David Cameron Blocks Gordon Brown as Head of IMF
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: David Cameron will block Gordon Brown's attempts to head up the International Monetary Fund after criticising his handling of the financial crisis.

In a direct attack on the former Prime Minister, Mr Cameron said his predecessor was not the "most appropriate person" to lead the IMF because he would not admit the UK had a "debt problem".

Mr Brown is reportedly hoping to take on the £270,000-a-year role but he must first be nominated by the Government.

“If you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem (running the IMF) they may not be the best person to decide whether other countries have that problem," he said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He added that the role needed to be filled by “someone who understands the dangers of excessive spending.”

And in a clear signal that Britain would block Mr Brown if stood for the job, Mr Cameron suggested the position should be filled by a candidate from “China, India or south east Asia.” » | Andrew Porter and James Kirkup | Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Vince Cable: David Cameron's Immigration Claims 'Risk Inflaming Extremism'
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has accused David Cameron of “inflaming extremism” with his speech on immigration.

The Prime Minister will today claim that uncontrolled immigration has undermined some British communities.

Pledging to cut the numbers entering Britain to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, Mr Cameron will say that "for too long, immigration has been too high".

Mr Cameron’s speech, his first major address on the issue since the general election, will please many Conservative MPs and voters.

But Mr Cable, a Liberal Democrat, described the speech as “very unwise” and suggested it could fuel extremism over immigration.

“The reference to the tens of thousands of immigrants rather than hundreds of thousands is not part of the coalition agreement, it is Tory party policy only,” Mr Cable told the BBC.

“I do understand there is an election coming but talk of mass immigration risks inflaming the extremism to which he and I are both strongly opposed.”

The Conservatives and Lib Dems agreed in their Coalition deal to take differing views on immigration, but Mr Cable’s forthright criticism of Mr Cameron may raise questions about his position in the Cabinet. Continue reading and comment » | James Kirkup, Political Correspondent | Thursday, April 14, 2011



My comment:

Doesn't Vince Cable understand that he is in office to serve the people? Doesn't he understand that the people's concerns should be of paramount importance in a so-called democracy? The good British people are fed up of all this unrestrained immigration into our once rather homogenous land. Do the people's wishes mean nothing to this man? If he is concerned about extremism, the one thing he and his colleagues could do to nip extremism in the bud is bring immigration under control. It is precisely in countries where immigration has been allowed to get out of hand that we are seeing the growth of the so-called extremist parties. Now surely you can get that, Dr. Cable! – © Mark

This comment also appears here

David Cameron: Migration Threatens Our Way of Life
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: David Cameron will claim today that uncontrolled immigration has undermined some British communities.

In his most forthright speech on the issue since he became Prime Minister, he will say that mass immigration has led to "discomfort and disjointedness" in neighbourhoods because some migrants have been unwilling to integrate or learn English.

Pledging to cut the numbers entering Britain to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, Mr Cameron will say that "for too long, immigration has been too high".

He will also promise to "stamp out" forced marriages, saying that "cultural sensitivity" cannot be allowed to stop the Government from acting.

In the speech to party members in Hampshire, the Prime Minister will attack Labour for claiming it was racist to talk about immigration, saying it is "untruthful and unfair" not to speak about the issue, however uncomfortable. Continue reading and comment » | Andrew Porter, Political Editor | Wedmesday, April 13, 2011

My comment:

He won't do anything about this problem, because his chums, the captains of industry, want cheap labour. What has he done about curbing bankers' bonuses? Not a lot! This is all politicians' talk: sweet words to appease the common folk! – Mark

This comment also appears here

Unfortunate collisions

It is a fact of life that decisions made by politicians or any other leaders are analysed by observers as if they were made in isolation from other factors. The moral purity or political expediency of a particular decision is examined as if this decision were made to stand alone and bear the weight of concentrated critique.
Yet, most of life is just not like that. The decisions we make are sometimes forced upon us at a time of least expediency and are conditioned by factors that might be either unfortunate, unwanted or, in some way or other, compromising. I suspect that this is usually unwelcome and even unhelpful.

So, at a time when many commentators – seemingly glad of some action to get their teeth into at last – are following the attacks on Libya with a critical eye back onto the hypocrisy of Western support for regimes such as Gaddafi’s, the decision to act over Libya is not capable of being seen through some pure moral lens. We might regret having (a) thought that stable Arab regimes were culturally appropriate and desirable and, therefore, sustainable, and (b) having aided such regimes for a generation or more by arming them to the teeth… in the interests of domestic security, of course.

But, our vision is always limited. It is easy to stand in the academy or the editorial office casting judgement that costs nothing to the judge;it is a different matter entirely to be compelled to jump when you would prefer to wait for more conducive circumstances. David Cameron might reassure us that Libya is no Iraq, but the threats of a ‘long war’ from Gaddafi and the concerns raised by the Arab League (these attacks were apparently not what they thought they had signed up to) might well confound him.
I began to think about this element of leadership while reading a paper produced this month by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on Cohesion, counter-terrorism and community in West Yorkshire. I have a huge amount to learn from those on the ground when I move to Bradford next month, so I make no pretensions about fully understanding local cultures there. But, the interesting thing about this paper is the questions it poses to the way we ‘see’ communities in complex circumstances and the assumptions we bring to our judgements.

The paper, based on research, makes a number of points, but two are particularly interesting:

1. Despite allegations by politicians, media and others that communities lead ‘parallel lives’, the evidence suggests that there already is a huge degree of ‘community cohesion’ in everyday life.
2. Well-intended policies (a) to prevent terrorism and (b) to build community cohesion conflicted to the extent that potential for neither was maximised.

In the latter case it was simply that policies that were comprehensible in their own right were inhibited by their contextual association with the other. In the words of the summary findings, “The implementation of Prevent at the local level had direct and negative effects on the parallel attempt to pursue community cohesion programmes.”

This is similar to the coincidence of a good idea – the ‘Big Society‘ – with another reality – the Comprehensive Spending Review. The former might well be negated by its association with the latter… despite government attempts to separate the two and retain their distinctive integrities. Put simply (rather than simplistically), the Big Society depends on voluntary groups taking responsibility for services previously provided by the State while the funding for such groups is cut off because of the spending constraints. The association of the two initiatives is unfortunate for many reasons.
This might all be obvious to everybody else, but it has got me thinking about the nature of leadership in complex organisations and in complex contexts. We rarely have the freedom to make simple decisions in isolation from the rest of reality: normally our decisions are compromised, subject to unwelcome and intrusive extraneous factors, and held hostage to consequences which cannot be predicted. In the words of the final conclusion of the JRF paper:

Community cohesion as a policy cannot be isolated from the impact of other government policies.

A statement of the obvious, maybe; but, even though the powerbrokers need tight scrutiny in a democracy, we observers might do well to at least recognise the complexity of the decision-making process and its context when we cast our judgements from a distance and the comfort of a study.

Posted by nickbaines

Welfare Reform Should Tackle the Cheats at the Top As Well As the Bottom
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Greedy MPs and rapacious bankers are just as dishonest as welfare fraudsters and freeloaders, says Jenny McCartney.

David Cameron, at the launch of the Welfare Reform Bill last week, made a rousing plea for the restoration of our ethics. In his speech, he bemoaned the end of “a collective culture of responsibility”, of an age when people’s self-image was measured by “whether they did the decent thing”. In such an era, he said, “fiddling the system would have brought not just public outcry but private shame”.

Mr Cameron was speaking with specific regard to our welfare system, and much of what he said is true. We are all familiar with those lurid tales of enterprising gentlemen who have claimed disability allowance while giving disco-dancing lessons on the side, or ladies whose complicated housing scams trawl in the annual GDP of a small Baltic country.

As well as such criminal fraudsters, however, there are the opportunistic freeloaders who trigger public ire without actually breaking the law. The latter are open in their intention to have large families that will be wholly supported by a groaning state. It was reported last week that the anti-social antics of the family of Tom O’Leary and Tanya Walsh (two adults, 12 children) had caused distress to the neighbours of their £1.2 million council-funded abode in Muswell Hill. Miss Walsh wrote on her Bebo site recently that her hobbies were “eating chocolate and having children”: the only people cheering her on were the makers of confectionery and Pampers. Read on and comment >>> Jenny McCartney | Saturday, February 19, 2011

My comment:

At last, a refreshing bit of common sense! Thank you for this extremely sensible article, Jenny McCartney. It is very tiresome to listen to the fraudsters at the top always going on about the people at the bottom milking the system. Who milks the system more than the greedy bankers and fraudulent MPs? And I write as a disinterested observer. Cameron had better start looking sideways before he looks down. He should get his chums to lead by example. – © Mark

This comment also appears here

David Cameron in Forest Sale Climbdown
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: David Cameron has halted plans to sell off parts of Britain's woodland.

The Prime Minister surprised the House of Commons yesterday by admitting that he was not happy with the policy, which has caused outrage among countryside groups, MPs and members of the public.

Mr Cameron has been shocked by the hostility to the sell-off of state-owned forestry and has admitted defeat.

Within days, it will be announced that plans to let Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, decide whether 100 per cent of England's national forests can be sold off will be scrapped. Read on and comment >>> Andrew Porter, Political Editor | Thursday, February 17, 2011

Davos 2011 - David Cameron

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Davos WEF 2011: Osborne calls time on banker bashing – George Osborne has given a clear signal the Government wants to halt the long period of “banker bashing” by admitting “we need to move on”. >>> Kamal Ahmed, in Davos | Friday, January 28, 2011

What the hell is this chancellor is talking about? Who the hell is he to tell us what we are supposed to think? If this chancellor wants people to stop banker-bashing, then he needs to take action to halt the despicable bonuses which these people are stealing from the system. This is the disgusting face of ‘unbridled’ capitalism. – © Mark

Your new man in Brussels

The UK will soon have a new man in Brussels - Jon Cunliffe who will take over from Kim Darroch - to represent the country in the endless behind-the-scenes negotiations that form the backbone of EU decision-making.

In the Mail on Sunday James Forsyth commented:

...it is encouraging that David Cameron is about to make the tough- as-teak Jon Cunliffe Britain’s new ambassador to the EU.

Intriguingly, Cameron is appointing someone who has never worked in the Foreign Office.

Cunliffe is not your typical Sir Humphrey. He didn’t go to Oxbridge and took his economics degree at night-school. Even more unusually, he enjoys saying No to foreigners.

But Douglas Carswell isn't impressed. On his blog, he writes:

Predictably, the spin behind Cunliffe’s appointment is that he is “tough as teak”, a man who likes saying “no” to foreigners. Those who brief the press attach great importance to the fact he’s not from the overtly federalist Foreign Office.

Yet the idea Cunliffe’s appointment means a change of approach is balls. If anything, it confirms that it’ll be EU business as usual.

It was Cunliffe who negotiated the Stabilisation Mechanism deal leading to the ECOFIN meeting in May, whereby Britain accepted enormous liabilities to try to prop up the Euro. He thereby managed to make us part of the Euro debt union, if not the currency union.

What's clear is that the importance of this position - the UK's Permanent Represenative to the EU - hardly can be overestimated...

PM Is Protecting Banker Bonuses, Claim Lib Dems
THE INDEPENDENT: The Liberal Democrats are making a final attempt to persuade David Cameron to rein in bankers' bonuses amid growing public anger over the imminent payout estimated at £7bn.

Liberal Democrat MPs believe that Mr Cameron, rather than the Chancellor, George Osborne, has emerged as the main obstacle to tough action against the bankers. They are furious that Downing Street signalled a climbdown this week while talks continued with the big banks on a new settlement covering bonuses and lending to small businesses and first-time buyers.

"You don't wave the white flag in the middle of tough negotiations," Baron Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, told The Independent yesterday. "This is the moment of truth on fairness for our Coalition. We can't allow a bonus bonanza in the age of austerity." >>> Andrew Grice, Political Editor | Friday, January 14, 2011

THE SUNDAY TIMES: Golden goodbye for bank bosses: Outgoing chief executives at HSBC, Lloyds and Barclays will pocket millions from highly lucrative advisory contracts >>> Iain Dey | Sunday, January 16, 2011 (£)

Banks Given Go-ahead to Pay Unlimited Bonuses
THE GUARDIAN: Ministers cave in to City and reject calls to tackle highest earners as No 10 seeks face-saving deal

Britain's banks were given the go-ahead tonight to pay unlimited bonuses, drawing to a close a two-year political battle to rein in the City.

After months in which a series of government ministers of all parties have threatened a toughening in the stance over City bonuses, Downing Street said the government did not intend to intervene in the pay of the UK's top bankers.

Ministers are instead hoping for a face-saving deal in which the banks agree to lending targets and improve the way they disclose their pay deals. One of the options being discussed is releasing information on the five highest paid individuals at each bank.

"We've made a broad statement which is about the need to see some restraint and some responsibility from the banks, but we are not going to set bonus pools for individual banks," the prime minister's spokesman said. >>> Patrick Wintour, Jill Treanor and Allegra Stratton | Monday, January 10, 2011

THE INDEPENDENT: Tough talk on bank bonuses comes to nought: The Government owns 83 per cent of RBS. So why does it claim to be powerless to halt another round of enormous bank bonuses? >>> James Moore, Deputy Business Editor | Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Cameron* Says Banks 'Should Pay Smaller Bonuses'
BBC: Prime Minister David Cameron has called on banks to pay smaller bonuses this year.


Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr show he said banks should be more "socially responsible".

The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which is majority-owned by the taxpayer, should not be "leading the way" on bonuses but should be a "back marker", he said.

However "micro-managing" the banks was not the answer, he added. >>> | Sunday, January 09, 2011

* Cameron talking baloney! He’ll never do anything about bankers and their despicable, excessive bonuses. He is weak and cowardly. – © Mark

Mervyn King Told US Cameron and Osborne Were 'Out of Their Depth’
THE GUARDIAN: Diplomatic memos reveal Bank governor thought top Conservatives lacked experience to deal with deficit

WikiLeaks cables reveal that Mervyn King was worried about David Cameron and George Osborne's lack of economic depth. Photograph: The Guardian
The head of the Bank of England privately criticised David Cameron and George Osborne for their lack of experience, the lack of depth in their inner circle and their tendency to think about issues only in terms of their electoral impact, according to leaked US embassy cables.

Mervyn King told the US ambassador, Louis Susman, he had held private meetings with the two Conservative politicians before the election to urge them to draw up a detailed plan to reduce the deficit.

He said the pair operated too much within a narrow circle and "had a tendency to think about issues only in terms of politics, and how they might affect Tory electorability". He also predicted that economic recovery would be "a long drawn-out process", since Britain had not been through an economic restructuring.

His apparent pressure on the Tories, a few months before the election, gives further credence to the claim that King was central in persuading leading coalition figures to back a far more dramatic deficit-reduction programme than any politician advocated during the election campaign. He has recently been criticised by members of the Bank's monetary policy committee for straying into politics. Read on and comment >>> David Leigh and Patrick Wintour | Tuesday, November 30, 2010

WikiLeaks: Mervyn King Should Quit Over 'Political Bias', Says Blanchflower
THE GUARDIAN: Leaked US cables show governor of Bank of England's 'thirst for power has clouded his judgment', former colleague says

David Blanchflower, a leading economist and former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee, has called on Mervyn King to quit as governor of the Bank of England following leaked US cables that he claims show King's "thirst for power and influence ... has clouded his judgment one too many times".

In his toughest attack on his former colleague to date, Blanchflower seized on revelations that suggest King may have been central in persuading leading coalition figures to back a far more dramatic deficit-reduction programme than any politician advocated during the election campaign.

Blanchflower, who stepped down from the policy committee last year and who has warned the coalition government's deficit reduction programme could lead to a recession, seized on the information revealed in the latest tranche of leaked US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks to say King's position was now untenable. >>> Hélène Mulholland, political reporter | Wednesday, November 01, 2010

David Blanchflower: Mervyn King Must Go
THE GUARDIAN: In showing his true party political colours, Mervyn King has compromised the Bank of England's independence

Mervyn King is one smart guy and that has always been abundantly clear. Unfortunately, it is his thirst for power and influence that has clouded his judgment one too many times. He has now committed the unforgivable sin of compromising the independence of the Bank of England by involving himself in the economic policy of the coalition. He is expected to be politically neutral but has shown himself to be politically biased and as a result is now in an untenable position. King must go. >>> David Blanchflower | Wednesday, November 01, 2010

Bank Chief Attacks PM's 'Lack Of Experience'
The head of the Bank of England criticised David Cameron and George Osborne for their lack of experience ahead of the General Election, according to the latest leak of US diplomatic cables

A one-year cash freeze to EU budget won't cut it Mr. Cameron

The news in today's Guardian and Mail is that David Cameron is thinking of doing a deal on the proposed new EU treaty. The reports suggest that Cameron will back the new treaty in return for his demands for a cash freeze to the 2011 budget.

We're not convinced that Treaty-change-for-less-cash is a line that the Government will pursue in the end. But if true, Cameron and his Government risk a mutiny not only from the Tory backbenches but the public at large. And it would be completely justified.

The prospect of a new treaty is rightly seen (and not just by us) as a once in a generation opportunity to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU and actually repatriate some of the powers the Conservatives promised they would less than a year ago, or pursue a number of other reforms - for example giving real powers over EU policy to national parliaments.

A one-year cash freeze on the EU budget simply doesn't cut it. Sure, the European Parliament's demands for a 6 percent increase are outrageous and have understandably attracted the headlines recently. But what about 2012 and 2013? There is nothing stopping MEPs, the Commission or even other member states demanding similar increases in these years and there would be little the UK could do about it.

And even the next EU budget period, the the one that starts in 2014, is best negotiated seperately. The UK already has its rebate as leverage in those negotiations. Making horse-trades involving Treaty changes is giving EU partners a 'two for the price of one' deal.

But besides this practical reason, the prospect of yet another 'behind closed doors' EU deal could be politically disastrous. After promising to repatriate powers, Cameron cannot shirk the first, and possibly only, realistic opportunity to do so.

It would certainly make his accusations of "betrayal", levelled at Labour and the Lib Dems for their backtracking on a referendum on Lisbon, look pretty hypocritical.

Child Benefit: I Should Have Warned You, Admits PM
THE TELEGRAPH: David Cameron hasapologised for failing to warn voters before the election that his government would cut child benefit for millions of households.

In an attempt to stop the row overshadowing his first party conference speech as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron expressed regret at the surprise announcement of a policy which will penalise stay-at-home mothers. >>> Robert Winnett, Andrew Porter and James Kirkup | Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Are Cameron and Osborne Too Rich to Know How the Middle Classes Feel About Child Benefit?
David Cameron and George Osborne too rich to understand? Photo: The Telegraph
THE TELEGRAPH – BLOG – DAVID HUGHES: Out of the smouldering wreckage of the child benefit announcement is emerging a view of the Tory leadership that will, if it takes hold, be immensely damaging. It is that they are so well-heeled that they simply do not have a clue about how most people live their lives. David Cameron and George Osborne have never had to worry about money, ever. It has never impinged on their charmed existences. Read on and comment >>> David Hughes | Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Britain Distances Itself From Euro-Zone Crisis
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Britain’s new government has tried to distance itself from Europe’s debt crisis by embarking on painful economic austerity measures. The U.K. pound’s rise against the dollar and euro suggests its strategy is starting to pay off.

The pound has advanced 6% against the crisis-racked euro this year, picking up steam after Britain’s newly elected coalition government announced public-spending cuts and tax rises that have quieted down talk of a much-feared cut to Britain’s credit rating.

Prime Minister David Cameron and Treasury chief George Osborne are betting that Britain’s first order of business is fixing the public finances to avoid a Greece-style debt crisis. Their opposition, the Labour Party, insists that massive spending cuts this year could throw a wrench in Britain’s fragile economic recovery.

But so far investors are giving Britain’s economy the benefit of the doubt. Even as some analysts rub their eyes in disbelief, the U.K. pound continues to experience a big bounce: We’ve gone from one pound buying $1.42 in May to $1.5280. That’s getting closer to the roughly $1.60 level where the pound started the year.

Just about everything is going sterling’s way Wednesday. Good profit numbers from the U.S.’s Intel is fueling optimism and encouraging investors to take riskier positions like the U.K. pound. Fresh figures Wednesday on U.K. unemployment showed Britain’s rate falling to a 15-month low of 4.5% in June.

A day earlier, government reports showed that Britain’s inflation rate remains too high for the Bank of England, with prices rising 3.2% annually. That is raising expectations that the U.K. central bank could move faster than currently expected to raise interest rates. Higher rates make the pound more appealing. >>> Neil Shah | Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Cameron Orders Ministers to Draw Up 40 Per Cent Spending Cuts – the Biggest in History
Doomsday savings: Prime Minister David Cameron is preparing departments for cuts of up to 40 per cent. Photograph: Mail On Sunday
MAIL ON SUNDAY: David Cameron is ready to approve the biggest public-spending cuts in the history of the developed world in a dramatic bid to cut ­Britain’s soaring national debt.

He has ordered Cabinet Ministers to draw up ‘Doomsday’ savings of up to a staggering 40 per cent which could see vast parts of the public ­services shut down and tens of thousands of policemen, teachers, town hall workers and other civil servants lose their jobs.

The proposed cutbacks are even more extreme than emergency reductions used in other countries such as Canada and Ireland and are double the amount of the Geddes cuts imposed after the First World War when Britain faced bankruptcy from government debt and waste.

Mr Cameron’s shock initiative is a massive personal and political gamble.

There were gasps at a meeting of the Cabinet on Tuesday when Ministers were informed of the package.

It could provoke a wave of crippling strikes – and may well threaten Mr Cameron’s alliance with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg. Many Lib Dem MPs, already unhappy with the VAT rise and cuts in benefits, are likely to rebel against the draconian new measures.

However, if it works, it could result in a ­second Election victory for the Prime Minister. Continue reading and comment >>> Simon Walters | Sunday, July 04, 2010

David Cameron: 'The World Doesn't Owe Us a Living
THE TELEGRAPH: Britain has no automatic right to prosperity, David Cameron has said, declaring: “The world doesn’t owe us a living.”

Mr Cameron told business leaders in London that Britain has no automatic right to prosperity. Photograph: The Telegraph
The Prime Minister said many people are under the “delusion” that just because the UK has historically been one of the richest countries on earth, it will always remain so.

Only if we “reboot and rebuild” the UK economy can the country’s future prosperity be assured, he said.

Mr Cameron used a speech to business leaders in London to argue that the spending cuts and other changes his Government is planning are not discretionary political choices but essential economic moves to stop the country falling behind its competitors.

He said: “I think too many people in this country are living under the delusion that a prosperous past guarantees a prosperous future. But it isn’t written anywhere that this country deserves a place at the top table.

He added: “It was once said that freedom once won is not won for ever; it’s like an insurance premium – each generation must renew it. Economic prosperity is the same. Just because we’ve had it before doesn’t mean we’ll automatically get it again.” >>> James Kirkup, Political Correspondent | Monday, June 28, 2010

Managing expectations over an English breakfast

David Cameron has today participated in his first EU summit and has secured a preliminary assurance (assurances are never quite for certain in EU politics) that Britain will not have to submit its national budget to the Commission before it goes to the UK Parliament. At the same time, sanctions for violating the Growth and Stability Pact will primarily apply to countries in the eurozone. The actual proposal for an ‘EU economic government’ (which some EU leaders still insist on calling it) won’t be tabled until October, so there’s still a bit to play for – particularly on whether some of these proposals will be based on Qualified Majority Voting (meaning no veto for Cameron) or unanimity. The Commission, which initiates the legislation, has arbitrarily changed legal basis before, so nothing is for sure.

But this is definitely a fight that David Cameron can win – which is probably why the he chose to focus on it in the run-up to the summit. The draft conclusions (which helpfully are always available on the Danish Parliament’s website a few days before the Summit but still not through the UK Parliament - will that change now?) made this clear. As ever, managing expectations is key in politics. The pre-budget report, which is published in December in the UK, offers a convenient way out for the UK government and is the item that presumably will be ‘peer reviewed’ by the Commission and other national treasuries.

In fact, this has turned out to be the most uneventful EU summit in years – the most exciting event appears to have been that Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso served Cameron an English breakfast in order to make him feel at home (was Fredrik Reinfeldt served Swedish oatmeal?).

But remember, it’s been a very dramatic Spring and it’s hard to rival the drama of the “Super Weekend” back in May, when the ECB lost its independence and European taxpayers became liable for some €500 billion in eurozone bailout loans.

You have to give Cameron and George Osborne credit though. They’re in a very awkward position, simultaneously having to maintain peace within the coalition, keeping their backbenchers at bay and convincing their European partners that they’re not the devil incarnate. So far they’ve managed that balancing act exceptionally well. How long that will last is a different matter – as Benedict Brogan points out in today’s Telegraph. A number of run-ins are looming – the EU budget, UK taxpayers’ exposure to the bailout package and regulations to rein in the City.

Under the surface, of course, there are issues in the summit conclusions that should worry the Cameron government. The conclusions call on EU leaders to adopt the AIFM Directive “before the summer”. As we’ve noted before, for various reasons, passing this directive in a flawed form would land a blow to the UK economy and national interest.

The conclusions also call for “the Council and the European Parliament to rapidly adopt the legislative proposals on financial supervision to ensure that the European Systemic Risk Board and the three European Supervisory Authorities can begin working from the beginning of 2011.”

This proposal gives three new EU supervisors the power to overrule national regulators on financial oversight and technical standards. The Council and European Parliament are currently working out the details in negotiations. The Council’s version is significant (and transfers some supervisory powers from the UK to Brussels) – but the European Parliament’s proposal is potentially dynamite. It would create an effective single European regulator, located in Frankfurt with the power to make decisions over the recapitalisation of banks, for instance. According to the proposal, the FSA would be an “agent” of this new supervisor - not the other way around. By any definition, this would mean a transfer of powers.

It probably won’t be as bad as the EP’s draft but it will be very difficult for the UK to compltetly hold its position on these proposals – a legacy left by the previous Government.

Indeed, there are many EU summits to go before the UK’s coalition experiment is over and they will certinaly be tougher than this one.