26 in and 1 out? 'Cameron played a blinder'?

Scroll to see replies

I've seen you a lot and you seem to know your stuff, what is the consequence of this veto? and what did Cameron veto against? Thanks.

It was a tax on finances. However Finance is our biggest industry/sector so yeah. Obviously the tax is to raise money to go somewhere, probably bailing out countries, but that's assuming the bankers don't just pack up and leave (hence why we have very few corporations operating here although that's corporate tax). When you tax rich people, they just move away. It solves nothing.

Reply 21

Belizibub

I think he did the right thing. He was in a tight spot no matter the outcome.

Reply 22

Foghorn Leghorn

Original post by Snagprophet

That's not strictly true. We're talking about a struggling economy, but still a pretty big player in world economics none the less. These banks and finacial services would have more to lose moving away from the uk than they would being taxed.

I'm not saying cameron was wrong, but new regulations and taxation may not annihilate our finacial investment.

Reply 23

Hopple

We need to wean ourselves off the dependence on our financial sector at a rate that is best for us. I'm not saying that Cameron can/will do that, but Germany and France definitely won't.

Reply 24

timeandacrayon

I do not claim to know much about this but I have heard (from my dad) that the city contributes 10% of britains gdp, the measures were to tax this which would not benefit us but would benefit other countries such as france and germany, probably why they voted for it. I think that Cameron was right to protect our economy.

Reply 25

Howard

Original post by RyanT

The man has betrayed British interests for the sake of his paymasters in the city.

How can it possibly be in Britain's interests to sign up to this proposal?

Reply 26

rachelkeira

I'm happy to see us stand up for ourselves for once. Although now we're definitely not going to win Eurovision anytime in the near future!

Reply 27

Snagprophet

Original post by rachelkeira

I'm happy to see us stand up for ourselves for once. Although now we're definitely not going to win Eurovision anytime in the near future!

There is no valid reason to watch it, let alone take part.

Original post by Foghorn Leghorn

Well I don't know the extent that bankers can pack up and leave, or move where their money comes through, but if they can't move then I'd support higher taxes.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 28

JLD93

Original post by RyanT

Wouldn't change many peoples jobs and they don't pay much of their money in tax either. It would screw the personal wealth of some faceless city employees who might have to find a job in an engineering or science firm (shocking, I know..making something) for somewhat less pay.

The effect of the city is exaggerated. They've begun evading so much tax to make themselves dispensible, which is what should of happened.

Fantastic company. Remind us, how much trade do we do with the Czech republic and Hungary?

What's how much trade we do with CR and Hungary got to do with how many countries are going for it? The point was that we're not the only ones to refuse.

Reply 29

Rgman27

Original post by Foghorn Leghorn

Well, Banks such as HSBC are already seriously considering moving to the Far East, due to new regulations.

The City of London has only become a major financial centre because of the lack of the regulation and taxes. Having a financial tax would damage that significantly.

If this was 20 years ago, then perhaps they could have got away with it. However, in a globalised financial system, it is easier than ever for institutions to operate from else where.

I don't even believe a Labour Government would have agreed to the proposals by the EU.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 30

MTR_10

Original post by Rgman27

Just out of interest what would stop the European banks now setting up their HQ's in London to avoid the new taxes?

Original post by Howard

How can it possibly be in Britain's interests to sign up to this proposal?

Protection from Europe. If we veto (which we did) we are basically implying that we don't want to be involved in European finance and the economy. A dangerous move considering how unstable the world currently is and will be in the future. It effectively leaves us isolated.

Original post by timeandacrayon

The new legislation would mean that banks would either:
a) Have to operate and compete by the rules/ fairly.
b)Move elsewhere where there were less regulations.

Hence the veto. Doesn't say much for moral standards in the financial services industry does it?

Original post by Snagprophet

Like I asked before, why can't the European banks now come and set up business in London?

Reply 31

Super Cicero

Original post by MTR_10

David Cameron vetoes EU-Wide treaty change but it looks like every other European state may sign up leading to a 26 in/ 1 out situation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16104275

Boris Johnson describes how Cameron 'played a blinder'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/8945415/EU-treaty-David-Cameron-has-played-a-blinder-says-Boris-Johnson.html

Shame that Cameron doesn't protect the British people as much as the city of London.

Go to hell. This is the greatest thing Cameron's done since he became PM. He is a hero.

Reply 32

Architecture-er

More EU control over country's spending.
Budget viewed by the EU before the country has control over it.
Sanctions on overspending.
Meetings monthly.

Red for negatives for us, Green for things we'll be missing out on. I think David made the right choice. Also note that Ed Miliband had nothing bad to say about Cameron saying 'no', all he is moaning about is the fact that we'll be excluded from decisions in the long run. I would argue that we cross that bridge when we come to it, but I'm glad that Cameron had the balls to say no to being an over-taxed big brother for some of the failing countries.

Also bear in mind that the EU can't deliberately screw us over because we're so intrinsically tied to the EU through trade. Plus there'd be international storms if the EU deliberately go down policy paths that ruin us.

Reply 33

Rgman27

Original post by MTR_10

Just out of interest what would stop the European banks now setting up their HQ's in London to avoid the new taxes?

Nothing as far as I know. When Sweden instituted a financial tax in the 90's, their financial sector lost business to London.

I would expect that European Banks would move some operations over here if it was worth it.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 34

Rgman27

Original post by Architecture-er

Yeh, I agree.

Britain still gets to be part of the Trade Union whilst being financially independent.

I just hope that no future Government will not cave into pressure.

Reply 35

MacDaddi

Best thing Cameron has done since being elected

Reply 36

KingKenny

The main reason our economy is so reliant on the city is that big finance has hollowed out the rest of our economy. In Germany the banks support small and medium sized enterprises PRODUCING things. Alas not so much here.

I'd be quite happy for the City to decline. Sterling could devalue, our economy could rebalance and we'd start making and exporting things. It would also be far more beneficial to all those living outside the south east (who are currently underwriting the banks). Regional and local banks could be the answer.

Reply 37

Joinedup

Original post by Jamie

I'm generally pro-EU.

But you have to understand that a staggering amount of our economy is based upon the 'city'.
Our country does not 'deserve' to be so rich. WE have little in way of manufacturing, natural resources and even our 'people' resources are not what they were.
Instead, we have (for mainly historical reasons) the 'city'.

I'm not suggesting we give them free rein.

But to allow other EU countries to destroy our economy just so they can take a slice of our pie (for a short while before it all disappears) is silly.

By standing up for ourselves we risk long term problems but we stave off certain short term disaster.

Historical reasons consists of a series of people like cameron making decisions like this and doing sweet FA for any other sector.
It's the latest stage in a process.

Reply 38

A Mysterious Lord

In a country dependent on the financial sector, he was right to veto changes that would directly affect Britain and the City. The financial tax would have been a disaster.

Original post by Joinedup

Historical reasons consists of a series of people like cameron making decisions like this and doing sweet FA for any other sector.
It's the latest stage in a process.

Exactly why we need to protect what we've got left rather than screw over yet another industry.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 39

aliphatic

I'm just glad we're actually standing up for ourselves for once. Like others, I think this was a good move by Cameron. It's always going to be the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' type of scenario. There are going to be significant ramifications whatever line you take.