Europe

[Furunculus]

sure, from an electoral point of view it can work either way, but i don't see how it advances the holy cause of awakening the sensitive european inside the brutish british heart.

[Furunculus]

But i thought we were all the same, with the same hopes and ambitions, the same goals and ideals, and now you tell me it is not so! *tantrum*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...t-surplus.html

Angela Merkel defies IMF and France as anger rises over German export surplus
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has defied France and the IMF, refusing to modify Germany’s strategy of export reliance or boost growth to help alleviate the deep crisis sweeping Southern Europe.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 7:05PM GMT 17 Mar 2010

"Where we are strong, we will not give up our strengths just because our exports are perhaps preferred to those of other countries," she told the German Bundestag.

Mrs Merkel swept aside criticisms that Germany and other surplus countries are partly to blame for the widening North-South rift that has led to Euroland’s worst crisis since the launch of monetary union.

"The problem has to be solved from the Greek side, and everything has to be oriented in that direction rather than thinking of hasty help that does not achieve anything in the long run and merely weakens the euro even more," she said.

Instead she called for EU treaty chnges so that serial violators of EMU rules could be expelled from the euro, and insisted Germany would stick to its own path of hairshirt austerity.

The tough words came as the IMF’s chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn said it was time for Berlin to rethink its single-minded pursuit of exports, warning that both Germany and China need to play their part in rebalancing the global system rather than relying on huge structural surpluses. "This must change. Internal demand must be strengthened with more consumption," he told the European Parliament.

French finance minister Christine Lagarde infuriated Berlin earlier this week by suggesting that Germany’s relentlesss wage squeeze was making it impossible for Club Med states to claw back lost competitiveness within monetary union, forcing them into a deflation policy that must ultimately rebound against everybody.

"Clearly Germany has done an awfully good job in the last 10 years or so improving competitiveness. When you look at unit labour costs, they have done a tremendous job in that respect. I’m not sure it is a sustainable model for the long term and for the whole of the group. Clearly we need better convergence. While we need to make an effort, it takes two to tango," she told the Financial Times. Mrs Lagarde said yesterday that Germany should cut consumption tax to lift imports and help do its part to narrow the North-South gap.

Her comments have prompted fierce criticisms in Germany. "Mrs Lagarde must take back her outrageous assertions: jealousy should not be a factor in the politics of European neighbours. This is the behaviour of a bad loser," said Alexander Dobrindt, general secretary of Bavaria’s Social Christians (CSU) in the Merkel coalition.

Germany has gained some 30pc to 40pc in cost advantage against Italy and Spain since the mid 1990s, and over 20pc against France, according to EU data. Germany’s current account surplus is expected to reach $190bn this year, or 6pc on GDP.

The achievement is remarkable, but is also upsetting the structure of monetary union. David Marsh, author of `The Euro: the Politics of the New Global Currency", said the Germans never faced up to the political implications of EMU. "They thought everybody else should become more German. You can’t blame them for having a desire for a competitive industry and surpluses built into their genes, but they are not thinking holistically," he said.

EMU rules are forcing Club Med states to tighten fiscal policy by 10pc of GDP for Greece, 8pc for Spain, and 6pc for Portugal over three years without any offsetting monetary or exchange stimulus, an unprecedented demand that may cause such deep economic damage that it proves self-defeating in the end.

Charles Dumas from Lombard Street Research said the Club Med states and Ireland cannot deflate wages below German levels without causing havoc to their economies, so the EU policy creates a profound bias towards a deflationary slump for the whole system.

"The Germans are not very good at arithmetic. If they want to run surpluses near $200bn (£130bn), others must run deficits near $200bn. It is not appropriate that Germany’s dismal growth peformance be exported to the whole of Europe, but that is what is going to happen," he said.

"There has been this massive self-righteousness in Germany. They have been leeching off the demand of countries for the last decade, and now they too are going to suffer until they change their ways. German industrial production is down 17pc from the peak and has been flat for four months, so Mittelstand bosses are soon going to draw the obvious conclusion and downsize in style," he said.

Mr Dumas said the trade surplus of the German bloc of Northern states is as great as the combined surplus of China and Asia’s tigers. They are central players in the story of global imbalances.

Holger Schmieding, chief Europe economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said attacks on Germany were deeply misguided. The country suffered a long slump after digesting East Germany in the 1990s and was forced to retrench. It did not take part in the global credit boom, acting as a counterweight to excess. Once the bust began it had sufficient fiscal reserves to cushion the shock with large stimulus measures, again acting as a bullwark of stability.

"I am still waiting hear the world say `thank you Germany’," he said.

The Germans should be free to be competitive if that is there wish.

The French should be honest about what they mean when they say; "I’m not sure it is a sustainable model for the long term and for the whole of the group." and admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans, and resent the fact that the single currency is pricing them out of the market.

The Greeks should have it pointed out to them that in twenty years time their living standards are going to resemble that of an albania peasant more than western europe middle-class, unless they decide they have got it in them to start doing more than electing communists and throwing stones through shop windows.

Where is that transnational progressive pan-european dream now, eh?

[Louis VI the Fat]

But i thought we were all the same, with the same hopes and ambitions, the same goals and ideals, and now you tell me it is not so! *tantrum*

I read that all Eurosceptics are simply biding their time to start a new pan-European conflagration and plunge us all into a new world war. It is only owing to the EU that we again managed this year to prevent renewed industrial warfare, which proves we have been right all along.

In other words, strawman. There's no point in putting up a grossly distorted caricature and then thump one's chest in a celebration of 'we've been correct all along' whenever this caricature of reality is shown - surprise! - to be incorrect.


There is a lot of US criticism about China's export orientated economic policy. Nobody will accuse the US of being communists who are too lazy to work. Nor are the imbalances between the US and China the result of political adn economic integration.
Rather, the world is economically intertwined anyway. What the EU does, is grant power to the people to shape this integration into the form they desire, rather than be powerless onlookers.


The criticism about Germany's economic policy has two origins:
- Envy. Yes.
- Criticism about Germany's policy of stimulating export, and destimulating consumption.
For a fun fact: surprisingly, the purchasing power of a German is only ten percent higher than that of a Greek.
This is what you get when a German rightwing government has a policy that benefits German industry over German consumers by a combination of low wages and high consumption tax to stimulate export surplus.
The criticism is not that Germany should produce less, or less succesfully, but that it should balance this with more internal investment and consumption.

[gaelic cowboy]

This is what you get when a German rightwing government has a policy that benefits German industry over German consumers by a combination of low wages and high consumption tax to stimulate export surplus.
The criticism is not that Germany should produce less, or less succesfully, but that it should balance this with more internal investment and consumption.

Yes of course there following this policy due to the fact they know there demographic potential will be downward soon enough. Allowing migrants entrance to Germany is off the table after the experience it has had and has with say the turks in Germany. By stimulating exports and holding wages down they can hope to reduce the need to grow the economy to compete in an enviroment where more exports would endanger jobs but also crate new ones. The most extreme example of this is Japan does anyone think its a coincidence they are investing heavily in china and robotics two things that could potentially hold there economy but with less people

[Furunculus]

interesting Strat-For article detailing how the Euro might actually break ever-deeper-union, because Germany is at long last beginning to act as a sovereign nation state in the advancement of its own interest:
http://ukdf.blogspot.com/2010/03/ger...opa-redux.html

Germany: Mitteleuropa Redux

By Peter Zeihan

The global system is undergoing profound change. Three powers — Germany, Iran and China — face challenges forcing them to refashion the way they interact with their regions and the world. We will explore each of these three states in detail in our next three geopolitical weeklies, highlighting how STRATFOR’s assessments of these states are evolving. We will examine Germany first.


Germany’s Place in Europe

European history has been the chronicle of other European powers struggling to constrain Germany, particularly since German unification in 1871. The problem has always been geopolitical. Germany lies on the North European Plain, with France to its west and Russia to its east. If both were to attack at the same time, Germany would collapse. German strategy in 1871, 1914 and 1939 called for pre-emptive strikes on France to prevent a two-front war. (The last two attempts failed disastrously, of course.)

As much as Germany’s strategy engendered mistrust in Germany’s neighbours, they certainly understood Germany’s needs. And so European strategy after World War II involved reshaping the regional dynamic so that Germany would never face this problem again and so would never need to be a military power again. Germany’s military policy was subordinated to NATO and its economic policy to the European Economic Community (the forerunner of today’s European Union). NATO solved Germany’s short-run problem, while the European Union was seen as solving its long-run problem. For the Europeans — including the Germans — these structures represented the best of both worlds. They harnessed German capital and economic dynamism, submerged Germany into a larger economic entity, gave the Germans what they needed economically so they didn’t have to seek it militarily, and ensured that the Germans had no reason — or ability — to strike out on their own.

This system worked particularly well after the Cold War ended. Defense threats and their associated costs were reduced. There were lingering sovereignty issues, of course, but these were not critical during the good times: Such problems easily can be dealt with or deferred while the money flows. The example of a European development that represented this money-over-sovereignty paradigm was the European Monetary Union, best represented by the European common currency, the euro.

STRATFOR has always doubted the euro would last. Having the same currency and monetary policy for rich, technocratic, capital-intensive economies like Germany as for poor, agrarian/manufacturing economies like Spain always seemed like asking for problems. Countries like Germany tend to favour high interest rates to attract investment capital. They don’t mind a strong currency, since what they produce is so high up on the value-added scale that they can compete regardless. Countries like Spain, however, need a cheap currency, since there isn’t anything particularly value-added about most of their exports. These states must find a way to be price competitive. Their ability to grow largely depends upon getting access to cheap credit they can direct to places the market might not appreciate.

STRATFOR figured that creating a single currency system would trigger high inflation in the poorer states as they gained access to capital they couldn’t qualify for on their own merits. We figured such access would generate massive debts in those states. And we figured such debts would contribute to discontent across the currency zone as the European Central Bank (ECB) catered to the needs of some economies at the expense of others.

All this and more has happened. We saw the 2008-2009 financial crisis in Central Europe as particularly instructive. Despite their shared EU membership, the Western European members were quite reluctant to bail out their eastern partners. We became even more convinced that such inconsistencies would eventually doom the currency union, and that the euro’s eventual dissolution would take the European Union with it. Now, we’re not so sure.

What if, instead of the euro being designed to further contain the Germans, the Germans crafted the euro to rewire the European Union for their own purposes?
Germany and the Current Crisis

The crux of the current crisis in Europe is that most EU states, but in particular the Club Med states of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy (in that order), have done such a poor job of keeping their budgets under control that they are flirting with debt defaults. All have grown fat and lazy off the cheap credit the euro brought them. Instead of using that credit to trigger broad sustainable economic growth, they lived off the difference between the credit they received due to the euro and the credit they qualified for on their own merits. Social programs funded by debt exploded; after all, the cost of that debt was low as the Club Med countries coasted on the bond prices of Germany. At present, interest rates set by the ECB stand at 1 percent; in the past, on its own merits, Greece’s often rose to double digits. The resulting government debt load in Greece — which now exceeds annual Greek gross domestic product — will probably result in either a default (triggered by efforts to maintain such programs) or a social revolution (triggered by an effort to cut such programs). It is entirely possible that both will happen.

What made us look at this in a new light was an interview with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble on March 13 in which he essentially said that if Greece, or any other eurozone member, could not right their finances, they should be ejected from the eurozone. This really got our attention. It is not so much that there is no legal way to do this. (And there is not; Greece is a full EU member, and eurozone membership issues are clearly a category where any member can veto any major decision.) Instead, what jumped out at us is that someone of Schauble’s gravitas doesn’t go about casually making threats, and this is not the sort of statement made by a country that is constrained, harnessed, submerged or placated. It is not even the sort of statement made by just any EU member, but rather by the decisive member. Germany now appears prepared not just to contemplate, but to publicly contemplate, the re-engineering of Europe for its own interests. It may not do it, or it may not do it now, but it has now been said, and that will change Germany’s relationship to Europe.

A closer look at the euro’s effects indicates why Schauble felt confident enough to take such a bold stance.

Part of being within the same currency zone means being locked into the same market. One must compete with everyone else in that market for pretty much everything. This allows Slovaks to qualify for mortgage loans at the same interest rates the Dutch enjoy, but it also means that efficient Irish workers are actively competing with inefficient Spanish workers — or more to the issue of the day, that ultra efficient German workers are competing directly with ultra inefficient Greek workers.

The chart below measures the relative cost of labour per unit of economic output produced. It all too vividly highlights what happens when workers compete. (We have included U.S. data as a benchmark.) Those who are not as productive try to paper over the problem with credit. Since the euro was introduced, all of Germany’s euro partners have found themselves becoming less and less efficient relative to Germany. Germans are at the bottom of the graph, indicating that their labour costs have barely budged. Club Med dominates the top rankings, as access to cheaper credit has made them even less, not more, and efficient than they already were. Back-of-the-envelope math indicates that in the past decade, Germany has gained roughly a 25 percent cost advantage over Club Med.

The implications of this are difficult to overstate. If the euro is essentially gutting the European — and again to a greater extent the Club Med — economic base, then Germany is achieving by stealth what it failed to achieve in the past thousand years of intra-European struggles. In essence, European states are borrowing money (mostly from Germany) in order to purchase imported goods (mostly from Germany) because their own workers cannot compete on price (mostly because of Germany). This is not limited to states actually within the eurozone, but also includes any state affiliated with the zone; the relative labour costs for most of the Central European states that have not even joined the euro yet have risen by even more during this same period.

It is not so much that STRATFOR now sees the euro as workable in the long run — we still don’t — it’s more that our assessment of the euro is shifting from the belief that it was a straightjacket for Germany to the belief that it is Germany’s springboard. In the first assessment, the euro would have broken as Germany was denied the right to chart its own destiny. Now, it might well break because Germany is becoming a bit too successful at charting its own destiny. And as it dawns on one European country after another that there was more to the euro than cheap credit, the ties that bind are almost certainly going to weaken.

The paradigm that created the European Union — that Germany would be harnessed and contained — is shifting. Germany now has not only found its voice, it is beginning to express, and hold to, its own national interest. A political consensus has emerged in Germany against bailing out Greece. Moreover, a political consensus has emerged in Germany that the rules of the eurozone are Germany’s to refashion. As the European Union’s anchor member, Germany has a very good point. But this was not the “union” the rest of Europe signed up for — it is the Mitteleuropa that the rest of Europe will remember well.

(c) Stratfor http://www.stratfor.com/ Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved

*cries of "we are all the same, with exactly the sames goals and ambitions......" echo mournfully in the distance*

[Louis VI the Fat]

An interesting geo-strategical perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it.

If the euro is essentially gutting the European — and again to a greater extent the Club Med — economic base, then Germany is achieving by stealth what it failed to achieve in the past thousand years of intra-European struggles.

Would it be an awful insult if I said that maybe these guys need a history book?

*cries of "we are all the same, with exactly the sames goals and ambitions......" echo mournfully in the distance*

These cries are not in the distance, they are shouted loud and clearly every day by the Eurosceptics. They raise a new strawman every day, attack it with pitchforks and torches at night, and the next day triumphantly cheer its demise 'as they had always predicted it would'.

The Germans should be free to be competitive if that is there wish.

The French should be honest about what they mean when they say; "I’m not sure it is a sustainable model for the long term and for the whole of the group." and admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans, and resent the fact that the single currency is pricing them out of the market.

The Greeks should have it pointed out to them that in twenty years time their living standards are going to resemble that of an albania peasant more than western europe middle-class, unless they decide they have got it in them to start doing more than electing communists and throwing stones through shop windows.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Do you know which two EU countries are second and third behind fraudulent Greece in budget deficit? You know - countries that should admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans?

That's right, it's Ireland and the UK.

[Furunculus]

An interesting geo-strategical perspective. I'm not sure I agree with it.

If the euro is essentially gutting the European — and again to a greater extent the Club Med — economic base, then Germany is achieving by stealth what it failed to achieve in the past thousand years of intra-European struggles.

Would it be an awful insult if I said that maybe these guys need a history book?


These cries are not in the distance, they are shouted loud and clearly every day by the Eurosceptics. They raise a new strawman every day, attack it with pitchforks and torches at night, and the next day triumphantly cheer its demise 'as they had always predicted it would'.


Oh, I nearly forgot. Do you know which two EU countries are second and third behind fraudulent Greece in budget deficit? You know - countries that should admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans?

That's right, it's Ireland and the UK.

but why Louis, why is all this strife necessary? we have already created and achieved a tranquil europe, what is this great benefit that is worth all this strife in the mean time?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...4598-2,00.html

all this 'integration' is actually destroying the tranquility of europes peoples!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at a time when everyone else is tightening their belts europe breaks a pledge not to spend one fifth of its revenue on its own administration, by asking for more money:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ng-budget.html

[Furunculus]

surely the German constitutional court will have something to say about this, not to mention the putative referendum lock if cameron actually makes it into power:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...EUphemism.html

Herman Van Rompuy coins new 'EUphemism'
"Asymmetrical translation" is an new European Union phrase coined by its President to spare Gordon Brown's political blushes.


Published: 7:00AM GMT 27 Mar 2010

Herman Van Rompuy came up with the idea, early on Friday morning, after a Franco-German call for an "economic government" horrified the Prime Minister.

"We consider that the European Council should become the economic government of the EU," said the Franco-German text.

To get around the G-word, "ideologically unacceptable" to Britain, but insisted on by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, Mr Van Rompuy came up with a novel solution to keep everyone happy.

As a result, the French version of the binding summit text, agreed on Thursday, used the original words "le gouvernement économique".

To spare Mr Brown's feelings, the English text used the more innocuous and less controversial term "economic governance".

"There is no fundamental difference of view, but rather a sensitivity to certain words which has led to an asymmetrical translation," remarked the EU president.

A British official tied to explain it: "Governance is about the way you do things, government is about new institutions or structures."

Another senior EU official noted that linguistic tricks were a specialty of Mr Van Rompuy, the former leader of Belgium, a country divided by bitter political disputes between Flemish Dutch and Walloon French speakers.

"I find it effective in a Europe with different political cultures. The words government or governance can be used for the same thing. We all know what is meant politically," he said.

don't they realise that this is exactly the kind of rank dishonesty that breeds suspicion and distrust of EU institutions?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Oh, I nearly forgot. Do you know which two EU countries are second and third behind fraudulent Greece in budget deficit? You know - countries that should admit that they don't want to work as productively as the Germans?

That's right, it's Ireland and the UK.

At least Ireland is trying to address the state of affairs by swingeing public sector cuts. Unlike the UK. And without the burning cars of Athens.

[gaelic cowboy]

At least Ireland is trying to address the state of affairs by swingeing public sector cuts. Unlike the UK. And without the burning cars of Athens.

Aye and I reckon there will be even worse cuts in the next Irish budget.

[Furunculus]

but rapid action now will preserve the confidence of the markets in ireland, and ensure that any pain later is much less severe.

[Furunculus]

EU laws cost twice as much as British ones to enforce, says report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ys-report.html

European Union regulations cost more than twice as much to enforce as home-grown British laws, a new report has found.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 7:00AM BST 30 Mar 2010

A study by Open Europe, found Brussels legislation has cost the British economy £124 billion, accounting for 71 per cent of the total cost of all red tape, both national and European, implemented in Britain since 1998.

The think tank studied thousands official impact assessments to find that EU regulation is 2.5 times less cost effective than domestic laws.

The high cost of EU directives and regulations is blamed for the failure of the government's "Better Regulation Agenda", launched five years ago, to reduce the burden of red tape on business.

"This is in no small part due to a failure to stem the flow of new, costly EU regulations," concluded the report.

Sarah Gaskell, author of the study, said: "Our research clearly shows that it's far more cost-effective to regulate domestically than is it is to legislate through the EU. This means that passing laws as close as possible to the citizen is not only more democratic, but also vastly cheaper."

Out of all Whitehall departments, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is the country's main regulator, accounting for £73.5 billion or 42 per cent of the cumulative cost of regulation over the last 12 years.

According to Open Europe, two thirds of the BIS regulation stemmed from EU legislation at a cost to the economy of £49.2 billion.

A Department for Business spokesperson said: "The figures presented in this report are out of context as they take little or no account of the wider economic benefits that regulation can deliver. European regulation has helped open up new markets for UK businesses across Europe and provided important new rights and protections."

The Conservatives have pledged to reduce the EU's power to legislate on employment issues if they win the general election this spring.

Mark Francois, the Tory spokesman on Europe, said: "While Gordon Brown and his MEPs sign up to more and more regulations a Conservative government would seek to reduce the costs of EU regulation by restoring Britain's opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services."

hmm, strange that, regulation tailored specifically to the demos in question, rather than people in general, has much greater effect and lesser cost to enforce! who'da thunk it?

[Subotan]

International legislation is somewhat harder to enforce on a national level, by it's very definition.

[Furunculus]

this isn't internation legislation, it is domestic regulation trying to be applied supra-nationally. its stupid. and there is no need for it.

[Subotan]

Hm. Let's take a closer look at what the article is saying:

A study by Open Europe, found Brussels legislation has cost the British economy £124 billion, accounting for 71 per cent of the total cost of all red tape, both national and European, implemented in Britain since 1998.

Assuming that these figures are accurate (Which isn't likely, given the weasely ways of this thinktank ), this means that £174.67 billion has been spent on regulations. This in turn means that about 50 billion is domestic regulation.

The think tank studied thousands official impact assessments to find that EU regulation is 2.5 times less cost effective than domestic laws.

Wow Daily Torygraph, that takes sloppy journalism on the EU to a new low. That's either gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the figures, or your journalists don't have Year Nine maths skills. 124 billion is 2.5 times more than 50 billion, yes, but that has nothing to do with efficiency or cost effectiveness.

[Furunculus]

Hm. Let's take a closer look at what the article is saying:


Assuming that these figures are accurate (Which isn't likely, given the weasely ways of this thinktank ), this means that £174.67 billion has been spent on regulations. This in turn means that about 50 billion is domestic regulation.


Wow Daily Torygraph, that takes sloppy journalism on the EU to a new low. That's either gross and deliberate misinterpretation of the figures, or your journalists don't have Year Nine maths skills. 124 billion is 2.5 times more than 50 billion, yes, but that has nothing to do with efficiency or cost effectiveness.

that isn't the torygraphs claim, it is a claim made by the openeurope research paper, try reading it:
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/researc...tofcontrol.pdf

[Furunculus]

ooh, life in EUrope under cameron is definately looking like it would be an improvement:

In his interview, Mr Hague promised that the Tories would end British participation in the EU’s scheme for a European Public Prosecutor.

As it stood, the scheme would allow the prosecutor to issue European arrest warrants to force British citizens to face prosecution in another member state, without asking the permission of either the Government or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

"Other countries could go ahead with that if they wished but [if we were in government] the European Public Prosecutor would not have jurisdiction in Britain," said Mr Hague

He also said that any further moves by the EU under the Lisbon treaty to end national vetoes over key areas of policy would trigger referendums in Britain if the Tories were in power.

In addition, all preparatory work by Whitehall for Britain to give up the pound and join the euro would be stopped on day one of a Tory administration.

"A Conservative government will not join the euro," said Mr Hague.

[Subotan]

I'd like to see him try.

He would be better off trying to get opt outs from thingS which are useful and actually matter (e.g the working time directive) rather than having his cake and eating it in an attempt to please myopic Little Englanders.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's rather amusing that Mr Hague is so vehemently against the European arrest warrant while the rather harsher agreement with the USA already allows British citizens to be extradited at the whim of the US government. Whilst this latter treaty is entirely Labour's fault, I don't see Mr Hague threatening to repeal it either. Clearly, it's not about protecting rights, just basic anti-European rhetoric.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Mr Cameron/Hague et all obviously have been hiding in their comfy British built cave for far too long. De facto this is already the case; they formalize the bilateral extradition agreements between separate memberstates as a single EU wide agreement. And anyway there is interpol. British subjects are not immune to that either.

Tell me, will the Tories quit that too?

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's rather amusing that Mr Hague is so vehemently against the European arrest warrant while the rather harsher agreement with the USA already allows British citizens to be extradited at the whim of the US government. Whilst this latter treaty is entirely Labour's fault, I don't see Mr Hague threatening to repeal it either. Clearly, it's not about protecting rights, just basic anti-European rhetoric.

Exactly. De facto the USA asks the Brits to hand over the suspects; and Britain time and again obliges. The only case it could not was because the suspect hurriedly filed suit. Presumably that option is not available under the newer EU wide agreement; but then again in practice such suits would have little chance anyway if the request was lodged from Paris or Germany or Belgium.

[Furunculus]

I'd like to see him try.

He would be better off trying to get opt outs from thingS which are useful and actually matter (e.g the working time directive) rather than having his cake and eating it in an attempt to please myopic Little Englanders.

what do you mean? he is going to have lots of leverage when the EUrozone attempts to de-shaft the Euro resulting from its stupid lack of economic governance, because they will have to ask all EU members permission to make the change, and that will require traety ammendments subject to Daves referendum lock.
if dave is going to sell a yes vote to the british public then there is going to have to be some sweet payback from the federasts in brussels.

a two-speed europe is coming, and i for one welcome the expulsion of our tentacle-sex overlords!

[Subotan]

For a referendum to be justifiable, there would have to be a turn out quota of at least 50%, which is doubtful given the public's interest in the EU.

Besides, the reason there has been bad economic governance is because there has been no Eurozone wide fiscal policy, leading to mistakes such as Greece and penalising the Germans.

[Furunculus]

so you are prejudging the interest of the electorate and not giving the public a referendum on who governs them, even though the election manifesto will promise exactly that...........?

quite, economic governance is essential for a currency union to be successful, but it will be a treaty decision which means we will have to assent, and given we aren't even in the euro that gives britain the whip-hand.

all of a sudden camerons pledges look very achievable:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-it-work.html

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

four five and six were deemed very difficult because we would be asking europe to do us a favour, but since Greece tanked the position is reversed and it will now be them asking us for a favour!

[Tellos Athenaios]

four five and six were deemed very difficult because we would be asking europe to do us a favour, but since Greece tanked the position is reversed and it will now be them asking us for a favour!

Not so fast. Or: I would not at all be surprised if the usual British attitude towards the EU would mean that his comfortable position is taken by Germany and France. Itching to flex their muscles a bit; those might very well snatch away this position from Cameron as he attempts to eat his cake and have it too.

And I for one would not be surprised if the big surveillance-fest known as UK (name a country that has closer government surveillance of its citizens within the EU; pretty please) will soon find those who are concerned about privacy wishing they had taken the EU a little more seriously... So far the best safeguard against overzealous abusive government fingering of your personal details and circumstances has not exactly been British watchdogs or parliament. Rather it has been the EU courts in Strasbourg and legislation from Brussels.

[Furunculus]

Not so fast. Or: I would not at all be surprised if the usual British attitude towards the EU would mean that his comfortable position is taken by Germany and France. Itching to flex their muscles a bit; those might very well snatch away this position from Cameron as he attempts to eat his cake and have it too.

And I for one would not be surprised if the big surveillance-fest known as UK (name a country that has closer government surveillance of its citizens within the EU; pretty please) will soon find those who are concerned about privacy wishing they had taken the EU a little more seriously... So far the best safeguard against overzealous abusive government fingering of your personal details and circumstances has not exactly been British watchdogs or parliament. Rather it has been the EU courts in Strasbourg and legislation from Brussels.

what does that actually mean insomuch as the strength of camerons bargaining position?

you are dreaming.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I, for one, welcome abolishing the many legal obstacles criminals and crafty lawyers can invoke to protect criminals at great expense to the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. When a Frenchman travels to the UK to rob and kill, then hides in Germany, I want him to face justice in Britain without further ado, without two years of excruciating and very costly national laws and regulation getting in the way.

Laws are meant to protect law-abiding citizens, not the criminals.

[Beskar]

a two-speed europe is coming, and i for one welcome the expulsion of our tentacle-sex overlords!

Now I got the image of Furunculus under the whip of a Japanese Hentai character with Tentacles called "Van Rompuy"

[Furunculus]

its a beautiful image, no doubt............. :p

[Furunculus]

When is it alright to be a Right-wing extremist? When you're pro-EU, apparently:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-youre-pro-eu/