Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
I entirely disagree, there is no indication at all that Cameron wanted the City protected from being called to account for things like this, quite the opposite he asked for nothing more than the status quo if reports are to be believed.
Seems a convenient angle to push a pro-European agenda, I guess it stands to reason that from some commentators any trace of malpractice by banks will involve some Cameron bashing and EU worship.
The Treasury are obviously looking into this already given that the report was from consultants brought in there.
Just FYI:
You are aware that EU rules and regulations potentially prevent the implementation of Vickers, yes?
|
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Whilst I personally have no love for the idea of Europe as a central government you appear to be suffering from an unhealthy dose of pro-European paranoia. To my mind there is nothing essentially pro-European in the article.
I'm surprised that you seem to think that the veto was exercised for any other reason other than to protect the financial sector and to maintain and protect the status quo / current practices in all their shapes and forms.
Cameron, in one of his first meetings with Merkel in his capacity as Prime minister back in May 2010, made it clear that he would veto any Treaty amendments which would include a fiscal government. The fact is that you cannot veto something that does not exist.
He, and certain elements of the media, are playing a blinder from a PR (his specialism) perspective. He has sold a non existent veto story as some form of him sticking it to Johnny foreigner and little Englanders and Euro sceptics alike are lapping it up whist all the while (as the article shows) they are being shafted in the supposed "national interest"
Personally speaking I applaud the exposure of such wanton disregard for the future of citizens - from any quarter.
That's all I have to say on the matter - feel free to rant away.