Pat Buchanan: David Cameron's Finest Hour

With his no vote on fiscal union, Cameron declared to the EU: "British surrenders of sovereignty come to an end here. And Britain will deny Brussels any oversight authority of any national budgets or any right to sanction EU members."

The euro-skeptic right is understandably ecstatic.

"He Put Britain First," thundered the Daily Mail. "There is now a wonderful opportunity for Britain gradually to loosen itself from the shackles of a statist, over-regulated, anti-democratic, corrupt EU."

The Sun featured Cameron as Winston Churchill, flashing a wartime V-for-Victory sign over the banner headline: "Up Eurs -- Bulldog PM Sticks up for Britain."

The British left, however, almost took to bed.

"Cameron Cuts U.K. Adrift," wailed the Guardian. "The EU Leaves Britain," moaned The Independent.

Coalition partner Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats went weak in the knees, claiming the prime minister had left Britain "isolated and marginalized ... hovering somewhere in the mid-Atlantic."

Yet one imagines that Britain will somehow survive.

And while he may have been unaware of the firestorm that would follow his decision, Cameron has exposed the backroom game that is going on in Europe. The Germans have seized on the crisis caused by the fiscal promiscuity of Club Med -- Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal -- to effect a giant leap forward into European fiscal and political union.

Berlin is basically offering the bankrupts a bribe, saying:

"All right, we will bail you out. But, in return, all 17 members of the eurozone shall accept revisions to the EU treaty under which they submit their budgets to Brussels. And if their deficits and/or debts exceed permissible limits, those nations will be sanctioned and fined.

The Germans are exploiting the crisis to impose their model on the eurozone today and all of Europe tomorrow.

Well, some may ask, since Germany is the most successful economy in Europe, why not impose that model?

Answer: For a nation to submit its budget for review by a higher authority, and accept the right of such an authority to alter that budget or punish that nation, is to cease in a fundamental way to be free.

etc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/13/david_camerons_finest_hour_112378.html


Is defense of autonomy the main reason Britain vetoed the stronger fiscal union or does it also have something to do with the fact that the UK has by far the worst external debt to GDP ratio of any major industrialized country* and therefore does not want to have to submit its fiscal policy to a central organization for approval?

*(http://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html)

Originally posted by sh76
[quote]With his no vote on fiscal union, Cameron declared to the EU: "British surrenders of sovereignty come to an end here. And Britain will deny Brussels any oversight authority of any national budgets or any right to sanction EU members."

The euro-skeptic right is understandably ecstatic.

"He Put Britain First," thundered the Daily Mail. "There is now ...[text shortened]... al organization for approval?

*(http://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html)

Of course, the world economy may crash again because of it. But hey, at least nationalism is preserved!

Originally posted by sh76
Is defense of autonomy the main reason Britain vetoed the stronger fiscal union or does it also have something to do with the fact that the UK has by far the worst external debt to GDP ratio of any major industrialized country* and therefore does not want to have to submit its fiscal policy to a central organization for approval?

Those seem like sides of the same coin to me. It's surprising how the other leaders are so ready to relinquish control of their own economies.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Those seem like sides of the same coin to me. It's surprising how the other leaders are so ready to relinquish control of their own economies.

It's surprising to me that leaders are so often expected to control economies. Isn't that statist and Communistic etc?

Originally posted by sh76
[quote]With his no vote on fiscal union, Cameron declared to the EU: "British surrenders of sovereignty come to an end here. And Britain will deny Brussels any oversight authority of any national budgets or any right to sanction EU members."

The euro-skeptic right is understandably ecstatic.

"He Put Britain First," thundered the Daily Mail. "There is now ...[text shortened]... al organization for approval?

*(http://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html)

Probably a bit of both.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Of course, the world economy may crash again because of it. But hey, at least nationalism is preserved!

Or perhaps the world economy may crash because of the pervasive notion that we spend money that doesn't exist, to give whatever people demand, or politicians promise.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It's surprising to me that leaders are so often expected to control economies. Isn't that statist and Communistic etc?

It is the old argument of central planning vs. free markets, and has been going back and forth for at least two centuries. What's surprising is how many nations that nominally support the idea of free markets are seduced by the central planning notion.

Originally posted by normbenign
Or perhaps the world economy may crash because of the pervasive notion that we spend money that doesn't exist, to give whatever people demand, or politicians promise.

Do you have even a single data point of deficits crashing an economy? We didn't crash this time because of deficit spending. We crashed because deregulation allowed bankers and investment gurus to commit massive fraud, and we may crash again because nothing is being done about it.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Do you have even a single data point of deficits crashing an economy? We didn't crash this time because of deficit spending. We crashed because deregulation allowed bankers and investment gurus to commit massive fraud, and we may crash again because nothing is being done about it.

First you brought up the notion of the world economy crashing. Now you want me to support your proposition?

So far, every deficit crisis or hyperinflation crisis has been met the same way. Debt forgiveness or debt renunciation, amounting to the same thing. Why not? The money lent never existed in the first place. It was created out of thin air.

This could not be the case except we are dealing in funny money, with central banks anxious to keep the fraud going.

Originally posted by sh76
[quote]With his no vote on fiscal union, Cameron declared to the EU: "British surrenders of sovereignty come to an end here. And Britain will deny Brussels any oversight authority of any national budgets or any right to sanction EU members."

The euro-skeptic right is understandably ecstatic.

"He Put Britain First," thundered the Daily Mail. "There is now ...[text shortened]... al organization for approval?

*(http://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html)

This thread has gone quiet I know, but maybe someone should point out that Cameron accepted most of what was proposed in this summit so you are arguing the wrong stuff. The real differences were quite limited and capable of being negotiated, but Cameron was not working to the overt agenda.

What Cameron was worked up about was seeking protection for the City of London's financial services against proposed stronger regulation and a lot of people worry about his submissive protection of that sector at the expense of the rest of the British economy, never mind Europe's. Financial services account for 10% of GDP in Britain, which is important, but then the arts account for 8% and are being trashed and no other sector of the economy (least of all manufacturing of stuff like trains for British tracks) gets anything like the special protection afforded to financial services. Yes we do have to save the banking system - no we do not have to rescue at taxpayer's expense the failed gambling casinos passing themselves off as financial services. Nothing to do with GDP then and everything to do with vested interests, which are big funders and backers of the Tories.

The Europeans told him to get stuffed and are likely to succeed anyway in imposing tighter regulation of banking and financial gambling. In the process he is likely to have caused harm to the very sector he was seeking to protect and it is not good news for Britain - it is a severe setback.

Dressing this stuff up in nationalist twaddle is part of the predictable smokescreen behind which his inability to influence other Europeans is dressed up as being tough. He is not - he is making a mess. Naturally, the Tory press loves this and feeds bulldog British bllks to the masses with great cheer.

But Cameron did not and does not oppose the measures to strengthen the Euro. So this thread has been barking up the wrong tree.