Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

[dandelion]

Jason, the poll you refer to is here: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...mesResults_170118_VI_Trackers_MaySpeech_W.pdf

If you care to read through the various questions, you can see that many people approve of a policy of keeping all the bits of the EU they like and ditching the rest. Not at all surprising, but unfortunately not the choice, as I said.

Some of the other answers are interesting, however, because they show a generally increased pessimism over the likely outcome. Since the last survey they now think outlook is worse for jobs, worse for the NHS, worse for pension. The number thinking Brexit will cut immigration is up, but since I also agree this seems likely (because the immigration rate is tied to economic success), those might be remain voters!

There is a big majority for wanting control over immigration, but interestingly even bigger majorites for ensuring any EU citizens here have a right to remain. Also for maintaining an open Irish border, interesting one that. Much lower majorities for negotiating special deals on the internal market and customs union. A vast majority of 85:2 for continuing participation with the EU in all security areas. 'Cake and eat it' is popuar. Shame it isnt going to work, and then people will have to face reality.

 

[Drifterwood]

The Brexit campaign was based upon

Immigration/free movement

The role/need for an EU parliament and

It's cost

The EU has made it clear that there is no membership of the single market without free movement. The only possible response to this is to accept their position. How I read Theresa May is to say fine, but we are happy to offer Europe a free trade agreement. If Europe doesn't reciprocate and imposes tariffs we will just have to decide how we recuperate these costs from the countries in the EU with whom we trade.

It would be politically petulant of the EU to damage anyone's business to score political points. If consumers and companies decide not to use UK services, then fine, but governments interfering is a whole other matter.

Without politics, this situation would be a whole lot easier. Frankly I wish politicians would fuck off out of trade, science etc etc..

 

[Drifterwood]

The Brexit campaigners lied about the cost, though they are unlikely to be held to account for this.

This is a great shame and danger for the democratic process.

They also lied about immigration.

I still do not think that the UK has an existential future as envisaged by Farage etc. this is what Brexit should have been about, but sadly we are not capable of such a debate.

 

[798686]

I am coming round to the idea that it is the Uk government which is trying to make Brexit as bad as possible by ruling out all the soft options itself. While of course denying thst it is doing so. Presumably their plan is that the nation will understand the difficulties sooner rather than later, and therefore give them the opportunity to step back.

Dream on.

The plain fact is that there is no reason for anyone to give us a better deal than we have already as EU members, negotiated by the EU for us. That is the problem. There is no gold mine waiting outside the EU, just more bad news.

That's not true tho, is it? The EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with India - nor are its members allowed to make free-trade deals independent of the EU. We will be.

 

[Jason]

While we're on the Brexit subject - I think Verhofstadt is being a bit cheeky. They moaned about us cherry picking and wanting to be in the Single Market and not follow the rules. So... we agreed to leave the Single Market, and make a trade deal outside of this (which other countries have done, Canada most recently), yet we're still being accused of cherry picking!

Many European politicians just don't get it.

I think many, presumably including Verhofstadt, thought the UK would start to negotiate for a soft Brexit. Within this context a comment about "cherry picking" would have made sense. It's as if he (and others) haven't quite got their heads around the idea that we're going for a hard Brexit. They're in denial. The reality is that the EU is under attack.

There's an emotional attack on the EU right now. It's a hard Brexit, in French terms a "Brexit de fer".Trump has been scathing, including direct criticism of Merkel, and he is the world's most powerful man. Hammond has pointed out that there is an iron fist in the velvet glove of negotiation. And Johnson's comments are priceless. The accusation of "punishment beating" (ie Vichy France supporting Nazi Germany) is on a par with Greek comments about German aggression.

There's a defence attack. Trump is in effect saying that the nations of Europe will have to pay. This is a lot of money that none have.

There's an economic attack. Brexit will harm the EU economies. This is above the self-inflicted harm of the Euro. By the way, how are Italian banks today?

There's a political attack. Who is next for EU exit? Or will more and more take the Hungary option of just ignoring all the rules?

Clever politicians would tackle the issues. But it is so much easier to make some daft and wrong comment about UK cherry-picking.

 

[Jason]

The Brexit campaigners lied about the cost, though they are unlikely to be held to account for this.

This is a great shame and danger for the democratic process.

They also lied about immigration.

I still do not think that the UK has an existential future as envisaged by Farage etc. this is what Brexit should have been about, but sadly we are not capable of such a debate.

But does the EU have a future? The Eurozone is the slowest growing economic region. The political pressures are pulling it apart. And Johnson's careless quip about "punishment beatings" puts into words what might just be the truth: that an EU that considers Greek people expendable might just be comparable with Germany around 1932.

I think the EU is collapsing (and good riddance). The future is the best possible exit for UK and indeed everyone else.

 

[798686]

There is a big majority for wanting control over immigration, but interestingly even bigger majorites for ensuring any EU citizens here have a right to remain. Also for maintaining an open Irish border, interesting one that.

Both priorities outlined by May.

 

[Jason]

Margaret Thatcher's views on Europe in a 1993 clip.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/821781961395949568/video/1

This is probably the easiest way to understand the thinking of the Brexiteers.

 

[Perados]

Many European politicians just don't get it.

I think many, presumably including Verhofstadt, thought the UK would start to negotiate for a soft Brexit. Within this context a comment about "cherry picking" would have made sense. It's as if he (and others) haven't quite got their heads around the idea that we're going for a hard Brexit. They're in denial. The reality is that the EU is under attack.

the idea of total access and no free movement, could be seen as cherry picking.

There's an emotional attack on the EU right now. It's a hard Brexit, in French terms a "Brexit de fer".Trump has been scathing, including direct criticism of Merkel, and he is the world's most powerful man. Hammond has pointed out that there is an iron fist in the velvet glove of negotiation. And Johnson's comments are priceless. The accusation of "punishment beating" (ie Vichy France supporting Nazi Germany) is on a par with Greek comments about German aggression.

right... aren't these comparisons disgusting?

Just shows the niveau of these people.

There's a defence attack. Trump is in effect saying that the nations of Europe will have to pay. This is a lot of money that none have.

Trumps politic just will create what he tries to prevent... his failing will be epic.
Not only in Europe, but even more so in Asia.

He wants to dismantle the EU? Wonderful... the most easy way to create a feeling of "we" is to have an opposition, an enemy. - the most easy way to define "we" is by "not us". While Trump attacks the EU, we will exclude the USA from our Canon of values. This will make EU structures stronger.

He wants to weaken the NATO and let the Europeans pay more, but he will refuse more authority for Europe? It couldn't be better...
This is the starting point to run an EU army.


Horrible is, his policy will be a catalyst for China's rise. Trump plans to isolate China and limit their economical influence.
But at the same time he demands higher military support in Asia, and talks about economical protectionism.
But will force more Asian nations into China's arms. They will calculate what's the outcome of Trump's policy and see that China will rule East Asia. It's better to be friend with the big guy in the room.

----

And if we remember, after the American civil war and the burst of the German/Austrian "Gründer"-bubble, the world started to run protectionism.
This leaded to disgrace, envy and resentment. Everyone thought he could lose, if he would import anything and tried to export as much as possible, cause they thought ghey could damage the economy of others.
At the same time the fear increased not to get the resources they need in the right amount.

This was one big reason why no one could prevent the first WW.

There's an economic attack. Brexit will harm the EU economies. This is above the self-inflicted harm of the Euro. By the way, how are Italian banks today?

I doubt that the Brexit will harm the EU on the middle term... and Trump will harm the USA more than anyone else, but yes, his policy is a threat to every economy as well.

There's a political attack. Who is next for EU exit? Or will more and more take the Hungary option of just ignoring all the rules?

Clever politicians would tackle the issues. But it is so much easier to make some daft and wrong comment about UK cherry-picking.

mmmhh... reminds me of the British government, handling the Brexit... blame the EU for blackmailing and being nasty, but miss to deliver any real plan.

 

[Perados]

But does the EU have a future? The Eurozone is the slowest growing economic region. The political pressures are pulling it apart. And Johnson's careless quip about "punishment beatings" puts into words what might just be the truth: that an EU that considers Greek people expendable might just be comparable with Germany around 1932.

I think the EU is collapsing (and good riddance). The future is the best possible exit for UK and indeed everyone else.

The EZ/EU is the most wealthy area, with the highest standard of living, high social benefits and sadly a quite inflexible labour market...
It's out of question, that the leader growth the slowest. Europe (including UK), depends on the technology that dominated the past 80 years more than the USA and WAY more than the uprising nations in Asia. New technologies develop the easiest where old structures aren't too established. This counts for underdeveloped economies with a high level of education (compared to equals).

These nations will profit the most, as soon as the established technologies reach their limit of improvements (costs don't justify the reached development anymore). At this time, their low labour costs and edge of knowledge about the new technologies, will guarantee that they will make it on eye level with the developed nations.
The future is only positive for those developed economies, who get rid of the old technology and can establish new technologies.
In parts (internet start ups) the USA is on a good way. Whole Europe (East less than West) is missing any real indications to establish new technologies.
The best Germany can show up with is "industry 4.0" and "internet of things" - at the end just an development of old technologies (but quite promising) - battery technology is planned.

 

[Jason]

@Perados we've had a couple of speeches from May this week, so a bit more information about the Brexit process. However a lot of the thinking in the UK isn't getting much media attention, but is central to how the UK government is now thinking. It's not business as usual. It's not even just a new future for the UK. It's about creating a new world order with a new political and economic system. The Anglosphere is key. There's support from USA, NZ, Australia, probably Canada. The EU is seen simply as a dinosaur, as out-dated as the USSR.

The key is that the vision is not just a solution to the muddles of Brexit. It is creating a new global order. The real planning is around the Anglosphere issues, the sort of thing May will be agreeing with Trump in a few weeks (and has already talked with NZ and Australia about). This is where the real drive and energy will be placed. The EU issues will be in second place. I think this may be the next surprise for many in the EU. Brexit is essential but negotiating the details is not the UK's first priority. Far more interesting is the Anglosphere trade deal.

 

[798686]

He wants to weaken the NATO and let the Europeans pay more, but he will refuse more authority for Europe? It couldn't be better...
This is the starting point to run an EU army.

This is true, unfortunately.

If the US/UK want the EU not to have an army, the solution is to keep funding NATO, supporting Europe and opposing Putin. Also, UK in the EU would put the brakes on it.

However - leaving the Europeans to their own devices will create the need for it. It's kind of a paradox (like the moaning about EU lack of democracy. To fix it would create what many in the UK/US fear... a legitimate EU superstate).

In case this all sounds like I've completely changed my mind - I haven't. I do think there are downsides to Brexit (potentially many), but I also feel the outlook isn't as bad as Dandy believes, and that the outlook has improved since the vote.

The case for Leaving (imo) is about the fact that to stay would mean it was too late to ever leave, and we remain trapped and hollowed-out progressively by the EU.

The flip side - is that leaving will accelerate EU plans for an army (although it will take a while, without UK and possibly France).

The best scenario, imo, would be to have a co-operative EU and UK. UK leaving, and obviously not seen to be receiving special treatment - but also an element of economic sense prevailing and leading to a decent trade deal, benefiting the two. It would need to pacify the EU fear of creating a reason for others to leave - but also be good enough to maintain prosperity for all concerned. So... fairly good, but not brilliant. It would also need to leave the UK free to strike its own trade deals with other countries (and the EU to strike theirs as they pleased).

Trump continuing US support for NATO would also be beneficial.

 

[Perados]

A small stategic game...
Think about the outcome if...
Trump goes on confrontation with China, especially economically. China's answer is:
1. Car manufacturer have to desite, sell cars in America or China. Not a single manufacturer who sells cars is allowed to sell in China.

2. Every nation that sells Oil, Gas, Carbon, Iron or any kind of resource, won't get even a ounce of rare earthes (currently China delivers 95% of the world supply).

You have to answer how nations and companies desite and drew a possible future.

 

[798686]

@Perados we've had a couple of speeches from May this week, so a bit more information about the Brexit process. However a lot of the thinking in the UK isn't getting much media attention, but is central to how the UK government is now thinking. It's not business as usual. It's not even just a new future for the UK. It's about creating a new world order with a new political and economic system. The Anglosphere is key. There's support from USA, NZ, Australia, probably Canada. The EU is seen simply as a dinosaur, as out-dated as the USSR.

The key is that the vision is not just a solution to the muddles of Brexit. It is creating a new global order. The real planning is around the Anglosphere issues, the sort of thing May will be agreeing with Trump in a few weeks (and has already talked with NZ and Australia about). This is where the real drive and energy will be placed. The EU issues will be in second place. I think this may be the next surprise for many in the EU. Brexit is essential but negotiating the details is not the UK's first priority. Far more interesting is the Anglosphere trade deal.

I think the Anglosphere deal is very important - bringing in UK, US, NZ, Aus and potentially Canada, India and even HK/Singapore.

However - if this can be done by moderating, or co-existing with the EU, rather than trying to destroy it, I personally feel the outcome would be better.

 

[Perados]

@Perados we've had a couple of speeches from May this week, so a bit more information about the Brexit process. However a lot of the thinking in the UK isn't getting much media attention, but is central to how the UK government is now thinking. It's not business as usual. It's not even just a new future for the UK. It's about creating a new world order with a new political and economic system. The Anglosphere is key. There's support from USA, NZ, Australia, probably Canada. The EU is seen simply as a dinosaur, as out-dated as the USSR.

The next years will tell
I wouldn't rely too much on the USA
And an union of UK, Canada and NZ isn't really a power that can change the world.

The key is that the vision is not just a solution to the muddles of Brexit. It is creating a new global order. The real planning is around the Anglosphere issues, the sort of thing May will be agreeing with Trump in a few weeks (and has already talked with NZ and Australia about). This is where the real drive and energy will be placed. The EU issues will be in second place. I think this may be the next surprise for many in the EU. Brexit is essential but negotiating the details is not the UK's first priority. Far more interesting is the Anglosphere trade deal.

I don't think it will harm the EU, if the USA stops to care... I think it would be a benefit (fuck the EU)...
On the other hand, your thinking seems to be from yesterday. Neither the USA, nor the anglosphere will create the future.
It's Asia.

 

[Perados]

I think the Anglosphere deal is very important - bringing in UK, US, NZ, Aus and potentially Canada, India and even HK/Singapore.

However - if this can be done by moderating, or co-existing with the EU, rather than trying to destroy it, I personally feel the outcome would be better.

USA, no... not with Trump, not matter how good he talks about Britain.
HongKong, no... why should China accept it?
Singapore, no... it's in competition with London. I see barely a benefit for Singapore.

 

[Jason]

A small stategic game...
Think about the outcome if...
Trump goes on confrontation with China, especially economically. China's answer is:
1. Car manufacturer have to desite, sell cars in America or China. Not a single manufacturer who sells cars is allowed to sell in China.

2. Every nation that sells Oil, Gas, Carbon, Iron or any kind of resource, won't get even a ounce of rare earthes (currently China delivers 95% of the world supply).

You have to answer how nations and companies desite and drew a possible future.

The China issue is an interesting one. Most rare earths are extracted in China but they do of course exist elsewhere (including USA and Australia) and it may be that Trump will promote mining elsewhere (perhaps in a low-wage nation, as Brazil or India). I think China's strangle-hold will be seen as a security risk.

The views of UK and USA on China don't seem to agree right now - and Australia is different again. However my thought is that a shared view will soon emerge. I'm not at all sure what it will be.

I think it is possible that USA will recognise Taiwan as independent.

 

[798686]

And an union of UK, Canada and NZ isn't really a power that can change the world.
It's Asia.

If it creates a fairly stable bloc that is self-sufficient, that's enough for me. One that can look after itself without the need to attack others.

Hopefully this is what the EU will also aim for itself - although I do worry where certain attitudes will lead (Juncker/Verhofstadt etc - not Merkel or Tusk).

Same with the UK/US - I think there's a lot of sense available. I don't think May means to cause trouble - just to defend ourselves. But I do worry about Trump/Farage...

 

[Jason]

This is new stuff and goes beyond what the media is chattering about. However I do think Trump's goal is what he calls "the English speaking world" and what the UK calls "the Anglosphere". It's about bringing our systems into line.

For starters we're all common law systems. It is surprisingly easy to harmonise these systems for trade deals. This is the key reason why UK-USA can make a quick deal while Canada-EU took forever. I think Trump has in mind a new defence alliance which replaces NATO and is the Anglosphere + France. I think we're looking at a free trade area which may become a customs union. I think we're looking at banking co-operation. I think we're looking at revitalising the Commonwealth, perhaps taking the framework but developing it into something which includes USA and Ireland.

 

[Perados]

Dream on.


That's not true tho, is it? The EU doesn't have a free trade agreement with India - nor are its members allowed to make free-trade deals independent of the EU. We will be.

Right, the EU has no free trade deal with India. But still is Britain's benefit from the single market larger than a possible deal with India. - as I mentioned a long time a go, Belgium trades more with India than GB.

Plus, even inside the EU, every member can negotiate business deals with nations outside the EU. Why not pushing this?