UK.gov isn't ready for no-deal Brexit – and 'secrecy' means businesses won't be either The UK government has left its preparation for a no-deal Brexit too late, while secrecy around negotiations has left businesses unable to prepare, a report has said. The latest missive to slam the government’s preparedness for the UK’s departure from the European Union comes from the Institute for Government think tank. …
> I have to say I feel a sense of pride seeing how my comments have whipped up such shrieking. I wasnt disappointed
You are admitting to being a troll, in other words.
Not that we need your confession, the rest of your post is full of fluffy non-specific and plainly false contentious rubbish, designed to annoy without providing any real facts.
Your talent is wasted here - you should move to "Youtube comments".
Congratulations, brexitters. Rather than being aligned with people who actually give a shit about the citizens, we are going to become aligned with administrations who's only goal is to asset strip and rob the citizens for their corporate buddies. No wonder Mogg and Johnson are rubbing their hands with glee:
A radical blueprint for a free trade deal between the UK and the US that would see the NHS opened to foreign competition, a bonfire of consumer and environmental regulations and freedom of movement between the two https://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/ideal-us-uk-free-trade-agreement-free-traders-perspective
I love Americans, but their political system is NOT a model we want to follow...
It is essentially one they inherited from the British in 1700's for running a parish council.
And does not seem to have been updated in any useful way since.
It is not fit for purpose to run a British parish council, let alone the most powerful state in the Western world.
Totally agree. This has been the plan all along, Farage spends years claiming EU is source of all evil. Incompetent politicians blame EU for their own folly. Leave campaign supported and funded by Putin. Result is selling of UK to USA. Why? To weaken the EU, win for Putin, win for Trump, both benefit from weaker EU. Trump gets to asset strip UK and can continue to play his trade wars without opposition from EU negotiation strength. Putin can expand his empire again in eastern Europe. Ordinary Europeans get screwed. Neither of those "superpowers" cares a jot.
I'd vote for moving the UK population to move to Mars.
Good idea. We can build two large spaceships - the L Ark and the R Ark. The L Ark would leave first (as is their right) and never be heard from again. The R Ark would experience technical issues and have to cancel lift-off, with the colonists forced to Remain in a (much less crowded) UK.
Au contraire you are getting exactly what you voted for.
It might not be what (inside your own head) you believed "Brexit" would mean but then who f**king cares about your opinion of what Brexit is?
You still seem quite young so you're going to have lots of time to put into effect a very valuable lesson you're in the the process of learning.
Never f**king trust a Tory posh boy.
Good luck with that mate (genuinely).
Of all EU economies, Ireland is the most exposed to Brexit downsides, and as a dressing on that dish it is also persona non gratis in Brussels on account of two decades of "tax management". That engagement with overseas corporations went sour during the Great Financial Crisis 1, who knows what will happen in GFC 2, but before that there's all the EU vs Apple case to unravel, with all the consequential impacts on other Eire domiciled US and EU businesses.
I can't see any winners here. Despite selective animosities Eire and the UK ought to be on the same side, and operating as coupled economic bloc (hell, we had broadly freedom of movement for what, seventy years before Schengen?)
One thing I would highlight is that both you and us Brits were promised a vote on the Lisbon treaty. We never got that, you did, and clearly you got it wrong because you were made to vote again until you gave the right answer. We've got a different outcome on a different vote, but as ever the fuckwit politicians manage to screw it up.
To summarise: You're fucked, we're fucked, and if none of this had ever happened, the EU would still be fucked. Wait until Germany and France have to choose between letting Turkey join, or the migrant floodgates opening.
seems at least one person doesn't *quite* grasp the essence of "Freedom of Movement".
Having an *EU* passport allows the PP to live and work in anyone of the E27 countries he chooses to. Not just Ireland.
Meanwhile, people who don't have an EU passport aren't being considered for roles which may involve EU travel - which is a surprising amount.
We never got that, you did, and clearly you got it wrong because you were made to vote again until you gave the right answer.
Read A second Brexit referendum could be for the best: look at Ireland and Lisbon and notice how the description of the first vote and the campaign leading up to it is a practically a copy of the UK's referendum and what changes were made before the second vote.
@AC
"Despite selective animosities Eire and the UK ought to be on the same side, and operating as coupled economic bloc".
Some "big brother" attitude there, "come save our arse with the boarder".
The Irish know they gain from membership with the EU and they are no longer as dependent on the UK as before. The biggest export country is the USA to day.
Brexit do create problems, all the same, as most of their exports go via the UK, and they might have to think again, supporting local ports perhaps or ship directly to Rotterdam or similar. No Brexit dividend there.
The "persona non gratis in Brussels" is nonsense. it's like claiming the UK is persona non gratis (to use your phrase) in Brussels because of some relation to tax-havens. I believe the UK government was as keen as the rest of the EU to tackle that problem.
Perhaps, indeed there is some truth in claiming the only Brexit dividend, and for the very few architects behind Brexit, has something to do with the tax-havens.,
PS. grata, while gratis fits your comment well.
The campaign is desperately short of IT competent people.
It would be great if someone could offer me a Virtual Private Server with LAMP for this site,
www.IStopBrexit.info
The campaign is desperately short of IT competent people.
"There are no cookies and no Javascript on this site."
Amazingly, there is CSS, but the page is formatted in such a way as to make it
(1) incomprehensible (2) Look like it came from 1973 (3) give me a headache.
I rather fancy FrontPage could have done a better job.
Big thanks to Jamie for setting this site up on his server, where it is now live.
The rude AC appears not to have looked beyond the front page to the site itself. That front page was edited from something else in a considerable hurry in the half hour before I gave a demo. It was subsequently replaced with something cleaner. The program-generated main pages have no CSS, Javascript or cookies, but maybe (Jamie or) I will get round to writing some CSS to smarten it up later.
On the day we leave, deal or no deal the Earth will keep turning and nothing too serious will happen. Life will go on, things will get done in pretty much the same way, and problems will be quickly solved or temporary workarounds agreed pragmatically between the interested parties even if the bureaucracy is not yet in place. The only "insurmountable" issues will be those deliberately engineered by people with an axe to grind in order to prove a point.
I am totally opposed to leaving the EU for several reasons, but that doesn't mean that I think that leaving will cause immediate disaster.
Disaster probably not. That should be reserved for, well, real disasters. But there consequences could vary from inconvenient to downright severe. I'm sure the transitional arrangement with the backstop will kick in come what may but supply chains, customs, flights, banking, etc. are all likely to be disrupted to an unknown degree.
@ Doctor Syntax
"More like a slow motion car crash."
Ok lets say we are going to go through a slow motion car crash. That is your assumption which we dont all agree on but lets look at the situation. We are already in a slow motion car crash being in the EU which is showing increasing signs of ever increasing damage.
The EU is in multiple self inflicted crises. It is without a doubt and with no credible debate against it. So remaining in the burning twisted metal that the EU is turning into does not sound clever. The presidents and leaders of member countries have no faith in the staying power of the EU, we are constantly being told 'X could be the end of the EU' by the very people trying to keep it going.
Throughout the member countries parties with views that would repel voters are gaining votes on the simple platform of opposing their membership to the EU or its dreadful currency. Macron pointed out the French could vote out if he gave them a choice. Italy is the current thread puller threatening to take down the project. Greece was screwed by the EU and their currency.
As for stronger together the EU ran away from Russia in Ukraine and Trump is making them look foolish. At one point they were considering detention centres for immigrants to try and fix the immigration crisis caused by Germany.
The Eurozone is still behind the recovery and hopefully this year QE will finally stop increasing. And the latest demand from Junker- he wants the members to give up their veto on foreign policy. Ever closer union must go on, all sink together.
So you think we might be going into a slow motion car crash, but we are certainly leaving a slow motion car crash currently in the destructive stages.
1) The EU is in multiple self inflicted crises.
EU got too big too fast, that could be true. No one could envision USSR would have crumbled so quickly, and so many countries would have asked to join. And a fully US born financial crisis hitting a few years later it allowed in Eastern countries didn't help at all.
Other crisis, like that in Lybia, have also many UK fingerprints, right? Again, an intervention without a plan about what to do after.... Cameron will be remembered for that and Brexit. Great record.
Others have US ones all around, like Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq and the large number of immigrants. So, not always "self-inflicted". EU was caught in the middle of ill-advised and worse managed acts by US.
It is true that the immigrant crisis has been mismanaged, and leaving the full burden on the Mediterranean countries like Italy and Greece greatly contribute to give power to the anti-EU parties.
2) Greece and Italy
These are two perfect example of self-inflicted crisis. Both created huge debts all on their own by politicians to buy easy consensus, and hoped to offload it to other countries through EU. It didn't work, and they made the EU the "mother of all their troubles". Actually, without EU and the Euro they would probably look like Venezuela today. Mistakes has been made by EU too, but all the issues are endogenous, and a confrontational approach to avoid to admit the big mistakes that let to unsustainable debt is plainly stupid.
3) Ukraine
EU never "ran away". Should have EU declared war on Russia? Sure, some states with lucrative exports to Russia, and some Putin worshipers, don't like sanctions.
You can read more here: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/4081/eu-ukraine-relations-factsheet_en
4) Trump
He's the only one looking utterly foolish. And the one with the wrong interests in Ukraine... it's only the Congress restraining him by kissing Putin on the lips and sleeping with him.
5) Eurozone recovery
Actually only counties with substantial endemic issues didn't recover yet fully, despite the big help from Draghi. And they're still trying to hide the issues under the carpet, especially Italy. That's a real big risk.
@ LDS
"EU got too big too fast, that could be true. No one could envision USSR would have crumbled so quickly,"
the autopsy of the USSR should have informed generations to come but yet some still desire such setups even when proven to fail. In fact economics is pretty good at dissecting history for things that worked and didnt, yet another example of an EU self inflicted crisis with the Euro and their reaction to the financial crisis (in both cases doing the opposite of what works).
"And a fully US born financial crisis"
Which the Eurozone is years behind the recovery (see above as to why). What is concerning is we (UK and US even) are not in a great position to deal with the next recession. The Eurozone is in a dire situation for dealing with the next recession. When China was touted a global financial risk, the Eurozone was potentially worse.
"EU was caught in the middle of ill-advised and worse managed acts by US."
Wow cop out. No not in a million years does that work. The migration crisis (not asylum because Germany/EU have merged them with migrants) was Merkel offering the middle east to move into Germany, then passing the buck. Complain about the wars, thats fine, but the migration crisis was an EU self inflicted crisis.
"Actually, without EU and the Euro they would probably look like Venezuela today."
Greece and Italy? Yeah right bull. Why could these countries access debt so easily? The Euro. Why cant they default or dig out of it? The Euro. Why cant Greece get from under its debts? The Euro. Who BOUGHT the private debt of Greece? The ECB and made it public debt to the Eurozone. The eurozone is a self inflicted crisis which inflicted the damage, it is most certainly not a help and even helped create the problem.
"EU never "ran away". Should have EU declared war on Russia?"
That depends. If they participate in getting the ruler forced out to promote a pro-west government only to find Russia takes steps it is the EU who put its tail between its legs, ran away and left the problem to the US.
"Actually only counties with substantial endemic issues didn't recover yet fully, despite the big help from Draghi."
I love how the concept of a union is forgotten when it comes to assigning blame and leaving them behind. And that would be Draghi who kept promising he would do something for as long as he could before actually doing anything, and of course the Eurozone is years behind recovery. Not looking like a victory or even acceptable from here.
There is a lot of redirecting the blame for the EU's failures but it doesnt work. And if they cannot admit their screw ups (nor their supporters) then why would we believe they will fix any of it or make things better?
1) the autopsy of the USSR should have informed generations to come
Joining the EU is wholly voluntary. Nobody was conquered or forced.
2) Which the Eurozone is years behind the recovery
Germany looks very fine, and drives Trump mad because of its export and surplus. Other countries as well, Only a few are still behind, for long standing internal problems mostly.
3) Why could these countries access debt so easily? The Euro.
You don't know their history. Their huge debts predates the Euro. They both didn't meet the GDP/debt ratio to join the Euro. They should have been left out, but for historical reasons allowed in.
Without the Euro, they would have defaulted years ago. Both promised, and had a big opportunity to put debt under control in the early Euro days, before the crisis. They didn't, because they thought they could again get away with it. Greece even faked the data. Greek debt can't be transferred to other states, even if the ECB is involved. There are no "Euro bonds" or the like.
Do you believe that defaulting is a good outcome? What Greece suffered is nothing compared to a default, with salary and pensions purchasing power destroyed, savings wiped away and imported goods becoming very expensive. Plus unemployment and inflation. Great, why don't we default more often?
4) "was Merkel offering the middle east to move into Germany, "
And why they were moving? Maybe because US started a war they couldn't manage, and from which they backed away "red line" after "red line"? Who created the conditions for ISIS to flourish? EU??? Or wars US started and still doesn't t know how to finish?
Merkel made a mistake asserting Germany would have welcomed them, sure, but it wasn't the biggest one in Middle East. People escaping the war were moving anyway.
5) Ukraine
It looks it's Ukrainians to ask for a pro-EU government - those who tried Russian rule are not eager to fall under its boot again. That's why many of those countries wanted to join EU and NATO quickly - to keep Russia away.
6) "how the concept of a union is forgotten when it comes to assigning blame"
I've been living in Italy for many years, and I know very well its situation. It's utterly stupid to blame the EU for issues that predates both the Euro and the EU, and sometimes even the EC. Draghi saved Italy against German interests - Germany complained a lot about very low rates and QE. But ultimately, in a Union, they had to accept it.
Draghi *did* a lot, but he's just the President of the European Central Bank, he has no power over a state policies, investment and spending.
Italy has billions of EU funds unspent - because EU want to see projects first and check how they are spent. Because of big inefficiencies, and because stealing them is more difficult under the light, they were never spent and could be revoked. Who's to blame?
@ LDS
"Joining the EU is wholly voluntary. Nobody was conquered or forced."
I dont recall claiming that. You brought up the USSR.
"Germany looks very fine"
Germany != Eurozone. Germany is in the Eurozone but most important Germany != Eurozone.
"You don't know their history. Their huge debts predates the Euro."
So hang on. You are going to claim the EU was so impressively incompetent as to allow historically fiscally incompetent countries to join its fragile currency? You claim of historical reasons doesnt fix the incompetence to allow them if they are so bad.
"Without the Euro, they would have defaulted years ago"
And had Greece done that it is highly likely its crisis would be resolved by now and the country be fine. The Euro removed that possibility as they couldnt default, devalue nor do a damn thing to pay off those rich EU member private banks who lent them money and should have been defaulted on.
"Great, why don't we default more often?"
As countries have done throughout history on a simple fact that you cannot pay back what you cannot pay back. A simple concept the Euro does not allow Greece who would likely have been back to normal by now. Except for the Euro buggering it.
"And why they were moving?"
I answered that in the bit you quoted! Merkel offered! Instead of going to safe camps near their home country to return and rebuild once the war was over they and every other migrant tried to move to Germany. Thats why!
"Merkel made a mistake asserting Germany would have welcomed them"
Of your entire section 4 that is the only part of your comment which seems to be correct. But by stating that you seem to have worked out why the EU has a migration crisis.
"It looks it's Ukrainians to ask for a pro-EU government"
The EU made a push for closer ties to Ukraine and abandoned them when Russia reacted. The EU did it. It is the EU's fault. The EU caused it. Look it up, the information is easily available.
"Who's to blame?"
For tying economies to a place with apparently glaring huge problems before Italy joined? That would be EU. Yes the Germans do things differently to the Italians, so if its such a hurdle why unionize? The blame is easy to assign, its the EU. If the EU cant cope with such bad actors then why not kick Italy out? Instead they fear Italy will leave.
1) I dont recall claiming that. You brought up the USSR.
I just stated that quick crumble of USSR meant many Eastern Europe counties hastened to join EU - freely, and it added more issues to EU integration, as they were just out from tens of years of communist bad administrations, and their economies had, and have, several issues. The US-born 2008 crisis a few years after just added more issues.
Some of them are still waiting to join - again, because they want so. EU and USSR are not comparable at all - you implied that similitude. Actually, it's Russia to fear EU, an utterly stupid fear based on its imperialist attitude, still alive after several defeats. Are you a Russian troll, maybe?
2) Germany != Eurozone.
Still, Germany is in the Eurozone. And it's not the only country doing well. Other still have issues, true. Just, not all of those issues are because of the Eurozone. The new US commercial wars and other geopolitical issues are not helping, evidently. But who's slowing down also? UK.
Meanwhile, there are chances the US recovery may have created another bubble that could explode one day or the other. And US recovery anyway didn't help nor the middle class nor the lower ones, as wages stagnated and their debt increased. Sure, Apple big shareholders are fine...
3) allow historically fiscally incompetent countries to join its fragile currency
Unluckily, yes. That's when politics trumps economy. Italy was a founder of EU, and Greece is the land where democracy was born. The Euro is far from being fragile, it stood the crisis, but it is true that the promised Italy and Greece made to join the Euro were not fulfilled. They remain an issue in the Eurozone, nobody denies that. And the worst thing is Italian politicians are acting against the country own interest, not only EU one, just to buy easy consensus, as happened in Greece.
4) had Greece done that it is highly likely its crisis would be resolved by now and the country be fine.
ROTFL! Defaults are a bet, and usually people lose. Look at Argentina, it never really recovered. When you have systemic issues, defaults don't solve anything. They just destroy value, and make people much poorer. Especially for a country with a poor economy like Greece. Italy has a North that is very strong, but its South is a big problem since 1861. A default would destroy the North economy, and won't solve the South issues. Sure, you can say "I can't pay back". And who lends you money after that? Lehman "defaulted" in 2008, and it started the worst crisis since 1929. Think what if a country like Italy defaults, and doesn't repay 2,399,764,655,200 euros (debt today). How many financial institutions and companies may go bankrupt as well? Can you see the consequences? Italy is one of the top 10 economies in the world, do you believe it would have not systemic effects? How many tax-payers funded bail-outs would become necessary?
5) instead of going to safe camps near their home country to return
Which camps? In Lebanon, Turkey or Iraq? Many are there (those in Turkey paid by EU). Do you believe refugee camps are safe holiday resorts? Return to be killed as rebels or imprisoned because Assad doesn't like them? Rebuild with which money, after you lost everything? I don't believe Putin has much to spare for a "Marshall Plan", but for some Assad closed allies, maybe. And again, who destabilized Syria? Merkel or US?
6) have worked out why the EU has a migration crisis.
The migration crisis started well before Syria collapsed and Merkel words, even before Merkel became Chancellor. Immigration from Africa, for example, it's a long standing issue. But it's not the only source.
I wonder where you live, because it looks you have a very small knowledge of the European situation.
7) abandoned them when Russia reacted.
EU didn't abandon anything - still, the situation in Ukraine is very complex and delicate, especially when an authoritarian country like Russia is involved. Russia reacted because of fear. Putin power if wholly built on nationalism and imperialism, and he's stupidly crippling Russia economy to hold power. A thriving Ukraine would be the worst blow to him (Ukrainian have their faults as well, sure). Fear makes Russia dangerous - so the approach is obviously cautious.
Where information are easily available, from your Russian sources?
8) "before Italy joined".
Again, it looks you know nothing about European history. Italy is a founder member of what would become EU. Italy didn't "joined", it, with others, created it. The founding act of EU is the Treaty of Rome. Do you know where Rome is? Look it up, the information is easily available.
The idea was exactly to create a Union despite the differences. Yet is true not everything went as planned, and some corrections are obviously necessary. Still, Italy size and EU history don't make "kicking it out" nor simple nor desirable, even if some in Mitteleuropa would like it. Nor EU is made around the idea of "kicking countries out" if issues arises. One of the founders leaving would be a big blow to the EU project, much more than UK whiners leaving, after they joined reluctantly.
I know there are people who would like it... especially among those who fear EU and see it as a big competitor, so would like to see it crumble.
@ LDS
"EU and USSR are not comparable at all - you implied that similitude."
I am getting the feeling we misunderstood each other. When you said "No one could envision USSR would have crumbled so quickly" I was saying that economics is fairly good at the post-mortem and that the EU's decisions to do the opposite of what economics teaches from hundreds of years of experience caused its problems. Sorry if that was unclear.
"Still, Germany is in the Eurozone"
That actually is my point correcting your previous comment. Germany and France used to be the twin engine of the EU until France went too far socialist for a short while. So while Germany might be doing well (which is due to an undervalued currency for Germany) it does not mean the Eurozone is doing well, in fact it is part of the problem.
"Just, not all of those issues are because of the Eurozone"
I never said all issues are due to the Eurozone, I only blame it for the plague that it is.
"But who's slowing down also? UK."
Yes. Because we recovered from the recession and are returning to normal. The Eurozone sped up, but not because they are doing well but because they put so many out of work and inflicted such damage.
"Unluckily, yes. That's when politics trumps economy."
Ok, if that is how you view the EU/Eurozone we can use that assumption (I dont know if it is right or wrong, only that the outcome is wrong). So the UK is better off getting out of a place that puts politics before the economy as politics is for politicians and the economy is for the people.
"They just destroy value, and make people much poorer."
I am not seeing much improvement for Greece being in the Euro, and they do constantly get whipped by the EU dictating how Greece should run its economy. Which in my view is certainly worse.
"Sure, you can say "I can't pay back". And who lends you money after that?"
And yet they do. it isnt about saying 'I cant pay it back' its about the actual factual physical impossibility. That hasnt changed with Greece, the debt which would be written off with a default and Greece would continue has been replaced with Greece having debt for an infinite period at below growth interest rates to write off the debt over 'forever' and Greece belongs to the EU who now own it. EU politicians now can direct Greece in any way they want. All because rich member private banks could not be allowed to fail, at the expense of Greece.
"Italy is one of the top 10 economies in the world, do you believe it would have not systemic effects?"
In your scenario the problem must be covered up which allows it to get bigger and be even worse. I disagree with the analysis but I wouldnt promote making the problem worse.
'5)'
That entire section doesnt seem to offer anything. Causing a migration crisis in the EU because there is a war on somewhere doesnt sound like a fix, only another problem. Are you in favour of whole families being uprooted and causing a migration crisis because there is a war on? The camps make it easier for them to return home and fix the place after the war. Isnt that a good thing?
"Immigration from Africa, for example, it's a long standing issue"
Yes. And then a migration crisis started because of Germany which caused a lot of political strain between the members. Germany turned a problem into a crisis (accidentally I expect) and made it the EU's problem.
"Russia reacted because of fear. Putin power if wholly built on nationalism and imperialism, and he's stupidly crippling Russia economy to hold power."
Ok. And they reacted because the EU was pressing for closer ties with Ukraine, encouraging them to oust their Russian friendly leader and when Russia reacted the EU ran away and left it to the US and things got globally tense very quickly.
"Where information are easily available, from your Russian sources?"
I am sure one of your school classes will at some point show you google. If you fancy give it a try and enter what you are searching for in the text box that appears on the google website and see if you can find information.
"Italy is a founder member of what would become EU."
Congrats. Is the EU the Eurozone, I think the Euro is the official currency of the EU as it is stipulated as a requirement in joining but some remainers like to disagree. This is where I do note the UK doesnt have the Euro (yey opt-out) but if Italy was so economically duff then they should not have been allowed to join the Euro should they? Again if politics overrules the economy then the people are shafted, and that isnt something I want (so I vote leave).
"what economics teaches from hundreds of years of experience "
Which is what, exactly? Remember: Goldman Sachs, not economists, not politicians, decided whether or not Greece got to meet the EuroZone criteria (and Goldmans people influenced a few other actions too). I don't think that kind of thing was ever in the "legacy" economics classes (even though Adam Smith knew that unregulated big business was on the whole a bit bent), but it's one of many things that happen in the real world that "economics" tries to ignore, very much to the cost of the real people in the real world.
References: use google, that's what you said, right?
"if politics overrules the economy then the people are shafted"
So long as casino banksters and their political puppets hijack the democratic process, the people are indeed shafted.
The people need to take back control!
Hmmm, now how do we do that? How do we vote against Goldman Sachs and friends, given the following:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/how-goldman-sachs-took-over-the-world-873869.html (2008)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html (2011)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/goldman-sachs-the-secret-tapes-9763769.html (2014)
https://www.thenation.com/article/goldmans-greek-gambit/ (2015) [extract below]
Even BBC Radio 4's usually-reliable "More or Less" series spotted what really happened:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/entries/fba91847-2c24-394f-a088-99fbb6973b51
(extract below):
Share and enjoy. Other banksters are available. The value of your democracy in the 21st century may go down as well as down.
.....................................
From BBC Radio 4's More or Less series:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/entries/fba91847-2c24-394f-a088-99fbb6973b51
"To get inside the walls of the Eurozone, the Greeks needed to convince the European Union that they had met various irksome rules about inflation, government deficit, and government debt.
Instead of calling Odysseus, the modern Greeks called Goldman Sachs and asked them to structure a clever financial deal that put a lot of Greek borrowing off the books. And it wasn't just Goldman Sachs - it's been reported that there were all kinds of ways in which the Greek government of 11 years ago managed to make their macroeconomic statistics look trim and healthy.
[continues]"
From https://www.thenation.com/article/goldmans-greek-gambit/
"The Greek debt crisis offers another illustration of Wall Street’s powers of persuasion and predation, although the Street is missing from most accounts.
The crisis was exacerbated years ago by a deal with Goldman Sachs, engineered by Goldman’s current CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. Blankfein and his Goldman team helped Greece hide the true extent of its debt, and in the process almost doubled it. And just as with the American subprime crisis, and the current plight of many American cities, Wall Street’s predatory lending played an important although little-recognized role.
In 2001, Greece was looking for ways to disguise its mounting financial troubles. The Maastricht Treaty required all eurozone member states to show improvement in their public finances, but Greece was heading in the wrong direction. Then Goldman Sachs came to the rescue, arranging a secret loan of 2.8 billion euros for Greece, disguised as an off-the-books “cross-currency swap”—a complicated transaction in which Greece’s foreign-currency debt was converted into a domestic-currency obligation using a fictitious market exchange rate.
As a result, about 2 percent of Greece’s debt magically disappeared from its national accounts. Christoforos Sardelis, then head of Greece’s Public Debt Management Agency, later described the deal to Bloomberg Business as “a very sexy story between two sinners.” For its services, Goldman received a whopping 600 million euros ($793 million), according to Spyros Papanicolaou, who took over from Sardelis in 2005. That came to about 12 percent of Goldman’s revenue from its giant trading and principal-investments unit in 2001—which posted record sales that year. The unit was run by Blankfein.
[continues]"
Marvellous.
@AC
Your rather long post seems to be on the singular subject of Goldman Sachs if I am right and didnt miss anything? Isnt Goldman Sachs private, and so the EU should have the ability to lodge some form of legal complaint if GS broke the law. Even if GS didnt break the law if the EU feels they abused or cheated the EU then they can stop sending GS business and not accept their recommendations in future. I am not going to try and defend GS.
Me and LDS are discussing the hypothetical possibility that the EU knew how duff the Greek and Italian economic management system was but let them in anyway (and we seem to be focussing on Greece). You offer the hypothetical possibility that the EU had no idea. I can believe either could have been the reality so will discuss from either.
The outcome after all of that is Greece went under from the recession and it owed and thanks to the EU still owes money that is cannot possibly repay because it doesnt exist. That money is lost, the question is who takes that loss. It was private debt that could be defaulted on but the rich members banks would have taken the hit for lending out the money. So instead of the private sector taking the loss the ECB bought the debt and made it the EU tax payers problem*. So tax payers in the EU have been forced to bail out the banks, not Greece.
This works well for the EU because the richer members dont have to deal with any of their private banks that might be exposed to the losses, and the EU has 'bought' a member country. Greece will do what they are told because they are in perpetual debt to the ECB who wont write off the losses and just holds onto it. The money wont be repaid but its a good leash to control a member.
*Cameron was proud of his signed agreement the EU would not use our contribution to bail out Greece (i.e. the GBP was not to be used to bail out the EUR). Unfortunately the EU then did it anyway.
1) I was saying that economics is fairly good at the post-mortem
You wrote "the autopsy of the USSR should have informed generations to come but yet some still desire such setups ". It looks to me comparing EU to USSR
Anyway I never stated anything about the reasons of the collapse. Just that it happened at a speed nobody believed possible. The freed countries flocked to EU. That made EU more imbalanced, and stressed more its organization. It was another instance where politics and economics were at odds. EU could have stayed a richer Western club and say to Eastern countries "go to Hell (aka Russia)", or bring them in, with some benefits (a low cost area...) but the associated risks of integrating struggling economies, and large poorer populations - not surprisingly ready to vote for populist leaders later.
Anyway political unification always went together with economic unification. It could work, like in US (until Trump, maybe) or utterly fail like in USSR. Its failure was eminently economical, but how long a bad government is able to stand is hard to tell. Simple economic unification may not last too.
Economics is a fairly recent "science", and nothing from hundred of years ago is comparable to the challenges of today. Anyway it would have told that the behaviours - like subprime loans and derivatives - that lead to the 2008 crisis in US were far more dangerous than the Euro - which aims are not just making a few people richer.
You of course don't live in the Eurozone, or you would have appreciated the simplification it brought, and what a stable currency means for business. Sure, some don't like a currency that can compete with the dollar, or a strong economic area at its boundaries, while its economy is just built on raw materials extraction...
2) are returning to normal.
No, UK is growing less than the Eurozone but Italy, look at the data. And Brexit didn't happened yet.
Others get out of the recession faster and with higher growth. France problems are old ones, especially since it has been "socialist" for very long time, not a short one. Did yo already forgot Mitterand? He's been president for 14 years. Even under right-wing presidents, the Parliament could have had a Socialist majority, i.e. under Chirac (it happened to Mitterand as well, with roles inverted). Macron (who belonged to the socialist party as well) is attempting to break old privileges, but it's a two-edged sword. Again, you show a very limited knowledge of European history. I wonder where you are from.
Anyway, even in countries that overall post data not good enough, there are internal big differences - some industries (especially exporting ones) rebounded well and are at per-crises level or beyond, other are still struggling, because internal demand is still low, because of the uncertainty. But stimulating it is up to the single states, not EU. Draghi did what it could.
I.e.. increasing VAT, or levy a tax on houses to pay for a huge debt interests, is not exactly a way to stimulate it - but after three "spending reviews" in Italy, for example, nothing has been done to avoid to touch cronyistic interests - again, a fully EU and Euro fault...
3) politics is for politicians and the economy is for the people.
Quite stupid assertion. Politics, good one, is the art of governing for the people, its root is the "polis". Economy without good government is not for the people, as it soon will concentrate wealth in a few hands if left alone. Which basically is what happened in US and EU (including UK), or just look at Russia and its oligarchs.. fully sustained by bad politics who gets part of the money.
4) not seeing much improvement for Greece being in the Euro
Compared to what? Do you know what Greece would be if left on its own? Maybe give a look to Venezuela... there was no magic wand to get Greece fully out of the swamp it put itself into, and transform it into a little Germany. Greek have to understand a lot is up to them. They lived beyond their means, and the awakening can be painful. Now they have an option to learn from the past, start build a better future and avoid another crisis, or keep old habits, and face a new one.
After all, it's not like in Syria, where you believe it's even easier...
5) In your scenario the problem must be covered up
Where I ever said that? Italy has to resolve its long standing problems, for its citizens first (who are burdened by an elevate fiscal pressure and low quality services), and Europe second. It's Italian governments which are trying to pretend there's no problem while blaming EU for self-inflicted issues. Thinking that the debt can magically disappear without ugly consequences it's exactly covering up the problem.
6) "they reacted because the EU was pressing for closer ties with Ukraine"
You look more and more like a Russian troll. It was Ukraine to press for closer ties to EU - like all those other countries who endured Russian domination and would like to do without. Keep on telling yourself "EU ran away", maybe one day you will believe it too. It's only Trump and its cronies trying to kill NATO and run away from allies, while appreciating dictators. Still, Russia is in a stalemate in Ukraine, and just worsened its international position. It violated international law, and downed a civil aircraft killing hundreds of people.
And keep on believing that it was EU to create a migration crisis, and not being just a dream for those who leave or escape. Why US is an immigration target as well? Because of EU and Merkel? Or because people try to move where they can live better than a refugees camp for years?
7) I am sure one of your school classes will at some point
Sorry, I didn't take trolling courses like you. You've shown over and over very little knowledge of European history, and EU itself. And your approach to Ukrainian evens is very slanted towards Russian thinking.
8) Congrats. Is the EU the Eurozone
What I wrote stands both for EU and the Eurozone.
Leaving the Euro is not possible - there is no provision in the treaties to do so. You would probably need to leave EU also, until changes are made to allow it.
I was the first to point out that Italy didn't have the full requirements to join the Euro, something you didn't know evidently. still there were enough margins to fix the issues in 2002, if a billionaire prime minister wasn't busier in changing laws to avoid trials and convictions, and favour its TV stations, while having extramarital affairs with an harem of paid women.
But once joined the process is not reversible, so a solution must be found within EU and the Eurozone. Especially since Italy is also a big net contributor to EU funds...
One of the biggest issue is the debt issued in Euro - it would be impossible to repay it with a currency that quickly depreciates, and that would put a big pressure on the Euro. Maybe sustainable for a small economy like Greece, probably not for a far larger one like Italy. Maybe one day Italy will be kicked off because no longer sustainable, but the effects are unknown, and nobody is really interested in taking a chance unless really forced.
Anyway, even voting Leave is a victory of politics (probably a bad one) over economy. Otherwise why UK would be begging to be still in the custom union, and have the EU market still open? You (if you're British, something I doubt now) will see the result... and I'll wait for the post-mortem.
@ LDS
"It was another instance where politics and economics were at odds."
Ok so we are seeming to agree on a key EU problem, that they make terrible decisions for no good reason.
"Its failure was eminently economical, but how long a bad government is able to stand is hard to tell. Simple economic unification may not last too."
This is where economic history kicks in. The best chance of survival is by doing things that work, and doing things known to be very damaging is reckless and dangerous. That again is where the EU is choosing reckless and dangerous. Sharing a currency over such a large area doesnt work without transfers, which the EU doesnt really have. Probably due to rich members not wanting to pay for poor members (aka Germany doesnt want to pay for Greek pensions). The approach taken with Greece is the opposite of economic knowledge, again doing the worst thing. Your suggestion that the EU is willingly taking on members that poorly fit into the EU and increase risk again backs this up. When something looks about to blow up it makes sense that people would move away from it- UK voted brexit and member countries are voting parties offering to oppose the EU/Eurozone.
"Economics is a fairly recent "science", and nothing from hundred of years ago is comparable to the challenges of today."
Really? Cuba offered to pay off some of its debt in rum (if I remember correctly) which is barter, a method way back before currency. Currencies being more than a hundred or hundreds of years ago (quick google search the GBP is the oldest currency still in use at 1200 years old). Comparisons of empires that rise and fall, trade and currency still apply today.
"Anyway it would have told that the behaviours - like subprime loans and derivatives - that lead to the 2008 crisis in US were far more dangerous"
Why? Because new problem untested in the world had a result that was unexpected? On that note the rating system did work as the reliable loans were fine, it was the lower graded ones that fell due to a fall in house prices across the whole US which had never happened before (I think I got that right?). Thought to be safer as it sliced the debt across packaged securities the theoretically safe hit an unexpected problem when tested for the first time due to an unforeseeable situation. The Euro is just failing for obvious known reasons.
"You of course don't live in the Eurozone, or you would have appreciated the simplification it brought, and what a stable currency means for business. Sure, some don't like a currency that can compete with the dollar"
Sorry but that is total nonsense and extremely worrying that someone believes it. The EU- still behind the recovery, poor economic situation, trashed member countries. The US- bounced out of recession, booming. If you think the EU is better then you are in a rich member country with blinkers on. There is no competition, the US won hands down.
"No, UK is growing less than the Eurozone but Italy, look at the data. And Brexit didn't happened yet."
That is good news. When an advanced economy is growing it is held around 2-3% (trump aiming for more. Dunno how that will pan out). When a knackered advanced economy which suffers heavily with high unemployment and almost hits the rocks then starts to recover, growth should be huge as those people get re-employed and business kicks up again. Saying the EU is growing faster than the UK while economically in our current situations you are actually saying the UK is doing better.
"But stimulating it is up to the single states, not EU. Draghi did what it could."
That is wrong. It is up to the ECB as it holds the purse strings. That is why it is pushing QE still, because fiscal controls are removed from the struggling countries leaving only monetary. And its a single currency which of course averages out over the area (e.g. undervalued for Germany, overvalued for Greece). Germany is sucking up the money so it could throw some of it at the other countries, but that wouldnt be popular for the already struggling Merkel.
"Politics, good one, is the art of governing for the people"
Good luck selling that here but yes it is supposed to be. Now lets look at N.Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China, and so on. Good government is supposed to be there to govern for the people. Does that ring true with data slurping and some of the disturbing anti terror approaches against their own citizens?
"Economy without good government is not for the people"
Kinda true. The economy is the transactions in peoples lives and good regulation helps with that. This is where there was acceptable debate as to how good the EU government is.
"4)"
Totally wrong. Enjoy- https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/the-history-of-greek-sovereign-debt-defaults.aspx
"Where I ever said that?"
In your comment- "A default would destroy the North economy" "How many financial institutions and companies may go bankrupt as well?" "How many tax-payers funded bail-outs would become necessary?". What you dont seem to realise is that this is the Greek situation and the EU tax payer has bailed out the rich members banks and that private debt is now an EU tax payer loss. When you suggest they cant be allowed to default (aka they cannot pay back because they do not have the money to pay back full stop) it is hiding the problem until it crashes worse later.
"Thinking that the debt can magically disappear without ugly consequences it's exactly covering up the problem."
Exactly I agree. The EU made them feel that they can magically take on debt with no consequences. The consequences typically being default and having to fix the problems. That is why countries try not to default!
"You look more and more like a Russian troll."
Of course I do. You seem wedded to your 'interesting' perspectives and I am not shocked that when confronted with a different perspective you see me as heretic, witch, eurosceptic, russian troll. Instead of trying to justify your lack of valid answers by trying to discredit who I am in your mind, maybe try getting some answers.
"And keep on believing that it was EU to create a migration crisis"
Actually it was Germany who turned it into a crisis (Merkel) and passed the buck to the EU. It was very well covered by the news. In the UK at least.
"You've shown over and over very little knowledge of European history, and EU itself"
Throughout your comment you keep suggesting this, while demonstrating an amazing lack of knowledge. Is this another defence mechanism like the russian troll thing to make yourself feel better? I am happy to discuss facts and opinions but if you find that threatening to your strongly held beliefs feel free to just end the discussion.
"Leaving the Euro is not possible - there is no provision in the treaties to do so. You would probably need to leave EU also, until changes are made to allow it."
There is no provision, until provision is needed. The EU has found itself very flexible when it needs to be.
"I was the first to point out that Italy didn't have the full requirements to join the Euro"
Well done (that is sincere). But again the self inflicted problems of the EU are part of why I voted out.
"Anyway, even voting Leave is a victory of politics (probably a bad one) over economy."
There are plenty good reasons to vote out from politics to economic and trade. Read my post history I stumped a few remainers insisting it must be racism to vote leave.
"Otherwise why UK would be begging to be still in the custom union, and have the EU market still open?"
Why would a remainer PM in a public system desperate to remain and refusing to let brexiters coordinate brexit want to remain? I will let you figure that one out. If you cant then look at my very first post on this article.
@codejunky
"... to the EU or its dreadful currency."
Dreadful? How? Had you switched to using Euro in 1973, it would have been a wise move, because it is worth twice as much now compared to the pound. So either it's not as dreadful as you think, or the pound is even more dreadful (probably the latter).
@ Cynic_999
"So either it's not as dreadful as you think, or the pound is even more dreadful (probably the latter)."
That shows the large mistake in measurement. When people defend the Euro they defend its numerical value. But the purpose of a currency is to support the economy as a method of trade (superior to barter). The Euro problem is easy demonstrated by the US, UK and Euro where the UK is mid way (similar culture to the US but participating in the EU)-
>The US hit its recession and bounced out.
>The UK hit its recession and bounced out.
>The Eurozone hit its recession and waited so long it became a panic to avoid deflation.
Or as employment figures work the EZ is still badly behind the recovery. In QE terms the EZ is behind. In inflation terms the EZ is ramping up its growth, not because it is doing so well but because it was so dire that people being re-employed after the damage inflicted by the Euro and is playing catch-up.
So no the pound is a freaking marvel in comparison to the Euro and I wont claim the pound is doing great but unlike the Euro it has supported its economy aka population.
This post has been deleted by its author
nothing too serious will happen
True. People won't be able to fly, and the queues at Dover will start to grow.
After a few days in the queue things start to get nasty, as mobs of lorry drivers roam the Kent countryside looking for food and water.
After a couple of weeks the rotting food in the lorries has attracted rats, which breed rapidly. Bubonic plague sweeps southern England.
And after a month or two the insulin supply dries up. Theresa May is okay, as she gets private supplies imported by sea from the USA.
The last makes me wonder: would an insulin-dependent diabetic be likely to get off by claiming 'self defence' if the started slaughtering pro-Brexit MPs before the final vote?
"Immediate disaster" rather depends on whether there is a deal and what areas it covers. If there is a no-deal, there will be an immediate halt to the importation of medical isotopes. That might not be a disaster for you, but it would be disaster for those who need them.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
