Rebuilding banks and the City
If turkeys don't vote for Christmas, you wouldn't expect British bankers and City of London executives to demand costly new rules from Brussels, or higher tax rates or that their banks should be dismantled.
So in a way it's unremarkable that a committee of City grandees chaired by the former chairman of Citigroup Sir Win Bischoff wants the UK government to take a leading role in shaping new EU rules, and is opposed to the idea of forcing banks to slim down and specialise.
Also, they insist that the tax system should be stable and predictable.
If there's any kind of controversy about the proposals, I guess it will stem in part from the following excerpt, which is one of the committee's arguments against breaking up banking conglomerates: "The provision of housing finance for individuals or pensions for tomorrow, or of insurance against potential risks for businesses or finance at cost effective rates for their expansion might require the synergies of the combined models."
On housing finance, think subprime and collateralised debt obligations - and ask yourself whether innovation by banking conglomerates has added or detracted from human welfare in recent years.
Here's the thing. The committee was set up by the Chancellor, Alistair Darling. And there's therefore an implication that he endorses what they want.
Which matters. Since it demonstrates that he disagrees with the governor of the Bank of England - who says there is a case for breaking up banks into separate retail and investment operations
And it might suggest Mr Darling concedes that recently the UK hasn't perhaps done enough to shape EU financial proposals, especially those seeking to constrain hedge funds and private equity firms.
But what on earth does it imply about Mr Darling's attitude to tax - since it was only last month that he announced an increase in the top rate of tax and a reduction in relief on pension contributions for high earners, or measures seen in the City as damaging the competitiveness of their industry.
As for what kind of Christmas banks can expect this year, well it's all looking a lot less gloomy than they would have expected a few months ago.
Their shares have trebled and quadrupled over the past few weeks.
Statements today by Barclays and Lloyds indicate that banks should be over the worst.
In the case of both, recession-generated losses on lending to vulnerable companies and individuals are rising - as is inevitable.
But in the case of Lloyds, it has more than enough capital and insurance protection from taxpayers to cope (even though losses generated by corporate lending by HBOS, which it bought in those fraught and controversial circumstances, are still rising in a wince-making way).
Lloyds' core tier one capital ratio is a super-strong 14.5%, which should be enough to withstand anything but economic Armageddon.
For Barclays - as for a number of global banks in investment banking and wholesale banking - it's difficult to see in its figures that the global economy is in a spot of bother.
Its pre-tax profits have risen 15% to £1.4bn in the first three months of the year, even though the contribution from retail and commercial banking has fallen 45%.
However, the early months of this year have been a boom time for investment banks and for banks that help the very biggest companies to raise money.
Barclays has done trebly well, having had the gumption to buy Lehman's US operations for next to nothing last autumn (after the US investment bank collapsed with such damaging consequences for almost everyone on the planet).
The profit of Barclays' investment banking and investment management operations rose a staggering 189% to £1.1bn.
Any minute now we'll start to hear complaints not that our banks are almost bust, but that they're making far too much.
Actually, we're not there yet.
But in another year or two - after the removal of excess capacity, a widening of margins and a fall in loan losses - banking will again be a very very profitable business.