BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Blockbuster Troika loan and some favourable EU help 😜😜😜surrey_commuter said:
Why did RoI have good austerity?rick_chasey said:Yes the central bank correctly called Ireland to halt a run on all European banks because the Irish regular had been asleep at the wheel more so than the other regulators and indeed, that was proven to be the right decision.
I would have thought had Ierland had their own currency their central bank would have been saying the same thing, *because it was the right thing to do at that moment*. But you can’t have the counter-factual.
(If it makes you feel better, the sudden Swiss regulator efforts to force UBS to buy Credit Suisse was largely precipitated by US and EU regulators trashing the Swiss regulators and putting pressure on them to halt the run now and not in 2 weeks - so you don’t need to share a currency with the EU or even be a member to be pressured into doing things. Geopolitics exists even without the EU)
And a quote from a US president doesn’t mean anything, else I’ll start quoting trump.
There are lots of obvious advantages to political union for Europe but it is wrong and disingenuous to say what Stevo did.
It’s fundamentally an economic agreement with some political oversight - which obviously makes sense as ultimately economic decisions *are* political decisions.
Big vat hike, extra taxes on petrol and cars, corporate tax cut, stuck with social security spending but cut govt spending on wages (9% public sector pay cut IIRC).0 -
You clearly have no counter argument if that your response.rick_chasey said:Keep digging. You said it was “primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles” when it isn’t and never was.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The US is still the only democratic superpower. So maybe it has some merit as a model.briantrumpet said:super_davo said:The EU does have a stated aim of ever closer union. That is not in doubt. However, the goal is always power to the national and particularly regions with Brussels setting the framework and acting as abritrator. Think about the US and the comparible powers of Federal institutions vs States - only the EU has a greater slant towards the powers of the latter.
FWIW, I think the current fractured political climate in the US is showing what a mess the US system is... highly partisan judges chosen at the national level for state courts making judgements that impact on the whole country (see the abortion pill furore, amongst many others). Can you imagine the outcry if a judge in a province of, say, Italy, could, in effect, change have changed law in the UK, when we were in the EU? Obviously, the EU is a long long way away from that sort of intrusion into nations within it, and IMHO has the balance about right.
I feel like the arguement over whether its a political or economic organisation has been done to death. It's clearly both, but it's also clear that deep economic ties aren't feasible without many of the political ones.
0 -
Quite. This is a point I made above and which Rick either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore.wallace_and_gromit said:
My understanding is that the Euro (economic) is the mechanism by which the main aim - political union - will ultimately be achieved.rick_chasey said:Keep digging. You said it was “primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles” when it isn’t and never was.
The economic side comes earlier but it is part of the overall aim of political integration. So while there are economic benefits, they are a means to an end.
Not that it matters for the UK any more, but the EU is probanly counting on million of people in EU member states being as wilfully blind or gullible as him about their political aims."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Did you read what I posted about how the democratically elected Irish government was forced to change policy by the ECB on pain of having liquidity to its banking sector cut off? The ECB controls the currency and therefore they control Ireland when push comes to shove, Thankfully such occurrences are rare. The ECB did the same to Italy and even managed to unseat the PM but as that was Berlisconi, no-one seemed that bothered.rick_chasey said:
Ok where’s the evidence that he’s right?wallace_and_gromit said:Rick - All I’ll say is that if you’re arrogant enough to assume that you can learn nothing from the works of Thomas Jefferson then there truly is no hope for you.
But on a more philosophical notes, Jefferson is still quoted 200+ years later. Not everything he wrote is correct or even still relevant, but such “longevity” surely means he can’t just be dismissed simply because you disagree with him.
0 -
Not that it matters for the UK any more, but the EU is probanly counting on million of people in EU member states being as wilfully blind or gullible as him about their political aims.
Do you genuinely believe this? That there are some EU overlords sitting in a shadowy office in Brussels plotting the takeover of the world?
That's laughable.
The EU needs greater integration to work effectively, but it only gets power from member states, as Brexit proved.
0 -
I think it's pretty laughable that either of you think it's possible to have one with out the other. Setting up a trade agreement is a political act. Of course the EU is politically and economically integrated, having been around for a long time. But every trade agreement is political. CPTPP (originally TPP, which pre-Trump included the US) was at least partly set up to try to exert control over China.Stevo_666 said:
Quite. This is a point I made above and which Rick either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore.wallace_and_gromit said:
My understanding is that the Euro (economic) is the mechanism by which the main aim - political union - will ultimately be achieved.rick_chasey said:Keep digging. You said it was “primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles” when it isn’t and never was.
The economic side comes earlier but it is part of the overall aim of political integration. So while there are economic benefits, they are a means to an end.
Not that it matters for the UK any more, but the EU is probanly counting on million of people in EU member states being as wilfully blind or gullible as him about their political aims.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Were you confident that this would not happen because the UK could veto anything it wanted, or just not bothered about it enough at the time to vote to leave?Stevo_666 said:
Quite. This is a point I made above and which Rick either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore.wallace_and_gromit said:
My understanding is that the Euro (economic) is the mechanism by which the main aim - political union - will ultimately be achieved.rick_chasey said:Keep digging. You said it was “primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles” when it isn’t and never was.
The economic side comes earlier but it is part of the overall aim of political integration. So while there are economic benefits, they are a means to an end.
Not that it matters for the UK any more, but the EU is probanly counting on million of people in EU member states being as wilfully blind or gullible as him about their political aims.0 -
Honestly, the quoting someone old and respected and stating it as fact because they are old and respected is a trivial annoyance but anyway it’s a distraction.wallace_and_gromit said:
Did you read what I posted about how the democratically elected Irish government was forced to change policy by the ECB on pain of having liquidity to its banking sector cut off? The ECB controls the currency and therefore they control Ireland when push comes to shove, Thankfully such occurrences are rare. The ECB did the same to Italy and even managed to unseat the PM but as that was Berlisconi, no-one seemed that bothered.rick_chasey said:
Ok where’s the evidence that he’s right?wallace_and_gromit said:Rick - All I’ll say is that if you’re arrogant enough to assume that you can learn nothing from the works of Thomas Jefferson then there truly is no hope for you.
But on a more philosophical notes, Jefferson is still quoted 200+ years later. Not everything he wrote is correct or even still relevant, but such “longevity” surely means he can’t just be dismissed simply because you disagree with him.
Central banks can indeed use their leverage unilaterally but I don’t really see how it’s any different to any other central bank behaviour? The BoE could feasibly bounce the UK government into the same thing.
(The real story in Ireland is that the govt and regulator did not understand how bad their situation was even when it was falling apart all around them - AIB was not just heavily involved in the stuff that brought down Northern Rock, Lehman etc, but they were also just engaged in full blown fraud - they ended up going “cap in hand” to the IMF as a result)
And as per the recent CS and UBS forced acquisition, you don’t even need to share currencies to bounce governments into action.
Hell, if the US decided to sanction the UK and their use of dollars the UK finance sector would fall over very quickly and it’d be carnage, and Britain has its own currency.
0 -
Would you have preferred UK austerity to be savage but short?rick_chasey said:
Blockbuster Troika loan and some favourable EU help 😜😜😜surrey_commuter said:
Why did RoI have good austerity?rick_chasey said:Yes the central bank correctly called Ireland to halt a run on all European banks because the Irish regular had been asleep at the wheel more so than the other regulators and indeed, that was proven to be the right decision.
I would have thought had Ierland had their own currency their central bank would have been saying the same thing, *because it was the right thing to do at that moment*. But you can’t have the counter-factual.
(If it makes you feel better, the sudden Swiss regulator efforts to force UBS to buy Credit Suisse was largely precipitated by US and EU regulators trashing the Swiss regulators and putting pressure on them to halt the run now and not in 2 weeks - so you don’t need to share a currency with the EU or even be a member to be pressured into doing things. Geopolitics exists even without the EU)
And a quote from a US president doesn’t mean anything, else I’ll start quoting trump.
There are lots of obvious advantages to political union for Europe but it is wrong and disingenuous to say what Stevo did.
It’s fundamentally an economic agreement with some political oversight - which obviously makes sense as ultimately economic decisions *are* political decisions.
Big vat hike, extra taxes on petrol and cars, corporate tax cut, stuck with social security spending but cut govt spending on wages (9% public sector pay cut IIRC).
0 -
Other than Vietnam we have pretty much done whatever the USA has wanted since WW2rick_chasey said:
Honestly, the quoting someone old and respected and stating it as fact because they are old and respected is a trivial annoyance but anyway it’s a distraction.wallace_and_gromit said:
Did you read what I posted about how the democratically elected Irish government was forced to change policy by the ECB on pain of having liquidity to its banking sector cut off? The ECB controls the currency and therefore they control Ireland when push comes to shove, Thankfully such occurrences are rare. The ECB did the same to Italy and even managed to unseat the PM but as that was Berlisconi, no-one seemed that bothered.rick_chasey said:
Ok where’s the evidence that he’s right?wallace_and_gromit said:Rick - All I’ll say is that if you’re arrogant enough to assume that you can learn nothing from the works of Thomas Jefferson then there truly is no hope for you.
But on a more philosophical notes, Jefferson is still quoted 200+ years later. Not everything he wrote is correct or even still relevant, but such “longevity” surely means he can’t just be dismissed simply because you disagree with him.
Central banks can indeed use their leverage unilaterally but I don’t really see how it’s any different to any other central bank behaviour? The BoE could feasibly bounce the UK government into the same thing.
(The real story in Ireland is that the govt and regulator did not understand how bad their situation was even when it was falling apart all around them - AIB was not just heavily involved in the stuff that brought down Northern Rock, Lehman etc, but they were also just engaged in full blown fraud - they ended up going “cap in hand” to the IMF as a result)
And as per the recent CS and UBS forced acquisition, you don’t even need to share currencies to bounce governments into action.
Hell, if the US decided to sanction the UK and their use of dollars the UK finance sector would fall over very quickly and it’d be carnage, and Britain has its own currency.0 -
Right. Often I sort of feel that the criticism of the EU is a proxy for being unhappy with broader geopolitics which probably would have happened anyway albeit in a different format.surrey_commuter said:Other than Vietnam we have pretty much done whatever the USA has wanted since WW2
Different nations and central banks leaning on governments is a lever countries and institutions do sometimes use.
Because the lever happens to have an EU badge on it doesn’t mean it’s the EU’s fault necessarily.
A central bank strong arming a government into a certain (correct) action is not that unusual.0 -
Looks like Stevo might have been right to question the 0.08% lift over ten years for the TPCPPTTPCP deal.
It seems that it *might* be an overestimate, with the methodology chosen to give a better figure.Sam Lowe, a trade expert and senior visiting fellow at the King's Policy Institute, told The Independent: "While the approach the government has taken is perfectly credible, the change in methodology does seem to have been made with the intention of making the GDP figure sound more impressive."
0 -
Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.0
-
Agree.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
And it also completely misses the flip side i.e. it's going to happen anyway, because the drivers to do so are overwhelming, so you can either be in the room influencing, or be outside and have to deal with the outcome.0 -
Given that you ignored all the evidence I posted above about EU plans for further political integration, I'm not sure how hard you've looked for anything that goes against your preconceived views on this.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What's your problem with further political integration?Stevo_666 said:
Given that you ignored all the evidence I posted above about EU plans for further political integration, I'm not sure how hard you've looked for anything that goes against your preconceived views on this.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
0 -
I've already set out some concerns above.rick_chasey said:
What's your problem with further political integration?Stevo_666 said:
Given that you ignored all the evidence I posted above about EU plans for further political integration, I'm not sure how hard you've looked for anything that goes against your preconceived views on this.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
Why do you want to cede further national decision making powers to a supranational body?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Because I think collectively the political might of all the members of the EU is more powerful than the sum of its parts.Stevo_666 said:
I've already set out some concerns above.rick_chasey said:
What's your problem with further political integration?Stevo_666 said:
Given that you ignored all the evidence I posted above about EU plans for further political integration, I'm not sure how hard you've looked for anything that goes against your preconceived views on this.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
Why do you want to cede further national decision making powers to a supranational body?0 -
You were claiming above that the EU is just an economic project...rick_chasey said:
Because I think collectively the political might of all the members of the EU is more powerful than the sum of its parts.Stevo_666 said:
I've already set out some concerns above.rick_chasey said:
What's your problem with further political integration?Stevo_666 said:
Given that you ignored all the evidence I posted above about EU plans for further political integration, I'm not sure how hard you've looked for anything that goes against your preconceived views on this.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
Why do you want to cede further national decision making powers to a supranational body?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How did you feel about ceding further political powers to the EU in 2016?Stevo_666 said:
I've already set out some concerns above.rick_chasey said:
What's your problem with further political integration?Stevo_666 said:
Given that you ignored all the evidence I posted above about EU plans for further political integration, I'm not sure how hard you've looked for anything that goes against your preconceived views on this.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
Why do you want to cede further national decision making powers to a supranational body?0 -
Yes, believe it or not, my own views on the pros and cons of unionism are irrelevant to what the EU has actually done, as much as I would like it not to be so.Stevo_666 said:
You were claiming above that the EU is just an economic project...rick_chasey said:
Because I think collectively the political might of all the members of the EU is more powerful than the sum of its parts.Stevo_666 said:
I've already set out some concerns above.rick_chasey said:
What's your problem with further political integration?Stevo_666 said:
Given that you ignored all the evidence I posted above about EU plans for further political integration, I'm not sure how hard you've looked for anything that goes against your preconceived views on this.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
Why do you want to cede further national decision making powers to a supranational body?0 -
-
What powers should be national decision making? That's a fairly fundamental question.Stevo_666 said:
I've already set out some concerns above.rick_chasey said:
What's your problem with further political integration?Stevo_666 said:
Given that you ignored all the evidence I posted above about EU plans for further political integration, I'm not sure how hard you've looked for anything that goes against your preconceived views on this.rick_chasey said:Anyway, I maintain the issue with closer political union boils down to "I don't trust foreigners" and not much else, as I've not really seen any evidence to the contrary.
Why do you want to cede further national decision making powers to a supranational body?
Clearly UK politics isn't working at the moment. Starmer has mentioned the need for reforms, like a new upper chamber and more automony to metropolitan mayors, but given the amount of government bandwidth Brexit has wasted, I can't imagine big constitutional change will be the highest priority item in his in tray in 18months time.
Elsewhere in Europe the direction is generally more powers at regional level, less at national, more at supranational. I would love us to go a similar way, even if the latter part will be a long journey.
0 -
0
-
Still maintain in that moment a signifiant part of the brexit vote *wanted* to end the those privileges for people who are middle class enough to be affected by that.0
-
As a middle class person I have lots of middle class friends, some of whom were fierce advocates for Brexit despite the amount of time they spent skiing, cycling, kayaking and general holidaying in Europe. I didn't get it then, and still don't.0
-
Yea, it was a bit of an unholy alliance between the "they need us more than we need them" crowd who seemed to genuinely believe somehow nothing would change and the "idaf because I don't want to exercise my rights" crowd.
Feel like the former deserve more derision.0 -
The key to the Brexit vote wasn't the middle classes. It was the turnout of those at the bottom of the pile, for whom the status quo wasn't working., and were therefore wiling to risk a change as they felt things couldn't get any worse for them, wrongly or rightly.
There were far, far higher turnouts from 'council estate inhabitants' (for want of a better expression) that at any UK election.0 -
FWIW, the book I'm reading (https://amzn.eu/d/afAEBuv ) says the opposite (just read the brexit chapter last night)Dorset_Boy said:The key to the Brexit vote wasn't the middle classes. It was the turnout of those at the bottom of the pile, for whom the status quo wasn't working., and were therefore wiling to risk a change as they felt things couldn't get any worse for them, wrongly or rightly.
There were far, far higher turnouts from 'council estate inhabitants' (for want of a better expression) that at any UK election.0
