Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK pulling out of EU?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    It was transatlantic trade that brought so much wealth to western Europe in the first place right? Maybe after they negotiate out of the EU (with a free trade agreement I presume) they could become a member of NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Area?). The UK's free trade policies would make it fit right in with the North Americans. Perhaps the country could try and turn itself into a hub between European and North American Trade. Of course this is all hypothetical.

    What happens to the Irish in the case of a British exit?

    Irish Foreign Trade:
    Foreign trade - Ireland - export

    Comment


    • #77
      NAFTA is the North AMERICAN Free Trade Agreement.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        NAFTA is the North AMERICAN Free Trade Agreement.
        That's why the Atlantic was in Italics.

        Comment


        • #79
          You're ignoring the history behind NAFTA.

          Comment


          • #80
            I think the UK is missing a very nice tax hike window that is beset all over Europe. They can exit the 'judicial harmonization' which they have and retake powers given to Eu, ergo become fully sovereign in order to protect capital fleeing Europe. Granted a lot of it has already and the shift would simply create a more incetivized place for UK to become a very big offshore zone that is 'assertive' contrary to most 'passive' zones.
            Boris Johnson says Britain leaving the EU is 'not the end of the world' - Telegraph
            (assertive means that they would be hard pressed to roll over and give up their clients and would simply give the finger to Europe in tax matters in relation to capital flight)

            My general feeling is they need to get out in a year or two because whomever leaves first suffers least. (This applies to the Eurozone as well). Country that leaves first essentially can position its' own exit.

            I am going to give you two very simple hypotheticals.

            Road A : 2013 Cameron is pressured to hold referendum due to party strain and pressure and UK exits. What would happen before any of this actually comes to pass is the exit from the fiscal bonds that pertain to proping up the IMF, EFSF and other crap. It is very likely in my humble view that they would do this in such a way that it would actually detonate the Greek debt. The already ephemeral "backing" of the 'bailouts' would become a mirage after Uk leaves. The reason being is that unlike others it is backing the debt with a different currency.
            The financial lobby is slowly switching to independence from integration as encroachment in their sphere has increased.
            [what I really wanted to say was this:
            it is likely the financial lobby will bet on them leaving the EU, they will bet against the EU and they will win because they will know whom to push in the right direction to make the referendum happen. My guess is they will create an event where they buy default swaps and then blow them out via leaving the Eurozone creating the event that triggers them. This will give losses to everyone UK as well (on the sovereign level) but on private level there will be profit. It in some sense could render several countries so strained that it detonates the Eurozone to semi-insolvency.

            Everyone does better UK EU World if UK leaves sooner, everyone gets to adapt faster at a lower cost and face reality. Why? Commitment at this point both monetary and psychological to various 'bailouts' in Europe, none of which are sustainable increases daily in some fashion or another. Ending the ratcheting up of risk sooner is better than later for everyone.

            Road B: the event of leaving is pushed further down but happens after more leverage and expense has been made to shore up capital in the Eurozone. Suffering is much much longer for all and the system slowly but surely grains to semi-insolvency as the transactions simply dwindle in number and actual capital is commited and recommited multiple times ergo it doesn't exist.


            P.S. you could go deeper down the machinations and expectations of financials and sovereigns. in some sense this is a very big game before desperate people on one side and ruthlessly calculating on another and the whole match is between and among them.
            Originally from Sochi, Russia.

            Comment


            • #81
              The UK does not pay into the bailouts, except via the IMF to whom we lent another 10bn, and our EU membership fee. The only bailout to which we contributed was the Irish one mostly because we export alot there and our banks own alot the Irish Republic. Also under Lisbon any country that wishes to leave gets the chance to negotiate trade terms etc anyway.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by snapper View Post
                The UK does not pay into the bailouts, except via the IMF to whom we lent another 10bn, and our EU membership fee. The only bailout to which we contributed was the Irish one mostly because we export alot there and our banks own alot the Irish Republic. Also under Lisbon any country that wishes to leave gets the chance to negotiate trade terms etc anyway.
                it does snapper, so does the USA which is unfortunate. I can give you the simplest example, swap agrements between ECB and UK central bank, same as with Fed Reserve just different volume.
                U.S. Fed extends currency swap lines with ECB - report | Reuters

                normally swap agrements don't have to be larger than 2-5 billion for actual transactions and settlement to take shape. this time around they were tens of billions and perhaps hundreds since we are not privy to most transactions, they essentially simulate a partial transfer of purchasing power at pre determined prices to a different country (think of giving someone part of your purchasing power) in return for a promise and the necessity to actually convert that purchasing power via either lending or exercising it within your market or elsewhere for other assets.

                If the Eurozone breaks up those swap agrements detonate via the euro(falling I presume). Say hypothetically Germany leaves first the swaps would transfer some of the pain through the swaps to the UK and Fed Reserve because everyone would borrow (expensive USD and Pounds via use of cheaper and cheaper Euros). This is similar to a reverse on inflation via a contract with third party which agrees to take your currency that is worth less by delivering more purchasing power.

                The other example is the backing via third party mechanisms there the exposure is limited theoretically, but subscription of capital in the IMF and elsewhere could be 'called up' theoretically, so it is also not a fixed loss if it happens.

                Now use my swap example and apply leverage to it via the ECB/commercial banks via bonds used as collateral for EURO/DOLLAR loans and other aspects. You can get pretty creative with this...
                Last example imagine the euro/dollar loan being leveraged into treasuries. A commercial bank would borrow Euro at very low rates from the ECB by pledging "collateral", the ECB would get a swap loan of dollars from the Fed "re-pledging" said collateral, the commercial bank would buy "US treasuries" by leveraging that loan in the US market. So think about it not only did the commercial bank borrow from the ECB but the FED but it double dipped by using the ECB and leveraged its' position. All of this is essentially a way to use the dollar to prop up the Euro (all of us US citizens) loose a little of purchasing power for the sake of European stability. The problem with all this is that it is predicated on the dollar declining in value relative to the Euro, try to consider the unwinding of this trade for a moment. The reason the dollar is pushed down is because we still have positive rates here and negative rates in Europe by making this circle of crap the commercial banks skirt the negative rates while everyone else eats them. If you magnify this by leverage you actually can get "ephemeral" returns. The reason they are imaginary is because banks need cash flow and all of this is electronic until they try to convert it via salaries, bonuses, or asset purchases. Problem is prices for every asset that could be bought in this fashion accelerates faster than their ability to pay for it. But on paper this whole process looks good and you could in a very limited fashion pretend you are doing something very safe to earn a return. (Until it moves against you)


                Imagine the US deficit falling into line next year (say there is no deal and all sorts of taxes and mandatory spending cuts take effect, this is why the US fiscal cliff matters far more for Europe than for us here in the states) just for 5 seconds and how strong the dollar would get in a matter of very short period of time. Here in the states it would arrest inflation and actually accelerate deflation turning returns very negative and detonating leverage. All of it.
                Originally from Sochi, Russia.

                Comment


                • #83
                  This was a long time before Mario Drahgi (ECB Chairman) promised unlimited money would be thrown at anyone 'troika-ed'. I note more recently that the socialist Obama wants Britain to stay in the EU... as if it's any of his business! "It is important to state very clearly that a strong UK in a strong Europe is in America's national interest," said a senior US administration official. "We recognise national states but see the EU as a force multiplier." Britain will be weaker without EU, says USA - Telegraph

                  Joe Biden in 2010 called Brussels the "capital of the free world" and “the bastion of European democracy”. He also acclaimed the (undemocratic) Lisbon Treaty; "And now under the Lisbon Treaty, you've taken on more powers and a broader responsibility that comes with that increased influence. And we welcome it." The silliest speech of the Obama administration? Joe Biden surrenders US leadership to Brussels – Telegraph Blogs

                  The banal imbecility of this way of thinking about the EU - which is inherently anti US and anti democratic and blames all it's economic woes on 'Anglo Saxon free trade' is just breath taking. It therefore does not surprise me that the Obama administration, busy as it in refocusing toward the Pacific arena, wants to support the EU. The trouble is that while it's one thing to support the British free trade policy within the EU the rest of Europe is already protectionist and will only ever become so as democratic accountability is reduced further.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I want this but I don't think it will happen. Only UKIP would be serious enough to withdraw. Current tories are not traditional enough.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Mahi View Post
                      I want this but I don't think it will happen. Only UKIP would be serious enough to withdraw. Current tories are not traditional enough.
                      I don't know about that. The UKIP is already forcing a change in the discussion as Tories appeal to UKIP members for votes. The UK and the Nordics are increasingly becoming anti-EU. How long can democracies remain in the EU when the people are becoming more and more against it.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Weissaul View Post
                        I don't know about that. The UKIP is already forcing a change in the discussion as Tories appeal to UKIP members for votes. The UK and the Nordics are increasingly becoming anti-EU. How long can democracies remain in the EU when the people are becoming more and more against it.
                        I've never been a fan of the EU so would welcome us leaving.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Mahi View Post
                          I've never been a fan of the EU so would welcome us leaving.
                          Same here but its not gonna happen soon methinks , reading between the lines of what camoron said on the beeb .We gonna be there for a few years yet , hope im wrong .

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Weissaul View Post
                            I don't know about that. The UKIP is already forcing a change in the discussion as Tories appeal to UKIP members for votes. The UK and the Nordics are increasingly becoming anti-EU. How long can democracies remain in the EU when the people are becoming more and more against it.
                            A better question might be; how long can their governments remain democratic when the people are becoming more and more against it?
                            The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
                            Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
                            - The Eagles

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              And so it begins camorons crap filled spin doctors

                              EU justice opt-outs are a security risk, PM warned | Politics | The Guardian

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                So far we've had the Yanks, the Germans, Ken Clarke and Hesaltine, Martin Sorrel and Nick Clegg warning us that a referendum is 'dangerous' or that leaving the EU would be bad for business (exactly what they said about not joining the euro - almost word for word). Cameron's long awaited EU speech is due... remember it was originally supposed to be given at the Tory Conference back last October. It's pretty obvious what Cameron will say... He will offer a referendum on terms he claims he can renegotiate - if he wins the next election.

                                Some points about this: Unless Cameron announces an in/out referendum before the next election the flood of Tory votes to UKIP will lose him the next election anyway.
                                Secondly will this promise of a referendum after the next election be a 'cast iron' one like his promise on the Lisbon Treaty? If so I can't see any reason to trust him again.
                                Thirdly this is exactly what Harold Wilson did back in the 70s - claimed to renegotiated 'better terms' that in fact over the last 35 years have not made a jot of difference since we never got asked again about anything else. Cameron's 'renegotiation' will in fact be a similar fraud that will mean Britain eventually gets roped into this growing undemocratic super bureaucracy. It's a way of brushing the issue under the carpet again for another 30-40 years.
                                Fourthly the referendum that Cameron offers will in effect be an in/in vote. He will ask "Do you agree to the terms that I have 'renegotiated'?"If the public votes 'no' then we stay in as we are. If we vote 'yes' then some bits of wording change - the difference will be comparable to the European Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty.
                                Fifthly how on earth does he propose to 'renegotiate'? It would take ALL 26 other nations to agree to changes just to help Cameron claim in Britain that he had achieved 'real change' or some such. The only way to force the EU to renegotiate terms is to activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which says "We're off" and forces them to speak about our 'future relationship'.

                                I simply do not buy this 'renegotiation' talk... The EU is fundamentally anti democratic and whatever you may be negotiate your way out of now they will introduce some other undemocratic 'directive' or 'pact' to get around it later. One day we shall have an in/out referendum and then expect to billions of Greek and Italian taxpayers money spent telling us how wonderful the distopia really is. I'm sorry but for me the basic premise that project was built on, that of stopping another Franco - German war, is simply no longer relevant; if the euro collapses the Germans will not invade Poland. It has become threateningly anti democratic not just at the Brussels level but for Britain when we are unable to deport known terrorists and forced to allow prisoners to vote regardless of what a British Government and the people want or believe to be right, and as an economic fiasco is almost unparalleled in mindless repression - what they are doing to Greece and others is akin Soviet policy in the Ukraine. But of course the economic 'crisis' is really just an another undemocratic power grab.

                                Europe has a new flag, a new anthem and a new Government and nobody has voted on it! Indeed the only 'yes' vote to any of this was the second Irish vote. If you do not think this is more dangerous than the threat of another Franco - German war then in my opinion you are deluded. It must be out and not just for Britain but for all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X