If the system didn't allow them to do so it wouldn't happen, of which sovereign debt was only one component of this crisis.
It's like blaming drug users and not drug dealers for the plight of drug abuse, for a sloppy analogy.
Euro talks, what are the implications?
- Thread starter Brookert
- Start date
If the system didn't allow them to do so it wouldn't happen, of which sovereign debt was only one component of this crisis.
It's like blaming drug users and not drug dealers for the plight of drug abuse, for a sloppy analogy.
actually a pretty good one
Really ? So not having a credible taxation system in place while trying to buy votes by throwing money employing people left right and center on borrowed money is not the fault of the government of Greece ?
Deleted member 651465
D
Deleted member 651465
Meh.
Screw Greece.
Screw Greece.
Greece isn't the entirety of the problem though. Even then, as pointed out, it takes two to tango. Someone gave them the money, singificant amoutns funnelled through the UK.
Niether did this all occur in Greece government's balanace sheets. It was the financial sector that set this ball rolling.
Government's do have a responsibility, and some have had difficulties with sovereign debt. This is only one aspect of the problem, and Anglo-American capitalism has the largest share of the pie.
The governments of the EU set up the rules surrounding the stability and growth pact, they decided to turn a blind eye to the rules they themselves set. The drug user IMO is not a good analogy at all. The governments are shirking their responsibility and some people are buying into it.
Which, again, is only one component of the problems at present.
You can't abdicate the financial sector responsibility and blame Governments exclusively this is just silly.
No I think the problem is those either through vested interests or mislaid loyalties who are trying to deflect any attention or redress to the FS.
It is in the interest of no Government to abondon responsibility as fiscal accumen is linked to electorial support, and power.
What we have seen is exactly the opposite of what you describe, Governments - acting in a haphazard and late manner - trying to stop anyone from renegading on their liabilities.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 405
Im not an expert on this nor am i pretending to be, but wouldn't this cause a 'tax haven' in the city of London making many european financial institutions flocks towards to UK. Surely this would benefit the UK hugely, and all the 'profit/tax' will be kept within the UK.
or have i the wrong end of the stick here.
The problem i see is that we don't actually have the full picture as governments aren't telling the truth on how good or bad things are, so we can't possibly know if this is a good idea or a bad idea.
or have i the wrong end of the stick here.
The problem i see is that we don't actually have the full picture as governments aren't telling the truth on how good or bad things are, so we can't possibly know if this is a good idea or a bad idea.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 405
I don't understand why people are saying we will be isolated, we are still in the EU we still have the trade union. Lets face it, most of europe is full of worthless counties that don't contribute to anything, nor export anything worth anything.
I mean im sure i can live without olive oil, but can greece live without exporting olive oil to us.
I mean im sure i can live without olive oil, but can greece live without exporting olive oil to us.
Many governments have abandoned responsibilty in the name of buying votes. Want first class services but wants someone else to pay for them so the governments have to borrow to pay for them.
Governments are trying to prevent reneging on their debts as it would mean no one would lend to them, what choice do they have?
I havent quite settled my own mind about the outcome of this but the following quote is from a guy from another forum who is as a whole normally pretty spot on about this subject-
-----------------
I was emailing with our EU expert at the bank today (she has specialised in EU law) and this is her summary:
She was said that Dave using the veto puts Britain in a very strong position going forwards. Apparently it is impossible or the 24 nations who said yes to the new treaty to go ahead without the three. If they want to go ahead with their plans they must, must get the permission of all 27 nations and let the dissenters opt-out of any new requirements. She said we haven't heard the end of this yet, and there is still plenty of time for the ball to swing back to us and that is the opportunity for Dave to get serious concessions.
Basically, they can't make new structures or amendments to existing structures without our express permission, to do so is prohibited under EU law. All 27 nations must be in agreement over all treaty changes or new treaties. She added that the solution for France is for Britain to leave and they want to use this method, possibly by upping the ante on the City (which Dave will protect, as we know from today's actions) but she is certain that the Germans will never go for it. They don't want to be the last major solvent country left in the EU. Without Britain, Germany is left as the defacto leader (as if it wasn't already) and they don't want that status, and they don't want to give it to the French either. For Germany having us in the EU is all about them keeping the EU essentially leaderless as there are at least three powerful nations all with differing opinions. She said if push comes to shove she expects the Germans will side with us and we will get the concessions we want over financial regulations. We could even get the Commissioner role for financial regulations as part of the settlement.
I don't know whether to trust her over the politics but she tends to be right about this stuff and she does spend a lot of time in Brussels and Frankfurt and knows the feeling on the ground. She said a lot of her German based clients were sympathetic to our cause and understood why Dave was forced to use the veto, they thought Merkel would have done the same if France and Britain teamed up to destroy German manufacturing and industry (their equivalent to the City).
They are unable to pass any treaty changes for the 24 without our permission so it has made us stronger as they know Dave is willing to bring down the EU and hold the Eurozone to ransom to get our opt-outs and repatriations. Even the Treaty of Maastricht had 12 signatories (all of the members plus three proposed members) but Britain and Denmark secured opt outs on virtually all of the measures proposed in the Treaty (basically the foundation of the Eurozone) and further opt outs of social legislation (for Britain) and regulations (for Denmark) in exchange for giving their assent to the Treaty. In fact Denmark, the nation that voted down Maastricht via a referendum secured the most opt-outs and concessions from the EU.
Since a new Treaty or changes to Lisbon are impossible without Britain, short of throwing us out (also impossible, we would have to leave according to her) they would be forced to give us what we want if they want to make the proposed treaty enforceable under EU law. A treaty signed by only 24 or even 26 out of 27 members is not enforceable under EU law and amounts to little more than a gentlemen's agreement. They have no mechanism to force Britain out of the EU, they have no mechanism to add a mechanism to thrown Britain out of the EU (we could just veto any moves made in this direction) and they have very little to gain by throwing us out of the EU. She is adamant that Germany would never let us leave, so that means there is one solution, we get control of all financial regulations and preserve London as the financial capital of Europe (which is what this is really about Sarko wants to move finance from London to Paris). She is pretty well linked within the FCO and says that would be an acceptable deal for Britain. We get control of financial regulation and money, they get their treaty changes.
-----------------
again this isnt my opinion and is a source from a source but still its a interesting perspective and I have only added it here as the posts so far seem to be ignoring many of the political ramifications this creates positive and negative. Whether accurate or not I find several of the notions/suggestions warrant consideration.
-----------------
I was emailing with our EU expert at the bank today (she has specialised in EU law) and this is her summary:
She was said that Dave using the veto puts Britain in a very strong position going forwards. Apparently it is impossible or the 24 nations who said yes to the new treaty to go ahead without the three. If they want to go ahead with their plans they must, must get the permission of all 27 nations and let the dissenters opt-out of any new requirements. She said we haven't heard the end of this yet, and there is still plenty of time for the ball to swing back to us and that is the opportunity for Dave to get serious concessions.
Basically, they can't make new structures or amendments to existing structures without our express permission, to do so is prohibited under EU law. All 27 nations must be in agreement over all treaty changes or new treaties. She added that the solution for France is for Britain to leave and they want to use this method, possibly by upping the ante on the City (which Dave will protect, as we know from today's actions) but she is certain that the Germans will never go for it. They don't want to be the last major solvent country left in the EU. Without Britain, Germany is left as the defacto leader (as if it wasn't already) and they don't want that status, and they don't want to give it to the French either. For Germany having us in the EU is all about them keeping the EU essentially leaderless as there are at least three powerful nations all with differing opinions. She said if push comes to shove she expects the Germans will side with us and we will get the concessions we want over financial regulations. We could even get the Commissioner role for financial regulations as part of the settlement.
I don't know whether to trust her over the politics but she tends to be right about this stuff and she does spend a lot of time in Brussels and Frankfurt and knows the feeling on the ground. She said a lot of her German based clients were sympathetic to our cause and understood why Dave was forced to use the veto, they thought Merkel would have done the same if France and Britain teamed up to destroy German manufacturing and industry (their equivalent to the City).
They are unable to pass any treaty changes for the 24 without our permission so it has made us stronger as they know Dave is willing to bring down the EU and hold the Eurozone to ransom to get our opt-outs and repatriations. Even the Treaty of Maastricht had 12 signatories (all of the members plus three proposed members) but Britain and Denmark secured opt outs on virtually all of the measures proposed in the Treaty (basically the foundation of the Eurozone) and further opt outs of social legislation (for Britain) and regulations (for Denmark) in exchange for giving their assent to the Treaty. In fact Denmark, the nation that voted down Maastricht via a referendum secured the most opt-outs and concessions from the EU.
Since a new Treaty or changes to Lisbon are impossible without Britain, short of throwing us out (also impossible, we would have to leave according to her) they would be forced to give us what we want if they want to make the proposed treaty enforceable under EU law. A treaty signed by only 24 or even 26 out of 27 members is not enforceable under EU law and amounts to little more than a gentlemen's agreement. They have no mechanism to force Britain out of the EU, they have no mechanism to add a mechanism to thrown Britain out of the EU (we could just veto any moves made in this direction) and they have very little to gain by throwing us out of the EU. She is adamant that Germany would never let us leave, so that means there is one solution, we get control of all financial regulations and preserve London as the financial capital of Europe (which is what this is really about Sarko wants to move finance from London to Paris). She is pretty well linked within the FCO and says that would be an acceptable deal for Britain. We get control of financial regulation and money, they get their treaty changes.
-----------------
again this isnt my opinion and is a source from a source but still its a interesting perspective and I have only added it here as the posts so far seem to be ignoring many of the political ramifications this creates positive and negative. Whether accurate or not I find several of the notions/suggestions warrant consideration.
not at all. it's not like Siemens or Mercedes are listed on FTSE 100. and as far a tax havens there are plenty of real ones out there like Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco etc... except they don't really have thriving stock markets since they produce nothing and only allow some companies and wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes
for someone that is spot on as you say it's 26 out of 27 that agreed, not 24. It is not France that is leading this initiative, it is in fact Germany. read Der Speigel's article "bye bye Britain" http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,802728,00.html
or could make European products seem like safer investements since they will be regulated so no nasty surprises losing your pensions because someone was playing the roulette table
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 405
I believe it was 24 out of 27 earlier today, but the other two agreed a few hours later. Hungry and sweden were still voting.
It wasn't always, several other countries didn't initially agree and put the matter through parliamentary debate, The UK were the only ones to say 'NO' outright but not everyone else said 'YES' at the table, hence the 24.
tbh the way some countries are talking we should just nuke them and say come at us bro
reminds me of the beginnings of WW2, I dare Europe to threaten UK with trade embargoes
Sod Europe lets export to India or other non eu countries, apart from Germany the rest can rub to €0.01 cent coins together
reminds me of the beginnings of WW2, I dare Europe to threaten UK with trade embargoes
Sod Europe lets export to India or other non eu countries, apart from Germany the rest can rub to €0.01 cent coins together
thank god you don't have your finger on the button..
in the end it is not UK giving the finger to EU, but the EU saying fine, we will move on
also why do you think UK could come to agreements with other countries when it has failed with 26 of its allies/neighbours? do you really think India has a high regard for UK? do they wish to come back under rule of the British monarchy?
Last edited: