I really dont know how this would play during an election campaign. The electorate's reaction isnt going to be based on any deep analysis, its just too complex. There's obviously a general anti european feeling if opinion polls are to be believed, but the Tory "basta*ds" can easily alienate the electorate. And the Lib Dems seem to be in an impossible position. They'd have to elect a new leader before they could fight an election. Labour dont really seem to have a position other than to criticise Cameron's negotiating tactics. It would be a huge risk for them to come across as pro european.

I suspect that all three parties will contrive to make sure that there isnt an election any time soon.

Cameron seems to have come out of this very well if you are to believe the papers and News.

Good on him for standing up to Europe- UKIP to get more votes than Cleggs gang later this week.

ok.




























mate.

You must watch some weird TV channels and read some strange papers then

Thats the impression I'm getting too.

Should be an interesting week. Eurosceptic Tories cheering DC into the Commons, Ken Clarke, etc may put the boot in bifg time, the LibDems may disintegrate and silly little Ed Milliband will look his usual daft self. The makets may crucify the Euro or may do the opposite. The US may tell DC to go and crawl back to Europe, or they may not. If Cameron doesn't follow through and stay tough, he's finished. If he does and the US doesn't like the stance, the UK is finished.

Its not over yet. Cameron and Merkozy called each other's bluffs and they all lost. They'll re-open it again in 6 months. It will be just too difficult for the EU to implement fiscal union in parallel to the existing EU institutions. They'll cobble together an agreement on financial services that will allow Cameron to claim a victory without Merkozy giving too much away. Either that or they'll try to eject the UK completely from the EU.

Do you think they'll want to do without our huge net contribution in these austere times? Eurocrats think the world owes them a living. They expect the USA to fight their battles and not to pay for them. They even wanted the poor people of China (with average per capita incomes of ca. $7,500) to bail them out. You really think they'll want to kick us out? They may need to spend their days working then, rather than poncing about outside cafes all day in their designer sunglasses.

It certainly seems to have endeared Cameron to the right-wing press, who haven't always given him their full backing during his time as Tory Party leader.

It will be interesting to see the next set of opinion poll figures.

Personally my view of him has improved, for the first time in years a Prime Minister has done something unexpected and bold and has shaken politics up. After years of bland meetings behind closed doors about Europe, its good to see the issue being discussed so in-depth by the public. Only time will tell if this decision pays off or not.

You'll get a splinter in your backside mate.

They won't try to eject the UK for the simple reason that money talks, the UK has always been a net contributor to the EU, only Germany can claim that too. For an organisation that is infamously corrupt and riddled with rent-seeking interests the idea of the UK walking away with its billions in subsidies to the project simply isn't palatable, even if our reluctance to just hold our noses when wading through the sea of sh.1t that is the EU's economic affairs is a constant annoyance to Germany and France. They tolerate us because we stuff their gobs with money, and that's far more powerful than political rhetoric.

Ultimately we live in the era of GATT and the WTO, and if we chose to renegotiate or even leave we would still end up being in a free trade zone, because the vast amount of trade we do with the rest of the EU is too important for either side to lose. The real fault line is that the UK's interests lie in being part of a single market, which is what we really signed up to, not a political union, which Germany and France want and our politicians have spent decades trying to pretend isn't the case.

Cameron would not have used the veto if he genuinely didn't have to, like every British PM of the last 40 years he hasn't the stomach for a real fight over a matter of mere principle, and by the same token the Germans and French would have given us the opt outs we wanted had they really not mattered to their own interests, but the Germans and French still need the UK's economic power, because the French state is still horribly expose the losses its banks face if they can't keep kicking the can along the road, and the German appetite for mopping up the Eurozone brown stuff is not infinite. So I think you're right in that there will be another deal in the next few months, and this time the UK will get its opt-outs and the EU will get some sort of bung in return so both sides walk away with a prize.

But it's overused, and I do appreciate it's populist appeal, but its token value to noddy arguments far exceeds it's real value in understanding international political economy. Casino banking does not of itself create unsustainable levels of sovereign debt, we're in the realms of boring government bonds rather than exotic financial instruments.

Rubbish. The single market of the EU is far easier to trade in than the rest of the world WTO or not. The yanks will quite happily indulge in protectionism against anyone including the Chinese despite it is they who basically have bailed them out financially for years if the Yanks think it is in their interests. That example is the sort of reality that exists outside the single market. In contrast it is as easy from a legal standpoint for a UK company to trade in the single market as it is for them to trade in the Uk. Trading in the single market and outside of it are vastly different by an order of magnitude. If the WTO trading area was just the same as the single market then the latter would not need to exist and it would not exist. It would be pointless. It is far from pointless.



Given the main reason he said he used it he definately didn't have to.

Supposedly it was to protect the City from the proposed Financial Transaction Tax. Well given taxation legistlaton of any kind is already subject to a Veto he did not need to veto the entire deal to prevent such a tax.

What will happen now is the other 26 will draw up a new treaty which will allow them to impose rules that will circumvent the current treaties and so impose one anyway. Want to trade stocks in Euros? Then pay up. Note that is not the same as imposing a tax outright but coming up with we rules for trading and such rules would not be subject to ad veto. We would have to get ally's to vote such changes down in a qualified majority voting scenario. Cameron has not got any ally's anymore.

If we were not excluded (as we are now) from the new 26 member club we could fight our corner and use vetoes within the club when necessary. Now we are out of the club they can do what they like without the UK putting the breaks on. That is exactly what Sarkozy wanted. The Uk is now out of the way and marginalised. Cameron has been completely outmanoeuvred.

Why did he fall for this? He didn't. He did it to appease his party and protect his position within it is my opinion as to why.

Cameron's best hope is actually that the Euro does fail. The very thing him and Osborne rightly say they do not want to happen. If it survives and the 26 forge ahead with fiscal union then Cameraon wil go down in history as the PM who finally relegated the status of the UK to be insignificant.

I think it's 60 40 towards failure myself so he could be "lucky" but if it does fail I certainly hope no one is daft enough to say Cameron was a great statesman due to what he just did. It wil be luck not judgement and you watch the 26 blame the uk for not backing the deal in the first place. That is the other way in which he has been out manoeuvred. Were we still in the club any failure would have been despite our involvement not because we abandoned the rest.

Whichever way the cookie crumbles Cameron has been exposed as the rank amateur he is when it comes to statesmanship. I detest Maggie thatcher with a vengeance but she was a constant thorn in the side of the EU and a reason she could be was because she was at the table. I doubt she would have been daft enough to remove herself from the negotiating table to appease a few nice but dim back benchers.

Dave O has got it completely spot on . There is a huge possibility that the main Euro banks may end up leaving London and taking their buisness to Paris or Berlin.

There will be huge presure on these banks to comply with their national governments will particularly as most of them are in complete hock to their national governments and the ECB.

This decison by Cameron was purely Political and not Economic. It could turn out to be disastrous.


Like everything else in Europe Britain will come to the party too late to influence anything and negotiate any compromises from the other countries.

Britain cannot be separate from Europe. They have to be either IN or OUT there is no in between. But if they are out they will be out of the single market and then you can say bye bye to British manufacturing.

Those who want us out still see Britain as an economic powerhouse who will ressurect the Empire. The Empire will now just laugh at us as Europe is a powerhouse not Britain.

Maybe I am confused but this idea that unless you are in the EEC you cannot trade in Europe seems way off the mark. If you look at the biggest firms in the world a number are non european yet they all seem to trade in Europe with being part of the club. Wal-Mart has supermarkets here, Samsung electronics are in every electronic retailer, Toyota cars everywhere you look etc. Are you saying if Samsung were british its market in Europe would disappear if we pulled out of the EEC?