Cameron vetoes new Eurozone treaty

[folti78]

Well, I can guess where the next EU stability measures are going at this rate...

Obviously we have to do something because letting Hungary collapse is not going to be that great for the people of that nation, otoh I can not envision a scenario where the oligarchs won't take that as validation of their policy....

We'll see, but unlike the EMU countries, propping up Hungary is not crucial for the EU's survival(although Austrian banking will have "fun"). Even if they want to help, Merkelthe EU will tie the handouts to a massive change of economic policies, which probably result in the fall of the current government. It won't be the first time ...

BTW, love the new nationalistic outlook there. Like erecting a fascist sword in the stone monument to Hungary inside a very old Roman danube fortress...

What? Where? When? I missed that one. Probably, because compared to the other shit flying around here, it wasn't that much of a scandal.

[Thanas]

Reconsidering does not mean "agreeing straightaway". It means they can either agree or decline.

Indeed, but it is far away from "joining Britain in refusing to join". I expect that at least two of them might refuse eventually, but it is not the outright refusal the Brits wanted and it lets these countries join the talks, unlike the Brits.



EDIT: Even more commentary from the Spiegel.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 03,00.html

The Birth of a Two-Speed Europe

At their Brussels summit, European leaders were able to agree on a fiscal union surprisingly quickly. But the new pact, which Chancellor Merkel had strongly advocated, has a crucial flaw -- Britain is not on board. Prime Minister David Cameron will not be able to prevent his country from becoming a second-class EU member.

It is part of the ritual of long nights of negotiations in Brussels that everyone perceives him or herself as the victor afterwards. So there was little surprise when British Prime Minister David Cameron stepped before the cameras on Friday morning and spoke of a "tough but good decision." He said he had defended Great Britain's national interests. At the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy praised the decisions taken on Thursday night and Friday morning as important steps towards stabilizing the euro zone.

But neither side can truly be pleased with the results. European Union Commissioner Günther Oettinger, who is Germany's representative in the EU executive, conceded this as well, noting it was a "good, second-best solution." Instead of a legally clean amendment to the Lisbon Treaty that establishes the operating rules for the European Union, a separate treaty will now be forged between 23 EU governments that have agreed to stricter budget oversight. The agreement has been reached between the 17 euro-zone countries. Nine countries that are not part of euro zone also signalled in the summit's closing statement that they would consult their parliaments about the possibility of joining the pact.

Britain now stands alone in its rejection of the changes. Initially, Hungary had expressed reservations, but it shifted and joined the majority of European countries on Friday. Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and the Czech Republic must still consult their parliaments, before it will be certain just how many members the new fiscal union will include.

Questions have already been raised over whether the construct of the new fiscal union can be legally reconciled with the Lisbon Treaty, which defines the governance of the EU and will still remain binding.

More importantly, though, the summit's outcome will seal the status of a two-speed Europe. Back home, Cameron is already being accused of driving his country into isolation. Unyielding euroskeptics aside, most people in Britain can't be pleased that their country will now play second fiddle in Brussels. The British leader is likely to come under particularly harsh criticism for abandoning the kind of pragmatism that is so highly valued in his country, instead caving in to anti-EU ideologists within his party -- just as other Tories before him have done.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague sought to limit the damage on Friday morning, telling the BBC that Britain would continue to play a major role in foreign and economic policy. Formally, Britain will remain a full-fledged member of the EU -- and it will zealously insist on its rights. But Cameron will not be able to prevent his country from increasingly becoming a second-class member. That's because European economic policy is likely to be determined in the future by the euro zone and its associate members.

Nor is the loss of importance in Europe that Britain has now brought upon itself in the country's geopolitical interest. Indeed, its trans-Atlantic partnership with the United States will suffer as a result. In the eyes of politicians in Washington, Britain has been particularly useful because of its ability to assert influence in Brussels.

No Reason for Merkel and Sarkozy to Be Pleased

But Merkel and Sarkozy can't be pleased with the outcome either. True, they have achieved their aim: The currency union will now be equipped with a balanced budget measure and automatic sanctions. On top of that, they have also succeeded in avoiding the protracted ratification process that revisions to the Lisbon Treaty would have required.

However, Berlin and Paris haven't heeded the ground rules of diplomacy. They didn't seek any compromise with the British and instead stuck the political equivalent of a knife right into Cameron's chest. Were his demands really as "unacceptable" as Sarkozy portrayed them early Friday morning? Or is it not a legitimate right that a country doesn't want to be overruled when it comes to issues pertaining to one of the main branches of its economy? If Sarkozy's main intention was to save the financial transaction tax, then he certainly shouldn't feel victorious, because it is still not going to be implemented in London now.

The German government justified its categorical "no" to any special wishes by warning that it could open up a Pandora's box, with other EU member states then making additional demands. Memories are still fresh in Berlin of the decision made this summer to increase the funds available to the euro bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). The decision threatened to unravel only a few days later as Finland, the Netherlands and Slovakia demanded, one after the other, that additional guarantees be provided.

That argument carries a certain amount of weight, but the rigid position comes at a price. The prospect of a Europe that is drifting apart is not exactly the signal of unity that euro-zone leaders wanted to send at the crunch summit. They can take some comfort in the fact that six non-euro countries are planning to join the pact and that two others, Sweden and the Czech Republic, may still follow suit, subject to parliamentary approval. That would leave the United Kingdom and Hungary as the sole refuseniks.

The pact between the 23 states also represents a shift of power in their favor at the EU level. The "economic government" of leaders of these countries can make decisions via euro summits and would not need to seek the approval of the European Parliament. Merkel and Sarkozy will likely view that fact as an additional benefit of this approach.

[Thanas]

And a more candid one:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 28,00.html

Bye Bye Britain
The European Union's New Face

The European Union on Thursday night dropped the hypocrisy. No longer is harmony the overriding goal. That, though, means that Great Britain may no longer have a place at the table. London must decide whether it wants to remain part of Europe or not.

Europe on Friday awoke to a changed world. The European idea as we know it is in the process of dissolving into thin air. The monumental postwar project of a peacefully unified continent where all member states hold hands in friendship collapsed overnight.

The European Union has divided itself in the face of crisis. On the one side is the common currency union, which is following the Franco-German desire to grow together as a way to finally get the euro crisis under control.

On the other side is the United Kingdom, standing petulantly alone, no longer wanting to play.

It is a decisive development -- and one that is completely new for Europe. The EU had become used to late night compromises, last minute quasi-agreements that take into account the sensitivities of all member states. That form of accord, one based on finding the lowest common denominator, no matter how low or well-hidden it might be, is finished. When it comes to money, friendship is secondary.

One could also formulate it differently: Europe is finally becoming candid. The crisis is forcing EU leaders to finally bid farewell to all those rituals and hypocrisies that have defined Europe in recent years. Isn't it, after all, true that the British have been the fly in the European soup for quite some time now? They always wanted to be there, to have their say and wield their influence. But when it became time to really engage in Europe by joining the euro, the response was: "No euro please, we are British!"

Europe Can Work Fine without the British

In myriad endless EU summits past, this contradiction was systematically glossed over with friendly gestures and obligatory goodwill. Not anymore. Great Britain, the birthplace of realpolitik, a country which has always scorned the EU idealism found on the Continent, has now been backed into a corner -- and it has been pushed there by exactly those idealists it has long disdained. The question is a simple one: Do you want to remain part of a united Europe or do you not?

The euro crisis has exposed a kind of creative momentum that is in the process of creating something new. A new Europe. It is an entity which Chancellor Angela Merkel calls a "fiscal union." But in reality, Europe is on the path toward becoming a federal country. Germany and France would lead, as became clear on Thursday night in Brussels. But leaders must also ensure that all are included. Arrogant posturing aimed at appeasing the electorate back home is damaging.

That is true of relations between large and small EU member states. But it is also true of relations with Great Britain. The preferred outcome is clear -- of course Great Britain should become part of an integrated euro-Europe. Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy should clearly say so.

Europe, though, can work fine without the British. But what kind of future does Great Britain have without the Continent and without the euro? Will it, in the future, focus exclusively on its alliance with the United States? Will the Commonwealth become a greater priority? What is this small country's role in a world made up great powers such as China, Russia, Europe and the US?

These are the questions that Britain must now answer. And it doesn't have much time. If the Brits wait too long, history will simply move on. Should that happen, it would be "bye bye Britain." Forever. Instead, we should be working toward "welcome back."

[inviz345]

these rules should have been drawn up when it started the bank had nothing to do with it. Even labour has not said if they would have signed up last night only about diplomacy.

[UnderAGreySky]

From the "Birth of a Two-Speed Europe" article in the Spiegel:

most people in Britain can't be pleased that their country will now play second fiddle in Brussels

I... doubt it. Admittedly my social circles here are limited, but not too many people seem to really care about being the strong man in Europe. More people I see seem to be happy that the UK is not part of the crisis.

I also wonder if George Osborne believes austerity does not work; and that was justification in wanting to not turn over budgetary control to the EU. The coalition seems to be quietly changing track on the austerity front; this would be even harder to do once under EU rules.

[D.Turtle]

I have to say I'm really not sure of what to think of the whole thing (Euro crisis and the response to it).

On the one hand, it is quite absurd (I think) to claim that what Merkel, Sarkozy, etc. are doing is a deliberate attempt to plunder/enslave/indebt/lord over other countries in the Euro at the behest of banks, etc. I think that it is really good that finally there is strong movement (without the UK) towards more central control through various EU/Eurozone institutions, which should lead to good results in the long term. The UK has always been the biggest road block towards more integration, and now they've basically removed themselves.

On the other hand, I think that Krugman (and others) have a very good case that the cause of the crisis and the proper response to it is being widely misread by European leaders, and that a different response would help a lot more in the short/medium term.

[DoomSquid]

Honestly? Cameron had no choice at all. I don't like the guy at all, but on a personal level, he's very obviously a Europhile, at least for a Tory. Whether or not he would've been willing to sign on the dotted line personally is probably not possible to know, but Parliament made doing so a total impossibility without some sort of concession. Cameron quite simply would not have survived the attempt, and Parliament might well have flat out rejected any new treaty even if he had signed.

Britain does deserve to be smacked for this sort of obstructionism, but France and Germany deserve an equally large smack for floating something that a blind man could see was made impossible for Cameron because of the domestic political situation. Even if that wasn't obvious the when the policy was first proposed, it should've been obvious when Cameron suffered the largest ever backbench revolt in British history over Europe, on a three line whip no less. Merkel and Sarkozy were never going to get Britain to agree (and Britain's reasons for telling the EU to sod off make sense, given that the City not only dwarfs any Eurozone financial centre, but is basically the only thing of worth in our useless and broken economy), and forcefully pushing something that the other side finds utterly unacceptable is never a smart thing to do.

Also, I have to agree with UnderAGreySky; most people not only won't be bothered, they'll be actively glad that Britain is left outside. I happen t not be one of them, but I'm part of a relatively small and powerless minority, alas. We I undisputed ruler of Britain, I would've said yes to the tax so I could stay on the inside, but if I were in the same position as Cameron, I'd have said no because there's no way I'd be able to get it through Parliament anyway, and it would've cost me my job for no gain at all.

[Starglider]

Merkel and Sarkozy were never going to get Britain to agree (and Britain's reasons for telling the EU to sod off make sense, given that the City not only dwarfs any Eurozone financial centre, but is basically the only thing of worth in our useless and broken economy), and forcefully pushing something that the other side finds utterly unacceptable is never a smart thing to do.

Merkozy offered absolutely nothing beneficial to Britain at all. Plenty of downsides, and not one single upside; this was all stick and no carrot. Except that the 'stick' was just the vauge threat 'if you're not in our club you're in the dustbin of history', an empty bluff that was finally called. The raw arrogance of not even attempting to make Britain an offer, but just flatly stating demands and expecting unquestioning obedience, demonstrates how much their new-found bailout power over the periphery has gone to their heads.

We I undisputed ruler of Britain, I would've said yes to the tax so I could stay on the inside

Not one europhile has ever made a concrete argument for how 'being on the inside' is of tangible benefit, never mind worth the massive (and growing) levvies and pointless regulatory burdens that the EU imposes. The UK had no say in anything anyway, France and Germany have been steadily cemmenting control of Europe and are hardly going to share it with disgusting 'anglo-saxon' barbarians. They have a hard enough time sharing it with each other.

[Thanas]

Merkel and Sarkozy were never going to get Britain to agree (and Britain's reasons for telling the EU to sod off make sense, given that the City not only dwarfs any Eurozone financial centre, but is basically the only thing of worth in our useless and broken economy), and forcefully pushing something that the other side finds utterly unacceptable is never a smart thing to do.

Merkozy offered absolutely nothing beneficial to Britain at all. Plenty of downsides, and not one single upside; this was all stick and no carrot. Except that the 'stick' was just the vauge threat 'if you're not in our club you're in the dustbin of history', an empty bluff that was finally called. The raw arrogance of not even attempting to make Britain an offer, but just flatly stating demands and expecting unquestioning obedience, demonstrates how much their new-found bailout power over the periphery has gone to their heads.

Bull. Guardian

One British source said: "It was pretty clear from the Merkel and Sarkozy meeting that they had a problem with our position. They were willing to offer declarations and assurances in the areas where we had difficulties. But they were not willing to accept these could be put in the treaty. The methodology was the sticking point."

When Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European council, opened the discussion among the 27 leaders over a dinner of soup, cod and chocolate cake and ice cream, Cameron was initially given a breather. The first five hours of discussions focused on the new rules for the eurozone fiscal compact which was not strictly relevant to Britain.

It was at around 1.15am local time that the discussions moved on to treaty change. José Manuel Barroso, the anglophile president of the European commission, tried to help Cameron by suggesting some language for the revised Lisbon treaty. Barroso suggested that a clause should be inserted saying that the measures under the fiscal compact must not distort the single market.

The prime minister, who started to set out his position at around 1.30am, said this did not go far enough. Within minutes Sarkozy rounded on Cameron in what were described as robust exchanges. At one point the prime minister attempted to remove any reference to the internal market from the proposed revised Lisbon treaty text. Sarkozy shot back and said that if Britain was not going to sign a treaty it could not hope to amend it.

Right.

Not one europhile has ever made a concrete argument for how 'being on the inside' is of tangible benefit, never mind worth the massive (and growing) levvies and pointless regulatory burdens that the EU imposes. The UK had no say in anything anyway, France and Germany have been steadily cemmenting control of Europe and are hardly going to share it with disgusting 'anglo-saxon' barbarians. They have a hard enough time sharing it with each other.

THe UK had no say? Which country blocked the Lisbon treaty and limited it from being a true constitution?

Also, nice going with the strawman.

As for the benefits of going alone:

Firms fear Cameron has steered them into a dead end

Yet it was hard to find many business voices supporting the decision this weekend. Sir Martin Sorrell, boss of the multinational advertising group WPP, summed up the concerns of many business leaders when he told the Observer: "Intuitively, it can't be helpful. I'd rather be inside the tent." He added that the spat between Britain and the eurozone countries was reminiscent of the kind of internal politics he has had to deal with: "It reminds me of the battles that go on inside companies in our industry between country managers and regional headquarters – it's really a political battle over power and control."

Manufacturers, whose fortunes lie at the heart of the Cameron-Osborne plan for revitalising the economy, and many of whom are heavily reliant on demand from the EU, also express caution. Steve Coventry, head of government affairs at manufacturers' association the EEF, says: "What we need to do is step back, forget about the politics of this, and think about the practicalities of the way it's going to affect how we engage with our EU partners on a daily basis."

]38 years of foreign policy down the drain

But here's the rub. If the Franco-German plan doesn't work, things will not be better for Britain, they will be much, much worse as our main trading zone collapses. Yet we have rejected being in, helping prevent collapse, in favour of being out, hoping for the best.

And Clegg is not too happy either:

Accusing Cameron of failing to play the diplomatic game effectively, the source added: "He could not believe that Cameron hadn't tried to play for more time. A menu of choices wasn't deployed as a negotiating tool but instead was presented as a take it or leave it ultimatum. That is not how he [Clegg] would have played Britain's hand."

It is not merely within Europe, Whitman believes, that Britain's voice is likely to be diminished but also in the US where, under President Barack Obama, enthusiasm for the "special relationship" has been cooler. "It is not clear why the US should pursue a privileged relationship with the UK over Europe when the UK is outside. We have sold ourselves as a bridge between Europe and the US. Why go through London when it can go straight to Paris or Berlin?"

Michael Calingaert, an expert at the US Brookings Institution on the EU and transatlantic relations, believes that Britain's influence will inevitably be diminished. "The notion that Britain was a bridge between the US and Europe was probably overstated somewhat. But now that Merkel and Sarkozy are running the show it is inevitable that Berlin and Paris will be more important [to Washington] than London. The US will look far less to the UK as an interlocutor."

[White Haven]

One British source said: "It was pretty clear from the Merkel and Sarkozy meeting that they had a problem with our position. They were willing to offer declarations and assurances in the areas where we had difficulties. But they were not willing to accept these could be put in the treaty. The methodology was the sticking point."

To duck in here, how is 'offering declarations and assurances' and then outright refusing to have them cemented in binding written form in any way trustworthy? That'd be like talking with a prospective landlord who assures you that his company will deal with any relevant maintenance, but who then flat-out refuses to allow that into the lease contract. You'd tell him to fuck off in a moment, and I don't really see how this is any different.

'We won't fuck you over, honest!'
'Alright then, let's just tag that onto the contract--'
'Absolutely not!'

[Thanas]

To duck in here, how is 'offering declarations and assurances' and then outright refusing to have them cemented in binding written form in any way trustworthy?

Either you trust the assurances or you do not. What assurances were publicly given and broken btw? I mean, you must be able to point to a lot of instances of such public assurances being broken in order to have them declared untrustworthy?

[D.Turtle]

To duck in here, how is 'offering declarations and assurances' and then outright refusing to have them cemented in binding written form in any way trustworthy?

Because thats the way its been done for a long, long time. If you look at the development of the EU, it has been constant negotiations, compromises, promises for future actions, etc. In the past, if you stood alone against all other EU members, you would get some concession, and then get agree/get out of the way. Apparently the UK is no longer willing to play by those rules, which is too bad. They shouldn't be surprised if they are (even more) marginalized in the future. Obviously, they think this is a fair price to pay in order to stay out of any future agreements.

[SpaceMarine93]

Nick Clegg's response to Cameron's decision and the Conservatives stance on this issue are, let's just say, vicious, while Osborne is trying to make 2+2=5:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16129004

Nick Clegg attacks David Cameron over European veto

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has launched an attack on David Cameron for "isolating" the UK in Europe with his veto of changes to the EU treaty.

Sources close to the Liberal Democrat leader said he did not feel the failed eurozone crisis negotiations had resulted in a good deal for the UK.

The BBC understands Mr Clegg was dismayed when he was woken early on Friday to hear of the PM's decision.

Initially Mr Clegg said the coalition government was united in its position.

But now sources close to him have confirmed that he "doesn't think this is a good deal for Britain".

Mr Clegg "couldn't believe it", they said, when he was told the summit in Brussels had "spectacularly unravelled".

BBC political correspondent Robin Brant says the comments linked to Mr Clegg mark a considerable change in tone from Friday when he said he and Mr Cameron had worked together on the UK's negotiating stance.

This will add to existing tensions over Europe in the coalition, our correspondent adds.

The prime minister blocked changes to the EU's Lisbon Treaty at an EU summit, arguing that the proposed changes were not in the UK's interest.

It now looks likely that all 26 other members of the European Union will agree to a new "accord" setting out tougher budget rules aimed at preventing a repeat of the current eurozone crisis.

The Independent on Sunday quotes a source "close to Mr Clegg", as saying: "Nick certainly doesn't think this is a good deal for Britain, for British jobs or British growth.

"It leaves us isolated in Europe and that is not in our national interest. Nick's fear is that we become the lonely man of Europe.

"He could not believe that Cameron hadn't tried to play for more time. That is not how Nick would have played Britain's hand."

The paper also quotes a Lib Dem source who says that if the Conservatives "think we can now go back to Europe with a sackful of demands about repatriating powers, they are living in a fantasy world".

On Saturday Chancellor George Osborne said Mr Cameron's decision to veto changes to the treaty had "helped protect Britain's economic interests".

"We have protected Britain's financial services, and manufacturing companies that need to be able to trade their businesses, their products, into Europe," he said.

"We've protected all these industries from the development of eurozone integration spilling over and affecting the non-euro members of the European Union."

Labour leader Ed Miliband has said the UK will now be excluded from key economic decisions in Europe, while UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage has said the outcome was "the worst of all worlds" for the UK, leaving the country in Europe but without power.

Nick Clegg got a point. I mean, what era do the Prime Minister, Osborne and those Conservatives think they are in? The 19th Century? Britain is not the Empire that ruled over 1/4 of the world anymore - just a dried up, second-rated European nation that depends on its own, far more successful daughter that is America to even stand up for herself. And this man, this Tony Blair clone, still had the gall to march into Brussels demanding special privileges and exemptions for Britain from a legally binding treaty that would prevent Eurozone crisis from happening again, a treaty which everyone else had put so much effort, unanimously agreed and compromised so much to bring forth. Not fair For Britain and for Europe, is it?

Oh well, if Britain's economy and place in Europe suffers in the future because of this, at least the British people have a few convenient scapegoats to put all the blame on.

[Simon_Jester]

To duck in here, how is 'offering declarations and assurances' and then outright refusing to have them cemented in binding written form in any way trustworthy?

Because thats the way its been done for a long, long time. If you look at the development of the EU, it has been constant negotiations, compromises, promises for future actions, etc. In the past, if you stood alone against all other EU members, you would get some concession, and then get agree/get out of the way. Apparently the UK is no longer willing to play by those rules, which is too bad. They shouldn't be surprised if they are (even more) marginalized in the future. Obviously, they think this is a fair price to pay in order to stay out of any future agreements.

D., I don't know about you, but if I were part of an organization where my objections were met with verbal assurances but never nailed down in a binding form, I would consider that a bad thing.

This would be common sense if we saw it in everyday contractual relations. If I'm part of a group of businesses and I notice that everyone is willing to promise to address my special concerns, but no one is willing to write provisions into contracts to deal with them officially, I would worry. Maybe all these nonbinding promises will get kept, because granted, it's an embarrassment to the others if they promise me something and then don't do it.

But if this keeps going on long enough, sooner or later anyone with sense is going to start wondering if it's a setup- if the reason my business partners refuse to put anything in writing is because they're planning to take advantage of me. And if I come to them with my concern that I'm leaving myself wide open to being cheated and manipulated here and all they have to say is "well, if you don't like it then we'll leave you behind and marginalize you from our group!" I'm going to be even more suspicious.

You look at someone who's willing to verbally promise me the moon while refusing to put anything down in writing, to try and railroad me into signing things without time to consult those closest to me, to mock any principles I might have that make me reluctant to go along with the crowd, and to threaten me with nebulous penalties of ostracism if I don't play along with the group to preserve the perception of unanimity...

How would I not be skeptical? That's how a pack of con artists would act.

And I'd be especially nervous about such behavior at a time when the people at the center of the group (in this case, France and Germany) are flexing the leverage their agreements give them as a way to order around the people at the fringes of the group (the European periphery). I will be starting to think that I'm dealing with people who will laugh at and ignore the democratic process in other countries, if that democratic process leads to a result they don't like. And who have no problem using their leverage to coerce elected governments into doing things and making binding agreements their voters would never support, actions that could lead to the fall of those governments.

Do you not see how this acts as a strain on the trust of other members of the group?

[Thanas]

Do you not see how this acts as a strain on the trust of other members of the group?

No, because you freaking missed the point of how this is the way that it has always been done in Europe (successfully). If that suddenly is not good enough now (for whatever reason) - and apparently not even inserting language in the final treaty was good enough for Cameron - then that's too bad, too sad.

Notice that no other country had any problem with declarations and assurances. Heck, these were apparently satisfactory enough for Hungary, the Czechs and Sweden. But no, not for Britain.

[D.Turtle]

Do you not see how this acts as a strain on the trust of other members of the group?

The thing is, that this is not a normal contractual thing between to companies, working together for the first time. Its more akin to two different companies, that have worked together for a long, long time, and that have made numerous similar verbal agreements of that kind before.

The entire European project is built on trust and building/increasing that trust and has worked that way since the beginning.

[Kane Starkiller]

There is one aspect people seem to be ignoring: UK had a right to veto the agreement and it acted within the political framework of EU. All other countries acted outside the framework of EU when they ignored it.
Now it can definitely be said that the ability of even the smallest country to block entire EU of 500 million people is ridiculous however that was the law.

So this is not UK getting out of EU as much as other EU countries pushing forward and reshaping EU and UK choosing not to follow and I don't think that it's obvious UK was wrong. It was their decision to make and there are tradeoffs either way. Norway and Switzerland certainly seem to do just fine without EU. The idea that UK is somehow too small and unimportant to go at it alone doesn't really hold water.

[Thanas]

There is one aspect people seem to be ignoring: UK had a right to veto the agreement and it acted within the political framework of EU. All other countries acted outside the framework of EU when they ignored it.
Now it can definitely be said that the ability of even the smallest country to block entire EU of 500 million people is ridiculous however that was the law.

Well, no. They did not ignore the veto. Which is why they now cannot just alter the Lisbon treaty. but have to draft something smaller - within the EU, but not being the EU this is bound to create some problems.

[Starglider]

Britain is just setting the precedent for the increasingly smaller subsetting of the EU in future treaties, as the Franco-German fist continues to tighten and more countries slip through their fingers.

[White Haven]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but establishing trust over a long period so that a lie will be believed when the stakes are seriously high at a later date is the definition of the long con. I'm not saying that Germany and France are totally definitely trying to fuck everyone; I don't have anywhere near the kind of insider knowledge and, frankly, telepathy that would require. I'm saying that in a situation like this where the stakes are very high and tensions are extreme, saying 'Sure, I trust you, but can I have that in writing?' is totally reasonable. Trust but verify -- in this case 'verify' means 'if you mean what you say, you shouldn't mind writing it down.'

[Starglider]

I'm not saying that Germany and France are totally definitely trying to fuck everyone

"nations don't have friends or enemies...nations only have interests" - Charles de Gaulle

Of course France and Germany will act in their own best interest. Negative consequences to other nations are only undesirable if they harm their own interests, if they don't then harming competitors is desireable. If they can strip mine the periphery and cripple the UK of course they will do so. Why would you expect these utterly ruthless, selfish and pathologically dishonest politcians to show the slightest shred of altruism? Right now there is an uneasy alliance between the two big nations in the interest of preventing near-term destruction of the euro and being able to dominate the weaker countries, but that will only last until France loses AAA, experiences its own borrowing crisis and flatly demands monetisation. The complete breakdown of the euro-pollyanna propaganda machine when that happens will be quite wonderful to watch.

[Tiriol]

The complete breakdown of the euro-pollyanna propaganda machine when that happens will be quite wonderful to watch.

Quite. If one happens to be a billionaire who can afford to lose huge amounts of money. For the rest of us common folk the prospect of one of the biggest economies of the world breaking up and ending in total chaos is not so nice an idea. Or do you seriously think that EMU or EU breaking apart would not cause major problems and quite frankly disasters to world economy? Or are you so brain-washed in your ideology that you don't even think about consequences?

This is the real problem that we are facing in a global economy: if USA goes bust, the world will follow; if EU goes bust, the world will follow; if China etc. goes bust, well, guess what happens. And I can't take any joy in thinking that "Yes, my economical/political ideology is proven right!" when such things happen. Especially when hard times tend to produce extreme reactions in people. I've seen many people referring in this conversations to 20s and 30s. I'd very much like to avoid any major extremist political movement, thank you very much: one round of communists, fascists and Nazis was enough, thank you very much. Of course, some of you may think that you will escape such hardships and take extraordinary glee in that fact. I hope that you live in interesting times for that.

[cosmicalstorm]

I'm not saying that Germany and France are totally definitely trying to fuck everyone

"nations don't have friends or enemies...nations only have interests" - Charles de Gaulle

Of course France and Germany will act in their own best interest. Negative consequences to other nations are only undesirable if they harm their own interests, if they don't then harming competitors is desireable. If they can strip mine the periphery and cripple the UK of course they will do so. Why would you expect these utterly ruthless, selfish and pathologically dishonest politcians to show the slightest shred of altruism? Right now there is an uneasy alliance between the two big nations in the interest of preventing near-term destruction of the euro and being able to dominate the weaker countries, but that will only last until France loses AAA, experiences its own borrowing crisis and flatly demands monetisation. The complete breakdown of the euro-pollyanna propaganda machine when that happens will be quite wonderful to watch.

When do you think it will collapse? Is it only a few months left or could they postpone it for another 12-48 months via some kind of financial bullshittery?

I agree with Tiriol, it won't be fun to watch this happen.

[Starglider]

The complete breakdown of the euro-pollyanna propaganda machine when that happens will be quite wonderful to watch.

Quite. If one happens to be a billionaire who can afford to lose huge amounts of money. For the rest of us common folk the prospect of one of the biggest economies of the world breaking up and ending in total chaos is not so nice an idea. Or do you seriously think that EMU or EU breaking apart would not cause major problems and quite frankly disasters to world economy? Or are you so brain-washed in your ideology that you don't even think about consequences?

I specifically said the breakdown of the propaganda machine will be wonderful to watch. The economic consequences will be pretty horrible, both to experience and watch, and unfortuantely the people most affected will be the ones who least deserve them. Although people who constantly suck eurocrat cock, blame everything on 'speculators' and pretend Merkozy are benevolent geniuses who will save us all frankly deserve everything they get.

Of course, some of you may think that you will escape such hardships and take extraordinary glee in that fact.

Asian countries probably have the best hope of riding it out with minimal political/social change, and I expect Canada and Australia will see less extremism than Europe/US. Glee seems to have been limited so far, I'm sure it will ramp up if the West has a deep collapse.

[K. A. Pital]

I haven't seen too many people blindly supporting Sarko or Merkel. Many are simply discouraged. Even inside Germany proper many people voice doubts that the EMU was worth it. It is not as if Germany was living a horrible life without the Euro.