Did Davey do the right thing?

[johnb]

The clause he rejected was a change to voting rights on financial regulation. At present these require everyone to agree. The change would require only 85% agreement, effectively removing the UK's (or any other country's) veto.

I'm very puzzled by that statement as my understanding is that the financial services measures currently only require qualified majority vote, therefore no country currently has a veto.

I seems that all Cameron has done is alienate everyone else and greatly increased the likelihood that the inner core (which might well be every country apart from the UK) comes to common understands on measures which might adversely affect the UK's financial services sector with the UKs influence being greatly reduced.

[DracoM]

Simple answer for me is absolutely no. There is short term internal Tory party gain to be set against the stark truth of the longer term eclipse of UK influence in Europe.

A day of some sober reflection on how our politics is run to save a PM's neck. Sorry, but I fear a misguided cop-out.

[teamsaint]

He may have done the right thing (hindsight will come in due course), but for the wrong reasons.

I suspect The City is where he (and one day Osborne) will end up when the opposition next gets in. He has also bought time on not having an EU referendum during his primeministership.

New terms for next year's OID .. the Seventeen and the Twenty-seven. And possibly the One.

well the city is where Blair and his mates ended up, so not a great deal to stop dave, george, zippy and bungle all ending up there.

If nothing else, dave has made it abundantly clear, if it wasn't already, that government policy begins and ends with keeping the banks and the city happy.

Maybe one day we will be able to deal with this situation.................

[Petrushka]

Sorry to be alarmist but this from Felix Salmon in the Daily Beast has it spot on in my view:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/09/half-baked-treaty-deal-could-lead-to-collapse-of-eurozone.html

[Chris Newman]

Today, I feel that Britain looks like a bunch of selfish bankers....yes, that is rhyming slang for what I mean.

As for the original question. No, Cameron is playing straight in to the hands of Redwood (Nut?) and Farrago.

[VodkaDilc]

As for the original question. No, Cameron is playing straight in to the hands of Redwood (Nut?) and Farrago.

The sight of some of the old-style Tories crowing about this (William Cash, Edward Leigh, to name two) will set back all Cameron's 'modernising' and, if they have any decency, give the LibDems second thoughts about who they are in coalition with. I have a number of good European friends who I know will be in contact over the weekend; I will be thoroughly embarrassed at the mention of Cameron and his dreadfully insular approach to developments of recent days.

[John Skelton]

Today, I feel that Britain looks like a bunch of selfish bankers....yes, that is rhyming slang for what I mean.

As for the original question. No, Cameron is playing straight in to the hands of Redwood (Nut?) and Farrago.

Well never mind Cameron and Redwood and UKIP - is it a good deal, and if put to a popular vote (rather than legalistic imposition) would people in the different European countries support it?

[teamsaint]

there is no "good " outcome here.
Just for starters, the Eurozone has signed up for structural deficit at 0.5% of GDP.

This will mean public spending cuts in Europe on an unheard of scale.It would have meant the same here.

Although maybe the result would have been to stop spending on our foreign wars, which would be good.

[John Skelton]

The communiqué can be downloaded at http://www.european-council.europa.e...ompact?lang=en

Briefly: "The main elements of the fiscal compact include a requirement for national budgets to be in balance or in surplus (the structural deficit should not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP) and a requirement to incorporate this rule into the member states' national legal systems (at constitutional or equivalent level)" surely poses a huge issue of democratic accountability? Way beyond any stuff about 'Euroscepticism' or protecting the interests of the City. It seems strange to me that some people who oppose the British Government's austerity measures seem quite happy about part a of that statement. And that people who support the popular movements that make up the Arab Spring seem unperturbed by part b (my underlining).

[Lateralthinking1]

What is "it" currently and what will it be? We might talk about Britain not having any influence. One question is "what kind of influence would this Government have had?" It would not have been helpful.

For example, the literal burning of Europe is most likely to start where income differentials are the least pronounced and hence people feel that they are going to lose the most. That is the supposed economic basket case that is Greece.

I guess it could alternatively come from a country that finds it peculiar to lose democratic rights during a perceived economic mess when it has 10 million barrels of proved oil reserves. But hold on a moment. That isn't an alternative. It is Greece again.

OK then, so it might occur where tax evasion among the rich is thought unacceptable. A country perhaps which has over 10,000 off-shore companies and around 15,000 companies and individuals owing the taxman 37 billion euros. Britain? No. That's Greece.

I can't see Cameron as being someone who would have argued vehemently for tax enforcement and the maintenance of low income differentials. It would have thrown the spotlight on him.

And would he have chosen to appear difficult to an oil rich nation? No. He hopes to benefit by letting others be so. In a nutshell, what would be the point of having influence? I can't see how it would have benefited us any more than it would the Greek people.

[gurnemanz]

I seems that all Cameron has done is alienate everyone else and greatly increased the likelihood that the inner core (which might well be every country apart from the UK) comes to common understands on measures which might adversely affect the UK's financial services sector with the UKs influence being greatly reduced.

I tend to agree. I find the us-versus-the-rest flag-waving bulldog spirit being propagated by the Sun (foreign-owned) and other tabloids to be pathetic and potentially dangerous.

We are spending New Year in Germany and will be interested to see what the general view is of our country's position.

[MrGongGong]

No he did the wrong thing
but no surprise there

:arrogantshinyface:

[Norfolk Born]

I'm AMAZED that nobody's mentioned the most damaging consequence of all this. The PM has scuppered any chance we might have had of ever winning the Eurovision Song Contest again. (And I doubt if any 50/50 decisions in Euro 2012 will go our way, either).

[John Skelton]

:arrogantshinyface:

Couldn't agree more MrGongGong. Seeing him and the equally appalling Sarkozy posturing across one another was deeply dispiriting.

Meanwhile - have you had a chance to read and digest the communiqué yet? Which can be downloaded from http://www.european-council.europa.e...ompact?lang=en

Any thoughts?

[Mr Pee]

I am with Boris Johnson on this one- as he put it, the PM "played a blinder." It was a brave decision to put Britain's interests first, knowing that it would be unpopular with our continental friends. The self serving, undemocratic European juggernaut had to be stopped- or at least slowed down- sooner or later, and Cameron has taken the first step.