[Mild Rover]

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:35 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Today's Daily Chart in the Economist shows the budget deficits of the main Eurozone economies in 2007 (before the crash), 2009 (in the middle of the recession) and 2011:


The 3% mark is the agreed limit under the Growth and Stability Pact agreed at Maastricht (but never properly enforced). As you can see Greece was well over it before the crash in 2007, so Greece has got in the situation that it is in due to excessive borrowing over a long period of time. As a comparison, the UK was 2.4% at this time (so a bit less than France). However Ireland and Spain were actually running budget surpluses going into the crash, their economies collapsed because they were based on unsustainable property bubbles and when the financial services sector collapsed their economies went into deep recession and in the case of Ireland the costs of bailing out their banking sector saddled the taxpayer with huge bills. Their economies were ruined by bad practices in the financial services sector, inappropriate lending and speculation on property.

So you have two types of problem - excess government borrowing (Greece) and the failure of regulation on the financial services sector (Spain/Ireland). The solution being driven by Germany is to constrain governments from running up budget deficits and to impose regulation on the financial services sector.

In the UK however the rhetoric from Cameron and Osborne recognises the first problem but not the second. They are trying to turn everything into a problem of government borrowing, Osborne keeps going on about Greece, saying "we don't want to end up like Greece"....but the UK had more in common with the Ireland and Spain story than Greece as we did not have a large budget deficit before the crash. They have gone on about high government borrowing figures after the crash, across Europe, but that is always going to happen when you have recessions, it doesn't mean borrowing caused the crisis in the first place.

What Cameron wanted was to have a solution involving constraints on government borrowing but not involving regulation of the financial services sector. However he can't really stop it, because if the Eurozone countries want to put tight rules on banks trading in Euro denominated assets they may make it impractical for banks based outside the Eurozone to trade in Eurozone assets and so force the relocation of banks from London to Frankfurt.

Good summary. Fair enough, we have to treat the symptoms but absolutely no effort, or even consideration seems to be being given to avoiding a repeat. Which reflects Conservative idealogy, I suppose. You'd think the Liberal Democrats might try and get something done, but they're barely visible, apparently scared to use their leverage.

Dally wrote:

http://cars.european-traveler.com/germany/2011-first-half-top-export-markets-for-german-automobiles/

Silly little boy aren't you?

'Most important' is not very meaningful, by itself. What % of all German car exports come to the UK? We could do some damage, in a kamikaze kinda way, I guess. But it is nowhere near coming to that. There's a new club within a club that we didn't join, but we're still in the first club. Diplomatically it's been a bit clumsy, politically it'll play well in a generally eurosceptic UK electorate, but I don't think there was much of an alternative.

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:05 am  

"Club within a Club" - is a desperate phrase. The reality is that the 23-26 will plough on and the UK will either have to crawl back or get out. There is no dignity in what has been done. They'll press ahead will policies that the UK government disapproves of and force our hand to either accept or get out.

What he did was a sign of his abject failure in diplomacy and statesmanship and his utter weakness and inexperience. The man is pathetic. The photographs show he was not comfortable with what he did - so why do it? His weakness within his own party, that's why. Real Conservatives think he's a joke (which he is).

If we were to make a stand - we should should just have negotiated a withdrawal from the EU on favourable terms. What we now have, potentially, is the worst of both worlds. Having said that, these things have a habit of panning out strangely and you never know what comes from it. Most scenarios look bad - unless we get in NAFTA quick. Worst case scenario is the 26 tie up with NAFTA and leave us economically and ultimately militarily isolated.

Against that, we have a great opportunity if we are able to take it, in that the EZ will suffer huge ecocomic drag over the next decade if they persist in trying to save the Euro. Can we take advantage economically? I see little to no prospect given the last 60 years of decline in our industry and political failure.

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:57 am  

I've always been pretty much on the fence regarding Europe.....I can understand wanting closer ties with countries like Germany and France, but wanting to 'merge' with many of these Southern European countries just seems a bit suicidal??

Overall though, I'm generally naive to the whole thing and am happy to be advised and influenced by those who claim to know better, so with that in mind, here's 2 questions...

1. Why, 70 years after Germany last tried to take over Europe and people fought so hard to stop this, are most of Europe seemingly content to allow the Germans to finally conquer them and weakly allow them to rule over them?

2. Isn't Britain 'missing out' on the EU the equivalent of the fellow who lost his ticket for the maiden voyage of the Titanic??....Seems bad at the time, but who's laughing at the end?

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:14 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

1. Why, 70 years after Germany last tried to take over Europe and people fought so hard to stop this, are most of Europe seemingly content to allow the Germans to finally conquer them and weakly allow them to rule over them?

2. Isn't Britain 'missing out' on the EU the equivalent of the fellow who lost his ticket for the maiden voyage of the Titanic??....Seems bad at the time, but who's laughing at the end?

1. Because they are desperate and misguided. Actually, the French elite (if there is such a thing) quite liked the Germans in WW2.

2. I think the BoE and HMG have done the sums and reckon we can just about survive a collapse ogf the Euro. They may therefore judge that they don't care if it goes under and, if it does the European political problem for the UK goes away. Also, it would give us an economic opportunity to take advantage of the mayhem.

Personally, think an economic area comprises UK, NL, Luxembourg, Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia would be a good thing.

The French could then strut their stuff with the Belgians and the Southen Europeans.

[DaveO]

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:40 pm  

Dally wrote:

"Club within a Club" - is a desperate phrase. The reality is that the 23-26 will plough on and the UK will either have to crawl back or get out. There is no dignity in what has been done. They'll press ahead will policies that the UK government disapproves of and force our hand to either accept or get out.

What he did was a sign of his abject failure in diplomacy and statesmanship and his utter weakness and inexperience. The man is pathetic. The photographs show he was not comfortable with what he did - so why do it? His weakness within his own party, that's why. Real Conservatives think he's a joke (which he is).

I think that is a fair enough assessment of both his position and what the rest of the countries will do.

If we were to make a stand - we should should just have negotiated a withdrawal from the EU on favourable terms. What we now have, potentially, is the worst of both worlds.

And what favourable terms would those be and why would they be agreed to by the other countries?

There is no escaping the fact that if we leave the EU we will still have to agree to trade by their rules but will have no say at all in what those rules are. Everyone says look at Norway. Well Norway are a small country who are protected by a government that has made judicious use of North Sea Oil and they are cash rich. We are none of that.

What has happened is the complete economic and political marginalisation of the UK.

That is not to say what the rest of the countries are doing is right. It seems completely undemocratic to me to have unelected EU officials and bodies telling elected governments of countries how to set budgets and how to tax. I can understand why Merkozy want this and things like a common corporation tax are in my view a good idea but they are going about it in a completely undemocratic way. I do not think this is lost on the people in some countries either such as Ireland who were supposed to be celebrating 90 years of Irish independence but are now instead in effect a German province.

However regardless of how undemocratic it is they ARE doing it and we are marginalised as a result.

Having said that, these things have a habit of panning out strangely and you never know what comes from it. Most scenarios look bad - unless we get in NAFTA quick. Worst case scenario is the 26 tie up with NAFTA and leave us economically and ultimately militarily isolated.

We are isolated already. We still have the EU free market today but going forward the rest will form rules and regulations to suit them including financial regulations that will probably kill London off as the financial centre of the EU. So ultimately Cameron will have failed anyway.

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:03 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

I've always been pretty much on the fence regarding Europe.....I can understand wanting closer ties with countries like Germany and France, but wanting to 'merge' with many of these Southern European countries just seems a bit suicidal??

Overall though, I'm generally naive to the whole thing and am happy to be advised and influenced by those who claim to know better, so with that in mind, here's 2 questions...

1. Why, 70 years after Germany last tried to take over Europe and people fought so hard to stop this, are most of Europe seemingly content to allow the Germans to finally conquer them and weakly allow them to rule over them?

2. Isn't Britain 'missing out' on the EU the equivalent of the fellow who lost his ticket for the maiden voyage of the Titanic??....Seems bad at the time, but who's laughing at the end?

1) It was THREE generations ago, FFS. In any case if you know your history the Nazis wanted to join with us and the French to sort out the Soviets.

2) I have heard this one before. Is it the end?

[Kosh]

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:28 pm  

Dally wrote:

"Club within a Club" - is a desperate phrase. The reality is that the 23-26 will plough on and the UK will either have to crawl back or get out. There is no dignity in what has been done. They'll press ahead will policies that the UK government disapproves of and force our hand to either accept or get out.

What he did was a sign of his abject failure in diplomacy and statesmanship and his utter weakness and inexperience. The man is pathetic. The photographs show he was not comfortable with what he did - so why do it? His weakness within his own party, that's why. Real Conservatives think he's a joke (which he is).

Pretty much spot on IMO.

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:28 pm  

billypop wrote:

1) It was THREE generations ago, FFS. In any case if you know your history the Nazis wanted to join with us and the French to sort out the Soviets...

Oh, but we're still more obsessed by it than any other nation.

[Kosh]

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:29 pm  

UllFC wrote:

I think this is great news for Britain, and the quicker we pull out of the bloated, corrupt, expensive gravy train the better.

Countries will still trade with us if we have the right products and services to offer.

One of the most economically naive statements I've seen posted on here.

Re: What now for the UK? : Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:34 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Oh, but we're still more obsessed by it than any other nation.

Dad's Army....The World at War. Dambusters. The Longest Day.

The war that lost us the Empire and left us in debt to the Yanks. Hmm. Special relationship? Abusive, more like.

It's rather sad that we are obsessed and get very excited over a conflict that turned us from the world's leading power into a basket case. But that was our finest hour. I'm sure it was all done in the best interests of the British Empire.