Europe must not only be a system of rules. This could be an opportunity to redefine the UK foreign and economic policy
Last weekend came up in Brussels an agreement between 26 Ue countries on the new rules that will bind in the near future the internal decisions of every single nation, as regards in particular the fiscal policies.
The one to stay out is the UK of Mr. Cameron, concerned about a growing platoon of Eurosceptics in his party, and aims to preserve the autonomy of the City from possible decisions of the EU (and I speak particularly about the tax on financial transactions several times proposed by Germany and France).
As the "Sunday Telegraph" wrote, the idea that the other 26 members have joined a single block is false, since they are strongly divided on many topics including the economic rules, the level of taxes and welfare spending.
But is it a little matter what has given birth in the last week summit?
Of course Germany is not satisfied. Merkel's plan was to change the Treaties and consequently provide the intervention, with new powers, of the UE institutions (Commission and Court of Justice in particular, under the "infringement action") in order to enforce each country's rules and thus to keep the budget '"fiscal union". The veto expressed by Cameron has forced Angela Merkel to accept a fallback plan, that an intergovernmental agreement.
Satisfied the Sarkozy's France, the only smiling winner, because the agreement (the second option considered by Merkel) does not confer additional powers to Brussels.
Sarcastic Sarkozy (relationships between France and Great Britain have never been historically idyllic): ".. those who did not want to join the euro are not in the best position to advise its members on its operation, " and a fall of style the words of a french staff diplomat (though actually give a good idea of the climate): "Cameron looked like a guest at a wife-swapping party without a wife ".
The Financial Times raises doubts about the effectiveness of the agreements in Brussels, because any decision would be taken without the comfort of the law and therefore without the certainty and the automatic right to use the EU institutions to enforce the rules. Besides the United Kingdom (Cameron said that "the institutions of the EU belong to the EU, then all the 27 countries") that view is reflected in the statements of Euro federalists believe, as former Prime Minister of Belgium. Swarms of lawyers and experts are already checking to see if there are places and ways to use the powers of the European Commission and the Court of Justice in the presence of simple intergovernmental agreement.
Time will tell us if David Cameron was right or not. Certainly Britain must now decide what will be its new role for the two-tier Europe, as it is called after ripping Brussels. The dilemma is how the British Prime Minister will be able to defend the interests of Great Britain by new rules adopted by the EU if he will be absent from that table. If the other countries decide the famous financial taxation, french and german banks will be able to exempt themselves applying from? But can we blame UK on the assumption that the agreements emerging from Brussels prefigure Europe characterized only by a set of rules, without any collective responsibility? There is no mention of Eurobonds; we speak of a body ( EFM ) to come; the ECB has finally confirmed that she is the lender of last resort for European banks, not governments. Where is it then, one may wonder, this great success that should marginalize London if not yet another claim to try to unify countries different economically and financially, a fact broadly justified as the foundation of the euro crisis? Or maybe the mayor of London Boris Johnson is right when he says that the summit has left London as the capital of the Brics (the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, China and India) and not isolated, meaning that it is time to readjust foreign and economic UK policy and refer more to the emerging countries than the economic stagnation to Europe?
http://semplicementefinanza.blogspot.com/
The one to stay out is the UK of Mr. Cameron, concerned about a growing platoon of Eurosceptics in his party, and aims to preserve the autonomy of the City from possible decisions of the EU (and I speak particularly about the tax on financial transactions several times proposed by Germany and France).
As the "Sunday Telegraph" wrote, the idea that the other 26 members have joined a single block is false, since they are strongly divided on many topics including the economic rules, the level of taxes and welfare spending.
But is it a little matter what has given birth in the last week summit?
Of course Germany is not satisfied. Merkel's plan was to change the Treaties and consequently provide the intervention, with new powers, of the UE institutions (Commission and Court of Justice in particular, under the "infringement action") in order to enforce each country's rules and thus to keep the budget '"fiscal union". The veto expressed by Cameron has forced Angela Merkel to accept a fallback plan, that an intergovernmental agreement.
Satisfied the Sarkozy's France, the only smiling winner, because the agreement (the second option considered by Merkel) does not confer additional powers to Brussels.
Sarcastic Sarkozy (relationships between France and Great Britain have never been historically idyllic): ".. those who did not want to join the euro are not in the best position to advise its members on its operation, " and a fall of style the words of a french staff diplomat (though actually give a good idea of the climate): "Cameron looked like a guest at a wife-swapping party without a wife ".
The Financial Times raises doubts about the effectiveness of the agreements in Brussels, because any decision would be taken without the comfort of the law and therefore without the certainty and the automatic right to use the EU institutions to enforce the rules. Besides the United Kingdom (Cameron said that "the institutions of the EU belong to the EU, then all the 27 countries") that view is reflected in the statements of Euro federalists believe, as former Prime Minister of Belgium. Swarms of lawyers and experts are already checking to see if there are places and ways to use the powers of the European Commission and the Court of Justice in the presence of simple intergovernmental agreement.
Time will tell us if David Cameron was right or not. Certainly Britain must now decide what will be its new role for the two-tier Europe, as it is called after ripping Brussels. The dilemma is how the British Prime Minister will be able to defend the interests of Great Britain by new rules adopted by the EU if he will be absent from that table. If the other countries decide the famous financial taxation, french and german banks will be able to exempt themselves applying from? But can we blame UK on the assumption that the agreements emerging from Brussels prefigure Europe characterized only by a set of rules, without any collective responsibility? There is no mention of Eurobonds; we speak of a body ( EFM ) to come; the ECB has finally confirmed that she is the lender of last resort for European banks, not governments. Where is it then, one may wonder, this great success that should marginalize London if not yet another claim to try to unify countries different economically and financially, a fact broadly justified as the foundation of the euro crisis? Or maybe the mayor of London Boris Johnson is right when he says that the summit has left London as the capital of the Brics (the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, China and India) and not isolated, meaning that it is time to readjust foreign and economic UK policy and refer more to the emerging countries than the economic stagnation to Europe?
http://semplicementefinanza.blogspot.com/
Commenti
Posta un commento