The global financial crisis has had a seemingly odd impact on relations between the City of London, the United Kingdom and the European Union. Before the crisis, the dominant assumption in Britain was that what was good for the City, Europe's largest financial center, was good for the UK and the rest of Europe.
The Government should seek to protect the City, but went about it the wrong way at the Brussels summit.Sir, Camilla Cavendish's article on the City and the EU (“France defends farmers: we must save the City”, Dec 15) contains much common sense.
Opinion piece by Philip Whyte The Guardian, 14 December 2011
There are many puzzles about the British government's tactics at last week's EU summit. One is why it chose to identify the City of London as the "vital national interest" that needed special protection. The City, after all, is the most unpopular "national champion" that the UK possesses.
This week’s summit will do little to solve the fundamentals of this crisis. What has been agreed is definitely not a fiscal union, there is no agreement to close any of the institutional gaps in the eurozone, such as the lack of any real fiscal union or pan-eurozone backstop to the banking sector. Without these two things the crisis will continue to worsen.
Opinion piece by Charles Grant Europaquotidiano, 08 December 2011
«In questo momento mi pare si possa adattare ai leader europei quello che Churchill usava dire a proposito degli americani: si può sempre essere sicuri che facciano la cosa giusta, una volta che abbiano esaurito tutte le altre possibilità».
The UK’s decision to marginalise itself by vetoing a new EU-27 treaty has dominated the post-summit media coverage. And for good reason – it could prove a big step towards UK withdrawal from the EU. However, the bigger question is whether the agreement reached at the summit will do anything to address the fundamentals of the euro crisis.