You are here: Home » Comment »

Where have the euro-realists gone?

December 12, 2011 9:41 am

Author:

Anthony Painter

Tags:

Share this Article

Pro-europeanism was not defeated on Friday. It was defeated long ago. No, it was euro-realism that lost on Friday – perhaps for the first time but not the last.

Nor was a two-speed Europe created. There has long been a multi-speed Europe. Schengen was signed in 1985. Maastricht created multiple speeds. No, what was started on Friday was institutionalised British isolation. British foreign policy was set on a different course – one unlikely to be in our interests.

On this site a few weeks ago I questioned whether David Cameron was up to it as a leader. Was he the ‘unready’? And this week has confirmed this is the case. Let’s stop and consider what has happened.

Back in October, David Cameron went to a summit to discuss the future of the Eurozone. He went with nothing. He sat in splendid isolation and then came back with nothing. It was, frankly, pathetic.

This time he pursued a different tack. He went with something – a protocol that demanded the City of London be protected in new ways from European regulation. It would involve repatriating single market powers to the UK. This was his price for signing a new treaty.

But what was he prepared to sacrifice? The 26 only needed the UK’s signature in order to smooth the enforcement of new Treaty rules on budget discipline through existing European institutions. We are not a member of the Euro so it doesn’t affect us directly. So what the 26 were being asked was to get their noses out of European financial regulation in return for institutional convenience. And, shock, horror, they said no.

So what is the trade that has now been done? Its quite simple: financial regulation still has to be decided by qualified majority voting and European parliamentary approval – so no change there. The paper that inspired this suicide mission from Open Europe makes it pretty clear that the UK is pretty effective at getting its way on financial regulation. The European Commission is reasonable sympathetic to our cause. There’s a lot of regulation in pipeline; there is in the UK too as, you may know, we have just been through a global financial crash.

But where we had a veto over new cross-border taxation or taxation rules, the 26 can now decide to implement a financial transactions tax which, if drafted well, will impact those European head-quartered or trading institutions trading in Euro-denominated assets in the City as well.

Cameron hasn’t used his veto. He’s traded it in. And he’s got nothing in return. In October, he went with nothing and came back empty-handed. This time he went with almost nothing and came back with less than nothing. Diplomacy? Leadership? At least Chamberlain came back with a piece of paper. We are stood at the water’s edge waving good-bye to the European ship; we just haven’t yet realised that the mooring rope is tied to our ankles.

The problem isn’t that Cameron was willing to sacrifice the real economy and a sensibly realist British foreign policy for the City. That would be strategically dumb in itself but it’s even worse than that. He hasn’t protected the City’s interests either. Read the comments of bodies such as the British Bankers’ Association and the nervousness is palpable. Well, you all over-played your hand and you’ve lost – it’s tempting to say serves you right but this is much too serious for gloating. The lesson is simple: be careful what you wish for.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Cameron gets a boost in polls and he will receive a hero’s welcome later in the House of Commons from his backbenchers. Labour will look nowhere despite its absolutely correct assertion that it wouldn’t have led Britain here. The Lib Dems – trapped in an abusive marriage – will make a lot of unattributed noise in the papers but then soon get back to doing the domestic chores. If not now then when, Mr Clegg?

David Cameron has traded a tactical political victory for himself for the strategic interests of the nation. That’s not leadership; that’s irresponsibility. Economic opportunity, political influence, and global credibility will not surge away from the UK, it will happen incrementally over time and inexorably. We now have less influence over our affairs than more; only a victory if you count own goals on your own tally.

Things will seem the same but everything will have changed. In a new paper published by Soundings journal I argue that the increasing tendency for the Eurozone to be the place where key decisions are taken could – if the Euro survives – prove to be one further pull towards Scottish independence. Which would you prefer: an isolated, capricious, right-wing market of 50 million or a globally influential market of 500 million?

How did the euro-realists not see this defeat coming? After defeat on the Euro the pro-Europeans dismantled the architecture that gave their viewpoint public leverage. But the euro-realists failed to step in to the space. Those who sought to move the public and political debate failed but those who represented the mainstream – pragmatic engagement – never saw their position under-threat. Euro-realism was the position of the Thatcher Government – which signed the Single European Act with its significant extensions of qualified majority voting. It was the position of the Major and Blair governments with multiple opt-outs, red lines, and opt-ins. It is only this Coalition that has gone down a different path – seemingly on the spur of the moment.

Euro-realists have been blind-sided. If Labour were to articulate the sensible position that this treaty should be signed as it doesn’t take any more of our powers but keeps us in the room, it could be torn to political shreds. Emotion is driving reason and the latter has no means of fighting back. The centre has crumbled into dust.

And still, swirling around us we have a eurozone crisis. We have no influence over that either despite the fact that our economy and society is in severe jeopardy. Maybe the euro won’t survive in its current form. But then we’ve heard all this before. Since World War II we’ve constantly and persistently underestimated the political will of our European partners to both maintain and deepen union. Maybe this time the doubters are right but if history is any guide at all I wouldn’t bet on it.

So here we are. A weak prime minister poses as a great man of history. There are seemingly few significant voices with enough weight to point out the folly. The euro-sceptics have won and the UK has lost. Suez seems mild in comparison. What sort of nation is it that rejoices in its own defeat? It’s a question I daren’t try to answer. On we go, to where we have no idea. From whence will real leadership emerge?

Anonymous
It feels like the Overton Window has shifted so far that it’s halfway down the street – evidence being constant hectoring from Eurosceptics for FT, CBI etc. to apologise for supporting UK entry into the Euro, as if euro-support was a great unamended crime such as slavery or a long-ago massacre.
It was very foolish for pro-Europeans (I’m one) to leave the field open. It means that the only voiced political positions are economics-centred pragmatism, and religious-fervour sovereigntism (sometimes disguising good old jingoism).
At the moment the story is “Brussels bureaucrats stealing a thousand years of British democracy”, and the counter-position is “Yeah, but it’s good for trade”. The counter-position ought to be “No, we’re building something amazing, which isn’t perfect (it needs stronger democratic accountability for starters) but is heading towards a beautiful vision”. In an era where economics-centred pragmatism has obviously failed on a wide range of issues, “it’s good for trade” not a selling position, at least compared to the “Our Island Story” heartstring-pulling. Had the fanatical pro-Europeans (I’m one) kept on talking about a united Europe as a cause rather than leaving it to dusty economics, at least we’d have had an alternative story to tell.

GuyM
Sorry but I don’t believe that the French (or anyone else besides ourselves) writing our laws is “amazing”.
If you think that the EU ideal is a “beautiful vision” then might I suggest you lay off the sherbets so early in the morning?

http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Well then, you want to stay in the EU and not be forced into an EFTA agreement, complete with Fax Diplomacy. Right?

GuyM
No, I want free trade, not any form of political union.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Not on offer
GuyM
Really? It seems that tjhe whole GATT process is exactly that… freeing up trade with no political union.
If GATT can progress as it has and globalisation (which you dont like) develop as it has, I’d bet that the EU and all it’s works isn’t so vital as people make out.
alex williams
I believe you may find it in the same cave as the jabberwocky
GuyM
There is pretty much zero chance the UK would ever join a United States of Europe.
Yet we are in GATT and trade barriers have systematically been removed over the last two decades.
My company trades on all continents, yet is not dependent on the EU for that.
http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Great, then you’re happy to take a 20-30% GDP hit, because that’s not on the cards.
GATT has 1000001 exceptions.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
Absolutely agree. Give them a few months when the reality of how pathetic this country in isolation actually is, in the globalised world they love so much. Then you’ll hear the cries of ‘oh, you didn’t tell us it would be like this!’. Some people really do have a very odd and aggrandised view of the realities of what this country is, as if we are still clinging on to the Empire, even if only in the mind

GuyM
93% of trade between the UK and EU is covered by GATT (which by the way prevents your beloved protectionist actions).
You only like the EU because you see it as a way of forcing socialist dogma on the UK via the backdoor. If you had any morals regarding your position you’d support an immediate in/out referendum.
The population of this country (and most certainly of England) won’t support political union with Europe.

http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Of course, you wave your hand and it’s so.
Show one study which agrees. Not poll, study.

GuyM
Ah the standard response, to leave the EU would “destroy the UK”
And yet so many nations are not members of the EU, in fact not members of any trading block like the EU.
If the EU were about trade alone I’d be happy, but we see over hte last 20 years it has been less about economic issues and more about the “grand vision”, to the extent we get a single currency doomed to fail for the start.
Are you seriously suggesting not one poll has shown that voters would be likely to vote to leave the EU given the choice?
But of course you’d rather leave it to your Atlees and Thatchers on this issue because you long for a United States of Europe and you know not many others agree with you.
http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Oh, we’re doing the stereotyping and putting lies into other people’s mouths thing are we? Okay!
Well, keep dreaming of your English Reich.
Back in reality, it would destroy the UK. Scotland would leave, for sure, and after that…well, England would rapidly find itself isolated.
And “poll”. No. Show me a *study*.

http://twitter.com/peterjukes PeterJukes
Guy
You really have been swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
How on earth is a deficit-reducing Eurozone, whose main policies are to the advantage of their member countries businesses, ran by and large by centre right governments, a source of ‘socialist dogma’?
All I can assume you mean by that is the protection of certain workers rights (or indeed human rights).
If that’s socialist dogma then Nixon was a Trot.
More importantly, you fundamentally fail to understand the preconditions of free trade – rules and measures, enforceable contract law, exchange rate stability, tariff removal etc. All these require inter-governmental agreement
Once again, the libertarian right have wandered off the map into loopy land. All government action is socialism. Europe is the EUSSR.
This isn’t Euroscepticism: it’s irrational Europhobia and destructive dogma that is materially and diplomatically depleting Britain’s capital.
Watch events unfold and you will see

GuyM
Last I checked Peter the GATT global agreements didn’t need the EU administration to function.
What we have is an ever growing super state with a democratic deficit threatening any who only want the free trade agreements with warning of “dire consequences” if anyone has the temerity to actually ask if political union is what their populations actually want.
I will watch and i suspect the EU will not be as it is now in a decades time. If you and others truly want to be part of a United States of Europe with the Euro as your currency stand up and say so.
In other words stop trying to kill the UK independence via a never ending procession of small paper cuts.
alex williams
One minute we are an independent UK, next our entire economic and fiscal policy is controlled by second guessing the decisions of a couple of credit agencies. Which is it?
GuyM
If you wish to sell debt (bonds) then don’t moan about agencies who evaluate risk.
Or are you suggesting that governmental bonds should be sold with no oversight?
It’s similar to you as an indivudal wracking up tens of thousands on credit cards then moaning that you can’t get more credit due to a bad credit rating…..

http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
What Chamberalin should have done with that bit of paper… well, I recommend you one of the mildly dirty songs in Alan Bennett’s “Forty Years On”.
I won’t say this is worse, because evidently it’s not, but it’s up there with disastrous failures.
GuyM
The alternative position is not get any of your concerns met and roll over and take it like a good European. That’s what you are suggesting as always isn’t it?
At every stage of further integration, every bit of soveriegn power given up, every bit of further EU meddling in UK affairs….. we have no option but to accept or “lose influence”.
I am amazed hat so many on the left truly believe the UK has no other choice than to eventually become part of a politically unified Europe. Because the proposed treaty is another giant step towards that eventuality.
I’ve always been resolutely pro the single market and therefore in favour of staying in the EU but keeping at arms length from political unification. However, reading the responses of commentators like yourself Mr Painter on this issue I am almost certainly going to be campaigning for the UKIP line on the EU if we ever get a chance to vote.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
The two things go together. As just about every spokesperson from other European countries has stated, you want to be part of the single market, you have to be part of the political institution. There are some opt outs allowed, although few take them up, but essentially you can’t pick and choose in terms of the club membership. Its a political and social union, not just a free trade area, and the latter isn’t actually on offer.

GuyM
If we take your view as correct (and I don’t) then it clearly is time for the UK to leave.
I trust you’d be in favour of a referendum in all EU countries on political union? I’d guess very few would pass.
What we have is a political elite forcing ever greater union on nations with little or no support from their electors. On the few occasions the public are asked and reject treaties they are subsequently bullied through additional votes until they agree.
But to your basic point -single market and political/social union or GATT agreements and UK independence? Time to leave the EU.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
That is the realistic situation – yes. But I don’t actually hear the Government saying that, and so it is rather curious to walk away from influence when there are actually no other options open at present.
What has to be challenged is the idea that we can stay in the EU but only for trading purposes

jaime taurosangastre candelas
“What has to be challenged is the idea that we can stay in the EU but only for trading purposes”
I don’t see why that should be the case. You may well be correct, but to convince me you need to advance some proof that the trading-only option is unavailable for good reasons. I could equally assert that the trading-only option is better for the UK or indeed for Europe.
There are maybe 100 senior decision-makers in the EU, a mix of elected politicians, appointed politicians, and eurocrats. Supporting them are maybe another 1000 fairly senior functionaries, and then the EU and national civil services who execute plans that their bosses draw up. The apparently democratic element of the EU Parliament is carefully kept away from being able to interfere.
We have a consensus in this group that ever-closer integration is the only possible way. Classic “group-think”. Inconveniently, when asked the people of Europe have an uncomfortable habit of voting “no”.
What I say has to be challenged is the ability of van Rompuy, Barroso, Merkel and Sarkozy, and that Luxembourger who seems to be a permanent fixture of any Euro-grouping but whose name is not memorable, supported by a supine and self-protective eurocracy, to dictate what should and should not happen.
GuyM
I couldn’t agree more.
The total refusal to gain any degree of acceptance from their own electorates, in fact they twist and turn like snakes to avoid having to seek any direct mandate, shows the EU technocrats and politicians to be deeply untrustworthy and autocratic.
As you state the standard cop out defence is “it’s this or nothing and nothing will be very very bad for you…”
It really is unacceptable and also totally illogical when you look about the world and see the num ber of economic powers new and old not in EU like institutions.
Dave Postles
What about CELC?
What about NAFTA?
There’s just two off the top of my head.
GuyM
You really seriously think that NAFTA is like the EU?????
I look forward to US budgets being ratified by the Canadian and Mexican governments.
Dave Postles
1 ‘Economic imperialism’ – first by the US in S. America – now by China in S E Asia
2 Cartels and oligopolies – OPEC learned from western capitalism about oligopolies
The neo-liberal notion of free trade and unregulated capitalism exists only in the minds of the winners, but there are also always losers (and oppressed). It suits the rich corporations like the Kochs at the moment, but they will squeal when their oligopolies are challenged (as they are being now by CELC).
http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Yes, so much than the USAN and Eurasian Union are patterning themselves on the EU, not to mention the smaller regional bodies.
But hey, ideology > facts as always!
http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
It’s “kept from being able to interfere” because the right have systematically OPPOSED their influence.
Whining about it now is massively hypocritical. As usual.

http://twitter.com/Shinsei1967 Nick Reid
“Its quite simple: financial regulation still has to be decided by qualified majority voting and European parliamentary approval – so no change there.”
I’m afraid it is you who is being short-sighted here and Cameron who is thinking ahead.
Your entire argument rests on the status quo being maintained (ie the UK usually getting its way on financial matters) but with the creation of an institutionalised Euro 17 this won’t happen any more.
As others have pointed out the UK’s influence on financial matters was waning prior to recent events.
Hence Cameron’s demand (which both the LibDems and Labour supported) to secure some opt outs before voting for the creation of this Euro 17 bloc.
Now we haven’t actually achieved these but it is debatable whether this was ever likely. So, the question is what happens next.

http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter
@twitter-292244251:disqus
1.The eurozone already exists.
2. It is now a political bloc of 26 around an economic bloc of 17 thanks to Cameron’s skilful diplomacy.
3. You deal with the threat through painstaking negotiation – as we have always done, reasonably successfully.
4. We have alienated potential allies.
5. A financial transactions tax impacting the City is now more rather than less likely.
6. The Treaty goes ahead anyway in a new alliance.
7. We will downgrade our global status the more this goes on – if we haven’t done so already.
8. There is no attempt to take powers that are currently the reserve of the UK – Cameron’s proposal was to take back power.
9. We can’t have it both ways – demand the key industries of others are subject to QMV but ours is unanimous.
10. We are in a worse position now than we were before this Summit on any objective measure.
How is this a good outcome?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
On this one I’m entirely in agreement. I think the question will be whether emotion alone will fuel enthusiasms in the light of the obvious consequences. I doubt it.

http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter
@facebook-510980099:disqus Unfortunately, I suspect you may be right…..it’s a basic emotion v rationality divide and unless the emotional groundwork has been done then rationality gets lost also.

GuyM
Exactly how have we “reasonably successfully” dealt with EU threat to national control? How has CAP been changed? We gave up our rebate for what?
Your argument is basically no matter what gets agreed we have to go with it. No matter how bad the proposals are for the UK, no matter how much power we give up… we ahve to agree because to not agree is worse than any other fate.
This is the standard scare story of the europhiles, always scaring people into belief that we MUST under all circumstances stay with the crowd. That this little old economy (7th in the world) one of the biggest net contributors to the EU budget has no power and must always bend the knee to Germany/France.
As I’ve said reading your arguments now convinces me it is time to agree with the UKIP line and seek to get us out of the disaster that the EU has become.

http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Yup, a small economy compared to the trade blocks, and one which is on a rapid slide to disaster and shrinking.
And great, go UKIP. Don’t come whining back when the UK dies and the economy collapses and England ends up in a humiliating EFTA agreement.

GuyM
I’m sure I saw your argument about the time the Euro was launched….. you know, the bit about the UK being terribly damaged, being left behind, isolated, no say in matters etc.
How has all of that worked out?
http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Oh look, a moved goalpost.
Can’t argue honestly, like your Tory masters.
GuyM
Nothing of the sort, your argument was used for the opt out on the social chapter, for opting out of the Euro and on a number of other occasions…. each time proving wrong.
This will be another example in that long line.
http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
The UK HAS managed to get it’s back against the wall, with a collapsing economy and a severely hostile EU.
You’re singing the praises of a collapse. In bad faith, as allways.

http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter
@4bb19de657a8bb7c52ed192a4543e458:disqus Follow the link in the piece to the Open Europe report. It explains how we have been reasonably successful in getting financial regulation that works in our favour.
Actually, my argument is that we should not go along with anything that isn’t in our national interest – strategically viewed. Your argument is that we should veto, reject, have a hissy-fit, blather on about bulldogs and Churchill even if it harms our interest!

GuyM
And I believe the actions of the French/Germans and what the treaty wold hve almost inevitably have led to meant it was in the UK’s national interest to not sign up to it.
But then I’d have said the same about Maastricht as well, sadly we didn’t have a UK PM with a backbone at the time.

Anonymous
Please can you explain point 5 for me: how can the EU impose taxes upon us?

Dave Postles
He said ‘impacting [on]‘. The Eurozone 17 can introduce an FTT which affects German, French etc banks which have a base in the City or trade in the City and can also affect any transactions involving euros. In previous negotiations, concessions have been made to the UK in the spirit of compromise, including concessions for the City. That spirit has now, it is said, been eroded and there will be less sympathy.

http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter
Exactly. It’s the only veto in history that moves the negotiator away from their ideal outcome.
Ianrobo
we was told the ultimate power on transferring powers to the EU was our vote. So either this treaty was full of power transferrence and would have been voted down (as per coalition agreement, our decision) or the truth …
that the treaty containing nothing at all for us to be worried about and in fact was all about Cameron shoring up his backbench and solely that.
Surely the best thing for us was to stick to our guns and let the others walk out then they would be seen as walking away with their toy ?
Ianrobo
what is funny in this whole debate is that we was told we would get the
vote on a power transferring treaty. Yet now the Tory call is what was
the point of Cameron agreeing to something that he disagreed with ….
Note
that means in fact a referendum vote could never take place as Cameron
could never support a yes vote as he has said he could never transfer
more powers over.
He never had a negotiating position to start with.
GuyM
And as Sarkozy said very bluntly there would be no compromise on any of the points Cameron wanted, tell us all how that would have worked out?
Dave Postles
No, how would it have worked out had Cameron remained in the EPP and attended the pre-meeting of the EPP in Marseilles? How would it have worked out had Cameron not alienated the other six non-Eurozone members? He gave an ultimatum and his bluff was called. The trouble is that he is likely to continue to antagonize the 23/26 in the future through his apparent petulance. In effect, there’s no practical difference in what will happen with regard to financial services.
GuyM
The EPP is federalist, the Tory Party is not, never, under any circumstances, come what may… it is not federalist.
For 20 years the UK has bought into the “this is the last treaty we’ll need” cobblers from the EU, as powers that were never apparently going to be used mysteriously were.
France and Germany want a federalist EU super state…. the UK does not, how do you match both sides up?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
But it always was when Thatcher and Major were PM as well.
And the Polish centre-right party remains a member even though its certainly not ‘federalist’. Neither is the Spanish Popular Party for that matter!
http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Strangely enough, the right keep taking out the powers which would MAKE the treaties the last needed.
And a portion of 27% do not, you don’t speak for anyone except Cameron’s fragment of the Tories.
Feel free to provide a study (NOT a poll) showing otherwise.
Dave Postles
Nor was there any subjection of UK budgetary powers to the EU on which you constantly speculate. The budgetary compact was restricted to Eurozone countries. Had there been an ounce of diplomacy, according to what I read, there would have been sympathy for the UK ‘going forward’ (in the business cliche), so there would never have been any problem of extending it to the UK (my speculation is as valid as yours). Nor was it, pace some comments, purely an arrangement for austerity without growth, since, if I understand correctly, borrowing for capital investment (i.e. infrastructure) is exempted from budgetary restrictions.
Anonymous
Yeah, impacting on, imposed on… but hang on run that past me again:
1. Do you mean that the “concessions” up until now have been to not tax London transactions sooner?
2. How can they tax a person or thing that is based in a country which refuses to agree to said tax?
Dave Postles
1 According to what I read in the papers, concessions have been made previously for the UK in general and also to recognize the ‘special position’ of the City. Admittedly, I’ve no idea what those were exactly.
2 The countries can tax banks which have HQs in their countries on their trading in the City – they are taxing the transactions of their own banks. The Treasury’s tax on the balance sheets of banks here includes their transactions over seas, I presume. The bonus tax on bankers would presumably include a tax on their ‘investments’ (ha!) overseas. Many currency trades that are made now involves a levy for central clearing, I believe, although there is increasing resort to desk-to-desk transactions. The ECB issues the currency (euros), so I assume it reserves rights over the currency.
Dave Postles
involve not involves.
Anonymous
Something in this whole affair doesn’t smell right to me.
If EU countries were to be so vindictive as to tax their own banks based on the amount that they believe those banks are conducting activities in the UK, and even assuming something so specific would stand up in the European Court, is that not an encouragement for the branches to be set up as separate banking entities in the UK, or even to move their HQ’s to Switzerland/London?
In any event, transaction costs will almost certainly be passed on wholesale to the banks’ customers, so we are effectively arguing for an extra corporation tax. Surely it is better to be outside the area where that tax applies?
Dave Postles
Personally, I think it would be better if there were actions which subjected the following to questions of due diligence and/or negligence:
(i) the ratings agencies which continued to rate sovereign debt and derivatives as solid;
(ii) the banks which invested in sovereigns on that information;
(iii) pension funds which did likewise.
I would like to see investigations brought on behalf not only of shareholders, but also those expecting pensions, because their interests have been compromised.
As to your second point, it would seem impossible, because of inter-bank lending (although that’s interrupted at the moment unless the central bank liquidity revives it), to be outside an FTT imposed by any grouping. The result would be the same whatever Cameron did, as I think the point has been made by many commentators, since the 17 can – with or without his assent – introduce the FTT on Eurozone countries and on euro transactions and their intention was not, as far as I am aware, to introduce their FTT outside the Eurozone.
jaime taurosangastre candelas
re the “transactions in euros” piece. If an American and a Japanese bank decide upon a transaction between New York and Tokyo, and denominate it in Euros, then the EU will get no revenue, and can do nothing about it. Equally, if a German and a Auystrian bank, both trading in London decide upon a transaction in sterling, or Canadian dollars, or Rupees, again nothing the EU can do.
I bought my Canadian lakefront acres in Rupees, simply because the exchange rate was favourable, and despite arrangement fees, it worked out about £1500 cheaper. I didn’t have to leave Cambridgeshire to do it. If I, as a very simple consumer can do that, goodness knows what sorts of schemes big banks with multiple global offices can come up with.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
What will happen is that the regulations will take place in any case. How the Tories react is the interesting point . I’d suggest divided between the hardliners who really want to leave the EU, and the ones who want to keep the Coalition intact

Dave Postles
Centrepoint (above)
The Christmas appeal has so far only raised just over half of the required funds (£300k). Please consider helping.
http://www.centrepoint.org.uk/urgent2?utm_source=Reminder2&utm_medium=Bed_DD&utm_campaign=Christmas&xtor=EPR-63-Reminder2-20111212-Bed_DD&dm_i=QTC,MVYL,3UTERP,1UP95,1
Pingback: A time for Eurosceptics to become the positive voice « Crash Bang Wallace
Anonymous
So this EU deal involves a deficit cap of 0.5% of GDP. For the UK, that is 7bn.
Current deficit is 140 bn.
So that’s 133 bn of cuts or tax rises?
What’s the breakdown for Labour for the figures since they want to join in.
What’s going to get cut?
Who is going to get hit for what?
If its companies that get hit, what’s the breakdown for the customers who will pay the cost?

Ian
do you have any idea on what you are talking about ??
Like all Tories you are lying as the deal would NOT have included us, guess what, WE ARE NOT PART OF THE EURO
Which bit are you having difficulty understanding ?

http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
The bit which isn’t Tory propaganda. He’s always like this.

http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9
Great, when does your novel come out?
You also missed out describing the massive drop in living standards for the 99%.

Latest

Comment
Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher
By Chris Williamson
If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]
Read more →
Featured
The austerity consensus has collapsed
By Owen Jones
There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]
Read more →
Comment
Should Labour go further on football reform?
By Ben Shave
“As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]
Read more →
Comment
Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?
By Ann Black
Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]
Read more →
News
It’s the budget what won it…
Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…
Read more →