economic situation is dire

[Richard]

Your desire to support Cameron and any sort of questioning of his frankly absurd and somewhat concerning ideals is clouding any sort of reasoning here.

Do you not see how that can be levelled at you as well if you turn it around?

So...

Your desire to not support Cameron and at every turn question his ideals and say they are absurd and concerning is clouding any sort of reasoning here

Do you not see that?

[tonyh29]

Your desire to support Cameron and any sort of questioning of his frankly absurd and somewhat concerning ideals is clouding any sort of reasoning here.

Do you not see how that can be levelled at you as well if you turn it around?

So...

Your desire to not support Cameron and at every turn question his ideals and say they are absurd and concerning is clouding any sort of reasoning here

Do you not see that?

ah but so MANY MANY people have said he was wrong ..which obviously carries far more weight than the MANY MANY people who have said he was right

[Richard]

As Milliband, and MANY MANY others have said Cameron played it completely and utterly wrong and has now left us a lot weaker in the long run.

ANd as Cameron and MANY MANY others have said he played it right.

[snowychap]

It’s increasingly clear that despite Miliband’s gesticulating and angry finger waving, he would have done the same thing.

He may well not have agreed to a treaty but I'm not sure that he would have come out banging on about apparently using a veto to protect the UK financial industry from increased regulations.

Andrew Neil on the Politics Show is suggesting that the 'agreement/plan' that they came up with last week is unravelling before it has even been fleshed out as people appear to realize that it's unlikely to solve any of the problems that they were supposed to be addressing.

Meanwhile the US say they aren't going to give any more money to the IMF - I thought they had not paid their dues anyway (may be wrong on that)? If so that sounds a bit rich.

All in all: a big old mess.

[drat01]

I think that’s a fairly contrived insult there. It’s clear that Awol is pointing the finger squarely at the thoroughly insidious and explicitly anti-democratic nature of the EU, that here, another unelected and unaccounted for politico is given a soapbox at the expense of the taxpaying people of Europe.

I would have thought there would be complete unanimity amongst the people of this board in their disgust of how anti-democratic the EU is.

Insult? You are losing me now.

Funny how then the Tory party supporters especially are not so much annoyed at the anti-democratic HOL? What about the fact that No-One voted for a Lib Dem/Tory Gvmt, but we have one now forcing through the wishes of the Tory party, is that democratic and should be moaned about? what about changes in the way parliament is run being forced through without mandate is that democratic? etc etc

What I think you are saying is that you don't want to be part of the EU? correct? I wonder what "elected" trade group then you want us to be part of

[Ads]

Is there any need to be quite so rabid in your defence or attack in the nature of your posts?

It’s a simple enough choice; what would you, Ed Miliband have done, had you been in the hot seat with the need to make a decision. The answer, once you get behind the chest puffing, is the exact same thing, with an airy nod at “well, I’d have tried harder to negotiate or I’d have stayed at the table for longer”. I am not quite sure what Miliband could have done differently in the face of French obstinacy.

As for the Guardian article, it suggests that the people who elect the Lib-Dems, that ever dwindling coalition, are the 50% who back Cameron’s decision; along with the North, Midlands and Wales. In fact it was the South East, whom registered the least support, at 46%.

:-) Rabid, we don't have that disease in the UK. Grrr you Euro disease infested people

As Milliband, and MANY MANY others have said Cameron played it completely and utterly wrong and has now left us a lot weaker in the long run. He had to keep his back benchers happy at whatever cost. He did not act as PM he acted as the leader of a bunch of Eurosceptics

Again if you can point at the Grud article it would be good to read, especially the wording of the question. The online version usually covers all that is printed

Here you go, click.

[drat01]

ah but so MANY MANY people have said he was wrong ..which obviously carries far more weight than the MANY MANY people who have said he was right

The CBI have questioned his decision.

The Lib Dems have

The Labour party have

The rest of Europe have

The Tory party, The Daily Mail, The Express and Joey Barton have said he was right :-) - ah OK that proves the point then I see.

The fact that so many from differing areas have questioned it, makes you wonder if he was correct, does it not? rather than some with obvious euro-sceptic, right wing views saying he was right.

[tonyh29]

are not so much annoyed at the anti-democratic HOL?

it's Ok because Prescott has taken a seat there so he can bring it down from the inside and I believe him , i mean otherwise he would be a hypocrite wouldn't he

[JulieB]

In other words, both the evidence and the voters are against investment bankers. So why do the politicians cling on to them?

Part of the answer is financial. Bankers used the boom to buy themselves influence – so that, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the City now provides half of all Tory party funds. That is up from just 25% only five years ago.

Yep and that's the position also over the pond only even worse - Noted with interest William Hagues reaffirmation of Anglo-American ties yesterday.

- Wall Street has enormous influence over legislators in the US. They have about 3,000 powerful lobbyists in both houses.

The "IN IT TOGETHER" nicely sums up the situation - the rating agencies who are disgracefully funded by the financial sector THEY supposedly rate....., the Professor's of Economics at top Universities who advise Congress & the President while sitting on investment bank boards....... The regulators who are also funded by the financial services sector and constanltly retire to go work for the very institutions they are supposed to regulate and the ex investment bankers who hold powerful positions themselves within the US legislature.

In 2008 Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs co-opted into the Bush administration, allowed Lehman Bros to fall, because he refused for the US federal reserve to put in guarantees, which Barclays and the UK government insisted on if Barclays were to buy Lehmans. However when AIG, the biggest insurance company in the world also teetered on the brink of collapse the next day, because they had reinsured Lehman's toxic debts - Paulson & the US Reserve pumped in IIRC about $160Bn. About $43Bn of that AIG bail out money was paid to no other than Goldman Sachs THE NEXT DAY!!. Who being the vultures that they are had seen the writing on the wall and made sure their options were in place so that when the inevitable collapse of Lehmans occured THEY profited.

It's surely right to question that an ex CEO of Goldman's who just so happened to be the Head of the Fedral reserve didn't have a vested interest in seeing his former company not only plot the downfall of a competitor but actually profit substantially from that demise? Even to the extent of making sure funds were in place so that this profit could be paid to Goldman Sachs!

Wall Street as are the City in London are determined that NO regulation will take place over derivative trading, splicing up the investment banks from the retail sector (because they need the capital to borrow against) or putting a cap on leveraging ratios (the amounts they are allowed to borrow over assets on balance sheets)

Whatever sabre rattling by Europe or anyone.. it won't make a jot of difference IMHO. The investment banks are not only TOO BIG TO FAIL they are also TOO BIG TO REGULATE

Like Pete said yesterday - It's simply "shameful" what's going on..and as far as I can see NOTHING has changed.... no lessons have been learnt...no safeguards have been put in place.. It's very much business as usual as far as Wall St & the City are concerned.

[Ads]

It’s increasingly clear that despite Miliband’s gesticulating and angry finger waving, he would have done the same thing.

He may well not have agreed to a treaty but I'm not sure that he would have come out banging on about apparently using a veto to protect the UK financial industry from increased regulations.

Andrew Neil on the Politics Show is suggesting that the 'agreement/plan' that they came up with last week is unravelling before it has even been fleshed out as people appear to realize that it's unlikely to solve any of the problems that they were supposed to be addressing.

Meanwhile the US say they aren't going to give any more money to the IMF - I thought they had not paid their dues anyway (may be wrong on that)? If so that sounds a bit rich.

All in all: a big old mess.

Well this is the critical thing isn’t it, as nobody, be it the US, the markets et al, actually believe the “plan” of the 26 is actually going to work.

As a humble bystander, I still see the Euro, at least in its current format and current membership, failing. I cannot believe that the people of Italy or Greece and whoever next, can sit by while their puppet leaders foist a generation poverty upon them for their sheer audacity of not behaving like Germans, with neither the option to devalue as a route out nor vote for somebody else. The idea of having the serve up your budget for scrutiny is even more reminiscent of the Soviet Union, but going back to the “plan”, I had heard that under the offered rules, Italy’s structural deficit from the previous year would not have red flagged.

[drat01]

are not so much annoyed at the anti-democratic HOL?

it's Ok because Prescott has taken a seat there so he can bring it down from the inside and I believe him , i mean otherwise he would be a hypocrite wouldn't he

Good to see the "ahhh but Labour" defence is fit and well Tony.

No one mentioned Prescott but as a deflection from the issue, it's like a trusty old sweater for you isn't it, one to be got out when points can't be defended :-)

[Ads]

I think that’s a fairly contrived insult there. It’s clear that Awol is pointing the finger squarely at the thoroughly insidious and explicitly anti-democratic nature of the EU, that here, another unelected and unaccounted for politico is given a soapbox at the expense of the taxpaying people of Europe.

I would have thought there would be complete unanimity amongst the people of this board in their disgust of how anti-democratic the EU is.

Insult? You are losing me now.

Funny how then the Tory party supporters especially are not so much annoyed at the anti-democratic HOL? What about the fact that No-One voted for a Lib Dem/Tory Gvmt, but we have one now forcing through the wishes of the Tory party, is that democratic and should be moaned about? what about changes in the way parliament is run being forced through without mandate is that democratic? etc etc

What I think you are saying is that you don't want to be part of the EU? correct? I wonder what "elected" trade group then you want us to be part of

I can only comment for myself, but I have said on many occasions that I believe the executive to be far too powerful in relation to the legislature in this country and I would not be phased by the notion of a fully elected bicameral system, if (and this is the crux) the upper house was free of the crook of the whip which keeps the sheep in the lower house, firmly in check.

I want us to be part of a free trade bloc with access to as many markets as possible. I do not want us hitching our wagon to a train that is destined to crash.

[Richard]

are not so much annoyed at the anti-democratic HOL?

it's Ok because Prescott has taken a seat there so he can bring it down from the inside and I believe him , i mean otherwise he would be a hypocrite wouldn't he

Good to see the "ahhh but Labour" defence is fit and well Tony.

No one mentioned Prescott but as a deflection from the issue, it's like a trusty old sweater for you isn't it, one to be got out when points can't be defended :-)

Is that abit like using the HOL when people are debating the Eurozone and what Milliband would have done differently?

[tonyh29]

are not so much annoyed at the anti-democratic HOL?

it's Ok because Prescott has taken a seat there so he can bring it down from the inside and I believe him , i mean otherwise he would be a hypocrite wouldn't he

Good to see the "ahhh but Labour" defence is fit and well Tony.

No one mentioned Prescott but as a deflection from the issue, it's like a trusty old sweater for you isn't it, one to be got out when points can't be defended :-)

you raised the HOL not I ... I was merely giving you some breathing space to get back to left foot forward for some more quotes :winkold:

[Ads]

A mate of mine works for Left Foot Forward. a Very clever bloke, but he always struck me as a more classic liberal than a Labour man. I'll get you a free subscription to his essays if you like?

[peterms]

Labour and Lib Dem MP's, the EU mafia and their BBC fellow travellers are ignoring one simple truth; a clear majority of UK voters support Cameron's position.

I think the treaty is utterly mad, wholly undemocratic, and economically suicidal.

But I don't support Cameron's position. He would have signed it if there had been some special treatment for the thieving scum in the dodgy bits of the City - he has no problem at all with all the crap about deficits and debts in the treaty, which remove economic policy from elected governments and hand it to banks and bureaucrats.

Choosing between his line and the treaty is like deciding whether to bash your fingers or your toes with a heavy mallet; neither, is the correct answer.

Others who oppose the treaty for similar reasons shouldn't be taken to support Cameron's position, either.

[kidlewis]

funny how people talk about "mentioning the previous government" when they endless blame the tories reign in years gone by, still now. works both ways

[drat01]

you raised the HOL not I ... I was merely giving you some breathing space to get back to left foot forward for some more quotes Wink

:-) in reply to one of your "mates" claiming that all was bad with unelected EU members. Keep up Tony.

I see that you, and the rest of the Tory supporters who have conveniently arrived en-masse have not commented on the cuts in disability payments. Unless you can shoe-horn Prescott into any sort of reply :-)

[drat01]

funny how people talk about "mentioning the previous government" when they endless blame the tories reign in years gone by, still now. works both ways

:-) again the H word KL. As many who were very vocal during the last Gvmt supporting the Tory party said, we should only talk about those in power. What is that H word now, when the same rules are used?

[snowychap]

Well this is the critical thing isn’t it, as nobody, be it the US, the markets et al, actually believe the “plan” of the 26 is actually going to work.

Going back to earlier comments, it depends what it is/was intended to do.

Isn't one of the main planks of this plan to increase fiscal integration across the EZ? If so, haven't Cameron and Osborne been suggesting/encouraging this in the last couple of months as one necessary step for them to take?

...but going back to the “plan”, I had heard that under the offered rules, Italy’s structural deficit from the previous year would not have red flagged.

Are you sure you mean structural deficit and not just their deficit?

I can't see how any rules could be put forward that concern themselves with such a finger in the air notion as a 'structural deficit'.