The (Near) Imminent Collapse Of The (Southern ) Euro

[aussiebebe]

There's going to be riots and blood on the streets of Europe when people realize what is being asked of them here........they will have to ask German permission to spend money. Therefore the first casualty is democracy.........Italy has lost it's democratic status already.

Yes, that's a good point; the front pages across Europe are focused on the UK veto instead of explaining what the treaty will mean for European citizens. I'm surprised how easily most countries have given up aspects of their sovereignty, but there you go. UK and Sweden already have tougher banking regulations than the EU proposed (except rules on capital) and the French credit rating is going to plummet when they have to pump funds into their major banks to meet the new rules. Since Germany will never accept a full fiscal union (ie richer countries supporting poorer ones) and France simply can't afford it, the treaty is only a starting point for a total political union, which I agree with you, won't go down well.

[lannarebirth]

@ Jurgeng

You, Sir, are joking.

Germany was the first country to break the covenant the last time, because they couldn't stick to the limits. There is no chance whatsoever of all the 17 Eurozone countries sticking to these new limits. If they do not do so the German proposal is to fine them.........a nutter proposal. If the country is in financial trouble you don't fine them, you help them.

There's going to be riots and blood on the streets of Europe when people realize what is being asked of them here........they will have to ask German permission to spend money. Therefore the first casualty is democracy.........Italy has lost it's democratic status already.

This Euro fiasco is a German invention..........based upon fear, fear of themselves, and they are going to cause Europe to fracture through their rank stupidity.

If you think I'm wrong........let's make a date to come back to this subject on April Fools Day. That's only three months away.........

You are correct in the main, but it is not yet determined whether these countries will go along with the German demands. If it all happens quickly, I say they will, as the Germans are placing the technocrats to do their bidding. If it all happens more slowly, I expect democratic elections in some of these Euro countries that will produce extreme left wing and extreme right wing governments that will not be at all intersted in the Euro project. That will be when it gets interesting.

[StreetCowboy]

...Italy has lost it's democratic status already.

...

To be fair, there were many who were unhappy about Italy's "democracy" - perhaps a good free-market example for Thailand...

SC

[Naam]

Excuse me, garbage. The UK has not set out to destroy the European Union or the Euro.

The conversation last night went along the lines of............" Do exactly what we have decided Mr Cameron or your a very bad man ".

It reminded me of a certain movie.

Cameron was right to say no thanks to these deluded Euro maniacs.

the correct version what happened:

Cameron joined the party with a long list of demands benefitting exclusively the Yewnighted Queendom. then the representatives of the EU countries voted and said "no thanks Cameron!" but they were too polite to publish what they actually thought of some deluded maniac.

Your very clever........now to prove how clever you are please educate everybody as to this big list of demands that the UK made.......to make it easy for you I've prepared a list......

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

etc etc You get the idea......you fill them in......I can't wait

normally i don't do homework for "clever" readers of the Daily Mail and Sun

Financial Times December 8, 2011 10:43 pm excerpts

David Cameron always promised there would be “a price” for British support for treaty change, and on Thursday the UK prime minister presented the bill to his fellow European leaders: a new law to protect the City of London.

While the demands falls short of eurosceptic MPs’ demands, the opening gambit poses one of the biggest potential obstacles to a deal on economic governance rules among all 27 European Union member states intended to underpin the euro.

Admittedly, Mr Cameron dropped some of his most contentious requests – such as an “emergency brake” provision on financial services and demands to repatriate powers on labour laws.

It represents a near-complete wish list for the City. Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg prime minister, bluntly described the likely reaction: “I don’t want the UK setting aside entire pages to say the UK will not do what all the others have to do. I will not accept that.”

The first British demand will be for language that makes clear that eurozone integration will preserve the interests of the single market and will not undermine the common interest of all 27 EU members.

The second will be “a protocol on financial services”, inserted into the treaty, addressing in detail some longstanding UK concerns.

Most controversial will be a provision to increase British clout over European supervisors, such as the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority.

Mr Cameron wants a reassurance that the EBA will stay in London, even if the eurozone co-ordinates more banking regulation. In addition he is demanding a new requirement for a unanimous vote before handing extra powers to the bodies.

The protocol would also include a unanimous vote on any “user charges” in financial services regulation, a type of levy that Britain fears could be passed under a qualified majority vote. The move attempts to clarify that Britain would be able to veto any variant of the financial transaction tax.

Other items in the shopping list include ensuring that stringent rules do not close off the EU to US or Asian financial groups and giving the UK the flexibility to raise capital requirements for retail banks – a flagship recommendation of the Vickers banking commission.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, hinted that the outlines of the strategy would push for safeguards to ensure “that the single market is not fragmented” and “important industries” are protected. “Not exceptional treatment, but are just simply treated fairly, on a level playing field within Europe,” said Mr Clegg.

As part of an diplomatic offensive ahead of the summit, Mr Clegg called Michel Barnier, the European commissioner overseeing financial regulation. Mr Barnier told the Financial Times he enjoyed a “constructive dialogue” with Mr Clegg.

“The British are justified in trying to ensure that whatever decisions made at 17 in the eurozone do not impact the content and the current procedures of the 27-strong single market,” he said. “In the same spirit that the eurozone works better is in the interests of everyone.”

The ultimate test is how far Mr Cameron is willing to go in endangering the reforms of the eurozone to win concessions that are unlikely to win him many votes beyond London’s Square Mile.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fe0a62f0-21b3-11e1-a1d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gGDVD024

[StreetCowboy]

...

Financial Times December 8, 2011 10:43 pm excerpts

David Cameron always promised there would be "a price" for British support for treaty change, and on Thursday the UK prime minister presented the bill to his fellow European leaders: a new law to protect the City of London.

While the demands falls short of eurosceptic MPs' demands, the opening gambit poses one of the biggest potential obstacles to a deal on economic governance rules among all 27 European Union member states intended to underpin the euro.

Admittedly, Mr Cameron dropped some of his most contentious requests – such as an "emergency brake" provision on financial services and demands to repatriate powers on labour laws.

It represents a near-complete wish list for the City. Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg prime minister, bluntly described the likely reaction: "I don't want the UK setting aside entire pages to say the UK will not do what all the others have to do. I will not accept that."

The first British demand will be for language that makes clear that eurozone integration will preserve the interests of the single market and will not undermine the common interest of all 27 EU members.

The second will be "a protocol on financial services", inserted into the treaty, addressing in detail some longstanding UK concerns.

Most controversial will be a provision to increase British clout over European supervisors, such as the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority.

Mr Cameron wants a reassurance that the EBA will stay in London, even if the eurozone co-ordinates more banking regulation. In addition he is demanding a new requirement for a unanimous vote before handing extra powers to the bodies.

The protocol would also include a unanimous vote on any "user charges" in financial services regulation, a type of levy that Britain fears could be passed under a qualified majority vote. The move attempts to clarify that Britain would be able to veto any variant of the financial transaction tax.

Other items in the shopping list include ensuring that stringent rules do not close off the EU to US or Asian financial groups and giving the UK the flexibility to raise capital requirements for retail banks – a flagship recommendation of the Vickers banking commission.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, hinted that the outlines of the strategy would push for safeguards to ensure "that the single market is not fragmented" and "important industries" are protected. "Not exceptional treatment, but are just simply treated fairly, on a level playing field within Europe," said Mr Clegg.

As part of an diplomatic offensive ahead of the summit, Mr Clegg called Michel Barnier, the European commissioner overseeing financial regulation. Mr Barnier told the Financial Times he enjoyed a "constructive dialogue" with Mr Clegg.

"The British are justified in trying to ensure that whatever decisions made at 17 in the eurozone do not impact the content and the current procedures of the 27-strong single market," he said. "In the same spirit that the eurozone works better is in the interests of everyone."

The ultimate test is how far Mr Cameron is willing to go in endangering the reforms of the eurozone to win concessions that are unlikely to win him many votes beyond London's Square Mile.

http://www.ft.com/in...l#axzz1gGDVD024

Thanks for that. I'm glad he was doing the job he was elected to do.

I would like to see more EU legislation rejected on the grounds of non-unanimity; I don't want to see any of us riding rough-shod over the weaker members of the union, and if we are not willing to buy their votes, its clearly not that important to us.

SC

[JurgenG]

There's going to be riots and blood on the streets of Europe when people realize what is being asked of them here........they will have to ask German permission to spend money. Therefore the first casualty is democracy.........Italy has lost it's democratic status already.

Yes, that's a good point; the front pages across Europe are focused on the UK veto instead of explaining what the treaty will mean for European citizens. I'm surprised how easily most countries have given up aspects of their sovereignty, but there you go. UK and Sweden already have tougher banking regulations than the EU proposed (except rules on capital) and the French credit rating is going to plummet when they have to pump funds into their major banks to meet the new rules. Since Germany will never accept a full fiscal union (ie richer countries supporting poorer ones) and France simply can't afford it, the treaty is only a starting point for a total political union, which I agree with you, won't go down well.

Here we are at the heart at the problem. It's true we are moving toward a economical and political union, something the UK is not willing to accept. But the English are wrong to believe their feeling is shared across Europe, they are totally misled by their press and the financial services sector. Mr Cameron, when he came with his totally unacceptable list of demand for the UK, was hoping to break the European Union, leading a dissident group of the 10 non Euro zone countries. It totally backfired.

When you read the European press, what they describe is a victory for Merkozy, the increasing isolation of Mr Cameron and a hope that the worst of the crisis is now behind us. What European people understand is the worse maybe over because an agreement has been found and the UK is wrong. Not really a recipe for riots.

[Naam]

The (Near) Imminent Collapse Of The...

British wet dream "Rule Britannia Cameronia"

http://www.naams_sarcasm.org

[Naam]

Thanks for that. I'm glad he was doing the job he was elected to do.

I would like to see more EU legislation rejected on the grounds of non-unanimity; I don't want to see any of us riding rough-shod over the weaker members of the union, and if we are not willing to buy their votes, its clearly not that important to us.

SC

me too! it's about time that those who demand special rights and special treatment leave the EU no matter how important (they think) they are.

[JurgenG]

Here a good article that explains the difference between Europeans (they say Germans but most Europeans stand behind Germany anyway) and the Anglo-Americans.

http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=2

And not everybody in the UK agree with Mr Cameron.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says David Cameron's veto of EU treaty changes was "bad for Britain" and could leave it "isolated and marginalised". He told the BBC's Andrew Marr programme: "I'm bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week's summit, precisely because I think now there is a danger that the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the European Union.I don't think that's good for jobs, in the City or elsewhere, I don't think it's good for growth or for families up and down the country."

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

Edited December 12, 2011 by JurgenG

[JurgenG]

What went wrong for Mr Cameron ?

"Politically speaking, when the banks are considered the enemy and the root of all the problems we have today, Cameron's arguments were the wrong arguments at the wrong time for the wrong people," an official said. "Politically, he was dead from the start."

... It took 10 or 20 minutes to see that most of the participants were not pleased at all with the idea of Britain getting an opt out or exceptional treatment for their financial services and it didn't fly at all. There was no understanding for it.

... European Union President Herman Van Rompuy, who chaired the meeting, proposed moving forward with an intergovernmental agreement of the 17 euro zone nations, with an open invitation for other countries to join. France said yes, immediately followed by Germany and then one by one, in a matter of seconds the member states of the euro zone backed the Franco-German call. Within a few minutes, the non-euro zone member states decided they wanted to be in and left Cameron completely isolated. The swing was very, very quick. Everybody was on board in a matter of minutes. I think it was obvious inside the room that Cameron was shocked by the swiftness with which his allies left him alone.

"Cameron made a serious miscalculation, all this will now have serious repercussions on the relationship between Britain and the EU."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/us-eurozone-britain-idUSTRE7BA0BD20111212

[Naam]

Miliband labels David Cameron 'foolish' over Europe veto

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8950245/David-Miliband-labels-David-Cameron-foolish-over-Europe-veto.html

THE Coalition was plunged into bitter civil war yesterday as Nick Clegg savaged David Cameron’s decision to veto the EU treaty.

The Deputy Prime Minister slammed Mr Cameron’s tactics, hit out at euro- sceptic Tory MPs and said it was “bad for Britain” to be isolated in Europe.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/12/coalition-crisis-as-nick-clegg-attacks-pm-s-eu-failure-115875-23628776/

Big business deeply troubled by Cameron's veto

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16133286

[Naam]

Cameron anointed and proclaimed hero by influential Thaivisa politicians

http://www.naams_bollocks.org

[theblether]

Excuse me, garbage. The UK has not set out to destroy the European Union or the Euro.

The conversation last night went along the lines of............" Do exactly what we have decided Mr Cameron or your a very bad man ".

It reminded me of a certain movie.

Cameron was right to say no thanks to these deluded Euro maniacs.

the correct version what happened:

Cameron joined the party with a long list of demands benefitting exclusively the Yewnighted Queendom. then the representatives of the EU countries voted and said "no thanks Cameron!" but they were too polite to publish what they actually thought of some deluded maniac.

Your very clever........now to prove how clever you are please educate everybody as to this big list of demands that the UK made.......to make it easy for you I've prepared a list......

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

etc etc You get the idea......you fill them in......I can't wait

normally i don't do homework for "clever" readers of the Daily Mail and Sun

Financial Times December 8, 2011 10:43 pm excerpts

David Cameron always promised there would be "a price" for British support for treaty change, and on Thursday the UK prime minister presented the bill to his fellow European leaders: a new law to protect the City of London.

While the demands falls short of eurosceptic MPs' demands, the opening gambit poses one of the biggest potential obstacles to a deal on economic governance rules among all 27 European Union member states intended to underpin the euro.

Admittedly, Mr Cameron dropped some of his most contentious requests – such as an "emergency brake" provision on financial services and demands to repatriate powers on labour laws.

It represents a near-complete wish list for the City. Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg prime minister, bluntly described the likely reaction: "I don't want the UK setting aside entire pages to say the UK will not do what all the others have to do. I will not accept that."

The first British demand will be for language that makes clear that eurozone integration will preserve the interests of the single market and will not undermine the common interest of all 27 EU members.

The second will be "a protocol on financial services", inserted into the treaty, addressing in detail some longstanding UK concerns.

Most controversial will be a provision to increase British clout over European supervisors, such as the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority.

Mr Cameron wants a reassurance that the EBA will stay in London, even if the eurozone co-ordinates more banking regulation. In addition he is demanding a new requirement for a unanimous vote before handing extra powers to the bodies.

The protocol would also include a unanimous vote on any "user charges" in financial services regulation, a type of levy that Britain fears could be passed under a qualified majority vote. The move attempts to clarify that Britain would be able to veto any variant of the financial transaction tax.

Other items in the shopping list include ensuring that stringent rules do not close off the EU to US or Asian financial groups and giving the UK the flexibility to raise capital requirements for retail banks – a flagship recommendation of the Vickers banking commission.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, hinted that the outlines of the strategy would push for safeguards to ensure "that the single market is not fragmented" and "important industries" are protected. "Not exceptional treatment, but are just simply treated fairly, on a level playing field within Europe," said Mr Clegg.

As part of an diplomatic offensive ahead of the summit, Mr Clegg called Michel Barnier, the European commissioner overseeing financial regulation. Mr Barnier told the Financial Times he enjoyed a "constructive dialogue" with Mr Clegg.

"The British are justified in trying to ensure that whatever decisions made at 17 in the eurozone do not impact the content and the current procedures of the 27-strong single market," he said. "In the same spirit that the eurozone works better is in the interests of everyone."

The ultimate test is how far Mr Cameron is willing to go in endangering the reforms of the eurozone to win concessions that are unlikely to win him many votes beyond London's Square Mile.

http://www.ft.com/in...l#axzz1gGDVD024

You started your post with a crack about Daily Mail and Sun readers, then you went on to quote the Financial Times at length.

To anyone that is not familiar with the press in the UK, the Daily Mail has run a relentless campaign against the worst excesses of the European Union. It is a paper I am familiar with however I don't read it as I can write the headlines for it the day before. I know what it is going to say.

The Sun is a slightly different kettle of fish, it's news reporting varies from being effectively non-existent to occasionally searingly on the mark. Naam has just made that fateful mistake that many make of assuming, and assumption makes us all look foolish in the end. As soon as he he assumed he did so he devalued the rest of the post. Here's why.

In as much as the Daily Mail is anti-Euro, the Financial Times is slavishly pro-Euro. In his effort to look clever he quoted from the one UK newspaper which has the equivalent bias as the Daily Mail.

This is a nonsense, anyone can see it is a nonsense. Don't make a smart ass comment about one publication and then quote another publication that is equally as rigid in it's views. You prove nothing.

Naam has assumed that I am some type of little Englander, which would be particularly difficult for me as I am Scottish. I am pro European and anti stupidity. I lived in Germany for 5 years and over the last few days I have been in constant contact with several German friends to ask their views on what is going on.

So maybe Naam can now answer the question I asked him in his own words this time...........what were the UK demands on Thursday night?

[Naam]

those who vehemently defend London's banking community which generates a good part of U.K.'s GDP out of thin air and the tax dollars of citizens of various countries should read and try to understand... questions are allowed :

BEWARE THE BRITS: CIRCUMVENTING U.S. RULES

excerpts only, link below.

Current estimates for the shortfall in MF Global customer funds have now reached $1.2 billion as revelations break that the use of client money appears widespread. Up until now the assumption has been that the funds missing had been misappropriated by MF Global as it desperately sought to avoid bankruptcy.

Sadly, the truth is likely to be that MF Global took advantage of an asymmetry in brokerage borrowing rules that allow firms to legally use client money to buy assets in their own name - a legal loophole that may mean that MF Global clients never get their money back.

But in the UK, there is absolutely no statutory limit on the amount that can be re-hypothecated. In fact, brokers are free to re-hypothecate all and even more than the assets deposited by clients. Instead it is up to clients to negotiate a limit or prohibition on re-hypothecation. On the above example a UK broker could, and frequently would, re-hypothecate 100% of the pledged securities ($500).

Keen to get in on the action, U.S. prime brokers have been making judicious use of European subsidiaries. Because re-hypothecation is so profitable for prime brokers, many prime brokerage agreements provide for a U.S. client’s assets to be transferred to the prime broker’s UK subsidiary to circumvent U.S. rehypothecation rules.

Under subtle brokerage contractual provisions, U.S. investors can find that their assets vanish from the U.S. and appear instead in the UK, despite contact with an ostensibly American organisation.

Potentially as simple as having MF Global UK Limited, an English subsidiary, enter into a prime brokerage agreement with a customer, a U.S. based prime broker can immediately take advantage of the UK’s unrestricted re-hypothecation rules.

In fact this is exactly what Lehman Brothers did through Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), an English subsidiary to which most U.S. hedge fund assets were transferred. Once transferred to the UK based company, assets were re-hypothecated many times over, meaning that when the debt carousel stopped, and Lehman Brothers collapsed, many U.S. funds found that their assets had simply vanished.

The volume and level of re-hypothecation suggests a frightening alternative hypothesis for the current liquidity crisis being experienced by banks and for why regulators around the world decided to step in to prop up the markets recently. To date, reports have been focused on how Eurozone default concerns were provoking fear in the markets and causing liquidity to dry up.

Most have been focused on how a Eurozone default would result in huge losses in Eurozone bonds being felt across the world’s banks. However, re-hypothecation suggests an even greater fear. Considering that re-hypothecation may have increased the financial footprint of Eurozone bonds by at least four fold then a Eurozone sovereign default could be apocalyptic.

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Securities/Insight/2011/12_-_December/MF_Global_and_the_great_Wall_St_re-hypothecation_scandal/

[theblether]

Here a good article that explains the difference between Europeans (they say Germans but most Europeans stand behind Germany anyway) and the Anglo-Americans.

http://www.nytimes.c...agewanted=2

And not everybody in the UK agree with Mr Cameron.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says David Cameron's veto of EU treaty changes was "bad for Britain" and could leave it "isolated and marginalised". He told the BBC's Andrew Marr programme: "I'm bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week's summit, precisely because I think now there is a danger that the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the European Union.I don't think that's good for jobs, in the City or elsewhere, I don't think it's good for growth or for families up and down the country."

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

what did you expect Nick Clegg to say?.....if he said anything else he would be out of a job.

[Naam]

So maybe Naam can now answer the question I asked him in his own words this time........... what were the UK demands on Thursday night?

it's not my problem that you either can't read or that your reading glasses are broken. i'm also not wasting time to discuss the brush stroke and the colours of an old master's painting with a blind person.

[StreetCowboy]

those who vehemently defend London's banking community which generates a good part of U.K.'s GDP out of thin air and the tax dollars of citizens of various countries should read and try to understand... questions are allowed :

BEWARE THE BRITS: CIRCUMVENTING U.S. RULES

excerpts only, link below.

Current estimates for the shortfall in MF Global customer funds have now reached $1.2 billion as revelations break that the use of client money appears widespread. Up until now the assumption has been that the funds missing had been misappropriated by MF Global as it desperately sought to avoid bankruptcy.

Sadly, the truth is likely to be that MF Global took advantage of an asymmetry in brokerage borrowing rules that allow firms to legally use client money to buy assets in their own name - a legal loophole that may mean that MF Global clients never get their money back.

But in the UK, there is absolutely no statutory limit on the amount that can be re-hypothecated. In fact, brokers are free to re-hypothecate all and even more than the assets deposited by clients. Instead it is up to clients to negotiate a limit or prohibition on re-hypothecation. On the above example a UK broker could, and frequently would, re-hypothecate 100% of the pledged securities ($500).

Keen to get in on the action, U.S. prime brokers have been making judicious use of European subsidiaries. Because re-hypothecation is so profitable for prime brokers, many prime brokerage agreements provide for a U.S. client's assets to be transferred to the prime broker's UK subsidiary to circumvent U.S. rehypothecation rules.

Under subtle brokerage contractual provisions, U.S. investors can find that their assets vanish from the U.S. and appear instead in the UK, despite contact with an ostensibly American organisation.

Potentially as simple as having MF Global UK Limited, an English subsidiary, enter into a prime brokerage agreement with a customer, a U.S. based prime broker can immediately take advantage of the UK's unrestricted re-hypothecation rules.

In fact this is exactly what Lehman Brothers did through Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), an English subsidiary to which most U.S. hedge fund assets were transferred. Once transferred to the UK based company, assets were re-hypothecated many times over, meaning that when the debt carousel stopped, and Lehman Brothers collapsed, many U.S. funds found that their assets had simply vanished.

The volume and level of re-hypothecation suggests a frightening alternative hypothesis for the current liquidity crisis being experienced by banks and for why regulators around the world decided to step in to prop up the markets recently. To date, reports have been focused on how Eurozone default concerns were provoking fear in the markets and causing liquidity to dry up.

Most have been focused on how a Eurozone default would result in huge losses in Eurozone bonds being felt across the world's banks. However, re-hypothecation suggests an even greater fear. Considering that re-hypothecation may have increased the financial footprint of Eurozone bonds by at least four fold then a Eurozone sovereign default could be apocalyptic.

http://newsandinsigh...cation_scandal/

One has to wonder at the integrity of financiers who move their finances offshore to deliberately get around the legislative safeguards that their own governments have put in place, and, presumably, on which their clients may be relying. However, it appears that in this case the clients were not naive old grannies, but sophisticated hedge funds and the like that presumably insisted on the returns or fees that could be obtained by such gearing. Presumably they had read the small print in their contracts, and were happy with it. If not, they should have changed the contract before they signed it, or gone to a different brokerage. The end clients, the private investors, should blame the fund managers who failed to look after their money and agreed to it being spirited overseas, instead of looking around for a foreign scapegoat.

SC

[theblether]

What went wrong for Mr Cameron ?

"Politically speaking, when the banks are considered the enemy and the root of all the problems we have today, Cameron's arguments were the wrong arguments at the wrong time for the wrong people," an official said. "Politically, he was dead from the start."

... It took 10 or 20 minutes to see that most of the participants were not pleased at all with the idea of Britain getting an opt out or exceptional treatment for their financial services and it didn't fly at all. There was no understanding for it.

... European Union President Herman Van Rompuy, who chaired the meeting, proposed moving forward with an intergovernmental agreement of the 17 euro zone nations, with an open invitation for other countries to join. France said yes, immediately followed by Germany and then one by one, in a matter of seconds the member states of the euro zone backed the Franco-German call. Within a few minutes, the non-euro zone member states decided they wanted to be in and left Cameron completely isolated. The swing was very, very quick. Everybody was on board in a matter of minutes. I think it was obvious inside the room that Cameron was shocked by the swiftness with which his allies left him alone.

"Cameron made a serious miscalculation, all this will now have serious repercussions on the relationship between Britain and the EU."

http://www.reuters.c...E7BA0BD20111212

· "It is like being as isolated as a man who failed to get onto the Titanic ...", Terry Smith talking about the so called isolation of the UK.

http://www.terrysmithblog.com/

There is a complete and utter refusal by many people, far too many people, including you Jurgeng, to understand one simple thing here.

The Euro is highly likely to fail.

It does not matter what the politicians say, it matters what the world markets say. There are at least 6 members of the Euro who are either insolvent or technically insolvent. Italy cannot afford the premium being asked of it by the bonds markets. Last weeks meeting was all about future plans, the money was not supplied to underwrite the Eurozone liabilities.

The Germans capped the fund at 500 Billion Euro, nowhere near enough There then followed a vague suggestion that there would be more available later, under certain circumstances. This is exactly the kind of garbage talk that has run through every summit this year. If the Germans had said last week that the fund would be granted a banking licence and would be able to call up on effectively limitless reserves then the Euro problem would have evaporated overnight.

The Germans did not do so because they know that they will be left to carry the can, and Merkel would have riots on the streets.

So now maybe you can tell us how the Germans are going to ensure that the debts of the insolvent Euro members are going to be paid?

Edited December 12, 2011 by theblether

[theblether]

So maybe Naam can now answer the question I asked him in his own words this time........... what were the UK demands on Thursday night?

it's not my problem that you either can't read or that your reading glasses are broken. i'm also not wasting time to discuss the brush stroke and the colours of an old master's painting with a blind person.

Dear dear, your not as smart as your cabbage looking.

Please tell this poor little blind mouse how the Germans are going to force the bond markets to lend to bankrupt economies?

[mccw]

What went wrong for Mr Cameron ?

"Politically speaking, when the banks are considered the enemy and the root of all the problems we have today, Cameron's arguments were the wrong arguments at the wrong time for the wrong people," an official said. "Politically, he was dead from the start."

... It took 10 or 20 minutes to see that most of the participants were not pleased at all with the idea of Britain getting an opt out or exceptional treatment for their financial services and it didn't fly at all. There was no understanding for it.

... European Union President Herman Van Rompuy, who chaired the meeting, proposed moving forward with an intergovernmental agreement of the 17 euro zone nations, with an open invitation for other countries to join. France said yes, immediately followed by Germany and then one by one, in a matter of seconds the member states of the euro zone backed the Franco-German call. Within a few minutes, the non-euro zone member states decided they wanted to be in and left Cameron completely isolated. The swing was very, very quick. Everybody was on board in a matter of minutes. I think it was obvious inside the room that Cameron was shocked by the swiftness with which his allies left him alone.

"Cameron made a serious miscalculation, all this will now have serious repercussions on the relationship between Britain and the EU."

http://www.reuters.c...E7BA0BD20111212

· "It is like being as isolated as a man who failed to get onto the Titanic ...", Terry Smith talking about the so called isolation of the UK.

http://www.terrysmithblog.com/

There is a complete and utter refusal by many people, far too many people, including you Jurgeng, to understand one simple thing here.

The Euro is highly likely to fail.

It does not matter what the politicians say, it matters what the world markets say. There are at least 6 members of the Euro who are either insolvent or technically insolvent. Italy cannot afford the premium being asked of it by the bonds markets. Last weeks meeting was all about future plans, the money was not supplied to underwrite the Eurozone liabilities.

The Germans capped the fund at 500 Billion Euro, nowhere near enough There then followed a vague suggestion that there would be more available later, under certain circumstances. This is exactly the kind of garbage talk that has run through every summit this year. If the Germans had said last week that the fund would be granted a banking licence and would be able to call up on effectively limitless reserves then the Euro problem would have evaporated overnight.

The Germans did not do so because they know that they will be left to carry the can, and Merkel would have riots on the streets.

So now maybe you can tell us how the Germans are going to ensure that the debts of the insolvent Euro members are going to be paid?

You said it all for me. Completely agree 100%

I'll just add that all the austerity will make matters even worse as the "solution" is put in to place. Also French and german borrowing costs will rise dramatically.

[mccw]

Not a big fan of financial trickery like much dealing in the city of London. But what would you call the circling around of money in the euro zone to try and convince markets they can pay back their debts ?

Britain should pull out to a pure trade agreement.

If we screw ourselves up at least we are still our own country and democracy- not slave under a technocratic anti democratic union basically run by the germans ; I'm shock the other nations have so readily given up their sovereignty

[theblether]

So maybe Naam can now answer the question I asked him in his own words this time........... what were the UK demands on Thursday night?

it's not my problem that you either can't read or that your reading glasses are broken. i'm also not wasting time to discuss the brush stroke and the colours of an old master's painting with a blind person.

Dear dear, your not as smart as your cabbage looking.

Please tell this poor little blind mouse how the Germans are going to force the bond markets to lend to bankrupt economies?

I note a certain Old Master appears to have painted himself into a corner, he can't answer a simple question.......maybe he should refer to Standard & Poors indicator last week that they intend to re-evaluate the credit rating of every Eurozone country in the next quarter, or while he is at it he may reflect upon the fact that Fitch said the same thing yesterday, and the stated that last weeks Euro agreement was a good fix for a future problem but did nothing to solve the current problem.

I wonder how the German public will react when the cost of borrowing goes higher?

[Mosha]

A poll on uk.msn.com is so far showing a lot of support for the PM's stance. Sailor Ted knew what the then EC's intentions were, and he kept it to himself.

[theblether]

Not a big fan of financial trickery like much dealing in the city of London. But what would you call the circling around of money in the euro zone to try and convince markets they can pay back their debts ?

Britain should pull out to a pure trade agreement.

If we screw ourselves up at least we are still our own country and democracy- not slave under a technocratic anti democratic union basically run by the germans ; I'm shock the other nations have so readily given up their sovereignty

There's an interesting thing brewing at the moment, after all the certainty and aggression shown against the UK last week some people are starting to have second thoughts. Merkel admitted yesterday that Sarkozy effectively ambushed David Cameron in the hope that France will have far more influence on future European policy. Just wait a few days till she starts to see some domestic pressure being put on her for allowing that to happen.

Sarkozy is in a fight for his political life, and his likely Socialist contender for the Presidency said yesterday that he will be renegotiating the agreement made last week. Here is the root of the problem for Merkel, she's allowed herself to be drawn into French domestic politics, and she'll soon find the knives coming out.

Things are not as cut and dried as it seems, any reasonable person can see that Cameron was ambushed last week, and could not possibly agree. It does not suit just about every European nation to have the UK out of the EU, with the possible exception of the French............there will be some serious political conversations taking place throughout Europe right now, and don't be amazed if Mark Witte of The Netherlands breaks ranks soon to condemn the actions of Sarkozy.

My prediction? The Group of 26 will come back to the table with some concessions to the UK, and they will be accepted. That will be far easier than the alternative route of trying to force policies on the UK through the new grouping that will create a diplomatic turmoil in the centre of Europe for the next few years.

The shock of a potential UK referendum and break up of the EU will have unintended consequences for everyone.

[JurgenG]

Not a big fan of financial trickery like much dealing in the city of London. But what would you call the circling around of money in the euro zone to try and convince markets they can pay back their debts ?

Britain should pull out to a pure trade agreement.

If we screw ourselves up at least we are still our own country and democracy- not slave under a technocratic anti democratic union basically run by the germans ; I'm shock the other nations have so readily given up their sovereignty

There's an interesting thing brewing at the moment, after all the certainty and aggression shown against the UK last week some people are starting to have second thoughts. Merkel admitted yesterday that Sarkozy effectively ambushed David Cameron in the hope that France will have far more influence on future European policy. Just wait a few days till she starts to see some domestic pressure being put on her for allowing that to happen.

Sarkozy is in a fight for his political life, and his likely Socialist contender for the Presidency said yesterday that he will be renegotiating the agreement made last week. Here is the root of the problem for Merkel, she's allowed herself to be drawn into French domestic politics, and she'll soon find the knives coming out.

Things are not as cut and dried as it seems, any reasonable person can see that Cameron was ambushed last week, and could not possibly agree. It does not suit just about every European nation to have the UK out of the EU, with the possible exception of the French............there will be some serious political conversations taking place throughout Europe right now, and don't be amazed if Mark Witte of The Netherlands breaks ranks soon to condemn the actions of Sarkozy.

My prediction? The Group of 26 will come back to the table with some concessions to the UK, and they will be accepted. That will be far easier than the alternative route of trying to force policies on the UK through the new grouping that will create a diplomatic turmoil in the centre of Europe for the next few years.

The shock of a potential UK referendum and break up of the EU will have unintended consequences for everyone.

For all the chaos of the crisis, the nine countries face a choice between tying themselves closer to Germany's economic might or risking the same isolation that Britain has chosen. So far it appears they see their future in stronger European integration rather than going it alone. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/us-eurozone-outsiders-idUSTRE7BC0MC20111213

Sorry, I'm afraid that the UK will have to fight this battle alone.

And the blackmail of an english referendum that will "break up the EU" is not a blackmail at all. It seems an increasing number of countries want the UK out. You talked the talk, now walk the walk.

[Mosha]

How many more net debtors than creditors does the EU need? Even one of the gurus behind the Euro's creation said it was flawed. I was thinking that at it's creation. I didn't even now of the Greek retirement age then. If the Euro had been based on the Northern European countries (excluding France) it may have had a chance.

[JurgenG]

How many more net debtors than creditors does the EU need? Even one of the gurus behind the Euro's creation said it was flawed. I was thinking that at it's creation. I didn't even now of the Greek retirement age then. If the Euro had been based on the Northern European countries (excluding France) it may have had a chance.

I agree with you.

If the City doesn't have access to the European business. If all the Mom & Pop businesses are cut from the European market.

The UK is dead

[theblether]

Not a big fan of financial trickery like much dealing in the city of London. But what would you call the circling around of money in the euro zone to try and convince markets they can pay back their debts ?

Britain should pull out to a pure trade agreement.

If we screw ourselves up at least we are still our own country and democracy- not slave under a technocratic anti democratic union basically run by the germans ; I'm shock the other nations have so readily given up their sovereignty

There's an interesting thing brewing at the moment, after all the certainty and aggression shown against the UK last week some people are starting to have second thoughts. Merkel admitted yesterday that Sarkozy effectively ambushed David Cameron in the hope that France will have far more influence on future European policy. Just wait a few days till she starts to see some domestic pressure being put on her for allowing that to happen.

Sarkozy is in a fight for his political life, and his likely Socialist contender for the Presidency said yesterday that he will be renegotiating the agreement made last week. Here is the root of the problem for Merkel, she's allowed herself to be drawn into French domestic politics, and she'll soon find the knives coming out.

Things are not as cut and dried as it seems, any reasonable person can see that Cameron was ambushed last week, and could not possibly agree. It does not suit just about every European nation to have the UK out of the EU, with the possible exception of the French............there will be some serious political conversations taking place throughout Europe right now, and don't be amazed if Mark Witte of The Netherlands breaks ranks soon to condemn the actions of Sarkozy.

My prediction? The Group of 26 will come back to the table with some concessions to the UK, and they will be accepted. That will be far easier than the alternative route of trying to force policies on the UK through the new grouping that will create a diplomatic turmoil in the centre of Europe for the next few years.

The shock of a potential UK referendum and break up of the EU will have unintended consequences for everyone.

For all the chaos of the crisis, the nine countries face a choice between tying themselves closer to Germany's economic might or risking the same isolation that Britain has chosen. So far it appears they see their future in stronger European integration rather than going it alone. http://www.reuters.c...E7BC0MC20111213

Sorry, I'm afraid that the UK will have to fight this battle alone.

And the blackmail of an english referendum that will "break up the EU" is not a blackmail at all. It seems an increasing number of countries want the UK out. You talked the talk, now walk the walk.

So your position is that the EU would be stronger without the UK?

[manarak]

So your position is that the EU would be stronger without the UK?

I don't have enough information about that to be certain, but it certainly can be argued.

The iron Lady (Thatcher) negociated everything EU-related to be at UK's financial advantage or zero.

The biggest EU project at that time was agriculture, so Thatcher negociated exceptions for the UK that made sure the UK would recoup the money spent for the EU budget through the agricultural aid paid to UK farmers - this was an official negociation point.

UK also participated in other EU-projects such as Coal&Steel production, Airbus, Eurocopter, etc.

Everything had of course to benefit the UK or at least not to cost them anything.

On the other big EU convergence projects like Schengen and the EURO, UK failed to participate.

Also, UK's behavior in the past years was that of a lapdog to the US, being a bit as the voice (and eyes and ears, LOL) of the Us in the EU, and failing to enforce data protection.

So, my impression of the UK in the EU is that the UK picked the chocolate chips off the cookie and left the rest, always asking "what is in it for me" and refusing to contribute or compromise.

The current attitude of the UK is understandable if the importance of London's financial business is taken into account, mostly founded on the fact that UK trusts and companies are the worldwide number one vehicle for tax evasion (Channel Islands trusts, British Virgin Islands corporations,...).

One question that has to be asked is: what has the UK ever done for the EU?

I have no answer to that one.

And you are asking if the EU will be stronger without the UK - but was it stronger WITH the UK in the first place? Did the UK matter at all?

So... if the UK leaves the EU, there won't be much loss, the EU gets rid of a big naysayer and the EU gains coherence.

Due to the UK's past attitude towards the EU (i.e. no investment in the EU), there will be no financial loss.

I assume that the UK will continue cooperations if they are profitable (Airbus) - in best British manner.

Edited December 13, 2011 by manarak

[Mosha]

The fat lady hasn't finished singing. The French socialists will renegotiate the treaty if they win. Merkel is getting stick for allowing herself to be involved in French domestic politics.