[Batsy]

Brenda wrote:

Batsy wrote:

I also look upon the British as being the good guys in the EU. It's not our fault that the EU was set up by France and Germany to favour France and Germany only and to hell with the rest. It's not our fault the French and Germans make the EU undemocratic. It's not our fault that the childish Sarkozy has the nerve to call Cameron "childish" just because Cameron had the audacity to stand up for British interests rather than Franco-German interests. It's not our fault the French are whingeing because Cameron stood up for the City of London, which makes up ten percent of the British economy, even though Britain accepting a tax on financial services would be like France supporting a tax on cheese.

You realize there were 6 founders of the EU, and that Britain did not become a member some 20, 25 years later, right?

Yes, I realise that. Although we would have become members of the EU sooner than 1973 had the French under de Gaulle - him who was completely useless whilst the British liberated his country from Nazi rule - not vetoed Britain's application to join the EU (or the Common Market as it was known then) in 1963 and 1967.

[Batsy]

Brenda wrote:

saturn_656 wrote:

Brenda wrote:

You realize there were 6 founders of the EU, and that Britain did not become a member some 20, 25 years later, right?

Important to note that the reason why the British didn't join the EEC earlier wasn't because they weren't interested.

That spiteful wanker de Gaulle vetoed the UK's membership application.

In 1963... Not in 1950. The Brits were not interested at first. When their economy failed and they saw it would do them good, De Gaulle said "non".

You cannot link Britain's stance on the EU in the past to its stance on the EU now.

The vast majority of the British people today have NEVER had a say on whether or not they want to be in the EU.

Europhiles never tire of telling us that "the British voted in a referendum in 1975 to stay in the EU," neglecting to take note of the fact that that was 36 years ago and most British voters today either weren't even born in 1975 or they were too young to vote.

Even our Prime Minister, David Cameron, was only 8 years old when that EU referendum took place, he was only a baby when de Gaulle vetoed Britain's application to join the EU in 1967 and wasn't even born when de Gaulle vetoed Britain's application to join the EU in 1963.

[Batsy]

andyt wrote:

Britain doesn’t end up more isolated from Europe.

As as Terry Smith of brokerage firm Tullett Prebon told the BBC recently, Britain is ‘as isolated as someone left on the dock in Southampton as the Titanic sailed away.’

Quote:

The stakes are huge. This is a country, remember, whose annual trade with its 26 EU neighbours is between £140-billion and £185-billion, somewhere between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of all imports and exports. By comparison, it does £33.5-billion in business with the United States (15 per cent), £5.1-billion with China (2.3 per cent) and £3.6-billion with Canada (1.6 per cent).

It's worth pointing out that there is only one part of the world which Britain has a trade deficit with. That part of the world is the EU. Britain's trade is in balance with the world outside the EU but is in deficit with the EU.

This means that most of Britain's trade with the EU is IMPORTS from the EU to Britain. The EU imports more to Britain than Britain exports to the EU. This means that the EU sells more to Britain than Britain sells to the EU. In this respect, the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU. Why on Earth would the EU decide that it doesn't want to keep trading with an independent Britain? I mean, the Germans aren't going to suddenly decide that they don't want to sell BMWs to Britain anymore and the French aren't going to suddenly decide that they don't want to sell wines anymore to Britain. They just aren't going to do that.

In 2009, our trade deficit — the excess of what we bought over what we sold — in manufactured goods with the EU was a shade under £35 billion. So, due to the fact that the EU sells more to Britain than Britain does to the EU, it would be very much in the EU's interests to enact a free trade agreement with Britain were it to leave the EU.

And such a free trade agreement can be enacted. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to make a trade arrangement with any nation deciding to leave it. So, taking this into account, Britain can leave the EU and its trade with it will not be affected.

[Batsy]

Saturday, 10th December 2011

Ten myths about Cameron’s EU veto

Mats Persson
6:55pm
The Economist

Mats Persson is director of Open Europe. On Monday, Open Europe published a report "Continental shift: Safeguarding the UK’s financial trade in a changing Europe".



The EU veto that Cameron pulled in the early hours of Thursday morning has been widely misunderstood on all sides. Here are the 10 most common myths:

1. Because of Cameron’s veto, Britain lost a seat at the negotiating table.

Not true. The UK was never itself going to take part in the Merkozy pact (and potentially be subject to EU sanctions), and therefore not in the monthly, parallel EU meetings that will begin in January, either. Even if he had approved the Treaty changes, Cameron still would not have had a seat at the table. Wider political challenges aside, the veto didn’t change anything structurally in terms of UK influence.

2. Cameron’s veto created a two-tier Europe.

A two-tier (or, rather, multi-tier) Europe was a consequence of the formation of the euro, which would inevitably force its members closer together. Cameron’s veto was a reflection of a multi-tier Europe, not the cause of it.

3. The UK is now completely isolated.

Define isolated. Yes, Cameron expended a lot of political capital and frustrated many EU leaders — and he could have done some things differently, including sequenced his demands in a smarter way. But as Fraser pointed out earlier, the UK remains an open economy plugged into the global network. And given the state of the euro Britain is — as Terry Smith of brokerage firm Tullett Prebon told the BBC — ‘as isolated as someone left on the dock in Southampton as the Titanic sailed away.’

4. Cameron used his veto to protect a ‘tiny part of our economy’.

This claim slipped into the BBC’s Stephanie Flanders’ reports on Friday and is incorrect. Financial services accounted for a £35bn trade surplus last year — one of the few sectors that generated a surplus, as well almost 2 million jobs and it contributed £54bn in taxes.

5. Merkel got what she wanted.

This claim was also part of most broadcast reports and is equally untrue. Merkel got something, but, as Spiegel noted, she also ‘paid a high cost’ — compromising on ECJ budget powers and private sector involvement in future bailouts, for example — without achieving a lasting solution to the crisis. As yesterday’s FT Deutschland put it, ‘The next rescue summit is guaranteed to come.’

6. The UK is alone in expressing reservations about Merkozy’s deal.

Cameron was clearly all alone on the veto, but others are far from enthusiastic about what’s on offer. Part of the deal hit the wall in the Finnish Parliament, while the Swedish opposition parties are opposed to Sweden signing up, meaning that the deal may not make it through the Riksdag. Håkan Juholt, the leader of the Social Democrats, said, ‘The Swedish people rejected the single currency in a referendum and we have to respect that. We have no intention of becoming members through the backdoor.’

7. The UK asked for ‘special exemptions’.

Whether or not he asked for the right things, Cameron did not demand UK-specific ‘opt outs’ from regulations, but for the reinstatement of general vetoes over transfers of power to the EU’s financial supervisors and a guarantee that business and trading activities won’t be pushed inside the eurozone through regulation. The closest he got to an opt-out was a proposal to exempt certain types of businesses that only operate in one country from certain aspects of EU regulation.

8. Cameron went to Europe to protect greedy bankers.

One of his demands was to be able to impose stricter rules on banks (capital requirements) in order to avoid future taxpayer-backed bailouts of bankers.

9. The 17+ can easily use the EU institutions to enforce their decisions, making Cameron’s veto pointless.

ECJ case law clearly states that an ad hoc group of countries can use the EU institutions but only subject to an agreement by all EU member states sharing and paying for the institutions. This means that the UK still has a veto. Some EU leaders are now set on manipulating EU law to get around the UK veto (we’ve been here before). It’s not easy, but they may succeed. However, to criticise Cameron for this is to blame someone for losing in poker because the rules changed mid-way through the game.

To be fair, there have also been some misconceptions among those who would defend Cameron.

10. The veto was about blocking the financial transaction tax and specific financial regulations.

Not quite. Cameron already had a separate veto over the FTT, and the Treaty changes were merely about tightening the eurozone’s budget rules (from which the UK already has an opt-out). The veto was always a lever to push for safeguards against the UK being sidelined on key economic issues (i.e. financial regulation) in future as the eurozone integrated further. It was not a protective measure in itself.

So leaving misconceptions and domestic politics aside, did Cameron ‘trip over his own red line’ by spending a veto without actually getting any specific safeguards in return? There is a risk. But the truth is that it all depends on what happens next. As dramatic as Cameron’s veto may seem now, I suspect it is merely one of many acts.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...-eu-veto.thtml

[EyeBrock]

"Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off".

[Batsy]

EyeBrock wrote:

"Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off".

Yeah. Cameron should have just played the nice little poodle and given the French and Germans what they wanted, even though what they wanted were definitely not in Britain's interests.

No. I'm being sarcastic. Cameron did the right thing and has the support of the majority of the British people. His stance has made him by far the most popular of the three main party leaders. He has been given what has been called a Brussels Bounce.

A poll in the Guardian shows 48% think Cameron is doing a "good job" compared to 33% of people who think Nick Clegg is doing a "good job" and just 32% who think Ed Miliband - the Labour leader who showed himself out-of-touch by condemning what Cameron did even though the majority of people support what Cameron did - is doing a "good job."

Quote:

David Cameron is enjoying a clear popularity lead over his rivals, according to a Christmas poll released today.

The Tories have enjoyed a boost in the polls following the Prime Minister’s veto of a proposed EU treaty in Brussels earlier this month, at one point establishing a six point lead over Labour.

The poll, of 1,300 adults by ICM for the Guardian, also asked whether the two main party leaders were ‘good in a crisis’.
Half thought that Mr Cameron was, while 40 per cent disagreed.

For Mr Miliband, the position was reversed, with just 21 per cent finding him good in a crisis and 44 per cent saying he was not.
Some 55 per cent said Mr Cameron had the courage to say what is right rather than what is popular, against 37 per cent who disagreed.

On the same measure, Mr Miliband scored 41 per cent positive responses, against 43 per cent negative.

Just 34 per cent of voters said the Prime Minister ‘understands people like me’, while 59 per cent said he did not.

Mr Miliband scored only slightly better, with 37 per cent saying he understood people like them and 47 per cent disagreeing.

Perhaps most worryingly for Labour after a year in which growth has slumped and some observers are predicting a ‘double dip’ recession, 44 per cent of those questioned said they thought Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne were best able to handle the economy.

Just 23 per cent backed Mr Miliband and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1hqiLNvUf