Essentially, Cameron has gone on strike from his job as a statesman because he’s in thrall to his City and hedge fund paymasters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49051562-20f0-11e1-8a43-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fa2mAjAL

And I would suggest that this could damage Britain and its economy rather more than the one day public sector strike on November 30th.

We’ll know if Labour has moved on sufficiently from New Labour if Miliband and Balls have the nerve and the good sense to make this link explicit in the coming days.

This is not just about the internal politics of the Tory party. Its about the sectional interests that party stands for. Labour knows Cameron’s weak point with the public is the sense that he’s of the elite and out of touch with ordinary people’s concerns. That he would marginalise Britain at such a crucial time, at least partly to protect his party funders, the somewhat unpopular banks, is an absolute gift to Labour, if they choose to use it.

Ok Sunny what would you have done instead??

You might not like what he did but to call the man impotent when he vetoed a european wide agreement is wide of the mark.

“The latest news is that the 17 Eurozone countries will negotiate amongst themselves to deliver a treaty change and ignore David Cameron.”

Just how are they going to “deliver a treaty change” without the UK?

So you’d rather be governed from Brussels, Paris and Berlin would you Sunny?

Cameron has vetoed the new treaty, and what is left in its wake is an optional arrangement. I would guess more and more EU law will become optional in the UK here on out.

Whilst I’m sure not all eurosceptic MPs will be totally happy, the chance of any further UK integration with the EU is now almost nil, which will certainly please some.

First of all this is a partisan post which has little connection to reality.

Second, the 23 member agreement IS NOT A TREATY as it Cannot use European Institutions including the European Commission – whether Barroso likes it or not – the Commission works for all 27 members and legally there cannot be a treaty. And its is an intergovernmental agreement which would not even probably convince markets or the US or China.

Third, despite the pathetic attempts by some on the Labour side the NO is a good thing for Britain but obviously we cannot expect a party who signed up to the Lisbon Treaty without giving the British public a vote which entrenched qualified majority voting to understand national interest.

Fourth, The overwhelming majority of the British public – people who actually pay the Prime Minister as well as the Leader of the Opposition’s salary would back the PM.- would actually back the PM despite the best efforts of the delusional Labour party led by a incompetent muppet.

But I do understand why this post appeared – Cameron doing anything good for Britain is not acceptable to the Labour party or Liberal Conspiracy – instead they would want to be David Miliband and Heseltine who wants to sign up to treaties that erode our national sovereignty.

And if you go an talk to people in India, China, Singapore or even the US – no one takes the EU seriously and everyone works on building individual relations with individual countries.

Well done Prime Minister and sad to see that the party which stopped Britain getting into the Euro (right thing) is now bitching about the PM.

Erm, they can’t deliver a “treaty change” without unanimous agreement.

And what is wrong with a “two speed” Europe?
There was one already anyway: in or out of the euro.
Better to be in the “fast” or “slow” lane on that one??

Schadenfreude might be great fun but I’m glad we weren’t forced into a treaty that effectively made us part of the Eurozone. We really stand to lose out either way, but this way at least we retain our currency and our central bank.

Given the deep problems of the Eurozone and the benefits we have had by retaining our sovereign currency any treaty that merely tried to maintain the Euro project without recognising its inherent faults would have been simply postponing the inevitable crisis.

A treaty enforcing greater fiscal discipline and more power to Brussels without a mention of the democratic deficit in the running of the EU should be anathema to any government. It really shows how panicked the main EU leaders are that it’s even mentioned. The idea that such discipline would be maintained if France or Germany were in trouble is laughable given their previous records.

Of course, had we been a more enthusiastic participant in the past we may have never had to face this situation.

Despite all its drawbacks a collapse of the Euro would mean a financial collapse in the UK bigger than 2008. But it seems Tory Eurosceptics don’t care about the economic impact of a Euro collapse – they just want their referendum at any cost, everyone else be damned.

You have, unsurprisingly, got this arse about face. The only way that Cameron could have signed up to a new Treaty was if he had absolute, written-in opt-outs and vetoes – enough to be able to claim in the Commons that no powers were being transferred from the UK to the EU. Because if that wasn’t the case (and wasn’t clearly and provably the case) the UK would have to have had a referendum before signing up to the Treaty.

Since France and Germany weren’t prepared to offer these, Cameron had two choices – accept the new Treaty, go home and put to a referendum, which would be lost; or veto the new Treaty. In fact, not only weren’t France and Germany prepared to offer these, they made it clear that one of the points of the new Treaty would be to harmonise financial regulation by QMV – a very clear transfer of power from the UK to the EU.

Merkozy have bot only forced Cameron to choose between the interests of the UK and the interests of the EZ, they’ve done so in a way that made it literally impossible for him to side with the EZ. Portraying this as a failure of the UK’s negotiating is pretty strong work, even by your standards.

From the OP:

“I’m not the biggest fan of the Euro”

and

“saving the Euro should be first priority”.

Bizarre.

Sunny,

Both Cameron and his MPs are completely impotent at a time of the biggest financial crisis Europe has faced in 60 years.

And here is your key mistake – the strange assumption that by not agreeing to pass national power over economic decisions to the EU, the government of the UK has been made impotent. Surely the measure of potency (which is the ability to wield power, that is the ability to have the ability to do something if you wish) is the ability to make your own decisions.

It is worth noting that under the proposed treaty’s apparent plans for economic caution, Ed Balls’ plans for increased public spending would not be possible – he would be rendered impotent if he were in government (and much as I dislike the idea of Ed Balls running the economy, I dislike the idea of Ed Balls as Chancellor not being able to implement his policies on which his government was elected even more). So it is hardly a matter of impotence to reject these measures for example – it is a clear case of allowing British democracy the potency it needs for governments of any stripe.

This sort of short-term political point scoring is beneath you – especially when what Mr Cameron is standing aside from is effectively the sort of right-wing, big-government consensus that is as anathematic to you as it is to me. If this had been Mr Milliband doing the same, would you not be applauding him?

Jack C,

Sunny apparently believes the failure of the Euro would be the economic disaster some are predicting. It seems to be a common point of view amongst commentators, and may even be correct, which would explain the dichotomy of views there.

“PM ‘like man who wants to go to wife swapping party without taking his own wife’”

They are more fun if you go on your own though.

Good news.

@2 – he’s impotent because instead of doing anything to prevent economic collapse, he’s just walked into the meeting and ruined any chance of a resolution because he wants to appear tough on Europe.

It’s all well and good being ‘tough on Europe’ until they collapse and they drag the UK economy down even further too. Not that the UK economy needs much help in that regard thanks to the Tories.

DaveW,

he’s impotent because instead of doing anything to prevent economic collapse, he’s just walked into the meeting and ruined any chance of a resolution because he wants to appear tough on Europe.

How was any of what has been agreed at the meeting helping the immediate crisis – the Euro is not failing due to lack of political integration, but due to economic factors which were not discussed. And note Mr Cameron was quite happy for the Eurozone countries to take forward measures they felt necessary amongst themselves – his problem was purely applying measures to the UK.

It’s all well and good being ‘tough on Europe’ until they collapse and they drag the UK economy down even further too. Not that the UK economy needs much help in that regard thanks to the Tories.

So you would support measures that harm to UK economy further? Hardly a logical position there.

@ 11, Watchman:

Yes, but Sunny’s position appears to be:

1) that the current Euro structure is not the best available option, but that,
2) no other alternatives should be considered.

DaveW:

I don’t think you can be “impotent”, whilst having and using the power to “ruin any chance of a resolution”.

Another Sunny dichotomy;

On one hand he is against austerity, and wants extra spending to boost growth, despite the UK’s huge budget deficit.

On the other, he wants us to join an EU treaty which would force the UK to cut even faster than Osbourne’s current plans and limit any future deficits.

@5 Shamit

I agree – Sunny has completely misread the situation.

As an FT editorial aptly described the German policy for an EU fiscal union: austerity on steroids. The obsessional focus is with fiscal discipline but that will do absolutely nothing for countries which persisting competitiveness problems.

Try Martin Wolf in the FT on: Merkozy failed to save the Euro

“In the absence of external adjustment, the fiscal cuts imposed on fragile members will just cause prolonged and deep recession. Once the role of external adjustment is recognised, the core issue becomes not fiscal austerity but needed shifts in competitiveness. If one rules out exits, this requires a buoyant eurozone economy, higher inflation and credit expansion in surplus countries. All of this now seems inconceivable.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/396ff020-1ffd-11e1-8662-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1g29kGSVG

Interesting how tories like to protect banking and farming. Oh silly sally, they are the backbone of the tory party.

I also find it amusing those on the right who bang on about national sovereignty are happy with signing up to free trade agreements. If you like free trade you hate national sovereignty.

“As an FT editorial aptly described the German policy for an EU fiscal union: austerity on steroids”

Noooooooooooooooooo! The EU would not!

I love it when the tory trolls do their little speech about being governed from Brussels. Because of course we all know they are happy to be governed from Washington.

Tory trolls would just give our sovereignty to someone else.

Let’s see. The euro is totally flawed. It has a single exchange rate, which favours Germany but is too strong for Greece. It has a single interest rate, which favours Germany but is too low to stop Greeks trying to live like Germans by borrowing too much. It has a central bank that cannot act as a lender of last resort. The EU’s overwhelming rules and regulations make it impossible for all but the most productive economies – Germany and to some extent France – compete in world markets.

But the EU technocrats and majority of EU leaders won’t admit these flaws. Instead they want to solve this unviable situation by more EU rules and regulations.

I don’t like Cameron; the man is a lightweight. But he might have just done the right thing. So we are outside the tent p*ssing in. So what. I’d rather we leave the EU altogether. Yes, it’ll be tough, very tough. But it won’t be half as tough as anchoring ourselves to an institution where they cannot admit failure and where they would rather reduce the whole population to penuary rather than admit failure.

@21: “Noooooooooooooooooo! The EU would not!”

Time and again, the competence of the EU Commission at basic economic analysis has been found wanting. By the Maastricht criteria, only Luxembourg met the convergence criteria. Just a week or so back Delors was saying the carefully laid plans for monetary union had been ignored.

The Eurozone is NOT an optimal currency area. It has no plans for dealing with diverging competitiveness which predictably results in members countries with chronic trade surpluses and chronic trade deficits. Piling on austerity to correct for fiscal deficits will simply create a mechansim for enduring recession.

And what this piece misses bigtime is the undermining of demoratically elected governments and entrenching power in the hands of unelected, unaccountable eurocrats – and I for one welcome that there was one leader in that room who actually stood up for democracy and the will of the national Parliament – it was David Cameron.

I really love it when the so called Left talk about elitism but at the same time support undermining democracy – so voters don’t matter and now despite viagra driven Sarkozy’s grandoise statements – can he carry France -

yesterday, Marie Le Pen’s popularity within “working class” voters rose to 43% – what happens if a new French Parliament and President don’w ish to obey Brussels diktat/

***************************

The biggest joke came from the Muppet of the year.

Britain did not have an influence hence the outcome – well I guess if he was PM he would have flown in to Brussels, like his mentor The most venerable Gordon Brown, in the middle of the night and signed away British Sovereignty.

That according to the muppet is actually having influence.

What a bloody joke –

*********************************

“Time and again, the competence of the EU Commission at basic economic analysis has been found wanting. ”

Its only the views of one or two within the great institution so it doesn’t matter, apparently…

I have mixed feelings on this. I agree that to sign up to this deal wouldn’t have been in the UK’s interests, but that it is actually the fiscal autonomy than the crap about protecting the City that is relevant.

The City can look after itself. Yes, it is very important to the British economy, but it has also had enough help since the crisis started and is back on its feet. The rest cannot be said about the rest of the UK economy. If Cameron made half as much effort looking after the UK economy as a whole, instead of looking after the interests of the City then we would have flat economic growth.

The Tory Eurosceptics are the most mental people in this whole debate. The idea that repatriating powers from Europe, so that we can repeal laws that give very limited protection to agency workers and give the UK workforce basic sick and holiday pay rights, will somehow help economic growth is absolute lunacy. It is economic lunacy because fundamentally it is a lack of demand that the UK economy suffers from at the moment. Hurting vulnerable workers doesn’t help at all.

In conclusion, whilst I don’t think veto that particular deal was wrong, but the real question is could he have negotiated on the points around fiscal union and essentially made the treaty pretty reasonable, if he hadn’t spend so much time whining about protecting the interests of his banker mates? Maybe, maybe not but we will never know. Clearly however, there was an approach that would have been more likely to be met with success and not left Britain isolated. Shame he didn’t try.

*wouldn’t have flat economic growth

@27: “In conclusion, whilst I don’t think veto that particular deal was wrong, but the real question is could he have negotiated on the points around fiscal union and essentially made the treaty pretty reasonable, if he hadn’t spend so much time whining about protecting the interests of his banker mates?”

All reports make it clear that Merkozy were intent on “saving” the Eurozone via a “fiscal union” where that is defined as a system for supervising and enforcing strict fiscal discipline without any policies for dealing with diverging competitiveness and the resulting trade imbalances that produces.

In mainstream economics, fiscal unions are usually understood to include fiscal mechanisms for transferring finance from persisting surplus regions (or countries) to persisting deficit regions (or countries) to alleviate the recessionary pressures in the latter. See these estimates on regional transfer by Oxford Economics for the UK prior to the financial crisis: Regional winners and losers in UK public finances:
http://www.isitfair.co.uk/Reports/Public/OE%20UKPublicFinance.pdf

No such mechanism is proposed for the EU fiscal union so the problem of what to do about the continuing depressing effects of trade deficits remains unresolved – and member countries in currency unions can’t devalue national currencies to restore competitiveness. With loss of national autonomy for monetary policy issues, they also can’t set interest national rates to suit national conditions.

The issue with diverging competitiveness was spelt out by the late Rudi Donbusch in a paper for Foreign Affairs in September 1996 on: Euro fantasies and in subsequent editions of his popular text on: Macroeoconomics (McGraw-Hill). It’s basically the same criticism being made by Martin Wolf of the FT in recent commentary. The fundamental cause of the Eurozone crisis is a crisis derived from persisting trade imbalances.

25 Usual clap trap about the left undimining the voter.

Since 1973 when the tories took us into the EU (without a referendum) how many times have tories given the people a say on Europe? Answer NONE…ZERO……ZILCH.

So spare us your hot air speech about democracy. The reason tories were so keen to take us into the common market was because they liked the idea of tying UK to a free market trade system. Thatcher got it wrong when she said the EU was socialism by the back door. It was originally Capitalism by the back door. Free trade market system imposed from the top.

That is why many on the left opposed it. They could see the danger of unelected bankers governing over us. Kind of Ironic that we now have a tory leader who wants to protect his banker mates.

@23 – It’ll be tough on the poor, YOU’D be fine.

@25 – Wrong way round. This UK government has a FAR smaller average mandate than the EU’s Commission, and the EU Parliament has a far stronger working majority than the coalition. NO surprise you’re talking up neo-nazi pieces of shit, shows where your allegiance is as well.

Cameron’s damage to the EU and UK economy as a result of this is predictable. The 23 treaty countries now needs to take measures to protect themselves against the inevitable bubble the City will again inflate in the longer term.

@ 22 Sally

“I love it when the tory trolls do their little speech about being governed from Brussels. Because of course we all know they are happy to be governed from Washington. ”

I know I’ll probably regret asking this, but do you have ANY evidence for this? At all?

Unlike the Labour Party who want to reward rich European bankers, city slickers and spivs with working class European worker’s money, Cameron has frankly played a blinder – I certainly take everything back I’ve said about him.

Finally a British Prime Minister NOT prepared to make bankers richer with poor people’s money – who’d have thought it?

Now if we can just get these idiots in government to stop making wealthy landowners even richer with poor peoples money with their stupid wind turbines we may be onto something.

The sight of Labour – a political party who used to care about the workers and the poor advocating taxes to reward the wealthy was just too much to take.

Wee Dougie Alexander should bugger off back to Scotland and take his grubby cohorts with him – Labour is on the wrong side of the curve as usual and this article serves only to remind people how out of touch they really are.

Labour just don’t get it – great article….

@33 – Nope, a PM making us all poorer. Right on, just what you want, punishment for the poor!

Mr Cameron has veto’d an EU wide financial transaction tax on the banks and that makes me feel a little bit ashamed – all the stuff about standing up for britains interest is nonsense, he is standing up for the global super rich and british people will have to continue to pay the bill for their mistakes.

33 idiot troll.

No one protects bankers more than the tories.

But so predictable that the right always pretends it is trying to help the little guy. When the right calls for tax cuts it is always for the benefit of the rich. When the right does anything it is always fo the rich.

@31 Cameron’s damage to the EU and UK economy as a result of this is predictable. The 23 treaty countries now needs to take measures to protect themselves against the inevitable bubble the City will again inflate in the longer term”

What do you mean?

32. Never heard of the so called special relationship? Which basically means we sign up to every half baked Us war.

Britain no longer has an Empire but plays along with the new American Empire. Kenneth Clark will shortly be pushing through CIA law to hold more trials of British citizens in secret. Watch out for how many tory eurosceptic national sovereignty loving tories vote for it.

No better under New labour who pushed through much of the Bush patriot act under the guise of fighting terrorism. Most tories would like to impose US healthcare if they could get away with it. Tories would be happier being 51st state than in Europe. In fact many have argued that we should join the American free trade agreement.

@37 – I mean a FTT which penalises non-members, for starters.

39 – I meant what did you mean by the damage you claim Cameron has/will cause, I wasn’t asking about the damage the EU are seeking to cause.

It’s not much good going to a wife swapping party if you are impotent.

@29

“All reports make it clear that Merkozy were intent on “saving” the Eurozone via a “fiscal union” where that is defined as a system for supervising and enforcing strict fiscal discipline without any policies for dealing with diverging competitiveness and the resulting trade imbalances that produces.”

So if it is the case that no deal could be agreed because we find that unacceptable fine, I’d be far happier with us opposing that, than coming up with bullshit about “British interests” – when what he actually means is “my mates in the City, who are some of the richest people in Europe”

“In mainstream economics, fiscal unions are usually understood to include fiscal mechanisms for transferring finance from persisting surplus regions (or countries) to persisting deficit regions (or countries) to alleviate the recessionary pressures in the latter. See these estimates on regional transfer by Oxford Economics for the UK prior to the financial crisis: Regional winners and losers in UK public finances:
http://www.isitfair.co.uk/Reports/Public/OE%20UKPublicFinance.pdf”

My only comment on that is that the regional winners and losers commentary, doesn’t take into account that economic policy is geared towards certain regions in the firstplace – that is however a separate issue.

“The issue with diverging competitiveness was spelt out by the late Rudi Donbusch in a paper for Foreign Affairs in September 1996 on: Euro fantasies and in subsequent editions of his popular text on: Macroeoconomics (McGraw-Hill). It’s basically the same criticism being made by Martin Wolf of the FT in recent commentary. The fundamental cause of the Eurozone crisis is a crisis derived from persisting trade imbalances.”

I actually agree entirely that this crisis is about persisting trade imbalances. Duncan Weldon’s view here is very interesting:-

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2011/12/the-eurozone-crisis-as-a-balance-of-payments-crisis-one-possible-solution/

I mean a FTT which penalises non-members, for starters.

You’re going to have to be more specific than that. In what way would an FTT that doesn’t apply to the UK be more harmful than an FTT that does?

One recurring problem of the EU is that effusions of political froth and sentiment are repeatedly allowed to trump hard economic analysis with disastrous consequences.

That is why the Eurozone is in the mess it is despite the best laid plans of Jacques Delors, when he was president of the EU Commission, and any amount of warnings in an extensive prior academic literature.

Eurozone national economies plainly haven’t “converged”, which is a fundamental requirement for sustaining a stable currency union. Merkozy evidently believe the correct answer to that is just enforceable fiscal discipline – but that won’t resolve the problems created by persisting trade imbalances created by diverging competitiveness.

@42 – Let’s see, a 10x value on trades with companies in the nations using it for ones outside, for starters… (and of course, “in the nations” being determined not by HQ, but by assets)

@40 – You haven’t noticed the dire state the Government has brought our economy to?

@ 33 – Sally

No government in history rewarded the bankers, city slickers and spivs like the last Labour one.

From knighthoods and everything the Labour Party hammered the poor of this country by increasing NI and removing the 10p tax rate. here’s the *facts* Sally – hard I’m sure for a man like yourself but still the facts:

The finance chiefs got 8 knighthoods, 7 CBEs, 4 OBEs and 4MBEs which included Fred Goodwin who was head of bank with historic losses of £28 billion in RBS yet retired with £750k a year pension.

Numerous others (at least 38 individuals) were put in charge of quango’s and god knows what else.

The facts speak for themselves Sally – Labour loves big business and overseas wars, hates the poor and continues to want the workers of Europe to pay the debts of greedy European bankers. Nothing new there then….

“@40 – You haven’t noticed the dire state the Government has brought our economy to?”

Leon, I am looking specifics on the damages to come, as a result of Cameron doing what he has done, results you claim are predictable.

34 – Leon Wolfson

How can by NOT giving working people’s taxes to greedy European bankers hurt the poor?

It’s over for this silly Labour view on Europe. You just don’t get it and until the party has a New New Labour moment and actually starts to represent the views of those they wish to govern the country will not even give them a hearing.

Listen to the Today program or Any Questions or Question Time on the BBC and you can feel it from the audience responses.

The polls show you’re wrong and I’m right. Time for a change at the top of the Labour Party…

Let’s see, a 10x value on trades with companies in the nations using it for ones outside, for starters… (and of course, “in the nations” being determined not by HQ, but by assets)

Assuming you mean a tax here, this would be illegal under EU law on free movement of capital. Which they couldn’t amend without a treaty change. Which they couldn’t get without UK approval…

One of the main reasons for the EU is to prevent Member States punishing other Member States by raising trade barriers. There’s nothing to prevent each MS except us implementing an FTT, but they can’t punish us for not joining in. See the CC note on all this.
http://www.cliffordchance.com/publicationviews/publications/2011/10/financial_transactiontaxupdate.html

@46 – So you’re claiming in the absence of an oracle, no damage will be done. Neat-o, let me know when you’re ready to rejoin reality.

@47 – The greedy bankers are in London, as Cameron reminds us on a constant basis, and need defending against reasonable checks on their power proposed by the EU.

The facts are, BNPer, racist, bigot, that you keep on lying. This government have done FAR more damage to the poor in the time they are in power with their MASSIVE cuts than Labour…the 10% tax change ended up not hurting anyone (and was a mistake to introduce in the first place), so your constant references for it are a smoke screen for your 1%er views.

And why would I pay attention to propaganda as opposed to proper studies? Oh right, you believe in the propaganda. No dissent allowed. Of course you want Labour to commit suicide and boost your far right.

@48 – Incorrect. They can’t punish for not joining in, UNLESS it’s done evenly. So much for that argument. Free movement of capital is not without qualifiers, largely due to UK objections.

@ 41 James from Durham,

“It’s not much good going to a wife swapping party if you are impotent.”

Quite so, and all the more reason not to bring the wife!

@46 – So you’re claiming in the absence of an oracle, no damage will be done. Neat- let me know when you’re ready to rejoin reality.

————————————-

Nope, just asking you to explain the out comes you claim are predictable, something you are incapable of doing bnper! 1%er! me mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rararar woofston!

They can’t punish for not joining in, UNLESS it’s done evenly.

What does this even mean? If the EZ+ adopt an FTT they can’t erect trade barriers to the UK if the UK don’t adopt it. They also can’t prevent EU companies relocating to the UK, and they can’t say that UK-based companies are “really” EZ+ located because of their asset distribution. That’s all settled law kiddo, and has been for years.

My exams on European law were, admittedly, a few years ago but I’m willing to stick my neck out and go with Clifford Chance’s analysis over yours.

@51 – Leon Wolfson

You *must* be a right wing troll hahaha!

Which bit about Labour rewarding the bankers, city slickers and spivs like no government in history is not true?

Which bit about Labour removing 10p tax for the poor is not true?

Would it help if I listed the individuals and the date of their rewards from the last Labour government?

Every person reading this knows you’re wrong about Labour’s love of the city and the facts speak for themselves…*

*but then since you claim to have been shot at twice, bombed once and “ambushed” twice by marauding gangs of racists – all in London (or was that when you were doing National Service in Israel with Mossad) I think your opinion may require challenge.

Dream on Sunny.

So let me get this right: we’ve been spared austerity via a Franco-German ‘stability’ programme (in relation to a currency zone the Tories will never join in the first place), in favour of the Tories’ home-grown austerity plan. And the Tories are possibly thinking that even if the Euro goes belly up, then UK will somehow come out of it smelling of roses as the economic masters of the universe, as long as the City of London is spared…again.

As one Greek MP said: ‘Do you want to die, or do you want to be killed?’

@56 – Because I label you for what you are, right. You’ve already been banned from one site for racist ranting, TAKE A HINT.

And of course you lie about what I said, because I’m Jewish and you’re a known anti-Semite.

@44, the only damage I could see would be in terms of PR.

Quite how you calculate the damage of negative PR is beyond me. However the fact numerous big companies with brand names value good PR and frequently appear to act against the bottom line (money they donate to charity could have gone to shareholders) indicates that it has some.

@42 – you lack imagination

Leon Wolfson @ 51:

“@46 – So you’re claiming in the absence of an oracle, no damage will be done. Neat-o, let me know when you’re ready to rejoin reality.”

Talking to yourself again, I see…

@55 – In your argument, variant rates of VAT and corporation tax would be illegal. They’re clearly not. I’m going with the law, not your xenophobia.

Priceless the tory troll who tells us we have been spared Austerity. What nonsense, we have special tory pro banker austerity.

62 – You’re arguing that Member States should be allowed to vary their tax rate according to which other Member States they’re trading with. That’s basically exactly what the Treaty of Rome set out to prevent.

And yes, if Member States levied different rates of VAT on products dependent on which EU Member States those products originated from, that would also be illegal.

Don’t you think that it there were a legally straightforward way in which France & Germany could disadvantage the City of London at no cost to themselves, they might have tried it already?

62 – also, you’re arguing that them dastardly furriners will set out to destroy the City of London as revenge for us not agreeing to their treaty change. I don’t think you’re in any position to be casting nasturtiums about xenophobia.

On a side note, I’ve always wanted a bronze nasturtium.

I will laugh my head off if this ends with the collapse of the Eu, and the others starting again without UK.

All those greedy free trader, race to the bottom knuckle draggers kept out.

I will laugh my head off if this ends with the collapse of the Eu, and the others starting again without UK.

—————————————-

Wow! Cameron agreeing to destroy the UK faster than its on course to be would have stop the EU will collapse!

@64 – No, I’m arguing for sensible policies to prevent bubbles, while you’re yelling “bubble, bubble, bubble” at the top of your voice.

Of course you then try and label me with your own xenophobia.

Leon @ 68:

Go back to Conservative Home, you neo-fascist Tory far-right xenophobic 1%er Europhobe concern troll.

@69 – And as usual, the bigots like you try and use a mirror. It doesn’t work, I’m on the left. Take the toys you just threw out the pram and piss the **** ****. Kapish?

Also Leon, I hope you realise that by supporting attempts to resucitate the Eurozone, you’re supporting austerity measures far worse than the “vicious Tory cuts” you spend so much time decrying.

@71 – Really? The nordic countries budgets look pretty balanced to me.

Nope, you’re blowing smoke out your ass as ever. Go back to ConHome.

No, I’m arguing for sensible policies to prevent bubbles, while you’re yelling “bubble, bubble, bubble” at the top of your voice.

Of course you then try and label me with your own xenophobia.

I’m not yelling anything, merely pointing out that your nice sensible policies are illegal – contrary, in fact, to the foundation stones of the entire European project.

And I’m married to a foreigner, making me definitionally a xenophile. Keep up.

@51 – Leon Wolfson

I have never been banned from any site for anything remark that was racist – I have always supported the State of Israel and do not judge human beings on the religion they choose to follow – only their actions in life irrespective of their personal beliefs.

You know all this so are being as dishonest with your remarks as you were about your previous “mishaps”?

Now answer the question about Labour rewarding the bankers like no other government in history and punishing the poor by the removal of the 10p tax rate…

Leon @ 70:

Correction: you pretend to be left-wing so you can concern troll. Either that, or you completely lack the self-awareness to see what effect your behaviour will have on the wider left.

Bob b:

Your posts on this subject are impressive. Thanks.

@76: “Your posts on this subject are impressive. Thanks.”

Thanks but what is really worrying is that I’m not saying anything particularly original. There’s a remarkable convergence between what other economists here, the economists writing for the FT and many other economists online and in the press are saying about European Monetary Union (EMU).

What’s even more worrying is the low levels of economic literacy in commentary from Eurozone journos and politicians who plainly see the issues exclusively in terms of political power flexing without underpinning by economic analysis of the problems which have precipitated the Eurozone crisis that the summit was supposed to resolve.

Mrs Merkel plainly sees the solution to the crisis in terms of more and enforceable fiscal discipline without appreciating that a fiscal union is not just that – and President Sarkozy is being towed along, probably because France’s economy is vulnerable and might come to a situation where it needs German financial assistance. That kind of Merkel fiscal union, without some kind of added mechanism for transferring funds from chronic surplus countries (regions) to chronic deficit contries (regions), will create persistent recessionary pressures.

It’s not as though the Euro has been a great and unqualified success story. Had it been so we would not be where we are.

I was much engaged in online debates about EMU in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That got to the stage where rational discussion became impossible. Critics of EMU were dubbed “insane”. Quite literally, criticism was regarded as heretical in the same way that Galileo was regarded as a heretic for publishing his theory that the earth moved round the sun when everyone could see that the sun moved round the earth.

Leon @ 72:

And what about Greece and Italy?

I am happy to have left the UK just in time before the UK leaves the EU.

The British Left only support Europe because they haye Britain and want to see it diluted into a common European sludge of supposed oneness.

We pay far more into the pot than we ever get back, we house their leeching migrants and we lost everything defending them from the Nazis.

They should kiss our feet!!!
Fuck this arrogant Euro cancer!