Breaking....26 Countries Agree

[Chuffy Chuffnell]

I bet you are 100% wrong.

The UK has just been made the largest ever tax haven.

Every stolen euro, dollar, pound, krugerand is on it's way here.

Risk, safety - safety, risk. ******, the UK doesn't even do natural disasters.

Great Britain will be a larger Cayman Island - we're both British but perhaps Britain is a little colder.

[_w_]

I bet you are 100% wrong.

The UK has just been made the largest ever tax haven.

Every stolen euro, dollar, pound, krugerand is on it's way here.

For once I can say you're wrong.

The UK is already the largest ever tax haven and those stolen funds are already here.

[pyewackitt]

Every once in a while a moment comes up that could be seminal in the political history of the UK. They don't happen all that often and they don't always come at the most obvious of times but i think it's fair to say one has just happened now.

PM David Cameron has just made a truly momentous decision about the role of the UK in Europe that be reflected on for a long time to come.

By putting a Veto on the new changes to EU legislation he has forced the Eurozone and UK to new sides of a devide. How well this turns out for him depends on what happens next but the decision itself has many ramifications.

So lets examine some of the statements made by this veto.

1) Cameron as holding up his word.

He went into Brussels saying he would hold up his position on UK interests and did what he said he would. This can be taken as a sign of a strong and committed leader or that he was inflexible in joining causes with our European colleagues. This is not some overnight choice by the PM either, he has been building up to such an impasse since the election victory. The very hardline and reductionist approach to spending and the deficit has been ongoing for a long time now and with this is a sense our righteousness for the Conservatives that they have been leading the way in Europe on what to do. Cameron is responding the this mantra and the Euro-sceptics in his party will see this as a massive vindication of his premiership as defining the UK as independent if not isolationist.

2) Cameron as representing big business and the city.

A lot of people will see this veto as our PM standing up for the rights of the city in reducing its potential tax burdon and controls on it legislatively from Europe. They will interpret this as the interests of our businesses that helped bring about this crisis as being greater than that of our European neighbours and we may well see futher anti-capitalist statements against the PM and government. Certainly we can expect the left to push this agenda into the mainstream agruments and PMQ's. Many who voted for the Conservatives instead of Labour wanted to see crackdowns and taxes on big business not the government becoming the international political hounds of the city of London agenda.

3) Cameron marginalising the UK from European discussion.

Europe is not just about the shape of bannanas and directives on using the metric scale - but as the PM has forced the real ecomonic debate outside of forums where we do have influence we may find ourselves with less of a voice to influence trade and discussions within Europe. Our very role in Europe has now been changed, we are an influencial outsider but whilst we were able to have some major controls and veto powers in the current European structure, how relavent that structure will become now that 26 must form their own arrangements is itself at question. We will have to wait and see how the Franco-German central european foundation pushes the formation of new treaties and associated agencies.

4) Cameron placing the coalition at risk.

Lib-Dems have always been very pro-europe and now they are in joint power at a time when possibly one of the most defining momments in the Euro-sceptic agenda has passed with a Lib-Dem Deputy PM. The pressures on Nick Clegg will be immense from many parts of the party that he has failed yet again to represent his parties direct electorate. Along with Tuition fees he is severely pushing away core parts of his parties support and unless he takes some kind of positive action to implement Lib-Dems values soon he may find himself under increasing pressure internally. This in itself puts obvious risk to the coalition.

5) Cameron diversifying the UK from European markets.

By placing the veto on this motion Cameron may have changed the way the UK is viewed by many investors. Whilst the one hand says the UK credit crisis was in part caused by the banks another recognising that this could be a vital moment for our financial services industry to differentiate itsef further from Europe and potentially became a haven for worried Eurozone investors. The very fact that we have now distanced ourselves so clearly from taking responsibility from the EU PIIGS debt mountain may also help keep our credit rating high whilst others are faced with downgrades. The obvious problem here is that it also means that should we find our own economy crumbling further our friends in Europe might not be so ready to assist.

6) Cameron gambling on economic recovery.

Ultimately this comes down to a very simple equation. UK success is dependant on it improving out of crisis faster than the Eurozone. If the UK can start to see Sterling recover, can see unemployment falls and government incomes rising again then it may keep pace ahead of Europe. This in turn would help create an upwards spiral as investors seek growth over and above that of the Eurozone. The problem here is that unless the differentiation and comparative deregulation of the financial servies industry in the UK help stimulate growth it isn't going to happen. Right now there are serious problems in so many parts of UK PLC from eduction, health and housing through to welfare, taxation and regulation. This posturing from the PM isn't dealing with those issues - it's only hoping that we recover strongly enough that that don't matter so much.

[rantnrave]

Is this Cameron's Iraq moment? A controversial decision he has strongly stood by and will never be able to leave behind him - the defining point in his premiership.

Edited December 10, 2011 by rantnrave

[The Spaniard]

Who'd have thunk it - it wasn't pressure by the people that wedged the UK from the EU superstate but the City of London.

They're banksters, but they're our banksters.

[_w_]

Is this Cameron's Iraq moment? A controversial decision he has strongly stood by and will never be able to leave behind him - the defining point in his premiership.

One thing I find stunning: had the EU accepted to give Cameron the bank regulation exemptions he asked for, (which is what he asked for, despite the poor sugar coating), last night he would have handed over the UK's last remnants of sovereignty.

I know I expect this of him and of today's politicians of all parties, but I still can't believe it.

Are his party's grass roots so thick that they won't see what he was prepared to do? And that if he had made this deal he would have never have implemented it via a referendum?

[Debbie568]

+1

What the other countries are signing up to is anti-democratic.

"Sorry everyone, Brussels says we have to cut your unemployment benefit by 50% and increase taxes and pension ages. Nothing we can do about it I'm afraid"

The only way this will end is with riots and worse.

edit to add: to all those saying this leaves Britain isolated. Well, yes. But only in the sense that anyone who refused the Jonestown Flavor-Aid cocktail was isolated.

+1

[_w_]

No it hasn't. The current relationship between the UK and the EU does not involve us sharing a currency, us sharing taxation, us sharing armed forces, etc, etc. We have lost some sovereignty over the years, but have kept the key features of a sovereign nation state. But France, for example, has open borders (Schengen) no currency, now fiscal union and soon no doubt will merge its armed forces into a Euroarmy.

Another thought, despite assurances of military independence the sharing of armed forces is a reality. It is fully endorsed by the current government and we've been preparing for it for a while. The latest extreme gutting of our armed forces is in anticipation of a common EU defence force, the UK wouldn't be able to stand on its own if it wanted to. Should Argentina pursue its renewed ambitions towards the Falklands we'd be entirely dependent on France's aircraft carriers FFS. It's happening. Now.

[Debbie568]

I'm not sure if this is simply a budgetary and political solution. Italy, Greece, Spain need a weaker currency, whilst Germany is gaining a big advantage from having a weaker currency than it would have had if it still used the Deutsche Mark. This imbalance in the Euro is unlikely to go away soon, its a flawed union. I'm not sure how budget caps will enable the weaker countries to become carbon copy Germanies, which is what would be needed for the Euro to work.

Basically, at some point the Euro will have to break up/shrink or split.

Even if the EU stays intact - I can't see them kicking out Britain because we are a net contributor to the EU budget - the only reason the French and the Germans wanted the Brits along to the party is because maintaining the value of the Euro is going to take more money than they can afford and they want the Brits to ante up. I'm glad Cameron told them to stick it. We still have a free trade agreement, and don't have to bear any of the costs of bailing out the Euro. As for the European Commission or wichever other bureaucratic body (i.e. the French and the Germans) being able to even oversee member countries budgets, much less impose fiscal constraints, its laughable. What are the consequences of not agreeing to what the French and Germans say? Or better still, saying "yes, yes, we So agree with you!" and then going on their own merry way? None at all. They will get to borrow cheaper money from the ECB than they could get on world markets by "agreeing" with their fiscally stronger EU counterparts, but it doesn't mean they will manage the funds any better than they do now.

To me, the present trumpeting of the Euro nations that everyone is in agreement except the Brits is meaningless. It's all form over substance. There is no way on earth a European bureaucratic body is going to be able to "approve the budgets" of the southern states. Whatever the agreement to the contrary appears to be. We'll just see a massive amount of fraud, with the likes of Greece etc sending this European body one set of budgets, just to keep them quiet, then doing something entirely different on the ground. The "we're all in this together " attitude is misleading. The advent of the euro meant that the southern states could gorge themselves on German imports even though they couldn't, and still can't, afford to do so. So the ECB come along, with their new creation of Eurobonds, and the EU lends to itself. The printing presses come out, in other words. And the Euro devalues. If the Europeans want to save the Euro this is probably their only option.

[Venger]

Why? Without London's financial centre, the UK's economy is at best mediocre - maybe on par with Spain. And London's pre-eminence as a financial centre is based on one thing - the right of its banks to operate in all EU countries freely without any barriers, which is entirely dependent on the UK's continued membership of at least the EEA (which comes along with the requirement of implementing all EU financial regulation as Switzerland does for example). Leaving the negotiating table means the UK will lose any influence on the terms on which it trades with Europe.

The other EU countries only grudgingly accept London's status anyway.. so if the UK leaves, the 50%+ of London's business that represents trading in the Eurozone will without doubt be repatriated to the Eurozone at a great cost to the UK.

There is something in all of that. One the other side I see the German-French position as a confidence trick. Trying to persuade the markets they stand behind the Euro and the Euro shared currency, to settle the markets, make it easier for Italy, Spain, Greece Ireland and others to borrow and not be punished by the markets. France too. Yet without Germany having to do much by way of stumping up from its own side. Will the markets be convinced by the attempt to make the Eurozone appear all together?

I think the markets will prefer common sense and look to bolster UK over all the togetherness of the Euro countries regardless of their all resources. Still too disjointed and too many cracks. Still wary of retaliation, or being cold-shouldered, for trade, things like the ECB window for British banks and so on, despite us still being in the EU.

[neil324]

Another thought, despite assurances of military independence the sharing of armed forces is a reality. It is fully endorsed by the current government and we've been preparing for it for a while. The latest extreme gutting of our armed forces is in anticipation of a common EU defence force, the UK wouldn't be able to stand on its own if it wanted to. Should Argentina pursue its renewed ambitions towards the Falklands we'd be entirely dependent on France's aircraft carriers FFS. It's happening. Now.

I don't think the UK would ever try to retake the Falklands again, not with the broad Southern American support Argentina now has. I think the strategy is to ignore any diplomatic pressure and repel any invasion force before it got a foothold. Not sure of the strength down there but guaranteed there is at least 1 submarine stationed there 24/7.

Argentina has upped the pressure lately and are most certainly renewing their claims though and maybe they see the current European problems as weakness and try something stupid.

[Debbie568]

The way Merkosy are going re: taxing the financial industry most if not all of the Eurozone's financials will be moving pretty pronto to London.

And yes if the Eurozone want a trade war, they'll get one. It's not going to be pretty.

Who'd have thunk it - it wasn't pressure by the people that wedged the UK from the EU superstate but the City of London.

And yet, in spite of the trade surplus we already get via the City of London and its financial services, when it comes to goods, we have a massive trade deficit with Europe. Which is all the more amazing considering we only have 62+ million people to the rest of the EU's 430+ million people. There are so few of us, and we are as poor as church mice, if the number of people who qualify for benefits and various tax credits is any indication. What on earth do we buy from Europe that would give us such a huge trade deficit?

Edited December 10, 2011 by Debbie568

[_w_]

Argentina has upped the pressure lately and are most certainly renewing their claims though and maybe they see the current European problems as weakness and try something stupid.

And the current weakening of our military is like an invitation to try. Nuts.

[Blue Nose Bear]

After the hideous wars of the last century, it's remarkable how quickly the Europeans forget what triggered them

The dominance of Germany will be cataclysmic in my view

+1

Especially when the truth about what they have signed up to is fully understood.

Thank God Cameron stood fast, not that there was much of a decision to make

[neil324]

And the current weakening of our military is like an invitation to try. Nuts.

No chance. Just reading up,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands

2 nuclear submarines in the area, both equipped with tomahawk cruise missiles, plus speculation that 2 attack submarines where sent in 2010. It would be carnage.

[Sir Harold m]

Why? Without London's financial centre, the UK's economy is at best mediocre - maybe on par with Spain. And London's pre-eminence as a financial centre is based on one thing - the right of its banks to operate in all EU countries freely without any barriers, which is entirely dependent on the UK's continued membership of at least the EEA (which comes along with the requirement of implementing all EU financial regulation as Switzerland does for example). Leaving the negotiating table means the UK will lose any influence on the terms on which it trades with Europe.

The other EU countries only grudgingly accept London's status anyway.. so if the UK leaves, the 50%+ of London's business that represents trading in the Eurozone will without doubt be repatriated to the Eurozone at a great cost to the UK.

I hear this all the time. There is not a single grain of truth in what you say. It is totally and utterly 100 per cent the opposite of reality.

The location of the city within the eu is perhaps THE largest single impediment to the city in terms of generating revenue.

Detachment from an area is the most unique selling point a tax haven or jurisdiction can have.

Why do you think a lot of bleating suggested that the Tobin tax would send london's business to new York or Singapore? They are not in EU.

Imagine if Switzerland joined EU? Zurich would be toast. It's why they haven't.

The ONLY guaranteed job losses from uk withdrawal would be political appointees.

Everything else is baseless speculation promoted by vested interests.

[Greg Bowman]

I hear this all the time. There is not a single grain of truth in what you say. It is totally and utterly 100 per cent the opposite of reality.

The location of the city within the eu is perhaps THE largest single impediment to the city in terms of generating revenue.

Detachment from an area is the most unique selling point a tax haven or jurisdiction can have.

Why do you think a lot of bleating suggested that the Tobin tax would send london's business to new York or Singapore? They are not in EU.

Imagine if Switzerland joined EU? Zurich would be toast. It's why they haven't.

The ONLY guaranteed job losses from uk withdrawal would be political appointees.

Everything else is baseless speculation promoted by vested interests.

+1

[Venger]

And yet, in spite of the trade surplus we already get via the City of London and its financial services, when it comes to goods, we have a massive trade deficit with Europe. Which is all the more amazing considering we only have 62+ million people to the rest of the EU's 430+ million people. There are so few of us, and we are as poor as church mice, if the number of people who qualify for benefits and various tax credits is any indication. What on earth do we buy from Europe that would give us such a huge trade deficit?

I'll leave that for someone else to answer for I don't fully know. I've just had a Waitrose Pink Lady 'Sweet with a champagne fizz' apple for breakfast. Packaging says from Italy, but the ones I bought last week said South Africa on the packaging. That's one of my concerns. That we're not sidelined for EU trade and especially good food imports, but there is the rest of the world to trade with, whilst leaving Eurozone to do some imploding.

Some disputed trade figures just released.

The Independent - 6 hours ago

UK trade deficit narrows due to surprise increase in exports

UK balance of payments improves sharply, but economists cast doubt on reliability of figures

However, if they are accurate, these trade figures could result in a boost to GDP in the final three months of the year, possibly even helping Britain to avoid a double-dip recession.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-trade-deficit-narrows-due-to-surprise-increase-in-exports-6275098.html

[Debbie568]

The way Merkosy are going re: taxing the financial industry most if not all of the Eurozone's financials will be moving pretty pronto to London.

And yes if the Eurozone want a trade war, they'll get one. It's not going to be pretty.

Who'd have thunk it - it wasn't pressure by the people that wedged the UK from the EU superstate but the City of London.

A trade war? The trade between them and us all seems to be one way; us importing goods from Europe into Britain. Oh yes, and we import hugher education students as well, 125,000 of them at the latest count (source: UKCISA). On that subject, why exactly do students from the EU studying in England pay no fees? According to UKCISA:

"If you are an EU national you have a right to live and study in any other EU country on the same basis as nationals of that country, eg paying the same level of fees. "

It's about time we got out of the EU. So what if EU importers of our goods would have to pay a 6% tariff? We could do the same here, only make it 20% on German cars. We import far more from the EU than we export to them. Cameron, for once, is not bowing and scraping to Merkosy, despite having Nick Clegg next to him trying to push his back into a deep bow.

[stormymonday_2011]

Oh Dear the Daily Mail's knowledge of British and EU history is so poor that it thinks that the last UK referendum on the issue was in 1973 and took place before we joined. F*ck knows who they use as sub editors now but is clear they can't even be bothered to check dates in Wikipedia otherwise they would know that it took place under Harold Wilson'd Labour government in 1975.Ted Heath's Tory government never even bothered to consult the people when it took Britain into the EEC.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072312/The-peoples-verdict-Most-Germans-French-DONT-want-stay-Euro.html

Edited December 10, 2011 by stormymonday_2011

[BecksMyCat]

And yet, in spite of the trade surplus we already get via the City of London and its financial services, when it comes to goods, we have a massive trade deficit with Europe. Which is all the more amazing considering we only have 62+ million people to the rest of the EU's 430+ million people. There are so few of us, and we are as poor as church mice, if the number of people who qualify for benefits and various tax credits is any indication. What on earth do we buy from Europe that would give us such a huge trade deficit?

This is just a guess, I haven't researched this. but could it include importing energy?

[sims]

I hear this all the time. There is not a single grain of truth in what you say. It is totally and utterly 100 per cent the opposite of reality.

The location of the city within the eu is perhaps THE largest single impediment to the city in terms of generating revenue.

Detachment from an area is the most unique selling point a tax haven or jurisdiction can have.

Why do you think a lot of bleating suggested that the Tobin tax would send london's business to new York or Singapore? They are not in EU.

Imagine if Switzerland joined EU? Zurich would be toast. It's why they haven't.

The ONLY guaranteed job losses from uk withdrawal would be political appointees.

Everything else is baseless speculation promoted by vested interests.

Before you make pointless claims, please read up on the relationship between Switzerland and the EU. Switzerland has via treaties signed up to implement all EU single market regulations including those for financial markets as a condition for free market access. Withdrawing from the EU and having a status like Switzerland would not reduce the EU regulation imposed on the city in any way, in fact it would likely increase it because having left, the UK has given up its veto on changes to said regulation.

Also leaving the EEA would free it from any EU regulation, but means losing free market access - right now London banks operate in Europe via the EU passport scheme, not subject to further restrictions because they are already registered with the FSA (in a EU/EEA country). Losing access to the passport scheme means they'll be forced to open subsidiaries in the EU and channel much of their local business through them at the very least. It was the implementation of the EU passport scheme for banks in the early 90s that was a primary contributing factor to the rise of London as the undisputed primary financial centre of Europe (before that, international banks largely did their European business via separate local offices in each of the major coutries, although London was generally the biggest). Losing access to it may well unravel some of that consolidation.

[Errol]

No chance. Just reading up,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands

2 nuclear submarines in the area, both equipped with tomahawk cruise missiles, plus speculation that 2 attack submarines where sent in 2010. It would be carnage.

There are also Marines and Eurofighters in the Falklands.

[mfp123]

Before you make pointless claims, please read up on the relationship between Switzerland and the EU. Switzerland has via treaties signed up to implement all EU single market regulations including those for financial markets as a condition for free market access. Withdrawing from the EU and having a status like Switzerland would not reduce the EU regulation imposed on the city in any way, in fact it would likely increase it because having left, the UK has given up its veto on changes to said regulation.

Also leaving the EEA would free it from any EU regulation, but means losing free market access - right now London banks operate in Europe via the EU passport scheme, not subject to further restrictions because they are already registered with the FSA (in a EU/EEA country). Losing access to the passport scheme means they'll be forced to open subsidiaries in the EU and channel much of their local business through them at the very least. It was the implementation of the EU passport scheme for banks in the early 90s that was a primary contributing factor to the rise of London as the undisputed primary financial centre of Europe (before that, international banks largely did their European business via separate local offices in each of the major coutries, although London was generally the biggest). Losing access to it may well unravel some of that consolidation.

the difference is that you can choose what you want to agree and disagree on.

saying youd be forced to agree to their terms is moot because if you joined the treaty, there is no choice, youd be forced to accept the terms by default.

lets face it, what voice /influence has the UK ever had in shaping the direction of the EU in the past 30 years. it is a french/german axis.

you dont have to be in the EU to be succesful. norway isnt in the EU and it is one of the richest countries in the world by gdp per capita(higher than the US) and has been ranked as the no.1 country to live in in the world for the past 5 years.

the main 2 countries not in the EU in europe are norway and switzerland and they have the highest gdp per capita in the world.

europes strength is in its diversity, it is the most diverse region in the world. we would encourage the world developing nations to be more free and diverse in order to grow, yet the EU is homogenising and grouping ourselves together as 1 souless predictable lump.

in the modern global world, small and flexible is the way forward.

the EU is simply an outdated socialist project that wants to control everything from the centre. the rest of the world is moving forwards in the new world, becoming more localised, smaller, flexible, dynamic. europe is moving backwards.

Edited December 10, 2011 by mfp123

[sammysnake]

Would that be isolated like China, India, and Mexico are then.

A weakened but credible voice in the world, is still stronger than a corrupt deceitful collective of lying, cheating, debt ridden, Nazi voice in my op.

We will become an isolated, tax haven for more blue chip companies, the isolation will spur the UK economy so start actually producing again, it's a kick up a r s e industry needs.

Edited December 10, 2011 by sammysnake