I guess Cameron had two shitty choices.

One was to agree to give up more powers to the quite undemocratic EU and anger a large section of his own party which are full of Euroskeptic backbenchers as well as a large segment of the English population which would probably have demanded a referendum before giving more powers to faceless officials in Brussels. Without a worldwide agreement on the 'Robin Hood' tax, London position's as the top financial capital of the world would be under threat (as it already is from Hong Kong).

The second was to go with populist sentiment and placate his own Euroskeptic party MPs as well as protect the London financial centre millionaires and billionaires who helped cause the severe financial crisis from a 'Robin Hood' tax. Problem with this position is it doesn't sit well with the EU (read French and Germans) or his coalition allies who are a bunch of Europhiles. So while saying no would protect some of the UK's sovereignty from wannabe superstate EU, it also puts Britain in the unenviable position of being within the EU and with all the powers the EU has over British Law but with less influence. 26-1. Cameron couldn't even get one other country to join him. Failed diplomacy at it's worse.

I would disagree with you here. You ARE right in that had Britain agreed to the conditions, then Britain would have suffered to a degree  - from what ive heard maybe more so than other european countries due to its being the financial capital of europe (or the world if you are right) - even though its not part of the Eurozone. BUT I think Britain pulling out of the deal will have its own consequences. Most of the companies that make London such a financial power are from other european countries and they will likely face pressure from their governments to pull out/reduce presence in Britain. Additionally, EU/Eurozone countries may decide to punish Britain with restrictions and trade barriers/financial and economic relations. Again, as I said, we dont know what will happen and Britain may escape unaffected but then again maybe not.

I highly doubt things would go that far.


Also that would be very petty and sad behaviour and if the Eurozone becomes like that it will most likley go against its intended purpose of keeping peace in Europe.

I think Cameron should have another meeting with Merkel and others and pretty much figure out Britans future with the EU.

Sarkozy is crazy but I think Merkel would perfer the UK stay in the Euro.

It does not simply have to be full integration or full separation.

Also, give it some time such big policy changes will take forever and I think a couple of countries will change thier minds. Special exemptions will be made to certain countries and such.

You cannot have full intergration of fiscal policy with such a diverse range of economies.

He made a stand against the politically correct bullying EU. He does not want to bow down to France and Germany and the other EU heavyweights. Cameron is standing up for the best interests of Great Britain and he wants a better deal for Great Britain.

Why should Great Britain bow down to the French and the Germans? EU only accounts for around 15% of the total global economy.

Britain's main competitors are Switzerland (Not in the EU).  Hong Kong.  (Not in the EU) and New York.  (Not in the EU.)

Furthermore such a law if it were to pass and the UK were to be pushed out of the eurozone would essentially kill any finanicals done in the euro countries.

Well another thing to remember is it in the EU's interest to leave UK a lone.

The UK is a bit smaller then the French Economy but everyone is smaller then Germany.

Italy's economy is big but very ineffective.

Think you missed my point here. Where Britains main competitors are is irrelevant. I was talking about the EU/Eurozone's financial institutions/companies (primarily France and Germany) pulling out from Britain. This is unlikely and would be costly but if their governments really decided to put pressure on these companies to be in a state where the new taxes/restrictions apply, then they would have to do it.

Im not sure I understand your 2nd point - about UK being pushed out of eurozone. How would this kill any financial transactions in euro countries?

However that would mean that this whole thing is a big setup from Germany and France to reduce the financial power of London.


However, I also can see if London does not have to pay the tax, it would make no sense for the EU to create a fin transaction tax.

If they pulled out of britian they'd have to deal with much higher lending rates.

Espeically in the situation they have now, nobdoy wants to take on large amounts added Euro exposure.

If the governments pushed those companies to work within the eurozone where those restrictions apply... it'd also be way more costly due to the new regulations and hurt economic growth... in a time of recession where they need all the economic growth they can get.

I wouldnt know the specifics but you make a lot of sense. My point was that most/all of this would have happened if Britain had signed up to the new agreements, so  the eurozone countries are clearly willing to suffer a little to stabilise things and increase confidence. I agree that it would be very costly to the eurozone countries to shift businesses away from Britain BUT if they DONT do this, then Britain pulling out will undermine the agreement reached. If the agreement is for all of the eurozone (other than Britain), then  Britain and foreign/domestic companies based there will be exempt. Does this not effectively defeat the purpose of the agreement - that financial companies are much more strictly regulated to ensure that this sort of situation does not happen again? To stop this, and stop even more financial companies shifting to Britain, the Eurozone countries will HAVE to put pressure on their national companies currently based in Britain, as well as penalties on Britain, to make sure the restrictions work.