Whither the euro?

[DaveR]

What's your point, H?

Either its an all member state treaty, in which case UK signature would be required, or it's euro members only in which case it's 17 out of 27. It's not clear whether a 17 state treaty could (for example) bind the ECJ to take any particular steps in the event of breaches of the stability rules, which appears to be crucial to the plan, so it may be that all 27 are needed. There's a long way to go yet.

[silverfox]

"...I've got ten quid saying that any new Euro currency treaty won't ask the opinion of the UK, as it shouldn't..."

I've got no problem with that. Europe can do whatever it wishes as long as none of the Directives or laws it enacts apply to Britain/UK unless we agree to adopt them.

For example, if the Eurozone decides to grab a share of Bank prifits we should say it does not apply to the City. In fact, if Europe says it wants, say, a 10% levy on Banking profits we should say we'll only charge 5%.

Wait and see how many banks flee to London to escape the Eurozone tyranny.

[Huguenot]

silverfox all that will do will start a tit-for-tat trade war with our largest trading partners.

Your recommended approach could cost, say, 10% of GDP and 3,000,000 jobs. Way to go.

"What's your point, H?": DaveR, silverfox said 'referendum here we come', but decisions in the management of the Euro as you said would be decided in the Eurozone of 17, which doesn't include the UK.

The UK clearly would not accept European financial controls designed for a currency it doesn't use (neither would other members in the same situation) - hence there is no way on earth a Eurozone would introduce a barrier to agreement by making it reliant on all members.

QED there will be no referendum in the UK as a direct result of the current decisions.

[DaveR]

"The UK clearly would not accept European financial controls designed for a currency it doesn't use (neither would other members in the same situation) - hence there is no way on earth a Eurozone would introduce a barrier to agreement by making it reliant on all members."

Yeah, except France and Germany are saying they want a 27 state treaty. The reason for that, as I understand, is that they want a euro treaty that will bind (for example) the ECJ and the ECB and that can only be achieved by agreement of all the member states. Otherwise you have a euro treaty that is not an EC treaty - a slightly odd outcome that looks like just a fancy version of the Stability Pact, and we all know how effective that was.

[Huguenot]

My understanding was that they'd like agreement from all 27, but would settle for 17. If the British threatened a referendum then that would be enough motivation to settle.

There's an implicit suggestion that the remaining 10 would be entitled to make their owm minds up about the agreement, with the whisper of a suggestion that financial backing may be dependent upon it.

[acm]

Why would leaving the EU start a trade war and cost 10% of GDP and 3,000,000 jobs?

Why can we not just join the EFTA and take our ?50m odd per day back and use it to, say, help pay the national debt?

The Norwegians and and the Swiss seem to manage quite happily.

*edit to add*

There won't be a referendum, nor a treaty change. It will be done via Intergovernmental Convention, which due to the Craxi doctrine from 1985 means simple majority voting from the 17.

Cameron has no power or mandate to demand concessions for the UK - we will be stuffed, yet again.

[Huguenot]

In this case if the UK were 'stuffed' it would only because they hadn't been involved with the Euro - the UK doesn't get to decide agreements between other countries on their own fiscal sovereignty.

Regarding the referendum - bad luck silverfox:

"Downing Street has said that none of the proposed changes being discussed would trigger a referendum in the UK as they would not constitute a significant transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels."

Regarding why leaving the EU would start a tit-for-tat trade war it's because membership of the EU has agreements in place that allow mutuality in trading.

It would take spectacular naivety to imagine that you can reap all these benefits without engaging in the legislative and political framework that is required to deliver them.

These benefits are only available to members of the EU. If you leave the EU, you lose these benefits. If you want to be able to travel and trade freely in Europe, Europeans must be able to travel and trade freely in the UK.

It is the largest international single market in the world, which has lead to:

greater competition in services - which is good for businesses and consumers

removal of trade barriers

reduction of business costs

greater business efficiency

reduction of anti-competitive practices - such as monopolies and cartels

The EU has taken measures to reform and make it even easier for countries to trade with each other, such as:

reducing paperwork

harmonising standards - eg technical and safety standards

introducing the euro - allowing a single currency to trade with

enforcing the movement of people - allowing member state citizens to move freely between other countries

The EU has also introduced measures to harmonise company law across Europe. This has helped to ensure:

easier access to funding

clearer and more effective legislation

protection for shareholders, creditors and employees

a reduction in the administrative burden on businesses

Frankly acm, given your sympathy with groups such as the EDL and the BNP I don't expect you to be able to recognise any of these opportunities from an independent perspective. I imagine for these groups they seem like tiny benefits that are dwarfed by the supposed benefits of getting rid of foreigners.

[acm]

Getting rid of foreigners?

Blimey! We best not tell my Iraqi fianc? that, eh?

[acm]

So again, I ask the the question without the personal attack - why can we not just join the EFTA and take our ?50m odd per day back and use it to, say, help pay the national debt?

The Norwegians and and the Swiss seem to manage quite happily.

If we leave - that does not mean that we will stop buying BMW's or Bosch washing machines.

The exports from the EU to the UK mean just as much to the EU.

Talks of trade wars is just hysterical hyperbole.

*Edit to say*

You know, the European Free Trade Agreement? Or work agreements between Nations?

Having worked in both Belgium and Switzerland, I cannot honestly say I got on my knees and gave thanks to Van Rumpuy, whom I have never elected, for the opportunity to make it easier to work in Belgium.

The Swiss have it right.

*Edit number 2*

?50M per day is obviously an approximation.

However, basic maths.

50 x 7 = ?350M a week.

50 x 365 = ?18,250,000,000 a year. Approximately.

So we are paying ?18,250M per year to an Institution that hasn't had its accounts signed off for 16 years.

Lovely. If I ran my business in that fraudulent fashion - I get jailed.

*Edit #3*

And of course, if I or my partner do refuse to pay our share for this obvious value for money - we get jailed.

[acm]

So, no answer yet?

Oh, come on, please.

Its great entertainment for us over a glass of wine to see how you, Chippy and NorthLondoner are striving to contrive my "sympathy with groups such as the EDL and the BNP" from precisely fuck all squared.

Then again, I suppose you could always go nuclear and just get us banned.

You see, wot wiv D. (the Iraqi better half) being an accountant - she's the brains of the outfit. And so every post could be considered a joint effort.

*edit to say*

We met in Switzerland - both working for the same financial company. One could say it was cynical realist love at first sight.

[Huguenot]

Who is 'us'?

Exports from EU to UK is a silly reference. The question is exports from the UK to Europe. This is what keeps people in jobs.

I may be wrong acm, but judging by your indifference to my illustrations of the benefits of the common market, I'm guessing you've never run a business that trades more than 3 miles from your front door.

If ?50m is an approximation, multiplying it by 365 doesn't make it more accurate ;-)

There is no 'fact' about the money that will be lost by a withdrawal from the EU, but having said that there is also no 'doubt' about the 3 million people who rely on European exports for jobs.

Because I work internationally, I'm aware that winning or losing major contracts is a game won on tiny tiny margins. I can assure you that pulling out of the EU is more than sufficient to give the business to a competitor. You probably don't give a toot, because to you they'd just be bloody foreigners. The real outcome is that your attitude costs jobs.

Given your beautiful Iraqi wife, I'm surprised that you talk about 'legitimate' concerns on immigration. It clearly makes no difference to the average joe whether it's a bloke from Bradford who has 'stolen' his job or a bloke from Krakow.

The only difference with the bloke from Krakow is that he can be subject to abuse and humiliation based on the fact that he's foreign.

So I don't really give a shit if you're racist or xenophobic, it simply makes you cryingly stupid. I only give a shit if you somehow legitimise the obnoxious behaviour of others who use your 'legitimate concerns' as a pretext for violence and intimidation.

I think you're bright enough to know that too, and that's why I find your noise abhorrent.

[silverfox]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. This is the drawing room - where you don smoking jackets and spar using your wits, play devil's advocate - not challemge each other to a duel at dawn.

To change tack - I agree a referendum is not certain. Also, what would that referendum be? It's unlikely to be a stay in Europe/Pull out of Europe referendum. More likely a should we sign the new treaty/not sign the new treaty poll.

Cameron is already coming under pressure. And the real pressure will come if one or more of the other 27 members decide to hold a referendum.

I understand Ireland's not happy with the proposal regarding a uniform corporate tax. It's the only thing helping Ireland claw its way out of its difficulties and helping its growth at the moment.

[Huguenot]

Nah, there ain't gonna be any referendum on anything soon.

It's just not worth it with the economy struggling already.

[acm]

First off - D. is not my wife, she is my wife-to-be. Selective reading syndrome?

Second, you still haven't answered as to why we cannot just join the EFTA and stay in the European Economic Area. It is the EEA that allows for some of the freedoms you attribute to EU membership; free movement of goods, services, people and capital.

As for exports - where do you get your figures from and are you allowing for the Rotterdam - Antwerp effects - i.e. exports to the rest of the world going through these ports?

Less Regulation? Not really. The EU and EEA countries have more than 15,000 regulations, but the EFTA and EEA countries only have 5,000. New regulations for EU and EEA countries per year are 1,000+ but for the EFTA and EEA only 300 a year. The estimated costs to the economy of all these regulations is in the area of 5% of GDP - or ?75B a year.

One single example is fishing. If we were free to keep all landed stocks instead of having to throw them away we could restore our fishing fleets and create jobs - good, no?

http://www.globalbritain.org/BOO/HowDependant.htm

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1139/time-to-leave-the-eu-and-stop-exporting-british-jobs-abroad

[Huguenot]

The 'cost' of regulation is a fabricated factoid. It's meaningless. What about the cost of a drop in consumer or business confidence through lack of regulation? What about the cost to the economy of unregulated fraud?

As for the 5,000 vs 15,000 issue - it's just silly. You have no idea how many are needed. Fewer is not necessarily better, as the banking industry has shown. At least in the EU we can share the cost of creation and implementation, instead of having to pay for it on our own.

If you think the problem with fishing is EU regulation you must be nuts. EU regulation on fishing and stocks is the only thing holding the industry together. If you left it to the fishermen there'd be no fish left.

You're right that the EEA allows SOME of the freedoms of the EU, but not all. What will be the cost of losing freedoms? In your anti European twaddling you don't care - you don't care about the cost in jobs or GDP because you're happy to cut off your nose to spite your face when it comes to foreigners.

If you don't have access to the export figures then try Ernst and Young Here

Why do you question the figures? Are you trying to prove that we don't really do business with the EU? How silly is that?

Your costing is also foolish, you're trying to estimate what we spend on the EU without estimating what we get back directly and indirectly through exports. The obvious point is that the benefits in exports and freedom offer far more back than our share of the costs.

Overall, there is simply no downside to being in the EU, but the is a MASSIVE potential downside to leaving.

[DaveR]

PS - when H is struggling to make sense he always accuses people of xenophobia. It's like a nervous tic.

[Marmora Man]

Expect some serrious Hugenot psoturing follwoing this morning's news.

[Huguenot]

No posturing required from me - the Tories have done it all for themselves: the UK is effectively now in the slow lane whilst the powerhouses of Europe are creating a superpower on our doorstep.

We've excluded ourselves from a conversation that will define the economic strength of the UK for the foreseeable future.

Us and Hungary - what great company to be in.

And all over some wafty BS about 'who has the power'.

[the-e-dealer]

Hungerland?

[DaveR]

"No posturing required from me - the Tories have done it all for themselves: the UK is effectively now in the slow lane whilst the powerhouses of Europe are creating a superpower on our doorstep.

We've excluded ourselves from a conversation that will define the economic strength of the UK for the foreseeable future."

So no posturing, just cliches that are so tired I'm surprised they haven't been humanely killed. "The slow lane". "Powerhouses of Europe". It's laughable.

You seem to imagine that the proposed deal is all part of a grand scheme for european economic hegemony when in fact it's a last, desparate roll of the dice to save the euro. Make no mistake - deep down everybody hates this deal except the Germans (who think they might finally get fiscal control over the euro zone) and the French (who reckon that everybody else hates the Germans enough that, when the dust clears, they can resume their traditional role as the real political leaders in the EU).

[????]

In the same slow lane that we were in whilst the other European's powerhouses (SIC) 'powerhoused' themselves into the disaster the Euro? I have my suspicions which part of the 2-speed Europe will be going quickly.... bust.

Huge ypu appear to understand nothing, or just ignore, about the crisis and total hash Sarkov and Merkel and the unelected bureacrats from Briussels have made of the Sovreign debt crisis in Europe.

80% of financial transactions in the EU that would be covered by an FTT are carried out in the UK, the Eurozone wanst to impose a tax on these to help pay for Eurozone debt, unsurprisngly the Germans and French think this is a great idea as they won't be fitting the bill for their idiotic mistakes. In the short term they get plenty of tax revenue genertaed in the UK, in the medium term it will decimate London's global lead in this business as the business migrates to, ooh let's see Singapore. If we don't get a veto on this tax then David Cameron is absolutely in the right to say we won't sign up. Let the Eurozone sort out its own problem and deystroy Frankfurts smallish bit of this trade if it wants.

Europe's the basket case at the mo - not good for us but the truth.

Incidentally Huge your continued crap that the UK is somehow a parasite on the rest of the EU is laughable not only are we a net contributor and a major Export market for both France and Germany - with whom I believe we both run a trade defeceit with....you think their manufacturers are keen to see us shunned and not part of an available market to them?

You're not being rational on this at all, you're stuck in some bizzare 1996 Timewarp about anyone who's questioning the Euro

[????]

PS DaveR - "The Powerhouses of Europe" made me chuckle muchly too

[Huguenot]

History will more likely look back on this as a blip in the creation of a European super economic zone, and the moment that the British truly disappeared up the arse of their own self destructive vanity.

It's not even as if we've developed other trading partners to fill the gap.

UK export trade with BRIC is 5%, Germany is 11%.

We rely on a bankrupt US that can't even locate the UK on a map, we turn up our noses at our closest trading partners. We have a fraction of the exports to our own commonwealth countries than US, Germany, France or... even Italy!

It's pathetic.

And you guys truly think we're clever?

[????]

In the long term we are all dead - with our own massive budget defeceit and teetering on the edge of our own Sovreaghn Debt crisis and you think it's ok to let German and French self-interest destroy a massive part of our economy? Tp try and prop up something (the Euro) that has a 50/50 chance of survival? And will take YEARS to function properly if it ever does.

You could argue that the environemnt is as bigger issue than Financial Regulation, why is the EU not imposing transaction tax on all Cars Manufactured in the EU....Germany would sure as hell support that.....er. maybe

[????]

...and for the millionth, billionth time we all understand about the importance of europe as a trading partner which is why many of us are pulling our hair out at the economic illiteracy of the European elite who created a single currency on unstable foundations which is now dragging Europe to the precipice (including us) and has a very real chance of economic and, as worryingly, political catastrophe throughout Europe.....