Nick Clegg: "A prosperous and strong Eurozone is absolutely necessary for a strong and prosperous United Kingdom"

Comments

[JR]

Your still talking drivel Clegg. It will not work ever.

[Edward Huxley]

If it is a disaster for Europe thank goodness we have stuck with the pound.

[It doesn't add up...]

I noted that Sajid Javid got Cameron to say "he was already sharpening his pencils for the negotiations. He warned, however, that the Liberal Democrats would have to support any changes." Wrong Mr. Cameron. You only need a majority in the House. That doesn't have to include Lib Dems, who should not be allowed to be the tail wagging the dog in the face of what the country wants and needs.

[Commentator]

I would not put it past Clegg and Huhne to be working overtime even now to persuade Cameron and Osborne to join the Euro so that the UK can be fully implicated in the bailout shambles.....

[Andrew Smith]

The prosperity of the whole world impacts the UK as we are (still) very much an international trading country. But it is not "vital" to us for the Eurozone to prosper. I would prefer it does prosper but if it shrinks for a while, or if bits of it are relatively impoverished for a while, we can and will trade elsewhere.

I believe Cleggie may be mislead by internal LibDem data errors; a LibDem tried to tell me recently that UK trade with Belgium exceeds that with the USA. Oh, pleeease!

Not only can we manage without a prosperous Eurozone, but bits of it will continue to have faster growth rates than others - that is why the Eiurozone will continue to be a difficult trick to pull off.

Regardless of all this, we know what Cleggie is up to - he wants to persuade us that we have to agree to whatever treaty changes the EU ask for and to pay in more and more cash to the IMF and ECB (refinancing) and the EU. Trouble is I don't see any chance of Osborne or Cameron telling him it is nt going to happen.

[Man in a Shed]

Clegg needs to declare his spectacular conflicts of interests here.

The Eurozone counties were fine until his arrogant friends in Brussels insisted on creating it in a manner that was doomed to fail. ( And the Lib Dems were totally and humiliatingly wrong on the Euro all along ).

Things were better when we did most of our trade with the commonwealth.

Lets go back to that and send Mr Clegg as a political refugee back to Brussels.

[Commentator]

Cameron has basically told his backbenchers that Clegg has a veto over his dealings with the EU. How convenient.....

[William Blake's Ghost]

The EU and the Eurozone is the biggest threat to this country's prosperity there is. We need to mitigate that risk and distance ourselves from the economic basket case that the Eurozone is. Slowly yes but steadily and with purpose we need to disentangle ourselves from this before it does us serious damage. Not immediately but we must not allow ourselves to be compromised again by institutions that are 'Too big too fail'. Things that are 'too big to fail' are 'too big to risk'.

By the way how much of a pension can Clegg the Euro parasite look forward to when he's old and grey? Is that being cut I wonder? Of course it isn't.....

[john parkes]

I believe it is important not to cloud the issue by failing to appreciate the difference between any suggestion that we might become part of the Eurozone and our need not to live next door to a basket-case economy. As Andrew Smith rightly points out above, we are a nation whose life-blood is international trade and we need the maximum possible opportunities to carry it out. It is therefore very much in our interests that we are not denied any chance of trading with Europe as well as with the EU (and let us not forget the difference between the two).
Before the last general election it ought to have been a given that the Conservative Party was examining possibilities for the re-negotiation of our relationship with the EU and indeed I believe that this was the case. Shacking up with the Europhile Liberal Democrats has been allowed to inhibit any progress, not least because the EU relationship was not at the head of the priority list; solving our economic problems was way above it in importance and this was reflected in the polling that took place at the time. However it is now clear that both matters have coincided and could have a synergy where one will help the other. So I hope very much that not only is Cameron sharpening his pencils but that he will use them to write something to our national advantage. When he tries to do so, there will be strong protests from the Eurocrats at least, who will demand we `do not rock the boat at this difficult time` and that we rally round to help solve the problems rather than do anything to intensify them. However the time has come for us to grit our teeth, counter the blackmail that will ensue, get the FCO under control and re-assert our need to change our standing in the EU where existing conditions are against our national interest. This will be possible as long as the Prime Minister knows the country is behind him so we must make a reasoned, well-argued case to support him, rather than take the usual Europhobe line that too often ignores rational argument and uses the customary abuse, generating more heat than light in this crucial matter.

[Doofer]

The Europhiles just can not accept they got it wrong. Now they are wanting to put more and more eggs in the basket in a hope of propping it up.
If they would only accept that trying to harmonize all the economies of Europe has made it more likely, not less likely, that trouble in one country will spread to the others causing contagion and large scale economic problems.
Thinking back , who would say that the German and Greek economies are compatible with each other and should share a currency and interest rates ?
Its time to think outside of the Box Mr Clegg , for the good of European political stability.

[patrick]

man in shed: Things were better when we traded with the commonwealth!

Oh yes, lets just ignore 350 million people 20 miles off our southern coast to which we are connected by a tunnel.

Let us trade with Australia, it's only 12,000 miles away! New Zealand, Canada, etc.

You don't have believe in the UK being in the EU, which I freely admit I do, to believe that a prosperous Eurozone is good for the UK.

[Y Rhyfelwr Dewr]

Nicky-boy, weren't you saying just a couple of years ago that full membership of the Euro was essential for a strong and prosperous Britain?

Guess what, sweetheart -- you're not going to get a strong and prosperous Eurozone. Even if they manage to stave off disaster, it will never be more than a weak currency. It might be great for Germany, but the price Germany will always pay will be to keep the rest of Europe from going down the pan. In much the same way that the south of England keeps the north afloat.

Just two problems: 1. While Londoners may not appreciate subsidising Geordies, they do at least recognise them as fellow English. Things are a little more complicated concerning the Scots and the Welsh, but there remains (for the time being) a widespread sense that they are at least British, being almost English. Germans do NOT feel likewise about the Greeks.

2. There are some 40 million southern English upholding about 20 million northerners. In the Eurozone, there will be 80 million Germans upholding a hundred million southern Europeans.

Germany's constitution is more-or-less designed specifically to deny the citizens any effective control over the process of government -- ballots without power. Brussels will do its damnedest to keep it that way, but people will take action in other ways. Unless Brussels wants to become an overtly repressive tyranny, the EU WILL eventually fall apart, as did the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and for precisely the same reasons. You cannot force disparate peoples with little in common to live together without effective democratic representation, and without their popular consent. That style of government went out with World War 2.

[Dawn Carpenter]

We have much more in common with the Angloshere than we do with Europe -- above all, we believe in democracy and the EU does not. We have the historic ties to the Commonwealth, and the more we trade within it, the more cultural ties we wil build. Once out of the EU, we could become a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which would make no demands on our sovereignty and which allows its members to make whatever trading arrangements they like with non-members. Wd could sign the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would give us access to the largest free trade area in the world. Cameron is hiding behind Clegg. Clegg is speaking for both of them here, which is why Cameron must replaced before the next election. If Miliband offers an in/out referendum on Europe, we will lose the next election. The plans the Government is making for Coalition candidates in the next election will not save us. If Labour offers a referendum, they will win an outright majority.

[Denis Cooper]

The best way to resolve the present problems in the eurozone is to break it up.

[jack]

There are more labour MPs who want out of the EU, than lib dems, so am not worried in the slightest what clegg thinks..

[Andrew Smith]

I see that Osborne suggested he is attempting to balance taking part in negotiations with keeping “Britain out of the Greek mangle”. Crucially, he also said, “I think we have to accept that greater eurozone integration is necessary to make the single currency work and that is very much in our national interest…We should be prepared to let that happen.”

If you decode that he means he is on the sidelines and trying not to annoy anyone. He is cap in hand hoping to avoid further big costs on Greece (ignoring the rest). But crucially he is saying that the coalition will allow treaty and other changes to facilitate whatever France and Germany want without getting anything back in return.

These people do not deserve to hold office as they are clearly not interested in wielding power in the interests of the UK.

[lckf]

"Germany's constitution is more-or-less designed specifically to deny the citizens any effective control over the process of government -- ballots without power."
That's a funny one. Having lived in both countries, I can categorically say that the elected five-year dictatorship that Britain experiences is rather worse, less accountable, less democratic. A German chancellor is facing elections on average four times each year, and these elections can take away their parliamentary majority in the Upper House. The German electoral system is designed to give more power to the individual voter rather than FPTP which gives all the power to a small number of voters in a small number of constituencies. Germany as a country is *more* democractic, governments are *more* accountable, power is *less* concentrated in a few hands and the rights and freedoms of her citizens are *better* guaranteed than those of you who have never looked beyond the UK could ever imagine possible.
Despite the harbingers of doom, is is still the case that when the Euro was introduced, £3 would buy me €5 when I travelled abroad. At the moment, I'd be lucky to get €3.40 for £3 - which one's the weak currency?
Germans have historical experience of using economic pressure for unification (see Zollverein).

[Y Rhyfelwr Dewr]

Ickf:

I didn't say that Britain's system is inherently better than Germany's -- I entirely agree that the prime ministerial patronage of Britain's political system renders it effectively an elected dictatorship, and needs reformation.

Whether Germany's political system is more democratic rather depends on what you expect elections to achieve. Generally in a democratic system, regular changes of the governing elite in line with the general desires and expectations of the public is a fundamental qualification. Based on proportional representation, the public casts its ballots with no real idea of what the result will be, nor any idea what policies their chosen party will pursue if it enters the government.

Following the election, the public is then excluded from the political process entirely as the politicians negotiate and jockey for power, abandoning promises they made to the public just days earlier, and adopting new policies they didn't even mention during the campaign. Should Angela Merkel lose her majority at any time, she can simply pick up the phone and invite new parties to join her government, enabling her to carry on almost indefinitely policies that are blatantly opposed to public opinion -- as demonstrated currently by the bailouts, and by Germany's joining the Euro in the first place.

Ballots without power.

[lckf]

"Whether Germany's political system is more democratic rather depends on what you expect elections to achieve. Generally in a democratic system, regular changes of the governing elite in line with the general desires and expectations of the public is a fundamental qualification."

True. This is what keeps happening in Germany. In the last 12 months, three state governments have fallen and have been replaced by their political opposites. The other day, polls state that only 28% of Germans expect or want the next Chancellor to be a Christian Democrat. Sadly, in the UK, an administration which a majority of the population is opposed to but which has absolute power, is exchanged for another administration which a majority of the population is opposed to, but which in turn will enjoy absolute power (except for the current, rather exceptional situation).

"Based on proportional representation, the public casts its ballots with no real idea of what the result will be, nor any idea what policies their chosen party will pursue if it enters the government."

No, based on proportional representation (and Germany's system is only partially proportional, and only for the lower house) a sophisticated electorate takes possible outcomes into account and votes accordingly. People aren't stupid and vote to achieve the outcomes they desire. A mere 47% will, incidentally, give a majority to a single party under the German system. Seeing that 47% of German voters don't vote for a single party, and have only ever done so once since 1949 on a federal level, that would indicate that Germans prefer coalition governments. On state level, single party majorities are much more common.

"Following the election, the public is then excluded from the political process entirely as the politicians negotiate and jockey for power, abandoning promises they made to the public just days earlier, and adopting new policies they didn't even mention during the campaign."

Yes, this is totally different from the UK where the two main parties are, in fact, coalitions between different wings and no party in the UK has ever abandoned promises made to the public.

"Should Angela Merkel lose her majority at any time, she can simply pick up the phone and invite new parties to join her government, enabling her to carry on almost indefinitely policies that are blatantly opposed to public opinion"

She might, if she finds anyone willing to do so. Not assorted Tories who survived in the past on the tolerance of Ulster politicians. It is actually quite diffiuclt to get rid of a chancellor. If she does, she'll face a handful of elections in the next twelve months on state levels, and will see her Parliamentary majority disappear. Vice-Chancellor Guido Westerwelle of the Liberals lost his office as party chairman because of a year of dreadful election results.

"as demonstrated currently by the bailouts, and by Germany's joining the Euro in the first place."

Public opinion in Germany about the Euro and about the bailouts is rather more nuanced than you might suppose. The other day, the German President said that we shouldn't forget that banks, German, British, American, French banks are still making money, every day, from the Greek situation. And, thanks to the voting systems, smaller parties that are opposed to the euro, or the bailouts, or German engagment in Afghanistan etc etc are actually represented in Parliament and the power structures. Unlike the UK.