Did Davey do the right thing?

[Guest]

Discuss.

[amateur51]

The Right Thing ....

For Davey as leader of the Tories - possibly - it may buy him time but it will embolden the anti-EU frothers unhelpfully

For Davey as Leader of the Coalition - almost certainly not - except it might result in an early General Election (or a period of minority government) and perhaps he can ditch the LibDems as a result and offer a referendum

For Davey as PM - it's distinctive and apparently decisive - may make others think

For UK - who knows? Probably a premature gesture

[Mahlerei]

Am51

You could be right. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the implications are, and that will take a while to become clear.

[vinteuil]

was it Spike Milligan who noted that his superior officer in North Africa had on his desk, not the usual three - but four trays: labelled "in" - "out" - "pending" - and - "too difficult"... Many's the time when I was in government service I lamented that we weren't allowed the luxury of that fourth tray...

I think, given the situation Cameron found himself in, he had little choice. Time will tell. But for me this episode wd certainly have been put in the "too difficult" tray...

[Lateralthinking1]

Nothing that any of them do would be right for me. They have created an environment of extremism. It really isn't possible in such a climate to engage meaningfully with their stances. It is a gamble just like everything now. That in itself sickens me. So I don't know. The emphasis is on avoiding financial collapse. We are trying to protect ourselves while knowing that we can't fully, even with the steps that have been taken. Who can say whether stepping back encourages a wider disaster that will impact on us?

You can see Jenkin and Redwood morris dancing to this outcome. They feel it is their day and a proper stage one to leaving the EU. I'm not sure they are right in their anticipation. Even if they are, I cannot get worked up about that very much anymore. The EU hasn't delivered on things like keeping the pension age down or protecting benefits. Climate change discussions take place in other forums. Human rights and immigration matters are now of some concern. It gets harder to feel sympathetic.

But I would like to think that in some areas, eg the Working Time Directive, it has put a rein on right wing conservative impulses. Instinctively, I don't like the arguments for withdrawal. That is mainly about an ongoing belief in the need for post-war harmony but we've got the bankers all over it and countries falling out in any case. It is not at all what Schuman or Brandt envisaged. They have mucked up their vision. When I say "they" I am glaring mainly at the current leaders' predecessors of course.

Let us say that things do get back on track in a few years. I wonder about Scotland. Salmond wants an independent Scotland to be more on the inside of Europe. These latest developments place him in a potentially tricky position, whatever Sweden decides it wants to do. There is Ireland which remains a full part of it presumably while being indebted to us. And then never forget if Parliament eventually only represents England, we could have decades of conservatism without full EU integration and restraint.

Conversely, one might argue that up until yesterday, Labour could hardly have advocated more decent social reforms at the European level because people would have said "goodness me, not even more Europe". But Cameron's retreat here could ultimately give them a convenient peg. At some stage they could argue that we need to get more involved again and do that by buying into the aspects of Europe that support ordinary people rather than bankers. But currently none of this seems real.

[teamsaint]

dave and his mates in thr city have left us with two choices.
give in, and accept their way, ( big bank control, minimal public spending other than on arms, all wrapped up in the Euro project)) or economic meltdown of an unimaginable kind.

We are still in the banks' grasp whatever dave does, whether we go in with Europe or not.

[barber olly]

dave and his mates in thr city have left us with two choices.
give in, and accept their way, ( big bank control, minimal public spending other than on arms, all wrapped up in the Euro project)) or economic meltdown of an unimaginable kind.

We are still in the banks' grasp whatever dave does, whether we go in with Europe or not.

Don't you just love the self-centredness of Capitalism.

[Boilk]

He may have done the right thing (hindsight will come in due course), but for the wrong reasons.

I suspect The City is where he (and one day Osborne) will end up when the opposition next gets in. He has also bought time on not having an EU referendum during his primeministership.

New terms for next year's OID .. the Seventeen and the Twenty-seven. And possibly the One.

[Serial_Apologist]

So by not signing up, Cameron wants complete freedom from EU controls and investment taxes on the City, whose casino antics part-got us into this situation, meanwhile Cable and, this morning, Mingus Campbell put the LibDem side of the Coalition's view on this, saying that reforms and controls on the casino are fine as long as imposed by our government not the EU.



Could this be described as a "brainer"?

[Biffo]

Probably yes.

Many people (me included) think the banks are largely responsible for the current mess. They also seem to be implying/demanding they should pay what are in effect reparations. If this is the case, British banks should be contributing to the British economy, not Greece and Italy - which is what Sarkozy and Merkel seem to want. In fact, Osborne has already imposed a levy on banks twice and should be free to do so again without outside interference

There is a quote from an EU diplomat in the Irish Times (linked from the BBC website) - 'The UK seethes, Germany sulks and France gloats'. How long will the gloating last? What happens if France elects a truly Gaullist President, one less happy to be in bed with Germany?

Finally, how many governments will pay attention to the new 'accord' when the going gets really tough. After all, the previous set of rules for the Eurozone were 'strict' at Germany's insistence. Who were the first countries to ignore them when it suited? Germany and France.

[kernelbogey]

No, nein, non, no etc.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i am torn between mnay thoughts and views .... essentially i think it is just grim whatever ...

look who is smiling - makes me doubt it is for the good when Leigh Cash Davis & Redwood et al are smiling
i also think the euro is cursed, they are trying to save the tumour not the patient
the EU of Merkozy is not the Europe of democratic and civilised values i would wish ... nationalist and priggish

it all seems to me to lead to bad outcomes and worse circumstances for us in the UK and it may be quite a long time before these circumstances ameliorate .... it is not good and neither would the converse have been much better ...

but we do have to face up to the city and the banks, we can not allow their dominance to last

and we must also question the Atlantic relationship with the USA and Wall Street ... not healthy at all ...

[LHC]

So by not signing up, Cameron wants complete freedom from EU controls and investment taxes on the City, whose casino antics part-got us into this situation, meanwhile Cable and, this morning, Mingus Campbell put the LibDem side of the Coalition's view on this, saying that reforms and controls on the casino are fine as long as imposed by our government not the EU.

Cameron didn't say no to regulation of the City; he said no to that regulation being determined without any regard to its effect on the UK economy. The clause he rejected was a change to voting rights on financial regulation. At present these require everyone to agree. The change would require only 85% agreement, effectively removing the UK's (or any other country's) veto.

There is an argument that this clause was included and insisted upon by France and Germany precisely because they knew Cameron could not agree to it. It has nothing to do with sorting out the EZ crisis and everything to do with paving the way for the FTT, which is in effect a European tax on the UK economy. Cameron's had no real choice, as Menzies Campbell and others have noted.

[amateur51]

Well David Owen was in a right old strop on Today this morning, something that always cheers me up

[LHC]

I don't know if you saw the comment from the French Diplomat about the British behaving like the man who turns up at a wife-swapping party without his wife (and how French is that insult), but a French colleague of mine sent me the following comment:

"I am not convinced that the situation is that bad for UK. They remain members of the EU with the current set of rules that suit them. These rules cannot be changed without their agreement.

If the Euro is saved it's also good for UK, a collapse of the Euro would bring UK down too.

The Brits can follow with a foot in and a foot out as usual and keep their wives at home while flirting with continental women.

Their influence may decrease a bit for a while but I'm pretty sure arrangements will be eventually found. For the time being saving the Eurozone is top priority and having UK aboard would delay the process too much. This may be actually a win-win case, Cameron has saved his party and may get more support from the Brits and he has still difficult reforms to implement."