question...

IMO yes we do, but then I live in a region which benefited a great deal from EU Objective 1 status so I don't share the insular view of Europe so evident in much of British politics.

I also think the transaction tax is long overdue and would have a trivial impact on the volume of trade in the City of London if adopted EU wide but would go some way towards bankers making reparations for the damage they have caused. Yet our politicians think the bankers should be protected rather than doing what the mass of the people in the UK want. Plus ca change eh?

 

[auscyclefan94]

I was reading an article on the BBC recently it was about that Britian not using the Euro, they haven't been able to go the same way as Ireland, Portugal, and Greece, as well as potentially Italy and Spain because they have control of their own currency and can set their own interest rates, which countries on the Euro can't do. The problem I see is that the struggling EU countries are obligated to do what France and Germany tell them when comes to cutting their spending and their debt levels, but none of it's citizens like being told what to do by a German or French politician.

Exactly, having a singe currency for a large amount of countries whose economies are vastly different was never going to work.

 

[Amsterhammer]

.......I also think the transaction tax is long overdue and would have a trivial impact on the volume of trade in the City of London if adopted EU wide but would go some way towards bankers making reparations for the damage they have caused. Yet our politicians think the bankers should be protected rather than doing what the mass of the people in the UK want. Plus ca change eh?

Britain is ruled by the banks, for the banks

Is David Cameron's kid-glove treatment of the City remotely justified, when it neither pays its way nor lends effectively?

The national interest. It's a phrase we've heard a lot recently. David Cameron promised to defend it before flying off last week to Brussels. Eurosceptic backbenchers urged him to fight for it. And when the summit turned into a trial separation, and the prime minister walked out at 4am, the rightwing newspapers took up the refrain: he was fighting for Britain. In the eye-burningly early hours of Friday morning, exhausted and at a loss to explain a row he plainly hadn't expected, Cameron tried again: "I had to pursue very doggedly what was in the British national interest."

As political justifications go, the national interest is an oddly ceremonial one. Like the dusty liqueur uncapped for a family gathering, MPs bring it out only for the big occasions. And when they do, what they mean is: forget all the usual fluff about ethics and ideas; this is important.

You heard the phrase last May, as the Lib Dems explained why they were forming a coalition with the Tories. More seriously, Blair used it as Britain invaded Iraq.

But here Cameron wasn't talking about foreign policy; nor about who governs the country. The national interest he saw as threatened by Europe is concentrated in a few expensive parts of London, in an industry that would surely come bottom in any occupational popularity contest (yes, lower even than journalists): investment banking.

Remainder of a lengthy and interesting article here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/12/britain-ruled-by-banks

 

[Magnus]

Despite the understandable hostility from Germany and France towards callmedave for being so dog in the manger, they dont really want us to leave as we are one of only four net contributers to the EU budget and one of the others is Italy.

Wikipedia claims 10 countries are net contributers.
And more importantly the EU isn't a zero sum game.

 

[Swifty's Cakes]

Wikipedia claims 10 countries are net contributers.
And more importantly the EU isn't a zero sum game.

Gah! The British media lied to me, thanks for the correction.
I think the broader point that the EU doesnt want Britain to leave is still valid as the UK net contributes 5.5bn euros so there would be a big gap if we left.

 

[Swifty's Cakes]

Britain is ruled by the banks, for the banks


Remainder of a lengthy and interesting article here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/12/britain-ruled-by-banks

Aye, When politicians trot out "national interest" they really mean its in the interest of the people that fund them, and that not just the Conservatives, New Labour didnt regulate the city because it would have meant upsetting the richest 1% of society.

Quite how the average man and woman either benefit or suffer if the EU brought in a transaction tax is beyond me.

 

[python]

a few months ago i recall there was some partisan noise about putting the eu membership to a plebiscite...where does that stand ?

if i recall correctly, according to public polls, a slight majority of the brits would currently prefer to exit.

personally, i think the uk benefits from the eu at least as much as it contributes (i'm implying a wider not just a narrow monetary picture). being a member without belonging to eurozone provides imo enough fiscal autonomy and flexibility to keep british business in robust position. the problem i see is that the membership decision may come to emotional considerations of national pride and sovereignty over plain rational business and political calculations.

 

[Tank Engine]

I'm an archetypal Guardian reader, but as I had a flight a couple of days ago and due to the veto, I thought it might be interesting to get the Torygraph's (Telegraph's) view on this. I'll mention a couple of commentaries, one that had my palm racing towards my pace (an opposite reaction to the comments from the paper's website) and one which was interesting (this in a future post though).

Janet Daley - Pity those still trapped in the euro nightmare
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...hose-still-trapped-in-the-euro-nightmare.html

A lot of the first paragraph is hyperbole and rhetoric. The second half attacks the EU policy on taxation (which implies a much higher level of influence of the EU on national taxation policy than there is and calls for the "poorer" countries to devalue. I'd say that the arguments are those used by "little Englanders", but Daley is originally from the US.

Firstly, regarding taxation in the US, yes the individual states do have their own powers to set indirect taxes. She then comments

"If Ireland, for example, is forced to give up its lower rate of corporation tax (because the EU regards that as an “unfair” competitive advantage), it will lose the capacity that it might have had to recover under its own steam."

OK, she is not stating that this is happening or will happen, but within the context of the article, she is implying very strongly that the EU has such power over taxation policy in the member states. However, there has been no pressure on the Irish government to change the rate of corporate tax. In reality, Ireland has to balance its budget (for its own sake), the rules are there to ensure just this and not to say how Ireland should balance its budget.

After this she states

Without being able to devalue their currencies, or to slash their taxes in order to attract investment and commercial activity, the poor countries of Europe will be locked permanently into disadvantage and dependence. They will be forced to accept austerity programmes while being deprived of any of the fiscal mechanisms for improving their own economic condition. And if they behave in what the EU decides are incorrigibly delinquent ways, they may even have their elected governments replaced – so the democratic mechanisms for political change will go, too.


I now live in a country (I'm just in Austria for a while) which was definitely poor by European standards on accessing the EU. The EU certainly hasn't locked Ireland into disadvantage and dependence. True, at present the economy is presently in a bad state, but hardly anyone in Ireland would think seriously about leaving the EU or the Eurozone. Also, the recession hit Ireland hard due to the culture of borrowing, speculation and corruption in the banks (the last two factors arguably being much more acute than in the UK). As for the possibility of leaving the Euro and devaluation that, as I argued recently in the politics thread, is a pipedream. There are two possibilities:

1. The most likely in my opinion. Irish debts would still have to be paid in Euro. Thanks to devaluation, our savings would disappear and our debts will grow hugely in terms of the new currency, i.e. recession big-time.

2. Irish debts would be transferred to the new currency. In the short term, this would would Ireland less hard, but as happened to Argentina, Ireland would become a pariah in international trade.

Times are tough now, but looking at the history of the EU as a whole, it has been a positive influence.

Also, if governments do behave in "incorrigibly delinquent ways" they will be replaced. Not by the EU, but by the electorate. I'll admit that EU democracy is far from ideal, but her allusions to Soviet domination are simply sensational. Berlusconi wasn't replaced by the EU (OK not directly by the electorate, but there certainly a lot of pressure from that quarter).

 

[The Cobra]

Get out now, get out now get out now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFXSj5WofYA&feature=related
This man is a hero. A man with massive balls, a man who will not let diplomatic niceties stopping him from speaking the truth.

I could write a long rant on the EU but Nigel does a much better job than I could do. The EU = Good idea, but horribly horribly wasteful and undemocratic. Economic sense is being sidelined to cling on to a European dream that died with the debt crisis.

 

[Siriuscat]

I'm for out because as a nation state I feel the UK should be able to govern itself not do what the Germans or the French tell us to do. I don't think we should ever have been in the EU/Common Market whatever you call it in the first place. By tying yourself to other countries and currencies you progress at their slowest rate not at a rate your own country can sustain.

The EU can't solve the Euro crisis because no matter what it does you still have countries like Greece and Italy and even at a push France and Germany dragging the currency down because of their own levels of debt.

What would make it all the more straightforward is if Sarkosy wasn't postulating like some 21st century Napoleon, he is a big part of the problem for me.

I'm a fiercely proud Scot and a Brit, I'm against independance for Scotland for two main reasons 1. We'd be committing fiscal suicide because we'#d still be landed with a large portion of the UK debts so we'd never gain fiscal security and 2. Why fight to gain independance from one overbearing parliament and jump into bed with Europe who are in a worse state than what we have now..........

 

[python]

as usual, the most balanced and in-depth assessment of the uk/eu issues arising from the last summit can be found in the financial times.

here are the points i took from several of their articles and videos.

-cameron’s veto was hasty, unnecessary and amateurish. he opted for a ‘nuclear option’ whilst none of the preliminary and vague german/french-engineered proposals even mentioned the ftt or the city. besides, britain had an option to exercise its veto power if and when the transaction tax would have actually been proposed. in the least, the uk , in stead of a polarising veto, could do what at least 5 other members did - refer to domestic consultations before taking a stance.

-cameron’s claimed protected - british business and bankers - greeted him back with no applause but bewildered silence. clearly, they fear that very deep and real british economic links to europe may have been sacrificed to domestic political infighting.

-britain’s was not as lonely in its opposition as it seems. at least 5 more members have not committed yet and there is no guarantee their parliaments will.

- there is no doubt that the document cameron vetoed was largely written in germany and that france had only a cosmetic input. however, the uk veto can be seen as a tactical victory for the french as they always proposed the new tighter integration limited to the eurozone only.

- if germany succeeds in having its proposals accepted by the majority, there is no practical mechanism that the uk can use to block its effects while remaining a member. the choice will be - succumb or exit.

interesting times are upon us…

britain's exit from the eu will hasten those huge geopolitical changes i referred to in several general politics posts.