[Politics & stuff] A question

[davywavy]

I've always thought the best scene in the film Titanic - in fact the only decent scene - is one which also appears in the earlier film of the same story A night to remember. In it, the ship has struck the iceberg and Captain Smith is speaking with Thomas Andrews, the chief engineer. The dialogue goes something like this:

Thomas Andrews: The pumps buy you time, but minutes only. From this moment, no matter what we do, Titanic will founder.
Smith: But this ship can't sink!
Thomas Andrews: She's made of iron, sir! I assure you, she can... and she will. It is a mathematical certainty. *

I'm remended of this scene every time I look at the way the Eurozone is going in Europe; the reason I'm reminded is because the EZ cannot survive in its current form. It must face either huge inflation or some members will leave - at very best in an orderly fashion. It is a mathematical certainty.
What's more, the EU conference last week - the one where David Cameron used his veto - did nothing to remedy the problem. The treaty changes agreed are the equivalent of turning on the pumps full power and asking the orchestra to strike up a jaunty tune to drown out the loud glugging noise.

However, from some quarters of my circle of friends, Cameron has come in for a lot of criticism for standing aside from the new treaty arrangements, and so today I'm asking the question: why? Why should Cameron have tied the UK into a system which is failing, and cannot be saved without inflicting remedies which are likely to be as bad as the cure?
I've heard the argument that Britain is isolated, but in this instance I can't see why this is a bad thing. So I'm inviting you to tell me.


^{*Possibly the reason this is the best scene is because the dialogue is based on reports of what Smith & Andrews actually said.}

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I believe Cameron should have done more to distance us from this catastrophe, sooner. But that's not really a viewpoint you disagree with I'm guessing.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I'm actually on the fence about this. It depends a lot on your reading of what the importance of the new treaty framework the UK has opted out of -- which is what the Cameron veto truly means -- will be, and on your reading of what importance the other countries will place on punishing Britain for not playing ball. (Or, perhaps somewhat more relevantly, the extent to which Britain, by not participating in that treaty framework, will leave itself passive, reactive, and not in control of events while everybody else cobbles together coalitions in pursuit of their own interests. There's all sorts of regulative shenanigans coming up where the UK needs to formulate a set of goals and a position to table.)

There's been some talk around my way that this was a bad move coalition-wise because the Lib Dems are now completely livid with Cameron, but I don't see this actually breaking up the government. What are the LD's going to do, anyway? "Clegg says Cameron isn't giving Europe enough things, calls for immediate election?" I don't see that working out particularly well for them, not after they've essentially pledged to follow the Tory party line on the economy.

(Meanwhile, to any reasonable extent I obviously prefer you guys in the EU's decision-making core... so you can cancel out the French.)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, I note the itialian press today is pretty much taking the line that the Frogs refused to give Britain what were fairly reasonable requests as they'd like Britain to leave so they can be in charge again.

Nothing about actually solving the essential problems of the Euro, though. When are you fellows going to leave it?

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I know Matthew Lynn says we might be the first to go, but he's pretty much dead wrong. We're too export-dependent, too invested in the Common Market, too "THE USSR IS GONE, HEAD WEST FULL SPEED", among a host of other things. Mr Stubb, our Europe minister, may be a fan of the wider Anglo-American world, but government policy right now is to team up with the other small northern AAA countries and kind of determinedly whinge at Germany.

[(Anonymous)]

The French are very poor losers, aren't they? Which is odd, really, when you think about it.

H

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

I must say that I really don't understand the full implications of what has happened, but best I can see its something like Cameron having a choice between jumping on the Titanic to help repair the hull or heading out on the lifeboat and hoping that the people on board can survive in the arctic sea without all the food etc they've left behind.

Whether or not this is a good plan seems to rest largely on whether Britain or the Euro economy comes out on top in the end.

[(Anonymous)]

When the crew of the Titanic have decided the best way to fix the leak is to sail full tilt into another iceberg, it's time to make alternate plans.

[thefon.livejournal.com]

In such a case, are you better grabbing at the wheel (hoping others join in), or off starving in the lifeboat?

[(Anonymous)]

Hmm. Considering the context of the question (the ship sinking is inevitable) that depends entirely upon whether the wheel is more bouyant and better provisioned than a lifeboat.

My gut feeling is 'no'.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, under the circumstances, the boat is going to sink - it is a mathematical certainty.

The options for survival are:
1) Go for the lifeboats. As in the film, there are not enough lifeboats to go around.
2) You could strap the bodies of the passengers to the sides of the ship to add bouyancy and keep it afloat.

Neither of these are ideal outcomes, I admit, but option 1 is overall better so long as you're first to the boats. Grabbing the wheel of a sinking ship won't stop it sinking.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

What happened was as follows.

Cameron wanted a guarantee that under the new treaty, tax-raising and regulatory powers would remain the province of unanimity rather than majority vote. He was not given that guarantee. As it is common knowledge that the Eurozone view the City as a cashcow waiting to happen and the revenues raised by an EU wide tax would go to Brussels rather than London, he declined to sign up.

This seems sensible to me.

[belak-krin.livejournal.com]

Certainly sounds like a good idea, but I guess we'll only know that when we see who comes out on top in a decade or two?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

India and the USA, then.

[(Anonymous)]

Or indeed pretty well anywhere which acknowledges and acts upon the golden rules of wealth creation. Zimbabwe was at substantial risk of turning into a proper country until '97 when Mugabe decided to wreck it for a laff.