David Cameron’s veto of the proposed new European constitution was the right decision, possibly for the wrong reasons. As has been explained ad nauseam, the British prime minister was heavily influenced both by the perceived need to satisfy his Tory backbenchers and by one interpretation of the needs of the City of London. It is difficult to say whether the proposed rules would have done more to promote much-needed banking reform or to harm the legitimate interests of the City as a top export earner and source of employment. But as the European Union has been lurching for years in the wrong direction, a line had to be drawn somewhere and this is where the opportunity arose.
英國(guó)首相戴維?卡梅倫(David Cameron)對(duì)擬議中的歐洲新憲法投了否決票，這是一個(gè)正確的決定，盡管他可能是基于錯(cuò)誤的理由做出這一決定的。正如人們反復(fù)地解讀的那樣，卡梅倫受到兩方面因素的嚴(yán)重影響，一方面顯然是為了迎合保守黨后座議員的要求，另一方面可以說(shuō)是為了迎合倫敦金融城的需求。目前還很難說(shuō)擬議中的新憲法原本是會(huì)促進(jìn)亟需的銀行業(yè)改革，還是會(huì)影響倫敦金融城的合法利益（倫敦金融城是英國(guó)最大的出口創(chuàng)匯者和就業(yè)源泉）。但由于歐盟(EU)多年來(lái)一直在朝錯(cuò)誤的方向蹣跚而行，因此我們?cè)缇驮撛谀撤矫媾c之劃清界限，而且我們?cè)?jīng)有過(guò)這樣的機(jī)會(huì)。