Europe Debate: In or out?

[chalkies_shorts]

I do love the arrogant assertion that the problems can be fixed by even greater integration. Lets just cut loose and if there's a price to pay then lets pay it, get it over with and be done with it.

[jonny72]

Has he bollocks, he's done nothing of the sort

I meant it as more out than in rather than totally out, though I don't think anyone knows where this will end. There are plenty of politicians around the EU practically calling for us to be kicked out and there is the potential for this to turn nasty.

One thing that is annoying me is the way everyone is rounding on Cameron and Britain. Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at us for acting in our own interests, yet they are doing the same by voting for it. They appear to be lining us up as the fall guy for when it all (inevitably) turns to shit so they can all go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

[chalkies_shorts]

I meant it as more out than in rather than totally out, though I don't think anyone knows where this will end. There are plenty of politicians around the EU practically calling for us to be kicked out and there is the potential for this to turn nasty.

One thing that is annoying me is the way everyone is rounding on Cameron and Britain. Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at us for acting in our own interests, yet they are doing the same by voting for it. They appear to be lining us up as the fall guy for when it all (inevitably) turns to shit so they can all go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

The simple truth is that nobody knows whether its a good decision or not. We can speculate all we like but the consequences of the decision will unfold in the next few days. Don't forget the EU are happy to go back and back again until they get the asnwer they want

[Reg Smeeton]

The simple truth is that nobody knows whether its a good decision or not. We can speculate all we like but the consequences of the decision will unfold in the next few days. Don't forget the EU are happy to go back and back again until they get the asnwer they want

True....I've no idea of the technicalities of this decision, but it does seem to have been taken to protect the interest of Cameron's class...whether this does the rest of us any good, as you say only time will tell (suspect it may take more than a few days, mind)

[Phil_S]

what makes me laugh is milliband's comments. In the morning he says he wouldn't sign up to it. cameraon does the same, so milliband instantly starts moaning about it

[tans]

I cant understand miliband.

That cunt needs to learn to speak properly

[Mister Lorenzo]

Most of this is very new to me so I'm sure this is oversimplified, but my understanding of the current situation is:

Sarkozy/Merkel wanted the UK to contribute disproportionately to propping up the whole project (via the Tobin Tax). They must have known that Cameron had to veto that. Therefore the implication is that they're either incredibly optimistic or hoping for that outcome in the first place, hedging against failure by creating a scapegoat. I suspect it's a little of both.

Current discussions seem to centre on how to close stable doors. Useful 15 years ago but not really the most pressing issue right now. As I understand it the 'rules' being laid out are really only guidelines anyway, yet many EU members have already shown they're prepared to break previous legally-binding rules, robbing this new 'gentleman's agreement' of any credibility. The idea of financial penalties for governments who over-borrow seems comically flawed.

It appears that many governments have pushed Keynesian ideas beyond a tipping point, making recovery seem quite unrealistic. The ship seems to be taking on water faster than it can be pumped back overboard. The painful but necessary decisions are being postponed while good money is thrown after bad. But surely we're going to run out of good money after too long? Aren't China already turning the taps off? It feels like 127 Hours. We can die intact or we can grow a pair, admit that the limb is dead, cut it off (as unpleasant as that will be) and give ourselves an opportunity to survive.

The member(s) that are in reasonable health will be dragged down trying to support the profligate and/or lazy. Downgrades follow and finally force a scenario where the debt can no longer be eternally flipped and we'll be looking at a break-up or otherwise significant restructuring. It all feels so inevitable.

Hopefully it's much more complicated than that and I'm missing some key items that tip the balance back?

[fatbasher]

Most of this is very new to me so I'm sure this is oversimplified, but my understanding of the current situation is:

Sarkozy/Merkel wanted the UK to contribute disproportionately to propping up the whole project (via the Tobin Tax). They must have known that Cameron had to veto that. Therefore the implication is that they're either incredibly optimistic or hoping for that outcome in the first place, hedging against failure by creating a scapegoat. I suspect it's a little of both.

Current discussions seem to centre on how to close stable doors. Useful 15 years ago but not really the most pressing issue right now. As I understand it the 'rules' being laid out are really only guidelines anyway, yet many EU members have already shown they're prepared to break previous legally-binding rules, robbing this new 'gentleman's agreement' of any credibility. The idea of financial penalties for governments who over-borrow seems comically flawed.

It appears that many governments have pushed Keynesian ideas beyond a tipping point, making recovery seem quite unrealistic. The ship seems to be taking on water faster than it can be pumped back overboard. The painful but necessary decisions are being postponed while good money is thrown after bad. But surely we're going to run out of good money after too long? Aren't China already turning the taps off? It feels like 127 Hours. We can die intact or we can grow a pair, admit that the limb is dead, cut it off (as unpleasant as that will be) and give ourselves an opportunity to survive.

The member(s) that are in reasonable health will be dragged down trying to support the profligate and/or lazy. Downgrades follow and finally force a scenario where the debt can no longer be eternally flipped and we'll be looking at a break-up or otherwise significant restructuring. It all feels so inevitable.

Hopefully it's much more complicated than that and I'm missing some key items that tip the balance back?

Well considering this is all new to you, you seem to have outlined the situation very succinctly.

   

[china red]

If we get out of the EU can we have our bendy bananas back?

[fatbasher]

True....I've no idea of the technicalities of this decision, but it does seem to have been taken to protect the interest of Cameron's class...whether this does the rest of us any good, as you say only time will tell (suspect it may take more than a few days, mind)

"I've no idea of the technicalities of this decision" Say's Reg Smeeton. An honest statement if I may say so which probably sums most of us up to one degree or other. However, you go on to state "but it does seem to have been taken to protect the interest of Cameron's class..." Would you like to expand on that Reg? Smacks of left wing envy to me but I could be wrong I'm intrigued to know what you mean.

As far as I could tell he's turned round and told Europe to go fuck themselves politically speaking if you think we'll give up a large slice of our GDP and tax take to bail out the euro countries who created the shit they now find themselves in for no intrinsic gain for us.

In other words you've lent your mate £500 for let's say a computer. I'll pay you back £10 a week over 13 months to cover interest. Then he finds out he's on short time and can he make that £10 every two weeks and pay over 18 months on the balance, which you agree to. Suddenly he's had to go part time and want's to borrow another £500 to pay off what he owes you and spread the cost of the new loan over two years. You agree to that and then he loses his job. Meanwhile unbeknown to you he's been mortgaging his assets (say his house) to borrow more money which he's been pissing up the wall, buying new clothes, gadgets and foreign holidays etc. The bank are after him and then he comes to you telling you you'll have to agree to show him your finances and he'll tell you what you can and cannot spend the your money on to help him pay the debts you did not know he had on top of the one you knew about. What would you say Reg? One word amongst many would be OFF wouldn't it?

Milliband may of had his sinuses drilled recently but the prick does not know whether his arse is counter sunk or bored such is the shit he comes out with.   

[Arriba]

I have no idea if this is a good thing or not. Only time will tell. I am a bit concerned that it could have an effect on future trading within europe, and whether companies come here to create jobs rather than stay within those countries in europe.

Milliband sounds like he is sucking on a lollypop when he speaks imo.

[No Longer Posh Red]

Milliband is like all opposition politicians (regardless of who is in power).

Will attack the Government for making a decision, regardless of whether he would have actually made the same decision.


I agree with arriba, I don't think any of us will know if it's a good or bad decision for a while, and based on the fact that we do more trade within the EU than we do with the rest of the world we don't really want to alienate the business communities.

That said, I'm sure that the business leaders across Europe have more sense than most of the politicians anyway

[Reg Smeeton]

"I've no idea of the technicalities of this decision" Say's Reg Smeeton. An honest statement if I may say so which probably sums most of us up to one degree or other. However, you go on to state "but it does seem to have been taken to protect the interest of Cameron's class..." Would you like to expand on that Reg? Smacks of left wing envy to me but I could be wrong I'm intrigued to know what you mean.

Cameron has used the term national interest when he means City of London interest....the sticking point in negotiations was the need for greater financial regulation.  Something Cameron and to a lesser extent Clegg, couldn't allow.

Cameron comes from a family background of City stockbrokers....Clegg is chairman of United Trust Bank in the City.

The Tory Party is 50% funded by City donations.

In the 6 years from 2002 to 2008 the tax yield from the financial sector was approximately half of that from the manufacturing sector, which is likely to be the hardest hit by this decision.

Since 2008 £289bn pounds of taxpayers money has been used to prop up banks.....

I don't have a particular problem with this, it's what Tories do and have always done....look after their own interests first.

[thedarkprince]

Financial services accounts for 10 - 12% of our GDP, why the fuck shouldn't he protect it?

[thedarkprince]

I am a bit concerned that it could have an effect on future trading within europe, and whether companies come here to create jobs rather than stay within those countries in europe.

Don't be, we're not leaving the single market and no existing companies are going to leave the UK over this.  Some suggest that being outside of what will be a strict tax regime could be attractive. Time will tell on that one.