France says Britain should lose its AAA rating

[Paddy]

Paint dry webcam

[BlasterBates]

What a good idea, like this you mean

Well I think we can all agree on that.

[doodab]

I don't care what they called for last Monday.
Just for you here's a cretin's simple cut-out-and-keep guide to the treaty that was vetoed last week.
As you can see it contradicts everything you said in your last 2 posts.
You really are an imbecile.

BBC News - Q&A: David Cameron and the EU summit on the eurozone

Why did David Cameron refuse to sign up?

Before the summit, Mr Cameron said he would not sign up to any change involving all 27 member states that did not protect British interests - particularly on financial services and access to the single market. The PM said in October the City of London was under "constant attack" from EU directives. He sought a separate legally-binding "protocol" to protect the City of London from more EU financial regulations but didn't get one. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the specific protocol demanded "was a risk to the integrity of the internal market" and had made "compromise impossible". Mr Cameron later told MPs he had simply asked for a "level playing field for open competition for financial services in all EU countries".

What else did the UK government demand?

According to the Financial Times, Mr Cameron also wanted an agreement that the European Banking Authority would remain in London, protection for US financial institutions based in London that do not trade with the rest of Europe, and an agreement that any changes - including a financial transactions tax - would require the unanimous backing of all EU members. He didn't get any of those either.

What does it mean for UK financial services?

That is a matter for debate. The UK retains a veto on matters to do with EU-wide taxation, including the contentious financial transactions tax it has been opposing. However the new group is likely to discuss tax and financial regulation for the eurozone which could potentially undermine the UK's position.

So would have had a veto over the tax anyway, and he's got nothing he asked for.

Well done.

[Arturo Bassick]

Yes, presisely that is what they are going to do, but it weakens confidence in the markets, because the UK is seen to be undermining it. It's all about confidence.

The question is was Cameron wise to take a stand at a point when there was no concrete proposal there about the things he was worried about. It was Cameron's gamble to repatriate some powers and gain some things not on the table at the time. Would it not have been wiser to allow the treaty through and fight the other issues whilst the Euro was recovering with Britain's help? rather than Britain seen to be undermining the Eurozone.

Then it was a mistake to try and inflict it on every member of the EU. They would have been much better finding an answer amongst themselves and then asking the others to help where possible instead of showing the weakness of their position by relying on the resources of outside authorities. Cameron has not undermined anything he has simply stated that the UK can not support the proposals.

[BrilloPad]

Well I think we can all agree on that.

I think there was a female poster who did not agree. But she should get back to doing the dishes.

[doodab]

What a good idea, like this you mean

POTD for sure.

[sasguru]

Yes, presisely that is what they are going to do, but it weakens confidence in the markets, because the UK is seen to be undermining it. It's all about confidence.

The question is was Cameron wise to take a stand at a point when there was no concrete proposal there about the things he was worried about. It was Cameron's gamble to repatriate some powers and gain some things not on the table at the time. Would it not have been wiser to allow the treaty through and fight the other issues whilst the Euro was recovering with Britain's help? rather than Britain seen to be undermining the Eurozone.

And you still continue to talk utter crap.
Cameron was very clear to the Eurosceptics that he was NOT looking for repatriatriation of powers.

Frankly I don't know why I bother. You seem to pluck random crap from thin air and post it as fact.
I'm guessing you don't do anything that requires much IQ for a living. Are you a janitor or security guard or something like that?

[sasguru]

So would have had a veto over the tax anyway, and he's got nothing he asked for.

Well done.

Signing the treaty would have committed the UK to adhere to the tax proposals. He vetoed it.
You seem to be as thick as BB.

[doodab]

Signing the treaty would have committed the UK to adhere to the tax proposals. He vetoed it.
You seem to be as thick as BB.

Do you have any evidence of that or are you just assuming it's so? Because I've not seen any reporting that indicates that was the actual content of the proposal. The main reason I suspect it wasn't is because one of the influences on the the proposal was to avoid the need for national referendums and clearly imposing that tax would have been a problem in that regard.

[AtW]

Signing the treaty would have committed the UK to adhere to the tax proposals.

And why not have harmonised taxes around Europe to avoid unfair competition such as 12% corp tax in Ireland?

VAT system works pretty well with a fair broad spread of tax values that allowed countries to choose what they want.

Locking down taxes on a pan-european level means no individual country can elect big gob politicial who just wants to tax and spend: if such threaty would have prevented Brown and Nu Liabor in general to run up debts then I say it's a great treaty.