Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Oxterweb  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Join Ovi in Facebook
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
The Breast Cancer Site
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
British Veto and the future of EU... British Veto and the future of EU...
by Christos Mouzeviris
2011-12-23 10:09:09
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon
Yes, they did it again! British PM Mr. David Cameron has vetoed recently a suggested new E.U. treaty to heal the euro and save the eurozone! While all other 26 heads of states agreed to at least sit on the table and discuss or negotiate the treaty, Britain chose once more to show their true feelings about the single currency!

I won't give in to my temptation to bash their decision. It is their right to do so, there is nothing illegal about that. But I hope one day, the British public realize that they are being fooled by their political elite about their EU membership.

While Britain is not the only country that had objections, (Hungary, the Czech Republic, Sweden were also sceptical, but also Ireland and other countries felt uncomfortable) they are the only ones who refused even to negotiate and talk about it. Of course the plan that the "Merkozy" duo are promoting might not be perfect or ideal for all countries, but at least it is the first move that we see our leaders making after a long time. And each state individually can negotiate to promote its interests accordingly. I do not want a German-French dominated Europe/EU either, but I also do not want an AngloSaxon one ( aka USA and the Markets/Banks together with the UK and the rating agencies). But at least by participating in the talks shows responsibility and willingness to solve the issues.

Nevertheless the U.K. chose to isolate itself within E.U. A bluff or a gaffe? The result from Mr. Cameron's "NO" had deep impact both at home, throughout Europe and the U.S.A. Deputy PM Mr Clegg and many other pro-European politicians and lobbies were obviously very unhappy, and the current coalition British Government between the Conservatives and the Liberals showed its first serious cracks.

Then an open war of words took place between the British and the French, with French President Mr Sarkozy criticizing Mr Cameron and accusing him of being like an "obstinate kid". Even the Americans seemed surprised while Ireland, a country that is hugely involved in the British market, they are planing to start talks with their larger neighbors "within weeks," in order to make the British Government relax their position.Or perhaps be advised of the UK next moves?

Once again the argument that the Tories and so many other conservatives are trying to push for the past few years, that the UK should leave the EU altogether is back on the agenda. They are trying to push the British Government to give the British public a referendum on their EU membership, a referendum that most likely will be lost under the current crisis in Europe and will force the UK outside the EU.

Well that means that if they leave the EU, they are going to become most likely like Norway. That is what they want anyway. For starters I hope they have enough butter to cover their needs, as Norway faces a huge butter shortage recently due to their very stiff protectionism.

The most important impact that this will have in their country, is that they will lose their seats in the EU Parliament and their commissioner. How can this be any good? While Norway is outside the EU, it still has to follow and abide to a large part of EU law and regulations as part of their EEA (European Economic Agreement) membership and contribute to the EU budget. But they have no say on how those laws are shaped, they have no voice for their people, no seats in the EP, and no commissioners to promote their interests.

They do of course pay less than if they were a full member, but that should matter anyway as they are an oil rich nation. So they do exchange their citizens' voice and democratic rights in Europe, for money! To lower their payments towards the EU, they prefer to not give their citizens a say in issues that matter to them.

Of course one will say that the EP has not too much power anyway, as the EU stands in the moment. Nevertheless there is a democratic deficit in Norway's and Iceland's relations with EU. "Big deal" some will think, they are tiny nations, they won't have a strong voice in EU anyway.

One would think though, that if they teamed up with the other Scandinavian and Baltic nations, they could form a strong block within EU; taken in consideration their economic status as well. But in the British case, things are more dramatic. With its nearly 60 million population Britain is one of the most populous countries in EU. They have the most seats in the EP together with France and Germany, so their citizens have a say in the decisions taken in the Parliament. They also have a commissioner and in general for good or for bad, the UK has influence in EU as we see from the recent veto.

They always wanted influence in Europe, if we look back in their history with the continent. They always got involved in European affairs, in any war, in any movement and in every event. Europe is too big and too near, as somebody else said, for Britain to ignore it. So why lose their voice now?

It is clear to me, like the Norwegians and the Icelanders are victims of a very powerful fishing lobby, the Brits are victims of their capital; The city of London, and of course its financial sector. With most of the rating agencies and markets based in either the USA or the city of London, is it any wonder that the UK reacts so vigorously to any attempt to seriously save the eurozone? The whole crisis in Europe is a war against the euro anyway. We know that the banks or the markets do not like it anyway, so they use any way to weaken it, or force our Governments to make drastic changes in it, so their interests won't be harmed anymore. Why would they allow EU to regulate the field they are playing when they are the ones who set the rules?

In other words, the British people may fall victim to the banks and the markets once again, as they did until now over the years. They are using their country to control the European markets and sabotage them as they please. The British people do not gain much out of it. The banks and the markets do. A weak euro and eurozone is easy to manipulate and make profit out of it. Any attempt to save it or heal its weaknesses for good, will mean no more games for the Markets, thus loss of income. They make a huge profit out of the misfortune of the citizens.

Why don't any rating agencies downgrade Britain anyway? Their economy is in a bad shape, they are also hugely indebted but there are no plans to lower their AAA credit rate. In fact, the French recently had a row with them over the matter, since France comes closer and closer in losing their AAA rating and according to them their economy is in much better shape than the British one. French PM Mr Francois Fillon and French finance minister Francois Baroin lately made comments as : "The UK's situation "very worrying" suggesting that France was better off economically.

Is it because the City of London is a part of this matrix of the Banks, the Markets and their accolades the different rating agencies, that have lately caused so much grief in many parts of Europe? That perhaps the British Government is trying so desperately to secure those privileges that come with being a vulture's nest for the greedy bankers? When in fact by doing so, they are becoming their accolades too and are contributing to the continuation of the crisis; with the uncontrolled power that the Banks and the Markets are accumulating  to the detriment of us all citizens. Both British or other European.

The stiff refusal of the British Government to support the euro or the eurozone, shows that they have different plans for the common currency and the EU. And of course they are trying to promote them. But are they Britain's plans or the Markets' and the Banks'? Lately Chancellor George Osborne has refused to contribute to the IMF 's bailout fund for the EU. He told his EU colleagues he will not provide any cash to boost the 200bn euro fund, which is specifically aimed at the troubled eurozone. If the eurozone collapses, it will have a huge impact on the weak British economy. So why do they insist?

With British media brainwashing and misinforming the British public for decades, there is no wonder that the public have a very different view on how things work within EU. Who controls and finances the British media? Didn't we have Rupert Murdoch's scandal recently in the UK? With tycoons like him being established in the country for decades, is it any wonder that the public opinion is so distorted?

They think that they pay taxes to support "poorer" and "incompetent" countries such as Greece, that they can not manage themselves. With Britain and most of northern Europe having absorbed most of industrial activity in Europe, there is nothing much the "poorer" southern or eastern European countries can compete with them in. They buy from us our raw materials such a vegetables and fruit, tax free because of the single market at our loss, while we have to buy from them cars, air-crafts, sub-marines and trucks. How on earth can you repay a sub-marine with oranges?

There is a trade deficit of course within the EU, with the richer industrialized nations of the North, gaining more out of the single market. Yet their press and media somehow pass the idea that they are the ones who pay the most. Well since they are the ones who gain the most, doesn't make sense to contribute more?

The whole things looks like the usual power struggles between the main three European powers and the interests of their elites. Or the elites and groups of third parties, such as America, the Markets and the Banks. Meanwhile, while they fight for supremacy we have to suffer.

Germany stubbornly refused the eurobonds, because their banks are earning lots of money out of the repayments of the bail out loans to the indebted countries such as Greece and Ireland. Now Britain is doing the same, because the lobbies in its capital want to promote and secure the interests of the Markets. Nothing to do with the British public's interests. I hope the Brits will one day understand this, before it is too late for their country. They are only supporting the machine that may bring their own eventual downfall. Will the Markets always favor Britain with so many opportunities out there in newly emerging markets and countries?

While we are paying to support the capitalist and the banking system, they are using our Governments to veto any move towards a permanent solution. Why would they want a solution anyway? They thrive on the tax payers' money and they do not care about any of our national interests. But why are we still chewing the bubble gums they are making us chew? Either we are Norwegian, British, German, French, Greek or Irish our interests are common. Theirs are against ours. So what do we do?

   
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(0)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi