6 replies to this topic

[Ash]

Link

One wonders whether this is actually a case of 'Come on, little Britain, this is how big boys do diplomacy. We know you don't get it so here's your chance to get a look and see how it's done. Grab a lollipop and hop on up.' Or whether the EU are actually expecting some sort of meaningful contribution.

As you've no doubt inferred from other posts I've made forumwide, the only truly 'meaningful' contribution the UK could make for its own people in my opinion would be to say 'right, sod your Lisbon Treaty, sod your bureaucracy and your intransigence. We'll go back to just having trade deals with the lot of you. It'll be less painful that way.'

Reading between the lines, though, this is just a cynical attempt by the EU to stop the UK jumping ship just when the cry is probably the loudest it's been for years for Scameron to do just that. Or, alternately, to rope the UK into actually signing something. Or to give Scameron a chance to save face with his many naysayers who claim that last week's use of a power that all EU memberstate leaders possess was a total failure of diplomacy, and that it was bad for Britain, and give him a chance to correct his errant ways.



Oh, by the way, welcome to my new GNP section, where I'll no doubt be jumpin' on my soapbox about pretty much everything you've heard me rant on about in myriad other threads. I'll try to, on occasion, do the research and select a number of different viewpoints. Alternately, I'll grab an article off the Beeb or the Fail or wherever and rant about it in accordance with my normal idiom. You know the drill!

[Hostile]

France and Germany want the new agreement to be concluded as soon as possible to help boost confidence in the eurozone but the nine other countries outside the single currency area have said they will need Parliamentary approval before they can agree to take part.

They sound pretty desperate, I'd say the UK play the upper hand and minimize their ability to help. One must look out for themselves first. No sense sinking with the ship.

[duke_Qa]

Looking out for your best self-interest isn't always the best answer though. If everyone does that then nobody is willing to compromise a penny, and you get scorched-earth politics.

As one person I met in a less entertaining situation said: "If all parties making an agreement feels it is unfair, then it is a fair agreement."

As you've no doubt inferred from other posts I've made forumwide, the only truly 'meaningful' contribution the UK could make for its own people in my opinion would be to say 'right, sod your Lisbon Treaty, sod your bureaucracy and your intransigence. We'll go back to just having trade deals with the lot of you. It'll be less painful that way.'

Or you could say "Our wealthy citizens find your shackles too shackling, so we've been ordered to make a neo-liberal step out into the corporation-anarchy." I can't say if that is what truly made the tories do as they did, but it is just as likely as anything else.
business instead of their bureaucrats and politicians.

We need strong bureaucracies controlled by us for us... not by corporations for corporations or the rich for the rich. That is in my opinion the essence of our generation's political battle.

You could even hope that Cameron's veto was an attempt at getting this done, but I somehow doubt that would have been the case. I think the political elite of Britain is scared of change that will most certainly hit them the worst.

[Námo]

Oh, by the way, welcome to my new GNP section, where I'll no doubt be jumpin' on my soapbox about pretty much everything you've heard me rant on about in myriad other threads. I'll try to, on occasion, do the research and select a number of different viewpoints. Alternately, I'll grab an article off the Beeb or the Fail or wherever and rant about it in accordance with my normal idiom. You know the drill!

+1

We need strong bureaucracies controlled by us for us ...

That's a delusion ... never worked that way, never will. Big Brother will be watching you.

[Ash]

I don't doubt for a second that Scameron's hand is being steered by the likes of the banks. He's a Tory, for God's sake, and Tories only look out for their own kind of people, i.e., the rich. They're the British answer to the Republican Party.

I would argue that it isn't a bureaucracy that the country needs. We have enough of that.
I half-agree with you in principle, Duke - we need to be governed by people who look out for our best interests, not their own and that of their paymasters. I heartily believe that there is no political party which wields any power in Britain which fits that bill. I also heartily believe that the EU fails to fit that bill. I believe its politicians look out for their own interests (mostly by entrenching the continent deeper in bureaucracy, consolidating their power bases, building their little empires and basically justifying their own existence), line their own pockets and sink their hooks deeper, more so than even the national politicians. They'll also only look out for their own home country first, and where one country might 'win', there must also be one who loses. It isn't fair.

There are a few problems with the whole Europe project:
1) We don't need a supranational government. We managed just fine without it interfering in our lives.
2) We didn't ask for (assuming we were ever given a choice in the matter), and don't get to choose, our supranational government. Thus pissing on the very democracy our many peoples fought hard for.
3) It does nothing but hamper and obstruct the sovereign governments and bog us down in useless tot.

I'm sorry but when an organisation as large and far-flung and wielding so much power as the EU does is passing diktats on the minimum acceptable curvature of a banana, or what type of fucking light bulb we're allowed to sell, or the bloody weights and measures we're allowed to use when selling things - matters which, at best, have absolutely no bearing on the general wellbeing and order of the EU as a whole and, at worst, have absolutely no business being mandated or regulated in the first place (because, let's face it, why pass fucking laws about that sort of stuff?)

Not to mention that a 'good for one is good for all' fiscal policy is as shameful as it is shambolic. Forcing Greece to levy the same rate of tax and charge the same price for goods as they are in Germany is a bit daft, purely because Germans earn significantly more, and may buy more of a certain thing than Greece does. The EU should not have any right to affect fiscal or tax policy, beyond perhaps regulating how much a country is allowed to borrow (the one aspect of the new treaty I would agree to in principle) as it will likely hamper initiative to stimulate their own economies.

A financial transaction tax would likewise be unfair. It'd hit Britain far harder than anyone else which is why Scameron vetoed it. Many countries would be all but unaffected by that due to the structure and strength of their banking sector or simply their lack of one worth the name, so naturally they'd sign up to it. London is one of the largest international stock exchanges in the world, unfortunately one of the only sources of revenue for our entire country. To tax it would cost Britain horrifically. Of course he wouldn't buy into that, if he had an ounce of sense. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Unless they're Greek, Irish, Italian or Spanish.

[duke_Qa]

I'm sorry but when an organisation as large and far-flung and wielding so much power as the EU does is passing diktats on the minimum acceptable curvature of a banana, or what type of fucking light bulb we're allowed to sell, or the bloody weights and measures we're allowed to use when selling things - matters which, at best, have absolutely no bearing on the general wellbeing and order of the EU as a whole and, at worst, have absolutely no business being mandated or regulated in the first place (because, let's face it, why pass fucking laws about that sort of stuff?)

I'd say that is good straw-man bureaucracy. I even believe that those that don't want bureaucracy and have power over it, encourage the moles in bureaucracies to go crazy on such useless topics. "Better that they worry about the angle of bananas than worrying about the rich's tax-havens" they think. And a bonus is that the people gets very angry at those bureaucrats, which means the rich doesn't have to pay as much to buy them out as they shrink and become desperate.

A relative that works with us is very good at definitions: Back in 2004 when they were starting to get into power-plant construction, and have just gone through 32 different bureaucratical offices to get all the papers needed, they started to get very good at drinking at nights and give these people names: "One-feather chieftains", which is basically a douche with a rank that is barely above "private" in military jargon, but acts like a king.
Another definition was invented when they came into the realm of the proofreading bureaucrat, which job it was to review their applications for petty mistakes and write tips and info about the things they might have messed up. Those got the definition of being "pen-wankers", and when they came upon one of these its usually "oh its just another pen-wanker don't mind him."

I know the curse of a bad bureaucracy. I am one hell of a anti-bureaucrat at times. My friend just got engaged with a law-student that got a job in the local zoning department, and she is a bit of a pro-bureaucrat beyond average bureaucrats, so we usually get into some fun arguments . I usually tell her that I'm for a people-oriented bureaucracy, but bureaucracy is dangerous when allowed to self-inflate. But I also believe an intervening bureaucracy that has a bigger/noble purpose is better than no bureaucracy or a bureaucracy controlled by the wealthy.

England and USA does not have good bureaucracies. EU is also a bit iffy at times because they are run by neo-liberal politicians who have not been elected fairly. The bureaucracy is meant to have no political opinions, so ultimately its our politicians fault if we are angry with our bureaucracies. That's why I like the demonstrations we've seen the last year: They show our leaders that we don't take shit that only works for a small percentage of us: We want systems that support the majority of us and if that ain't happening we will change it on our own...

A financial transaction tax would likewise be unfair. It'd hit Britain far harder than anyone else which is why Scameron vetoed it. Many countries would be all but unaffected by that due to the structure and strength of their banking sector or simply their lack of one worth the name, so naturally they'd sign up to it. London is one of the largest international stock exchanges in the world, unfortunately one of the only sources of revenue for our entire country. To tax it would cost Britain horrifically. Of course he wouldn't buy into that, if he had an ounce of sense. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Unless they're Greek, Irish, Italian or Spanish.

And the stock-markets of France and Germany wouldn't take a hit? please - this is the argument the rich use "TAX US AND WE WILL GO ELSEWHERE!". FUCK YOU IF YOU GO ELSEWHERE, we will fucking buy an equal product from someone willing to be here and support our nations. Having a transaction tax is something that will stop these fucking speculators from ruining our world with their bubble-bursting philosophies. London has become a tax haven for wealthy expatriates from Russia and China and Arab nations, if they bail others will take their place in the market and they will lose that share. That is fair non-socialistic-for-the-rich Capitalism: if you earn money on a nation, you better pay the piper.

If England is the only country that does not apply this transaction-tax when it arrives, you might get away with a bit of a influx to begin with. But the other nations will most likely add border tax to international trade with you to get their share of those sums. In the end you will be the ones to lose on it methinks.

[Námo]

Wise Men Flee Europe