rolling 'eurozone? more like LOLozone' thread

Or going home and saying "you can carry on using my ball, put it back in my yard when you are finished" and it's not even his ball.

I'm still very unclear on what exactly Cameron rejected that is any different than what, say, France rejected. Didn't France retain a veto over spending plans dictated to it from Brussels?

I mean FWIW yeah I know fuck off Tories and fuck off the City and all that but I'm not crazy about any agreement that would bind the UK to probably unachievable austerity targets that we couldn't disengage from even if* we elected a government that was minded to do so.

Well, as I understand it, as we're not in the Euro (thanks to Gordon Brown) we wouldn't be subject to any such targets

So, yes, this is really about protecting the City and appeasing Bill Cash

'Former British finance minister Lord Lamont says Mr Cameron is "absolutely right". He argues that the situation the UK prime minister was in meant "he had no alternative". Lord Lamont, who as finance minister in the early 1990s was advised by Mr Cameron, adds that he doesn't believe the consequences for Britain will be damaging.'

And he's one guy who knows all about how to damage Britain

... and your name's pronounced /ˈlæm ənt/ not /lɛ ˈmɒnt/, ya dick

I mean FWIW yeah I know fuck off Tories and fuck off the City and all that but I'm not crazy about any agreement that would bind the UK to probably unachievable austerity targets that we couldn't disengage from even if* we elected a government that was minded to do so.

*Massive 'if' obv.

― Matt DC, Friday, 9 December 2011 13:35 (Yesterday) Bookmark Permalink

I think we can all agree on this. It is just that he walked out without really explaining his reasons and now has just left us stranded w/out a paddle when we could have used it as an opportunity to be a major part of figuring shit out.

In the nick of time, a well-placed source (a senior official who is broadly neutral towards the British government in this fight) has given me his reading of what happened, and where it all turned sour for Mr Cameron. It rings true to me.

Mr Cameron had two problems, as my source sees it. The first was the nature of his demand, and how it was made. In essence, the British did not ask for an "emergency brake" clause or opt-out for financial regulation.

What they asked for was a protocol imposing decision-making by unanimity on a number of areas of regulation currently decided by majority voting. (If you want to be really technical, the choice is voting by unanimity or the special Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) used in the EU, which is a sort of super-majority system taking into account a certain number of countries and also their populations).

As my source puts it, this amounted to a big winding-back of the clock for many EU leaders, setting a "horrendous precedent" that could unravel the single market. As they see it, common rules for the common market have been adopted (with few exceptions, such as tax) by QMV ever since the Single European Act approved by Margaret Thatcher in 1986.

The much-discussed Financial Transactions Tax issue already requires unanimity and therefore could never be imposed on the City of London without Britain's agreement. What is more, as was pointed out in Brussels with some vehemence, when it comes to financial services there have hardly ever been any cases of Britain being outvoted in the adoption of such legislation.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/12/britain-and-eu-1

its...almost as if...Cameron engineered this situation out of nothing so he cd play the big man in front of his xenophobic backbenchers?

in all honesty, considering the issues the EU are trying to address, how this was ever going to be about the UK and Big Dave Cameron beggars fucking belief really. it's some attention ho shit for real.

The much-discussed Financial Transactions Tax issue already requires unanimity and therefore could never be imposed on the City of London without Britain's agreement. What is more, as was pointed out in Brussels with some vehemence, when it comes to financial services there have hardly ever been any cases of Britain being outvoted in the adoption of such legislation.

I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron actually didn't know this

Can't remember who said this bit I read something yesterday heavily implying that Sarkozy doesn't actually want a financial transactions tax and has engineered a situation where it can be scuppered and blamed on Cameron.