Cameron uses UK veto - what will it mean for us and Europe (and the rest of the world)?

[Callisto]

Just that.

I'm glad that DC had the balls to use the veto - the treaty being discussed would not have been good for Britain and could have been bad. However, the Asian markets have already responded by falling and I'm guessing that that US and Euro markets will fall too. So, are there any economists (or otherwise) out there who can throw some light on what may happen next?

This is really bad news for mums around the world who face illness and death of their children and other family members from malaria, TB or HIV. Cameron did this mainly to protect our financial services sector - London is the largest centre in Europe. A global tax on financial transactions would bring in $250 billion windfall annually. The Global Fund for Malaria, TB and AIDS needs just $2 billion a year to keep these illnesses at bay. When a bednet to keep your kids free of malaria costs just $5, I stand with all the mums around the world who need these leaders to think about what they are going through for a change. Read what Stephen Lewis has to say about this: hosted-p0.vresp.com/594745/142d2c71cc/ARCHIVE#like

We already have quite a large overseas aid budget. If we stop sending money to Europe then perhaps we would be able to address some of the problems we have at home.

The UK has in effect be funding France's deficit for years via the EU Common Agriculture Policy and other subsidy schemes. The UK is a net contributor, France is/was a net taker. France needs to remember that.

We've broken our 'special' relationship with the US and now we're isolating ourselves in Europe. I'm not a politician or an economist but that seems foolish to me.

I don't understand the low level detail but am deeply uncomfortable with Cameron's stance here and see it purely as playing to the City - with whom we have a love hate relationship, love as they are the only sector creating any kind of growth and hate because they caused this crisis and haven't altered their behaviour since - and the far right of his party.

The UKIP comment down the page underlines that this is far right policy.

I am glad that we will not have our tax levels decided by a Eurocrat.

And if the new arrangements do what they have been billed as, then it is right that we stand well clear. Single Market - and indeed everything else is covered by EU treaties which we are already members of. We cannot be excluded, unless EU decides to rip up its key, existential treaties.

It is only a problem if there is a further agenda in the Eurozone - ie creeping transfer of yet further powers.

No one can explain what "two speed" actually means, nor why it is a) inherently undesirable and b) why UK would necessarily be in the "slower" track

Sieglinde Seriously articulate and logical approach to this. The DM approach is absolutely riven through the country. But I think he has to protect the banking sector in that it is such a huge source of income for Britain.

Being Cameron though, he did it with essentially no diplomacy, intelligence, grace or strategy, and just looked like a confused child capitulating to the party bullies, not an international statesman doing what he thought best for his country's growth. He is a weak, weak leader.The sooner he is gone the better. I wish Ken Clarke ran the country.

One thing I always think about the 'two speed' thing is that other EU countries seem to agree to everything and then just quietly ignore or not implement or not enforce the bits of EU law they dont like.

The UK sets out what it disagrees with but if it agrees to a treaty it implements it fully. Just look at the blithe way that every country in the Eurozone has ignored the 3% budget deficit limit over te last few years and then at the negotiation this week pledges to really really really abide by the 3% limit as if it is a new idea.

The only bit that is new is imposing a financial transaction tax that falls mainly on London. Oh yes they all agreed that like a shot. It is dreadful what the banking industry has got away with but it is not the job of the UK to provide the money to bail out the Eurozone.

No taxation without representation. That used to be the battle cry of revolution against despots in Europe and the USA in centuries past. Unbelievable that a bunch of unelected bureacrats are even now thinking of seeking to impose a tax on the UK from Brussels.

Even here in Brussels the UK plays by the rules - Seconded National Experts to the EU are supposed to have their cars on Belgian plates and pay ginormous amounts of euros for the mise en circulation and annual car tax that Belgium charges. The UK SNEs do this; all the other buggers have their cars on diplomatic plates to avoid paying, as their embassies issue them with the Dip plates.

The EU wastes an enormous amount of our money each year on vanity projects, which benefit no-one.

There are little fault lines running across Europe, and they are being ignored by the Eurocrats at their peril. I like Europe; but intensely dislike the EU. If the USSR didn't work, (centralist imposition of policies by force), then why on earth would the same thing work for Europe?

I must admit, I've been quite worried about yesterday's events, whilst I think Cameron did the right thing I also think he wasn't left with much choice.

I think Sarkozy was the one who played a blinder and outmaneuvered Cameron at every turn. He's managed to push us out and is now creeping to the German's. But Sarkozy does make a good point when he says that if the UK is not in the Euro then it shouldn't be allowed to make decisions regarding the Euro.

In the short/medium term I think this move will be a good thing. Look at it this way. We're still in the EU. There's no easy way to kick us out unless we opt out. Ok, we won't now be able to influence how the Eurozone countries operate their finances but then did we ever have to? So for example there's nothing to stop us from sticking to the same principles of the budget restrictions. But crucially we're not legally bound to. In short we can do it...or not. It's up to us.

So from where I'm sitting, we still get the common market which is the main thing we want but without all the new rules & regulations of a new treaty. Let's face it, if there was a vote tomorrow if we wanted to be a United Kingdom or a United States of Europe, I know what the result would be.

So for now we're going to be the unpopular child whom noone invites to their parties. But given many experts still believe the Euro might blow up, it might not be such a bad thing.

'But Sarkozy does make a good point when he says that if the UK is not in the Euro then it shouldn't be allowed to make decisions regarding the Euro' and is thus perhaps hoist by his own petard, as the EZ countries can't then complain when non EZ countries don't want to contribute to the EZ bail out, or reject EZ fiscal union.

I agree Scary but already we're not contributing to the latest bailout fund. So the French lose nothing by not having us in the club. But sidelining us does help them creep to the German's who seemed to like the balance we brought to the table against French interests.

Longer term we need to decide whether we're in or out. If we want to be good European's then we should have thought more about the common good. If we want to be on our own then we should walk away. At the moment we're being seen as a bit of a fair weather friend and unsurprisingly we're not popular.

Even our lovely Red Ken Livingstone used to pander to the City - as Mayor of London he encouraged the City to make as much filthy luker as it could knowing that its loss would have a huge impact. I think Dave is doing the same thing - he is desperate to retain the last real income that we have - the City of London. If we lose that we are stuffed. And if he vetoes the EU, we are equally stuffed. Merkel is playing a shrewd game here. Regulating the banking sector is one thing, but insisting that its centre should be Berlin is quite another.

On the other hand, Berlin is its 'natural' centre - geographically and in terms of involvement - we really have no right to be Europe's financial centre when we aren't even part of the EMU.

Fiscal union makes so much sense but will turn everyone's lives upside down for a while - you can't make big changes like that in the middle of a recession IMO.

The trouble with Germany though, is that they are right and we are wrong. Since the war they have practiced good social policy with focus on training, skills, and education, monetary policy with good interest rates for savings and not too much easy credit, good housing policy resulting in a stable rented sector and a fairly reasonable healthcare system - using insurance companies to pay for it and subsidising the poor. In terms of productivity Germany has always treated its workers well, resulting in a stable and reliable workforce and its businesses have remained small and privately owned rather than owned by shareholders.

And we have kind of done exactly the opposite to them. We started all this financial de-regulation and have brought the rest of Europe down along with it. Everyone knows that but this is the first time it has been used against us. The irresponsible child needs to leave home to learn how to grow up.

Interesting article in Der Spiegel that said German prosperity was built on others forgiving the Germans loans post WW2, and that actually Germany was one of the highest indebted nations in Europe.

There are also interesting articles in there about Merkel needing some humility. I think Germany does not have it right, as what works for them will not work for Greece or Italy for example. I am also very worried by the way that democracy has been ignored, along with the Lisbon treaty. If they knowingly broke the rules in Lisbon (no bailout) because it suited them, then why should we trust them to play by any new rules now? That isn't just Germany, but France as well.

Guy Verhofstadt a liberal MEP, and ex Belgian pm thinks this is a French ploy to reduce the size of the EU, which begs the question of who Sarko wants in or out.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8946790/EU-Treaty-Nicolas-Sarkozys-push-for-power-poses-biggest-threat-to-EU-unity.html

Please do not forget about the Germany that it massively benefited from the unification by getting access to highly educated low wage same language labour force , something that no other country was able to access...

I think we were all heavily indebted after WW2 but since then the german economy has built a stable foundation whereas ours has been all over the place since the 1970s and Thatcher and her successors' reactionary politics.

Stable economies build long term wealth whereas the UK economy has undermined any stability we had by offering all our assets to the markets to gamble on.

Niceguy - there never has been a common good for the UK in Europe - look at the behaviour post BSE, when it was safe to have UK meat again; the French wouldn't let it in.

The EU has always been more than happy to take our money, but gives back little in return. When is the CAP going to be reformed for which Bliar ceded our rebate? Anyone who thinks that Sarkozy isn't as protectionist about the CAP as Cameron is about the City needs their heads examining.

Comments now emerging about how a new 'treaty' may not be legal either, and that the whole agreement doesn't actually solve the debt crisis.

pretendhousewife if Germany knew so much why did they allow Greece and Italy to join the euro, any one with a economics a level could have worked out Greece and Italy were cooking the books
You more likey to find a blue daffodil than a Greek who pays tax.

Olives and tourism dose not make economy's go

If Germany and france think it can do in 8 years and one 10 hour meeting that it took the US nearly 200 years to achieve then good fucking luck

We don't even speak the same laguange or share the same culture

France and germany are grandstanding they have elections next year both will be gone

We are not alone these other countires have to take this to their people and I very much doubt many will want brussles to decide how and what they can spend their tax before

Part form Germany we are the only country who put more in than we take out, we are the centre of euro banking let them start up a Tobin tax I can almost here the bankers in paris packing their bags and booking their euro star ticket to London
As when is all said and done we will be the only eu country that won't have it in days of emails , confrnace call and euro star not difficult to work here and live in paris

This has done nothing to sove the cirsis

Red ed is a fool he would of sighned our lives away if he had the chance

I was proud of primister Pitt when he saw off slavery

I was was proud of Churchill when he saw of hitler

And I am proud of Camron for saving our sovereignty

My grandad died to save our sovereignty I glad camron did not loose his nerve

Cameron has shown a lot of courage in being the only one to stand up and say no. The UK isn't responsible for the Euro mess, so why should we agree to a system which would tax us more than anyone else?

I can't believe the Eurozone leaders would be surprised he said no. Would any of them seriously accept a tax system which would have the effect that they were paying more than any other country?

Some say we know have no say, I say we never would of had it any way being invited to a party dose not mean you will be asked to dance

Germany and france already have tier plan hatched any country not willing to toe the line will be shown the door france dose not have the money to prop up europe the Nordic countries don't have the will and Germany has to uch history to take the lead

They will come crawling back to our table when nt if the USE fails

Scary -- BSE rattled everyone, all over the world. I tried to give blood in the US at a pre-Christmas drive once and was turned away as I had lived in Ireland and visited the UK during the 1980s. The response to BSE is not necessarily an indication of sentiment towards GB but towards BSE. And the EU and the USSR are completely different. There is absolutely no comparison.

This treaty is not designed to solve the debt crisis in one fell swoop, today. It is designed to restore market confidence in Asia and the US in the Euro and in the future of the European economy in general. The strings here are being pulled by non-European entities and by acting to shore up the Euro and try to secure the future financial stability of Europe Merkel and Sarkozy are actually saving Europe from the vultures that are waiting to descend. The significant part of the Putin article that was linked to above was the bit about Russian interest in European investment. Translate that to Chinese and American (US banks have mahoosive reserves now thanks to the bailout) too and multiply it by 100...

Some very backward looking sentiments expressed here by Maypole and others. Apparently history is something Poland has been able to get over pretty sharpish. The idea that Britain can somehow go it alone economically is absolutely ridiculous.

'The only bit that is new is imposing a financial transaction tax that falls mainly on London. Oh yes they all agreed that like a shot. It is dreadful what the banking industry has got away with but it is not the job of the UK to provide the money to bail out the EU.
No taxation without representation. That used to be the battle cry of revolution against despots in Europe and the USA in centuries past. Unbelievable that a bunch of unelected bureacrats are even now thinking of seeking to impose a tax on the UK from Brussels'
WRT the transaction tax -- it proves the old adage that you're either at the table or you're on the menu. This is what happens when government after government plays to the balcony and refuses to either fish or cut bait because appeals to the memory of Churchill are more profitable politically in the short term. If you think it's bad to have unelected Eurocrats decide the fate of the British banking and financial services sector (never mind the small detail of the European Parliament) wait until the financial services industry decides to put its position to the British government and see how you like it when there's really no democratic input into policy formation.

Scary. What I meant is that if we want to be at the heart of a United States of Europe (USE) then we need to act like a grown up and save our other states by if necessary putting the needs of the others above our own.

But as I've said before, the UK people given a choice don't want to be in the USE so we've been cherry picking the bits we like and being awkward about the bits we don't. But that's seen by others as being two faced and non-commital.

I totally agree with the comments about CAP reform where Blair tried to be a good European by giving up our rebate for "talks about reform of the CAP" which of course the French talked but refused to do anything about.

Once all the hoohah dies down then I also agree that markets will soon realise that whilst the new rules will help in the future, it really has done nothing to deal with the actual problem and that is the fact that the PIIGS countries are still in huge debt and unlikely to be able to pay them off.

Hullygully, I know this is off topic, but a quick reponse to your comment about the 'unregulated city':

when people accept the diversion 'it's all the banker's fault' they are allowing themselves to be sidetracked from the responsibility of the disastrous impact of that deluded fanatic Gordon Brown on this country. I recognised within a year how dangerous he was (and within two years how deceitful and dysfunctional that government was) and personally think he should be arrested and tried for what he did to this country. Tony Blair should have listened to his wife who told him to assert his authority and sack him. Not sacking Gordon Brown, and dealing with his power challenge (which he would have easily won) meant that he will go down in history as a deeply mediocre PM. How many people know how much Gordon Brown blocked and stymied TB at every turn, who recognised that public services needed reforming. The first time the PRIME MINISTER knew what the budget would be, was along with everyone else in Parliament. That is not acceptable!
Gordon Brown sold our gold at under 400 dollars an ounce - against all advice. He never listened to anyone. Gold is now at 1750 an ounce.

To get back to your point: it is clear from the existing tangle of quangos, that there is no such thing as a genuinely independent statutory regulator. Somebody has to APPOINT the regulator. This is what happened when McRuin created his 'independent' Bank of England. It quickly filled with his placemen who proceeded to flood the economy with cheap money, to fund Labour's - actually, Gordon Brown's 'I have come to save the world' - DISASTROUS expansion of public spending.

I need to remind you that the following countries - Australia, Canada and South Africa - have no banking crisis. Why? Because they continued to follow (ahem, say it quietly) Thatcherite monetary policy, ie watch the money supply. The Scottish Socialist encouraged the credit boom, and housing bubble, for the tax revenues he needed to implement his Vision. Hully, ask yourself: if interest rates had been set at 7% or more, as they would have been had Thatcher been PM, how attractive would subprime derivatives been? Not at all.

Mathanxiety: Scary -- BSE rattled everyone, all over the world. I tried to give blood in the US at a pre-Christmas drive once and was turned away as I had lived in Ireland and visited the UK during the 1980s.

Did you know that BSE was all over Europe? It was just called another name - JCB (backhoe) disease.

Our problem is that we were honest. I remember reading in the Farmer's Weekly the latest theory as to why only the UK was afflicted with BSE. It was, they thought, because of the alkaloids in the daisies in the meadows.

In the meantime, Europe were taking their collapsing cows and digging big holes in the ground, whilst cutting off the British beef market in the name of 'safety'.

I kid you not.

That made absolutely no difference to the response. The US FDA was not fooled by calling it another name elsewhere. The problem is not that Britain was honest. The problem is that Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (as it was always referred to in the US) is fatal.