Norwegian Butter Shortage

[dps]

And the real fake butter has apparently been released in Germany this year:

Was that sign punctuated by a Martian?

comma is a period over there.

It's not strange looking just because of that, though--there's also the use of a dash in place of a zero (or just a blank space) but I got that and the comma vs period thing.  But the part I don't get is the weird placement of the quotation marks.

[Sheilbh]

Don't forget that the Boundary Commission will have set up the new constituencies by the next General Election, the old boundaries favoured Labour who would have got a majority of 30-40 seats if they had got the share of the vote that the Tories got in the last election.

I think that's partly just the nature of the Tory vote.  Even in a very safe seat they turn out and vote.  The boundary review doesn't entirely favour the Tories or Lib Dems:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/boundary-review-angers-tory-mps

I think I would now vote against EU membership. The fury at Cameron for not signing away fiscal sovereignty on the spot at 4am without even consulting Parliament or the people.........how can we make common cause with people who think like that?

I don't think the fiscal stuff affects countries not in the Euro or Euro-candidate (ie. us and Denmark).  And the treaty's only been signed all the countries have to now ratify it.  I think the Euro-fury is because it's easier to point to the UK than point out that no other French Presidential candidate supports it, that the FDP are on the edge of collapse over this treaty (I think the EFSF, ESM stuff), that the Danes and Irish may have to have referendums and that success in the Dutch, Slovak, Finnish and Czech Parliaments isn't guaranteed.

And for all the talk of principle I think that's ultimately why Cameron couldn't sign a full treaty.  It would have failed in Parliament or failed at a referendum.

I also think the UK-EU spat is a massive distraction from the potential problems with the deal reached and real discussion of whether it'll work.  In my view the protocol's largest effect will be to institutionalise large recessions in several countries.

As a teacher once told us regarding votings in EU stuff (talking about fisheries and the usual Spanish position in them), every country likes to sell to its national audience that their position and requests were the only rational ones and in everybody's interests, and that everytime they're voted down it's because there's a huge international conspiracy against you, but that when a big meeting or several are held and at the time of drawing lines in the sand everybody is roughly in one side and your country ends up alone in the other most of the time then maybe this country should reflect on why this keeps happening again and again. I think this could also be applied to this issue.

What's the issue you think we should reflect on?

I don't think there's an international conspiracy, but I think our interests are starting to diverge. 

[The Larch]

As a teacher once told us regarding votings in EU stuff (talking about fisheries and the usual Spanish position in them), every country likes to sell to its national audience that their position and requests were the only rational ones and in everybody's interests, and that everytime they're voted down it's because there's a huge international conspiracy against you, but that when a big meeting or several are held and at the time of drawing lines in the sand everybody is roughly in one side and your country ends up alone in the other most of the time then maybe this country should reflect on why this keeps happening again and again. I think this could also be applied to this issue.

What's the issue you think we should reflect on?

I don't think there's an international conspiracy, but I think our interests are starting to diverge.

In this case I'd say that the broader issue would be EU governance.

Which do you think that are the UK's interests?

[DGuller]

It's not strange looking just because of that, though--there's also the use of a dash in place of a zero (or just a blank space) but I got that and the comma vs period thing.  But the part I don't get is the weird placement of the quotation marks.

That's how quotation marks are done in continental Europe, I think.  Definitely that's how it was done in Soviet Union.

[Valmy]

What's the issue you think we should reflect on?

I don't think there's an international conspiracy, but I think our interests are starting to diverge. 

But isn't that a part of every political body?  I mean I expect Cornwall's interests are not perfectly aligned with those of Manchester.

[Richard Hakluyt]

What's the issue you think we should reflect on?

I don't think there's an international conspiracy, but I think our interests are starting to diverge. 

But isn't that a part of every political body?  I mean I expect Cornwall's interests are not perfectly aligned with those of Manchester.

Some parts of the UK make huge financial sacrifices to help out other parts of the UK. The sacrifices we are prepared to make for other parts of the EU are far lower. IMO the EU project has run ahead of itself and is making demands of its people that they are not willing to make. I think that time will show that the UK is not the only offender in this, the new accord is an almost comical example of the triumph of hope over experience; it is basically a stricter version of the growth and stability pact which was ignored almost immediately even by Germany, so Greece will not be running a deficit once the new accord is signed? Pitiful nonsense.

[Sheilbh]

But isn't that a part of every political body?  I mean I expect Cornwall's interests are not perfectly aligned with those of Manchester.

Just like Germany's and Greece's are divergent.  It's at that point that culture steps in and democratic institutions step in and mediate the difference.  Except, of course, in the case of the EU.  There's no Europeanism and I don't think there will be - this has an effect in terms of the economic measures in the periphery.  If you don't speak any language other than Portuguese, Spanish, Italian or Greek then despite the free movement of workers (a good side of the EU) you're trapped in the recession unlike in countries.  But also there's no shared solidarity that exists within a country.  And I think the democratic institutions of the Union are also too weak to share the pain and force Cornwall and Manchester to sacrifice for the other's sake.

In this case I'd say that the broader issue would be EU governance.

I'm still not sure what you mean by governance I'm afraid.  This doesn't change the structure or duties of the EU bodies from what I understand.

Which do you think that are the UK's interests?

I'll think this over a bit to get a more full-ish answer.

[Duque de Bragança]

the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.

That's a  Latin American Spanish confusion, false porkchop.

come on, Suecia and Suica are damn close And i'm not a false pork chop, i'm purely "canadian" (whatever that means ) i just speak pork chop

No, you don't. You speak an Anglo Canadian Azorean pidgin 
Besides, it's Suécia and Suíça. 

[Sheilbh]

I think that time will show that the UK is not the only offender in this, the new accord is an almost comical example of the triumph of hope over experience; it is basically a stricter version of the growth and stability pact which was ignored almost immediately even by Germany, so Greece will not be running a deficit once the new accord is signed? Pitiful nonsense.

I agree that this summit failed to produce anything like the comprehensive deal required - and that wasn't because the UK said 'no'.  That's really just a distraction.

There is a strengthened S&GP which will probably not be terribly enforced and seems to be there to add some cyclical variability.  The constitutional amendments requiring a structural deficit of 0.5% on the other hand seems absurdly strict to put into national constitutions.  I agree with these points made by Martin Wolf:

A simple objection to these ideas might be that they are implausibly tough, as FT Alphaville notes. The Council does state that "steps and sanctions proposed or recommended by the Commission will be adopted unless a qualified majority of the euro area member states is opposed". Even so, I remain unconvinced that turkeys will vote for Christmas. Yet, suppose they do. This would mean that, on deeply uncertain estimates of structural deficits, the Commission – a body of unelected bureaucrats – would impose sanctions on elected governments, when the latter are under great pressure. What is the Commission going to do if they still fail to comply? Take them over? The answer, we now know, is: yes. This is a constitutional monstrosity.

Linked to this, what happens when a country hits a recession and the opposition promise some form of stimulus, the national equivalent of the Institute for Fiscal Studies works out that it'd break the EU rules.  Should the party change their policy or, if they win, a democratically elected government change their policy?  It doesn't seem right or plausible.

A little later Wolf continues:

By definition, the sum of private and current account deficits must also fall towards zero. The private sectors of erstwhile capital-importing countries have moved towards surpluses, for a good reason: they are trying to reduce their debts, not least because their assets are falling in value. Thus the external deficit needs to fall. That can occur in a good or a bad way. The good way would be via increased output of exports and import substitutes; the bad would be via a deeper recession. The good way requires far higher imports in the core of the eurozone or far greater competitiveness for the eurozone as a whole. But little chance of either of these exists, under plausible expectations for demand and activity. That leaves the bad way: deep recessions, in which the government reduces its deficit by deflating the private sector yet more.

In brief, it is extremely difficult to eliminate fiscal deficits in the structural capital-importing countries, without prolonged recessions or huge improvements in their external competitiveness. But the latter is relative, so the needed improvements in the external performance of weak eurozone countries imply a deterioration in that of eurozone capital-exporters, or radically improved external performance for the eurozone as a whole. The former means that Germany becomes far less German. The latter implies that the eurozone becomes a mega-Germany. Who can believe either outcome is plausible?

This leaves much the most plausible outcome of the orgy of fiscal austerity: long-term structural recessions in vulnerable countries. To put it bluntly, the single currency will come to stand for wage falls, debt deflation and prolonged economic slumps. Can this stand, however big the costs of a break-up?

The eurozone has no credible plan to fix the flaws of the eurozone, apart from greater fiscal austerity: there is to be no fiscal, financial or political union; and there is to be no balanced mechanism for economic adjustment on both sides of the creditor-debtor divide. The decision is, instead, to try still harder with a stability and growth pact whose failures have been both predictable and persistent. Yes, Mr Cameron made a blunder last week. But that of the eurozone looks far bigger.

[Ideologue]

It's not strange looking just because of that, though--there's also the use of a dash in place of a zero (or just a blank space) but I got that and the comma vs period thing.  But the part I don't get is the weird placement of the quotation marks.

That's how quotation marks are done in continental Europe, I think.  Definitely that's how it was done in Soviet Union.

You know what sucks?  Cyrllic cursive.  How does a T become an M, a B become a D, or a D become a G, Guller?  You tell me that.  It's all fucked up.

Roman cursive is pretty shitty too but you rarely see it.

[HVC]

the ones one i confuses, and only is portuguese, is the swiss and the swedes. sound too damn similar.

That's a  Latin American Spanish confusion, false porkchop.

come on, Suecia and Suica are damn close And i'm not a false pork chop, i'm purely "canadian" (whatever that means ) i just speak pork chop

No, you don't. You speak an Anglo Canadian Azorean pidgin 
Besides, it's Suécia and Suíça. 

Anglo Canadian Lisbon, Nazaren, Azorean pidgin, thank you very much . and i don't know how to do the accents

[The Larch]

In this case I'd say that the broader issue would be EU governance.

I'm still not sure what you mean by governance I'm afraid.  This doesn't change the structure or duties of the EU bodies from what I understand.

Maybe I could rephrase that and saying further integration instead of governance, which might not have been the best choice of word. Sorry if I'm a bit thick today.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe I could rephrase that and saying further integration instead of governance, which might not have been the best choice of word. Sorry if I'm a bit thick today.

Not at all I just wanted to be sure.

I think you're right.  British people in general don't want integration and they look at the great project of the last 20 years, the Euro, and that prejudice is reinforced.  I don't think they're wrong.  If we'd joined the Euro, as we almost did in the nineties, it would have been a catastrophe and the Euro wouldn't exist any more.  The British sense is also that integration seems to work mainly in things that matter to other countries - our press are under the impression that we don't achieve a great deal in the EU in contrast with the French who are portrayed as playing the game very well. 

Personally I've generally always supported the EU and integration, I think every treaty change has led to more democracy which justifies further integration and greater EU competencies.  I think that this deal is an enormous step backwards, I find the anger at voters - whether Danish, Dutch, Irish or French - disagreeable but somewhat symptomatic of my problems with where the EU's going.  The tension between an elite, technocratic system and popular choice seems inevitable given that what's happening is a body that originally regulated certain economic production and then predominately regulated the running of a common market is now being asked to take an active role in fiscal policy which is far larger, more emotive, more connected to the people and more important.  In addition I don't like the way this is going through.  Given that it's a very significant change I don't think it should be rushed through under the pressure of the market, but here we are.

In addition as well as the form of this stage of integration I think the content's wrong.  As I've made clear I don't think this fiscal union will work, I think it'll increase the pain, recessions and austerity in many countries. 

Having said all of that if the rest of the EU thinks this direction is right - I'm not sure they do - and that it's necessary then we should let you get on with it.

[The Larch]

Maybe I could rephrase that and saying further integration instead of governance, which might not have been the best choice of word. Sorry if I'm a bit thick today.

Not at all I just wanted to be sure.

I think you're right.  British people in general don't want integration and they look at the great project of the last 20 years, the Euro, and that prejudice is reinforced.  I don't think they're wrong.  If we'd joined the Euro, as we almost did in the nineties, it would have been a catastrophe and the Euro wouldn't exist any more.  The British sense is also that integration seems to work mainly in things that matter to other countries - our press are under the impression that we don't achieve a great deal in the EU in contrast with the French who are portrayed as playing the game very well. 

Personally I've generally always supported the EU and integration, I think every treaty change has led to more democracy which justifies further integration and greater EU competencies.  I think that this deal is an enormous step backwards, I find the anger at voters - whether Danish, Dutch, Irish or French - disagreeable but somewhat symptomatic of my problems with where the EU's going.  The tension between an elite, technocratic system and popular choice seems inevitable given that what's happening is a body that originally regulated certain economic production and then predominately regulated the running of a common market is now being asked to take an active role in fiscal policy which is far larger, more emotive, more connected to the people and more important.  In addition I don't like the way this is going through.  Given that it's a very significant change I don't think it should be rushed through under the pressure of the market, but here we are.

In addition as well as the form of this stage of integration I think the content's wrong.  As I've made clear I don't think this fiscal union will work, I think it'll increase the pain, recessions and austerity in many countries. 

Having said all of that if the rest of the EU thinks this direction is right - I'm not sure they do - and that it's necessary then we should let you get on with it.

I think that you also have to take something else into account, and it is that, even if the rest of the governments agreed to these new financial measures, it doesn't mean that they like them or want them, but it's more of a "something has to be done about this" kind of thing. These new era is not one where most countries are entering singing praises and happily ahead, but being dragged by the harsh current situation. Everybody would have wanted things to be different, and done well since day 1, but they're the way they are now and we have to deal with them in the current sad state of affairs.

Personally I'm not particulary angry about the UK not wanting to go ahead with this on the basis of the proposals themselves, as I'm not particulary thrilled about them either,  but I think that the way it was handled could have been much better, as it made the UK seem like a bit of a prima donna, so to speak, and made way too easy for others to paint a bullseye for criticism on Cameron. For instance, I think that it was Sweden who also voiced similar concerns, but you don't see many consequences for them.

Edit: Regarding the press, I think that it's also a big issue for you as the way EU topics are presented by most UK media really distort public discourse and push it towards a jingoistic and emotional debate that is, ultimately, sterile in order to draw sensible solutions, and shapes public opinion in a way that makes any attempt to resort to direct input by the public senseless as the result would be almost surely negative to any question posed related to the UK and its relationship with the EU.

[Richard Hakluyt]

This Economist article is more or less in agreement with your points :

http://www.economist.com/node/21541840

Though I still think that the UK will be joined by other countries later. More importantly there will be another crisis before the accord takes effect (March 2012) and further action will be required.