Eurozone

[bighairyfaeleith]

Have to say for once, and only once, well done to David Cameron. Not sure how this one will play out but was really worried we would just roll-over to Europe so glad we haven't.

[Gatecrasher]

I think its time we had a vote on it, At least a chance to let the people of GB have the chance to say yes or no. As things stand the Euro iseems to be going tits up and it will probably be better to get out of it sooner rather than later IMO

[hibsbollah]

He was largely irrelevant to the meeting, which was about how the euro moves ahead, because the UK isnt in the euro. We vetoed, the eurozone countries said 'fine, we'll cut our own deal separately'.

Just empty posturing. But the 'ban all croissants' daily express brigade will be lapping it up.

[Betty Boop]

I wonder where Nick Clegg stands on this ? Cameron was under severe pressure from his own back benchers to get concessions, he has come back with nothing now by vetoing. This leaves us isolated and on the sidelines now surely ?

[PeeJay]

Ian Rankin got it spot on - Cameron has succeeded in defending one square mile of the UK!:agree:

[Betty Boop]

Ian Rankin got it spot on - Cameron has succeeded in defending one square mile of the UK!:agree:

Exactly ! :agree:

[Big Ed]

Have to say for once, and only once, well done to David Cameron. Not sure how this one will play out but was really worried we would just roll-over to Europe so glad we haven't.


Cameron was never going to sign a deal that interfered with our financial sector; he would have been toast if he had.
There was never any doubt as to his position – allow the UK economy as a whole struggle rather than confront the Last Night of the Proms zealots on his own back-benches or the self-regulated, self indulgent, money men in the City of London.
Sarkozy said last night: “We were not able to accept (the British demands) because we consider quite the contrary - that a very large and substantial amount of the problems we are facing around the world are a result of lack of regulation of financial services and therefore can't have a waiver for the United Kingdom.”
I agree with him and the notion that our interests have been protected by the Prime Minister is a misleading deception, strung along by a largely compliant media hiding behind the craven refuge of patriotism.

[Green Mikey]

Ian Rankin got it spot on - Cameron has succeeded in defending one square mile of the UK!:agree:


Exactly ! :agree:

Cameron was protecting UK Financial Services which are the largest source of Corporation Tax for the government and a significant source of employment.

Are you annoyed that Cameron has protected an important sector of the economy?

[PeeJay]

Cameron was protecting UK Financial Services which are the largest source of Corporation Tax for the government and a significant source of employment.

Are you annoyed that Cameron has protected an important sector of the economy?

Sure I am - I feel that this "important sector of the ecomomy" has to be held responsible to a much greater extent - it is THE important sector in the whole financial crisis that needs reigning in - it needs to be regulated and it needs to contribute (by way of a financial service tax, e.g.) to the financial mess they have dumped on us - and that we are all paying for.

By the way the taxes that "they" pay are one thing - we shouldn't leave the taxes they don't pay out of the equation - another point that needs regulating IMO.

[Betty Boop]

Cameron was protecting UK Financial Services which are the largest source of Corporation Tax for the government and a significant source of employment.

Are you annoyed that Cameron has protected an important sector of the economy?

Cameron has isolated us from Europe to avoid a transaction tax on banks, who got us in this mess in the first place.

[Green Mikey]

Sure I am - I feel that this "important sector of the ecomomy" has to be held responsible to a much greater extent - it is THE important sector in the whole financial crisis that needs reigning in - it needs to be regulated and it needs to contribute (by way of a financial service tax, e.g.) to the financial mess they have dumped on us - and that we are all paying for.

By the way the taxes that "they" pay are one thing - we shouldn't leave the taxes they don't pay out of the equation - another point that needs regulating IMO.

I agree, financial services in the UK needs robust and proper regulation that puts in place comtrols that will ensure that the issues we currently face never happen again. However, financial services are an still an important part of the economy reagrdless of what has happened and we need this sector to be profitable if the economy is grow.


Cameron has isolated us from Europe to avoid a transaction tax on banks, who got us in this mess in the first place.

Banks, banks, banks.... a lot of people view any issue regarding economy throught a prism of bank-hating.

Don't get me wrong I'm no great fan of Cameron but the deal that the Eurozone countries agreed last night was about more than a tax on banks. The deal includes these points

- a commitment to "balanced budgets" for eurozone countries- defined as a structural deficit no greater than 0.5% of gross domestic product - to be written into national constitutions

- automatic sanctions for any eurozone country whose deficit exceeds 3% of GDP

- a requirement to submit their national budgets to the European Commission, which will have the power to request that they be revised

Relinquishing fiscal soveriegnty to the EU is a massive step and something that Cameron was right to be sceptical about.

[PeeJay]

I agree, financial services in the UK needs robust and proper regulation that puts in place comtrols that will ensure that the issues we currently face never happen again. However, financial services are an still an important part of the economy reagrdless of what has happened and we need this sector to be profitable if the economy is grow.


Relinquishing fiscal soveriegnty to the EU is a massive step and something that Cameron was right to be sceptical about.

I've no problems with a financial sector that functions properly and responsibly - but the City basically does what it wants - it needs regulating (not just in London BTW)

For the eurozone to work (and ultimately the EU), I feel greater fiscal integration is an absolute necessity - it seems most countries are willing to work on achieving this.

I feel that the UK turning away in this manner thereby losing all influence and respect within the EU will impact more on the UK than it will on the EU - not a clever move.

[Hibs Class]

Cameron was never going to sign a deal that interfered with our financial sector; he would have been toast if he had.
There was never any doubt as to his position – allow the UK economy as a whole struggle rather than confront the Last Night of the Proms zealots on his own back-benches or the self-regulated, self indulgent, money men in the City of London.
Sarkozy said last night: “We were not able to accept (the British demands) because we consider quite the contrary - that a very large and substantial amount of the problems we are facing around the world are a result of lack of regulation of financial services and therefore can't have a waiver for the United Kingdom.”
I agree with him and the notion that our interests have been protected by the Prime Minister is a misleading deception, strung along by a largely compliant media hiding behind the craven refuge of patriotism.

Sarkozy may have a point but he also certainly has an agenda beyond the short term aim of saving the euro, namely to increase Paris's status as a major financial centre partly through the dilution of London's status, and this is all part of playing to his domestic audience.

[Peevemor]

Sarkozy may have a point but he also certainly has an agenda beyond the short term aim of saving the euro, namely to increase Paris's status as a major financial centre partly through the dilution of London's status, and this is all part of playing to his domestic audience.

:agree: He's getting into bed with the Germans big style, putting everything into a franco-german axis.

[Green Mikey]

I've no problems with a financial sector that functions properly and responsibly - but the City basically does what it wants - it needs regulating (not just in London BTW)

For the eurozone to work (and ultimately the EU), I feel greater fiscal integration is an absolute necessity - it seems most countries are willing to work on achieving this.

I feel that the UK turning away in this manner thereby losing all influence and respect within the EU will impact more on the UK than it will on the EU - not a clever move.

I don't agree with you on fiscal integration. Montery integration through the Euro has been an unmitigated disaster therefore I don't believe that applying a single fiscal policy across the entirity of Europe is a viable option. The countries that are signing up to this treaty have no option since they need to act to save the Euro from collapse.

The EU was initially a trade bloc that allowed free movement of goods and labour but has now morphed into a behemoth that will control the curreny and fiscal policy of 17 countries. I don't belive that a European 'one-size-fits-all' economic policy will benefit the UK, we need to retain fiscal control so that we can control our economy to suit our needs.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't agree with you on fiscal integration. Montery integration through the Euro has been an unmitigated disaster therefore I don't believe that applying a single fiscal policy across the entirity of Europe is a viable option. The countries that are signing up to this treaty have no option since they need to act to save the Euro from collapse.

The EU was initially a trade bloc that allowed free movement of goods and labour but has now morphed into a behemoth that will control the curreny and fiscal policy of 17 countries. I don't belive that a European 'one-size-fits-all' economic policy will benefit the UK, we need to retain fiscal control so that we can control our economy to suit our needs.

couldn't agree more, these clowns have screwed up the euro and now want us to let them go even further, no even mad vlad would have the balls to suggest this one.

[RyeSloan]

Sure I am - I feel that this "important sector of the ecomomy" has to be held responsible to a much greater extent - it is THE important sector in the whole financial crisis that needs reigning in - it needs to be regulated and it needs to contribute (by way of a financial service tax, e.g.) to the financial mess they have dumped on us - and that we are all paying for.

By the way the taxes that "they" pay are one thing - we shouldn't leave the taxes they don't pay out of the equation - another point that needs regulating IMO.

I will be very surprised if you can provide one example of the proposed financial service tax having worked in any guise previously.

It has been tried a number of times...even the US have failed and tried, the last time they tried it created the whole Eurobond market! Sweden (I think it was Sweden anyway) tried then suffered a massive drop in transactions.

The cold fact is a financial services tax is only being proposed for the EU because it will strengthen the Eurozone financial centres at the cost of London and it’s pretty certain that if the UK agreed to this tax there would be a huge movement out of London to other financial centres around the world.

Like it or not the financial services sector is still a substantial part of the UK economy and is a substantial contributor to tax take….to agree to new rules that would substantially damage that sector while benefiting other European and Global financial centres would be amazingly foolish.

As for the proposed Euro ‘rescue’..further fiscal and financial integration may keep the wolf from the door just now but there is no evidence that points towards the financial integration that has happened already being beneficial so I don’t believe there is any chance in the long term that even deeper integration across so many countries will prove to be positive. You can maybe look at the UK as a small version of this….fiscal transfers and financial integration of NI, Wales and Scotland with England has done little to change the imbalances that exist within the UK so why would it work on an even more disparate scale within Europe.

[PeeJay]

I don't agree with you on fiscal integration. Montery integration through the Euro has been an unmitigated disaster therefore I don't believe that applying a single fiscal policy across the entirity of Europe is a viable option. The countries that are signing up to this treaty have no option since they need to act to save the Euro from collapse.

The EU was initially a trade bloc that allowed free movement of goods and labour but has now morphed into a behemoth that will control the curreny and fiscal policy of 17 countries. I don't belive that a European 'one-size-fits-all' economic policy will benefit the UK, we need to retain fiscal control so that we can control our economy to suit our needs.

Think the single fiscal policy is the only way to coordinate the eurozone countries and to ultimately make the euro work - too many cooks spoil the broth - we need a single voice.


Think you're wrong about the EU only ever having been a trading block - this is not so. General De Gaulle "Non!" did not want the UK to enter the "Common Market" because he claimed the British did not understand the concept behind the EU - the Brits only wanted in to do business. It has always however, been about cultural and political integration and - as you say a common market - it has never solely been a trading block however (Germany and France were naturaly the pime movers, for obvious reasons). The British finally entered but ever since the UK has treated it basically as a trading block, refusing to contribute anything at all to the vision of the EU.

I am not quite sure where the UK goes from here - if it should leave the EU: where would it go?

[Big Ed]

Sarkozy may have a point but he also certainly has an agenda beyond the short term aim of saving the euro, namely to increase Paris's status as a major financial centre partly through the dilution of London's status, and this is all part of playing to his domestic audience.

I have no doubt that Sarkozy has his own agenda, but his point about the lack of regulation of financial services is increasingly self evident.
Cameron found himself in a no win situation (despite some of the nonsense that has been spoken on the news today about him having seen off Johnny Foreigner) because despite all the tough talk; his back benchers will not be satisfied with something that they considered the very least the Prime Minister would achieve. They’ll be banging on about referendums before the Sunday Papers are printed.
It is not the fact that he didn’t back the deal that I object to; it is the fact that he did it to protect the interests of a ravenous, selfish elite.

[Green Mikey]

I have no doubt that Sarkozy has his own agenda, but his point about the lack of regulation of financial services is increasingly self evident.
Cameron found himself in a no win situation (despite some of the nonsense that has been spoken on the news today about him having seen off Johnny Foreigner) because despite all the tough talk; his back benchers will not be satisfied with something that they considered the very least the Prime Minister would achieve. They’ll be banging on about referendums before the Sunday Papers are printed.
It is not the fact that he didn’t back the deal that I object to; it is the fact that he did it to protect the interests of a ravenous, selfish elite.

This post is just Tory bashing.

Cameron had stated that he would not pass any more power to Europe without and stuck to his word. I think that this was the right decision, does this make me part of the ravenous, selfish elite?

[Leicester Fan]

Cameron has isolated us from Europe to avoid a transaction tax on banks, who got us in this mess in the first place.

The banks didn't create the mess in the Eurozone, that was the politicians who allowed countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy to join when they knew they didn't fit the required criteria. Now those same politicians want to have a say in running our economy. No thanks.

[Big Ed]

This post is just Tory bashing.

Cameron had stated that he would not pass any more power to Europe without and stuck to his word. I think that this was the right decision, does this make me part of the ravenous, selfish elite?

Cameron is a serial opportunist. He went to Brussels thinking that he had an ace up his sleeve and came back with nothing.
Call it Tory bashing if you like, but if you think that Edward Leigh and the like will be calling out for three cheers at PMQ, you are in for a nasty surprise; they have the smell of blood in their nostrils now.
I think my final point was clear enough about his motives for signing the deal or not, but for the avoidance of doubt; if you think that slavishly backing the selfish interests of the City is the right thing to do, then yes: you can consider yourself part of that dubious shower.

[Green Mikey]

Cameron is a serial opportunist. He went to Brussels thinking that he had an ace up his sleeve and came back with nothing.
Call it Tory bashing if you like, but if you think that Edward Leigh and the like will be calling out for three cheers at PMQ, you are in for a nasty surprise; they have the smell of blood in their nostrils now.
I think my final point was clear enough about his motives for signing the deal or not, but for the avoidance of doubt; if you think that slavishly backing the selfish interests of the City is the right thing to do, then yes: you can consider yourself part of that dubious shower.

You are presenting your assumptions about Cameron's motives as fact. We can debate all day about what we both think his motives are or you can attempmt to look objectively at the impact of his decision. I prefer the latter.

Tory hating and bank hating is now standard on every debate now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for either group but it seems that debates ends up going down the old party political route when in fact it better to debate the subject in hand.

[Beefster]

Have to say for once, and only once, well done to David Cameron. Not sure how this one will play out but was really worried we would just roll-over to Europe so glad we haven't.

Inevitably, seeing as you're supporting him, I think he's caused, what will be, an utter disaster for the UK in order to keep a few loonies on the right wing of his party happy.

[RyeSloan]

Inevitably, seeing as you're supporting him, I think he's caused, what will be, an utter disaster for the UK in order to keep a few loonies on the right wing of his party happy.

Why do you think this?

[steakbake]

Don't know how this one is going to play out. However, the way it has been done and the news narrative behind it has not done the country any favours. I think there will be economic and political repercussions from this which will ultimately damage the UK's national interests.

Still, as long as The City are okay and middle England can sit down to breakfast tomorrow safe in the knowledge that Johnny Foreigner can clean up the mess that our reckless banks helped to create, then everything is fine with Dave.

[BEEJ]

Cameron has isolated us from Europe to avoid a transaction tax on banks, who got us in this mess in the first place.
Nice soundbite!

But the alternative seems to be to throw our hat into the ring so that we can make significant contributions to bailing out the weaker Eurozone nations such as Greece and Portugal, something which up until now we have not been required to do through European mechanisms.

Where was the money going to come from in the UK for that? Further public sector cuts?


I've no problems with a financial sector that functions properly and responsibly - but the City basically does what it wants - it needs regulating (not just in London BTW)

For the eurozone to work (and ultimately the EU), I feel greater fiscal integration is an absolute necessity - it seems most countries are willing to work on achieving this.

I feel that the UK turning away in this manner thereby losing all influence and respect within the EU will impact more on the UK than it will on the EU - not a clever move.
We were already a second-tier nation in Europe as one of the ten sitting outside the Euro. Presumably you would have wanted the UK to join the Euro when we had the chance some years ago?

What state would we be in now, do you reckon?


I have no doubt that Sarkozy has his own agenda, but his point about the lack of regulation of financial services is increasingly self evident.

It is not the fact that he didn’t back the deal that I object to; it is the fact that he did it to protect the interests of a ravenous, selfish elite.
Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, successive UK governments have nurtured our financial services sector until the point where it is now a monster, one which we depend on for far too high a share of our economy. A transactions tax applied across Europe but not globally will hit the UK economy hardest across the globe. That means all of us in this country - not just the overpaid elite in the City.

I completely agree that regulation of this sector in the UK needs to be tightened, that high-street banking needs to be separated off from investment banking and that steps need to be taken to rake in the obscene levels of bonuses being earned there.

But this particular 'sacrificial ask' of the UK to give more than any other nation was a step too far. All to help bail-out a euro experiment that has gone badly wrong?

[ballengeich]

Still, as long as The City are okay and middle England can sit down to breakfast tomorrow safe in the knowledge that Johnny Foreigner can clean up the mess that our reckless banks helped to create, then everything is fine with Dave.

In what way did our banks cause the budget deficits in Greece, Portugal, Italy etc? The current mess is about sovereign debt, not the banking sector.

[Big Ed]

You are presenting your assumptions about Cameron's motives as fact. We can debate all day about what we both think his motives are or you can attempmt to look objectively at the impact of his decision. I prefer the latter.

Tory hating and bank hating is now standard on every debate now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an apologist for either group but it seems that debates ends up going down the old party political route when in fact it better to debate the subject in hand.

The continued umbilical relationship with our Governments (Labour, Conservative or Coalition) and our Financial Sector are what wind me up. That I think that David Cameron is a poor politician, let alone Prime Minister, has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Tory (honestly).
That the Financial Services Industry continue to preserve and increase their own self interest at the expense of the UK economy, with the full backing of our elected representatives, is also a tad irritating.

[Big Ed]

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, successive UK governments have nurtured our financial services sector until the point where it is now a monster, one which we depend on for far too high a share of our economy. A transactions tax applied across Europe but not globally will hit the UK economy hardest across the globe. That means all of us in this country - not just the overpaid elite in the City.

I completely agree that regulation of this sector in the UK needs to be tightened, that high-street banking needs to be separated off from investment banking and that steps need to be taken to rake in the obscene levels of bonuses being earned there.

But this particular 'sacrificial ask' of the UK to give more than any other nation was a step too far. All to help bail-out a euro experiment that has gone badly wrong?

It’s hard for me to contradict that. I mentioned earlier that I didn’t have a problem with him not signing the treaty; rather I questioned his motivation. (Fancy questioning someone’s motivation on a Hibs fans website). :greengrin
The issue that Sarkozy and the other leaders are getting at IMO, is that they cannot make any progress on trying to reign financial bad practice in; whilst in the UK anything goes.
A FSA report into the RBS collapse of 2008 is due out on Monday and senior officials of that Authority are expected to get a kicking.
The UK is turning a blind eye to financial shenanigans and the Europeans, now desperate in the face of financial Armageddon, have woken up at last to this.
Our leaders are carrying on like Rip Van Winkle.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Inevitably, seeing as you're supporting him, I think he's caused, what will be, an utter disaster for the UK in order to keep a few loonies on the right wing of his party happy.

ooooh thats not very nice now is it. Anyhoo you think we should have allowed the people who are in the process of bankrupting the euro to have more power over our country?

I don't really care why he done it, the outcome was the right one and I think time will prove this to be correct. I strongly suspect that this new treaty will never see the light of day because the euro won't survive long enough.

[Gatecrasher]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16121123

i (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16121123) can see why the UK weren't keen, i wouldnt be happy with the uk handing over these powers.

[Hainan Hibs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16121123

i (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16121123) can see why the UK weren't keen, i wouldnt be happy with the uk handing over these powers.

I think the most important line in that report was the last one.

There is no way countries such as Greece and Portugal will become competitive in the Eurozone unless there is a massive internal devaluation, which is something neither country will be able to do without significant backlash from their society.

The EU can rearrange the deck chairs all they like, but the Euro is still going to sink.

[PeeJay]

I will be very surprised if you can provide one example of the proposed financial service tax having worked in any guise previously.


"It is possible for a single country to apply a securities transaction tax unilaterally without significant capital flight to exchanges in other jurisdictions. There are many examples of such taxes already in existence. Britain levies a “Stamp Duty,” a 0.5% tax on purchases of shares of UK companies whether the transaction occurs in the UK or overseas. Such specific financial transaction taxes exist in Austria, Greece, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Hong Kong, China and Singapore. The state of New York levies a stamp duty on trades taking place on both the New York Stock Exchange and on NASDAQ"
Rodney Schmidt


Stephan Schulmeister of the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Austrian_Institute_of_Economic_Research) has suggested that initially Britain and Germany could implement a tax on a range of financial instruments since about 97% of all transactions on European Union exchanges occur in these two countries. (Although I guess this is now out of question?)
(C) Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

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

We had something similar to Stamp Tax in Germany, but only up to 1991...

How's that grab you?:greengrin

[Eyrie]

So what you're saying is that having a transactions tax didn't make any difference to the reckless behaviour that led to the current situation.

So why would a Tobin tax be any different? It's also very nice of the Eurozone countries to support the idea when it's actually the UK that would pay most of it.

[PeeJay]

So what you're saying is that having a transactions tax didn't make any difference to the reckless behaviour that led to the current situation.

So why would a Tobin tax be any different? It's also very nice of the Eurozone countries to support the idea when it's actually the UK that would pay most of it.

Well obviously the current tax paid in some countries doesn't cover everything, which is why the the City of London is so vehemently against the proposed tax - or why do you think they oppose it??

Think you'll find the banks are not paying for the current misery caused by their greed and mismanagement, but you probably are - unless you're a banker perhaps?

I don't think that the proposed tax coupled with the greater regulation is aimed at hitting the UK economy on its own: it is aimed at making banks and financial institutions contribute to a greater and fairer degree to the problem they have dumped on us: one which they are letting the tax payer, be it in the UK, Germany or wherever pay for on their behalf. Someone has to make a start at fixing the problem, surely?

Cameron is not looking after the UK economy: he's solely acting on behalf of his "friends" in the city. I doubt the UK populace north of London - or perhaps even only that square mile of London, benefits much from the City's wealth and financial prowess - I mean does anyone seriously believe that?

[Eyrie]

Well obviously the current tax paid in some countries doesn't cover everything, which is why the the City of London is so vehemently against the proposed tax - or why do you think they oppose it??
They're opposed to it for the same reason that the strikes last week were opposed to public sector pensions reform - because they would pay more. Doesn't make it right or wrong though.


Think you'll find the banks are not paying for the current misery caused by their greed and mismanagement, but you probably are - unless you're a banker perhaps?

I'm certainly paying through my taxes and increased inflation, but I'll be honest and admit that the lower interest rates are a saving grace for me personally. Mercifully not a banker.


I don't think that the proposed tax coupled with the greater regulation is aimed at hitting the UK economy on its own: it is aimed at making banks and financial institutions contribute to a greater and fairer degree to the problem they have dumped on us: one which they are letting the tax payer, be it in the UK, Germany or wherever pay for on their behalf. Someone has to make a start at fixing the problem, surely?
Of course, but should that burden be borne disproportionately by one country?


Cameron is not looking after the UK economy: he's solely acting on behalf of his "friends" in the city. I doubt the UK populace north of London - or perhaps even only that square mile of London, benefits much from the City's wealth and financial prowess - I mean does anyone seriously believe that?
They pay plenty in tax, avoid even more and probably evade some. Worth pointing out that the Tobin tax would also hit the dealings of our pension funds, and they're paying out little enough at the moment as it is.

[Big Ed]

I am not normally a fan of posting links to other websites, but for all the harrumphing that has gone on in the last couple of days in the media; the following provides an interesting perspective of what went on in Brussels from someone who was there: http://blogs.channel4.com/faisal-islam-on-economics/ten-curiosities-about-david-camerons-veto/15844

[Leicester Fan]

I am not normally a fan of posting links to other websites, but for all the harrumphing that has gone on in the last couple of days in the media; the following provides an interesting perspective of what went on in Brussels from someone who was there: http://blogs.channel4.com/faisal-islam-on-economics/ten-curiosities-about-david-camerons-veto/15844

It's nice to see channel 4 is just as impartial as the BBC.

[Big Ed]

It's nice to see channel 4 is just as impartial as the BBC.


Maybe you could complain to OFCOM about that. Apparently they are a whole lot better than Paul Dacre and his buddies at the PCC.

[Leicester Fan]

Newspapers don't claim to be impartial nor do they have any obligation to be so.

[Big Ed]

Newspapers don't claim to be impartial nor do they have any obligation to be so.

Well thank goodness for OFCOM then. You can tell them all about the nasty man telling lies about what happened in Brussels.
Be sure to let us know when they get back and vindicate you.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It's nice to see channel 4 is just as impartial as the BBC.

It's the journalists blog page though so surely he should give his opinion, whether you agree with it or not doesn't really matter, I don't think he has done anything wrong by writing the words.

[steakbake]

Newspapers don't claim to be impartial nor do they have any obligation to be so.

Exactly. I think it is naive to think that newspapers should give a fair and balanced view untainted by any political editorial stance.

The press is free insomuch as you can make a choice as to which of the paper's viewpoints you are happy to read. Similarly with TV - political editorship is a key component, otherwise their output would be totally chaotic. The BBC for example, has allegedly got a policy of studied editorial neutrality however, their featured commentators often take a political stance. Peston, that bald dude with the mad eyes etc etc - they'll have a political stance. As do Paxman, Wark and so on. That Glenn Campbell and Gordon Brewer: all of them have got a political stance or other.

I quite like the Herald because they have a variety of writers who have differing political angles. The Scotsman however, I think, suffers from a lack of the same broad perspective.

[RyeSloan]

"It is possible for a single country to apply a securities transaction tax unilaterally without significant capital flight to exchanges in other jurisdictions. There are many examples of such taxes already in existence. Britain levies a “Stamp Duty,” a 0.5% tax on purchases of shares of UK companies whether the transaction occurs in the UK or overseas. Such specific financial transaction taxes exist in Austria, Greece, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Hong Kong, China and Singapore. The state of New York levies a stamp duty on trades taking place on both the New York Stock Exchange and on NASDAQ"
Rodney Schmidt


Stephan Schulmeister of the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Austrian_Institute_of_Economic_Research) has suggested that initially Britain and Germany could implement a tax on a range of financial instruments since about 97% of all transactions on European Union exchanges occur in these two countries. (Although I guess this is now out of question?)
(C) Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax

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

We had something similar to Stamp Tax in Germany, but only up to 1991...

How's that grab you?:greengrin


Stamp duty or SDRT is a tax on the transfer of assets...a Tobin tax is a tax on financial transactions...to me they might be similar on the surface but are fundamentally different. You pay SDRT on the transfer of your assets in a UK incorporated company, there is really no way to avoid that, evidenced by the fact that a substantial amount of SDRT is paid from overseas investors.

However a Tobin Tax is a tax on financial transactions, quite different from a defined tax on UK assets. The scope would need to be defined but would surely include such things as spots, Forwards, Futures, Bonds, Swaps etc etc...I would suggest that a tax on these transactions in the UK but not in say Hong Kong would lead to a substantial transfer of business out of the UK market and into areas where no tax on such transactions existed…so quite different in nature to SDRT. Such a outflow of business from London would surely be detrimental to the UK financial services market as a whole and probably give a whole new momentum to other parts of the UK financial sector moving out of the UK to these newly invigorated centres of trading.

I'm sure some will say so what!? We rely too much on the square mile anyway and about time it was cut down to size....this may ultimately be true but even if it was is now really the time, with UK government finances strained to almost breaking point, to be voluntarily agreeing to a move that really is a total unknown in terms of revenue raising ability and one that may have substantial negative unintended consequences to one of your main sectors of your economy?

[HKhibby]

So glad there is once and for all a British Prime Minister that has stood up to the inward, backward looking EUSSR!, the whole project of political and economic union has and always will be a total disaster! and the artificial currency of the Euro held together almost by sticking plaster! was always doomed to fail and proven it doesnt work!, let them go for more union if they want to, but when the euro falls apart, which it probably still will, who will look stupid then?, The UK can open up different trade markets with other countries anyway if it hopefully will get out of the EU, remember they have the Commonwealth too to open up free trade links with, as well as North America and Asia, so yes the good old french-Geremans might feel all smug etc.. like they always have been!, but they only ever have wanted British money in their plastic union to keep them afloat, not the UK as a whole!
And yes he did it to protect the City of London, square mile too!, but let me assure you the square mile creates more money and wealth and employment for the uk as a whole along with Heathrow Airport, with cargo imports/exports etc.. than most other places in Europe!

[Eyrie]

Where would the money from a Tobin tax go anyway?

Would it be retained by the UK Treasury, in which case it is a matter for our government and not Europe to decide?

Would it be taken by the European Commission, currently pushing for inflation busting increases to its budget at the same time that many member states have had to introduce austerity measures to balance their budgets?

Would it be used to help bail out the euro, in whch case why should the vast majority of it be paid by a country which had the good sense to stay well out of the euro. I credit Gordon Brown with very little, but that was the one decision he got right.

[Beefster]

Is it right that the SNP want to remove us from the UK but join us up fully to the EU?

[Big Ed]

Stamp duty or SDRT is a tax on the transfer of assets...a Tobin tax is a tax on financial transactions...to me they might be similar on the surface but are fundamentally different. You pay SDRT on the transfer of your assets in a UK incorporated company, there is really no way to avoid that, evidenced by the fact that a substantial amount of SDRT is paid from overseas investors.

However a Tobin Tax is a tax on financial transactions, quite different from a defined tax on UK assets. The scope would need to be defined but would surely include such things as spots, Forwards, Futures, Bonds, Swaps etc etc...I would suggest that a tax on these transactions in the UK but not in say Hong Kong would lead to a substantial transfer of business out of the UK market and into areas where no tax on such transactions existed…so quite different in nature to SDRT. Such a outflow of business from London would surely be detrimental to the UK financial services market as a whole and probably give a whole new momentum to other parts of the UK financial sector moving out of the UK to these newly invigorated centres of trading.

I'm sure some will say so what!? We rely too much on the square mile anyway and about time it was cut down to size....this may ultimately be true but even if it was is now really the time, with UK government finances strained to almost breaking point, to be voluntarily agreeing to a move that really is a total unknown in terms of revenue raising ability and one that may have substantial negative unintended consequences to one of your main sectors of your economy?

As ever, your post makes a great deal of sense; however I feel that your assertion that now may not be the time to start interfering with Financial Service Industry is something that I baulk at.
I understand that tax revenue may be put in jeopardy if regulations are imposed upon some of their practices, but when will be a good time?
In 2008, Mervyn King bemoaned the Bank of England’s lack of regulatory powers when he said "The Bank finds itself in a position rather like that of a church whose congregation attends weddings and burials but ignores the sermons in between. Warnings are unlikely to be effective when people are being asked to change behaviour which seems to them highly profitable."
Persisting with a laissez-faire attitude to regulating the single most dominant part of our economy is like going out for the night and leaving a small child at home with a box of matches; after all, he might not light them.
I am aware that your post was specifically about transaction taxes and how beneficial they would (or not) be: I can’t pretend I’d know, but unquestioned backing an ever growing Financial Services Industry, part of which has been bailed out for billions already, is a dangerous route for any responsible Government to take.

[Sir David Gray]

Is it right that the SNP want to remove us from the UK but join us up fully to the EU?

Nope and it makes a total mockery of their ideas of "independence" for Scotland.

It's one of the reasons why I cannot take the SNP seriously.

As for David Cameron's decision last week at the EU summit to veto the proposed treaty, I say good on him but it's now about time that he gives the British people what they really want and announce a referendum on British membership of the European Union.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Is it right that the SNP want to remove us from the UK but join us up fully to the EU?

Thing is if that's there policy after independence then you just don't vote for them to run an independent Scotland.

[PeeJay]

Stamp duty or SDRT is a tax on the transfer of assets...a Tobin tax is a tax on financial transactions...to me they might be similar on the surface but are fundamentally different. You pay SDRT on the transfer of your assets in a UK incorporated company, there is really no way to avoid that, evidenced by the fact that a substantial amount of SDRT is paid from overseas investors.

I'm sure some will say so what!? We rely too much on the square mile anyway and about time it was cut down to size....this may ultimately be true but even if it was is now really the time, with UK government finances strained to almost breaking point, to be voluntarily agreeing to a move that really is a total unknown in terms of revenue raising ability and one that may have substantial negative unintended consequences to one of your main sectors of your economy?

Good post - disagree with your reticence to demand taxes from the banks et al - I'm all for Borroso's proposed FS tax - and it's not just for the UK BTW! Anyway, an interesting article in the Guardian today that rightly questions the banks/financial sector's actual contribution to the UK economy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/12/britain-ruled-by-banks (My father would fall over laughing at my mentioning of the Guardian - and I suspect some here on here may too :greengrin... but I think it's an excellent article myself)

All this talk of the British interest and the financial sector baffles me anyway - it's as if the FS and CoL played no part in the current financial crisis? Surely, one has to balance what the financial sector "supposedly" contributes to the UK/European economy against the financial crisis that the banks/financial sector actually unleashed upon us all. There are two sides to the coin, surely - be it pound or euro!

[hibsbollah]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/s2tQy50k3wS_9CuuCukyCgg/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2011/dec/12/debt-crisis-europe-news&cat=commentisfreeSince we're posting guardian links, the opinion polls referenced in the above article surprised me. I hadnt realised anti-european attitudes were so strong right across the UK. The suggestion is Cameron is playing a sensible hand, appealing to popular sentiment even when that flies in the face of diplomatic and economic sense. Ban the croissant!

[PeeJay]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/s2tQy50k3wS_9CuuCukyCgg/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2011/dec/12/debt-crisis-europe-news&cat=commentisfreeSince we're posting guardian links, the opinion polls referenced in the above article surprised me. I hadnt realised anti-european attitudes were so strong right across the UK. The suggestion is Cameron is playing a sensible hand, appealing to popular sentiment even when that flies in the face of diplomatic and economic sense. Ban the croissant!

The rising anti-European opinion in the UK you reference seems to contrast starkly with a feeling here in Germany that Cameron was decidedly naive in trying to push through his so-called "acceptable demands". A general perception here is that he turned up at the negotiating table with no proper groundwork having been conducted in advance on the British side in terms of diplomatic effort and lobbying to ultimately secure allies for his position. His whole attitude seemed so utterly amateurish and arrogant. I'm not sure, maybe he thought "Johnny Foreigner" would just roll over: it's a sad indictment on his political nous if that was indeed the case: he seems to have been extremely badly advised to act as he did.

Many people here and across the EU, I would assume, think "the British" never contribute anything positive anyway to the concept of Europe with regard to political, cultural and economic integration - Maggie Thatcher demanding her money back and the general UK stance of "no" to everything, or "we'll opt out of this, thank you" or "let's wait and see what happens", suggest that the political forces in the UK have no clear idea of what the UK is actually in the EU "FOR". It is hardly any wonder then that the populace of the UK seems to be so badly informed about the EU, something that is then reflected so negatively in the opinion polls.

I heard someone on Radio 5 live's breakfast show saying the UK should leave Europe (sic) and trade on its own with China, India, the US and Europe, not forgetting the Commonwealth - quite a few people seemed to echo his stance. Find it astonishingly naive again myself to believe that a country like the UK, with such a poor manufacturing base, could possibly hold its own in these regions: with what one has to wonder? If Cameron's negotiating skills at the recent summit are anything to go by, a future outside of the EU for the UK would surely be a disaster? Not for the City and its banks, perhaps, but they don't care about anyone but themselves as far as I can see...

If the UK has no positive concept for its membership in the EU does anyone seriously believe it has a well-considered plan for life after the EU - on its own?

[Hibrandenburg]

If you don't eat at the table then you become the food.

[RyeSloan]

Good post - disagree with your reticence to demand taxes from the banks et al - I'm all for Borroso's proposed FS tax - and it's not just for the UK BTW! Anyway, an interesting article in the Guardian today that rightly questions the banks/financial sector's actual contribution to the UK economy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/12/britain-ruled-by-banks (My father would fall over laughing at my mentioning of the Guardian - and I suspect some here on here may too :greengrin... but I think it's an excellent article myself)

All this talk of the British interest and the financial sector baffles me anyway - it's as if the FS and CoL played no part in the current financial crisis? Surely, one has to balance what the financial sector "supposedly" contributes to the UK/European economy against the financial crisis that the banks/financial sector actually unleashed upon us all. There are two sides to the coin, surely - be it pound or euro!

I don't have a problem with taxing banks, I do have a problem with a EU tobin tax that will damage the UK Finacial Sector more than any other countires....if France or Germany were in the same postion as the UK I'm absolutely certain they would not be proposing a tobin tax.

I've read the article and it makes some good points but maybe misses the point. Manufacturing may well employ twice as many people but at what level and on what wages? Even if it is bigger and better than the Financial Service sector, so what? Manufacturing has received significant help in terms of the devaluation of the pound, has generous R&D tax credits, has other substantial tax breaks in terms of tax on investor capital in start ups, new subsidised apprentice schemes etc etc so the Government seems to be helping that Sector already...Also I don't see anyone saying Financial Services is THE biggest contributor to everything, what people are saying is that is is a key contributor.

For example according to the Office for National Statistics and Oxford Economics the financial services sector accounts for 10% of the total national income of Great Britain. And according to PWC Financial Services accounted for £53.4bn of tax revenue, over 11% of the total in 2010. They also claim the sector was the biggest contributior of Corporation Tax in 2010. Some pretty significant numbers there.

To my mind then it would make sense for Britian to protect that Sector, especially when some of the proposals put forward seem to be unduly harsh on the UK while potentially benefiting other European and Global centres.

Absolutely I have no problem in saying the banks were greedy and allowed to run riot when they should have been called to heel before the bubble got out of control and sensible regulation and taxation of banks and the financial sector is a must. BUT at the same time I'm saying that it makes little sense to actively go out of our way to further damage the UK economy and one of the major sectors within it because of what happened in the past...it's a bit like saying we should never have allowed Nissan to build a car plant in Sunderland because of the cost of the failure of BL to the UK taxpayer.

[BEEJ]

Many people here and across the EU, I would assume, think "the British" never contribute anything positive anyway to the concept of Europe with regard to political, cultural and economic integration - Maggie Thatcher demanding her money back and the general UK stance of "no" to everything, or "we'll opt out of this, thank you" or "let's wait and see what happens", suggest that the political forces in the UK have no clear idea of what the UK is actually in the EU "FOR". It is hardly any wonder then that the populace of the UK seems to be so badly informed about the EU, something that is then reflected so negatively in the opinion polls.
Contrast this with the general approach across Europe of signing up enthusiastically to accords, treaties and new legislation but then blithely ignoring them when it suits their national interests. There have been countless examples of this over the years - not least the failure of the Euro experiment to date can be put down to every national participant ignoring and breaching the guidelines for national economies that were laid down at the outset.

It's all very well to agree something in principle, as 26 nations apparently did last week. The true tests will come:

1) next February / March when the national delegates have to sweat through the detail and sign up their countries once and for all to the new scheme (we'll see if all 26 do); and

2) when they have to stick to the new strictures imposed when the economic going gets tough and large sections of their electorate start rioting in the streets.

The UK is being made a convenient scapegoat following last week's meeting to divert attention away from the fact that once again the European nations came away from an expensive gathering with nothing fleshed out and agreed in detail - yet again the can was kicked down the road to avoid forcing what will be very difficult and painful decisions.

[RyeSloan]

The rising anti-European opinion in the UK you reference seems to contrast starkly with a feeling here in Germany that Cameron was decidedly naive in trying to push through his so-called "acceptable demands". A general perception here is that he turned up at the negotiating table with no proper groundwork having been conducted in advance on the British side in terms of diplomatic effort and lobbying to ultimately secure allies for his position. His whole attitude seemed so utterly amateurish and arrogant. I'm not sure, maybe he thought "Johnny Foreigner" would just roll over: it's a sad indictment on his political nous if that was indeed the case: he seems to have been extremely badly advised to act as he did.

Many people here and across the EU, I would assume, think "the British" never contribute anything positive anyway to the concept of Europe with regard to political, cultural and economic integration - Maggie Thatcher demanding her money back and the general UK stance of "no" to everything, or "we'll opt out of this, thank you" or "let's wait and see what happens", suggest that the political forces in the UK have no clear idea of what the UK is actually in the EU "FOR". It is hardly any wonder then that the populace of the UK seems to be so badly informed about the EU, something that is then reflected so negatively in the opinion polls.

I heard someone on Radio 5 live's breakfast show saying the UK should leave Europe (sic) and trade on its own with China, India, the US and Europe, not forgetting the Commonwealth - quite a few people seemed to echo his stance. Find it astonishingly naive again myself to believe that a country like the UK, with such a poor manufacturing base, could possibly hold its own in these regions: with what one has to wonder? If Cameron's negotiating skills at the recent summit are anything to go by, a future outside of the EU for the UK would surely be a disaster? Not for the City and its banks, perhaps, but they don't care about anyone but themselves as far as I can see...

If the UK has no positive concept for its membership in the EU does anyone seriously believe it has a well-considered plan for life after the EU - on its own?

Or you could say Merkel is playing a very very dangerous game and her and Sarkozy's response to the Euro crisis has been inept from the start and steeped in self preservation. There is always two sides to every story.

You see lots of German posturing but hear very little that they were the main (only?) beneficiaries of the Euro project trading to the Euro zone and the rest of the world with an artificially devalued currency and raking in billions while they did so. Now that the same periphery that allowed them to do that has gone belly up they have climbed on their moral high horse like they had nothing to do with it. (All of this despite previously letting fiscal rules designed to avoid this whole scenario slide quietly when it suited them and France)

I've not seen Cameron saying Britain should leave the EU and I think people are crazy to suggest that we should ...what he did say is that he refused to agree to further fiscal union. I think he's right as Britain has little or nothing to gain from further fiscal union with the euro zone and as they have evidenced before these new 'rules' are not really enforceable so who's to say the whole mess might just get even messier?

[Leicester Fan]

The rising anti-European opinion in the UK you reference seems to contrast starkly with a feeling here in Germany that Cameron was decidedly naive in trying to push through his so-called "acceptable demands". A general perception here is that he turned up at the negotiating table with no proper groundwork having been conducted in advance on the British side in terms of diplomatic effort and lobbying to ultimately secure allies for his position. His whole attitude seemed so utterly amateurish and arrogant. I'm not sure, maybe he thought "Johnny Foreigner" would just roll over: it's a sad indictment on his political nous if that was indeed the case: he seems to have been extremely badly advised to act as he did.

German public opinion versus British public opinion. You pays your money you takes your choice.




Many people here and across the EU, I would assume, think "the British" never contribute anything positive anyway to the concept of Europe with regard to political, cultural and economic integration

Except a flippin' great wadge of cash with very little in return.




I heard someone on Radio 5 live's breakfast show saying the UK should leave Europe (sic) and trade on its own with China, India, the US and Europe, not forgetting the Commonwealth - quite a few people seemed to echo his stance. Find it astonishingly naive again myself to believe that a country like the UK, with such a poor manufacturing base, could possibly hold its own in these regions: with what one has to wonder?

Why does a British company have to be part of the EU to sell something to China?

[steakbake]

UK - heading towards independence outside of Europe.