Did Davey do the right thing?

[ahinton]

I am coming to the conclusion that the collapse of the Euro won't affect me any more than what has happened already. I don't have a company. I don't have a private pension. I don't expect to be able to get a job again. The services destroyed by our Governments don't benefit me a great deal. If some private companies suffer, it might even halt the privatization of health.

I can only admire your optimism; I certainly can't share it. I don't wish to sound intrusive, but if you don't have a company or a private pension or future employment prospects or state benefit dependency, how do you manage? Even if the answer to that is by virtue of being independently wealthy (and I'm not, of course, for one moment suggesting that it would be), do you not think that your investments will be affected by it? If the Chinese are worried about it (and that's around 1 in 6 of the world's population), it's hard to imagine how anyone in Britain would be able wholly to escape its consequences.

I've been doing a little research. People keep mentioning Switzerland but it really isn't a good example of finding something positive outside the Eurozone. This is because its currency is overvalued and so prices are sky high. People just hop over the border to German shops. By contrast, we have an undervalued currency and water around our island. This should help us. Furthermore, 50% of the Swiss economy relies on exports mainly to Europe. Our economy is more diverse and the percentage of our exports that go to the EU is around 10% in real terms, far less than one might imagine. Good - if sad. It's every man for himself now apparently.

No, I agree that the Switzerland analogy is a flawed one on many counts; another one put forward at present is that of Norway without the oil/gas, which is similarly flawed. Why, though, do you suggest that sterling is undervalued? British interest rates have been at an all-time low for a record period of time, making investment in the currency consistently unattractive; it is also likely that the continuing parlous state of sterling against the euro notwithstanding the latter currency's major ongoing problems is due at least in part to the sheer immensity of Britain's borrowings. Britain's economy is not especially diverse, a fact borne out by the plethora of accusations of the country having put too many of its economic eggs in the basket of service provision at the expense of manufacturing. On top of all of that, can you not imagine the weight of increasing animosity that will be shown towarads Britain and the Brits as time goes on? Britain is still an EU mamber and so many people from other EU states work in Britain and/or for British firms and vice versa; what will become of all of that?

So, yes, after being staunchly in favour, I think I have had enough of the EU for now. Next step, I will try with my vote to help to boot the Tories and the so-called Lib Dems out. Green even if they are pro-Europe themselves. They are not for this Europe.

That's your prerogitave, of course, but little if any useful purpose can be served by booting out the party of government in a General Election; you have to want to put an opposition party in its place and, given that the only remotely conceivable candidate (and it is very remote now, I think), would be a Miliballs Blue Labour administration which, had it been in power now, would not have done what DC did last week, I don't see what you could expect that to achieve.

If the debts in Greece and Italy get worse, is there anything in EU law to stop millions crossing borders to settle in Germany and France? I doubt it. Movement is encouraged although I suspect that when push comes to shove it wouldn't be so welcome. So that very notion should surely be enough to rein in the jackboot mentality of threatening to apply penalties to the weaker countries. Such undemocratic positions from Merkozy Inc are deeply unpleasant - in terms of respect for self-determination they are in the Alqaedazone even if they do stand more for humanity - but actually they could just be another toothless tiger.

There's no "if" about that! No, you are correct in that nothing can be done to stop anyone moving around freely from one EU country to another.

For democracy must have its way.

Must it? It should - but that's not the same as sayhing that it "must".

It is an outrage to have advanced nations governed by unelected bureaucrats. Everyone in Britain should be contacting Amnesty and telling them to sort it out.

It's perhaps less of an outrage that it might at first seem. I'm not suggesting that I'm in favour of it, but let's not forget that unelected bureaucrats can only seize governming powers in EU nations by virtue of elected governments in thos nations sanctioning their doing so. Furthermore, if elected governments can be shown to be so grossly and gravely incompetent, to the immense cost of the governed, as is the case, you can surely see how the very edifice of democratic government is being shaken to the foundations. Just look, in UK, for example, at the Financial Serices Authority's new report on the RBS débâcle in which it criticises (a) its own regulatory and administrative failings and (b) the laxity of the previous government's financial regulatory requirements while also accusing senior RBS management and RBS shareholders for a level of incompetence that has required the British taxpayer to fork out £45bn+ - and the current shareholders, who are now all British taxpayers, are staring at a loss of more than half that figure. FSA is not an instrument of government, RBS was a private company that's now had to be part-nationalised and the Brown government was elected by those same taxpayers. The ultimate irony of all of this is that "too big to fail" has now been seen to have turned into "too big to punish", because no one can punish anyone for something on so large a scale.

And lastly, if many tens of millions of people tried to call Amnesty International simultaneously, don't you think that their lines would get jammed? How many staff do you suppose the organisation would need to employ in order just to deal with such calls? You'd need mass migration just to achieve that end!

In the absence of that basic human response, I now see that riots are not the only answer. There is a lot to be said for mass migration into the lands of those who overstep the mark. Let that dialogue commence among citizens of Europe so these bloats are forced to review their strategy and then change it radically.

I don't see your reasoning here. By "mass migration" I assume you to mean widespread legal migration; what do you anticipate that this would achieve, even if sufficient people could even afford to do it in the present and immediate future economic climate?

[Lateralthinking1]

The detestation of the EU is largely irrational – even if very real. Britain enhances its power and de facto sovereignty through membership; it loses it by becoming the creature of the financial markets and the City of London so beloved by Conservatives. If the EU suggests policies we don't like, there are opt-outs and compromises galore, hardly the anti-democratic monster of sceptic imagination.

Calum, Hi, I hope Day 27 or whatever it is finds you happy and well. Now then, no, sorry, I've hardened considerably on this matter since Friday, however much I detest Cameron, which for these purposes has to be set aside.

The answer to Britain losing sovereignty to financial markets is not membership of an EU that is beholden to the financial markets. That is illogical. OK, so we have the additional loss of sovereignty to the City of London but as he points out that in international terms is trivial. At most, we are slightly more beholden to the markets than the rest of the EU because of the City.

So much for the relationship between Government and Economy. Now to National Governments and Voters. Add into the equation the fact that we can vote for Respect or the Greens if enough of us wants to do it and they could carry forward their manifestos without EU penalties. Yes, I know, it would be nothing more than a protest vote.

But would it always be? The world is a funny place. If the entire system fell apart more than we can envisage, perhaps people would want something entirely different. Look at the progress of SNP and Plaid Cymru. This is sovereignty.

I mean frankly I am flabbergasted at the British in their armchairs. I am unequivocally of the view that the whole damned money system can go to hell in a handcart if to keep it means giving up national democracy. Democracy is all.

Why this widespread acceptance of cancelling democracy in some countries? Mussolini delivered. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been better if he had been slaughtered in his bed early on by hungry Italians who believed in democratic freedom.

What is so difficult about this??? Where is the appropriate fury???

[amateur51]

Will Hutton on very fine form for a change .... Dave has clearly got his goat .... and now for a piece on Merkozy's idiocy and we will be getting somewhere ....

Blimey, I could feel the wind in my hair reading the Hutton article - he'd practiced that one in front of the shaving mirror

Good stuff tho

Well, that is until Biffo tells me I'm wrong

[Biffo]

It's actually Will Hutton spouting irrelevant waffle. Cameron refused to sign up to treaty changes that are both damaging and unworkable. These changes are now being presented as an 'accord'. Whether they are a treaty or an accord they are unacceptable.

'The new accord will hold eurozone members to strict budgetary rules including:

- a cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries' annual structural deficits
- "automatic consequences" for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP
- a requirement to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised"

Source: BBC website

Presumably everyone who has criticised Cameron is happy with these conditions being imposed on the UK, bearing in mind we are the only country stupid enough to pay any fines imposed by Brussels. Accepting this nonsense seems a high price to pay for not being 'isolated'.

[amateur51]

It's actually Will Hutton spouting irrelevant waffle. Cameron refused to sign up to treaty changes that are both damaging and unworkable. These changes are now being presented as an 'accord'. Whether they are a treaty or an accord they are unacceptable.

'The new accord will hold eurozone members to strict budgetary rules including:

- a cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries' annual structural deficits
- "automatic consequences" for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP
- a requirement to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised"

Source: BBC website

Presumably everyone who has criticised Cameron is happy with these conditions being imposed on the UK, bearing in mind we are the only country stupid enough to pay any fines imposed by Brussels. Accepting this nonsense seems a high price to pay for not being 'isolated'.

See?

You heard it on msg 108 first!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Presumably everyone who has criticised Cameron is happy with these conditions being imposed on the UK,

certainly not .... Merkozy are reactionary idiots playing with words while the money burns ....

[aeolium]

Calum, I think Hutton protests too much. He cannot seriously be suggesting that the euro might break up because Cameron's veto mean the new treaty members have to move slowly because they can't use the EU institutions. Up to now the plan has been entirely Franco-German, with the others hardly meaningful participants. He repeats the old canard about referendums being the tool of dictators and despots (I don't remember the devolution referendums being like that). And his comment that the EU is 'hardly the anti-democratic monster of sceptic imagination' would have greater weight if leaders of two democratically elected governments had not recently been effectively forced out and replaced by unelected technocrats.

Here is a comment on the Merkozy plan - and a definite thumbs-down for it.

[Lateralthinking1]

I can only admire your optimism; I certainly can't share it. I don't wish to sound intrusive, but if you don't have a company or a private pension or future employment prospects or state benefit dependency, how do you manage? Even if the answer to that is by virtue of being independently wealthy (and I'm not, of course, for one moment suggesting that it would be), do you not think that your investments will be affected by it?

I will have to reply in pieces and try to keep it short in each case. Not my forte. I would not say that I am independently wealthy for I own just two thirds of my property and pay a mortgage. After 25 years of loyalty as an employee, the Government put me out to grass knowing that alternative employment for me was unlikely. The Job Centre people agreed given my age, my limited skills and unemployment levels and this has proven to be the case.

Government also knew that I wouldn't qualify for any benefits at all after 6 months. I have no savings other than the compensation sum which was reduced by more than 70% under laws introduced just before the cuts. This is dwindling rapidly and will be subject to tax. The interest on the sum is negligible. The sum would not be affected by the loss of a private bank. I should be without any money for food or electricity sometime in 2013. Meanwhile the state pension age has risen from 17 years hence to 18.

Obviously I see the current Britain as an enemy to me personally. It has been 18 months of attack. I believe it tried to kill me.

[Lateralthinking1]

[QUOTE=ahinton;110284]No, I agree that the Switzerland analogy is a flawed one on many counts; another one put forward at present is that of Norway without the oil/gas, which is similarly flawed. Why, though, do you suggest that sterling is undervalued? British interest rates have been at an all-time low for a record period of time, making investment in the currency consistently unattractive; it is also likely that the continuing parlous state of sterling against the euro notwithstanding the latter currency's major ongoing problems is due at least in part to the sheer immensity of Britain's borrowings. Britain's economy is not especially diverse, a fact borne out by the plethora of accusations of the country having put too many of its economic eggs in the basket of service provision at the expense of manufacturing. On top of all of that, can you not imagine the weight of increasing animosity that will be shown towarads Britain and the Brits as time goes on? Britain is still an EU mamber and so many people from other EU states work in Britain and/or for British firms and vice versa; what will become of all of that? [QUOTE]

......A lot of points here. This is from RBS on the pound being undervalued. You will find similar comment in many other places on the economic and political spectrum. http://www.fbs.com/analytics/news_markets/view/8065

I agree that the British economy is not "particularly" diverse but then few economies are diverse. It is more diverse than some. This from BIS, for example, describes the British automative industry as the most diverse in Europe.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-sectors/automotive

I do not expect the significant fallout with a few Eurocrats - many in the EU would have some sympathy - to affect trading relationships to the same extent. There is no reason why we can't join an effective Free Trading Area if that is thought necessary.

[Lateralthinking1]

That's your prerogitave, of course, but little if any useful purpose can be served by booting out the party of government in a General Election; you have to want to put an opposition party in its place and, given that the only remotely conceivable candidate (and it is very remote now, I think), would be a Miliballs Blue Labour administration which, had it been in power now, would not have done what DC did last week, I don't see what you could expect that to achieve.

....I think I answered this point really in the one I addressed to Calum. If you had a situation within 3 years, or 8 years, where millions of citizens became refugees - unlikely I know - then anything is possible re colour of Government. But the main point in reality is not the freedom to elect a likely alternative Government, ie Labour, but rather the freedom to vote for any alternative agenda beyond the narrow remit imposed by Merkozy, knowing that in the unlikely event of it passing an electoral test it could also be applied as set out in the manifesto. This is absolutely my main point. The fundamental red line in my view. No ifs or buts. I am shocked that anyone feels differently.

Turning to your other points, I simply note some.

Then, on:

Let's not forget that unelected bureaucrats can only seize governming powers in EU nations by virtue of elected governments in those nations sanctioning their doing so. Furthermore, if elected governments can be shown to be so grossly and gravely incompetent, to the immense cost of the governed, as is the case, you can surely see how the very edifice of democratic government is being shaken to the foundations.

I'm appalled by the sentiment. That notion of the unelected being more of an answer to bad Governments than good Governments would be an answer or that the unelected are any kind of acceptable Government. Libya? Send in the troops and sort it out. Italy? Oh dearie me, can't be helped. It is absolutely ridiculous. Illogical and insane. As for "sanctions", there are sanctions and sanctions. I am taken hostage by you. You say I can be locked in your shed for the rest of my days or else I will be thrown to the wolves. I "sanction" you to lock me in your shed of course. Is that though a sanction? Of course not.

Finally, on the mass migration, what I am saying is that France and Germany should be reminded of what could happen. If I were the PM of one of these countries, I should say "we will do our best to balance the books, and accept your reasonable requests, but you try to impose these limits on us and remove our democracy and I shall officially urge and assist anyone who thinks we as a Government can't deliver with these imposed constraints to travel to your countries, adding that you will then have to support them". Yes - it would be a threat to their economies just like theirs is a threat to democracy. And it should happen now.

[ahinton]

Let's not forget that unelected bureaucrats can only seize governming powers in EU nations by virtue of elected governments in those nations sanctioning their doing so. Furthermore, if elected governments can be shown to be so grossly and gravely incompetent, to the immense cost of the governed, as is the case, you can surely see how the very edifice of democratic government is being shaken to the foundations.

I'm appalled by the sentiment. That notion of the unelected being more of an answer to bad Governments than good Governments would be an answer or that the unelected are any kind of acceptable Government. Libya? Send in the troops and sort it out. Italy? Oh dearie me, can't be helped. Absolutely ridiculous. Illogical. Insane. As for "sanctions", there are sanctions and sanctions. I am taken hostage by you. You say I can be locked in your shed for the rest of my days or else I will be thrown to the wolves. I "sanction" you to lock me in your shed of course. Is that though a sanction? Of course not.

I'm not recommending this! What I am doing is pointing out that, at present, no unelectged bureaucrats have the power to do anything other than that vested in them by elected governments; what I am therefore saying is that we elect governments democratiocally and, on occasion, when dais government can't do some of what it's been elected to do (and the opposition can't either), they outsource such work to those unelected bureaucrats. Not a pleasant prospect, of couse, but we elect the governments that do this.

[johnb]

Our economy is more diverse and the percentage of our exports that go to the EU is around 10% in real terms, far less than one might imagine. Good - if sad. It's every man for himself now apparently.

I was curious about the 10% figure so I looked up the HM Revenue & Customs figures for September this year:

Total UK exports to the EU: £13.6b
Total UK exports to non-EU countries: £11.4b

That seems more like 54% to me (though admittedly the HMRC might contain distortions which I no nothing about).

The stats also reveal that for both EU and non-EU countries the UK is a net importer - but that is no surprise given our balance of payments.

PS Some other data that might, or might not, be of interest:

In 2008 the UK's main export markets were:

EU: 57%
USA: 15%
Switzerland: 2%
China: 2%
Japan: 2%

I think those figures put our trade relationship with the EU into some perspective.

[Lateralthinking1]

I was curious about the 10% figure so I looked up the HM Revenue & Customs figures for September this year:

Total UK exports to the EU: £13.6b
Total UK exports to non-EU countries: £11.4b

That seems more like 54% to me (though admittedly the HMRC might contain distortions which I no nothing about).

The stats also reveal that for both EU and non-EU countries the UK is a net importer - but that is no surprise given our balance of payments.

PS Some other data that might, or might not, be of interest:

In 2008 the UK's main export markets were:

EU: 57%
USA: 15%
Switzerland: 2%
China: 2%
Japan: 2%

I think those figures put our trade relationship with the EU into some perspective.

Well this from 1999 would make for an interesting read - http://www.globalbritain.org/BOO/HowDependant.htm

Certainly, in 2000, the biggest growth was outside the EU - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4...bn-record.html

And here from a more recent Civitas article, the message that it is all about statistical interpretation:

Sixty Per Cent of Our Economy? The second misconception is that 60% of our economy depends on the EU, whereas the true figure is more like ten per cent. Exports of goods and services only account for 21% of ‘final demand’. If exports of goods and services to the EU account for 48% of total exports, then ten per cent of GDP is currently the result of exports of goods and services to other EU members. In other words, about 79% of our economy is the result of domestic activity, involving buying from and selling to each other, and exports of goods and services to the rest of the world account for another 11%.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/EUFactsheet.php

Elsewhere, and more on the lines of your figure, it is reported that exports currently are 13.0% to the US. Then the following make for another 22% - China, India, Canada, Hong Kong, UAE, Russia, Japan, Australia, Turkey, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Norway, Saudi Arabia. The scope is impressive and in many there are rising trends.

Then I think you could add on a percentage for Ireland with whom we have a special relationship. That's currently 5.8%. There would be residual amounts in the rest of the EU and then you would be looking at expanding into other markets. Greece isn't in the Top 25 countries that receives our goods. Ditto many of the other EU member states.

[aeolium]

Although, as this article shows, Europe exports far more to us, in goods and services, (€66 bn) than we do to them. Is it in their interest to disrupt such a trading relationship?

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not recommending this! What I am doing is pointing out that, at present, no unelectged bureaucrats have the power to do anything other than that vested in them by elected governments; what I am therefore saying is that we elect governments democratiocally and, on occasion, when dais government can't do some of what it's been elected to do (and the opposition can't either), they outsource such work to those unelected bureaucrats. Not a pleasant prospect, of couse, but we elect the governments that do this.

No, I know you are not recommending it. The difference is that I could never accept it. The idea of "outsource" is a clever twist but outsourcing is usually subject to competitive tendering. Further if it doesn't deliver, it pays penalties to us, not vice versa.

I do not believe for one moment that any party in Greece or Italy or Portugal included in its manifesto anything along the lines of what is being imposed. The outsourcing here is more a military style coup. The resulting regimes are generally characterised by ever increasing authoritarianism, restriction of freedoms and inefficiency. They also only tend to budge when tanks appear.