The Prime Minister Was Right To Use The Veto

I agree entirely with the Prime Minister's approach at the European Council meeting last week. Stability in the Eurozone is clearly in the UK's national interest, as are protecting access to the single market and defending the financial services industry in the UK. The PM sought to achieve all these objectives and was forced to use his veto when it became apparent that other EU leaders were not prepared to allow Britain's own national interest to be taken into account.

The financial services industry employs nearly two million people in Britain, accounts for 10% of GDP, and generates over £50 billion in tax receipts annually in the UK. It is a vital national interest that must be protected. The UK is a gateway to the EU for financial services, but it is important that we also look to the faster growing markets of the Brazil, Russia, India, China and others around the world. We must not get tied down by EU legislation that would prevent our businesses accessing these markets.

Up until the credit crunch of 2008, EU policy on financial services was generally helpful to the City of London, expanding market access and liberalising financial markets across Europe. London was rightly seen by EU policy makers as a leader in the field and an asset to Europe. Since the crisis, the response from UK and EU policy makers has been markedly different. EU policy is generally to restrict activity of financial markets—the default reaction appears to be if you don't like it, ban it. UK policy, on the other hand, is to radically improve regulation and supervision, going further in some cases, such as the Vickers report on banking, than currently allowed under EU law.

There are currently nearly 50 proposals under consideration by the European Union which threaten UK financial services. Some of the most damaging include a Financial Transactions Tax, a ban on some short-selling, and a proposal that transactions on euro-denominated financial products are cleared only in the eurozone.

While having a significant interest in Financial Services, the UK may well be out-voted on matters in the EU. From 2014, the UK will have only 12 per cent of the votes in the Council of Ministers and 10 per cent in the European Parliament, yet it accounts for 36 per cent of the EU's wholesale finance industry and enjoys a 61 per cent share of the EU's net exports of international transactions in financial services.

Over the last two weeks, I have hosted meetings of the cross party group for European Reform and the Fresh Start Project where we discussed the issue of Financial Services. One idea that we have put forward is to negotiate for the UK an 'emergency brake' on EU financial services legislation. This could take the form of a 1 clause, UK specific legal safeguard which would give the UK the ability to block the effects of potentially harmful EU legislation.

Eurozone leaders continue to want to involve all 27 EU members in the treaty change required for closer fiscal union in the eurozone, and to use the institutions of the EU to implement this fiscal union. I don't think it is practical for a new treaty without Britain to be implemented and I suspect we will see other EU member states coming to the same conclusion pretty soon. There is a long way to go, not just in this particular treaty negotiation, but also to stabilise the euro—the crisis is far from over. With this backdrop, the PM is absolutely right to be negotiating in Britain's best interests.

View comments

Post a comment

Back to all posts