Europe and the UK!

Europe is in a bit of tight spot at the moment. Tighter maybe than most and its having a global effect, but a particular one on the UK and not just economically.
For non-Brits this will need a little bit of background. First Europe as a bunch of nations is very old. Secondly most of that time the various nations have spent trying to plot, scheme and war their way to dominance over the other nations. Almost everyone at one time or another has allied with everyone else to fight someone and then allied with the someone to fight everyone else. Stabbing each other in the back, assuming all the other countries are out to get you is the basic pattern of Europes history- and everything which currently happens has to be viewed through that history.
And possibly nowhere exemplifies this thinking quite so much as the UK, possibly because its an island but I'm not convinced of that because really its just England. The Celtic nations of the UK have always had much better relations with mainland Europe than England has (as evidenced by Eire being part of the Euro. And Scotland probably would have been too had it been Independent).

Now the current UK government is made up of Conservatives (Tories), traditionally the Tories don't like Europe and the last time they were in power it was over Europe the party tore itself apart and which lost them power. But of course its a coalition government, the other half of it, the Liberal Democrats are the UK's most pro-Europe party. I'm sure you can see the problem here.
But to make it worse the Tory leadership line, that they will renegotiate powers back from Europe to Westminister is nowhere near enough for what the Tory backbenchers want, not least because they know it won't happen as the rest of Europe has no intention of renegotiating already signed treaties at this time for the political benefit of the UK Tory Party. There has been one major revolt already by banckbenchers over a European vote, where members even defied a three-line whip (vote as we say or your expelled from the party) to vote against their own front-bench.
On top of this at the last election the Tories promised, and subsequently enshrined in law, that any new fundemental changes to our treaty with the rest of Europe would automatically go to a referendum of the people. The people, thanks to a large English based majority, would vote the country out.
The political classes think this is economic suicide and tactically gives up too much influence in Europe (to centuries old rivals we don't trust remember).

Right that brings things up to date and the current Euro crisis.
It is being dealt with mainly by Germany and France, they are working together, or as the UK sees it, colluding against us. And in part they are. They are proposing a tax on financial transactions, it would be Europe wide but as London is far and away Europes largest financial sector it would mean the UK pay most of it.
The proposed means to solve the fininacial crisis also includes far stricter financial rules on all of Europe and particularly those in the Euro zone, this means a new treaty and a closer inergrated Europe -a Tory nightmare.
So it should mean a referendum, but as I mentioned above the political classes know it would be voted against and that would be political suicide in Europe and hand all the cards to sworn enemies. So they don't want that so Cameron has ruled it out, saying the treaty changes are not major enough to warrant a referendum. But a whole new treaty is being proposed and this is unlikely to wash with the English public at large nor his own party.
The problem for Cameron is he can't be seen to concede anything to Europe or his own party will turn on him, on the other hand he can't not negotiate or the UK wil be marginalised from the decision making process and his Liberal-Democrat coalition friends won't wear it, on top of that if he does have to renegotiate he will have to justify not having a referendum which he promised if these very circumstances arose.
This could well lead to the end of the current UK government as its so torn over this issue.

If the Lib Dems and the Tories part ways (which really, I think it was just a matter of time; I'm still surprised the Lib Dems allied with the Tories in the first place!) will there be another election? I'm afraid I'm not entirely familiar on how UK politics work.

Pretty much yes. You've got to bear in mind however that we have no written constituition, coalitions are very rare in UK politics so what happens is they look back to see what the precedents were before, but in theory the Tories could soldier on but might face legal challenges.
However what would be much more likely to actually happen is that there is a big enough split between lib-dem backbenchers and Tory banckbenchers that Labour could table a motion of no-confidence in the government, if lib-dems and the other minority parties support it that would force a general election. Thats more likely to occur before the lib-dem front bench publicly break ranks with the Tory frontbench.

Today was the day Europe decided on a new treaty- but didnt get one becase the UK vetoed it. The French and the Germans wouldn't budge on the financial transaction bit of it, Cameron would have been sigining his PM away if he had signed as his own party would have had his head, so it was vetoed.
The result? The other 27 members set up an 'accord' between themselves with the UK on its own on the outside.
Cameron is still talking safeguards and getting what Britain wants if any new deals are struck (which they have to be for the accord to work) but given the other 27 are in agreement why would they pay any attention to Cameron at all, who after all just scuppered their Europe wide rescue package?
Also be interesting to see how Lib-dem backbenchers take it, part of the coalition but pro euope, they have just effectivelyy stuck two fingers up to Europe. Its getting hard to see what the Lib-dems still stand for.

Well, since the UK isn't part of the Eurozone, is there any reason why they need the UK to approve or join this rescue plan? It seems to me that the EU is already on two different levels of integration (using the Euro versus not) and that the UK has always been less integrated than France, Germany, and the like.

I think a summing up from the BBC of the reposnse across Europe will suffice to see how this is going;

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, head of the Germany's FDP group, part of the European Liberals, goes as far as to say it was "a mistake to let the British into the EU. Either they [the British] do it on their own initiative, or the EU refounds itself - without Great Britain."

Daniel Cohen-Bendit, joint leader of the Greens in the European Parliament has labelled Mr Cameron "a weakling".

German Christian Democrat MEP Elmar Brok, foreign policy spokesman for the centre-right in the European parliament, echoed his sentiment: "If you're not ready to abide by the rules, you'd do better to keep your mouth shut."

"There is an obstacle to Europe and it must be overcome. It's not Germany," Massimo Riva tells Repubblica TV. "Right now, the main obstacle is Britain. And this dirty game that the British are playing - wanting to stay with one foot in and one foot out of Europe - risks collapsing the entire system. London must be either in, or out. But they simply cannot sabotage everything."

Italy's main financial daily, Il Sole 24 Ore, calls the move a "British bluff" which leaves the country isolated.
"The British manoeuvre [means] that London now finds itself outside, on the margins of Europe. The first European Council session in Brussels, which should have solidified and perhaps even resolved the euro crisis produced instead, after 11 hours of tense and at times dramatic talks, a deep division between member states."

RaiNews24 calls this Cameron's "Waterloo moment".
"All of continental Europe goes forward, leaving Britain behind - towards a common fiscal policy, rules that will govern finance, work and business. Cameron finds himself alone."

Le Figaro says, "No sooner did David Cameron cross the entrance to the council, on the occasion of the 8 December summit, than the sky over the negotiations darkened. He had one aim: to protect British interests."

In Sweden, Carl B Hamilton, MP for the Liberal People's Party and chair of the EU committee in the Swedish parliament, is highly critical of the UK.
"They're splitting Europe. Great Britain has acted in an unconstructive way. 'Unhelpful' as they say in English," Mr Hamilton told the Europaportalen website.'

So way to make friends and influence people Mr Cameron.

Are these the things ALL European critics are saying, Petty, or just "selected" views that suit your argument?

They are what the BBC are reporting and they are supposed to be unbiased and its in their rules they have to represent both sides in an argument- when there is one , I assume therefore everyone else is agreed on this one!
And you will note the people being quoted are form the left and right of European politics, and they don't often agree on much.

I'm not sure I will note anything, Petty, my knowledge of Euro politics is miniscule to say the least. I was just wondering if you were showing your own biases on what you chose as quotes. So EVERYONE in Europe disagrees with your PM on this. Is that the case?

It seems that way.
For the record I am in favour of the European idea in principle but have a lot of problems with how some policy is developed, the beurocracy of it, bits of it that seem unaccountable etc. I wouldn't even class myself as being pro-european, I'm just not anti-european which the Tory party have always been.
But I think being on the outisde is a poor place to be to negotiate given most of our trade and releationships are with mainland Europe.

Is kicking the UK out even a viable option for the EU? I know there's been plenty of controversy over some of the Eastern European countries that joined recently but as far as I know there's not even a practical procedure (i.e., one that stands a chance of succeeding) for removing a country. So is all this talk from MEPs just a lot of hot air, or is there something more?

Also, I would be interested to know what national politicians in Europe think about this. It seems to me that, in the UK at least, MEP elections are often a chance for fringe parties to win seats, probably because the seats are seen as fairly inconsequential. But perhaps that's different in mainland Europe....

The problem Eldo is not so much being kicked out- thats never happened to anyone, but you could choose to leave. In a way what the UK has done is worse, we have chooen to stay in but all the financial reforms etc are going to be decided by the other 26 countries wothout the Uk having a say.

Today Cameron came to the House of Commons to explain his decision to the House. He was met as if he was a reincarnated Winston Churchill by the Tory backbenches.
His position was that the new treaty would not gaurantee safeguards for the City of London regards finances so he would not sign, leaving the other countires to go on themselves and do it wihtout the UK.
There was notable silence however from his own backbenches when he said Britain would remain a central part of the Common Market and there would be no referendum on europe- most of the Tory party want the UK out of Europe all together, which is overall too socialist and full of foreigners for them.
The most notable thing this afternoon however was not anything anyone said, it was an empty space on the governemnt front benches where the Deputy Leader of the goverement, the lib-dem Nick Clegg should have been. He opted in a very public manner to show his view by not being there to support the Prime Minister and instead did a round of tv interviews condeming Cameron's choice and saying it leaves the UK isolated and without a voice.
Be interesting to see if the coalition can survive this, especially if Cameron moves onto the next agenda his bakbenchers want which is to claim powers back from Europe which had been part of previous treaties (including the treaties negotated and signed by Margaret Thatcher).

Good quote from the debate by Labour leader Ed Miliband (whose normaly about as effective as a wet flannel but less useful);

Ed Miliband said the PM had gained nothing from the negotiations, saying "it is not a veto when something goes ahead without you, that's called losing"

Well known Tory eruosceptic John Redwood however said; "Britain today has much more negotiating strength because they know they are dealing with a prime minister who will say no if he needs to."

Not sure myself how useful that is if you are no longer in the room but still.

And as a side note to all this there has been strong complaints from the Wesh National Party and the Sccottish National Party that the devolved parliaments were not consulted at all about the decision.

More fallout from the UK decision to use the veto today.

'The head of the European Commission has said the UK's demand for special treatment for financial services would have risked the single market.
Jose Manuel Barroso told the European Parliament the UK's stance had made compromise impossible at last week's EU summit on economic integration.
In his speech to MEPs, Mr Barroso said: "As you know, one member state was opposed to amending the Lisbon Treaty. The United Kingdom, in exchange for giving its agreement, asked for a specific protocol on financial services which, as presented, was a risk to the integrity of the internal market."

A No 10 spokesman said it was not the UK's intention to "undermine the single market in any way" and said it had been seeking equal, not preferential status for the City of London in negotiations over financial regulation.

Tuesday's plenary session of the European Parliament heard wide condemnation from the floor of the UK's position within the EU.
French MEP Joseph Daul, who chairs the parliament's centre-right European People's Party group, said that "26 of the 27 states [had] shown responsibility", agreeing that "shared sovereignty is better than sovereignty taken over by the markets".

German MEP Martin Schulz, who leads the Social Democrat group, blamed speculators in the City of London for the financial crisis.
Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian former prime minister and leader of the Liberal group, piled condemnation on the British prime minister's position at the summit.
"David Cameron will come to the conclusion that he has made the blunder of a lifetime," he told MEPs, "There is one golden rule in politics: you only walk away if you are sure that the others will follow," he said.'


So tha'll be condemnation from the right and left of European politics- an achievement in itself really.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:So tha'll be condemnation from the right and left of European politics- an achievement in itself really.

Who says that Cameron hasn't done anything for European unity?

This whole thing is really rather depressing. Not that I know a lot about it all, but as I understand it we passed up the chance to be part of the common market when it formed, suffered and had to beg entry at a later date. Seems to me we have just sidelined ourselves again.

That's how it seems to me too Kafria. And now it seems the UK's refusal to sign has become the start of the thing unravelling before it gets going. We derailed the whole rescue plan with that veto and now the way ahead is much more uncertain and several countries are getting the jitters or saying they will hold referedums. Its a bit hard to regulate europes financial markets when the biggest bit of it, London, is not round the table.
And in the meantime there is no coherent rescue plan for the euro and its hit an all time low against the dollar and the pound.
Its possible Cameron may have safeguarded British interests at the cost of everyone else's.

Queen abdicates in favour of her middle-aged son! (no sorry, Charles, not THAT queen . . . the one in Holland)

Dutch Queen Beatrix, who turns 75 on Thursday, said 'the responsibility for this country should lie in the hands of a new generation'
Her eldest son Prince Willem-Alexander will ascend to the throne on 30 April
Prime Minister Rutte labelled her 'an icon of the Netherlands'

By Rebecca English

PUBLISHED: 17:43, 28 January 2013 | UPDATED: 09:21, 29 January 2013

Comments (481)
Share


The Queen of the Netherlands announced last night that she was abdicating in favour of her son and heir after 33 years on the throne.

In a broadcast on Dutch state television three days before her 75th birthday, Queen Beatrix said she was stepping down because she believed ‘the responsibility should now lie in the hands of a new generation’.

The new king, Willem-Alexander, the 45-year-old Prince of Orange, will take over as monarch on April 30. He will be the first male to accede to the Dutch throne since 1890. His mother has ruled the Netherlands since April 30, 1980.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269665/Queen-Beatrix-Netherlands-abdicates-favour-middle-aged-son.html#ixzz2RwwxDWZK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I thought the above was interesting as I liked the feel of their "laid back attitude". There are some nice photo's included with the link, & a video also. But they look so much HAPPIER than the British do. With "us" it feels so screwed up tightly, & there is an "us & them" feel. Our Monarchy seem like a different "animal" altogether ! We dont seem to have the relaxed atmosphere as others do abroad. I often think our Monarchy are to unapproachable, & that they set themselves on a pedestal, high above the "guy on the street".

I liked that too. It reminds people that despite all the pomp and circumstance, at the end of the day it's just a job. Credit to the ex-Pope too. Besides, it seems like allowing monarchs to stand down from active duty in their last years after a lifetime of service is only fair.

From what I've read about him Willem-Alexander (and the Dutch royal family in general) seems like a pretty cool dude. The BBC said that he didn't insist on being referred to as "His Majesty", which I thought was neat.

Veronica mars for queen of the earth

Queen Rania of Jordan all the way! (woo-hoo!)

queen tin all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Queen Tin- the one and only Queen of Forumshire- and what a cute nose too!