FTSE 100: 5350.05 ▲ 83.64 (1.59%)
Economists and analysts again turned to a well-worn phrase to describe the measures agreed at the summit of European leaders last night: they were ‘no silver bullet’.
But what did the summit achieve and what remains to be done?
The flaws of the eurozone club of many different economies, united under a single monetary regime but without centralised fiscal controls, were exposed by their inability to cope in the financial downturn as the debts of the weaker economies mounted. The markets saw that lending to these countries was risky, dumped their bonds which sent their yields - and in turn the countries' cost of borrowing - soaring higher.
Banks, which were holding the bonds of these countries and face increasing funding requirements anyway, have come under increasing threat with fears of a second credit crunch returning.
Contrasting political agendas mean that previous efforts to fix the crisis – with billions offered up in bailout funds – have never quite been sufficient, and any market euphoria has quickly given way to disappointment as investors realise they face yet another fudged attempt at a solution.
So European leaders are once again holding crisis talks this week. The meeting in Brussels started last night and closes this evening.
Only a change to the Lisbon Treaty could bring radical changes to the way the European Union’s 27 member economies are run. It was hoped the summit could bring this about.
But British prime minister David Cameron vetoed such a major change, making Britain the only member to totally rule itself out, owing to domestic concerns (more of which below); a schism that has created talk this morning of a ‘two-speed Europe’.
So instead, a ‘fiscal compact’ or inter-governmental agreement has been formed by 23 countries, including the 17 eurozone members, giving the European Commission more control over how they manage their national budgets.
The second part of last night’s agreement strengthens the shorter term bail-out capabilities for eurozone countries.
There is little detail, though the European Council this morning published several proposals.
A reinforced architecture for Economic and Monetary Union
1. The stability and integrity of the Economic and Monetary Union and of the European Union as a whole require the swift and vigorous implementation of the measures already agreed as well as further qualitative moves towards a genuine "fiscal stability union" in the euro area.
Alongside the single currency, a strong economic pillar is indispensable. It will rest on an enhanced governance to foster fiscal discipline and deeper integration in the internal market as well as stronger growth, enhanced competitiveness and social cohesion. To achieve this objective, we will build on and enhance what has been achieved in the past 18 months: the enhanced Stability and Growth Pact, the implementation of the European Semester starting this month, the new macro-economic imbalances procedure, and the Euro Plus Pact.
2. With this overriding objective in mind, and fully determined to overcome together the current difficulties, we agreed today on a new "fiscal compact" and on significantly stronger coordination of economic policies in areas of common interest.
3. This will require a new deal between euro area Member States to be enshrined in common, ambitious rules that translate their strong political commitment into a new legal framework.
A new fiscal compact
4. We commit to establishing a new fiscal rule, containing the following elements:
General government budgets shall be balanced or in surplus; this principle shall be deemed respected if, as a rule, the annual structural deficit does not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP.
Such a rule will also be introduced in Member States' national legal systems at constitutional or equivalent level. The rule will contain an automatic correction mechanism that shall be triggered in the event of deviation. It will be defined by each Member State on the basis of principles proposed by the Commission. We recognise the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to verify the transposition of this rule at national level.
Member States shall converge towards their specific reference level, according to a calendar proposed by the Commission.
Member States in Excessive Deficit Procedure shall submit to the Commission and the Council for endorsement, an economic partnership programme detailing the necessary structural reforms to ensure an effectively durable correction of excessive deficits. The implementation of the programme, and the yearly budgetary plans consistent with it, will be monitored by the Commission and the Council.
A mechanism will be put in place for the ex ante reporting by Member States of their national debt issuance plans.
5. The rules governing the Excessive Deficit Procedure (Article 126 of the TFEU) will be reinforced for euro area Member States. As soon as a Member State is recognised to be in breach of the 3% ceiling by the Commission, there will be automatic consequences unless a qualified majority of euro area Member States is opposed. Steps and sanctions proposed or recommended by the Commission will be adopted unless a qualified majority of the euro area Member States is opposed. The specification of the debt criterion in terms of a numerical benchmark for debt reduction (1/20 rule) for Member States with a government debt in excess of 60% needs to be enshrined in the new provisions.
6. We will examine swiftly the new rules proposed by the Commission on 23 November 2011 on (i) the monitoring and assessment of draft budgetary plans and the correction of excessive deficit in euro area Member States and (ii) the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area. We call on the Council and the European Parliament to rapidly examine these regulations so that they will be in force for the next budget cycle. Under this new legal framework, the Commission will in particular examine the key parameters of the fiscal stance in the draft budgetary plans and will, if needed, adopt an opinion on these plans. If the Commission identifies particularly serious
non-compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact, it will request a revised draft budgetary plan.
7. For the longer term, we will continue to work on how to further deepen fiscal integration so as to better reflect our degree of interdependence. These issues will be part of the report of the President of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission and the President of the Eurogroup in March 2012. They will also report on the relations between the EU and the euro area.
Stronger policy coordination and governance
8. We agree to make more active use of enhanced cooperation on matters which are essential for the smooth functioning of the euro area, without undermining the internal market.
9. We are committed to working towards a common economic policy. A procedure will be established to ensure that all major economic policy reforms planned by euro area Member States will be discussed and coordinated at the level of the euro area, with a view to benchmarking best practices.
10. Euro area governance will be reinforced as agreed at the Euro Summit of 26 October. In particular, regular Euro Summits will be held at least twice a year.
At the heart of these reforms are rules meaning national budgets will have to be balanced or in surplus.
In other words, the imbalances between government receipts and spending that have led to such a loss of confidence in eurozone peripheral nations will not be acceptable in the future – a rule that will be enshrined in each member state’s law.
In the event they don’t meet the necessary criteria automatic mechanisms will begin, while penalties for breaching these rules will be stricter.
In addition member states will have to submit plans to Brussels on how they plan to fund themselves.
These measures provide some assurance that indebted peripheral eurozone nations will push ahead with austerity plans.
The bailout plans or ‘stabilisation tools’ are getting complex.
We already had a jacked-up temporary EFSF bail-out fund, with plans to implement a longer term European Stability Mechanism. But this latter fund will now start a year earlier, coming into force in July 2012. The combined firepower of the two could be more than €500 billion, but this won’t be confirmed until March (as the ESM needs ratifying by member states).
But these bail-out funds have never been big enough to support the bigger members of the eurozone should things get really bad.
So it was announced that European Union member states – and this includes the UK – will contribute a combined €200 billion to the International Monetary Fund. This will then be able to lend the money back to them. This €200 billion hasn’t been confirmed though; member states have to reply within 10 days.
‘We are looking forward to parallel contributions from the international community,’ the summit statement read.
‘I couldn’t get adequate safeguards for Britain. What is on offer isn’t in Britain’s interests so I didn’t agree to it,’ Cameron said in a statement early this morning.
I said before coming to Brussels that if I couldn’t get adequate safeguards for Britain in a new European treaty, then I wouldn’t agree to it. What is on offer isn’t in Britain’s interests, so I didn’t agree to it.
Let me explain why this matters. Of course, we want the eurozone countries to come together and to solve their problems. But we should only allow that to happen inside the European Union treaties if there are proper protections for the single market and for other key British interests.
Without those safeguards, it is better not to have a treaty within a treaty, but to have those countries make their arrangements separately. That is what is now going to happen. Britain’s interests in the European Union – keeping markets open, free trade, selling our goods and services with rules over which we have a major say – all those things are protected. They don’t change. But this new round of integration and special powers and surrenders of sovereignty for European countries and others that want to join the euro, they will be carried on outside the European Union treaty.
So we will not be presenting this new treaty, when it’s agreed, to our Parliament. It will not involve Britain. Of course, while there were always dangers with agreeing a treaty within a treaty, there are also risks with others going off and forming a separate treaty; and we should acknowledge that. So we will insist that the EU institutions – the court, the Commission – that they work for all 27 nations of the European Union.
Indeed, those institutions are established by the Treaty, and that Treaty is still protected. Let me make a final point – the decisions taken here tonight all flow from one thing: the fact that there is a single currency in Europe – the euro. Britain is out of it, and will remain out of it. Other countries are in it and are having to make radical changes, including giving up sovereignty, to try and make it work.
The difference between the “ins” and the “outs” – those in the euro and those out of the euro – has inevitably created some tensions within the European Union. Now there are arrangements in the EU treaties to allow different countries to do different things, but these have always been accompanied by adequate safeguards within the treaties.
When we can’t be given those safeguards in the treaty, it is better this is done by intergovernmental arrangements, outside the treaty and outside the institutions of the European Union. That is what will happen, and that is what is in Britain’s national interests.
Those countries that sign this treaty, and the agreements they have made tonight, for coordinating their budgets and making sure there is more surveillance of what they do and the fiscal integration that they need, we wish them well because we want the eurozone to sort out its problems, to achieve that stability and growth that all of Europe – Britain included – needs.
We wish them well in that regard and the agreements they have made tonight, some of those may indeed help them to do that. But they key question for Britain was: do you allow that to happen within the European Union treaties if you are not happy with the safeguards you are given? I wasn’t prepared to agree that treaty, to take it to my Parliament in that way, and that is why I rejected signing this treaty today. The right thing for Britain. A tough decision, but the right one.
Cameron, under pressure from many vocal eurosceptic members of his party, highlighted the need to protect the single market and other key British interests, but ultimately refused to back treaty change in order to protect Britain’s financial services industry.
He has been fighting hard to prevent the City cash-cow falling foul of new Brussels strictures, concerned about future punitive financial regulation.
Cameron was also acting on Tory concerns that agreeing to Treaty change would have cost us control over our taxation and spending.
Not hugely impressed. The summit has not produced the sort of answers that will truly bring the crisis to an end. This is reflected in rising bond yields for Italy, France and Spain. Equity markets, dealing with developments in China and elsewhere as well, started lower but then moved higher: but we are certainly not seeing the type of rally that would signal a return to confidence that the end of the crisis would bring.
'What really worries the market is how euro zone governments and banks will finance themselves in the next three months', Stephen Lewis of Monument Securities explained. 'The details of the fiscal compact are not to be finalised before March and, given the opposition of Finland and Slovakia to decision-taking by qualified majority, it could take much longer than that before the compact is ratified.'
No.
Much remains unconfirmed, including the future size of the EFSF and ESM bailout funds.
National parliaments must approve much of what has been agreed, including the increased IMF funding.
Whether other countries outside of Europe, such as China, will be willing to increase their contributions to the fund is yet to be seen. A show of such force could really boost confidence.
One positive sign though came from European Central Bank president Mario Draghi who appeared to give his approval to the decisions taken last night. It has been hoped that once politicians show real commitment to reforms, Draghi’s Bank may be willing to unleash the ‘big bazooka’ of full-scale quantitative easing. Yesterday, before the summit, Draghi had disappointed markets by refusing to go beyond the ECB’s existing bond buying – and life-supporting – programme
Analysts and economist are still digesting the results of the summit, but James Nixon of Societe Generale commented that the hope is that the combined measures will slowly begin to gain some traction over the crisis. But ‘European leaders actions continued to be guided by a limited and potentially mistaken belief that euro area problems solely stem from excessive debt and deficits. In fact the lack of growth and the inability of countries to generate sufficient nominal income to service those debts is at least as important,’ he added.
Trevor Greetham, director of asset allocation at Fidelity Worldwide Investment said this morning: ‘What we would need to see to end the crisis once and for all is full burden sharing - with clear and unconditional ECB support the first step - and forceful policies that inflate the core rather than deflate the periphery.’
Comments (39)
two speed! apropos what?
12:38 on 09 December 2011
Another summit and yet another fudge.
The individual governments of the supposed supporters of the new deal will struggle to get approval for this in their own countries. I suspect that the Germans may now be one of the harder populations to convince that there is still any merit in the Euro project---after all they are paying the major part of the bills.
A temporary rally followed by a long-term slide towards oblivion is the Euro's ultimate fate.
13:11 on 09 December 2011
The only certainty is uncertainty.
Spin, waffle and fudge.
13:39 on 09 December 2011
There is already a two speed Europe--within the Eurozone! Alas what is proposed is only going to perpetuate it. The underlying problems are not resolved. The core countries, especially Germany, will continue to flourish from a relatively weak Euro, but the PIIGS will continue to suffer years of austerity and zero growth due to their debt and lack of competitiveness. They have been persuaded to sign-up in order to preserve the Euro and the status quo; I feel very sorry for them.
14:21 on 09 December 2011
Have the Uk's contributions to the Eu changed?
Which are the main countries that finance the Eu?
Spooky, how all the Brits who live in Brussels and work in and around the Commission say that this is a disaster.
Odd that there is no measures to address the German trade surplus.
14:51 on 09 December 2011
It does appear that David Cameron is alienating us from the mainstream in Europe to appease his eurosceptics and to stop the Germans trying to get their oar into the London financial markets. He looked uncomfortable and obviously very alone in the conference shots. It may play well in the Conservative party but I'm not sure his stance is best for the country.
15:25 on 09 December 2011
Allan Harris
You're correct, when did the Tories ever do anything for the Country. It is always looking after No1...its members & multi millionare Cameron is no different to his Tory predecessors
15:54 on 09 December 2011
Allan Harris:-
The banking industry is 36% or so, of the British economy. The EU want to levy a tax on this industry, which, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, is quite small - but will still raise an estimated 54 billion euros in its first year. We, the poor bloody British taxpayers will pay this. think of it as around £2,000 a year paid by every taxpayer in the country. After all, do you think the banking industry will pay it, or is it more likely that would they find a way of stiffing us taxpayers?
Also, the story put out by the industry is that it would rather pack up shop and go elsewhere. Something similar happened in the USA in the 1970's, that market promptly moved to the UK, which is why it is 36% of our economy.
Margaret Thatcher, Bless Her, is partly to blame for the then decision to concentrate on services rather than manufacturing. At the moment, we are stuck with an unbalanced economy, the best thing is to give George Osborne and his merry men support to carry out the painful changes and put in place the measures that may get us out of the mess that Blair, Brown, Balls and the rest of the Labour hierarchy got us in to, as they are part of the problem, not the solution.
15:56 on 09 December 2011
Why is it automatically assumed that in a "two speed Europe" that Britain will automatically be in the slow lane. This normal EU scare mongering.
Whatever the new Fiscal Pact decides on Taxes etc Britain could still chose to match them or not BUT it will be OUR choice.
If the Pact decide on a uniform corporation tax of say 20% (which incidently the Irish will have a fit at) then Britain could choose to match this or not.
Alternatively, we could chose ON OUR OWN to reduce taxes on wealth creation and employment by cutting corporation tax to 18% and reducing employer NI conts. How would the Fiscal Pack respond to that?
If the Fiscal Pact introduce a finacial transaction tax then busineses will flock to the City and possibily New York.
If the Govt chooses to reduce spending further and channel savings into cutting taxes on wealth creation and employment then yes we will have a two speed Europe with the UK being the only country in the fast lane.
If we are bold enough to do this then what odds that German factories will be moving to the UK in 5 years time!
16:02 on 09 December 2011
Anonymous 1
UK Ltd is bust. We have no choice other than hobsons.
16:50 on 09 December 2011
In my view the EU has allowed itself to become malfunctioning monster . Rather like a tortoise which is dragging around a shell which is many times too big for the body .
I originally really liked the idea of a united Europe, but when the semi insane dictats started and the sheer waste and bureaucracy gathered momentum, I soon lost my enthusiasm.
So Cameron was entirely correct to, in effect, throw a spanner into the works of the creeping European control of UK.
Bureaucracy is a curse affecting all of us . We have enough of our own without having a load more heaped on us.
16:56 on 09 December 2011
Derek Farman absolutely correct.
Bureaucracy is the killer of any economy. Margaret Thatcher made some mistakes, but her legacy was a very strong financial base, where Britain was a major earner, with a strong balance. The growth of bureaucracy in Britain is appalling - but the Eurozone still can't get its accounts audited, they are such a bureaucratic monster.
The idea may have been good, but the whole lot should be sacked, and start again with a small team of proven money making businessmen in their own right, who can make it work with minimum staff levels.
17:18 on 09 December 2011
Whatever the action a reaction always appears.
This is the way human race evolution takes place, and of cource we are going to see many new actions all over the world, as it happened during trasformation from agriculural society to industrial society.
What happens now is the transformation from industrial society to information society and of course we are not going to expect the solutions to any problem should be given from the oldies, like Merkozies but young people full of new ideas for a new era and new infoworld.
21:06 on 09 December 2011
If you accept the premise that the UK economy's strongest sector is the financial industry and the City's world role is based on it being the 'European' financial centre what will it do to our European customer base when we (ie Cameron) do our best to scupper a pan-European solution to their economic problems.
And when the bond vigilantes turn on the UK, as they will eventually, how can we expect Europe to come rushing to our aid?
21:20 on 09 December 2011
Is there any point in me reminding everyone that the world doesn't speak English by accident?
09:28 on 10 December 2011
A Murray ....another thought which occurs to me is ..... How did the individual Euro governments not see the dragging effect of over legislation. If we as individuals express almost daily frustration at virtually every aspect of our lives which has been meddled with, how is it that the government leaders haven't cottoned on . We all knew, of course that Brown's bread and butter was micro control, but surely the other leaders do not have such nit pick brains .
Your point about sacking the entire bunch of over zealous bureaucrats and replacing them with top men from the business world, who have to look at costs v's productivity is absolutely spot on .
12:00 on 10 December 2011
A Murray ....another thought which occurs to me is ..... How did the individual Euro governments not see the dragging effect of over legislation. If we as individuals express almost daily frustration at virtually every aspect of our lives which has been meddled with, how is it that the government leaders haven't cottoned on . We all knew, of course that Brown's bread and butter was micro control, but surely the other leaders do not have such nit pick brains .
Your point about sacking the entire bunch of over zealous bureaucrats and replacing them with top men from the business world, who have to look at costs v's productivity is absolutely spot on .
12:00 on 10 December 2011
I do not understand why the euro inherently makes a peripheral euro zone country uncompetitive.
In London the price of a coffee with be much higher than in, say Middlesbrough, and yet they are both priced in the same currency. Therefore, the same applies to a coffee in Berlin, as compared with Athens. And so too with the wages of the waitresses. It is a simple extension that Greek tourist and agriculture prices can still be competitive, in spite of being priced in euros.
When it comes to imports, Greece must pay the same as Germany for its oil, in dollars converted from euros. But even if it resorted to the drachma, it would still have to pay the same amount in dollars, but converted from drachmas.
I think this is uncompetitive argument is just a smokescreen, but I would be interested if any other contributor can persuade me otherwise.
12:43 on 10 December 2011
For all the talk of excessive legislation from the EC which is of course quite true,and all the Billions of Bail Out money particularly to Greece,nothing will be fixed until the endemic corruption in that country & others is sorted out.I can't see how this can be achieved in Greece while it remains in the Eurozone,and even if Greece leaves it may never solve it's problems.However after Greece leaves it might save the rest of Europe from wasting even more money in what is a relatively small economy. As for the other Eurozone Countries they can never survive with the Euro in the long term without complete unification of their finances,this ought to have been obvious from the start of the Euro but Governments chose to ignore the doubters.This unification is not about to be achieved so the Euro will eventually have to be abandoned by the Eurozone countries which cannot agree to unite.
12:53 on 10 December 2011
Great Britain is already in itself a two-speed economy. In two ways: 1. London controls (with its own inflation) the economy of the rest of Britain...and how bad it is!! Real estate and British culture ridiculously lies on Feudal Law, and we Brtish do not complain. 2. The other way, Scotland and Wales would do better without England...wish they could come independent and fully join the euro economy, instead of dying behind the pound selfishly and cowardly as if we The British thought we are the center of the world and sinking like an old boat. Ditto.
20:56 on 10 December 2011
To harry brooks...do you recall that the USA and Australia among others are also English speakers, and that if English is in the west a leading language to communicate it could be due to the Hollywood influences and other reasons rather than British domination??? Review history. I am sorry to tell you that we the British did not invented much, and our Empire was never so big. Let's be humble!
21:13 on 10 December 2011
Political intent and statements are of intent, but doing nothing concrete and can be changed on a whim, no enforceability, however sincere they may sound. Their duplicity is legend.
The EU wants us in on their plans because they are relying on emasculating us to fund their plans and shortages, well some of it.
France have their trousers soaked with a large brown stain because they have on the quiet been overdoing things and are staring into the abyss of obscurity, for all their bluster of being top dog.
If France doesn't get our money they also lose, perhaps, up to Eu40 b annually of subsides and bungs when the Eu funds dry up, of necessity because there is no money to pay them, on top of having to borrow just to maintain that which is unmaintainable, their lavish holidays, pensions and social spending, not to mention their debts.
How many seat polishers will lose their jobs, French, German and Belgiums, apart from those from the periphery?
And on top of that their will will be the loss of face and power when they have to extend the begging bowl.
As for the Germans, if France goes bust, they are a long way up the proverbial creek in a leaky canoe with no paddle as they will have to carry the losses from the French default.
Cameron must hold his nerve, and in the phoenix that will arise from the ashes, we will truly be the top dog, even above Germany as we will have exposure because of the loss of the Euro, but will have our currency and streets ahead of those that will have to start from scratch.
They said no to us, and we must remember that. They will promise us the earth, but hitherto their promises have been reneged on routinely, time to get money back, or substantial benefits. We need the money, and should not sacrafice our well being in the process of TRYING to save them. They would happily have seen us in Carey Street (yes I am that old) without lifting a finger, not even a twitch.
Clearly we need Europe, but at the moment they are desperate for our cash, but we need it more, Cameron & co have given billions to wastrels over the world, when we need it at home. In essence giving life jackets to every one else but leaving us peons to drown. Not good enough.
Stick to your guns Cameron.
22:23 on 10 December 2011
Anonymous — er, I believe the British Empire was the greatest the world has ever known. It included Australia, America, India and large parts of Africa, which is why they speak (at least a sort of) English in these countries. (Hollywood merely helped to consolidate this trend and spread it a bit further). Consequently, the rest of the world has to know at least a bit of English to trade globally (and fly its airliners internationally), etc.
As for inventions, I'm sure you are pulling my leg — or you are poorly educated or amnesiac — because the list of British firsts includes: steam power, the jet engine, the flying shuttle, the Spinning Jenny, radar, the computer, the Whitworth thread (without which you'd have a lot of trouble finding replacement screws for any appliance) penicillin, (without which you might not even be here) the ATM (first used in Enfield, and without which you might struggle to pay your way through the day) cordite, depth charges, degaussing (without which you'd get distorted pictures on your TV - another British invention, of course)
fibreglass, sonar, hovercraft, hawk-eye, holography (admittedly, part Hungarian) and so on, and so on. Oh, and supersonic transport — remember Concorde, of which little appears to remain, in any sense of the word?..
09:05 on 11 December 2011
Harry
The UK needs to stop living in the past...the world has moved on.
We lost the Empire because we could not look forward.
PS By the way the UK does not have a monopoly on inventions
10:47 on 11 December 2011
It was announced that European Union member states – and this includes the UK – will contribute a combined €200 billion to the International Monetary Fund. This €200 billion hasn’t been confirmed though member states have to reply within 10 days.
National parliaments must approve much of what has been agreed, including the increased IMF funding. So forgive me if I'm being naive, but wha't's stopping Cameron simply refusing to agree until we get the assurances required regarding the City? I presume there is legislation in place that forces us to play ball as far as our contribution to the IMF is concerned?
An interesting discussion from Peter Try above but not sure why we had it 3 or 4 times? Citywire??
Finally, A Murray suggests that we start again with a small team of proven money making businessmen in their own right, who can make it work with minimum staff levels. Isn't the what Italy has just done?
12:03 on 11 December 2011
Wow ...this is fun isn't it . So many views in this changing financial merry-go-round . A lot of pure common sense, and a few wild ideas . Great .
I know in my heart of hearts that Cameron has done the right thing. But I am worried that if the 26 horsmen of the apocalypse turn against us we will have to be pretty damned good to survive it
13:50 on 11 December 2011
pfm1906
You are glib and condescending about the fall of Empire.
Also, I didn't suggest that the UK has a monopoly on invention. In fact, I didn't mention the UK at all.
And your punctuation is deficient, too.
14:15 on 11 December 2011
Harry
Thanks for the lecture....that was something that the Britain was very good at, when it had an Empire, viz. telling the World what was good for it as long as it served British interests above all else....time was, when we could have sent the Navy to stand off the coast of France to stop the EU from not towing the line...we soon won't even have any warships worth talking about... time to stop living in the past...
16:42 on 11 December 2011
pfm1906
I think you mean toeing the line.
If you mean anything at all.
17:22 on 11 December 2011
Harry
Nothing to say...then resort to nothing!
Enough of wasting my skin print.
X Factor next ...where GB still leads the World, or so it thinks!
19:20 on 11 December 2011
Hmm - what a shame. A good discussion ruined by it degenerating to nothing but personal abuse and shallow comments
Harry wins by a point - he knew when to shut-up!
20:59 on 11 December 2011
What odds placed there is a warehouse deep in East Germany stacked with newly printed deutschmarks?
06:53 on 14 December 2011
Anonymous 3 —
Don't know about that but I am told that there is property in Europe that's being advertised for sale in US dollars.
08:36 on 14 December 2011
By discounting the obvious and betting on the unexpected the two-speed Europe cannot be considered a unique and single political and economic entity ready to functio. It is rather a utopia( a place of a complete perfection) and has nothing to offer to an effective command and control Europe's administration.
14:13 on 14 December 2011
Isolation is often the only way to protect yourself from a disease.
Stand firm Mr Cameron
16:35 on 16 December 2011
I see the French have already started sniping . Obviously trying to draw the fire away from themselves !!
17:02 on 16 December 2011
... Never before in the field of human conflict do the so many owe so mauch to so few. Paraphrasing this we are witnessing a kind of UK's isolation because of the lack of effective's political leadership. Is that because of UK's mindset ... Isles and the rest Continent?
or the blackbusters belong to the past
17:16 on 16 December 2011
DIMITRIOS ....it is impossible to walk very far when everyone else's hand is in your pocket !!!
17:26 on 16 December 2011
DEREK FARMAN... you should have the right ax to cut that hand... that means leadership...
19:08 on 16 December 2011
Please use a browser with javascript enabled in order to post a comment