• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

The Failure of a Forced Marriage

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Failure of a Forced Marriage

    Some harsh words from der Spiegel

    Britain finds itself all alone in the EU.

    Was the outcome of the Brussels summit a bad one for the EU? Not at all. The British were never completely dedicated to European unity and the ongoing project of greater fiscal integration is better off without them.

    It was to be expected. And now it's official: The British have elected not to join the treaty governing Europe's new financial system. Prime Minister David Cameron refused.

    Does that mean, then, that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have failed? Not at all. Only incompetent amateurs could have believed that London would join the attempt to overcome the European debt crisis together. European leaders in Brussels hammered out an agreement that marks the end of unlimited fiscal sovereignty -- and that conflicts fundamentally with the British understanding of Europe.
    The result of Thursday night -- the 17 euro-zone countries joined by nine others pending parliamentary approval in three of the non-euro-zone capitals -- is a success. A success for the majority of Europeans and for efforts to find a solution to the euro crisis. Any deal with the obstreperous British would have been a weak compromise, and one that would have allowed questionable economic practices to continue.

    But from the very beginning, Great Britain's participation in a united Europe was a misunderstanding. When the EU was founded, the British still hadn't finished mourning over their lost empire. Europe seemed far away and Continental efforts at unification were seen by many among the British elite as little more than naïve idealism.

    Despite such doubts, the EU became a reality, and a success -- and it was economic realities that ultimately led London to join. Companies in the UK pushed the government toward Brussels because staying away was far too risky economically.

    Grave Misgivings

    Still, the political classes in Britain never fully shared the Continental conviction that the European Union was an absolute political necessity following two destructive world wars in the 20th century. They never fully believed that Europe had to grow together, despite all the cultural, linguistic and societal differences.

    In the 1960s, the empire was history, with one colony after the other declaring independence. But instead of turning toward Europe, Britain looked west to the US. And to this day, the UK feels much closer to America than it does to the frogs and the krauts on the other side of the English Channel. One could see the strength of that bond as recently as 2003, when then-Prime Minister Tony Blair joined President George W. Bush in his Iraq adventure despite grave misgivings on the Continent.

    In Brussels, which has for decades been depicted in the British press as little more than a bureaucratic monster, London has mostly played but a single role from the very beginning: that of a spanner in the works. There has hardly been a decision aimed at greater European integration that Britain hasn't sought to block. And it was a role that even brought financial benefits. Ever since Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously demanded "I want my money back," Britain has had to contribute less to the EU than the size of its economy would otherwise require.

    To avoid misunderstandings, it is important to note that Britain is a fabulous country, as are its people. Their finely honed humor, tolerance, composure, language, culture and, yes, their worldliness are all to be praised and envied. Germans particularly, with their predisposition to overwrought fear, could learn a lot from the British.

    Demanding a Say

    But the UK and the EU was a source of frustration for decades. On the long term, a member cannot demand all of the benefits of a community while refusing to shoulder its share of the burdens. One can't constantly seek to thwart all efforts at greater European integration while at the same time demanding a say in all decisions.

    Great Britain is an EU member that never truly wanted to be part of the club. It was more of an observer than a contributor and it always had one eye on Washington. Indeed, it is telling that the country never joined the border-free travel regime known as Schengen -- Britain still checks everybody who enters the country from the other side of the Channel. The political establishment was likewise extremely skeptical of the common currency from the very beginning.

    It is true that much of the criticism was spot on, which is why the euro zone is now in crisis and in need of repair. But it wasn't really the design shortcomings which led the British to stay out of the euro zone. Rather, it was their independence -- one could say currency nationalism -- which led to the country remaining on the outside.

    Though that hardly kept them from acting at EU summits as though they had long since introduced the euro. At the summit before last, in fact, Sarkozy even lost his cool, telling Cameron "you missed a good opportunity to keep your mouth shut." The French president continued: "We are sick of you criticizing us and telling us what to do. You say you hate the euro and now you want to interfere in our meetings."

    Only One Possible Answer

    Now, finally, there is a clear line of separation. On the one side is euro-Europe with a treaty obligating them to stay within clear budgetary and sovereign debt boundaries. And there is the rest which still has complete sovereign control over their finances. The 17 euro-zone member states will no longer be forced to accommodate a country that rejects anything that smells like supra-nationalism.

    There is certain to be a debate over the question as to how a divided Europe should continue. But that doesn't have to be a disadvantage. Such a debate has been necessary for a long time and conflicts can not always be avoided. Sometimes, a bit of bickering is necessary to create clarity.
    The questions for Britain, however, are equally difficult. What exactly is the country's role in the EU? British historian Timothy Garton Ash, a critic of the euro-skeptic course followed by the Cameron administration, said recently in an interview with SPIEGEL: "If the euro zone is saved, there will be a fiscal union, which means a political union of the euro countries.... Then, in the next two, three or four years, we in Great Britain will face the final question: in or out?"

    If the British political class does not undergo a fundamental transformation, there is only one possible answer. Out.
    Britain and the EU: The Failure of a Forced Marriage - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
    "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

    #2
    interesting, coming from a jock.

    half the world are struggling to get free and rule their own destiny and be independant. The other half are struggling to join the club and to be subsumed.

    we live in interesting times indeed.



    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
      interesting, coming from a jock.
      Don't start believing the troll.
      "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
        Don't start believing the troll.


        ok
        (\__/)
        (>'.'<)
        ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

        Comment


          #5
          Die Welt:

          I think this deal is just another fix - and as it is going in the wrong direction it is not a good deal at all.
          As there is no agreement of all 27 EU members - especially not Britain - we are heading for two different treaties within Europe, which will split. And all because Germany demanded treaty changes.
          Why were these treaty changes necessary? We already have the so-called "debt brake" - it is the Maastricht Treaty. This has been agreed on by all 27 states - but has been broken again and again for the simple reason that the minute a country needs the money they will find it.
          It is an exercise in futility - if Maastricht didn't work, why would this? To risk breaking up Europe for something that won't work seems counter-productive.
          Though if anything this deal will make the crisis worse, I don't actually think the euro will go down the drain because a euro break-up would be worse than anything else. But I don't know for how long countries such as Greece and Italy can take these austerity measures.
          It seems to me that it is pointless, simply saying that we'll put a "debt brake" in the constitution and if countries go beyond that the European Court of Justice will say they are in breach and impose fines - as they wouldn't be able to afford to pay anyway.
          Europe may speak German now, as a German government minister recently commented, but the markets speak English - and they don't give a damn about language. They just want to make sure their investments are safe. And I don't see that being the case under this deal.
          Angela Merkel is covering her tracks. She is the main person responsible for this problem, though she is now pretending it wasn't her.
          I think the Chancellor played a very bad hand at the summit. The French gave in to her wishes because they see a "debt brake" as a formal thing - they hope to get what they want, which is eurobonds, down the line. I think the French played a pretty good hand.
          David Cameron was in an unfortunate position - he had to appease his own party and not appear to be too Europhile. But I think he hasn't got anything out of the summit, apart from being out of the deal.
          It's a pity he was so concentrated on British issues as there might have been a way for him to negotiate more deregulation across the board. But that wouldn't have looked as good to the Tory Eurosceptics.
          Brexit is having a wee in the middle of the room at a house party because nobody is talking to you, and then complaining about the smell.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
            interesting, coming from a jock.


            jerk

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post


              ok
              not you of course!
              "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

              Comment


                #8
                We all know what happened the last time we went along too readily with the machinations of a German Chancellor.

                “The period of the disintegration of the European Union has begun. And the first vessel to have departed is Britain”

                Comment


                  #9
                  Surely the big thing is here is what have they done to resolve the Euro Crisis, seemingly not too much.

                  The could get the European Central Bank to engage in some heavy quantative easing and in the short term to
                  medium term that will shore up the zone as they can buy up all that debt. However, the cost will be a fall in the
                  Euro and stoking up Euro inflation. This will not resolve the problems of weaker members linked in stronger
                  members in the same financial union.

                  However, they are not proposing this, they are trying to get country central banks to borrow more money on the money markets
                  which they can lend to the IMF and which the IMF can then lend back to struggling Euro Zone members, all this apparently to
                  bypass the Euro Zone rules...

                  This all seems a bit flakey and the markets are probably going to see it as such ...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Green Mango View Post
                    Surely the big thing is here is what have they done to resolve the Euro Crisis, seemingly not too much.

                    The could get the European Central Bank to engage in some heavy quantative easing and in the short term to
                    medium term that will shore up the zone as they can buy up all that debt. However, the cost will be a fall in the
                    Euro and stoking up Euro inflation. This will not resolve the problems of weaker members linked in stronger
                    members in the same financial union.

                    However, they are not proposing this, they are trying to get country central banks to borrow more money on the money markets
                    which they can lend to the IMF and which the IMF can then lend back to struggling Euro Zone members, all this apparently to
                    bypass the Euro Zone rules...

                    This all seems a bit flakey and the markets are probably going to see it as such ...
                    They have solved problem #1, which was the British veto. We'll see tax harmonisation soon.
                    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X