France says Britain should lose its AAA rating

[Doggy Styles]

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.

No, the question is would you sign a contract with no rate quoted on it?

The first rule of agreeing anything is that you don't sign up to something when you don't know the details and therefore the implications. That is bad business.

[AtW]

That is bad business.

26 out of 27 EU members thought it was good business and signed up to it.

I guess they are all idiots apart from Cameron who is really good in business.

[sasguru]

26 out of 27 EU members were desperate for German money and signed up to it.

I guess they are all idiots apart from Cameron who is really good in business.

FTFY

[AtW]

FTFY

So getting German money was good deal for them then.

[Doggy Styles]

26 out of 27 EU members thought it was good business and signed up to it.

I guess they are all idiots apart from Cameron who is really good in business.

You are ignoring the argument again AtW.

I'm not justifying what 26 other countries do or don't do, that is their affair. I am stating a simple business tenet. Nobody should sign up for something unless they know what its implications will be. UK has taken this position.

And before you mention bankers, who someone usually rolls out at about this juncture, if they had adhered to the same tenet their problems wouldn't have been as bad as they are.

[AtW]

The UK should not to sign up for something unless we know what its implications will be.

A lot of treaties are very generic in nature, in fact their sole purpose is to declare intentions whilst details will get worked out down the line.

I think the problem for Cameron was that the document was specific enough for him to not like it and use veto.

I am actually very much fine with the veto by the way - in fact since UK isn't even in euro zone it should not have been invited in the first place.

Perhaps the best way forward is to have a UK referendum to settle this once and for all - it should be possible to keep free trade deal and visa free access anyway, but UK should stop acting as a bad team player at time when unity is required.

[BlasterBates]

No, the question is would you sign a contract with no rate quoted on it?

The first rule of agreeing anything is that you don't sign up to something when you don't know the details and therefore the implications. That is bad business.

The treaty contained nothing extra for the UK at all. Cameron is under pressure to repatriate powers. He took the opportunity to hold up this extremely important measure to save the Euro, assuming that the others would agree, to a future opt out of any financial regulations that may appear at some subsequent point. In fact the fact that the others didn't agree means that Cameron achieved absolutely nothing, and the only logical step now would be to prevent the Eurozone using the EU institutions; otherwise the Eurozone will have won the day. They get their treaty through the backdoor and Britain didn't get an opt out on financial rules.

Can you explain to me what David Cameron achieved last week, if the Eurozone goes ahead with the fiscal treaty and uses the EU institutions, bearing in mind the treaty he would have signed up to applied only to those countries using the Euro ?

What concrete opt out does Cameron currently have?

The whole point of Cameron's strategy was an opportunity to use the Euro crisis to push for some titbits, which as you can imagine went down really well with the 26 other countries.

[Doggy Styles]

A lot of treaties are very generic in nature, in fact their sole purpose is to declare intentions whilst details will get worked out down the line.

I think the problem for Cameron was that the document was specific enough for him to not like it and use veto.

God, even Blaster knows that isn't the case:

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.

But if you were right AtW, you could have no argument with his actions, could you.

[DodgyAgent]

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.

There are a number of quite extraordinary things being said here.

First of all why should'nt different countries compete for investment by adapting their tax regimes accordingly. Apply your logic AtW It is like saying:

Why not have one food retailer then? why not have one search engine?

Then we have the "big gob" jibe at any government that might seek to use its tax system to compete with other countries. I can only assume that either AtW is stuck in the planned economy mentality of Russia (which is what he is actually saying here), or is completely stupid. First of all in order to make this assumption he must presume that the raising of tax is a good thing.

Finally there is the matter of responsibility. If a country elects an idiot who taxes and spends (such as the UK with NL) then it is a matter for that country to deal with and take responsibility for. Once you start "harmonising" taxes then you are removing responsibility away from Sovereign states and thus removing the democratic accountability from the politicians. This cannot be allowed to happen because we in the UK should have now learnt - though I doubt it- that a socialist regime of tax and spend impoverishes us all.

Each country should have its own tax regime and be allowed to reap the benefits or pay the penalties accordingly. tax regimes like any business should be made to compete. Competition makes us all perform better including governments.

[sasguru]

blah blah.

I think any little shred of credibility you might have had vanished long ago.