Eurozone Fiscal Union

[pap]

Once again, the EU is front-page news. Today, most of the headlines have been about Angela Merkel's intention to propose treaty changes at the next EU summit to achieve fiscal union within the Eurozone. Under the proposals, countries within the Eurozone will have to abide by a set of rules when governing their economies, with enforceable penalties for countries that break them.

 

Britain gets to take part in the discussions, but doesn't have to sign up to them.

 

I'm not an expert on financial harmonisation, so don't really know whether it'll solve the EU's current problems. Historically, there's evidence to suggest that harmonisation can go badly wrong. Our exit from the ERM during the Major government is one example. It could be argued that the Euro is another.

 

Another concern is the drift of sovereignty into the EU. It's another step toward a federal Europe, and will leave the EU with unprecedented power.

 

Finally, I wonder if major parties will recognise this as a treaty change to the EU and deliver on their promise to hold a referendum. Somehow, I doubt it. I'm sure there'll be a handy technicality in there somewhere, a la the Lisbon Treaty:-

 

"Ah yes, it's not called a Constitution anymore. It's called a Treaty. They're completely different things!".

[Saintandy666]

Hmmmm, I'd need to look into the plans in more detail, but if proper integration was done, it would probably be time to decide what we want with our relationship with Europe. Do we want to be in or out, because straddling inbetween when the eurozone effectively forms a federal state will leave us outside. But that all depends on how the rules are drawn up, and I doubt many people would understand them when they are drawn up. Most people have difficultly understanding the difference between the ECJ and the ECHR, let alone the workings of the EU in the present or the future.

 

A eurozone federal state would certainly be powerful though, politically and financially. Moving in unison, they could challenge the US and China, especially if the rest of Europe joined in.

 

But if a Federal State is created, I think we then need a referendum to decide what we want to do.

[pap]

Hmmmm, I'd need to look into the plans in more detail, but if proper integration was done, it would probably be time to decide what we want with our relationship with Europe. Do we want to be in or out, because straddling inbetween when the eurozone effectively forms a federal state will leave us outside. But that all depends on how the rules are drawn up, and I doubt many people would understand them when they are drawn up. Most people have difficultly understanding the difference between the ECJ and the ECHR, let alone the workings of the EU in the present or the future.

 

Oddly enough, the European Constitution would have swept the labyrinthine legislation away giving us a new point to start from. Instead, we got the Lisbon Treaty, exactly the same thing, but implemented through incremental treaty updates. Worst of both worlds, really.

 

But you're right. Most people don't have a scooby. It must mean that our Westminster Parliamentarians are doing an acceptable job of pretending they still run things

 

 

 

A eurozone federal state would certainly be powerful though, politically and financially. Moving in unison, they could challenge the US and China, especially if the rest of Europe joined in.

 

Well, I'm not seeing a great deal of challenge to the US or China at the moment. Would unified armed forces be part of this union?

 

But if a Federal State is created, I think we then need a referendum to decide what we want to do.

 

I think we need a referendum regardless. We signed up to be members of an economic community, have had Maastricht and Lisbon pass without our assent. The EU is going to go through some major change in the next few months. I expect the line will be "this is only for the Eurozone countries", but if they are going for fiscal union, then our relationship with the EU is going to be different. I don't think it needs to get to the level of federal state for us to need a referendum.

 

The brick-sh-it Conservatives promised that we'd have a referendum at the next treaty change. It'll be interesting to see how they grease themselves out of this one.

[hypochondriac]

It was inevitable and someone who values their democracy and sovereignty will be rightly horrified. I will do everything in my power to prevent this. It is not what Britain wants and I will campaign as much as I can.

[Saintandy666]

I guess they could say, the fiscal union doesn't include us so we don't need a vote.

 

But that's a stupid attitude, the fact there would be a fiscal union within the EU obviously changes our relationship with the EU. As we would be dealing with a definite bloc, as opposed to 17 fiscally independent countries.

 

They'll worm out of it, look stupid and then everyone will probably have forgotten in 4 years time and will vote conservative/labour/lib dems all over again. Hurray for 2.5 party systems!

[Saintandy666]

It was inevitable and someone who values their democracy and sovereignty will be rightly horrified. I will do everything in my power to prevent this. It is not what Britain wants and I will campaign as much as I can.

 

In fairness, you don't know what Britain wants as you aren't Britain. What we need is a referendum to decide that! And if changes such as these are put in place, then the time is probably right for it.

 

The only thing is, if we want to continue with the trade benefits we have, but not a lot of the other stuff, that won't do. To be part of that trade club if you like they'll want us to follow the same rules they do, so in reality not a lot would change even if you got your way(assuming what you want is out of the EU, but negotiate a trade position)

[hypochondriac]

In fairness, you don't know what Britain wants as you aren't Britain. What we need is a referendum to decide that! And if changes such as these are put in place, then the time is probably right for it.

 

The only thing is, if we want to continue with the trade benefits we have, but not a lot of the other stuff, that won't do. To be part of that trade club if you like they'll want us to follow the same rules they do, so in reality not a lot would change even if you got your way(assuming what you want is out of the EU, but negotiate a trade position)

 

No I'm not but polls continually show that we don't have any desire to hand over more power to brussels. We won't get a referendum because it isn't in the interests of the politicians to have one. If we ever did get to vote on something it would be an extreme example such as sever all ties or something. I am quite happy with a common market as that is what we agreed to. Any agreement not to pull us out completely will be taken advantage of by politicians to push for even greater integration.

 

Any agreements with Europe should not come at the expense of our sovereignty or our ability to govern ourselves. It's quite simple really and I believe that that is what the vast majority want.

[Saintandy666]

No I'm not but polls continually show that we don't have any desire to hand over more power to brussels. We won't get a referendum because it isn't in the interests of the politicians to have one. If we ever did get to vote on something it would be an extreme example such as sever all ties or something. I am quite happy with a common market as that is what we agreed to. Any agreement not to pull us out completely will be taken advantage of by politicians to push for even greater integration.

 

Any agreements with Europe should not come at the expense of our sovereignty or our ability to govern ourselves. It's quite simple really and I believe that that is what the vast majority want.

 

You are probably right, though opinion polls aren't reliable. Before the AV poll, opinion polls put AV in a lead! But you are as I said, most likely right. But the only way to find out is referendum. I do worry though, that most people won't have educated opinions when answering the question. Obviously there are some educated opinions on both sides, both sides have clever people who actually understand how it works. Most of the UK don't have a clue how the EU works and will instead rely on what the Sun tells them or some politician.

[hypochondriac]

You are probably right, though opinion polls aren't reliable. Before the AV poll, opinion polls put AV in a lead! But you are as I said, most likely right. But the only way to find out is referendum. I do worry though, that most people won't have educated opinions when answering the question. Obviously there are some educated opinions on both sides, both sides have clever people who actually understand how it works. Most of the UK don't have a clue how the EU works and will instead rely on what the Sun tells them or some politician.

 

We won't get a referendum though. The question would be cleverly worded or about some other issue which will be used as an excuse if it is passed for politicians to do what they like.

[Saintandy666]

We won't get a referendum though. The question would be cleverly worded or about some other issue which will be used as an excuse if it is passed for politicians to do what they like.

 

Well, if the British public are too stupid to work their way around the wording of a Referendum question, do you think they can be relied upon to give an answer to such an important question as this?

 

I'm playing devils advocate here.

[hypochondriac]

Well, if the British public are too stupid to work their way around the wording of a Referendum question, do you think they can be relied upon to give an answer to such an important question as this?

 

I'm playing devils advocate here.

 

That shouldn't be the issue. The question should be very clear with options given. Personally I want to stay in the common market but to stop any other integration but a referendum will not give me that option so I will be forced to vote for complete withdrawal which I do not want but it's the least bad option.

 

Many people are stupid but that doesn't mean we should do away with their democratic rights. Whether they vote correctly or not is not the issue.

[Saintandy666]

That shouldn't be the issue. The question should be very clear with options given. Personally I want to stay in the common market but to stop any other integration but a referendum will not give me that option so I will be forced to vote for complete withdrawal which I do not want but it's the least bad option.

 

Many people are this but that doesn't mean we should do away with their democratic rights. Whether they vote correctly or not is not the issue.

 

But our system is surely set up so they don't have to make these kind of decisions. Supposedly, we elect experts to do it on our behalf and if we don't like their expert decision making, we kick them out after 4 or 5 years(and that's at the centre of Liberal Democracy as set out by J.S Mill and that's how our democracy is constructed - delegate based). That's the theory anyways. Remember, we don't have a rigid constitution in this country, so there's no legal obligation to give referendums or anyone else a say except parliament when any constitutional law changes. Infact, our constitution regularly changes.

 

I'm just saying, if you don't trust the British public to think their way around a carefully worded question, how can you trust them to understand what the implications of their vote will be in a referendum?

 

I support a referendum for what it is worth anyways, just to get the issue over and done with. At the next big change which will be sooner than the government anticipated by the looks of it.

[hypochondriac]

But if no credible party has partial withdrawal as a policy then essentially there is no one to vote for. I'm not voting for a single policy party to run the whole country so in reality there is no one. By having it this way, the mainstream parties can largely do what they want over Europe because they all largely agree on the issue.

 

I presume you agree with me about the importance of the wording. In my opinion it should be common market but withdraw from other ties, total withdrawal or more inclusion. It won't be that but that is what it should be.

[Saintandy666]

But if no credible party has partial withdrawal as a policy then essentially there is no one to vote for. I'm not voting for a single policy party to run the whole country so in reality there is no one. By having it this way, the mainstream parties can largely do what they want over Europe because they all largely agree on the issue.

 

I presume you agree with me about the importance of the wording. In my opinion it should be common market but withdraw from other ties, total withdrawal or more inclusion. It won't be that but that is what it should be.

 

And that is why FPTP is ****. It favours usually 2 parties who when in agreement over an issue such as this can form a cartel... and no other party every has a chance to get a sniff in on the action.

 

For what it is worth though, maybe the policy is just so good that the main parties all support it

[hypochondriac]

And that is why FPTP is ****. It favours usually 2 parties who when in agreement over an issue such as this can form a cartel... and no other party every has a chance to get a sniff in on the action.

 

For what it is worth though, maybe the policy is just so good that the main parties all support it

 

It's self interest that means they vote for it and no other reason.

[Saintandy666]

It's self interest that means they vote for it and no other reason.

 

Why is it in the personal interests of Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg to remain in Europe?

[hypochondriac]

Why is it in the personal interests of Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg to remain in Europe?

 

Self interest. It's in the interests of the politicians to remain in their cushy jobs, racking up obscene expenses claims, jetting round Europe. That's not just this country, it's the majority of European countries (the French prime minister and his ridiculous wastage when allowed to for example).

[1976_Child]

It won't solve anything.

 

This is a problem of solvency, not liquidity or political will.

 

There is not enough income to pay the debts... which keep on getting exponentially bigger. It is baked into the monetary system. The only conceivable way out of the mess is to reset the system: either by hard defaults or 'soft' default aka money printing by the ECB on a prestigious scale. The latter is not going to happen. The former will happen eventually, but no politician will allow it to happen as a matter of policy. The only outcome is a very messy breakup of the Eurozone. All they are doing now is trying to buy a little more time. It won't work. The mathematics doesn't care two hoots if the member states will have to present their budgets to an overseer committee. When there ain't enough income to pay for current liabilities one goes bust. Insolvent. Curtains.

 

And don't think we are safe because we aren't in the Euro.

[Saintandy666]

Self interest. It's in the interests of the politicians to remain in their cushy jobs, racking up obscene expenses claims, jetting round Europe. That's not just this country, it's the majority of European countries (the French prime minister and his ridiculous wastage when allowed to for example).

 

But, Ed Miliband will have his job regardless of whether we are in the EU or not... so how is it in his personal interest?

[hypochondriac]

But, Ed Miliband will have his job regardless of whether we are in the EU or not... so how is it in his personal interest?

 

Self interest. It is in the interest of his party and the meps who represent his party in Europe. When I say self interest I do not mean his individual self, I mean the interest of his party.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The political elite ahve decided that Europe is best for us, and that's the end of it. There will never be a vote on Europe as the Establishment know what is best and couldn't care less what the people say.

 

We have been lied to over and over again regarding Europe. It was just a trading community, the various treaties did not constitute a fundamental change in our relationship, the Euro will not lead to greater intergration. Overe and over again the European people have been lied to.

 

It's unbelievable that the Euro loons who wanted the Euro were wrong, completely and utterely wrong and yet because they were so wrong the only answer is to move nearer to their vision and away from the sensible approach, that the people who were right wanted all along. The people who want a Trading bloc (what we voted for) only, were right and, yet because they were right, we are moving nearer to the intergrated dream that the people who were wrong want.

 

Sat around the dinner parties of Islington and Notting Hill, the Euro and more Eu meddling is a great idea. How very modern our leaders are, how sophisticated they are. What good European they all are.

[buctootim]

The Merkel / Sarkozy plan seems to me to be like the couple who realise their relationship is falling apart, so decide to have a baby to put it all back on track. The UK is fortunate to be outside the euro and none of our politicians is going to suggest getting closer to Europe whilst the current firestorm is going on.

Edited 2 December, 2011 by buctootim

[pap]

The Merkel / Sarkozy plan seems to me to be like the couple who realise their relationship is falling apart, so decide to have a baby to put it all back on track. The UK is fortunate to be outside the euro and none of our politicians is going to suggest getting closer to Europe whilst the current firestorm is going on.

 

 

Makes me wonder why we aren't getting out sharpish. It's not a great plan. Can anyone else see this ending well?

 

The thing that really worries me is the possibility EU-wide police and defence forces. Think we've already lurched far enough toward a police state. Having a centralised authority covering a population of 500 million is a bit too far for me.

[aintforever]

A desperate last throw of the dice that will never work.

[um pahars]

Unrepresentative, unaccountable, unelected, unnecessary and for me unwanted.

 

In very simple terms it should be left up to sovereign countries to decide how they run their financial affirs, so if they want to a high tax and high welfare spend that's their choice (or the electorates choice) just as it would be their right to run a low tax economy.

[dingbattigger]

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Jacques-Delors-Says-Eurozone-skynews-1374130662.html?x=0

[Saintandy666]

Self interest. It is in the interest of his party and the meps who represent his party in Europe. When I say self interest I do not mean his individual self, I mean the interest of his party.

 

What, so you think Ed Miliband stays in the EU so that 13 of his mates and their offices can get some cash?!?! I don't buy that, sorry.