Dave's Maggie Moment

[alpine_saint]

Oh dear, back to your rather infantile habit of throwing around insults without actually knowing anything about those who may express certain opinions - you really are odd.... 'Looney left'? not heard that one since about 1983 during Thatchers reign... comical really.

 

What this whole thread sums up is exactly why a referendum on EU memebership would be so unwise. Because NO BODY on here has demonstrated they have the knowledge or understanding to ultimately determine waht is is Britains best interests - speculation argument, counter argument usually focussed on one issue, when the pros and cons of EU membership can not be so simplistically argued. I dont have the answer either as I dont know enough about all the variables to draw any conclusions - and this thread seems full of thsoe who liek their own rhetoric, but are unwilling to explore any discussion on any opposing position.

 

Do posters on here really think they have the theoretical and practical understanding of sufficient economic principles to say what is right economically for the UK long term, when the experts cant agree?

 

Are the anti Euro/monitary union posters on here really that arrogant that they believe they could have foreseen the current crisis - without the benefit of hindsight? Is the Euro problem a problem of financial union or one which has been created as a result of the global economic crisis? Brought about by banks and governments and irresponsible greed... not the Euro?

 

Interestingly, as its a Tory paper, the Telegraph ran a nice little predictor in 2000 to try and see where the world would be in 2020 - they predicted an eventual Euro-dollar link up (maybe tongue in cheek) but perhaps most telling was their statement taht Britain would still be considering whether it was a good or bad thing....

 

And that IS what sets us apart from the rest of the EU... the preoccupation with the fading empire - we either want to lord it over everyone or sulk in the corner - we were happy when we could tell the commonwealth what to do and how to run their countries, but when up against the bigger kids in the playground we get scared. We could now be at the heart of DIRECTING policy in Europe, using our experience, and considerable weight to drive change for the better and (and in our interests) if we had always been in the top 2 or 3 seats . I make no apologies for suggesting that a major part of the sceptism form the right (as we can see with the splits) has nothing to do with economic arguments, but simply down to nationalism. Now if thats what you believ say so and admit it, dont try and hide your view on this behind some pseudo specultive attempts at 'understanding' the vastly complex ecomonic elements of the debate.

 

I have nothing more than a surface persepctive on the ecomonic arguments and no poster on here has written anything that suggests they know much more (despite some arrogance to the contrary), so for me its suggests that maybe, just maybe we woudl be better placed helping to shape it in our favour, than watching the Germans and French go it alone? Simple question and simple reasoning.

 

What delicious arrogance. Democratic right to vote is inalienable, not dependent upon passing an IQ test.

 

And I see you managed to get an anti-Empire rant in there. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the issue, but full marks for the effort.

[dune]

What delicious arrogance. Democratic right to vote is inalienable, not dependent upon passing an IQ test.

 

I'm shocked you managed to read the whole post. Chapter 1 almost put me in a coma.

[ecuk268]

And the only reason Wellington fought at Waterloo was the promise of German ( Prussian ) reinforcements, and less than half of his army were British ( the rest being a mix of German, Dutch, and Belgian ).

 

Weren't they mainly mercenaries?

 

And didn't he say (paraphrase) "I don't know what they do to the French, but they bloody terrify me"?

[badgerx16]

I'm shocked you managed to read the whole post. Chapter 1 almost put me in a coma.

 

FC, you must try harder next time

[Frank's cousin]

What delicious arrogance. Democratic right to vote is inalienable, not dependent upon passing an IQ test.

 

You miss the point completely (as you frequently do) - I was not talking about the democrcy of a referendum. But for a referendum to be TRUELY democratic (as you well know) all thsoe participating should be in full pocession of the arguments for and against the motion. The problem is that even the experts cannot agree on the pros and cons, so it becomes political as we have seen and you have naively not - this whole debate has become political rather than focussing on the multitude of variable issues surrounding EU membership both positive and negative. Until the public is given the opportunity to seperate the political rhetoric and bullS from ALL the pros and cons (not just the economic arguments) a referendum on the subject would be undemocratic - sadly this issue will always remain political as the interested parties on both sides have good selfish reasons for it remianing so.

[dune]

FC, you must try harder next time

 

The scary thing is he doesn't need to try.

 

That said what is more scary is that a month or so ago I had a dream that I was on This is your life and the special surprise person at the end was Verbal. True story.

Edited 12 December, 2011 by dune

[badgerx16]

Weren't they mainly mercenaries?

 

And didn't he say (paraphrase) "I don't know what they do to the French, but they bloody terrify me"?

 

The King's German Legion were Hanoverians loyal to the German Georges; there were also German allies from Nassau & Brunswick; the Dutch/Belgians were the troops of the Prince of Orange, and many were veterans of Napoleon's army, still wearing his uniforms. The latter quote is generally thought to be a fabrication, derived from derogatory comments made about some reinforcements sent to him during the Peninsular War, though it was inserted into the dialogue of the film "Waterloo" as a description of the Iniskillens.

[pap]

You miss the point completely (as you frequently do) - I was not talking about the democrcy of a referendum. But for a referendum to be TRUELY democratic (as you well know) all thsoe participating should be in full pocession of the arguments for and against the motion. The problem is that even the experts cannot agree on the pros and cons' date=' so it becomes political as we have seen and you have naively not - this whole debate has become political rather than focussing on the multitude of variable issues surrounding EU membership both positive and negative. Until the public is given the opportunity to seperate the political rhetoric and bullS from ALL the pros and cons (not just the economic arguments) a referendum on the subject would be undemocratic - sadly this issue will always remain political as the interested parties on both sides have good selfish reasons for it remianing so.[/quote']

 

No-one is going to be in full possession of the arguments on the EU, but then, few are in full possession of all the facts at any time. If we stopped making decisions because we didn't have all the information, nothing would ever happen.

 

Still, we have more than enough to go on, and invariably, people would vote in an EU referendum based on their own concerns. That's really the most you can hope for, as expecting everyone to have a minimum level of political nous prior to voting is just not going to happen.

[SuperMikey]

Dune, the quote in your 'location' is quite interesting - surely your abject worship of the Tories is akin to abject worship of the state? Arguably our politicians are the state in our political system.

[Whitey Grandad]

If we do get "kicked out" of Europe (which I don't think will happen) it will be nice to have the option for self determination once more, which the EU hates and takes away from all member states, presumably for the "greater good". Then maybe we could start rebuilding this country. If we are competitive enough, then there won't be any problems with exports.

 

Anyway, all these years, we have paid our share, obeyed the rules like nobody else (well possibly the Dutch have), paid a far higher percentage for defence than anyone else and generally been good Europeans, except for not wanting to throw away Sterling. Now, giving Merkozy plenty of warning that we couldn't agree to their terms for a new treaty especially if it meant attacking the City, everyone seems surprised that we have put our foot down.

 

I think I see the flaw in your argument there. High overheads and taxes mean that this ain't gonna happen.

[Weston Saint]

It looks to me as if Cameron, having made enough noises before the meeting about his protection of the London financial market, may have been out manoeuvred by an indignant French leader supported by the Germans.

 

It will be interesting to hear Camerons explanation to the house why the veto has protected the city and the UK and the consequences and damage had he not used his veto at that time.

 

It looks a poor decision according to many but it may not matter. If the euro continues on it's path of break up, and many still thing it will, we will have a new issue requiring new actions.

[dune]

It looks a poor decision according to many but it may not matter. If the euro continues on it's path of break up, and many still thing it will, we will have a new issue requiring new actions.

 

I cannot see anything other than a break up as debts are continuing to spiracle even more out of control. There is no other solution for the likes of Italy and Spain other than to devalue and become competitive. Unemployment in these countries is now at a level where by unless they leave and go back to a weak lira and peseta there will be civil anarchy and ultimately it will be fascism that is turned to. Both these countries are not like us, it was only 30 years ago that Franco ruled Spain.

[Verbal]

It looks to me as if Cameron, having made enough noises before the meeting about his protection of the London financial market, may have been out manoeuvred by an indignant French leader supported by the Germans.

 

It will be interesting to hear Camerons explanation to the house why the veto has protected the city and the UK and the consequences and damage had he not used his veto at that time.

 

It looks a poor decision according to many but it may not matter. If the euro continues on it's path of break up, and many still thing it will, we will have a new issue requiring new actions.

 

Agree with everything until your last bit. The euro won't fail (if that's what you mean by a 'new issue'), because the Germans are at the heart of it. If southern European bits of the euro flake off, it'll be a huge shock to the system, but in all likelihood will leave the euro even stronger as the currency of more nearly harmonised economies in France Germany and the Benelux countries. Which is partly why, I'd suggest, the euro is still trading so strongly against the pound despite the profound crises in Greece, Portugal, Italy, etc. Slough off the bad boys and hey presto - you have a currency that looks a world beater. Eventually.

[CB Saint]

Some interesting perspectives from the germans.

 

Peter Altmeier, a senior member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party, tells the BBC he's "pretty much certain this is just one example" of David Cameron going it alone "and better examples of cooperation will follow". He says the UK made demands in Brussels which were "so far going" they simply couldn't be agreed, and points out that many other countries have asked for exemptions to things - the French on agriculture for example - "that the UK would never agree".

 

German newspaper Der Spiegel says Chancellor Angela Merkel "wants to prevent Britain and the eurozone from drifting further and further apart", and feels it's important "to give the British the feeling that they are still part of Europe". But the paper believes the French feel differently, "hoping that they will carry more weight in a union that does not include Britain".

 

I can't help feeling that Sarkozy, with an election in April and miles behind in the polls, was looking for some tub thumping headlines to help himself. He had the Germans on side because the Germans need the French more than us at the moment.

[pap]

Agree with everything until your last bit. The euro won't fail (if that's what you mean by a 'new issue'), because the Germans are at the heart of it. If southern European bits of the euro flake off, it'll be a huge shock to the system, but in all likelihood will leave the euro even stronger as the currency of more nearly harmonised economies in France Germany and the Benelux countries. Which is partly why, I'd suggest, the euro is still trading so strongly against the pound despite the profound crises in Greece, Portugal, Italy, etc. Slough off the bad boys and hey presto - you have a currency that looks a world beater. Eventually.

 

The Euro has already failed. We're just waiting for events to catch up.

 

I agree that it'll probably exist in one form or another (pretty much onboard with the idea of it being a Northern European currency) but I doubt that it'll remain the currency of every country in the Eurozone.

[dune]

German newspaper Der Spiegel says Chancellor Angela Merkel "wants to prevent Britain and the eurozone from drifting further and further apart", and feels it's important "to give the British the feeling that they are still part of Europe". But the paper believes the French feel differently, "hoping that they will carry more weight in a union that does not include Britain".

 

I can see why the Germans are now worried. They really do need us in there because we are very much like them with our attitudes. The French on the other hand are not an industrious race.

[dune]

The Times have a snap online Populus poll on the European veto, showing support for David Cameron’s decision. 57% of people thought that David Cameron was right to use the veto, with 14% disagreeing and 29% don’t know. 53% also agreed that the use of the veto showed that Cameron is willing to stand up for Britain.

[Verbal]

The Euro has already failed. We're just waiting for events to catch up.

 

I agree that it'll probably exist in one form or another (pretty much onboard with the idea of it being a Northern European currency) but I doubt that it'll remain the currency of every country in the Eurozone.

 

But in what way has the euro failed? I checked the exchange rate for today and its £1 to 1.17 euros. That's a fraction down since July, but not by much. Where is this collapsing currency? Have the currency dealers just failed to notice its demise?

[Verbal]

The Times have a snap online Populus poll on the European veto, showing support for David Cameron’s decision. 57% of people thought that David Cameron was right to use the veto, with 14% disagreeing and 29% don’t know. 53% also agreed that the use of the veto showed that Cameron is willing to stand up for Britain.

 

Opinion polls also show Labour 4 points head of the Tories. Opinion polls are snapshots. They change. We can take another one in a month's time, when the real harm done by Dave has become clearer, and when the Tory Party really starts eating itself over Europe again, and over Dave's refusal to consider the veto the first step to an exit from the EU.

[dune]

Opinion polls also show Labour 4 points head of the Tories.

 

The latest yougov poll (since DC stood up for Britain) has the Labour lead cut to 1 point.

 

Con 38

Lab 39

Lib 11

 

It'll be interesting to see if this level pegging continues now we have a Tory Party that is behaving how we want them to behave. i've always said that if the Tories neutralise UKIP they can form a majority government. If they don't they won't.

Edited 12 December, 2011 by dune

[aintforever]

But in what way has the euro failed? I checked the exchange rate for today and its £1 to 1.17 euros. That's a fraction down since July, but not by much. Where is this collapsing currency? Have the currency dealers just failed to notice its demise?

 

Isn't that just because we have printed sh!t loads of new money and the Krauts refuse to print more Euros?

[Whitey Grandad]

Isn't that just because we have printed sh!t loads of new money and the Krauts refuse to print more Euros?

Well, yes that's part of the reason, but doesn't that mean that it's the pound that's failing?

[dune]

Isn't that just because we have printed sh!t loads of new money and the Krauts refuse to print more Euros?

 

It's a false rate. It should be more like 1 to 0.8 for Germany and 1 to 1.5 for France and 1 to 2 for Italy and Spain. F/ck knows what it should be for the poor Greeks!

 

This is the crux of the argument for why the Euro MUST fail. It needs to fail for the good of the global economy.

 

Politicians are talking sh/t. Max King of Investec is bang on when he says the best thing for Europe and the global economy is for the Euro to fail so that the likes of Spain and Italy can attract investment.

Edited 12 December, 2011 by dune

[pap]

But in what way has the euro failed? I checked the exchange rate for today and its £1 to 1.17 euros. That's a fraction down since July, but not by much. Where is this collapsing currency? Have the currency dealers just failed to notice its demise?

 

It's failed in the sense that we currently have 26 countries trying to mop up the mess right now. It's failed because two countries have already been bailed out just to keep the thing running. It has failed because it has sacrificed democracy for stability. It has failed because it's going to need help from the IMF to survive. It has failed because the EU failed to prevent its own members breaking the rules.

 

Appreciate the exchange rate comparison, but is it really that surprising that it has held some parity with sterling? First, sterling's future is partially bound up in the Euro. Second, through quantitive easing, successive governments have been creating extra money from essentially nothing. So really, you can't say that one failing currency is okay because it's retaining parity with another dodgy currency.

 

So far, the EU has spent tens of billions bailing out member states, while the EFSF looks set to build a reserve of 1 Trillion Euros to cover future liabilities. Does this sound like the sort of precaution you'd need to make with a successful currency?

[dune]

Ian Hislop was spot on when he remarked:

 

We are now on the edge of Europe while the middle collapses. Who would want to be on the edge while the middle collapses?

 

Many a true word is said in jest...

[Verbal]

It's failed in the sense that we currently have 26 countries trying to mop up the mess right now. It's failed because two countries have already been bailed out just to keep the thing running. It has failed because it has sacrificed democracy for stability. It has failed because it's going to need help from the IMF to survive. It has failed because the EU failed to prevent its own members breaking the rules.

 

Appreciate the exchange rate comparison, but is it really that surprising that it has held some parity with sterling? First, sterling's future is partially bound up in the Euro. Second, through quantitive easing, successive governments have been creating extra money from essentially nothing. So really, you can't say that one failing currency is okay because it's retaining parity with another dodgy currency.

 

So far, the EU has spent tens of billions bailing out member states, while the EFSF looks set to build a reserve of 1 Trillion Euros to cover future liabilities. Does this sound like the sort of precaution you'd need to make with a successful currency?

 

But you're mistaking the euro for the EU. If you substitute one for the other, I agree with you. The euro itself though is steaming along as if nothing has happened.

[buctootim]

But you're mistaking the euro for the EU. If you substitute one for the other, I agree with you. The euro itself though is steaming along as if nothing has happened.

 

Its one of the ugly sisters in a big family of pugs. People have to put their money somewhere and the dollar / pound etc dont look any more attractive. Denmark and Switzerland are stable - and lo their currencies are well up against the euro (and almost everything else) in the past two or three years.

[Verbal]

Its one of the ugly sisters in a big family of pugs. People have to put their money somewhere and the dollar / pound etc dont look anymore attractive. Denmark and Switzerland are stable - and lo their currencies are well up against the euro (and almost everything else) in the past two or three years.

 

Oh agreed, but the underlying value of the euro is it's a German thing basically, and in the medium term, the more the flaky economies are ejected from it by default, the stronger it looks. If the euro's fate were tied to that the EU as presently constituted, it would have shown signs of going tits up. But that's exactly what's NOT happened.

[buctootim]

One of the papers said Cameron played a bad hand poorly. I'd agree with that.

[pap]

But you're mistaking the euro for the EU. If you substitute one for the other, I agree with you. The euro itself though is steaming along as if nothing has happened.

 

I don't think so. All of the cases I made for failure are directly related to the single currency. Greece and Ireland were bailed out because of the fear of contagion to the rest of the Eurozone. The Euro would have been the means through which contagion was submitted. Similarly, the technocratic governments that are in place in Italy and Greece are there to save the Euro, not the EU. Their job is to enforce austerity measures that the EU felt the previous incumbents would be unable to implement.

 

I suppose the question to ask is "would we be in the same mess if the EU didn't have the single currency?". The answer is probably not. Sure, individual countries might have gone bust, but we wouldn't be worried about everyone going down because the Greeks and Irish were overzealous with their countries' credit cards.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Its one of the ugly sisters in a big family of pugs. People have to put their money somewhere and the dollar / pound etc dont look any more attractive. Denmark and Switzerland are stable - and lo their currencies are well up against the euro (and almost everything else) in the past two or three years.

 

Denmark's is tied to the Euro

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

A currency with a few of the strong Euro markets will be very strong and good for our exports and not theirs.

[Verbal]

I don't think so. All of the cases I made for failure are directly related to the single currency. Greece and Ireland were bailed out because of the fear of contagion to the rest of the Eurozone. The Euro would have been the means through which contagion was submitted. Similarly, the technocratic governments that are in place in Italy and Greece are there to save the Euro, not the EU. Their job is to enforce austerity measures that the EU felt the previous incumbents would be unable to implement.

 

I suppose the question to ask is "would we be in the same mess if the EU didn't have the single currency?". The answer is probably not. Sure, individual countries might have gone bust, but we wouldn't be worried about everyone going down because the Greeks and Irish were overzealous with their countries' credit cards.

 

I still think it's different from saying the euro itself is failing though. I agree that the single currency, and the budgetary discipline that was supposed to have gone with it, has been seen as something of a game by those countries that have now found themselves in trouble, but the currency itself is strong (as I say, see exchange rates) and will get stronger as the failing bits of it are jettisoned by going into default.

[Verbal]

A currency with a few of the strong Euro markets will be very strong and good for our exports and not theirs.

 

Not if the pound remains as linked as it has appeared to be for all these months of crisis. Both currencies are about on a par with each other in terms of relative movement, and we have a balance of payments deficit with the EU as things stand. A stronger, smaller euro may well take the pound with it, provided the swivel-eyed sceptics in the Tory Party haven't gained ground and somehow forced through a cold-turkey departure from the EU.

Edited 12 December, 2011 by Verbal

[buctootim]

Denmark's is tied to the Euro

 

Didnt know that. Must be some other explanation for the price of the £8.40 medium mocha I had at Copenhagen airport Costa recently.

[Lord Duckhunter]

All this nonsense over the past few days has not changed the one important fact in all this. The Euro is still ****ed.

 

There were fiscal rules written into the maastricht treaty, that were fiddled by The Greeks, or just ignored in the case of Germany and France. The Euro will never suvive in it's present form. Where we are heading is the worst of all worlds. Poor countries hamstrung by the rules and unable to set their own policies or devalue to promote growth, and Germany unwilling to underwrite the debts of the Eurozone.

 

It's all very good Cleggy and Red ED rallying against Cameron, but they aviod the simple facts. Had the economic conditions been different both would have had us in this useless currency. Both have refused to rule out joining in future, and the majority of British people are nearer the Tory's view on Europe than theirs.

 

Had Europe listened to people like Redwood, IDS and Bill Cash in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess. Europe is in this mess because it made a political decision, supported by some useful idiots like Clarke Hestletine and Patten, along with all the Lib/dems and most of the Labour party to embark on a journey which would lead to this inevitable car crash that threatens the world's economy. Instead of slagging Cameron off, the French, German and other Euro nutters, should be holding their hands up, apoligising to their peoples and asking the UK's advise on getting out of this mess.

 

They got it spectacularly wrong, yet put their head in the sand and try to give advise to the people who got it right, bizzare.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Didnt know that. Must be some other explanation for the price of the £8.40 medium mocha I had at Copenhagen airport Costa recently.

 

Lucky you did not have a beer!

[hypochondriac]

Strong words from Conservative MP Julian Lewis. He tells Sky News he fears Europe is moving towards a single economic government and this will pose a "danger to peace and stability in Europe in the long term" as it will erode democracy. Just in case anyone doubts where he stands, Mr Lewis is wearing a pound sterling badge on the lapel of his jacket.

 

And people were calling me idiotic for worrying about this. Seems that others share my concern.

[Verbal]

And people were calling me idiotic for worrying about this. Seems that others share my concern.

 

Try googling 'delusions of grandeur'.

[Guided Missile]

An earlier monetary Union was the Latin Monetary Union. The key country behind it was politically dominant but economically weak France, which was governed as the Second French Empire since 1852 by Napoleon III. While the industrial revolution roared in the net-exporters Switzerland and Belgium, the French economy looked rather weak, with their imports for years regularly outnumbering their exports, according to the German economist Theresia Theurl.

 

Economic integration as the remedy for French jealousy

 

Hence, the French peered over the channel to England with fascination and jealousy. They regarded the City of London as financially dominating the world by lending money to Chile, Peru, Austria, Spain, Turkey and Portugal. France hoped to imitate this libéralisme d’argent (monetary freedom) at the Paris Bourse. But besides all these French power aspirations, the creation of the Latin Union was a result of trade integration, the free trade movement prevalent at that time, and France's large capital supplies. It was founded in 1865 by France, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland. In 1868, Greece joined the Union, together with Spain, three years after it was founded.

 

When the states faced a dilemma between Union or national interest, they pursued their national interest.

The Union was regulated by a treaty. It provided strict ‘criteria’ according to which the states were only allowed to mint a certain number of coins. This amount had to correspond to the reserves of gold and silver possessed by the central banks. Every participating state had informational duties to report the activities of its national mint. And especially during the admission of new members, these criteria were carefully monitored. The Papal States, predecessors of the Vatican, were ejected from the Union, because they minted six times as many coins as they were allowed to.

 

Doomed to fail

The Union never really worked, however; it disintegrated over time. When the states faced a dilemma between the Union and national interest, they pursued their national interest. Sanction or control mechanisms were not present, the treaty was incomplete and the provisions were subject to unilateral interpretation. Each read the treaty to their own advantage.

 

Already in the late 1860s, when Italy was engaged in a costly war with Austria, it took up a credit from its Banca Nazionale, freeing her in return from her obligation to back the currency with gold. This led to a similar result as in the Scandinavian Monetary Union: the value of the Italian money in the Union dropped. Also, at other occasions, the countries showed diverging monetary policies at the expense of more prudent participants. The treaty left it open as to whether this was forbidden or not. France followed with similar behaviour during the war against Germany from 1870 on. The Union's continued existence seemed doomed to fail. In practical terms it ended much earlier, before World War I, and was only shut down on paper in 1926.

[Verbal]

That's nice dear, shall I put the kettle on?

[Verbal]

I liked this comment from the Guardian.

 

"Dave, stop. Stop, will you. Stop Dave. Will you stop, Dave?"

 

HAL 9000 2001

 

Nick Clegg 2011

[dune]

That's nice dear, shall I put the kettle on?

 

 

You're as nutty as a fruitcake.

[hypochondriac]

Good start from Dave. I agree with him.

[bridge too far]

Nick's not in da House

[dune]

Oh dear, I reckon Millibeans lisp is getting worse. His voice is so annoying. I can't listen to what he's saying he's such a retard.

[dune]

ha ha, DC's face is a picture. He isn't bothered by Millibean, he's like everyone else - utterly bored listening to the geek. This is great stuff. The more Millibean talks the more the public will hate him.

[hypochondriac]

Milliband isn't a very inspiring speaker it has to be said.

[bridge too far]

Great response from Ed!

[hypochondriac]

Cameron asking the questions I wanted now. Labour haven't actually said if they would agree to the treaty or not.