Striker wrote:
26 countries agreed to something but no one knew what they were agreeing to, (other than some spending limits relative to GDP, and that transgressors would be fined).
However several of them are now casting doubt on what they agreed to, and no one has the faintest idea of practicalities, (at least none of the experts who have appeared on Newsnight every night, including those in favour of the agreement, have).
One country has risked opprobrium by not voting for this uncertain agreement. Uncertain in both terms of content and feasibility. Far be it for me to demand logic from politicians of any nationality, but ..........
I am also not surprised by the hypocrisy of some commentators who have criticised Cameron for not going along with the majority in voting for constraints on government spending which are far far more austere, than the Coalition's spending plans which they have also criticised for being far too austere.
Still, if what was on the table was by no means concrete,
why exclude yourself entirely from the process? Dc could have bailed out later after at least arguing his position, what had he to lose by at least seeing how the story unfolds.
Whip up a storm, try & panic people, none more guilty than the BBC news channel who I've lost all respect the way they've performed over the last couple of years.