La República Catalana

News Comment/COMENTARI AL DIA

Cameron’s National Interest/L’INTERÈS NACIONAL DE CAMERON

Cameron’s National Interest

Thatcher was too clever to ever leave the negotiating table. The grocer’s daughter was a true bulldog for freedom, unlike aristocrat Cameron’s Bullingdog for privilege. Below: The City in London: In 1983, 90% of the public agreed that banks were well run. By 2009, that had plunged to 19%.

Cameron walked out of Europe claiming to defend the British national interest against the 26 other EU members. He was left quite alone and stopped nothing, despite his talking of a veto. The national interest he saw as threatened by Europe is concentrated in a few expensive parts of London, in an industry bottom in popularity: banking.

Cameron effectively stuck relations with the rest of Europe in the deep freeze in order to protect banks. No prime minister in recent times has termed one industry as being of “national interest.” So why the kid-glove treatment of finance? The vital contribution banking makes to employment? To tax revenue? To lending? Finance employs 1m people. Manufacturing double, 2m. Banks claim to be the biggest payers of corporation tax, but omit to mention that corporation tax is small. The taxes paid 2002-8 in which the City was having an almighty boom were £193bn, half the £378bn paid by manufacturing. Taxpayers then had to shell out £289bn to prop up the banks and underwrote £1.2tn in loans. The City looks less like a goose that lays golden eggs, and more like an unruly pigeon that leaves one hell of a mess for others to clear up. At the height of the bubble, two-thirds of all bank lending went to pumping up the bubble. This doesn’t look like a hard-working part of an economy. So why does Cameron cling on to them? Bankers provide half of all Tory party funds and Cameron’s father was a stockbroker. Cameron’s national interest is what suits one square mile of Britain.

(“Britain is ruled by the banks, for the banks. Is David Cameron’s kid-glove treatment of the City remotely justified, when it neither pays its way nor lends effectively?,” by Adita Chakrabortty, The Guardian, 12 December 2011)

L’interès nacional de Cameron

 

La City de Londres: el 1983, el 90% de l’opinió pública creia que els bancs estaven ben gestionats. El 2009 havia caigut al 19%. Primera foto: Thatcher era massa llesta per mai deixar la taula negociadora. La filla del botiguer era un veritable bulldog per la llibertat, no el Bullingdog pel privilegi de l’aristòcrata Cameron.

Cameron ha plantat Europa dient defensar l’interès nacional britànic contra els altres 26 membres de l’UE. S’ha quedat completament sol i no ha aturat res, tot i que ell parli d’un veto. L’interès nacional que veu amenaçat per Europa es concentra en uns pocs metres quadrats molt cars de Londres d’una indústria que puntua última en popularitat: la banca.

Cameron ha posat les relacions amb la resta d’Europa al congelador simplement per a protegir els bancs. Cap primer ministre contemporani ha qualificat una indústria com d'”interès nacional”. Llavors per què ara el tracte de favor a les finances? La banca fa una contribució vital a l’ocupació? Als ingressos fiscals? Als préstecs? Les finances donen feina a 1 milió, però la indústria manufacturera a 2 milions. Els bancs diuen que són els més grans contribuents a l’impost de societats, però obliden esmentar que l’impost de societats és petit. Els impostos pagats 2002-8, quan la City vivia una expansió desenfrenada, foren de £193 mil milions, la meitat dels £378 mil milions pagats per la indústria manufacturera. Els contribuents després s’han vist obligats a pagar £289 mil milions per sostindre els bancs i avalar £1,2 bilions en préstecs. La City sembla menys una gallina que pon ous d’or, sinó com un colom incívic emmerdant-ho tot i deixant que els altres ho netegin. Al punt màxim de la bombolla, dues terceres parts de tots els préstecs bancaris anaven a inflar la bombolla. Això no sembla una part productiva d’una economia. Per què doncs Cameron s’hi enganxa? Els bancs proporcionen la meitat de tot el finaçament del partit conservador i el pare de Cameron era corredor de borsa. L’interès nacional de Cameron és el que convé a una milla quadrada de Gran Bretanya.

(“Britain is ruled by the banks, for the banks. Is David Cameron’s kid-glove treatment of the City remotely justified, when it neither pays its way nor lends effectively?,” per Adita Chakrabortty, The Guardian, 12 Desembre 2011)

14 December 2011 - Posted by | Economy/Economia, News comment/Comentari al dia, Politics/Política | , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: