 EU experts in Britain don't really agree on why Britain uses its veto. There are many competing theories. I think it's two or three things coming together. Part of the problem for the British was that the government was very worried about getting a new treaty through the House of Commons. It feared a rebellion by Tory Eurosceptics joining with opportunistic Labour party opposition defeating the government. So there was a great reluctance to put any new treaty through the House of Commons, even if that treaty being mainly about the eurozone didn't take power away from Britain. That was part of it. Not much enthusiasm for any treaty at all. In addition, I think there was an element of cock up. I think some people in the government probably thought that an agreement was doable, that the special British demands to protect the city of London could have been met at least in part. But by the time the British produced their proposals at 2.30 in the morning it was very late and nobody wanted to haggle over the detail, the British made a mistake in not sharing those ideas with potential allies before the summit. So there wasn't really any support for the British ideas when they emerged. The British had expected more support than there was. So I think it's a mixture of cock up and also some people in the government really not wanting a deal at all and therefore insisting on demands at the summit, the special British protocol, but we're really never going to be at a run-in with most of our partners.