Did Davey do the right thing?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • aeolium
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 3992

    That's true, S_A, and the documentary Inside Job on the financial crisis in America showed how extensively those implicated in the disaster remained in positions of power or influence, and how little political reform of the banking system had taken place there.

    But one shouldn't infer from that that the Europeans are hell-bent on hammering the banks. They have been just as keen to protect their own banks and load all the pain for sorting out the banks' problems on taxpayers, services, pensions, benefits in countries which have been forced to assume the burden of banking debt. So it is not just the UK that is pursuing the interests of the financial institutions.

    Comment

    • Biffo

      ahinton: We are 'out of' the so-called accord which surrenders more sovereignty to Brussels. We are not out of the EU, nor the Eurozone crisis. The Eurozone crisis will continue to affect us as well as our own considerable debt problems. We are already contributing money to the IMF and don't need to add to that with taxes from Brussels.

      Anyone thinking that all is sweetness and light in the 26 or that Germany is entirely happy with the situation or that the 'accord' is a done deal should read this (all of it): http://www.spiegel.de/international/...803097,00.html

      Comment

      • Lateralthinking1

        Originally posted by aka Calum Da Jazbo View Post
        bankocracy is the national interest ....

        great piece by Aditya Chakrabortty
        Yes, a very good piece indeed. Informative. It proves that the case for the City vis a vis national interest is entirely questionable and overstated. Probably bogus. I have to say that I think that the claims by the EU that it will apply more regulation to the banks is also overstated. It is the public across Europe that will bear the brunt.

        And then this to add to the complexity. He shows among other things that there are considerably more British jobs in manufacturing than investment banking. This is useful. But yesterday after some discussion we agreed here that 50% of our exports are to the EU. I was therefore somewhat surprised to discover this morning that these account for just 10% of our jobs.

        One sort of wonders what all the other jobs are here if they are neither from banking or exports to EU. Could it be that the 50% of exports not to the EU provide considerably more jobs than anyone is stating? And has anyone actually assessed to what extent our position in the EU has secured that trade or to what extent they helped pay for welfare and services in 1997-2010?

        The more facts the better in my view.

        Comment

        • scottycelt

          Originally posted by John Skelton View Post
          This http://notesbrokensociety.wordpress....of-eu-process/ is IMO a superb piece (from a consistently intelligent and thought provoking blog), written by someone with practical knowledge of the EU and EU institutions.


          Really, everyone who has contributed to this thread should give it a read. Eurosceptic it isn't.
          It is certainly not Eurosceptic, (ah, the relief) but it is very much the view of one on the Left. That is fair enough and I don't disagree with one or two of his points, but there are plenty on the Right and Centre with just as much or more practical knowledge of the EU and EU institutions who will take a different view..

          The simple fact is that 26 out of the 27 countries signed up (or almost certainly will do) to the new agreement. One, who in my opinion probably had no intention of agreeing to anything and had his own narrow political agenda, did not. In my book that is as good as an unanimous decision.

          Have the 26 all betrayed democracy and the European institutions? If they have there will be plenty of opportunity for their own national electorates to deal with them accordingly and in a thoroughly democratic manner!

          Comment

          • Biffo

            lateralthinking1: This Wikipedia article may explain a few of your questions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...nited_Kingdoms

            Unfortunately it doesn't give all the statistics for the same year but roughly, our GDP is $2.48 trillion with exports worth $486 billion (the 20% of GDP you mention). Half of those exports go to Europe with Germany our largest trading partner in the EU. Manufacturing (2009, slightly out of date) is worth $140 billion in gross value added and employs 2.6 million people. The figures for Finance are hopelessly out of date but in 2004 it was worth $86 billion in gross added value.

            Completely up-to-date figures on the financial sector sem a bit hard to find but this is also interesting: http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot....or-too-big.htm
            Last edited by Guest; 13-12-11, 13:44. Reason: more info added

            Comment

            • johnb
              Full Member
              • Mar 2007
              • 2903

              Originally posted by Lateralthinking1 View Post
              This is useful. But yesterday after some discussion we agreed here that 50% of our exports are to the EU. I was therefore somewhat surprised to discover this morning that these account for just 10% of our jobs.

              One sort of wonders what all the other jobs are here if they are neither from banking or exports to EU. Could it be that the 50% of exports not to the EU provide considerably more jobs than anyone is stating?
              Lat, as you pointed out earlier, 10% of the total UK's trading activity (including domestic) is done with the EU so that it represents 10% of UK jobs isn't too surprising and, once again in line with what you previously posted, it might be that around 80% of jobs relate to non-export activity.

              Comment

              • Lateralthinking1

                Thank you to both. I can't get Biffo's links to work but I take the points you make.

                On banking, possibly the best question anyone asked yesterday was the one from Nick Brown which referred to Basel II. Cameron looked awkward, paused, then got out of his seat over-dramatically, said "yes" and then quickly sat down again. I swear that he hadn't the faintest idea what Brown was talking about and that this was precisely what Brown was expecting.

                Comment

                • ahinton
                  Full Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 16123

                  Originally posted by Biffo View Post
                  ahinton: We are 'out of' the so-called accord which surrenders more sovereignty to Brussels. We are not out of the EU, nor the Eurozone crisis. The Eurozone crisis will continue to affect us as well as our own considerable debt problems. We are already contributing money to the IMF and don't need to add to that with taxes from Brussels.

                  Anyone thinking that all is sweetness and light in the 26 or that Germany is entirely happy with the situation or that the 'accord' is a done deal should read this (all of it): http://www.spiegel.de/international/...803097,00.html
                  Precisely - which effectively means that, in terms of Britain's economic future and inded other aspects of its future viability, it's "out of" nothing at all; even some of the more pragmatic among economists reckon that the collapse of the euro will likely knock off some 25% of the value of Britain's economy which is already ailing with massive unrepayable debt, increasing unemployment and an ever-decreasing ability on the government's part to pay out benefits (including state retirement benefit) without recourse to yet further borrowings. No, the other 26 are by no means all happy with the outcome, but that fact hardly helps Britain either.

                  Comment

                  • Biffo

                    I can only repeat we are out of an accord which would have been damaging to the UK. I doubt the Euro will collapse but it will lose some of its flakier members and this will still no doubt cost us money. I can't see that the UK signing the accord would make much difference to that (hypothetical) collapse except that it would take even more of our money with it.

                    Signing the accord would have meant either massive spending cuts or massive tax rises to meet the criteria. Yes, the future is going to be difficult and uncertain but there is no need to add to it with Brussels-inflicted pain. I also see no merit in joining an accord where you know in advance that some of the members are just going to ignore the rules.

                    The French Socialist presidential candidate, Francois Hollande (currently leading Sarkozy by 15% in the polls) says he will renegotiate the terms of the accord; the French election is six months away and the French left has a special way of shooting itself in the foot but he could well be the next president of France.

                    Comment

                    • ahinton
                      Full Member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 16123

                      Originally posted by Biffo View Post
                      I can only repeat we are out of an accord which would have been damaging to the UK.
                      And being out of it will likewise damage UK.

                      Originally posted by Biffo View Post
                      I doubt the Euro will collapse but it will lose some of its flakier members and this will still no doubt cost us money. I can't see that the UK signing the accord would make much difference to that (hypothetical) collapse except that it would take even more of our money with it.
                      Whilst I'd certainly not go so far as to suggest that the collapse of the euro is an odds-on certainly, it remains far from unlikely in the short to medium terms and there have already been rumblings among the other 26 that what's been done so far - British involvement or no British involvement - is insufficient to guarantee saving it.

                      Originally posted by Biffo View Post
                      Signing the accord would have meant either massive spending cuts or massive tax rises to meet the criteria.
                      Like the ones that have already been pledged by government and opposition (more or less) alike?

                      Originally posted by Biffo View Post
                      Yes, the future is going to be difficult and uncertain but there is no need to add to it with Brussels-inflicted pain. I also see no merit in joining an accord where you know in advance that some of the members are just going to ignore the rules.
                      Fair comment in principle, at least, but what i don;t understand is how or why you conclude that not being a signatory to this will give the British economy any possible ecape route from the consequences of those other members' likely determination to ignore the rules.

                      Originally posted by Biffo View Post
                      The French Socialist presidential candidate, Francois Hollande (currently leading Sarkozy by 15% in the polls) says he will renegotiate the terms of the accord; the French election is six months away and the French left has a special way of shooting itself in the foot but he could well be the next president of France.
                      And all that will do absolute wonders for the British economy, won't it! (if it happens, that is); in any case, suppose that Hollande is elected but fails in his endeavours to reach a renegotiation that satisfes him and his party? What then?

                      Comment

                      • scottycelt

                        Editorial: Even after 70 years, it doesn't take much to get the British press to refight the second world war


                        Spot on, Guardian! ...

                        Comment

                        • John Skelton

                          Martin Wolf in the FT (it's necessary to register, but that takes a minute and is free for general content).

                          Comment

                          • John Skelton

                            And

                            "Franco-German hopes for a sweeping new treaty to bind the region’s economies more closely came under strain on Tuesday as several European Union leaders warned of difficulties pushing a far-reaching pact through their national parliaments.

                            The pressure was particularly acute in non-eurozone countries, where at least four governments warned that the precise legal text would determine whether they could sign up to the treaty or otherwise join the UK on the sidelines."

                            Comment

                            • Flosshilde
                              Full Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 7988

                              Originally posted by scottycelt View Post
                              Not something you hear very often!

                              (sorry - not really a contribution to the discussion. Also not really a contribution is the fact (?) that Cameron likes to go into negotiations needing to pee; apparently Enoch Powell used this when he was making a speech, as he felt that it gave him a sense of urgency. All well & good, but surely in negotiations it would simply lead one to quickly agree or disagree, & avoid lengthy discussions? Research has also shown that cognitive functions are much impaired in such a situation.)

                              Comment

                              • ahinton
                                Full Member
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 16123

                                Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                                Also not really a contribution is the fact (?) that Cameron likes to go into negotiations needing to pee
                                He'd soon learn to kick that habit if he were a member here, wouldn't he?!

                                Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                                apparently Enoch Powell used this when he was making a speech, as he felt that it gave him a sense of urgency.
                                Rivers of what was it now?...

                                Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                                All well & good, but surely in negotiations it would simply lead one to quickly agree or disagree, & avoid lengthy discussions? Research has also shown that cognitive functions are much impaired in such a situation.)
                                So is that why DiuretiCameron refused to sign on the dotted line?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X