David Cameron yesterday vetoed a new treaty on EU fiscal stability, which would have allowed EU oversight of the financial dealings of member states. Or so we are told.
EU Referendum has done much to explain that there wasn't actually a veto available, which is commendable, but there is also a point that is missed.
Why exactly did Dave do what he did and in turn bring about the condemnation of Europe and even the U.S administrations?
I can only attribute it to two things: a slavish desire to please his masters and chums in the City of London and blind panic at the thought of being yet another Tory Prime Minister becoming embroiled in the political minefield that is Europe.
I can understand a desire to keep his chums in the gainful legal robbery and excessive bonuses that characterises life in the financial heart of London. After all one has to keep an eye out for future employment opportunities once one has left public office, what?
Whether he should have been so blatant is moot. Maybe he should have moved with more political cunning and skill, but to be honest politically he's a lightweight and happen as not he was probably outmanoeuvred by the more savvy political players in Europe.
The bad news is he really has fucked up big time. You know that's the case when even the Americans are looking across the pond tutting and shaking their heads.
What next? Well, if I know the political establishment in the UK, we will have to go crawling back to Europe, proffer abject apologies, roll over and play nice doggy (please let me stay) rather than stick two fingers up to them and go our own way. Huge concessions will have to be granted to the EU commission, not on City trading, that's still probably sacrosanct, but probably on fiscal oversight of governmental budgets and high street banking. I wouldn't be surprised if that old chestnut EU-wide taxation was thrown in for good measure.
Actually lets lump them all in together: a prediction would be to allow the EU's transaction tax, but to make it only liable on high street banking transactions, not on investment banking.
In other words, we get screwed for more tax. Again.
An explanation regarding the issue of anonymity and civil claims against the Savile estate. - The Trust and beneficiaries came into conflict with Natwest in its role as executor and personal representative of the Savile. In particular the Trust – w...
4 hours ago