Is there anyone that can offer me a credible argument for why the events have the last 24 hours have, in any tangible way, furthered Britain's interest?

For me, it's hard to not conclude this a very bad place we're in now.

Cameron is the weakest PM the country has ever had. He wanted to appease the Tory EU sceptics but all he has done is totally marginalised Britain. The EU sceptics don't think he has gone far enough and everyone else thinks he has caused huge damage to Britain.

So he should have just caved in?

If it puts us back towards 'common market' status and less down the 'United States of Europe' route then most Brits will be happy.

He wanted protection for the city bankers who caused the global meltdown in the first place.
What he has done is effectively remove Britain's voice from all EU discussions in future. Some EU leaders think Britain will be forced out of the EU at some point and that will be an economic disaster for the UK as they will lose the protection and power that a trading bloc gives.

Switzerland and Norway are doing well enough aren't they? Got trade deals with the EU without being members.

There is a better argument to be made for his position, than the daft idea that they can reconcile, the German and Greek economies.
Fingers crossed it may even lead to us leaving them altogether, those who think its a good idea being in it have lost the argument with the recent events, but expect as usual they will have their heads so high in the clouds they are blind to reality

I mean trade outside of the EU. The EU as a trade bloc can negotiate better tariffs with other counties/blocs.

They effective have to follow EU regulations to trade with the EU, so they have to follow rules they have no say over - do you really want that for Britain?

I don't have a problem with Cameron wanting to exercise opt-outs - Shenigen (sic) would be bad for the UK for example - but to simply walk out and not represent our interests is terrible, it's his duty to do so and his failed.

Also, what exactly were Dave's demands? There has been little focus on this at all.

Both also contribute to the EU. The Swiss make contributions to the EU Enlargement Fund and Norway make contributions for Schengen. Europol and the European Defence agency. Is it better that the UK make contributions with no say in any decisions or they make contibutions and have a say?

It's a bit like me being on the Golf Club Committee and trying to push through some of my ideas against the wishes of the rest of the Committee. When I don't get my way I leave in a huff, but the remainder of the Committee carry on as before and put forward their new ideas (and possibly leave a big turd in my locker in my absence)

Nicely put

In this case the golf club are "Crazy Golf fans" so probably best to let them get on with it if you prefer other forms of game

Just say stuff em and go and chill out by playing golf.

Bit like me and moderating. Ended up saying stuff it and so enjoy posting so much more!

Cameron walked into a huff? Hardly. His requests weren't accepted. Someone paraphrased nicely on the FT site today - Cameron would discuss financial regulation if France reformed Common Agricultural Policy. And we all know how much the French want to end the ludicrous subsidies their farmers get.

And amid all the bluster about protecting the bankers, no mention is being made of the fact that Paris & Frankfurt want to impose rules that would force a lot of the activity out of the City and back to their financial centres. Which would have a significant impact on what the City could generate in terms of profit - and therefore tax revenues - from the banking sector. So the principle of standing up for the City is the right one. It's a separate argument whether the government then extracts the quid pro quo from the banks for helping them out here.

This "compact", "accord", whatever you want to call it, is nothing more than copying and pasting the Stability and Growth pact and insisting that this time they really, really will abide by it. The whole thing is a farce. I would call it a joke, but it isn't funny anymore. The continued erosion of sovereign democracies is going to cause trouble sooner or later. For a start, I'm expecting Marianne Le Pen to get through to the second round of the French Presidential election. These moves are just going to give weight to the extremist/nationalist types out there in Europe.

Would you rather have boarded the Titanic or been left on the dockside at Southampton?

Hopefully this is his first step to redemption after the student fees fiasco.

Fingers crossed we wil be able to prize some of our own laws back soon without Strasbourg dictating to us.

A single currency pegging countries such as Germany (very strong economy) to Greece (junk status) is never going to work. Plus if we joined the Euro, expect people to use it as an excuse to hike prices overnight, at least that's what several Irish people told me years ago in Dublin and why they would nip over the border into Northern Ireland, becuase it was much cheaper. Euro ? No no.

So lets keep close economic links with Europe but "non" to full economic integration. I note Ed Miliband has said we will be left out of key European decisions - nothing new there

How do we know for sure, we have had no details at all? Fair enough if DC wants some give on the CAP in return for some compromise in the finance sector, but walking away the moment it isn't going his way smacks of naivity. Far better to gets these issues out in the open and force Sarkozy's hand.



I personally wouldn't have seen a problem with financial activity tax across the EU, provided it's proportional (in revenue sharing) to each state's respective finance sector size. Ultimately, there is virtually no chance that the big banks would up sticks and leave London (or for that matter Paris, Frankfurt), it would make it very difficult for them to operate effective in those markets.

Surely it's obvious what the real reason for wanting to protect the banks is... those board seats have to be filled.



Not at least trying to put that across in the failure here, had DC tried until the bitter end to put this potential danger across to them, one could then give him credit for sticking it out. That said, should the Euro recover, this won't be a problem.



Strange analogy. Have you considered the possibility that this works and we're the ones on the Titanic?

No - the single currency zone as it is either has to fragment or be managed a true fiscal union. And despite the best efforts of the Euro elite to force through their dream, I honestly believe there will be blood on the streets before European citizens allow their sovereignty to be stripped away in such a fashion.

If by 'full economic integration' you mean joining the Eurozone, that was never on the agenda for non-EZ countries in this summit. It was actually to do with fiscal responsibility mostly - something which effects both the Euro and the pound.

Persuming you're in the 'Labour were reckless with budgets' camp, wouldn't it have been attractive to have had an external body (the EU/ECB) look over the budget and penalise reckless spending?

As I understand it they aren't going to directly dictate national policy on social security/pay rates/pensions etc etc, it was only that they would/will examine national budgets and penalise the given government if it is fiscally irresponisble (spending far more than they are taking in).

Honestly, I don't think normal people are going to be worried about that as long as there are jobs, they getting decent pay and working conditions, and benefits are as they would expect. All of which will still be dictated by their domestic government. The more I think about it, I can't see what is so terrible about national budgets being examined, which leads to the obvious question of why they weren't already doing so.

Labour were reckless and overspent. Remember the Treasury note "tough titty but there's no money left" or something like that. So Labour knew too. The Tories will probably now underspend and so it goes on....

I thought we had the fourth largest economy in the World ? Why do we need an extrenal body to monitor our spending ? Are we that incapable of governing oursleves ? Not as bad as Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy or Portugal...yet....

Labour were reckless and overspent. Remember the Treasury note "tough titty but there's no money left" or something like that. So Labour knew too. The Tories will probably now underspend and so it goes on....

I thought we had the fourth largest economy in the World ? Why do we need an extrenal body to monitor our spending ? Are we that incapable of governing oursleves ? Not as bad as Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy or Portugal...yet....

* eff forum is running like a bag of shit at the moment



There you go, you've done my job for me.

So, on that basis, the USA needs an external body to govern it ? How much is it in debt by - 15 billion dollars ?

It's not governing we're talking about, it's fiscal prudence. The proposal is not being told how or what to spend, but merely making sure that a government isn't spending too much overall. I don't see much difference between that and external auditing, which is quite a commom business practice, and it seems pretty obvious that governments aren't spending in a business like fashion, it's all short-termist.

For the record, the US national debt is 14 trillion. That's 12 zeros....

Ok, so I was a few zeros out with the American debt but you're suggesting different countries should audit each other ?

Hmmm. Am I right in understanding that we want the people who let countries like Greece into the Euro, review our budgets and tell us if we're going to be fiscally responsible? Or are we going to use an external auditor like ermmm, Goldman Sachs?

And yes the site is running like an absolute dog and has been for weeks now.

There still an awful lot of detail to be sorted out, nobody has signed up to anything yet, just the idea/principle so lets wait & see exactly what Cameron has saved us from?

Time for the UK to leave the EU voluntarily before we are kicked out.

Lets remember its a club that no one is forcing the UK to be in. but also worth remembering that no one is forcing the club to have the UK as a member. There are going to be some pretty searching questions now across EU governments regarding what exactly the UK is contributing?

when the UK does leave, some parts of the UK may benefit in the short term (primarily London and South East) from drop in net contributions but many other parts who are net receivers especially in times of economic hardship are going to be even harder hit. but at least we can all eat curved bananas again

talking of Switzerland (from the beeb)

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, head of the Germany's FDP group, part of the European Liberals, goes as far as to say it was "a mistake to let the British into the EU".

Britain must now renegotiate its relationship with the EU, he said. "Either they [the British] do it on their own initiative, or the EU refounds itself - without Great Britain. Switzerland is a model towards which Britain can turn itself."

No. It is budgetary oversight by the European Commission is what is being proposed - it makes perfect sense if you're using the same currency to do this. I'm 100% that the oversight would be done by an quasi-independent committee, a National Audit Office for the Eurozone if you like. If we as a country are confident enough of running sensible budgets, why would we fear such oversight?

Using the US as some sort of counterpoint is a red heering, do we really want to follow their example in any way?

BTW, I'm not in anyway defending obvious mistakes in the creation of the Euro, it's been admitted that Greece shouldn't have entered, and Italy and Spain should have had to correct their problems before entry. Again, politics before economics.

You may want to read up on EU-Swiss relations here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerlan ... _relations

Frankly, comparing the UK's and Switzerland's position is hard simply because of our relative positions in the world. Are we really going to be happy with feeling that we are 'forced' to take on EU law in bits, but not enjoy any of the benefits, ie EU hand-out, funded projects, working time directives.

It's surely much better, as one of the three major economies in Europe, that we are in the club, preferably at the centre of decision making, actually being able to navigate things in our favour overall.