Eurozone will collapse...

Only if the average people have more than £85,000 in savings (£170,000 for a joint account) per bank....

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

excessive profit is a bad thing, as profits ultimately have to come from somewhere.

you not noticed whenever the top 1% get richer then the rest suffer?

It would seem the US and the UK are sucking the world dry in pure greed cultures.

The financial sector in itself puts the savings of average people at risk, I call it for it to be disbanded and you call me nuts, what is it you want as you cant have both. If you support the financial sector then you support risk.

Chrys, the "financial sector" is a very wide term. It includes the bank where you keep your current account. It includes Paypal and the mechanisms that allow you to collect payments from your customers, and to pay your suppliers, within the Eurozone, and to transfer and convert Euros into Sterling to allow you to pay Direct Debits from your current account.

The financial sector operated perfectly safely for many decades - that much is clear from the first 20 minutes of the documentary being discussed in the other thread just now. It was deregulation of financial services and failure to regulate new financial products that caused the problems, not the existence of the financial sector itself.

Similarly, what exactly is an excessive profit? A large profit in a properly competitive marketplace is a sign of success. It is warped, discredited, Marxist thinking in the extreme to assert that it must of necessity indicate exploitation.

Who determines the level at which a profit is judged 'excessive'?

What action should be taken on excessive profit? Confiscation, or rules that simply prevent a profit being reached? How would such rules be defined?

Most pertinent of all, what's the point of regulating profit levels while doing nothing about the way in which those profits were attained? It wasn't profits that caused the 2008 crash, it was the activity undertaken in pursuit of those profits.

My contention is that you are targeting your ire in the wrong place. You are doing so because you see "disbanding" and "regulation of profit" as the only two options, when they quite simply aren't.

Regulation is most definitely the answer, but it is regulation of behaviour within the industry, not regulation of the outcomes, that is required.

Has this veto actually changed anything then? The EU 'Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs' has said that it doesn't exempt the UK from any additional financial regulations they wish to impose. I guess we knew this already as the treaty didn't contain anything about those regulations but it serves as a reminder.

If anything this may have damaged the chances of stopping those regulations as we are now further removed from a decision making within the EU, as well as possibly causing it's existing members to care less about UK demands. It's looking more like political grandstanding rather than effective bargaining for UK interests.

I am also wondering if such regulation is such a bad thing anyway. A year or so ago we were disgusted at how a lack of regulation had allowed banks to cause chaos with our economy and now we are bitterly defending those very same institutions against that regulation being imposed by the EU. When did we suddenly turn full circle on this? Not really sure that it is in the best interests of our country either, that after the last few years nothing has changed other than the debt incurred bailing out banks.

What's the best argument we have in their defence? That will go elsewhere? Well so what? That was true before, when the previous government wouldn't impose stricter regulations for fear it would damage the City. It will always be true. If the banks are happy to be bailed out but unhappy to have to abide by rules to prevent gettting into trouble in the first place then they might as well leave.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Has this veto actually changed anything then? The EU 'Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs' has said that it doesn't exempt the UK from any additional financial regulations they wish to impose. I guess we knew this already as the treaty didn't contain anything about those regulations but it serves as a reminder.

If anything this may have damaged the chances of stopping those regulations as we are now further removed from a decision making within the EU, as well as possibly causing it's existing members to care less about UK demands. It's looking more like political grandstanding rather than effective bargaining for UK interests.

I am also wondering if such regulation is such a bad thing anything. A year or so ago we were disgusted at how a lack of regulation had allowed banks to cause chaos with our economy and now we are bitterly defending those very same institutions against that regulation being imposed by the EU. Not really sure that is in the interests of our country either, that after the last few years nothing has changed other than the debt incurred bailing out banks. What's the best argument we have in their defence? That will go elsewhere? Well so what? That was true when the current government was blasting the former government for failed regulation over the last 10 years.

So far as I can see they're being defended against a Tobin Tax which wouldn't apply outside Europe, that's the problem. I may be wrong but believe Cameron made the point that any such tax would have to be agreed globally in order to avoid the UK in particular being put at a major competitve disadvantage and the trading simply moving elsewhere. IIRC much of the regulatory change required has already happened.

Regulations can be implemented by QMV (qualified majority voting) but taxation would require unanimity (i.e. UK can still veto). AFAIK a lot of regulation is already agreed and set to come in by about 2014.

Originally Posted by Osem

So far as I can see they're being defended against a Tobin Tax which wouldn't apply outside Europe, that's the problem. IIRC much of the regulatory change required has happened.

I thought the Tobin Tax was one of many regulations being considered by the EU. We wanted an exemption from any EU directive being imposed on our finance industry. That was my understanding anyway....

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Regulations can be implemented by QMV (qualified majority voting) but taxation would require unanimity (i.e. UK can still veto). AFAIK a lot of regulation is already agreed and set to come in by about 2014.

So essentially we always had, and have, the option not to impose the Tobin Tax but abide by the other measures?

One of the beefs the UK government has is the suggestion that the UK cannot unilaterally impose tougher regulations than the ones set by the EU (I think we're challenging that in the European Court at the moment). Resolution of this complaint may have been one of Cameron's negotiating demands last week. The fact that even this demand was not conceded is, IMO, very revealing of the mindset of the French and German governments in particular.

Originally Posted by Chris

One of the beefs the UK government has is the suggestion that the UK cannot unilaterally impose tougher regulations than the ones set by the EU (I think we're challenging that in the European Court at the moment). Resolution of this complaint may have been one of Cameron's negotiating demands last week. The fact that even this demand was not conceded is, IMO, very revealing of the mindset of the French and German governments in particular.

So essentially we wouldn't sign because we couldn't get assurances that we could impose tougher regulations? That's weird.

Shows what I know...

Partially, yes. As always the truth is a little more nuanced, and as Europe is such a charged issue in British politics it's phenomenally difficult to get anything like a balanced commentary on what went on and what the consequences might be.

One thing I did notice, this morning, was how effortlessly *David* Milliband set up a convincing line of opposition to David Cameron's summit performance (likening the situation to Anthony Eden's 'failure' to take us into Europe in 1955). That one line has had more resonance than any of the lightweight jaw-flapping his brother has managed to produce at any point in the last three days.

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:46 ----------

... that same Ed Milliband is currently on his feet castigating the Tories for not paying attention to Michael Heseltine.

... or the Deputy PM, who is a member of a different political party whose European policy everybody has always known is pretty much the polar opposite of the Tories'.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I thought the Tobin Tax was one of many regulations being considered by the EU. We wanted an exemption from any EU directive being imposed on our finance industry. That was my understanding anyway....

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------



So essentially we always had, and have, the option not to impose the Tobin Tax but abide by the other measures?

I was referring to UK regulation of the City etc. which IIRC is coming under Bank of England control as opposed to the FSA's.

I think all of the above has to be seen in the context of a relationship with Europe which has proved very difficult over many years and fraught with disagreements. The Franco-German view of the EU has always been substantially different from our own and my feeling is that Cameron did not believe there could be any guarantees that the tax and other regulations could/would not be imposed on the UK by the back door. Given what I hear other EU representative saying after Cameron's veto was used it seems clear to me that there's even disagreement amongst them about how far the existing highly complex treaties go and what is/isn't possible with regard to the UK. As I've said before there's still every chance they'll try to impose new rules/taxes on the UK and we may wind up having to consider leaving the EU altogether. My feeling is that this is what they want.

Cameron's on his feet again now.

LIVE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16136672

---------- Post added at 15:57 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

As I've said before there's still every chance they'll try to impose new rules/taxes on the UK and we may wind up having to consider leaving the EU altogether. My feeling is that this is what they want.

I think Merkozy (the Sarko part of it in particular) has a better instinctive understanding of the British people's view of Europe than most mainstream British politicians.

If he helps show us the door he will have done us an immense favour.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

The financial sector operated perfectly safely for many decades - that much is clear from the first 20 minutes of the documentary being discussed in the other thread just now. It was deregulation of financial services and failure to regulate new financial products that caused the problems, not the existence of the financial sector itself.

I agree which is why I said in earlier posts I would be fine if it was reregulated.

However its evident if we reregulated they would all up and leave.

---------- Post added at 16:07 ---------- Previous post was at 16:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Cameron's on his feet again now.

LIVE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16136672

---------- Post added at 15:57 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

hmm wheres clegg?

Originally Posted by Chris

One thing I did notice, this morning, was how effortlessly *David* Milliband set up a convincing line of opposition to David Cameron's summit performance (likening the situation to Anthony Eden's 'failure' to take us into Europe in 1955). That one line has had more resonance than any of the lightweight jaw-flapping his brother has managed to produce at any point in the last three days.

How did Labour end up with Ed. Dam Unions.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

hmm wheres clegg?

Originally Posted by BBC

1544: Nick Robinson Political editor
Nick Clegg decided, I'm told, that his presence in the Chamber would be a distraction. Taking the pro European seats on the front bench are Ken Clarke - who I'm told had an important phone conversation with the prime minister over the weekend - and Vince Cable - who used last Monday's cabinet to warn against a negotiating position based on protecting the City.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

So essentially we wouldn't sign because we couldn't get assurances that we could impose tougher regulations? That's weird.

Shows what I know...

Due to harmonisation of regulation the UK may be unable to implement, amongst other things, the ringfencing of retail arms of banks and other sections of Vickers.