The Eurozone Crisis

Nicodeamus

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
14,477
Reaction score
4,530
David Cameron was today slammed as "weak" after dramatically vetoing a new EU treaty.
Advertisement >>

Labour leader Ed Miliband condemned the move, which could leave Britain isolated from the rest of Europe.

In a message on Twitter, Mr Miliband said: "Outcome at last night's EU summit was a sign of weakness from David Cameron - why did he fail to build alliances before the summit?"

Former foreign secretary David Miliband also criticised the Tory leader's decision.

"UK jumped into rowing boat with Hungary next to 25 nation supertanker. That is weakness not strength," he tweeted.

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said Mr Cameron's "isolation" in Europe was "a sign of weakness not of strength".

"Britain this morning is more isolated than at any point in the 35 years of British membership of Europe," he said.

"It is not in Britain's national interest for decisions to be taken without us even at the table. It's a direct result of David Cameron spending more time negotiating with his own backbenchers than with our European partners."

At least 23 of the 27 member states are now going ahead with their own treaty to bring in tougher economic sanctions and restore single market credibility and stability.

Only the UK and Hungary were certain today to stay out of the new grouping, with Sweden and the Czech Republic consulting their parliaments before deciding.

But Mr Cameron was unapologetic at a dawn press conference in Brussels after 10 hours of talks at a summit in Brussels.

He said he wished the eurozone well with its new treaty, but the UK could not accept it as the safeguards he had demanded were not on offer.

The Prime Minister declared: "I had to pursue very doggedly what was in Britain's interests, which is very difficult in a room where people are pressing you to sign up to things because they say it is in all our interests."
David Cameron pauses before speaking during a media conference at an EU summit in Brussels (Pic: AP)

What was in Britain's interests, said Mr Cameron, was to win guarantees that in return for backing a 27-nation treaty change to bring in a new "fiscal compact", the UK's voice in crucial policy issues on the single market and the financial services sector - vital for the City of London - would not be diminished.

Without such guarantees he did not back the treaty, prompting Germany and France to lead the move to set up a separate treaty to achieve their aims.

He insisted the decision to create a new, separate treaty instead of being able to forge a "treaty within a treaty" did not leave Britain isolated.

Ideally Mr Cameron wanted a treaty change agreed by all 27, with the necessary UK safeguards to ensure crucial decisions were not taken with full UK involvement.

But before the summit the Prime Minister said that even a "17-plus" deal did not mean any change in Britain's own EU treaty obligations.

Efforts to agree a 27-way treaty change were abandoned just before dawn, after 10 hours of talks on what to do to pave the way for tougher economic rules and thus more market confidence in the ability of the euro to overcome its troubles and avoid future seismic shocks to the system.

Mr Cameron argued hotly that he needed to take home clear evidence that British backing would not mean compromising the country in Europe.

Early today some were saying that a separate treaty including the vast majority of member states amounted to far more risk of isolation, with the new grouping bound to consider issues vital to the UK without a British representative in the room.

Mr Cameron was sanguine, saying he wished the eurozone well with its new treaty, but it was not for the UK without the safeguards he demanded.

"We wish them well because we want everyone to sort out their problems because we all need that (economic) growth," he said.

He denied any deeply damaging rift as a result, saying: "There were strong disagreements but it was good-natured. People understood each other. That relationship will be maintained and will work well, but at the end of the day I made my judgment that it was not in Britain's interests (to take part).

"I effectively wielded the veto."
Nicolas Sarkozy speaks during a news conference at an European Union summit in Brussels (Pic: Reuters)

Nicolas Sarkozy

French president Nicolas Sarkozy staged his own press conference to declare that Mr Cameron had made "unacceptable" demands for exemptions from certain financial regulations in return for joining in the "fiscal compact" enshrined in the treaty change.
Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (Pic: AP)

Nicolas Sarkozy, Jose Manuel Barroso and Angela Merkel

And European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said he regretted that unanimity on treaty change had not been possible.

"Those that have today approved this new fiscal compact have stated that they want to put it as soon as possible into a new fully-fledged treaty, after revision of the current treaties," he said.

"Having seen it was not possible to get unanimity, it was the proper decision to go ahead at least with those ready to commit immediately. That includes all 17 in the eurozone, plus some who are not in the euro area but want to take part in this fiscal compact."
EU Summit graphic

French President Nicolas Sarkozy emerged from the talks saying David Cameron had made "unacceptable" demands for exemptions from certain financial regulations in return for joining in the "fiscal compact" which is to be enshrined in the treaty change.

Mr Sarkozy said: "We were not able to accept (the British demands) because we consider quite the contrary - that a very large and substantial amount of the problems we are facing around the world are a result of lack of regulation of financial services and therefore can't have a waiver for the United Kingdom."
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (Pic: Reuters)

Jose Manuel Barroso

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he regretted that unanimity on treaty change had not been possible.

"Those that have today approved this new fiscal compact have stated that they want to put it as soon as possible into a new fully fledged treaty, after revision of the current treaties.

"Having seen it was not possible to get unanimity, it was the proper decision to go ahead at least with those ready to commit immediately. That includes all 17 in the eurozone, plus some who are not in the euro area but want to take part in this fiscal compact."

He added: "We would have preferred a unanimous agreement. This was not possible so I think the only alternative was to do it through this kind of inter-governmental treaty."

Meanwhile Mr Cameron insisted the outcome was no cause for a renewal of calls for a referendum in the UK. The Prime Minister dismissed suggestions that today's outcome would increase the Tory eurosceptic clamour for a referendum.

"This is not going to be a treaty that Britain is signed up to, so I don't think this is an issue that arises.

"This new round of integration and special powers, and surrenders of sovereignty for European countries and others who want to join the euro - they will be carried on outside the European Union Treaty. So we will not be presenting this new treaty, when it's agreed, to our Parliament. It will not involve Britain."

He said what he had decided had been "the right thing for Britain - a tough decision but the right one".

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-new-eu-treaty-115875-23621829/#ixzz1g23bmub5

I have to applaud Cameron for sticking to his guns, a combined fiscal plan will totally undermine any sovereignty of Brittain in the EU zone. I wonder if we are going to see countries leaving the zone after Friday.
 
Last edited:
mmm, the EU is going pear-shaped, fast.

the only way to save the Euro is for member countries to relinquish control of their budgets to the central EU bank.
That's a very undemocratic move and citizens of member countries will never agree to it as it smells too much like WW2 third reich policies.

option a = force it on the member countries = riots & civil unrest & police state situation.
option b = countries go back to their old currencies while insisting to pay off their Euro debts in Euros's (which will be worth nothing after the move)

Either way, the EU member states have MASSIVE problems.


As the strongest member state with least to lose Germany has "apparently" started printing Deutschmarks in October already.
Just in-case.
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk...urrencyinCaseEuroDitched/2011/10/04/id/413225
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/10/germany-printing-deutsche-marks-very.html
 
mmm, the EU is going pear-shaped, fast.

the only way to save the Euro is for member countries to relinquish control of their budgets to the central EU bank.
That's a very undemocratic move and citizens of member countries will never agree to it as it smells too much like WW2 third reich policies.

option a = force it on the member countries = riots & civil unrest & police state situation.
option b = countries go back to their old currencies while insisting to pay off their Euro debts in Euros's (which will be worth nothing after the move)

Either way, the EU member states have MASSIVE problems.


As the strongest member state with least to lose Germany has "apparently" started printing Deutschmarks in October already.
Just in-case.
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk...urrencyinCaseEuroDitched/2011/10/04/id/413225
http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/10/germany-printing-deutsche-marks-very.html

So, Germany is taking over Europe again. ;)

Seriously. The problem arose when Europe became uncompetitive and the use of government funds to create a social grant system to keep the politicians in power as they are "providing" to the citizens. But due to the 1) negative birth rate, 2) old age population, 3) the social grant system leading to a youth generation that doesn't want to work and (for you get more money doing nothing than working) and 4) lying of GDP (aka Greece), the income generated by tax was decreasing and funds were required to "live the great EU life" This was funded by debt. This has been going on for a good 20 years, and now, the party is over and the hangover kicked in.

Yes, the population will riot. If someone takes away free transit (aka Greece), tell you to work for your social grant (laziness), tell you to put effort in, spend less, etc. etc., you will riot. But the riots are due to having nanny states looking after you for so long, your citizens start acting like children (okay, this is a BIG generalisation).

So, we have use-to-be-rich parents, that spoilt their children, now ran out of money and the whole dynasty is falling flat on its face. And the best is that the family is trying to tell the rest of the world how to run their business.

The lands of milk and honey has changes to the lands of water and stale bread.
 
Well said Creeper. Credit to Cameron he has balls after all.

The lunatics from left like Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein are arguing the problem is too little spending lol
 
Last edited:
Gee whiz: I wonder why Sarkozy is so pissed, given that France receives more in EU farming subsidies than it spends on its EU membership fees ...
 
Well said Creeper. Credit to Cameron he has balls after all.

The lunatics from left like Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein are arguing the problem is too little spending lol

Cameron doesn't have balls he has brains. Blair has balls refusing the euro and he more tan likely saved england going bankrupt.

Blaire may have been many thing but he will go down as the man who saved england :D.
 
Cameron doesn't have balls he has brains. Blair has balls refusing the euro and he more tan likely saved england going bankrupt.

Blaire may have been many thing but he will go down as the man who saved england :D.

None of those idiots have balls or brains, lets just say they have luck. lol
 
Cameron doesn't have balls he has brains.

I haven't been following this too much but
Mr Sarkozy said: "We were not able to accept (the British demands) because we consider quite the contrary - that a very large and substantial amount of the problems we are facing around the world are a result of lack of regulation of financial services and therefore can't have a waiver for the United Kingdom."
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso (Pic: Reuters)

Which isn't that exactly how all this got to where it is
 
I haven't been following this too much but


Which isn't that exactly how all this got to where it is

Which is total nonsense, the housing market used to be the most regulated market. The financial crisis goes down to the Fiat currency system and now politicians and mainstream economists are trying to blame people with a he said she said game without conceding what the root cause is.
 
Whether or not Britain is part of the EC, there will always be trading agreements. The EC need Britain as much as she needs the EC, and money talks. I would believe what Angela Merkel says, but Sarkosy does a hell of a lot of posturing, trying to be "in with his German neighbour". France has a fraction of the GDP of Germany, yet wants to play with the big boys. And some French banks are in not too good a financial shape either.
 
Which isn't that exactly how all this got to where it is

No. Countries ran up too much debt by spending too much. That is the problem. Countries that were prudent weathered the storm caused by the banking crises
 
Sounds like Cameron wanted nothing to do with the "Financial transaction tax" "robin hood tax" so not hard to see who he's really supporting ha.
Would agree it needs to go worldwide to work tho,Wall street ain't going to wear that one.

Not hard to see who's running the show is it
 
No. Countries ran up too much debt by spending too much. That is the problem. Countries that were prudent weathered the storm caused by the banking crises

Correct me if i am wrong alan but a strong euro for instance would mean less exporting, now in a country like spain they could devalue their currency and get their country back on track but they are locked into a currency that they have no control over.

Perhaps that is not correct but what i mean is when spain hits the wall there is no way to get out, if they where not using the euro they would become more competitive due to their currency weakening. My understanding of all of this is lacking so feel free to correct because i may have it all wrong :D.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if i am wrong alan but a strong euro for instance would mean less exporting, now in a country like spain they could devalue their currency and get their country back on track but they are locked into a currency that they have no control over.

Perhaps that is not correct but what i mean is when spain hits the wall there is no way to get out, if they where not using the euro they would become more competitive due to their currency weakening. My understanding of all of this is lacking so feel free to correct because i may have it all wrong :D.

For countries in the EU there are no stabilizers.

You are correct, whatever comparative advantage in trade Southern European countries had before joining the one currency system was forfeit when they joined the EU.
 
many "in the know" claim the Euro is dead/dying and whatever is being done now is only delaying it's burial.
i.o.w. they're merely "buying time" to get their ducks in a row for the funeral after-party.

I guess only time will tell.
 
[video=youtube;Tetk_ayO1x4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tetk_ayO1x4&feature=related[/video]

The ghost of Thatcher is telling the EU: "well I told you so".
 
The ghost of Thatcher is telling the EU: "well I told you so".

Also an interesting watch here - don't think part 2 is out yet
[video=youtube_share;gWtrbGWixRQ]http://youtu.be/gWtrbGWixRQ[/video]
 
Well phuck a duck, Europe is going to become a bunch of beggars just like us. Bread and Water for you peasants.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X