The Balkan wars came about as part of the break up of Yugoslavia, a political and artificial and political construction of disparate nationalities. Do you not see the similarity between Yugoslavia an another artificial and political construction call the European Union. It will all end in bloodshed and tears yet again.

We in the UK and elsewhere in Western Europe often take for granted the benefits of membership of the EU

No sure who you mean by we here, but the majority of people see no benefits in membership of the EU, but do see a catastrophic loss of national sovereignty which is going to take extreme effort to get back.

We should positively regard this instinctual expression of solidarity with the young men and women being sent to suffer through our government’s wars, but we must also challenge the populist militarism which often accompanies it.

It’s important that we’re able to support those injured in war through the work of the RBL and others while making clear that this is a support for victims, not adoration of ‘heroes.’ I am greatly concerned by the blurring of the lines between support for the war wounded and veterans and approval for the activities of our military that has developed with examples like the “Help for Heroes” brand, and the sick exploitation of the memories of the past war dead by politicians and jingoists come every November.

We should also combat the notion that these right-wing populists “support our troops” at all. Would they not be the first to cringe at the idea that soldiers should have the basic democratic right to join a union, or to organise and agitate for a improvement of their conditions?

In today’s FT it is reported that “Michel Barnier, the EU internal market commissioner, insists that proposed new EU rules enacting the Basel III minimum of 7 per cent of high quality capital would not stop Britain piling on additional capital requirements for its banks”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7347112-2984-11e1-8b1a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gz2GBAqm

The Vickers’ recommendations would have been implemented regardless of Britain’s status in the fiscal compact.

I also believe that my characterisation of the City was even-handed considering the amount of vitriol poured onto the financial sector by the majority of our media outlets.

I admit that the City is a world leader in financial services and an important part of our heritage. I also respect that certain financial businesses serve the wider economy by funding start-ups and managing pension funds.

However, the events of the last three years have forced a penetrating searchlight on the activities of the financial sector and brought to our attention a number of questionable practices that have harmed society, instead of helping it.

From facilitating massive tax avoidance through ‘dividend washing’ to depriving pensioners’ of their savings through hidden management costs, certain actors in the City have permanently stained the reputation of the financial sector by selfishly acting to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

You might say “that’s capitalism”, or that these are only the actions of a minority. However, the culture bred in the City is what has allowed these practices to flourish. The ‘evil empire’ analogy may be high rhetoric, but it reflects a general impression that different values govern the behaviour of actors in the financial sector than those the majority of us adhere to.

In an age when our own PM stands up and demands adherence to a higher moral code, we cannot allow a wealthy elite motivated by selfish aggrandisement to hijack the political agenda.

Firstly, one of the reasons for the veto was that the government, in line with the recommendations of the Vickers Report, want to go beyond EU rules in several areas, such as higher capital requirements. While I think you’re right in pointing to the cosiness between the Conservatives and financiers, I think there are aspects of what they want that we ought to agree with (while not agreeing with their methods which have failed to achieve anything).

Secondly, I don’t think you’ve given an entirely a fair characterisation of The City. Sure, there are huge problems and hopefully the new Prudential Regulatory Authority will prove to be more adept at, well, regulating! That said, finance is vital for any economy and particularly the British one. Quite unlike coal mining for example, finance is essential for the smooth operation of the economy and financial services, when harnessed to the public good, can be immensely socially beneficial.

From the angel investors who fund start-up companies, to well managed pension funds who provide for investors’ retirement, to decent financial advisers who try and make money for them and their clients there are many in The City who serve the public good. I think we should be hesitant in rhetorically dealing with The City as an amorphous evil empire, and should rather be more targeted in our criticism, assailing those who engage in the most damaging and threatening behaviours; but praising those who use finance as a conduit of social good.