“Britain didn’t want a deal. It pretended it wanted one, but it didn’t. If Cameron got some kind of safeguard for the City adopted by the 27 he would then have to sign up to a new treaty. That would then have to go through the British Parliament, which would split the Conservative Party. So Cameron bid for something he knew was impossible, a complete opt-out of financial regulation which nobody was ever going to agree to.
“It’s very useful for Cameron to say, ‘Sarkozy was so unreasonable, what could we do?’ But the result of no deal is that the City of London has no protection and will probably be screwed in the future.”
On some level, both Cameron and Sarkozy have walked away with a result that will please their voters at home. But the price has been immense - a blow has been dealt to their own relationship, and indeed, to the future of the euro itself.
There could well be an element of truth in this observation. 
That would partly credit not only him but the negotiators and civil servants with a modicum of strategic thought - something they don't seem to possess if the state of this country and how things may develop in the near future are anything to go by.
It's all very well playing a close hand if you're expert in the averages and sufficiently skilled to play the long game all the while being prepared to take an inevitable loss.
If William Hague’s assertion is right and the City of London and its institutions contribute 10% to our GNP, then it would have been reckless for the British team to approach this problem in the way suggested by the MSM piece.
In essence; yes, he has deflected the matter away from both himself and his party but, as a result, surely this has left those much valued City Institutions at the mercy of any arrangements made by the members of the ‘new’ club - especially those concerning additional taxation on financial transactions - in an environment where we would then have little or no say in the decisions made.
This is partly why I think this whole thing has been approached in a half-cocked way – the British need (and should have) some fall-back position but, as things now appear to stand, we have been told in no uncertain terms that if you’re not in and toeing the line then you’re out. Where do we go from here now that it seems to be obvious that we hold precious little sway outside the Westminster village?
This again shows the folly of this peripheral arrangement we have with ‘Brussels’ – it can never work successfully in an environment where an acceptance of decree is expected and, furthermore, a prerequisite for the success of the venture. In short, you either shit or get off the pot – we should be either wholeheartedly in or fully out but, for oppss sake, our minds should be made up so we can get on with dragging the country out of the mire.
Of course if one were to be particularly devious in thought one might suspect that ‘Dave’ may well be trying to antagonise the Desperate Dems for a party political reason entirely unconnected to the present troubles within the European club.
Author
Topic: Credit where its due (politics) (Read 4516 times)