economic situation is dire

[tonyh29]

just wondering Drat01, would you have signed the treaty? Not trying to score points here, just asking what you would have done

surely the question is "Had Ed been PM and done exactly the same would you be typing nothing but praise for Ed's masterfall handling of the situation"

:winkold:

Link - the stance from Chris Huhne is a very interesting one here

been hearing his name a lot of late , my guess is he's jockeying himself for a leadership bid , but needs someone else to take Clegg down and be the patsy ?

I'd expect his speeding case to come back in the news shortly and Huhne will be put back in his place

[colhint]

just wondering Drat01, would you have signed the treaty? Not trying to score points here, just asking what you would have done

I would not have taken the actions that Cameron did and play the cards that mean there was no negotiation and left us outside of the key decisions in this and other events. There was a lot more that could have and should have been done or at least discussed in order that the responsibilities of a PM of the UK, not the the leader of the Tory party should have done

EDIT: Link - the stance from Chris Huhne is a very interesting one here

Would you have signed the treaty? If not why not? Would you have negotiated in a different way? Do you think we are now weaker in this and other matters being outside many of the negotiations?

I dont think I would have signed for the following reasons. As I understood there are financial implications for the UK. I dont think any of us know exactly what was on the table, bits keep coming out as to how much it affects us, but I havent seen the full facts. Now I know we are part of the EU and have to contribute, however if the terms of our contribution were not acceptable I dont think we should make a long term commitment. Of course, should we change our minds we could go back and sign, you cant change your mind once you have signed. Secondly I'm not sure how much more could have been done. I believe they were still discussing it at 5 in the morning. The summit was over in a few hours and were trying to broker a deal right to the end. How much room was left for manoever at that point is anybodys guess.

I didn't quite understand your reply. Would you have signed or not. I think you said you would have taken different actions to Cameron, fair enough, but was that to have things either put in or taken out of the document, which would enable you to sign it

[drat01]

Jobless numbers continue to rise under this Gvmt - 2.64 million at least now and increase in the record youth unemployment.

Inflation running way above guidelines at 4.8% (despite attempts to change the way its measured)

Soundbite Gvmt against Europe

VAT at record levels

All we need now is a war against Argentina and the time travel is complete

[drat01]

I dont think I would have signed for the following reasons. As I understood there are financial implications for the UK. I dont think any of us know exactly what was on the table, bits keep coming out as to how much it affects us, but I havent seen the full facts. Now I know we are part of the EU and have to contribute, however if the terms of our contribution were not acceptable I dont think we should make a long term commitment. Of course, should we change our minds we could go back and sign, you cant change your mind once you have signed. Secondly I'm not sure how much more could have been done. I believe they were still discussing it at 5 in the morning. The summit was over in a few hours and were trying to broker a deal right to the end. How much room was left for manoever at that point is anybodys guess.

I didn't quite understand your reply. Would you have signed or not. I think you said you would have taken different actions to Cameron, fair enough, but was that to have things either put in or taken out of the document, which would enable you to sign it

Further negotiations were available and conditions were available in order that progress could have been made. That is obvious from the many comments that have come out. What some have tried to make this out to be was a us (the UK) and them (nasty old Johnny Foreign types led by those evil Frenchies and Germans), when the reality is quite simple that all of these countries need each other to be prosperous in order that nationals within them can have any sort of hope of getting through this world mess.

As said the playing to the crowd politics that Cameron preferred has now left us outside of this and very vulnerable especially as areas such as Europe in general are critical to so many factors in the UK. There has been a lot of BS about what was being discussed and as said previously if you listened to Cameron (minus Clegg) in the HOC you would have thought that it was a debate on should we join the Euro!

The long term implications of this are very worrying. The UK economy has again today seen massive hits due to the cuts and the pandering to keep the city happy and screw on what the Tory party see as "natural enemies". None of the actions taken by Cameron IMO will help the country to prosper, but may well help cameron appease his bank benchers and some of his financial world backers, and that cannot be right

[Ads]

Jobless numbers continue to rise under this Gvmt - 2.64 million at least now and increase in the record youth unemployment.

Inflation running way above guidelines at 4.8% (despite attempts to change the way its measured)

Soundbite Gvmt against Europe

VAT at record levels

All we need now is a war against Argentina and the time travel is complete

I've just stuck my house on us to win the European Cup.

[Awol]

Drat, if you were PM would you have signed the agreement as it was put to the UK?

EDIT:

conditions were available in order that progress could have been made

Could you list those please so we can all know what they were?

Thanks in advance.

[tonyh29]

interesting news coming through that other European nations are having second thoughts regarding last week's treaty agreement to centralise tax and spending power

There are even doubts over whether France will implement the package after its main opposition party rejected the deal.

Hmmmmmmmmm

[drat01]

interesting news coming through that other European nations are having second thoughts regarding last week's treaty agreement to centralise tax and spending power

There are even doubts over whether France will implement the package after its main opposition party rejected the deal.

Hmmmmmmmmm

Because as was said without the UK being part of this there will be bigger issues and they need to be looked at.

Also interesting you putting that spin on it implying that all tax would now be EU led, not the case, and that spending power would all be centrally controlled from the EU, again not the case. That is the power of the spin when fact and fiction merge into one for the sake or argument?

[drat01]

Drat, if you were PM would you have signed the agreement as it was put to the UK?

EDIT:

conditions were available in order that progress could have been made

Could you list those please so we can all know what they were?

Thanks in advance.

I really am struggling to understand your unrelenting questioning here.

As many have said, and you well know, there were lots of options that were available for discussion. There were lots of controls and caveats if you want to call it that, that could have been put forward to "protect" interests. Why you fail to even understand these is beyond me

As said Cameron had no mandate for his actions, but he followed them. There was plenty more negotiations and considerations that could have and should have been factored in. Have a read of the many articles on all of this.

Where is the evidence that consideration was even taken then?

[Awol]

Drat, if you were PM would you have signed the agreement as it was put to the UK?

EDIT:

conditions were available in order that progress could have been made

Could you list those please so we can all know what they were?

Thanks in advance.

I really am struggling to understand your unrelenting questioning here.

I'm surprised because it really is incredibly simple.

As many have said, and you well know, there were lots of options that were available for discussion. There were lots of controls and caveats if you want to call it that, that could have been put forward to "protect" interests.

Really, such as?

Why you fail to even understand these is beyond me

Because some people state that we had loads of options but when pressed don't seem to be able to name a single one. If you could show what even one of those options was I'd be grateful and better able to understand what Cameron got so terribly wrong?

Have a read of the many articles on all of this.

I've been doing just that but am yet to discover what these options/conditions/ caveats were, other than the opt out that we requested? Can you please help out by linking to one or two of the articles that discuss these myriad options? Thanks.

Where is the evidence that consideration was even taken then?

What evidence is there that these considerations existed? All I've seen is Sarkozy, Merkel, Barroso and some non entity from Belgium saying that the UK requests to retain control of its own financial regulation were unacceptable and against the spirirt of the single market.

That and threats by unelected EU Comissars that the UK "wouldn't be allowed to get away with it".

Terrifying stuff, I'm sure you'll agree.

[kidlewis]

ED is likely to have signed in principle, tried to discuss things, got absolutely nowhere and ended up signing whatever was proposed anyway.

whereas Cameron maybe jumped the gun?

could Cameron have signed in principle, tried to discuss and then just pulled out at a later date?

or if he signed it was tough and had to go along with it?

[tonyh29]

Because as was said without the UK being part of this there will be bigger issues and they need to be looked at.

maybe when you play poker the trick is to know when you have the strongest hand but not let your opponents know ...

As many have said :winkold: Europe needs the UK more than the UK needs Europe ....

[tonyh29]

ED is likely to have signed in principle, tried to discuss things, got absolutely nowhere and ended up signing whatever was proposed anyway.

I'm just wondering which of his Union paymasters Ed would have had to call for permission before he signed ?

[kidlewis]

ED is likely to have signed in principle, tried to discuss things, got absolutely nowhere and ended up signing whatever was proposed anyway.

I'm just wondering which of his Union paymasters Ed would have had to call for permission before he signed ?

You should know by now Tony that all Labour MPs are totally independent of any outside influence whatsoever, even the will of the people doesn't come into it.

[drat01]

Gents lets not talk about some of the biggest donators to the Tory party shall we?

At least with Unions there is a lot more democratic things in place in terms of elections and votes for actions, as opposed to the finance world (who are universal accepted as being a major part of the problem) and are some of the major beneficiaries of the actions of Cameron.

The glass house window replacement company will be busy if you go down that path

[Awol]

or if he signed it was tough and had to go along with it?

First off he'd of been agreeing to a further 200 billion being lent to the IMF by the EU countries (30 billion from UK) to be channelled back to weak EZ members. Quite aparty from the fact ther US and China have already told the IMF to hoop it over this plan, it seems like Alice in Wonderland stuff for skint countries to borrow money and give it to the IMF, only for the IMF to lend it back to them.

That's the state of sheer nonsensical desperation that the EU is in, borrowing money to lend back to itself through third parties. Crazy, eh?

If he'd made an agreement now and then backed away later it wouldn't be clever, however (and disgracefully) he was prepared to cough up if they'd agreed to keep their hands off our financial regulation. Sarkozy said 'Non', which gives some insight into which outcome the French wanted.

Secondly if he went along with a treaty change it would in the coming months (the EU want this squared away by March) have led to a referendum in the UK, by law.

Whatever the actual wording intended originally, the popular pressure for an in/out referendum would be overwhelming and it's clear where that would go. As Neither Cameron, Milibrand or Clegg want out of the EU it would be a very daft move on the PM's part.

That last issue has been ignored by the Cameron bashers for at least 15 pages...

[drat01]

What evidence is there that these considerations existed? All I've seen is Sarkozy, Merkel, Barroso and some non entity from Belgium saying that the UK requests to retain control of its own financial regulation were unacceptable and against the spirirt of the single market.

AWOL you hatred of anything European is not good for you.

Barroso told the European parliament in Strasbourg that he had tried to help Britain by tabling a clause which would have made clear that the fiscal compact should not undermine the single market nor distort competition. "Unfortunately, that compromise proved impossible, so it was not possible to have a solution that could allow all 27 member states to agree in the framework of current treaties."

The summit aimed to give the commission the right to declare a state to have an excessive deficit unless a qualified majority of countries vote against it.

It's obvious that whatever Cameron did that pandered to the desires of the far right and the UKIP's of this world would get approval from yourself. The reality is that for us still in the UK, and working in UK and the rest of Europe there are now significant difficulties that will arise because of this action. You may not accept that, or even experience it living and working where you do (assuming you are still in the Middle East) but thems the facts.

Tony talks about poker, but I would prefer a PM that wasn't just playing poker to pay off his chums, but one who is clever and understands what the implications are. the best poker players are those who know when it's correct to play and as importantly when to fold - at least you are still in the game

[Awol]

At least with Unions there is a lot more democratic things in place in terms of elections and votes for actions

So that's good in Unions but bad in EU. Gotcha, thanks.

Any ideas on these options the PM had, Drat? Still dying to read about them.

Thanks again.

[drat01]

or if he signed it was tough and had to go along with it?

First off he'd of been agreeing to a further 200 billion being lent to the IMF by the EU countries (30 billion from UK) to be channelled back to weak EZ members. Quite aparty from the fact ther US and China have already told the IMF to hoop it over this plan, it seems like Alice in Wonderland stuff for skint countries to borrow money and give it to the IMF, only for the IMF to lend it back to them.

That's the state of sheer nonsensical desperation that the EU is in, borrowing money to lend back to itself through third parties. Crazy, eh?

If he'd made an agreement now and then backed away later it wouldn't be clever, however (and disgracefully) he was prepared to cough up if they'd agreed to keep their hands off our financial regulation. Sarkozy said 'Non', which gives some insight into which outcome the French wanted.

Secondly if he went along with a treaty change it would in the coming months (the EU want this squared away by March) have led to a referendum in the UK, by law.

Whatever the actual wording intended originally, the popular pressure for an in/out referendum would be overwhelming and it's clear where that would go. As Neither Cameron, Milibrand or Clegg want out of the EU it would be a very daft move on the PM's part.

That last issue has been ignored by the Cameron bashers for at least 15 pages...

Where is your evidence for any of that ?

[drat01]

At least with Unions there is a lot more democratic things in place in terms of elections and votes for actions

So that's good in Unions but bad in EU. Gotcha, thanks.

Any ideas on these options the PM had, Drat? Still dying to read about them.

Thanks again.

AWOL I am sitting here shaking my head in disbelief at your absurd (IMO) questions again.

You are obviously badgering your way to try an get across a specific point, why not cut the usual crap and say what you are trying put across.

You are making things out as though Cameron had no options, when as I have pointed out from a quote there were options.

Am I right in saying then that you honestly, and not just saying for effect, that Cameron had only one option, and that was the one he took and that was the best? If you think that, then nothing what I or anyone can point out from the millions of pages written since this happened will convince you otherwise.

I am also struggling to see your logic, especially as someone who has been so anti-union in the past behind your other statement.

Frankly you have completely lost me now and unlike you I have a bit of work to do. Maybe my little bit will help out my UK and rest of Europe colleagues, someone has to do it :-)