BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I was asked for an example and came up with one from memory. I did not go looking for recent examples. I can't be bothered. Anyone think it is a unique example? You won't find it if they are not caught and publicised.Surrey Commuter wrote:Thursday 8 December 2005 07.20 GMT[/i]
Ah, what the hell.... http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016- ... tabernula/The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yeah sure traders. They're a bunch of screen jockeys. There's limited reason for them to be in the office at all to be honest, other then for the highbrow bantz and abuse of local pizza boys.
In the rest of the city, like in any business you need face-to-face contact.
On this & more (i.e. proximity to Europe vs rest of the world)
Rick - these are sound arguments and it could be added that if these new markets were so open and tempting we would be there already.
It is all so bleedin obvious that surely all of this was/is known already.
So rather than venting on a forum reinforcing our own beliefs what should we do? would it make any difference if 10 million people joined the LibDems. Should we join our local Tory parties and directly influence the debate?
Well I was out campaigning/canvassing for remain and I am a member the lib dems. I do my bit out campaiging when there are local and national elections.
The canvassing was an eye opener, to put it mildly. Did persuade me to put on an emotional hedge, which did pay out.0 -
The Brexiteers are living on cloud cuckoo land if they think that the EU is going to give us a better deal than the 27 member nations - that would kill the EU stone dead.
Add that to the fact that we are far more reliant on exports to the EU as a percentage of our GDP than they are on us...and there are 27 of them all with a veto on any deal.
The 3 stooges and their henchmen like IDS and Redwood are total muppets.
IMO the reason why the Tories have gone for hard Brexit is it's the only option that they can pull off, anything we get over and above nothing is therefore a win for them in this regard. The Leavers will accept no less (until they are educated on the ramifications which very few of them seem to have the slightest interest in currently).
Clearly hard Brexit will crucify the economy and lead to banks taking back control of plenty of people's houses, so the Remainers have now mobilised and tanks are being lined up. hence May having to let debates happen. If the court case goes in our favour then there is all to play for. The Express and Mail have realised this and they've now upped their hate campaigns as they realise they're in trouble.
It wouldn't surprise me if the date of A50 is put back further as a result (although won't be announced until early next year along the lines of we're not ready yet).
Watch this space.0 -
MPs get a say - pound rallies.
Brexiteer speaks - pound crashes.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:UK 'may still have to pay into EU even after Brexit' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37627308Suzanne Evans, of UKIP, told Newsnight: "Laws, borders, money - when it comes to taking back control those were the Holy Trinity of the Brexit campaign. You can't have one without the other...
"We have all the bargaining chips. There is noneed for Theresa May to capitulate on this and if she does try and capitulate on this I think she might very well soon find herself out of a job because that is not the Brexit the British people voted for."
But John Redwood, the Conservative MP forWokingham and Brexit campaigner, dismissed suggestions the UK would end up paying for access to the single market.
He said the UK should offer "very generously to carry on trading exactly as we are at the moment".
"There's absolutely no need to pay them money to buy their imports - this is absurd," he added.
Suzanne Evans seems very sure of what the British public voted for - I don't remember seeing the "holy trinity" on the ballot paper though, do you?
John Redwood is in cloud cuckoo land. It seems clear to me that in purely economic terms yes, it probably does make sense for this arrangement to happen, but I don't understand how he thinks that is going to be politically acceptable. It's the "have your cake and eat it" fantasy Brexit.
And that is the point I keep trying to make. The likes of Redwood are the powers behind the scene and they are barking mad. His opinion of our place in the world would be appropriate sat a point between the deaths of Nelson and Victoria.
I swear Redwood was drunk on Newsnight last night. Completely hatstand.0 -
Joelsim wrote:- you pay billions into the EU
- you accept free movement
- you can then have access to the free market
The most likely outcome will be:
- Pay some subs to EU; significantly less than full EU membership, but enough to keep the Poles supplied with new infrastructure at the rate to which they have become accustomed.
- UK has some controls on immigration from EU e.g. work permits. Overall effect will be that no-one from the EU undertaking travel and any kind of commercial activity will notice a difference. Only those coming in the hope of landing a job will face restrictions. Employers might have to pay more to employ and train locals.
- ECJ has no jurisdiction in the UK. Obviously, the EJC will be supreme in EU countries in respect of UK visitors and exports.
- EU laws/regs will still apply to exports to the EU; same as USA regs apply to exports to the USA. UK gov't will decide what laws/regs apply in the UK
- UK will have fairly similar access to single market, albeit with some tariffs applicable. "Euro clearing" will definitely go from London. There will be some other "high profile" loss of single market rights.
The falling £ will force people to eat less, drink less and import less foreign tat. So not all bad!
And best of all, we'll be able to sell sausages by the pound and sell bendy bananas mixed with straight ones again.
And as an aside, sorry for calling you stupid and swearing at you a lot last week.0 -
narbs wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:UK 'may still have to pay into EU even after Brexit' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37627308Suzanne Evans, of UKIP, told Newsnight: "Laws, borders, money - when it comes to taking back control those were the Holy Trinity of the Brexit campaign. You can't have one without the other...
"We have all the bargaining chips. There is noneed for Theresa May to capitulate on this and if she does try and capitulate on this I think she might very well soon find herself out of a job because that is not the Brexit the British people voted for."
But John Redwood, the Conservative MP forWokingham and Brexit campaigner, dismissed suggestions the UK would end up paying for access to the single market.
He said the UK should offer "very generously to carry on trading exactly as we are at the moment".
"There's absolutely no need to pay them money to buy their imports - this is absurd," he added.
Suzanne Evans seems very sure of what the British public voted for - I don't remember seeing the "holy trinity" on the ballot paper though, do you?
John Redwood is in cloud cuckoo land. It seems clear to me that in purely economic terms yes, it probably does make sense for this arrangement to happen, but I don't understand how he thinks that is going to be politically acceptable. It's the "have your cake and eat it" fantasy Brexit.
And that is the point I keep trying to make. The likes of Redwood are the powers behind the scene and they are barking mad. His opinion of our place in the world would be appropriate sat a point between the deaths of Nelson and Victoria.
I swear Redwood was drunk on Newsnight last night. Completely hatstand.
Yes I thought that too.0 -
Joelsim wrote:The Brexiteers are living on cloud cuckoo land if they think that the EU is going to give us a better deal than the 27 member nations - that would kill the EU stone dead.
Watch this space.
Yeah, but, like, the French want our jam.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:- you pay billions into the EU
- you accept free movement
- you can then have access to the free market
The most likely outcome will be:
- Pay some subs to EU; significantly less than full EU membership, but enough to keep the Poles supplied with new infrastructure at the rate to which they have become accustomed.
- UK has some controls on immigration from EU e.g. work permits. Overall effect will be that no-one from the EU undertaking travel and any kind of commercial activity will notice a difference. Only those coming in the hope of landing a job will face restrictions. Employers might have to pay more to employ and train locals.
- ECJ has no jurisdiction in the UK. Obviously, the EJC will be supreme in EU countries in respect of UK visitors and exports.
- EU laws/regs will still apply to exports to the EU; same as USA regs apply to exports to the USA. UK gov't will decide what laws/regs apply in the UK
- UK will have fairly similar access to single market, albeit with some tariffs applicable. "Euro clearing" will definitely go from London. There will be some other "high profile" loss of single market rights.
The falling £ will force people to eat less, drink less and import less foreign tat. So not all bad!
And best of all, we'll be able to sell sausages by the pound and sell bendy bananas mixed with straight ones again.
And as an aside, sorry for calling you stupid and swearing at you a lot last week.
Well...
Freedom of movement isn't up for debate, that has been very clear from the start, and would lead to some countries wanting it and some not, which would break the EU.
Therein lies the problem.
Just as an aside, Norway had to accept FM and pays 107.4 Euros per head capita. We pay 139 Euros per head capita. (Both of those figures after rebates).
I think you're being somewhat optimistic given we actually have very few cards to play in this.0 -
Joelsim wrote:I think you're being somewhat optimistic given we actually have very few cards to play in this.
But John Redwood says they're so desperate to trade with us they'll accept our magnanimous offer to keep trading exactly as we are.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Add that to the fact that we are far more reliant on exports to the EU as a percentage of our GDP than they are on us...and there are 27 of them all with a veto on any deal.
There's also the counterbalance that 18 member states are net beneficiaries of the EU, with only Germany, the UK and France making a numerically large net contribution. So if vetoes are wielded too freely and the UK leaves without a negotiated settlement, there's a large amount of EU handouts that will be foregone, unless the Germans can be emotionally blackmailed into making up the UK's net contribution.
By coincidence, the UK's net contribution is almost exactly the same as Poland's net receipts. (The UK pays E10b to be in the EU; Poland gets paid E10b to be in it).
Also talking of money, a potential flashpoint is the EU pensions of the UK's ex civil servants, commissioners and MEPs. These are paid out of the EU's budget, but the bill will rise each year as more reach retirement age. (Like most state pension schemes, the EU one is unfunded and simply backed by the EU's ability to increase its budget to cover costs). The pensions are an EU liability, but if the UK remains in the EU, the UK's contribution would increase each year to cover its share of the pension bill. If the UK leaves the EU then the liability remains with the EU, but with no rising UK contribution to cover the payments when due. One estimate I saw for the cost of buying out the UK's share of the future pensions bill is £50b. There's surely a deal to be done to ensure that the £50b doesn't have to be paid by France and Germany.
None of the above is to say that the UK will get all that it wants, but there is a lot of hard cash potentially available to the EU that won't be there if no deal is reached. And whilst not paying pensions is usually a bad move by a government, the recipients in question are the likes of the Kinnocks and Mandelson, about whose pension I doubt many but the most ardent Europhile will lose any sleep.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Freedom of movement isn't up for debate, that has been very clear from the start, and would lead to some countries wanting it and some not, which would break the EU.
Could be that if you are in the Euro, you have free movement of labour. If you aren't you don't have to.
Not going to happen in two years though, because there is a lot of posturing to be gone through.
David Davis' performance depresses me. There needs to be someone who wasn't in favour of Brexit involved in the decision making - at the moment the three of them are being allowed to run wild with their fantasies and assume everything they think has been approved by the referendum.0 -
Joelsim wrote:Freedom of movement isn't up for debate, that has been very clear from the start, and would lead to some countries wanting it and some not, which would break the EU.
It's full single market access without free movement that isn't up for debate. Merkel's speech last week explicitly included the qualifier "full". There's a deal to be done somewhere, I'm sure. See my other post for 50 billion reasons why in respect of pensions.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Joelsim wrote:Freedom of movement isn't up for debate, that has been very clear from the start, and would lead to some countries wanting it and some not, which would break the EU.
Could be that if you are in the Euro, you have free movement of labour. If you aren't you don't have to.
Also worth noting that the risks of the EU breaking up if the UK gets a favourable deal are somewhat overstated. Most EU countries are in the Euro. The strong economies won't want to leave the EU as they'd end up with a much stronger currency than at present. The weaker ones couldn't afford to as they'd be left with a lot of debt in a foreign currency and a depreciating national currency. This combination has done for many an emerging market economy e.g. Argentina defaulting on its $ debts in the early 2000s.
Caveat - I assume that any country leaving the EU would have to leave the Euro as otherwise it wouldn't have a central bank capable of acting as lender of last resort. This might not be the case. I doubt it's a scenario that has been officially considered!0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:David Davis' performance depresses me.
Dr Fox is the one that bothers me. Whilst Davis comes up with some rubbish, I get the impression that he has actually thought about things and simply reached a different conclusion to me. Fox just appears to say things and hope they're true.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:
Caveat - I assume that any country leaving the EU would have to leave the Euro as otherwise it wouldn't have a central bank capable of acting as lender of last resort.
But in effect, this is what they signed up for from the beginning. QE etc. has only been a recent invention in the Eurozone and is not very popular in Germany. The idea that one interest rate will be applicable for all 20 or so countries is as laughable now as it was then, so I'm not sure it is any more ridiculous for Ireland, say, to have the Euro out of the EU than in the EU.
Otherwise, good posts.
Also, do you expect the US to be unable to clear Euros as well, so the Euro becomes an 8 hour currency, or do you think they will only allow small amounts? Either way. I'm not sure it will go down very well.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:
Caveat - I assume that any country leaving the EU would have to leave the Euro as otherwise it wouldn't have a central bank capable of acting as lender of last resort.
But in effect, this is what they signed up for from the beginning. QE etc. has only been a recent invention in the Eurozone and is not very popular in Germany. The idea that one interest rate will be applicable for all 20 or so countries is as laughable now as it was then, so I'm not sure it is any more ridiculous for Ireland, say, to have the Euro out of the EU than in the EU.
Otherwise, good posts.
Also, do you expect the US to be unable to clear Euros as well, so the Euro becomes an 8 hour currency, or do you think they will only allow small amounts? Either way. I'm not sure it will go down very well.
Re the Euro, as members of the EU, there are Treaty provisions for the ECB to act as lender of last resort. Outside the EU, the ECB would have no more obligation to act as lender of last resort than the Fed does to other countries that use the $.
Re Euro clearing, I think the loss of the UK's rights to do it would be a suitably symbolic measure to enable the EU to demonstrate that "les autres" have been appropriately "encouraged". Knowing the City Slickers, a way round any restrictions would doubtless be found.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Joelsim wrote:Add that to the fact that we are far more reliant on exports to the EU as a percentage of our GDP than they are on us...and there are 27 of them all with a veto on any deal.
There's also the counterbalance that 18 member states are net beneficiaries of the EU, with only Germany, the UK and France making a numerically large net contribution. So if vetoes are wielded too freely and the UK leaves without a negotiated settlement, there's a large amount of EU handouts that will be foregone, unless the Germans can be emotionally blackmailed into making up the UK's net contribution.
By coincidence, the UK's net contribution is almost exactly the same as Poland's net receipts. (The UK pays E10b to be in the EU; Poland gets paid E10b to be in it).
Also talking of money, a potential flashpoint is the EU pensions of the UK's ex civil servants, commissioners and MEPs. These are paid out of the EU's budget, but the bill will rise each year as more reach retirement age. (Like most state pension schemes, the EU one is unfunded and simply backed by the EU's ability to increase its budget to cover costs). The pensions are an EU liability, but if the UK remains in the EU, the UK's contribution would increase each year to cover its share of the pension bill. If the UK leaves the EU then the liability remains with the EU, but with no rising UK contribution to cover the payments when due. One estimate I saw for the cost of buying out the UK's share of the future pensions bill is £50b. There's surely a deal to be done to ensure that the £50b doesn't have to be paid by France and Germany.
None of the above is to say that the UK will get all that it wants, but there is a lot of hard cash potentially available to the EU that won't be there if no deal is reached. And whilst not paying pensions is usually a bad move by a government, the recipients in question are the likes of the Kinnocks and Mandelson, about whose pension I doubt many but the most ardent Europhile will lose any sleep.
The total pensions liability for all of the EU is estimated at £50bn. The UK share is estimated at 8% so we are only looking at £4bn. Knowing the way that actuaries work this will be spread over 100 years so this is a red herring.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:The total pensions liability for all of the EU is estimated at £50bn. The UK share is estimated at 8% so we are only looking at £4bn. Knowing the way that actuaries work this will be spread over 100 years so this is a red herring.
Good spot. Thanks. I'd fallen victim to some rather crafty wording in a Eurosceptic newspaper. More politically than financially significant - being able to report back to Farage et al that the UK is no longer liable for Kinnock et al's pensions will sound good, even if the savings are not very large.
Given the way defined benefit pension liabilities grow, I wonder if the EU's long term future is as a payments system (CAP, pensions, structural funds etc.) with a small sideline in shuffling money between the Greek Treasury and French/German banks?0 -
Add to that the point that Germany, Italy and France for starters have national debts exceeding €2 trillion (€2,000 billion) each and rising, that they need to service in stagnating economic conditions, they have a reasonable incentive to maximise their trade with the UK, despite the initial posturing by the likes of Hollande.Wallace and Gromit wrote:There's also the counterbalance that 18 member states are net beneficiaries of the EU, with only Germany, the UK and France making a numerically large net contribution. So if vetoes are wielded too freely and the UK leaves without a negotiated settlement, there's a large amount of EU handouts that will be foregone, unless the Germans can be emotionally blackmailed into making up the UK's net contribution."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
On the sterling devaluation, some comment from Mervyn King & Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, suggesting that it isn't all that bad.
Basically they suggest Britain might be suffering from the Dutch disease whereby sterling is overvalued as a result of an all powerful City which sucks in huge amounts of sterling demand but puts the rest of the economy at a disadvantage.
Longer term, the lower rates would be a rebalance.
More here: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/10/12/2 ... h-disease/0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:On the sterling devaluation, some comment from Mervyn King & Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, suggesting that it isn't all that bad.
Basically they suggest Britain might be suffering from the Dutch disease whereby sterling is overvalued as a result of an all powerful City which sucks in huge amounts of sterling demand but puts the rest of the economy at a disadvantage.
Longer term, the lower rates would be a rebalance.
More here: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/10/12/2 ... h-disease/
I can't find a quote but I'm sure I recall the old British Leyland chairman (Michael Edwards?) saying in respect of North Sea Oil: "I wish they'd left it in the ground". The exchange rate became highly uncompetitive on the back of oil exports to the detriment of sales of the Austin Allegro. Actually, pumping the oil was actually a good thing...0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:
Re the Euro, as members of the EU, there are Treaty provisions for the ECB to act as lender of last resort. Outside the EU, the ECB would have no more obligation to act as lender of last resort than the Fed does to other countries that use the $.
But they didn't bail out Greece. I think the US is perhaps a good example, maybe it is the same as comparing Texas and Panama. Neither gets bailed out, but Texas you would think must have more perks.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:On the sterling devaluation, some comment from Mervyn King & Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, suggesting that it isn't all that bad.
Basically they suggest Britain might be suffering from the Dutch disease whereby sterling is overvalued as a result of an all powerful City which sucks in huge amounts of sterling demand but puts the rest of the economy at a disadvantage.
Longer term, the lower rates would be a rebalance.
More here: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/10/12/2 ... h-disease/
I can't find a quote but I'm sure I recall the old British Leyland chairman (Michael Edwards?) saying in respect of North Sea Oil: "I wish they'd left it in the ground". The exchange rate became highly uncompetitive on the back of oil exports to the detriment of sales of the Austin Allegro. Actually, pumping the oil was actually a good thing...
It was either that or the square steering wheel.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:But they didn't bail out Greece. I think the US is perhaps a good example, maybe it is the same as comparing Texas and Panama. Neither gets bailed out, but Texas you would think must have more perks.
The ECB provides liquidity to Greek Banks though. To get the Greek government to agree to a set of bailout conditions in the early days of the Tsipras/Varafoukis regime, the ECB - presumably at the behest of the dreaded EU/IMF double act - threatened to cut off liquidity to Greek banks. (Nice of them, I thought...)
If a Panamanian bank goes down the pan and needs dollar liquidity then if the Panamanian central bank doesn't have enough foreign reserves then said bank goes down the pan. If a Texan bank needs dollar liquidity then the Fed provides it. If necessary, it simply prints dollars or electronically creates them.
Not having a lender of last resort forces fiscal rectitude of the highest order as governments need to maintain adequate stocks of foreign reserves to keep the banking system going if necessary. And the southern European countries that might want to keep the Euro as it's a "strong" currency, aren't noted for their liking for fiscal rectitude. Greece is being forced into it due to the conditions of its bailout, but similar privations would be needed Greece was independent and using the Euro without the ability to print Euros of its own.0 -
W&G - thanks for the explanation. My point mostly related to the government debt itself i.e. Panama vs Texas, but you make a good point about the support of the banking system which is clearly important. The workings of providing liquidity, especially in the Eurozone, lead me to a lot of head scratching and I concede I have never quite got my head it or around how much exposure Germany actually has to the rest due to this.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:On the sterling devaluation, some comment from Mervyn King & Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, suggesting that it isn't all that bad.
Basically they suggest Britain might be suffering from the Dutch disease whereby sterling is overvalued as a result of an all powerful City which sucks in huge amounts of sterling demand but puts the rest of the economy at a disadvantage.
Longer term, the lower rates would be a rebalance.
More here: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/10/12/2 ... h-disease/
It seems everybody is banging on about Dutch disease http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... d-and-fury
it contains an interesting analogy
Brexit is a little like Saudi Arabia swearing off the oil business, declaring it would rather work for an honest living even if that makes its people poorer0 -
TheBigBean wrote:The workings of providing liquidity, especially in the Eurozone, lead me to a lot of head scratching and I concede I have never quite got my head it or around how much exposure Germany actually has to the rest due to this.
If you've got a lot of time and resolve, then a Google search of "Target 2 balances" would be helpful. I don't claim to understand anything more than the basics but the Bundesbank is owed shed loads by the Southern European central banks.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:TheBigBean wrote:The workings of providing liquidity, especially in the Eurozone, lead me to a lot of head scratching and I concede I have never quite got my head it or around how much exposure Germany actually has to the rest due to this.
If you've got a lot of time and resolve, then a Google search of "Target 2 balances" would be helpful. I don't claim to understand anything more than the basics but the Bundesbank is owed shed loads by the Southern European central banks.
I did just that a while ago, but it is fairly impenetrable. I couldn't work out whether it is a complete and utter mess perched precariously on a precipice, or not. I saw a professor interviewed a number of years ago who made the point that Germany was in a mess because it had only two options both of which led to it ultimately underwriting all the Eurozone debt which was too big even for Germany. Of those two options, it chose the deal with it later option.
The trouble with finance is that it is hard to obtain reliable information because that information has a value.0 -
Incidentally, the existence of the Euro is the reason, I'm not yet crying over Brexit.0
