Britain's veto in Europe

Mon, 2011-12-12 15:59

#2

chuck

Traditional distrust of foreigners?

Mon, 2011-12-12 16:04

#3

lavadis

In essence Blighters, no-one knows whether this was the right decision or not. As I understand it the fear from Cameron's perspective was tighter regulation of the financial sector and imposition of penalties centrally. We would have no say in this and "the city" would have been penalized in a manner which would discourage the only thing that UK PLC actually makes any more which is money related transactions. The trading in your money and my money by the banks and institutions is what keeps this good ship afloat. The fact that the City may well be filled with exploitative, greedy dishonest people who do not have our interests at heart does not detract from the fact that our soul has been sold to them. Has Cameron taken the right decision? We simply will not know perhaps for many years to come.

Mon, 2011-12-12 17:19

#4

blighters rock

Hi Chuck, Long time. I saw your book on Abc. Looks great. I've got a children's book out so if you fancy doing a swap, send me an email. Funilly enough, I stopped by a friend's house today and saw a booklet called 'Xenophobia for the English'. Hilarious book and they extend to all developed countries, think (I certainly saw a French one but didn't have time to flick through it). I'd pinpoint it to 'traditional distrust of Germans' but two world wars does leave rather a hardened scar and while this generation still hasn't had a chance to go head to head with them Apaart from football because they just don't play cricket), it does seem that there would be no love lost if push came to shove. Sure, the English (and let's face it, this is about England and not Britain) don't trust France but that's only because they suck up to the Germans till the Germans throw all their toys out of the pram when they don't get what they want. At this time, the French come grovelling back to Britain for hayilp, as Penelope Pitstop may say. That said, I rather see an end to the bankers pinching pennies on the market and so would side with the Germans if it meant more transparent, honest trading so that the boom or bust mentality left for good. Hi Laurie, It does seem that a war's a-brewing over money-power between Britain and Germany. What was the bone of contention in the two previous wars? I wonder whether it had anything to do with that quaint pastime, high finance? No, surely not, it would have been about ethics and all those nice things. I get what you're saying about the banks generating money but they also take it away. look at the rising need for government to use PFI's, which is about as responsible as a middle-class citizen using the Money Shop for a long-term loan. PF's make 70% per annum on their investments and whenever a new hospital is built 'by the government', it's only by way of PFI's that they are even considered. I certainly haven't sold my soul to the bankers and I'm pretty sure you haven't too. The only ones to have done that are the government because they see PFI's as their only choice for bringing meaningful change. That the govt use PFI's to initiate its duty of care to the public shows the lack of foresight or invention of this country's social policy. I may have underestimated Tony Cook's idea that short-termism is to blame for the downfall of capitalism. the govt will have a lot to answer when the debt to PFI's rises so much that they can't pay it back. This nation of shopkeepers is about to change (half the high street will be gone in a year or two, thank God) so I'd rather go along with stricter, more transparent and honest financial regulations if it means that we (the people, not the rich) are excused from continuing to pay the crippling debts that this and past govts have mounted up. I think Britain's weakness lies in the govt and the banking system and our strength lies in its people, who have picked up the pieces for long enough. If Cameron's saving anyone, it's the bankers so, if that is the case, I'd be all for full European integration. My only trouble lies with the age-old problem of Germany becoming too powerful for its own good and messing everything up because it expects everyone to be as boringly efficient. I don't want millions of super cars produced and bloody ovens that can tell when something's cooked. I've got a timer and a brain for that, funnily enough. I want cheap, reliable, cost-effective public transport and an end to global consumerism so that we can get a true perspective of what it might be like to be human again. So I'm still in a quandary about Europe...but thanks for opening my mind.

Mon, 2011-12-12 17:42

#5

chuck

Hi Blighters. So you noticed my spam eh? Sure I'll swap my opus for a children's book....my grandchildren aren't ready for William Burroughs yet. As for the problems between UK and Europe. It's probably mainly geographic. Being an island nation comprised of various more or less integrated facets....Celtic, Roman, Angle, Saxon, Viking, Norman etc. there are bound to be some lingering visceral memories behind the distrust. Then there's people like Napoleon and Mussolini and Hitler. Hopefully those types are gone forever but you can't be too careful.

Mon, 2011-12-12 17:51

#6

blighters rock

If that was spam, it looked like the tastiest spam I've seen. The artwork reminded me of Spongebob and some others I adore. I'll send an email and we can exchange addresses. Hopefully you'll get it before Christmas for your grandchildren. Yeah, old Hitto, Nappiesack and Mushieface do leave a nasty aroma around Europe 'coming together in perfect harmony for the good of the people'. Geography defines everything in the world and every country's ways are defined by where it is on the planet, but history has a nasty knack of repeating itself and there's no way we can change location so it's probably stalemate till Germany starts throwing its toys around again. Oh well, could be worse.., I think.

Mon, 2011-12-12 18:03

#7

chuck

The curious thing to my mind is the way the British have been so welcoming to economic migrants (rich and poor ones) in recent times. This doesn't quite fit in with xenophobia. Nor does it explain the 'special relationship' with a powerful former colony.

Mon, 2011-12-12 22:45

#8

blighters rock

That's technical, Chuck, but to say the govt has given up on its own people and prefers to employ foreigners, who are easier and cheaper to enslave, goes a short distance to explain our hideous, lengthy reality. As for xenophobia, you only have to look at where the French put their own illegal migrants (next to Calais) to understand that Europe is only looking out for itself by encouraging death-defying and illegal transport to our island. None of the migrants want to be in Europe anyway. they know they're not welcome there. They'd have only been booted out or worse if it wasn't for Sangatte. Britain's always been a welcoming place but it's our status as anarchy capital of the world that drives the criminal aspect of the migrant population to keep coming in droves. Policing is impossibly difficult, upholding human rights (immense lawyer fees, paid by the govt) and the taxable income derived from holding illegal immigrants for deportation strain the everyday lives of Britons but we'll put up with it if it means that we get to keep our dignity.

Tue, 2011-12-13 04:20

#9

Mangone

Here’s a light-hearted explanation of Cameron’s veto :O) I haven’t followed it closely but I have been concerned that several European countries with money problems have essentially been ‘taken over’ by the ‘gnomes of Zurich’ or whatever their modern equivalent is… The formula appears to be to force out the old leadership, where necessary, and impose ever stricter austerity measures while encouraging ’unity’ governments which effectively stifles any serious parliamentary opposition. In other words, the countries effectively lose control of their economies and are forced to follow the ’Euro plan’ regardless of the wishes of the people. We all saw the result of Papandreou’s plan to hold a Greek referendum and you can be sure that the same pressure would be applied to any other Euro zone country in deep financial trouble that attempted to listen to the voice of its people… Since almost all the EC countries are in dire financial straits in my opinion it is only a matter of time before the whole community is forced to accept a central ‘Federal’ government and become somewhat like the United States of America. Once this has been achieved then, like the US dollar, the Euro can be used in new rounds of quantative easing without causing severe inequalities amongst the member ‘states’. So, we may be alone but we will be free to chart our own course through the coming tsunami - and as the song goes “Britons never, never, never will be…”

Tue, 2011-12-13 09:14

#10

blighters rock

Well put, Mangone. My biggest fear is that if Germany gets what it wants, it will mess everything up by being abhorrently unfair to other countries. It is a self-serving country and extremely insular for one so surrounded by neighbours. And as for Switzerland..I don't see Germany bullying them into full membership of the EU, but there again it does hold most of their (and the world's rich) wealth. A tidy little arrangement and even more weird that Switzerland is slap bang in the middle of Europe. I'm probably back with Cameron now after hearing the views of others. This happened before the second world war, almost identical, and it doesn't bode well for any of us if we choose to defy the ogres of Berlin and Brussels.

Tue, 2011-12-13 21:01

#11

Daniel Saint-John

The veto, essentialy, is a way for Tories and Cameron to lure to their cause middle-aged-country-foreign-feering-anticommunists-conservative people. It is also a way to show that Britain is for britons and all that nationalistic right wing propanda. But worsely, it is a way of showing banks that foreing policy is still subjected to the economic policy lobbied by the richest 1%. All adds up to say, frankly, it is a sad day for the UK. Excelsior!

Excelsior!

Tue, 2011-12-13 22:10

#12

blighters rock

there's truth in that, but it seems that Switzerland (which does not belong to the euro) is very similar to the UK as a financial port for foreign investment. Financial services account for just over 10% of the Swiss economy, while Britain's at 9%. The Swiss do very well in dodgy deals. India tops the list with the most black money in Swiss banks. Swiss banks manage 28% of all cross-border banking and hold the largest gold reserve in the world. So I wonder why Germany isn't bullying Switzerland into the single currency and financial restraint. Probably because it all but owns Switzerland. Have the Germans really changed as so many people think? Time will tell.

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:37

#13

Mangone

“The veto, essentially, is a way for Tories and Cameron to lure to their cause middle-aged-country-foreign-fearing-anticommunists-conservative people.” Not quite sure what you meant be this Daniel. Which cause do you mean? The ‘Conservative cause’ or the ‘Get out of Europe cause’ or the ‘Let’s keep the rich rich cause’ or the ‘Britain for the British cause’ or maybe the “Anti Occupy Wall Street cause‘…? I’d have thought the veto was more likely to alienate the support that the Tories need most - that of the MP’s in the Nick Clegg Party. While I’m not a great fan of Clegg I can’t believe that he would have supported David Cameron if he really thought it was half as bad a move as he later made it out to be. It has been widely reported that Nick Clegg was part of the loop and that Cameron consulted with him before he cast the veto. In light of this I suspect that although the Clegg party felt in necessary to try and dissociate themselves from the veto that they must actually have secretly believed that it really was in the interests of the UK... or at the very, very least, not a major mistake. “Giving an account of the decisions he took in Brussels in Friday, Mr Cameron insisted he had agreed his negotiating stance with his Lib Dem partners before the summit and the two parties had to "put aside differences" to work in the national interest.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16134496 I suspect that the Liberals were forced to try and appease those many who might be forgiven for thinking Clegg has sold out to the Tories or has simply become so addicted to the position he presently holds that he would agree to anything to keep it... Mind you, in my case it simply served to beg the question - Why did Clegg implicitly support the Tories if he really thought the veto would be so bad for the UK? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well, it seems that maybe he hasn't! "Lib Dems refuse to back motion praising PM's EU stance." Which begs the question of how has the motion managed such a healthy 78 vote majority? Mind you - Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg told a meeting of MPs later on Tuesday that "this government carries on until 2015, full stop". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16172438

Fri, 2011-12-30 05:49

#14

Mangone

Can anyone please enlighten me as to the real reason why Britain chose to veto the latest European deal? Perhaps it really was for the best and I wonder just why Clegg didn't stand up and say so... (Lib Dem) "spin doctors began to work hard on persuading journalists that they were winning coalition battles over banking reform, benefits uprating and latterly, even Europe but Lib Dem influence was not sufficient when it came to the Cameron veto at December's EU summit and Mr Clegg's failure to appear in the Commons chamber when the prime minister reported back was seen by some commentators as weak." "He didn't disguise his annoyance over the summit outcome in interviews - telling the BBC's Andrew Marr it was "bad for Britain" and he was "bitterly disappointed". Meanwhile Mrs Merkel was laying out the ground rules for the new "EU Federation"... "The German government wants the new treaty to allow the EU to veto national budgets in the eurozone that breach the so-called "golden rule" regarding deficits. Mrs Merkel wants to introduce sanctions if budgets end up having larger deficits, and she wants the European Court of Justice to have jurisdiction over disputes." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16030374 "Off Tankerness on Orkney, the government said the prehistoric "faceless and brainless" amphioxus was recorded." "The rarely-seen species was regarded as a modern representative of the first animals that evolved a backbone, the Scottish government said." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-16346065 Makes you wonder whether the amphioxus are the early precursors of the majority of the fast disappearing Lib Dem Supporters who seem content to allow Clegg to be their face and brain despite him being a closet Tory and seemingly without a backbone ;O) The future? "The vast majority of leading economists polled by the BBC believe recession will return to Europe next year." I suspect the remaining economists believe that the recession never left.

Sun, 2012-01-01 05:24

#15

Mangone

Interestingly, while Europe is essentially struggling to set up a kind of Federal Reserve Ron Paul is advocating that the US should move in the opposite direction... No surprise then that he isn't popular with Wall Street. "Campaigning for the January 3 Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul warns of eroding civil liberties, a Soviet Union-style economic collapse and violence in the streets. The Texas congressman, author of 'End the Fed' also wants to eliminate the central banking system that underpins the world's largest economy." "Economists note that Paul's long-standing proposal to return the dollar to a gold standard would force the United States to relinquish control of its currency." "Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist with JPMorgan Chase said 'We would still have monetary policy - it would be set by gold miners in South Africa and Uzbekistan, rather than bureaucrats in Washington'" http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/26/us-usa-campaign-paul-idUSTRE7B...

Sun, 2012-01-01 06:10

#16

Mangone

From the viewpoint of those who think the government made a grave mistake the Tories have essentially spun their 'clumsy attempt to extract concessions from euro zone countries in their time of need' as a triumph over those EU elements that want central control of member countries fiscal policies backed up by the European Court of Justice. A 'triumph' that, arguably, only the Euro sceptics could reasonably support. In his article "Hara-kiri, British style", summarised below, Hugh Dixon spells out the spin and the dangers. I should stress that the article was posted on December 11th and some progress has been made since toward a more harmonius understanding between the UK and the other EU members. "The euro zone countries weren’t trying to impose fiscal discipline on Britain, only on themselves. In fact they weren’t trying to impose anything on the UK. True, France has often seemed like it wanted to undermine the City of London’s position as a financial center. But until now, it has had zero success because the UK has always managed to assemble enough allies to support its position. In future, though, that can no longer be guaranteed." "But it’s not too late to retrieve the situation. The business and financial community can and should put pressure on government to find some face-saving position that allows Britain to move on in harmony with the rest of Europe." "One pressure point are the Liberal Democrats, the minority partners in the coalition. They think of themselves as pro-Europeans and are aghast at Britain’s far from splendid isolation. Their leader, Nick Clegg, who is also the deputy prime minister, foolishly backed Cameron’s negotiating strategy without thinking through how it was likely to play out. He has now performed a U-turn, saying he is 'bitterly disappointed' at the outcome." "Salvaging the situation will be tricky. But Britain doesn’t have an interest in being at loggerheads with the rest of Europe or vice versa — especially when the region’s worst financial crisis in a lifetime is still raging." http://blogs.reuters.com/hugo-dixon/2011/12/12/hara-kiri-british-style/

Sun, 2012-01-01 11:52

#17

blighters rock

Hi Mangone, When I read what you said about Ron Paul it became ever clearer how tricky the human condition is. Throughout their fight against communism, America has slowly forgotten its own purpose and separated itself from its roots to become the antithesis of what it hoped to be. It now resembles a communist state for the people and a capitalist feeding-pot for the ultra-rich. The worst of both worlds, a country governed by Goldman Sachs greed. There is no room for humanity in their world, unless they can turn a dollar on it somehow. When we fight so hard against something we believe to be wrong, but then lose sight of our own moral compass and swerve away from true purpose, we ineviatbly become our enemy, the very thing we were led to believe that we should detest. There's never been a better time to fully embrace true socialism but that would mean taking back what's rightfully ours from capitalists, and they won't be doing that in a hurry.

Mon, 2012-01-02 03:59

#18

Mangone

An interesting ‘take’ Blighters. Your thoughts inspired this rambling reply which I have to admit I haven’t given much thought to but which, nevertheless, I hope might inspire some interesting replies :O) I think that it is ‘Materialism’ rather than ‘Capitalism’ that is the real root cause of most of the problems of the West; as the Bible says it is the LOVE of money (not money itself) that is the root of all evil. I think the most amazing thing about the American perceived ‘Enemy’ is how quickly it has changed from ‘Communism’ to ‘Terrorism’ and how much this has affected their attitude to China. Thank goodness the ‘better dead than Red’ mentality has waned but what has replaced it? Ostensibly it is the War On Terror but how does that explain the Iraq war? The invasion of Iraq under the pretext of WMD has morphed in the American mind to a ‘war against terror’ when, of course, it was essentially the opposite and actually took most of the resources from Afghanistan where the terrorist were to Iraq where they were not (but are now). Even worse, in my mind, is the latest American ‘take’ on the Iraq war which is ‘we went in to get rid of Saddam and bring freedom to the people of Iraq’ and to pat themselves on the back for yet another job well done by the forces of good in the name of Liberty… Who saved the world again? Americans that’s who! The really interesting question in my mind is whether the ‘Enemy’ is chosen by the ‘powers that be’ as a means to pass laws that give them greater control of their own people and, to some extent, their allies. Certainly the powers that, not just the US but also many Western, governments have armed themselves with over the last few years allow them to freeze the bank accounts of anyone they choose almost anywhere in the world… I think most of us have approved the freezing of the assets of various dictators and their allies that has helped steer the course of the Arab ‘Spring’ and yet it does demonstrate that these laws are not specific to ‘terrorists’ or ‘terrorism’ and are part of the growing armoury of ‘legal and economic weapons’ at the disposal of most governments should they wish to use them to further their own political ends. If we look at Syria for instance we see that despite the deaths of thousands of people and the latest news from Reuters “At least 286 killed since Arab League mission began…” - nothing much is being done. Yet President Assad simply claims that the unrest is a terrorist plot and continues to shoot protestors while the world looks on and yet does virtually nothing but mutter. So, is Ron Paul's message that America can't afford another war finally getting through to the powers that be or is it simply that America only saves the world when there is something in it for them?

Mon, 2012-01-02 11:40

#19

blighters rock

The Americans only pile in if there's something there for them. In Afghanistan, it's oil and heroin but also territory (the pass from Russia to west Europe). In Iraq, it's all about Iran, who the US see as the big problem. By wading into Iraq, they have good positioning for attack on Iran and can condition Iraqis against them in the same breath. All in all, there's the weird 'we know best' evangelical slant of the far right that feeds the spiritual smokescreen push for America, suggesting that they think everyone in the world should eat Big Macs, drink Coke and watch TV like gormless morons while their moneymen plunder farmers' stock on the markets so they can die of obesity, but that's an act of terror in itself; imagining that they can take away a nation's belief systems and natural lifestyle is naive, unworldly and selfish in the extreme. Unfortunately, the real terrorists are the western moneymen who feed off despair and trigger violence, poverty, famine and hunger so that they can be seen to stop it, but I suppose to say that's an act of terror in itself. Long live free speech.