Europe

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Shoot them then bury them?

Which demonstates, does it not, that any identity (even a theoretically "universal" one) needs an Other to beat on.

[Furunculus]

interesting take on some inherent flaws in the system of Euro currency governance:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...k-debt-crisis/

Greek debt crisis: spotlight falls on the ECB's role

Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have announced they are investigating trades in the euro and the market in sovereign credit default swaps (CDS), while on a flying visit to London, Michel Barnier, the European internal markets commissioner, has this week promised a regulatory crackdown on the CDS market.

At the very least M. Barnier wants to know who’s buying and for what purpose. He then wants the supposed speculators publicly to account for their actions. European Commission officials are meeting with bankers today (thursday, 4 March) to decide what shape this crack down should take. If they are going to bail-out Greece, they want to know who stands to benefit and who to lose.

The first principle of regulatory interference in markets must be that there is evidence of public interest damage. In my view, the CDS market passes this test, and indeed always has done, only as with so much else, regulators were so busy with the trivia that they failed to notice the really important stuff. A CDS is a form of insurance, in that it insures against the risk of default, and yet it disobeys two of the most fundamental rules governing insurance.

The first is that the insured must own the assets being underwritten, this for the obvious reason that if he doesn’t the existence of the insurance provides an incentive to induce a loss. If I’ve got an insurance policy on your house, then I might want to burn it down. The second is that you are only allowed to insure the asset once, this for the same reasons. A CDS allows you to insure an asset, such as Greek sovereign bonds, that you don’t own, and what’s more it allows you to double up your bet many times over. It therefore provides a positive incentive to bring the house down. In any case, it has been heavily used in the short trade against sovereigns thought to be at some risk of default.

Yet I’ve got no sympathy whatsoever for the whingeing eurocrats who complain that evil speculators – who by presumption are always said to hail from London – have ratcheted up the crisis by deliberately seeking to undermine confidence in sovereign debt through use of CDS’s. I’ve written in general terms about the dangers of blaming speculators for market movements driven by economic fundamentals in this morning’s column in The Daily Telegraph. But here’s an example of how the eurocrats themselves have helped feed the mayhem.

In supporting the eurozone economy through the crisis, the European Central Bank has provided some €400bn of extra liquidity to the European banking system. Some while back it eased the minimum credit rating for required collateral to only just above junk so as to allow for the acceptance of security such as Greek sovereign bonds.

Nobody outside the ECB knows quite how much Greek government debt the ECB now holds. It has been less than transparent on this issue. What we do know is that Jean-Claude Trichet, the ECB president, plans to revert to the old criteria in the Autumn as part of a phased exit strategy from financial system support. What’s more, there’s a strong possibility that Greek sovereign debt would cease to count as acceptable collateral before then, as it would only require Moody’s to downgrade from its existing rating to break even the watered down criteria.

This is one of the main factors unsettling the Greek bond market right now, and it has very little to do with Mayfair hedge fund managers, even though they are plainly taking full advantage of the hole the ECB has dug for itself. It’s all very well to accuse the CDS market of lack of transparancy, but by comparison with the ECB, it’s as clear as a summer’s day. I’m pausing now to listen to the ECB press conference, which ought to bring further news on “exit strategies” and quite how the ECB is going to unwind all that collateral.

It’s certainly not going to be easy. Some ECB council members have berated the rating agencies for daring to think about downgrades, and threatened to apply their own assessments of what counts as acceptable collateral. But if they do that it will look like a political fudge, and will therefore undermine the ECB’s supposed independence as a monetary authority. As I say, not easy, but then M. Trichet should be thankful for small mercies. At least today’s Greek government bond issue seems to have got away smoothly, albeit at a cripplingly high interest rate.

and the other side of the coin, how sound is the pound:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...681597,00.html

How Safe Is Britain's Proud Pound?

By Carsten Volkery in London
London's Canary Wharf district: Speculators have set their sights on the British pound.

First the euro, now the pound. Britain's currency is coming under massive pressure as speculators bet that the UK's national debt will soon get out of hand. Like Athens, London has its share of problems -- and the Brits don't have any euro zone partners to back them up.

Schadenfreude may be a German word, but it has never been a foreign concept in Great Britain -- particularly in recent months as the British watch the trials and tribulations of the European common currency, the euro. The budgetary and debt problems facing Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain have merely reinforced their conviction that staying out of the euro zone was the right decision. Unlike Berlin, London is not under pressure to come to the aid of Athens.

But speculators have not just taken aim at the euro in recent days. The British pound, too, has become a favored target -- showing Brits how vulnerable their own currency may actually be. At the beginning of the week, the pound slid to a 10-month low of just $1.4781. Since then, the pound has staged a mini-recovery, moving back above $1.50 on Wednesday. But market pressure on the British currency is not likely to disappear overnight.

Alarm on the Markets

The most immediate trigger for the recent currency swoon came in the form of political surveys which indicated that a Conservative victory in general elections (which will likely be held in early May) may not be a foregone conclusion. Markets were alarmed out of fear that a close election could make it difficult for parliament to pass a strict package of savings measures.

Such political concerns are temporary. Given the British electoral system, a Conservative victory remains likely -- nor is it clear that a minority government would be unable to cap spending.

More permanent, however, are the fundamental economic indicators that are becoming the pound's Achilles heels -- debt and budgetary problems that have fuelled the British currency's downward trend since October 2008.

The problems start with the size of the country's budget deficit. With a budget deficit of 13 percent of GDP this year -- Greece's is 12.7 percent -- Britain is by far the deficit champion of the G-20 states. Britain has so far avoided an Athens-style crisis primarily by virtue of the fact that its economy is much more flexible and competitive than Greece's. Furthermore, most still believe that the country is capable of shrinking its debt without outside help. Also, unlike Greece, which is facing the need to immediately refinance €20 billion in debt, most British debt won't come due until 14 years from now.

Losing their Patience

But international financiers are beginning to lose their patience. Since the beginning of the year, the share of foreign investors in British bonds has dropped from 35 percent to 29 percent. Returns on 10-year bonds, one measure of the risk associated with them, have climbed to above 4 percent -- almost a percentage point above the German benchmark. The number of short positions on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange betting on a further loss of pound value has spiked upwards recently. The numbers reflect the market's growing skepticism.

In recent months, the British have proudly pointed out the advantages of having their own currency in the midst of the crisis. Through the devaluation of the pound, exports have been made cheaper and investments in the country more attractive. The domestic economy has profited, too. Growth of around 1 percent is predicted for the first quarter of 2010 -- the first since 2008.

It has also enabled the Bank of England to intervene in grand style, holding down interest rates so that money is available cheaply to both the government and consumers. Attractive mortgage interest rates have also helped to revive the real estate market, which has in turn buoyed the general mood of the British.

Whitewashing the Crisis

The downside of these monetary policies, though, is that they conceal the true scope of the crisis. The most recent bonds issued by the British government were fully subscribed because the Bank of England purchased the majority of them. That may enable the government to finance its deficit under favorable conditions, but the move risks jeopardizing the trust of the markets.

Mass consumer debt in Britain is whitewashed in a similar manner. With an average personal debt of 170 percent of annual income, British households are even further indebted than the Americans. And interest rates kept artificially low by the Bank of England are still feeding this bubble. Sooner or later, a rise in interest rates is inevitable -- at which point domestic demand could take a nose dive.

If Britain had joined the euro zone when it was established, at least some of these excesses could have been prevented. The fiscal policy guidelines of the common currency would have ensured that. The average annual deficit of the euro-zone countries is currently only 6 percent. Great Britain also could have hid behind the reputation of more solid euro-zone members, just as the Greeks are now doing. As a relatively small country with its own currency, however, Britain is more vulnerable.

Currency Remains Weak

But in Britain, the opinion still prevails that the country is better off staying alone. Hope for a upswing is being nourished by a series of positive economic indicators. On Wednesday, the Markit Service Index, which measures the mood of British service providers, rose to its highest level in two years. It also helped to rally the pound again.

Still, the currency remains weak. And though it is unlikely at this point that the rating agencies will downgrade Britain's creditworthiness, the possibility cannot be ruled out. In May 2009, Standard and Poor's cut its view of British bonds from stable to "outlook negative." If Britain were to actually lose its AAA rating, it could have disastrous consequences for the pound. And there would be no holding the speculators back.

I would submit that recent speculation on the pound has not been due to structural weakness, but market uncertainty regarding the seriousness of the British electorate with regards to deficit reduction. the possibility of a hung parliament means the electorate as a collective are not serious enough about deficit reduction, and the market is absolutely correct to speculate on the sustainability of Sterling.

If we are stupid enough to vote labour back in, or even to let them hang around a future governments neck like a mill-stone as the result of a hung-parliament, then my guess is that we might indeed join the euro because we will have destroyed the certainty of Sterling and hence the British economy, and we will deserve every second of the pain!

[Beskar]

The comments are hilarious.

Of course

But these SIV were designed specifically to explode and the taxpayer was always in line to pick up the pieces.

It’s like the carbon trading scam. The people are being looted on a truly eyewatering scale and thus far, they don’t realize it.

The entire credit bubble and the subsequent economic crisis was deliberately contrived to destoy the middle class in the developed economies and to return everyone to serfdom. We are heading rapidly towards a technologically controlled global, feudal fascist state. This is nothing less than WW3. It’s being fought with financial and economic weapons of mass wealth destruction.

The sheeple. institutionalised by decades of welfarism and socialism have been reduced to babies, sucking on the nipple of the state. They’ll always clamour for the safety of the state even though it is the state that is waging war against them. Hitler and Goebells would have been most impressed.

[Furunculus]

europe wants a pan-european carbon tax to fund itself, wonder how that will go down with various national electorates ight now?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...fuel-levy.html

[Beskar]

europe wants a pan-european carbon tax to fund itself, wonder how that will go down with various national electorates ight now?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...fuel-levy.html

Only because the companies will take advantage of the tax, raising up the price over that of the tax in the first place, to slice off more of a profit. Just like how they never dropped the prices after oil and gas price decreased by half, we the customer never saw any of it and the only reason petrol at the pump dropped was because Tesco actually cut the prices, which completely undercut the competition, who was exploiting their customers.

[Furunculus]

..................... we the customer never saw any of it and the only reason petrol at the pump dropped was because Tesco actually cut the prices, which completely undercut the competition, who was exploiting their customers.

ooh, a lesson in free market economics as 10:00am, i think you just answered your own dilemma.

[Beskar]

ooh, a lesson in free market economics as 10:00am, i think you just answered your own dilemma.

Hah, fortunately, as Tesco has a monopoly on the British pound as in owning 1 in 5 (or was it 1 in 6) of every pound, it made sense due to having the cheaper gas got everyone to shop in Tesco', thus they made the money back from what they would have lost anyway.

Then this begs the question, because of the economics of scale that Tesco can muster, due to having virtual monopolies. Does this mean that monopolies is the solution, even though it will force more specific retailers out of business, simply because they cannot compete? And thus, by being a virtual monopoly, they are not infact a "freemarket enterprise" as in sugar mountain picture of Capitalism paints it as it would simply turn into a battle between big corperations and cartels, etc, not small business.

So yes, many lessons to be learnt.

Also, as this isn't happening in the Energy industry, it would never occur, as they artificially inflate the price since people need electricity, they aren't going to simply stop using it.

[Furunculus]

Hah, fortunately, as Tesco has a monopoly on the British pound as in owning 1 in 5 (or was it 1 in 6) of every pound, it made sense due to having the cheaper gas got everyone to shop in Tesco', thus they made the money back from what they would have lost anyway.

Then this begs the question, because of the economics of scale that Tesco can muster, due to having virtual monopolies. Does this mean that monopolies is the solution, even though it will force more specific retailers out of business, simply because they cannot compete? And thus, by being a virtual monopoly, they are not infact a "freemarket enterprise" as in sugar mountain picture of Capitalism paints it as it would simply turn into a battle between big corperations and cartels, etc, not small business.

So yes, many lessons to be learnt.

Also, as this isn't happening in the Energy industry, it would never occur, as they artificially inflate the price since people need electricity, they aren't going to simply stop using it.

monopolies are virtually never a good idea.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Reminds me of: World food supply. Controlled by about 8 companies.

[Beskar]

monopolies are virtually never a good idea.

Yet in a unregulated 'free market' they would get even worse. Though for some reason, this seems to pass peoples attention when they advocate it.

[Furunculus]

Yet in a unregulated 'free market' they would get even worse. Though for some reason, this seems to pass peoples attention when they advocate it.

there is never going to be an unregulated free-market, we have always had a monopolies and mergers commission.

[gaelic cowboy]

Thats because markets do not have perfect information however many economist's, banks and poloticians have been acting like there is perfect information. If everyone knows the true value then that value will tend to stagnate or even reduce because the amount you can leverage said product later is fully known

[Furunculus]

very true in and of itself, but none of which debunks the basic precept that in a freemarket if you overprice a commodity like petrol, to use Beskars example, someone else will come along and undercut you, forcing you too to provide lower prices in order to remain competitive.

[gaelic cowboy]

very true in and of itself, but none of which debunks the basic precept that in a freemarket if you overprice a commodity like petrol, to use Beskars example, someone else will come along and undercut you, forcing you too to provide lower prices in order to remain competitive.

Well of course thats because Beskar tends to betray a slight thinking that things have a natural price or a bedrock they cannot breach. No object has a natural price only the price somone is willing to pay and the price somone is willing to accept the difference is the profit or loss depending on the situation.

[Beskar]

Well of course thats because Beskar tends to betray a slight thinking that things have a natural price or a bedrock they cannot breach. No object has a natural price only the price somone is willing to pay and the price somone is willing to accept the difference is the profit or loss depending on the situation.

There is a natural price of production. In order to get that oil out of the ground, and in a barrel and delivered to your house, all of that has a cost to it. For sake of argument, lets say this is the Labour cost. Then you got the cost which the company is selling it at, which is generally greater than the labour cost to create what we call "profit". This is the artifical cost to the consumer.

In areas of a virtual cartel such as the Energy Industry. They can set this price to anything they want, and simply get away with it, as it is a fundamental requirement of modern life. So they can easily sell it on for 300% of the labour cost which goes into the bank accounts of shareholders and those at the top of the corperate foodchain at deterimental cost to everyone else. (Other such things are Water supply, etc.)

This is why I am in the line of thinking which believes energy should be a state/community/people/consumer owned infrastructure and should not be in the profitteering hands of the Greed Market. The cost should be the labour cost, plus money needed for research, insurance, and other necessaries to ensure a very healthy system. This would be lower price for the consumers, would be far more efficient, and with funding in areas such as research, you would be getting the best quality, and get access to future-tech(tm) energy supply. Big advantage of this, it cuts out the "middlemen" who are the main ones who line their pockets with the money.

[Furunculus]

There is a natural price of production. In order to get that oil out of the ground, and in a barrel and delivered to your house, all of that has a cost to it. For sake of argument, lets say this is the Labour cost. Then you got the cost which the company is selling it at, which is generally greater than the labour cost to create what we call "profit". This is the artifical cost to the consumer.

In areas of a virtual cartel such as the Energy Industry. They can set this price to anything they want, and simply get away with it, as it is a fundamental requirement of modern life. So they can easily sell it on for 300% of the labour cost which goes into the bank accounts of shareholders and those at the top of the corperate foodchain at deterimental cost to everyone else. (Other such things are Water supply, etc.)

This is why I am in the line of thinking which believes energy should be a state/community/people/consumer owned infrastructure and should not be in the profitteering hands of the Greed Market. The cost should be the labour cost, plus money needed for research, insurance, and other necessaries to ensure a very healthy system. This would be lower price for the consumers, would be far more efficient, and with funding in areas such as research, you would be getting the best quality, and get access to future-tech(tm) energy supply. Big advantage of this, it cuts out the "middlemen" who are the main ones who line their pockets with the money.

see how well the USSR did at exploiting its oil reserves in the 80's as compared to now.

[edit] besides which, we are getting a little off topic....... [/edit]

[Beskar]

see how well the USSR did at exploiting its oil reserves in the 80's as compared to now.

[edit] besides which, we are getting a little off topic....... [/edit]

But Gazprom is owned and run by the government?

[Furunculus]

But Gazprom is owned and run by the government?

and how much western investment and expertise did it need?

[Beskar]

and how much western investment and expertise did it need?

Because they failed miserably doesn't mean if I did it, it would.

[gaelic cowboy]

There is a natural price of production. In order to get that oil out of the ground, and in a barrel and delivered to your house, all of that has a cost to it. For sake of argument, lets say this is the Labour cost. Then you got the cost which the company is selling it at, which is generally greater than the labour cost to create what we call "profit". This is the artifical cost to the consumer.

In areas of a virtual cartel such as the Energy Industry. They can set this price to anything they want, and simply get away with it, as it is a fundamental requirement of modern life. So they can easily sell it on for 300% of the labour cost which goes into the bank accounts of shareholders and those at the top of the corperate foodchain at deterimental cost to everyone else. (Other such things are Water supply, etc.)

This is why I am in the line of thinking which believes energy should be a state/community/people/consumer owned infrastructure and should not be in the profitteering hands of the Greed Market. The cost should be the labour cost, plus money needed for research, insurance, and other necessaries to ensure a very healthy system. This would be lower price for the consumers, would be far more efficient, and with funding in areas such as research, you would be getting the best quality, and get access to future-tech(tm) energy supply. Big advantage of this, it cuts out the "middlemen" who are the main ones who line their pockets with the money.

Your claiming costs influence price to such an extent that there is a natural price for a product that is incorrect my friend oil is a scarce resource it is scarcity and the fear of future price rises that affects the price of oil and loads of other factors like tax business cost etc etc. I will show you a much simpler example one you actually can check food is often produced by farmers at cost or even below cost due to greater leverage by the large processors and supermarket multiples the loss is often made up by subsidy from CAP. Here the natural price you believe in is distorted by all concerned to ensure consumers have plenty food

[Furunculus]

The biggest objection to Camerons six point plan to repatriate powers from Brussels was that it was in effect renegotiating Lisbon, a treaty in effect that no-one on the continent would be willing to reopen. Further, considering that Lisbon was supposed to be the last constitutional tinkering for a decade Cameron simply wouldn't have any cracks into which to apply leverage.

Now we do. The EU has a Eurozone crisis, Merkel is demanding stronger economic controls to ensure that the Euro has a future, and she wants a treaty to do it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b0933f4-2...44feabdc0.html

EMF plan needs new EU treaty, says Merkel

By Quentin Peel in Berlin, Ben Hall in Paris and Tony,Barber in Brussels

Published: March 9 2010 02:00 | Last updated: March 9 2010 02:00

Radical plans for a European version of the International Monetary Fund to bail out crisis-hit countries would need a new treaty and the agreement of all European Union member states, Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor, has warned.

Throwing her weight behind the proposals from Wolfgang Schäuble, her finance minister, Ms Merkel admitted that the European Union had lacked the tools to deal with the Greek debt crisis: "The sanctions we have were not good enough."

But she added that a full-scale negotiation of the EU's 27 member states would be needed to set up a European Monetary Fund, which would be able to bail out eurozone members subject to strict budgetary conditions. "Without treaty change we cannot found such a fund," Ms Merkel told foreign correspondents in Berlin yesterday.

Any new Europe-wide treaty risks being hugely divisive so soon after the lengthy and painful ratification of the Lisbon treaty, which was initially rejected by a referendum in Ireland and only came into effect in December.

Paris and Berlin were struggling to come up with a common line on the German initiative and the question of the need for treaty change has exposed differences between them.

French officials welcomed the proposal for an EMF in principle, but warned it would probably require an overhaul of existing treaties, for which there is no desire in Paris. They see it as a long-term project.

Ms Merkel insisted that it would be wrong to shy away from treaty change. "We want to be able to solve our problems in the future without the IMF," the German chancellor said.

Any bail-out within the eurozone is banned by the Maastricht treaty, which was the reason why a treaty change was necessary, she said.

The Berlin initiative was welcomed in Brussels, where the European Commission signalled its willingness to swing into action with a plan for a monetary fund to assist highly indebted nations such as Greece in the future.

But Jürgen Stark, Germany's representative on the executive board of the European Central Bank, condemned the idea. He said an EMF would breach the treaty rules of the eurozone and undermine public support for the euro and the EU.

Mr Stark wrote in Handelsblatt that "instead of a European monetary fund, budget rules must be strengthened and implemented with the help of a stringent supervisory mechanism". The ECB said that Mr Stark's views were personal.

Additional reporting by Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt

So now we have a venue where we can be bargain with the continent to get our demands, and its a no lose situation as the greater integration will be centered around the Eurozone members, of which we are not.

So what were those six demands again?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-it-work.html

David Cameron's plan to save Britain from the EU's clutches: will it work?
Conservative leader David Cameron has set out a six point plan to preserve British sovereignty within the European Union. What are his prospects of success?

by Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 8:45AM GMT 08 Nov 2009

The six point plan set out by David Cameron last week was intended to preserve British sovereignty within the European Union now that the Lisbon Treaty - designed to streamline the EU and increase its powers now it has 27 members - has finally come into force.

There is no point, he argued, in holding a referendum after the event on something that was already law.

But what do his proposals add up to, and what prospect do they have of success?

THE REFERENDUM LOCK

What David Cameron has proposed

No future treaty which transferred powers away from Britain to the EU could become law without first being approved in a referendum.

Mr Cameron would enshrine this in UK legislation by amending the 1972 European Communities Act, the constitutional legislation that gives EU law supremacy over British laws.

This would make Britain like Ireland, the only European member state currently required to submit new EU treaties to a referendum.

The reform would also include "a legal lock" requiring a referendum before any British government could take Britain into the euro.

How could it be done?

The reform is within a future prime minister's gift because it requires merely legislation in the House of Commons. Any other government could reverse it again with equal ease, however, so long as MPs agreed.

But it would not satisfy Tories who want a referendum about the EU sooner rather than later - such as David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, who wants a Conservative government to call a poll on clawing back powers from the EU during its first three months in office.

EU diplomats and officials are relaxed about the "referendum lock", noting that it presents no imminent danger to European integration because everyone expects a pause now the Lisbon Treaty is law. "No one is against adding bells and whistles on this, or more of a say for national parliaments," said an official from a large EU member state. "After Lisbon there will be no new treaties for at least 10 years." (LOL)

Verdict: Easy to deliver and risk free, because it is unlikely to be put to the test until 2020 or later.

A UNITED KINGDOM SOVEREIGNTY BILL

What David Cameron has proposed

An incoming Conservative government would use its first Queen's speech to table a UK Sovereignty Bill, to enshrine constitutionally the supremacy of the British parliament over encroachments from the EU.

"Unlike many other European countries, Britain does not have a written constitution," said Mr Cameron. "Given the increasing amount of EU law with which we have to deal, we would amend the law... to make it explicit that ultimately Britain's parliament is sovereign."

The Tories have compared the proposal to Germany's situation where its Federal Constitution, known as the basic law, is guarded by a powerful supreme court against all comers.

How could it be done?

Passing the legislation would be simple enough, though constitutional purists might debate the finer points. But what if a government tried to put it into practice?

EU officials and diplomats point out that it would overturn the entire principle of the EU and decades of supremacy of European legislation over British law.

The Tory claim that Germany currently has greater constitutional protection than Britain is suspect. In fact no national constitutional court, including that of Germany, has challenged the primacy of EU law in 45 years.

When it appeared, in 2000, that German constitutional law appeared to conflict with a European Court of Justice ruling over the right of women to join the armed forces, Germany got round the problem by changing its constitution to conform.

In effect, countries cannot be inside the EU club if they don't submit to the rules. Refusal to do so would be seen as a clear signal that a country was preparing to withdraw.

Verdict: A symbolic crowd pleaser, but any real challenge to EU supremacy would plunge the Tories into a full blown European crisis.

A GUARANTEED SAY FOR MPS IF MINISTERS WANT THE EU TO EXTEND ITS POWERS

What David Cameron has proposed

Under the Lisbon Treaty, leaders of member states can agree together to transfer new powers piecemeal from national governments to Brussels without the need for a new treaty or the trouble of a referendum.

Mr Cameron has promised "full parliamentary control" over such measures.

He is particularly concerned about two separate "bridging clause" provisions within the Treaty - known in EU jargon as "passerelles" - that could allow the EU to scrap the national veto in all remaining policy areas where it still applies, except defence. Policy could instead by decided by majority voting on the European Council, where ministers meet as the EU's governing body.

Another "ratchet clause" permits the rules to be changed more easily to scrap national vetoes.

The Lisbon Treaty requires parliamentary consent of all member states before EU powers can be extended this way. The Government proposes a mere 90 minutes of debate among MPs. Mr Cameron would insist on formal legislation - and thus a much more thorough discussion.

How could it be done?

A simple Act of Parliament would ensure that this proposal became law and tied the hands of future governments. A different government might try to reverse it, but that would be a difficult proposition to sell.

Verdict: An easy domestic reform that will please MPs across all political parties without upsetting any Europeans.

OPT-OUT FROM CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
What David Cameron has proposed

A plan to negotiate a "complete opt-out" from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees certain civil, political, economic and social rights for all those within the EU - including the "right to strike".

Britain already has an opt-out, negotiated by Tony Blair. But Mr Cameron says it does not go far enough.

Currently a British exemption is secured by a "protocol" - like an agreed footnote - to the Charter, stating that it cannot be enforced in the UK courts. But this is no more than a clarification, says Mr Cameron, and is not itself enforceable.

"We must be absolutely sure that this cannot be used by EU judges to reinterpret EU law affecting the UK," he said.

EU officials say this is a fake solition to a false problem - as the Charter is designed to apply only to EU institutions and legislation, not to those of member states.

How could it be done?

To put this into practice would need new legal wording which would be technically difficult to get right - and the agreement of all 26 other EU member states, which would be politically and diplomatically tricky. (LOL)

Verdict: Difficult. Another symbolic opt-out is possible but might be resented and other member states will block anything that damages the Charter's intended EU role.

RETURN OF POWERS OVER CRIMINAL JUSTICE

What David Cameron has proposed

The Lisbon Treaty extends to the EU new powers over justice and policing legislation. Until now, all governments had to agree to any new EU laws in these areas but from 2013 and EU judges will have the final say over such topics as extradition and the European Arrest Warrant.

A temporary arrangement allows Britain to "opt in" on a case-by-case basis but Mr Cameron says Britain needs better protection. "This would protect against EU judges extending their control over our criminal justice system," he said. "We also want to ensure that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain."

How could it be done?

Now it is getting harder. Such a change would require a full amendment to the Lisbon Treaty - and that would need consent of all EU members. (LOL)

Mr Cameron would face opposition from the many EU governments and police forces which have come to rely on closer EU cooperation on justice. He will also face opposition from senior British police officers who favour the EU extradition powers that Mr Cameron is threatening to block.

Verdict: Unlikely, as no other EU countries want to reopen the Lisbon Treaty and Mr Cameron can not change anything without all 26 agreeing.

"REPATRIATION" OF CONTROL OVER SOCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION

What David Cameron has proposed

Restore British control over areas of social and employment legislation that were ceded to Brussels decades ago - governing matters such as maternity leave, the working week and the rights of part-time workers.

Mr Caneron argues that some of the legislation has damaged the economy, while the Working Time Directive hampers the provision of public services like the fire service and the NHS.

How could it be done?

Any "repatriation" of social legislation to Britain would require a change to the Lisbon Treaty - and merely to open the debate within the EU, Mr Cameron would need the support of most member states. (LOL)

Other EU governments regard allowing Britain to ditch regulations and social protections that are in place elsewhere in Europe as giving unfair competitive advantage.

Verdict: The hardest of all to achieve. A Tory government would have to give something substantial in return - most likely the loss of national sovereignty in other politically unacceptable areas such as taxation.

The best bit is this; not only does this allow Cameron to repatriate powers from Brussels, but in bargaining with the EU to give them what they want, he will further entrench the reality of a two-speed EUrope!

I like it.

[Furunculus]

the EU parliament votes itself the ability to help itself to the wealth of sovereign member states, how nice of them:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-eu-tobin-tax/

MEPs vote overwhelmingly for an EU Tobin Tax


By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: March 10th, 2010

2 Comments Comment on this article

As predicted, the European Parliament has voted for a tax on financial transactions, to be levied directly by Brussels. The vote went through by 536 to 80: only my own group, the European Conservatives and Reformists, voted solidly against the measure, although we had some support from UKIP and its allies as well as two Danish liberals and two Portuguese conservatives.

Anyone wondering why David Cameron broke with the palaeo-federalist EPP need only look at its automatic support for such measures as this. With a handful of exceptions – such as those two heroes from our oldest ally - the Christian Democrats invariably vote for higher taxes, greater state intervention and Euro-corporatism. I do wish British journalists would stop lazily refering to the EPP as “Centre-Right”; the EPP itself angrily insists that it is “a party of the Centre”.

The Tobin Tax might well be vetoed by one or other of the national governments. But the campaign for pan-European taxation is only just beginning. This will be the big battleground of the next five years. It’s time for a European Tea Party.

with the exceptiopn of the European Conservatives & Reformists party!

[Subotan]

Aww, I think I might send my comfort blankie to poor Daniel Hannan since his group lost the vote. Poor party being bullied by those big nasty "paleo-federalists" and "Euro-corporatists" whatever the Hell those are...

[Subotan]

HAHA, I didn't see this before my earlier post:

It’s time for a European Tea Party.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Furunculus]

Brussels is run by and for lobby groups :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-lobby-groups/

Nearly two years after the European Commission introduced a register for lobbyists, only 40 per cent of Brussels lobbying firms have signed up (hat-tip, EUObserver). Forty per cent, that is, of the 286 companies that explicitly market themselves as Brussels political consultants. We’re not talking here about the in-house lobbyists of the big corporations, nor of trade and professional associations, nor yet of the lobbying-at-one-remove that can be undertaken through proxies, so as to avoid having to declare meetings.

Nor, needless to say, are we talking about lobbying by green pressure groups which, as we discovered earlier this week, often fund their activism with grants that have come from the EU. Nor yet about lobbying by the mega-charities, which also receive tens of millions of euros from Brussels. Include all these, and the register would start to look like a Yellow Pages.

Lobbying is not intrinsically wrong. Indeed, three of my oldest and dearest friends have become lobbyists, and I can’t imagine them ever behaving unethically. The trouble is that the Brussels system cuts out the voter, concentrating power in the hands of unelected functionaries and, to a lesser extent, anonymous Euro-MPs. Lobbyists, naturally enough, have filled the vacuum.

Perhaps the best option is to do a John Redwood: that is, to refuse to deal with any lobbyists, however benign their motives. This attitude is doubtless unfair to many wholly innocent public affairs people; but it avoids any appearance of conflict of interest. And here’s the thing: if you have a problem, you can write directly to your elected representative. Nine times out of ten, he or she will take up your case for nothing.

[Subotan]

Dawn of a new EU - European Bailout Plan for Greece springs into life

[Furunculus]

"The Greek case is a potential turning point for the eurozone," said Rehn in the interview. "If Greece fails and we fail, this will do serious and maybe permanent damage to the credibility of the European Union. The euro is not only a monetary arrangement, but a core political project of the European Union … In that sense, we are at a crossroads."

did we sign up to this?

and is this not an opportunity for Cameron?

[Subotan]

No we didn't. But it's only a matter of time.

And it's also an opportunity for Brown, whose wise economic leadership kept us out of the Monetary Union that is wrecking havoc on the continent. All glory to the helmsman who kept our economy and our currency afloat!

[Furunculus]

so it is only a matter of time before britain gets sucked into a federal europe.............. against its will.

but it is also, at the same time, a self evident glory of brown that he kept us out of the Euro, that is wrecking havoc on the continent. ................

i'm not sure i get it?

[Subotan]

I was being mildly satirical, yet making a serious point. If Cameron can use this to his advantage, than so can Brown.