News Stories

[Darkbeat]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Yep, the UK should please take a hike. It's about time to end England's traditional "balance of power" game, supporting any smaller faction against the bigger ones, to keep Europe weak and divided. Either sh*t or get off the pot. You don't feel like participating? No problem. There's the door. Unfortunately, I doubt it will happen. Cameron's next plan is to use the veto against having the Eurozone countries use European institutions for their "inner" treaty. And demand ransom for these hostages. Lovely.

That's an awful lot of rhetoric to say so very little.

Europe is Europe. The Eurozone is the Eurozone. The legislation that France/Germany are trying to impose is to solve difficulties within the Eurozone that would have negative effects on countries in Europe who aren't in the Eurozone.

There is no reason why the UK (a country in Europe, but not the Eurozone) would NOT be against it.

I need to giggle at the "unelected bureaucrat" meme though. It's very popular in the anglosphere media, but it's BS. They're anointed by people who have democratically been elected into office. Very much like ministers are assigned in other countries, too. Those unelected bureaucrats.

So what you're saying is, they are both unelected and bureaucrats. Thanks for confirming this.

Doesn't it feel strange to you that even the other European countries who are not yet part of the Eurozone refused to stand by the UK with their veto? And that they rather decided to stick with the other Europeans? Are they all stupid or suicidal?

Are you suggesting the UK (the third largest economy in Europe) is on a similar situation to say Poland (the next largest economy of a country in Europe, but not the Eurozone)? The UK doesn't need to let it's banks be levied to prop up the Euro and get Merkel and Co off the political hook.

Certainly Europe is good for the UK, but more so than other non-Eurozone countries, we can do without it.

Nah, the Euro won't sink. In the end, when push comes to shove, the ECB will just take the easy US way out: Print more Euros and call it "quantitative easing". That was the whole point of the summit (and I'm surprised that this isn't understood by most English news sources): Germany demanded that efforts were be made to make sure that opening the ECB coffers would NOT result in wild spending in Club Med et cetera. So, controlled financial union against relaxation on the ECB valve.

You could be right, the signs seem to indicate otherwise but we'll wait and see. I'd be more optimistic if people could figure out what to do about Italy.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Mentar

What really annoyed me with Britain all the time were their constant attempts to have the cake and eat it. Paying just a minimal share compared to their size. Opting out of reasonable treaties like Schengen (so much for all this "free market" mantra - Britain is all about protectionism when you look closely). Always trying to prop up those countries who wanted their pseudo-veto bribed away. And finally, using the Euro crisis to get a veto blank cheque for anything financial in the future. This isn't the bazaar of constantinople here.

IE Britain paying "less then it's share" the reason Britain gets a rebate is due to the fact that Britain does not particularly benefit from the subsidies of the common agricultural policy. That's why they get a rebate, otherwise they'd be paying for something they get little benefit from.

As for Britain not being in the Schengen agreement, I don't really see the big deal. Britain doesn't share any land borders with Europe, so it makes no difference. If you go by plane you have to go through all those security checks anyway. And by boat, well, I doubt there's much you have to go through anything.

The only country the UK borders(Ireland) it has a free movement treaty with. Because of this, Ireland also isn't in the Schengen agreement, I don't see how it would benefit Ireland to be in the Shengen agreement either. Neither of us have borders to remove controls from. So we have to go through all the work of harmonising these things and get no benefit from it.

If tomorrow the English Channel and Irish Sea dried up, then I'd sign the Schengen agreement. Until then...

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Darkbeat

Europe is Europe. The Eurozone is the Eurozone. The legislation that France/Germany are trying to impose is to solve difficulties within the Eurozone that would have negative effects on countries in Europe who aren't in the Eurozone.

Kinda nebulous. What negative effect would that be? The only thing coming to mind would be the financial transaction tax (FTT) along with regulations to prevent the ridiculous Wall/Fleet Street gambling which caused the recent financial crisis in the first place. I don't see any negative effect on any other country - rather the opposite, since Euro problems affect them, too.

There is no reason why the UK (a country in Europe, but not the Eurozone) would NOT be against it.

I can understand that Cameron's Fleet Street buddies might look at it that way. But the UK isn't part of the Eurozone, and actively hindering the 17 Eurozone members to fix their problems because they refuse to give Cameron perpetual veto rights is a pretty unfriendly act.

The truth is that the 26 see Europe as a work in progress towards a common future. The UK doesn't have this goal at all, they only want a free market, and preferably a say in every single decision affecting it. I'm glad that this charade is finally over.

So what you're saying is, they are both unelected and bureaucrats. Thanks for confirming this.

I'm saying that as long as the representatives appointing them are elected, it's perfectly fine and democratic. By your logic, Obama is an unelected bureaucrat, too.

Are you suggesting the UK (the third largest economy in Europe) is on a similar situation to say Poland (the next largest economy of a country in Europe, but not the Eurozone)?

I don't understand your point? Could you please clarify?

The UK doesn't need to let it's banks be levied to prop up the Euro and get Merkel and Co off the political hook.

Ha ha ha ^_^ ... please read up on the issue. "UK Quantitative Easing". It's been 275 billion pounds since 2009 alone.

Certainly Europe is good for the UK, but more so than other non-Eurozone countries, we can do without it.

Nick Clegg desperately disagrees with you. He's pretty mad at the moment, and made sure that Cameron understands that there must not be any referendum.

You could be right, the signs seem to indicate otherwise but we'll wait and see.

What signs are those, please? I mean, other than the ballyhoo in the anglophile financial media? The Euro is still up 30% to the US$ and around 50% against the British Pound since its inception. And at the peak of its crisis it's still stable as a rock. At the moment, it's merely some Euro _members_ which are in trouble. The Euro in itself has nothing to worry, as long as the problems of the members can be fixed. That is being addressed with the new treaty.

I'd be more optimistic if people could figure out what to do about Italy.

If Monti's austerity package goes through, I think they should be fine in the medium run. Italy has a solid industrial base.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

IE Britain paying "less then it's share" the reason Britain gets a rebate is due to the fact that Britain does not particularly benefit from the subsidies of the common agricultural policy. That's why they get a rebate, otherwise they'd be paying for something they get little benefit from.

But Britain disproportionally profits from the open market (Fleet Street) on the other hand. If everyone starts raisin-picking where he might win or lose, we're not getting anywhere. Thatcher negotiated her rebate, and she was humored to have the UK on board. I'd be glad if this kind of preferential treatment would soon be over. But who am I kidding? Won't happen.

As for Britain not being in the Schengen agreement, I don't really see the big deal. Britain doesn't share any land borders with Europe, so it makes no difference. If you go by plane you have to go through all those security checks anyway. And by boat, well, I doubt there's much you have to go through anything.

It's not just the annoying border controls, it's the freedom to move and work within Schengen wherever you see fit. *shrug*

My point was that contrary to their "free and open market" talk, the UK is most protective at heart, completely unwilling to hand over any kind of sovereignity, if you look at things closely.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Mentar

My point was that contrary to their "free and open market" talk, the UK is most protective at heart, completely unwilling to hand over any kind of sovereignity, if you look at things closely.

if you are talking about the market, most of Europe are protectionist at heart. France got its Agro subs, Germany, its Manu subs, and Greece got all these rules about who can and can't open certain business.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Mentar

But Britain disproportionally profits from the open market (Fleet Street) on the other hand. If everyone starts raisin-picking where he might win or lose, we're not getting anywhere. Thatcher negotiated her rebate, and she was humored to have the UK on board. I'd be glad if this kind of preferential treatment would soon be over. But who am I kidding? Won't happen.

I think the rebate was very reasonable. At the time the CAP(common agricultural policy) was 80% of the EU's budget (it is still 41%). Today the UK is required to make similiar contributions to the EU as France or Germany, whereas it only recieves 9% of the CAP, while Germany and France receive 14% and 22% respectively.

British people feel that without the rebate, they would be paying to keep an innefficient French farming sector in business.

Because of the CAP France is only a slight net contributor to the EU, while Britain and Germany are the two highest contributors. In fact, France is the largest contributor to the UK rebate(while Germany is one of the smallest). Without the rebate, France would actually be a net recipient of EU funds. Given that France, Germany and Britain have similiar levels of wealth, this would be quite bizarre.

The british government has gone on record as saying that it would be willing to renegotiate the rebate if the CAP is reformed. Given the nature of the CAP, I'm inclined to agree with the UK's position.

It's not just the annoying border controls, it's the freedom to move and work within Schengen wherever you see fit. *shrug*

My point was that contrary to their "free and open market" talk, the UK is most protective at heart, completely unwilling to hand over any kind of sovereignity, if you look at things closely.

That's not true. Any EU citizen can work in England freely as they like. Likewise in Ireland. The free work and free trade areas apply to all Europe. The schengen agreement is only to remove all border controls and harmonise passports and immigration laws. Given that the UK does not have a land border with anyone but Ireland (with whom it has a similiar free movement treaty) signing the schengen treaty would be pointless. You'd have the bureaucratic baggage with no actual effect.

Even if the UK was signed up to the Schengen agreement, it would still be just as hard to for a european to cross into the UK, as the vast majority would be going through air or sea travel, which entails passport controls anyway.

The Schengen treaty is great for European countries with large porous borders. The UK does not have any, so it's pointless.

I would like to go on record as saying that I'm generally a fan of the EU, and I don't like British Euroskeptics. However, I think that Britain has not made entirely unjustified demands in the past. For one thing, they've never threatened to veto all EU integration, for instance in the case of the Euro, they didn't veto the whole euro plan altogether, they just secured for themselves an opt out.

[Xellos-_^]

@Don

Just curious, if the new Treaty goes to a voter referendum in Ireland. What do you think are its chances of passing?

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I would like to go on record as saying that I'm generally a fan of the EU, and I don't like British Euroskeptics. However, I think that Britain has not made entirely unjustified demands in the past.

In the past, no. I'd say they successfully skimmed the rim multiple times. My main gripe is that the UK is a partner in a project which it doesn't want to succeed, and rather wants to exploit for its own, different private agenda. And this time, Cameron (consciously) overplayed his hand.

For one thing, they've never threatened to veto all EU integration, for instance in the case of the Euro, they didn't veto the whole euro plan altogether, they just secured for themselves an opt out.

Handing out a veto right on financial issues where a qualified majority is already in place since the Lisbon treaty is completely unacceptable. That's the hypocrisy of the British position: They don't want to share the load, but they want to be part of every decision. And I'm glad that this is over.

So let's see if they carry out their threat to try to veto the 17's intended use of European institutions. I guess this will be the litmus test. If Britain crosses this rubicon too, it will probably become very ugly.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

@Don

Just curious, if the new Treaty goes to a voter referendum in Ireland. What do you think are its chances of passing?

That's a good question, I don't know. I'm sure we're all in favour of financial reforms. Then again, when every person owes €390,969 in foreign debt, well, I don't think you really care about saving the EU any more.

Just as a comparison, Us citizens owe €35,156 each in foreign debt.

However, I doubt it's going to a referendum. The Irish government pretty much has to what the EU says. We've given up our financial soveriegnty.

Originally Posted by Mentar

In the past, no. I'd say they successfully skimmed the rim multiple times. My main gripe is that the UK is a partner in a project which it doesn't want to succeed, and rather wants to exploit for its own, different private agenda. And this time, Cameron (consciously) overplayed his hand.

The EU is based on consent, no country should be forced into anything against it's own wishes. I disagree with the UK's decision, but not with their right to do it.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The EU is based on consent, no country should be forced into anything against it's own wishes. I disagree with the UK's decision, but not with their right to do it.

Usually consent works, but we have seen the limitations in the past, when politicians tried to get Europe to bribe them off a veto. It might have been possible in the beginning, but not when 27 nations are part of it. This is why the qualified majority has been agreed in the Lisbon treaty.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's not "in their right" to pull it. I'm saying that Europe cannot proceed unless members stop using it this way. And so, I'd love to see Britain pull out, but I think it's more likely that they'll stay and try to extort concessions instead.

[sneaker]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Because of the CAP France is only a slight net contributor to the EU, while Britain and Germany are the two highest contributors. In fact, France is the largest contributor to the UK rebate(while Germany is one of the smallest). Without the rebate, France would actually be a net recipient of EU funds. Given that France, Germany and Britain have similiar levels of wealth, this would be quite bizarre.

It's not that easy. There are different ways to calculate the net contributions (e.g. whether to count traditional own resources etc.) and they also fluctuate quite a bit over the course of just a few years (the estimates of 2007-2013 on the English wikipedia differ quite a bit from the actual sums, see the article discussion). Here are some numbers for 2009:

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by sneaker

It's not that easy. There are different ways to calculate the net contributions (e.g. whether to count traditional own resources etc.) and they also fluctuate quite a bit over the course of just a few years (the estimates of 2007-2013 on the English wikipedia differ quite a bit from the actual sums, see the article discussion). Here are some numbers for 2009:

I don't really know where to take the numbers from, the figures in the english wikipedia are from a euro skeptic organisation (so not trustworthy...), I was mostly working off the rebate article. However, the circumstances surrounding the rebate have likely changed, due to the CAP having undergone reforms.

Personally, the CAP is one of the EU elements that I don't particularly like. I have a suspicion that while it helps farmers in Europe, it hurts poor farmers outside of europe by giving them competition against artificially cheapened european food.

There is some indication of improvement, but I'm still against agricultural subsidies.

[ganbaru]

Worries grow over IMF loans to Europe
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7B822O20111210

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Worries grow over IMF loans to Europe
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7B822O20111210

However, the scale of borrowing troubled euro zone countries might need raises the specter that one of the nation's could default on an IMF loan.

"The problem with some of these countries now is you're getting to a point where (debt) is large enough that defaulting on the IMF is attractive enough if you want to reduce your debt," said Raghuram Rajan, a former IMF chief economist now at the University of Chicago's Booth School.

isn't that kinda dangerous? the IMF use tactics that even your avg loan shark wouldn't use.

[flying ^]

... think you've seen enough HATE (and imagined fantasies) generated on the internet in 2007, 2008 and 2010?

Spoiler for
Well look what's coming next January.:

(Coming soon to Southwest U.S.A.)

LATINOS PLAN 'OCCUPY AZTLAN' MOVEMENT

Members of Nuestros Reconquistos, Take Back Aztlán, and the Aztlánian Brotherhood met at the Phoenix Public Library this morning to discuss a future movement for Latinos called “Occupy Aztlán.” It will start in Phoenix and eventually involve protesting in states originally owned by Mexico.

“Occupy Wall Street” has been such as success,” says Nuestros Reconquistos President Manuel Longoria. Latinos will create a symbolic similar movement that will remind Americans who originally owned Mexican lands occupied by California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and .......

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights...3204111c7757b4

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by flying ^

... think you've seen enough HATE (and imagined fantasies) generated on the internet in 2007, 2008 and 2010?

Spoiler for
Well look what's coming next January.:

(Coming soon to Southwest U.S.A.)

LATINOS PLAN 'OCCUPY AZTLAN' MOVEMENT

Members of Nuestros Reconquistos, Take Back Aztlán, and the Aztlánian Brotherhood met at the Phoenix Public Library this morning to discuss a future movement for Latinos called “Occupy Aztlán.” It will start in Phoenix and eventually involve protesting in states originally owned by Mexico.

“Occupy Wall Street” has been such as success,” says Nuestros Reconquistos President Manuel Longoria. Latinos will create a symbolic similar movement that will remind Americans who originally owned Mexican lands occupied by California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and .......

http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights...3204111c7757b4

When it comes to national disputes, i don't think US will ever lose. After all, the only thing matter here is superior firepower

[Fahd]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Kinda nebulous. What negative effect would that be? The only thing coming to mind would be the financial transaction tax (FTT) along with regulations to prevent the ridiculous Wall/Fleet Street gambling which caused the recent financial crisis in the first place. I don't see any negative effect on any other country - rather the opposite, since Euro problems affect them, too.

So you're raging because we have a prime minister that looks out for the UK's interests ahead of the Euro's? We shouldn't have to bail out a project (the Euro) that we don't a part of and on a wider note nor do we have to agree to the direction that France/Germany tries to set for the rest of the EU.

On the issue of the UK blocking the 'progress of the EU', we're not the first country to cause problems [1, 2, 3], and I doubt we'll be the last. If Merkel/Sarkozy had given Cameron the reassurances he'd asked for, then he could've presented that amended treaty to the UK parliament without too much drama. Trying to force through a treaty change with nothing given in return would've resulted in a Tory back-bench rebellion, and a possible failure to pass it. That in turn would've caused the Euro more problems as the markets would see us as wasting time. So, in effect, he's done you guys a favour by not agreeing to an amended treaty.

In any case this is a summary of what Cameron wanted.

Originally Posted by Mentar

It's not just the annoying border controls, it's the freedom to move and work within Schengen wherever you see fit. *shrug*

We already have a large number of EU citizens working here, so really, it is just about the 'annoying' border controls. The last time I was at Heathrow, EU & UK citizens shared the same passport line, so you're not being treated any differently to how UK citizens are.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by flying ^

... think you've seen enough HATE (and imagined fantasies) generated on the internet in 2007, 2008 and 2010?

...single issue posters like you are kind of boring.

We get it already; you really, really don't like the Occupy Wall Street movement. No need to imply it every time you post something in this thread.

[SaintessHeart]

“Hero” Father Beats Down Daughter’s Bully
TL Courtesy of Sankaku

A father who went to his daughter’s school and punched an elementary school boy repeatedly in the face after he told him he “didn’t remember” bullying his daughter has been feted as a hero.

The incident began in an Ishikawa prefecture elementary school, where the father of a girl attending the school, in his fifties, became increasingly concerned about the bullying his young daughter was suffering at the school.

His daughter had been subject to bullying and harassment at the school, culminating in a protracted absence. She finally rejoined the school only when her parents attended some of her classes to ensure she remained unmolested.

According to the school, with the school’s assent he addressed members of her class one day “to explain the feelings of bullied children” to them, and questioned several about her bullying in their classroom.

One boy replied that he “didn’t remember” anything about such abuse, which infuriated the girl’s father. Shaking off the teacher’s intercession, he proceeded to punch the boy “5-6″ times in the face.

The boy was lightly injured and suffered a nosebleed. The school has retained a clinical psychologist in order to provide him with mental care. The boy is maintained to have “taken no direct part” in the girl’s abuse.

His parents have filed a complaint with police, who are investigating.

The school says that “this is a most regrettable thing to have happened, just as we were in the process of resolving matters.”

In recent years Japan has seen a significant number of schoolchildren driven to suicide by bullying, and it would seem teachers are either totally ineffective in dealing with such problems, or else prefer to turn a blind eye – when they are not molesting students themselves, at any rate.

I wish my dad has his watermelon sized balls 10 years ago.

If the boy is bullying another boy, I would have closed an eye. In this case, if I were the boy's parents, I would have given him a couple of tight slaps; either for being a gawking bystander, or telling a lie to save his own skin - a stronger should not pick on a weaker gender for the sake of showing off.

As for the teachers and principal? I would just ignore them because they are there to maintain their own rice bowls - I'll take it that my tax accidentally got flushed down the toilet bowl.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by Fahd

So you're raging because we have a prime minister that looks out for the UK's interests ahead of the Euro's? We shouldn't have to bail out a project (the Euro) that we don't a part of and on a wider note nor do we have to agree to the direction that France/Germany tries to set for the rest of the EU.

No, I'm not "raging". I was annoyed with the Brits for quite a while. During a time when problems effectively force members to cooperate _more_, they were purely looking out for their own national interest. Or, to use an analogy, when the house is burning is not exactly the right time to enforce earlier "stay off the lawn" agreements, hindering firefighters.

It shows that Britain is only interested in a market. The continental countries want to go beyond that. So, I hope that Britain will have the honesty to leave, and spare us the usual hypocrisy of offering advice and demanding influence on something they detest (the Euro).

On the issue of the UK blocking the 'progress of the EU', we're not the first country to cause problems [1, 2, 3], and I doubt we'll be the last.

That wouldn't be a problem. It's a work in progress. But the reaction of Brits show - in my opinion - a clear majority of "we're not Europeans, and we don't want to be any part of it". That's a fundamental difference to the other examples.

If Merkel/Sarkozy had given Cameron the reassurances he'd asked for, then he could've presented that amended treaty to the UK parliament without too much drama. Trying to force through a treaty change with nothing given in return would've resulted in a Tory back-bench rebellion, and a possible failure to pass it. That in turn would've caused the Euro more problems as the markets would see us as wasting time. So, in effect, he's done you guys a favour by not agreeing to an amended treaty.

The "reassurances" were completely 100% unacceptable. So, the veto was annoying since it forced the Eurozone to go for more complicated solutions. But at least it cleared the fronts. It's making clear that Britain as it is is not going to be a help. We'll see how much of a hindrance they plan to be.