7 May 2013

Nigel Lawson's got it backwards



It was interesting to hear that Nigel Lawson's main reason for turning against the EU and wanting out is the vote by the EU parliament to implement the Capital Requirement's Directive, which included limits on bankers bonuses (to a piddling 2 times their salary) amongst other reforms.

Whilst the media over here focused solely on the bonus cap, the whole package contained a lot of very important measures to help prevent the same kind of financial crisis we have recently had from happening again.

The UK has the largest financial sector in Europe, and one of the largest in the world. How it operates affects the lives of millions people, not just across the UK, but across the world and especially within Europe.



The financial sector however is also hugely influential over our politics, even discounting any corruption and direct interference we have seen how reluctant our politicians are to regulate or hold accountable these institutions.

Yet the case remains pretty clear that with all that has happened the financial sector does need reform, and that if it isn't the biggest losers will be us, the public, again. We will be the ones hit hardest by recession.

Tory and UKIP MEP's voted against the Capital Requirement's Directive because of this pressure from the financial sector. They did so selfishly, failing to protect the general public, not just of this Country, but of all the other Countries who would be affected by our failure to keep our own house in order. Luckily for us they were in a minority, with a majority of MEP's clearly seeing the danger that doing nothing would leave.

They won't be the only ones though, all Countries will have their own vested interests that they are afraid to tackle and in today's world what Germany, or France, or Italy, or Ireland or even Malta does can massively affect our lives.

Nigel Lawson's is wrong to claim this is a reason to leave the EU; the European Parliament was right to oppose the Conservatives, UKIP and their vested interests. More than that though this demonstrates that we are right to maintain a position where we can provide opposition to other Countries vested interests when they threaten our populace.

Where there are vested interests you need democracy to combat them and protect people, and where those vested interests overshadow an entire Country, you need a democratic framework that is greater than that Country...

... and Nigel Lawson appears to be complaining not so much that the UK had no say in it, but that his party's members were on the wrong side of a democratic vote.