Verbal

Agree with everything until your last bit. The euro won't fail (if that's what you mean by a 'new issue'), because the Germans are at the heart of it. If southern European bits of the euro flake off, it'll be a huge shock to the system, but in all likelihood will leave the euro even stronger as the currency of more nearly harmonised economies in France Germany and the Benelux countries. Which is partly why, I'd suggest, the euro is still trading so strongly against the pound despite the profound crises in Greece, Portugal, Italy, etc. Slough off the bad boys and hey presto - you have a currency that looks a world beater. Eventually.

But that's the thing, isn't it Lord T. You'd have to be a political dinosaur to think that well-governed welfare state = a dangerous ideology.

And then the other shoe drops... Maggie never had a moment as idiotic as this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/10/business-reaction-cameron-eu-veto 'Even in the City, whose interests Cameron was avowedly defending when he flew to Brussels, there were fears that the prime minister had overplayed his hand. A month ago, an unprecedented coalition of all the City's major traders – encompassing banks, hedge funds, stockbrokers and derivatives dealers – warned in an open letter to Osborne of the dire consequences of an EU-wide transaction tax that they feared a new treaty could bring. In some business areas, up to 90% of all transactions could flee London, it said. Yet after the veto, even some of the signatories are privately warning that it could backfire against Britain. '"It doesn't protect us, it exposes us," says one.'

This morning, the papers are full of news about how quickly the whole thing is unravelling around Dave's ankles. The Indy sums it up nicely in their editorial. Election by May is my guess. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-experiment-in-pluralism-may-have-run-its-course-6275779.html

Asked and answered. The crowning and only achievement is that Dave is slightly more popular this weekend than last...and next.

Ah, Lord Tender. Long time. no see. Still not made much progress though, I see. For your enlightenment, I said, and meant, that it was heartening to see two of the finest welfare states within the EU at the top of the list. I do hope that such a sentiment isn't taken as communistic in any way.

Dave wasn't there to be forced into joining the euro. He was there to protect our honourable British bankers (see GM's evidence above) from the nasty EU, and to not be made to look stupid by Sarkozy. As he scored an epic fail in both of those (stupid in comparison with Sarkozy? Really, Dave?), I suppose we should all be grateful that Cameron is basking in a momentary bit of glory. Seems a high price to pay though... Meanwhile, the bankers themselves and the EU carry on as before, one waiting for the other to deliver the sucker punch.

So the total sum of what Cameron has won is a fleeting bit of popular approval? Woop de doop.

I especially miss the Fifth World Congress of the Comintern - except for the baseball fallacy of 'world'.

Anyway, back on the topic of the Cameron cock-up, the inner circle of countries now in greater control of EU economic and banking policy-making will press ahead with the transaction tax, and exclude Britain from any discussion about how banks are regulated. No wonder there's embarrassed silence from the square mile. Can any of Cameron's cheerleaders on here say exactly what he is supposed to have actually won?

I wished you hadn't found that. It's a tad embarrassing.

Yes, it's true - my time in the Lords has mostly been spent awarding my chums huge and unwarranted pay packages, while they scheme to bring down capitalism (which was rather the intention). I don't have much time for two-jags though, and I'm still right about Dave's Brussels cock-up. You can quote me on that.

Well now you know.

And so begin the insults. I hear this is a favourite recourse of yours.

I meant precisely what I said, not what you have imagined I said. This is silly.

Pretty selective quoting GM - a touch shameful, that. That same article goes on to say: It's very unclear at this early stage, and before any new EU Treaty has been even written, whether the City will lose out in the long run. But if it were to, it could only result from banks being affected by any future deals - as yet not negotiated nor agreed. The problem for Britain is that it may in future arrive to the negotiating table in Brussels and be handed a done deal from the remaining 26 EU member states which cannot be blocked as unanimity is no longer required except in the case of taxation. Let's take another example. Germany's Deutsche Bank is the largest single banking employer in the City of London. French, Spanish and Italian banks also have a significant presence here. Will they stay in the same numbers if their governments make it politically and/or fiscally disadvantageous to do so? Former Labour City Minister and investment banker Lord Myners told the BBC that by "isolating" itself, Britain had forced London-based banks to face a dilemma. "Do they continue to put all their resources behind supporting their activities in the City of London or do they begin to build up other centres of excellence elsewhere in Europe?" he asked. "I think the balance has tilted quite strongly as a consequence of the petulance of the prime minister."

I'm saying what I'm saying: good to see two successful welfare states at the top of the list. Regardless of percentages, the Finnish and Swedish welfare systems are not only generous; they're relatively well designed.

So you're going for a hat trick of errors, then. I did not vote for Brown; I am not a member of a political party and at one time or another have voted for all three of the main ones; and of course I've realised the budgetary consequences of the proposed new rules, which is why I mentioned them in my earlier posts on this page! The only winner is, as you correctly (for once!) say, is Merkel's Germany - doubly so now that Dave has slung his hook and accidentally acted in the worst interests of the City.

Good to see Sweden and Finland, with two of the world most extensive welfare systems, leading the way in the EU.

He's going through the same thought processes that will eventually sink in elsewhere: Cameron has acted with all the tactical sense of those commanding the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Next time I pay my corporation tax I must remember to think: Oh wait, aren't I in the public sector? Nor do I run a company sponging off the state, as so many do in health, defence, transport, education, etc. Once again, you're hopelessly wrong. And again, what evidence is there in France, Germany or the UK that there is a decisive electoral swing to the right? It would have to be happening right now because elections in two of those countries are certainly within the next two years, and the other one is, in all likelihood, imminent, judging by the hurt feelings of Nick.

Wrong, but better wait and see how wrong you are. There is no evidence whatsoever of a decisive 'swing to the right', here or in France or Germany. No mention of the impending defeats for Merkozy? And your comment about 1936 is frankly a bit odd.

Next French general election: April and May 2012 Next German federal elections: October 2013 Next British election: priceless (or any time Nick decides he's had enough, so probably sometime between the two above) As you say, funny - or at least we of the politics of progress will be laughing.

Of course, the one advantage of Cameron's veto is that while he has stuck his foot in the door in a way that will almost certainly disadvantage the City (ie the sole purpose of exercising veto having boomeranged back on him through his impulsive inexperience), it will probably assist European and UK left-of-centre parties as they come to power over the next year or three. Go Dave and the unintended consequences of incompetence!

Exactly right.