Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent

David Cameron's cowering reliance on the City was exposed for the world to see this morning when he refused to sign the City up to a Financial Transaction Tax.

 

David Cameron’s cowering reliance on the City was exposed for the world to see this morning when he vetoed a treaty change to save the eurozone because of his unsurprising unwillingness to bring the City to heel with a progressive, redistributive Financial Transaction Tax.

Watch Cameron’s remarks early this morning, in which he claimed ”what is on offer isn’t in the one per cent’s Britain’s interests”, here. His refusal to sign up to a full treaty was described as “unacceptable” by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel calling Cameron’s alternative proposal a “rotten” compromise.


Cameron’s siding with the one per cent, with the fat cats who, lest we forget, got us into this mess, should come as no surprise. As we reported earlier this year, Tory dependence on the City doubled from when Cameron became Tory leader to when he became prime minister, the amount of money the Tories received from City money more than quadrupling.

More recently, the GMB revealed 37 Tory donors with a combined fortune of more than £10 billion – linked to finance, hedge funds, private equity, property and other City activities – donated 60 per cent of the Tories’ funding in the last quarter.

As GMB general secretary Paul Kenny said:

“Never in the history of political party funding have so few bought so much political influence for so little. The Tory Party is increasingly being funded by the asset strippers and predators…

“They are the same old nasty Tories now in the pockets of the predatory elite. This is why they have yet to lift a finger against the bankers who caused the recession in 2007… The Tory party is the political wing of the rich and the elite – the 1%.”

Is it any wonder then that Cameron refused to sign up to the deal, refused point blank to even countenance any scaling back of the City’s power? Who runs the government? Who’s pulling the strings? Whose money influences Tory policy? Even if he wanted to do the right thing, the gun to his head from the Tories’ biggest donors meant he couldn’t.

On the wider political point, if Cameron believes he has sated the Eurosceptics with this ‘non!’, he can think again. He appears as in hoc to them – and after all, it is only with their support he became Tory leader (see here and here for the details) – as the City. And, just like a predator who scents blood, they will demand more, and more, and more, more renegotiation, more withdrawal, more grandstanding which their increasingly weak leader will be powerless to resist.

As the Telegraph’s Ben Brogan wrote in his Morning Briefing:

“Mr Leigh [arch-Eurosceptic Edward Leigh] and his friends are unlikely to waste time clapping Dave on the back. They will demand more, no doubt a comprehensive renegotiation of British relations with the EU.

“How will Mr Cameron manage those forces? He is meeting a group of his backbenchers at Chequers tonight, but he won’t be able to ward off the demands for a referendum before his statement to Parliament on Monday.”

And as for the deputy prime minister, if it’s true he approved Cameron’s veto, many Liberal Democrats, and moreover most Europhiles may be asking themselves this morning:

‘What is the point of Nick Clegg?’

See also:

How bankers’ bonuses are contributing to the new credit crunchCormac Hollingsworth, December 6th 2011

Osborne starts to panic about the chance of a Robin Hood TaxOwen Tudor, November 9th 2011

On the Financial Transaction Tax, why is Osborne on the side of the one per cent?Shamik Das, November 2nd 2011

Farage should check his own funds before accusing others of being in it for the moneyAlex Hern, October 24th 2011

Tory dependence on City money should come as no surpriseShamik Das, February 9th 2011

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

116 Responses to “Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent”

  1. Sir Marky

    Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/4JC32vvq via @zite

  2. Nicolas Chinardet

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign #EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the 1% http://t.co/bonTSvgv < THIS.

  3. Sarah Shoraka

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the 1%: http://t.co/RjXDi1zm writes @ShamikDas #EU #FTT

  4. EU summitry is futile; this is a global financial crisis, not a eurozone crisis | Left Foot Forward

    […] this context, it is deeply ironic the British prime minister is in Brussels today to defend the interests of the City of London. Ironic because it is the City’s “loose, lax and unregulated system” – not the US or […]

  5. Simon Barrow

    RT @kevpeel: RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign #EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the 1% http://t.co/fWVaPNPm

  6. Rosa Rubicondior

    Frm earlier 2day: Cameron's total reliance on City money for Tory party funds and his stance against #FTT: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp #EU

  7. Brian Tomkinson

    Frm earlier 2day: Cameron's total reliance on City money for Tory party funds and his stance against #FTT: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp #EU

  8. Angus Carruthers

    Frm earlier 2day: Cameron's total reliance on City money for Tory party funds and his stance against #FTT: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp #EU

  9. CapitalistWorker

    Oh what Machiavellian webs one must weave to keep ones financial backers and supporters on side http://t.co/wkoYhBlj

  10. Greg

    Frm earlier 2day: Cameron's total reliance on City money for Tory party funds and his stance against #FTT: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp #EU

  11. CapitalistWorker

    Frm earlier 2day: Cameron's total reliance on City money for Tory party funds and his stance against #FTT: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp #EU

  12. Joel Carter

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the 1%: http://t.co/RjXDi1zm writes @ShamikDas #EU #FTT

  13. Rob Johnston

    Frm earlier 2day: Cameron's total reliance on City money for Tory party funds and his stance against #FTT: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp #EU

  14. Newsbot9

    And they should go ahead with a FTT, one which heavily penalises non-members.

    You want another bubble, no way round that. That “significant” part of the economy is largely parasitic at this point, and needs severe pruning.

  15. Selohesra

    Ah yes a trade war with Eurozone on one side and UK & rest of the world on the otherside – that should sort things out. Any more bright ideas?

  16. Newsbot9

    Nope, a perfectly normal situation of tax, with the UK and America on one side, and the rest of the world on the other. The UK already has stamp duty, which in your world is causing a trade war.

    Compared to your continued support for economic bubbles.

  17. Look Left – Europe 26-1 Cameron: Britain isolated like never before | Left Foot Forward

    […] I wrote earlier today: “Tory dependence on the City doubled from when Cameron became Tory leader to when […]

  18. Pissed Proletariat

    Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/535ZQ0AM via @ebuzzing

  19. Patrick Walsh

    Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent – http://t.co/w3HTIilb

  20. Jon Wilson

    Frm earlier 2day: Cameron's total reliance on City money for Tory party funds and his stance against #FTT: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp #EU

  21. Pete

    Great stuff. I’m very glad that someone has written this, it is something that needed to be said.

    There are a couple of things I’d like to add. I think that a big problem is that Britain has allowed the financial sector to get far too big at the expense of other industries.

    Several factors combined to create the bloating of the financial sector and the shrinking of the rest of the British economy:

    1. Globalization, free trade policy and failure to include stronger labor accords into international trade agreements. This meant that skill-based jobs quickly flooded out to the third world where corporations can get cheap labor and exploit their workers with impunity.

    2. The legacy of the Thatcher years. The Thatcher government deliberately dismantled much of the mining, manufacturing and other skill-based industries, particularly in the north of the country. The consequence has been a concentration of business and growth in London and the surrounding areas to the detriment of elsewhere. Cities like Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool and even Sunderland used to be great global cities of industry. That was completely wiped away by the Thatcher years.

    3. Failure to improve labor law and advance the labor movement. Whereas Germany acted to keep its manufacturing base and create a partially worker-controlled model of production, Britain did the opposite. Conservative governments kept up a system of confrontation with the unions and the skill-based sectors they represent. This was largely a cynical political tactic to increase the power of the southern, rural base of their support. It was also hypocritical since the Tories attacked Labour’s attempts to help these industries, yet did very similar things to help the farmers — because agriculture supports the Tories and people in mining and manufacturing tend not to.

    4. Most importantly, capital has been siphoned out of the productive sectors of the economy because a legislative framework has been put in place that produces this result. The British public and media haven’t woken up to the fact that financial services are like trucking — they are an intermediary good that sets the conditions for actual goods and services to be produced. The Conservative Party in the 1980s tore down financial regulation and in consequence huge amounts of money went into the financial sector. This was combined with the decline of manufacturing so that many people couldn’t raise their standard of living without going into debt. This led to a number of self-fulfilling prophecies. The aforementioned decline of the labor movement and effects of globalization have meant that people are hardly able to negotiate wages any longer — and therefore fell into extreme debt. Again, it leads to the gross inequality that Britain now experiences. Similarly, the Thatcher government started to roll back state intervention in the housing market so people were taking out mortgages (in some cases when they didn’t really have the income to do so). So again, more money goes into the banks and financial institutions and more return can be made on exotic trading and speculation.

    The financial services sector has now basically made Britain in a system of economic apartheid. People who work in these and related industries can have access to superior services and hugely superior standard of living. They know this and they want to keep it this way. Rebuilding the rest of the country, rebuilding infrastructure and striving to become a global leader in the industries of the future such as green technology will require huge amounts of public investment which will mean the need for both more revenue and a radical alteration of laws governing the financial system and labor law. This is exactly what the Tories and the people they represent don’t want. And the Labour Party has completely abandoned any commitment to discussing, let alone offering, these types of policies. I would argue that this is because under Blair they became just as, if not more, subject to the influence of Murdoch, the City and the interests of global capital.

    The consequences of this on the global scale is that the global public now lives at the mercy of the twists and turns of the unwieldy global financial system. Sarkozy and Merkel want to address this to a very limited extent whereas Cameron wants to keep the status quo. Very transparent to see his motivation when you actually look below the surface. If we want to really solve these problems we need to have a genuine, effective, democratic European left rise from the ashes to challenge the concentration of power in reactionary, unelected entities and make the west genuinely productive once again.

  22. wolfstar_de

    Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the 1%: http://t.co/c8ouElel writes @ShamikDas #EU #FTT

  23. Patrick White

    Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/535ZQ0AM via @ebuzzing

  24. Rowland Paul Hill

    [email protected] Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the 1% http://t.co/xyXqOaWI #WhyWeOccupy #WeAreThe99%

  25. Rowland Paul Hill

    Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/ctu3yoJw via @shamikdas #olsx

  26. Fynn Ralph Hopper

    Representing voters or party donors? RT @leftfootfwd: http://t.co/djSwEfCh

  27. Ed's Talking Balls

    If the unions want to start a discussion about party funding, then fine. I’m just surprised they’re the ones bringing it up.

    As for the talk of the “1%”, simple polling would reveal whether or not this is true. If more than 1% of the population didn’t want Cameron to agree to treaty change, then he has stood up for the interests of more than 1% of people – this would mean you’re wrong.

  28. Shez

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/xvSyZeBs

  29. Pissed Proletariat

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/xvSyZeBs

  30. Newsbot9

    Only if you want to behave in a typically dishonest fashion. The interests of people are not the superficial calls you make based on polling, designed to give certain results. There’s a reason your right shy away from proper polling on the EU like acid.

  31. Dominic Ellison

    Cameron didn't sign EU deal because it's not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/91fPhJDG

  32. malcolm

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/xvSyZeBs

  33. Chris Painter

    Cameron didn't sign EU deal because it's not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/91fPhJDG

  34. Richard Pointon

    Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the 1%: http://t.co/c8ouElel writes @ShamikDas #EU #FTT

  35. Derek Wall

    Good article on @leftfootfwd http://t.co/22tE6b4i ‘What is the point of Nick Clegg?’ #europe

  36. keith s

    It’s not just the FTT, (which according to the Economist can’t go through without ALL EU countries voting for it), there is other legislation going through on hedge funds, private equity and bank capitalisation.

    The City has become increasingly a very globalised set of markets, most of the banks are foreign owned, including a significant minority of EU banks. Apart from China the UK still attracts record FDI with I am sure a lot going to the City. It will be interesting what happens internally

    It’s more of different interpretations of the nation state versus fractions of globalised capitalism pushing deregulation type argument. Anyway i wrote more about it here http://tinyurl.com/c76wkfk

  37. daniel fuster

    Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the 1%: http://t.co/c8ouElel writes @ShamikDas #EU #FTT

  38. Jane Leach

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/ve67l9B6

  39. malcolm

    RT @leftfootfwd: Cameron didn’t sign EU deal because it’s not in the interests of the one per cent http://t.co/ve67l9B6

  40. Will Podmore

    Do you really think that it is in Britain’s interests to be tied into a fiscal union that would make embracing monetarism a constitutional obligation?

  41. Geoffrey Pearson

    Speaking of value for money, it looks like the city got a good deal when they bought the conservatives: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  42. Catherine Sharpe

    Speaking of value for money, it looks like the city got a good deal when they bought the conservatives: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  43. Panda

    Gd q frm @CarolineLucas on Cameron's conflating of the City fat cats' interest with the national interest; more here: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  44. Cherry McCormack

    Speaking of value for money, it looks like the city got a good deal when they bought the conservatives: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  45. Jon Wilson

    Speaking of value for money, it looks like the city got a good deal when they bought the conservatives: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  46. Sally Drayton

    Gd q frm @CarolineLucas on Cameron's conflating of the City fat cats' interest with the national interest; more here: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  47. Hanita Dadswell

    Speaking of value for money, it looks like the city got a good deal when they bought the conservatives: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  48. Miles Douglas

    Speaking of value for money, it looks like the city got a good deal when they bought the conservatives: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  49. Sector29

    Speaking of value for money, it looks like the city got a good deal when they bought the conservatives: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

  50. Rowland Paul Hill

    Speaking of value for money, it looks like the city got a good deal when they bought the conservatives: http://t.co/LLEhwkKp

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.