Thanks for this.

You're keeping some strange company.

The "status quo" versus "fear, uncertainty and doubt". Hmm.

In the spirit of reading a wide range of views
 

You're welcome.
I certainly don't agree with every single point made in that particular article but it does show that there are ways to view the issues which are not expressed generally.
The Institute of Economic Affairs website from whence it came is also worth a look:-

False claims about the Eurozone from the Brexit camp | Institute of Economic Affairs
On the face of it, this article is pro-EU in that it identifies that the Euro currency cannot be fully blamed for the economic woes of some of the major Eurozone countries, namely, Spain, Italy and France.


But it also denigrates the economies of those countries, particularly their endemic protectionist nature, well illustrating why so many nationals of those economies move to the UK for personal employment or to set up businesses.
Can the economies of eastern Europe be any better than those of Spain, France and Italy?


In reading this article it did remind me of a comment made some years ago; the single, sound solution for the problems of the Euro currency is for Germany to leave it.


Should we remain bound to and closely associated with the European economies of this nature or cut away and work in the world markets while also dealing with EU nations as we see fit?


Well, he does have more to say than that and he does deal with the so-called "status quo" in a rather elegant sentence or two.
All to be expected from a professional writer.

Nor, again, do I agree with everything that he says or even less so what he has done in the past - he has "form" in running Northern Rock BS.

I see the recurring theme here: I touched on it earlier - how many levels of government are the optimum, and at what level in our (miserable, worthless) lives?

It gets more and more comical!

A French finance minister claims they will bombard us with refugees:

EU referendum: French minister sparks Calais UK border row - BBC News

This friendly and well thought out idea obviously convinces me that should we stay in we will have a great relationship with our fellow EU citizens who are not a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys who will stab us in the back at the first opportunity. doh

As I drive to work I get radio averts from the UK government (this lot Export Britain | British Chambers of Commerce ) saying there is worldwide demand for our clothing, beer, design services etc. in China other developing markets. This means Dave is spending my money to campaign for both in and out doh

Canada better employ more immigration officials given the Brits are going to try and get in before the Americans!

Andy

Ripostes are coming thick and fast in the media;

One result would be hundreds of thousands of migrants arriving in and around the channel access points, such as Calais, bent on travelling to the UK with the "assistance" of the French authorities; presumably the migrants will be buying their own tickets.

The relevant treaty is the La Touquet treaty which requires 6 months notice by either party for it to end - therefore the UK would have 6 months to establish a turn around area at the UK access points.
Illegal migrants would be returned to France immediately according to some commentary.
Also those seeking asylum should have claimed it in France or at some other first-place-of-safety on their travels so they would also be returned immediately.

Also in the news today
 

More about the TTIP:-
EU referendum: UK could be better off leaving if TTIP passes, Joseph Stiglitz says | Business News | News | The Independent

It's of passing interest that the Labour party organised his speech.

the existence of five presidents is testimony to the bureaucratic skills of the elite
 

About this EMU project:-
Lord Mervyn King: 'Forgive them their debts’ is not the answer

And, if that is not enought reading matter from the former BoE governor, he spills the information that he wouldn't say when he held down the job. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...mer-bank-of-e/

Good article, thanks for sharing

I'm sure you and 50,000 city workers found French president wannabe Macron's comment about rolling out the red carpet to UK banks after brexit highly comical; Monsieur Macron – there is a reason why the sixth largest French city is now LONDON!


Also BMW's chief execuitves' attempts to scare his employees into voting “the correct way” should be interpreted in the context of the Quant family's ownership (step children of that other famous German family the Goebels) of BMW and the investigation of their corrupting German Chancellor Angela Merkel to the tune of €700,000 (small change to these people) and therefore the EU also. Clearly acting on orders, Torsten Muller-Otvos should understand that owning British assets does not correlate with corrupting the British political process too and if BMW hates the prospect of an independent Great Britain this much they know what they can do...

Solvency Vs Liquidity
 

The thread has been running for only about 6 weeks and it has drawn upon some excellent input to the debate, in many cases well ahead of the MSM.

As for the Lord King article, following the links in the website bring out more abstracts from his book, such as
Lord Mervyn King: why throwing money at financial panic will lead us into a new crisis

That particular link reminds me immediately of a post from January in here which remains the best single contribution to this thread to date IMO, in that it summarises so many of the issues that are facing us (all we need now are some feasible solutions):-

What price the Euro?
 

Talking of links within links within websites, this guy knows the inside story about my post from a few weeks ago:
EU superstate would have no democratic legitimacy, warns euro architect*

Worth a look....
 

This is a bit off topic but I found it very interesting and I think both "In" and "Out" thinkers will take something from this.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zlz...lE-I8-NO17jP0Q

No surprise actually
 

Right enough.
Well said Mr Grimsson.

I must admit that I have stayed well away from the subject matter of how the nation of Iceland dealt with the Rothschilds and their bretheren.
That would really get me going! (and I have done a bit of that in the economic crisis thread in this pub).

I do like how Mr G describes the long Icelandic memory that there is concerning our Mr Brown and his threats, bluster and bravado.

Misc other points from the vid:
The complicity of the ratings agencies who are all in on the scam.

Iceland threw away the shadow banking that had set itself up within the country (probably via some variation of corruption), locked up the miscreants that they could get their hands on and returned to what they do best - the real economy.

Thereby, Iceland has moved away from misuse of resources and associated malinvestment -- This is long term; no one should doubt that it is a long-haul process but Iceland has the cohesion to get on and do it.

Anyone remember "ICESave" full page adverts in the UK press, offering 12% interest rates on their savings account?

Especially notable: the USA, in private conversation, didn't give a damn. (in the context of our referendum, Pres Obama has promised to visit the UK sometime before 23 June).

All is quiet at the moment on the Greek debt, but it won't be long before it's hitting the headlines again. What Greece needs is to adopt the drachma again and be forgiven the majority of its debt.

The article above gives an excellent parallel to the treatment of Germany after WWI when the 132B gold marks of reparations that the country committed to pay was whittled down eventually to just 21B marks actually paid, but this money was borrowed and Germany then defaulted on the debt and actually ended up paying nothing.

Another good point from the article: to solve the euro crisis, don't throw out the weak countries (after all, where do you draw the line?), just throw out Germany and much of the problem goes away.

Greek debt:
Nothing will change - my post of about 7 hours ago gave me a jolt because it confirms the political imperative of not losing either the Eurozone project or any particular nation from the 19 members.
Some commentary on the recent G20 meeting indicates that the central bank governors are frustrated with their political masters who won't grasp the nettle (I think I've used that expression at least once before!!!); there again, one lot are elected and the others are not.
Merv King describes the issues very well but offers no solutions basically.

Frau Merkel has a series of elections coming up; I think the first are next month for the federal states, so "no change" will be her rule.
Therein is a big weakness of the EU "democracy" - 28 nations constantly running elections, referenda et al.


Has anyone looked at the recent D Cameron “agreement” for staying in the EU?
There seems to be an amount of comment from some quarters that this is a “final deal”, meaning that if we accept the premise of remaining in the EUnion, via our June referendum, then it is a “final solution” with no going back, ever.
If that is the case, whatever happened to article 50 of the EU Lisbon treaty??
+ how can any such deal made by a current Prime Minister bind a future UK Parliament?

Got through a lot of reading today
 

I have been intending to leave well alone the internal machinations of the current governing party but I can't ignore this recent article.
The EU is our own Hotel California amid Brexit battle writes PETER HITCHENS | Daily Mail Online
It flags up the real possibility of “place men” who will argue a certain point of view while not actually truly supporting the side they claim to support.
Others have been mentioned elsewhere but this article is suffice to confirm that we all need to apply a healthy dose of common sense when absorbing information.
OTOH, any half awake interviewer of such Trojan Horses should be able to deconstruct them.
Hopefully we will get past this in the UK discourse as the arguments are engaged in earnest, in preference to the project FUD.

Look further west, Tim, much further west. Portugal might be in a similar situation shortly given the new government's policies.


Here I don't fully agree with you. First, Greece already had a debt relief many times higher than the relief given to Germany in 1953 with the London Agreement on German Debt which included all outstanding external debt of Germany, both public and private and with a further detail: the Federal Republic assumed the entire debt of 1939's Germany which included territories subsequently taken by Czechoslovaquia, Austria, Poland and the DDR. Second, after the war Germany started a path towards prosperity and that could be seen after 1949. Greece, the exact opposite, does not want to go into a path of prosperity, this being, they really don't want anything else than living out of others' earnings. This being, I believe that yes, they should default and yes, they should go back to the dracma. But let them trail this road by themselves. Let them default by themselves and receive the punishment reserved to defaulters since the XVI century. Let them go back to the dracma and feel in their flesh the consequences of doing so. Only this way, only by allowing them to make their own choices and feel the consequences of their choices they will learn and perhaps (I doubt it but who knows...) some day they will start moving towards prosperity. If they choose not to, well, their problem.


Let's assume throwing out Germany, Netherlands, Finland as well perhaps. Wouldn't, then, the Euro be as worthless as the CFA? :innocent:

No Greek government will accept the bankruptcy bomb exploding in his hands so Greece is tied to the Eurozone. These clowns which govern in Athens nowadays tried to get support from China, Russia and Iran but received negative replies from all corners so the options became acceptance of the conditions and of the third bailout or straight bankruptcy. They are what they are but they are not complete fools willing to risk a bankruptcy with certain full blown civil insurrection following and, most probably, the military stepping in to restore order and get rid of the government in the proccess.

This is what restricts Greece: it's either the Euro, the bailouts with their conditions and all we know or going back probably more than 70 years in quality of life.


Central Banks have been kicking the proverbial can down the road trying to gain some time for governments to act. These, however, run away from the necessary measures as Dracula from garlic because the measures needed in several countries are deeply unpopular in the short term. As a matter of fact I don't think that it is possible that democratic governments do what is necessary right now in countries like Greece or Portugal. So, governments keep relying on central banks and central banks keep doing more of the same. This is reaching the end, though, for unconventional measures are not producing results anymore and when a new full blown crisis explodes nobody really knows what will happen. Not good things, though...


That is utterly absurd.

First there is the Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the provisions for a two years negotiation leading to the exit. And, second, even if it did not exist, let's not forget that the European Union is composed of sovereign countries. England, Ireland, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, etc, etc, are Sovereign, Independent Countries. These are not states, regions, autonomies or whatever regional bodies exist in several countries. These are countries with their own governments, their own constitutions and their own military. If a country decides to declare himself out of the European Union, that country is out of the EU regardless of whatever Brussels screams and cries. Aren't there any consequences? Yes, of course there are consequences but, and this is the fun part, sanctions in EU legislation are very mild. At most the country sees its vote rights suspended. Something irrelevant for a country which declares itself out of the European Union. There are no provisions for the expulsion of a country from the European Union, commercial sanctions or any thing of the sort. At most suspension of its voting rights.

A Brexit blueprint
 

[QUOTE=ridetheworld;531580]i.e. nothing but vague sentiments with no clear vision about what the UK should be and will be without Europe.

doh[/QUOTE
There is clear vision, in contrast to the confused messages from our PM over the last 2-3 years of his pronouncements.

Here is the short version from December 2015: 33 pages in response to the series of one line questions.
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcitlite.pdf
Who knew about the UNECE?

More to come on this subject.
No fear, minimum uncertainty, no doubt, just well constructed dialogue.
And, the leadership that I mentioned much earlier in this thread.

Deconstructing the media
 

"Britain is too poor, too weak and too stupid OR"


https://independentbritain.wordpress...anda-part-two/
A fine expose of the media campaign to do …............................ ...............well, what exactly?
What do the printed media, in their dotage while dying off, think they are achieving?

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Cameron doesn't matter, he doesn't have any power. He's just a PR man and a mediator for the people who put him there. The out crowd speak of sovereignty and power as though more than a semblance of democracy exists in the UK. Just look at the smear campaign against Milliband or Corbyn or the two or so million voters for UKIP who got one MP. Thinking that leaving the EU will change this is absurd, it will only make it worse.

The referendum is the product of a decade or two of negative press and EU bashing by the personal press corps of Murdoch, Barcley, Desmond and Rothermere. You think these lot want what's best for the British people or the future of our country?

It's tempting to vote to stay out just to see who the Tory Press corps blame next for immigration, rising cost of living and sharp decline in wages, inequality and all the other evils they've left at the door of the EU, which are in fact just the logical conclusion of pure free market fundamentalism.

Personally I wonder what's the use of a referendum when public opinion is shaped and framed by a handful of people? Will the UK's problems go away by walking away from Europe? Do you really trust men like Boris Johnson, Murdoch or Gove to speak for you? For me the out campaign is about fear and lies not hope.

Well you're obviously angry, but some of what you write doesn't follow through. Cameron got where he is firstly by being elected as an MP by his constituents, and secondly being elected as PM by the Conservative MPs. Does he have power? Well a good chairman gets action by pulling a board of directors together and any PM who went and did his own thing without the backing of the cabinet wouldn't last very long.

Yes, UKIP and SNP got about the same number of votes yet the SNP got 50 MPs and UKIP got one. It's the way our rather flawed 'first past the post' system works, however in 2011 the UK population decided to continue with that system rather than the 'alternative vote' method. Deciding things in this manner is democracy even though you may not agree with the outcome.

Many in the Conservative Party have been lukewarm about Europe for decades, the decision to put the referendum in the Conservative manifesto was to placate those MPs, not because of some press pressure.

I agree with your first sentence. Most voters haven't bothered to do any research of their own and yes, their opinion will be shaped by a handful of people. This worries me.

On the other hand, do you really trust Cameron, Osborne, et al to portray the facts? For me the IN campaign is about FUD.

How so?
Please refer to my post of a few hours ago for 33 pages of positive plans.

Meanwhile, here is something to cheer you:
The International Rescue Committee: A Trojan Horse of the Globalists? | UK Column
David M has appeared on UK TV by video link from his international HQ to speak about the referendum.
There are no prizes for deducing his POV.

A little reading matter for the HUBB pub on a saturday evening
 

A somewhat interesting insight into how to negotiate like the EEAS do it (yes, I haven't heard of this EEAS before, but we all see them on the world stage):
Empire Building Under The Radar: How Europe Uses Its External Action Service | UK Column

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Good points, I would agree on several of them. I certainly don't trust Cameron or Osbourne, they're micromanagers who were groomed for leadership. I believe they couldn't care less about the UK.

The FPTP vote was deeply regrettable indeed. I don't believe you can have a functioning democracy when half the citizenry are told what to think by a crinkled Australian with US residency and the non-dom tax dodger 'Lord' Rothermere who lives in Monaco.

You're no doubt right about the referendum coming about to assuage the old Tory backbenchers rather than the media corps vilifying and scapegoating the EU. It bears a resemblance to the success of Trump in the US. The chickens coming home so to speak.

And the three big "IN" campaigns are all funded by Goldman sachs and JP morgan......who of course would have the best interests of the British people at heart and not that little city within a city full of fraudsters !!!

All this chit chat about in or out. Is it only me who can see. No matter what way the vote goes', we will be in. What the PM is asking. With the in or out vote is. If out. It give's the Prime Minister a mandate to get a better deal to re join. If we leave, as some one said. We will be back.
John933

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Could you provide evidence for that? And if so, I would agree - Goldman Sachs apparently cooked the books so Greece qualified for EU membership, a disaster and they cooked the books so Osbourne et al could flog off our Royal Mail and cost us billions. They are elitist institutions that have zero accountability or morality. (Though remember it was the UK gov that opposed the 'Robin Hood' bank levy which the EU tried to bring about).

One has to decide for herself, I've looked at EU policies (and provided examples here) and along with my general ideas about the world I think we're better off remaining in and working with our European partners to improve the EU. It's no good looking at what Goldman Sachs or Murdoch want, they're only out for their own interests.

But some of my reasons are selfish too - I like being an EU citizen, I like the idea I can move, work, travel and if needed, collect welfare in other EU countries. I like the idea my kids could escape the £9'000k p/a tuition fees. I think more choice is better. I think the UK has done very well from free movement within the EU.

For me no one has been able to point out just why we ought to leave the EU or what is fundamentally wrong with it - honestly I'd like to know, maybe I'm just uninformed!

For me the Brexit argument goes like this; "don't worry we'll have all the benefits of EU membership, free movement, access to the common market, etc but we won't have to pay for it", which makes me question why leave the EU and if this is really a realistic proposition. I think the EU are going to be pretty unforgiving If we leave. Why should we have all the benefits without the costs?

What's more I'm not convinced in the slightest that leaving the EU will solve immigration, or save the NHS (seriously as if men like Gove, Lansely et al give a **** about the NHS) or dampen the looming trans-atlantic trade deal, etc. Things will only get worse, climate change, mass migration, resource wars and middle eastern instability, unprecedented inequality and corporate unaccountability, these won't pass over the UK simply because we back out and walk away from Europe. If anything, I feel we'll be in less of a position to influence them. We're no longer an island.

The only certainty for leaving that I can see is it'll be Boris versus Corbin rather than Osbourne versus Corbin.

If that is more than just a piece of rhetoric then you really are not reading the narrative that is posted in here, in which case it would be your loss:-

[QUOTE=Walkabout;532389]The above is the short version and provides a start point; much more to come.

Me neither.

Feedback is a gift.

Got this which four clicks on google......not hard to find info on both sides of the argument, you just have to go looking !!

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs fund Britain's pro-Europe referendum group - Business Insider

So bankers are bad. Bankers want remain in the EU. Remaining in the EU is bad. Is that the argument?

After the utter failure of the renegotiations, I'm now pro-Brexit.

All this bollocks about us having a say in Europe was shown to be just what it really is. I think we looked like Oliver twist asking for another bowl of soup and we came away with nothing but words.

It was an event of squabbling, indecision, back stabbing and political tantrums.

I don't want to be part of that circus anymore.

It was certainly Goldman Sachs that signed off the accounts that were used to justify the entry of Greece to the Euro currency; much has been written about that in financial commentary.

Many of the current governors of the central banks have Goldman Sachs in their career/CV.

Unece
 

Formed in 1947, these are the guys who make the key decisions in many areas of competency and who pass on those decisions to the middlemen of the EU who then pass those tablets of stone down to the club members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ion_for_Europe

There are 56 members, not just the current 28 "little Europeans" of the EU; effectively, the EU is a sub-regional grouping when seen from the UN perspective.
The UK was a founder member. So was Russia, as was France but Germany was more of a late-comer along with Canada (correct, Canada).
Many of the ex-soviet countries joined in 1955, at the height of the cold war. Others signed up after the Berlin wall was breached.
Even Israel is a member of this European grouping (see the UN agenda 21); but they take part in the Eurovision song contest also. :innocent:

Lobbying, campaigning etc - he who pays the piper, calls the melody
 

Undoubtedly, funding of lobbying, formally, informally, secretly, semi-secretly and overtly, is the shape of things nowadays.
So, campaigns are not exempt from this; at 10 weeks out from the date of the referendum the electoral commission will announce the "official" campaign groupings - this is vastly important to them all at present because the designated, favoured, groups will receive public funds for their own particular POV.

As but one more example, here's another case of how funds are allocated to "pressure groups", some of whom are very secret about where the money comes from:-

"This is apparent in the government's review of the balance of competences concerning the environment.807 There, we see the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) expressing the view that the EU's water directives "have been instrumental in delivering improvements in river water quality". The Royal Society also attributed improvements in air quality to EU action and thought that the EU's ambitious climate change targets could provide a competitive advantage over countries which are slower to act.
Yet, nowhere in the entire review is there any indication that the RSPB has been the beneficiary of grants to the value of €14 million from the EU, to support various projects. Nor is there any indication that the international arm of the RSPB, Birdlife International, with offices in Brussels, was lead recipient of funds to the extent of €25,680,683, paid by the European Commission between 2007 and 2012. Furthermore, while the RSPB presents information about itself in the evidence submitted to the review, it makes no reference to its EU funding sources."

Note: this cash came from the European Commission.

Yep
 

I think you are right.

The EU grant is clearly and separately identified and commented on in the published RSPB Report & Accounts. Are you suggesting that there have not been improvements in air and river water quality? If not, I don't see your point.

My point was clearly stated in the heading to the posting: lobbying, campaigning etc. - all this in the context of a national referendum.
(as it happens the earlier link referring to GS and JPM shows that there are major players funding both sides of the great debate).

Few people read accounts (the last ones I consulted were for the charity Kids company when that went down the tubes).
In the government review that I referenced the funding of the RSPB in their own lobbying "role" was not clearly identified.
Many NGOs do this; in NZ, at least one major NGO has lost its' charitable status because of their activities.

How you link my post to a questioning of air and water quality when I am referring to lobbying etc is kind of weird.

Nope. Not getting it.

The EU grant to the RSPB didn't stop them heavily criticising the European budget deal in 2013. You think they should declare their EU grant status every time they speak or maybe not praise any EU activity because of their status as EU grant recipients?

Government, lobbying - simple really
 

Where did I say that?

The government review is taking evidence from those who have their own agendas.
We all do it; some are paid to say what they say.

Were the RSPB incentivised to say what they said about river water and air quality?

Council of Europe
 

Here's another player in the mix, founded in 1949 it was considered to be "not good enough" by the guy Monnet who was a driving force for establishing the Common Market/EEC/EU.

The Council of Europe, like the UNECE, is a broader organisation than the EU but not quite as widely based as the UNECE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

For some competencies the EU approach is one of subordination to the CoE.
e.g.
"The European Union is expected to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). There are also concerns about consistency in case law – the European Court of Justice (the EU's court in Luxembourg) is treating the Convention as part of the legal system of all EU member states in order to prevent conflict between its judgements and those of the European Court of Human Rights (the court in Strasbourg interpreting the Convention). Protocol No. 14 of the Convention is designed to allow the EU to accede to it and the EU Treaty of Lisbon contains a protocol binding the EU to join. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are"

We are all incentivised by ..................... you complete the sentence as you see fit.

How would you complete it in the context of your original post about the RSPB?

Once more, my subject has not been the RSPB but lobbying.
It is you who is fixated on the RSPB.

More about lobbying: your sensibilities might find this continuing quote more palatable, although it doesn't alter anything that I have contributed so far.

What is not generally realised is the extent to which NGOs and other "civil society" organisations are funded directly or indirectly by the EU. Environmental NGOs in particular benefit from a dedicated EU fund known as the LIFE+ programme. Authorised by Regulation (EC) No 614/2007, it declares that "non-governmental organisations contribute to the development and implementation of Community environmental policy and legislation. It is therefore appropriate for part of the LIFE+ budget to support the operations of a number of appropriately qualified environmental NGOs through the competitive and transparent awarding of annual operating grants".

Incidentally, Greenpeace does not receive such funding from the European Commission and it is Greenpeace that is no longer recognised as a bona fide charity by the government of NZ.

Lobbying: fact of life.

You quoted the RSPB. Where they lobbying? If so, my question stands. Do you believe the RSPB was incentivised to make your quoted comments about the river water and air quality?

In out shake it all about !!!
 

So you want "In".......fancy being treated like this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCHu1kRT6hU

Ode to Joy
 

Matthew Hancock, speaking up for our government, is taken apart by Andrew Neil – on BBC TV recently and placed here in a blog for posterity.
(our modern day masters must love the internet).

This also shows the arguments for how necessary it was for us to join the Eurozone, back in 2003, and who among the great and the good said that at the time - some of them are hectoring us now about our referendum doh

UK Unleashed - News
See 4 March 2016 blog entry.

Thanks for the new word.

Poor old Royal Society
 

Hands up, I absolutely hate the RSPB with the deepest of hatred and I am out to shoot them down at every opportunity.
YMMV.
I have a bit of a downer on the RSPA also by the way. :innocent:
PDSA is OK though.

I've just checked the bird feeders outside and all 5 of them are at least half full and doing just fine - only a few pigeons are getting a bit less than the tom tits though.
:rofl:

Par for the course of the ECB; the bank we were told to join back in 2003.
That vid leads on to another of just a few minutes duration (posted on youtube 2011) that comes up with Goldman Sachs, yet again:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoJthzxpn7A

Naturally, the current head of the ECB used to work for Goldman Sachs.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

As Wildman said, it's really no good looking to people or groups whom you usually disagree to make a decision on brexit. Not only is it a logical fallacy, the brexit has split right down party lines. For me I'd either be in bed with Murdoch or Cameron, not exactly moral bed fellows.

Thing is though Ted, will it look any better if we walk away? For us or for Europe?

Notice you failed to mention that two large hedgefunds are bankrolling the brexit campaign. Talk about cherry picking!

Spoil sport! I saving that one.

UK shenanigans
 

For a minute I thought you were going to let rip and really tell it how it is.

The post in here of 4 march is worth your consideration.
Vote to Leave the EU
the earlier posts in that blog are also relevant to your distress.
e.g.

“We should be bloody angry about the way Cameron on the one hand, and ignorant Parliamentary bench stuffers on the other, are stealing our people’s referendum away from ordinary voters. There is nothing grassroots about the campaigns to date. They are all by politicians, for politicians, with the grassroots asked to clap and cheer them in the right places, and get out and do the donkey work with clipboards and leaflets, while the political star turns waltz in and out of TV and radio studios parading their stupidity.”

There is common ground and I will come back to the matter - I've been reading other places, again.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

You're so heavy on the brexit stuff- but why do you believe we should leave? What are your personal reasons for wanting to go? For every pro-brexit article I could shoot back five pro-remain articles. For me there are many facets of the eu, and while I'm pretty disgusted at the treatment of Greece and little doubt corporations, especially the banks, hold way too much influence over it, seems to me that our press, media and political establishment are so far right, anything which is going to counter balance this is for me, a good thing. As I've said already I believe most of the problems laid at the door of the EU are actually problems inherent within neo-liberal economics which has been dogmatically pursued by successive governments since the 1970's and the EU has made a very useful scapegoat.

I can see that you haven't read the 100+ page report that I posted a few days ago, nor the 33 page report posted more recently.

Right wing, left wing, any old wing means nothing to me personally.

Sure there are many facets to the EU but it is only a part of Europe*, a trading bloc with increasing centralist plans to form it's own single government.
Where the concept of the common market has come from over the past 40 years is not an indication of where it is going in the next 40 years.

I prefer the world wide view of where the UK will stand in the future, rather than the single government of 28, no doubt more in the future, diverse societies.

*A sub-regional entity

By the way - peering through the fog
 

Richard North writes succinctly and quite eloquently in reviewing the current build up to the referendum campaign, including aspects of current media output and the various players who have made their pronouncements.
EU Referendum

Sanctions
 

By any reasonable criteria of thinking mankind we should be trading with, for example, Russia in agriculture alone - but the grand gesture politics of the EU, at the behest of the USA, deem this to be beyond the pale.
?c?

The point of protectionism as the name suggests is to protect your own skills and internal markets. Who to protect depends on the current power base. The leader of the peasants party may sign a deal letting foreign machinery in in exchange for letting agricultural produce out but won't keep his job if the opposite happens.

The EEC as a blanket deal where there was no protectionism was great, except it never really happened, it just became an under the table game of subsidies and regulation.

The EU as a single entity looking outwards does not have the leadership required to sacrifice one industry's protection against anothers external trade. They wont let Russian wheat be traded for German cars because the French farmers will want to burn the lot. If they felt like Europeans the French farmers may just give up and go get jobs at BMW, but it would still hurt.

The UK alone can make these deals because we can't be in the business of anything that needs thousands of acres of land to be efficient. Russian wheat for Insurance and design skills upsets no-one. We let our own motorcycle and ship building industries die to protect our financial markets etc.

If we unfortunately stay in, we have to abandon any thoughts of Britishness and get a hundred million other people to also see themselves as Eurostatesians even when that means getting the ****y end of the stick for the common good. Learning their silly games to trample on fellow members to have the cake and eat it is beneath us. Nice guys finish last though.

Andy

How many do you think did?

Representing 68% of Europe as a whole, a market of more than 500 million consumers.

Where's it going?

Thanks for that. I'm not certain I agree that societies will become more diverse within Europe but good to hear your perspective rather than have to read your cut & pastes and links.

I was kind of with you until that non-sequitor.

Can you justify that statement?

Another pop at France and its' protection racket
 

The French have always been at the heart of the protection racket.

A little more about France; an abstract mainly from elsewhere with a few extras:-



France has many many problems - but potentially, they have the talent and resilience to overcome some of them, at least.
the French, however... and especially via the nascent HQ in Brussels.... seem to have no way of defending the raids on European funds from the Eastern Bloc and the related disaster in Greece. For some reason they cannot stop that rot. And, they hide behind a heap of bureaucracy and the thought that "something will be done, somehow" (by somebody else, or by luck).
Meanwhile their "suits" coming out of Ecole Polytechnique are contemptuous of their own people, their country and their people's future; much like certain UK politicians.
Surely the French (or anyone else) cannot believe Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Moldova* have anything to offer the good people in Europe but grief, criminality and expense ?

All these countries are primed to join the EU soon. Like the rest of EBloc, the result for France will be more unemployment and more imported criminals and freeloaders.
(*Even if Moldova does not join the EU soon, about 1m of its' citizens were issued Romanian passports a few years ago as part of the internal politics between those two nations).


There is a "good" Europe to be had.
Build a border across East Germany and draw the line down to include Italy. Phone up Norway and persuade them back in.
Everywhere else (including Greece, unfortunately) is kicked out.
Put the Germans in charge of infrastructure and engineering, Scandinavians in charge of social care and logic, Italians and French for design and agriculture, English for Banking and Law.

No land is necessary
 

There are two specific areas of business activity for which the EU are completely behind the curve of the graph - these are the rapidly growing, worldwide activities of financial services and the digital economy.
Neither require real estate and they both transcend boundaries of all natures which is why the EU is befuddled in their dealings with them.

Ask someone from San Francisco their nationality and chances are they will say American (or Mexican :innocent: ). Few will say Californian. The Swiss, Canadians, Australians, other members of federated nations will name their nation not state/canton/province. They may complain when one sub-division gets a better deal but feel part of the whole enough to take the hit.

I am not a European. No such country exists, it is a geographical concept with a mis-sold inefficient trading block at its current core. You may as well call an Irish passport holder British as he lives on the geographical British Isles, or try and find the Scandinavian embassy. I do feel British because for close to a thousand years the varied inhabitants of these islands have pretty much pulled together and got on better than most. We have so much in common few can tell us apart. They mostly had no choice because English Kings were hard ******s, but it worked. The first 800 years were pretty nasty mind.

If we are to be annexed we need to start the process of giving up our thoughts of Britishness in the way the Texans mostly gave up theirs. I don’t want to, but we’ve tried the fudged middle ground and its worse. It’s like living in Yugoslavia but still thinking as a Serb or Croatian. We know how well that and the Hapsburg Empire before turned out with unwilling minorities all trying to get one over on the rest.

I hope people see sense. The UK exists and works and can function in the world. The EU-States hasn’t even admitted that’s what it wants to be, it keeps ducking the questions.

Andy

We're being annexed? Where does that come from?

I don't get where any of the rest of your post comes from.

Wow. Just wow! I don't even know where to start.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Hi Andy,

I don't quite follow the part about the French but the reasons our industries were sold off or dismantled is either because they were inefficient or because they were sacrificed on the alter of neoliberlism and top-down globalization, not because of the EU. If anything, industry and commerce seem overwhelmingly anti-brexit, not that that makes the EU right but it's a good indicator for me that the EU is perceived as overall, good for British industry. Incidentally Andy, I'd be interested to know what 'britishness' is to you?



I've read the lot but see very little but hyperbole. 33 pages and still no concrete reason to leave the EU. I mean the post above articulates it well. Do you really believe we'll have one government in Europe? Can you point to legislation or current framework that even suggests this? You keep posting articles but fail to provide us what you actually think?

Beware the ides of 10 March
 

A quick look at what may be in store for the Eurozone in a couple of days:
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/03...uins-pensions/

The 21st century has a consistent evidence of proof of change.

Adopt, improve & overcome, the EU is not & shall not be immune to this methodology.

It requires its members to governance adherence, the HQ element should also lead by example & the current status quo isn't working.

Unaccountable to FOI requests= open to abuse.
The political environment both domestic & EU level must be on a level playing field, individual countries have a right to self control & governance and the EU has no right to withdraw this element unless they themselves are independently regulated.


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

Because that's connected to this discussion how?

Flexcit
 

Then you may be ready for the full document which was finalised last month:
http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf
It does run to over 400 pages so eat the elephant in bite sized chunks – there are a few weeks to go before anyone needs to make up their own mind and you did ask for explanations of how it could work out.

France, again
 

The EU is at the very best a tower of Babel, at worst a sneaky "nazi" project. In any case only mental retards can come up with the idea of merging 28 divergent cultures (+ an indeterminate number of future entrants) into one (monster) multi-cultural entity.
Napoleon, the dictator, the thief, the guy who did not give a f***about the French so-called revolutionary ideals (fraternity, egality + one more buzz word), and only pillaged the countries he invaded, (all of the Louvre is Italian stuff robbed by him) needed to use FORCE to temporarily create a "fake" common entity (under French rule).
Ask the Maltese what they thought of French rule between 1799 and 1801 before the Brits kicked them off the island.


Whither an EU police force and a standing army when the Eurozone financial regulatory system collapses?


The Romans did infinitely better, and gave the Roman citizenship to rather huge numbers but, there again, they needed legions.
How many “legions” does the EU require today?
And when the legions were no longer effective, because of the perverse Christian religion, the self-serving, thieving imperial bureaucracy back at HQ (like that in Brussels) and most of all the dramatic acceptance of the barbarians (Goths) inside their borders (perhaps Muslim culture today), everything broke down.
The consequences of the break down we still call the "dark ages".


One of the key elements of the fall of Rome, was because numerous Emperors chose not to balance the books. They issued more and more coinage (with their head on it) with the hope that just the name alone would support its value ( think of QE x 1000) Eventually, that bluff was called by all those armies and governors and regions that were "Roman" by order, but without a single Italian-like bloke in the ranks.
Maybe a Western European "club" (not federal) that consisted of the traditional power nations of Europe is a tolerable concept - mixing their talents and general moral commonality.
This would, of course, exclude the EBloc/Balkans and the periphery toward Turkey. Is it likely? No.

Okay, I'm out.

Splitter! :rofl:

Andy

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Me too! Roman legions, EU superstate, ad nausea. In no way have I seen any argument for Brexit that makes any sense whatsoever.

I liked your post very much, Walkabout and the falacy of the EU was born precisely from where you said, from the utopia of being viable to put 28 countries together, twenty eight different histories, different interests, different geopolitical influences, different all. It never was and there were already several warnings on that respect. The war on Iraq was perhaps the most notorious but there were several others thru times and right now the refugee thing is the most important but there are several others in the shadows but nevertheless present. The Russian sanctions, for instance.

All in all I'm in agreement with what you wrote. Let me put a small note on something you wrote at the end of your post.


Since the beginning I've always had the implosion of the European Union as a matter of when, not an "if" thing. For a long time I hoped that from the rubble it would be possible to recreate the EEC which, indeed, was a good thing. Nowadays, although I am still hopeful, rationally I don't see it happening. It's a sort of wishful thinking, let's call it that. With time countries and societies developed resentment against each other due to perceived injustices. In certain country pairs this grew way too big to allow any sort of Union in the near future. Even a mere commercial union. And that I regret.

Let me ask you one thing just for my personal clarification. I ask it for it looks like possible from everything you've written on this topic. Are you communist? Even new-age communist like the sorts of Syriza and Podemos?

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Seriously?

It's a shame for those who don't wish to consume the large mammal.
There is a great amount of material in there concerning the issues.
In fact, it deals with every single issue that has been discussed in here so far + quite a few more.

Nor do I agree with every single POV contained therein, but the folks who put that together did an amazing job in both the research and the drafting of the book.

Meanwhile, I came upon this just tonight:

The European Union has "legal personality" since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. That the EU has legal personality is a prerequisite for the EU to join the European Convention onDr Human Rights (ECHR).
(from wikipedia).
Legal Personality is an important principle of all manner of laws, criminal, civil/contract/commercial.

Big Brussels leadership knows best
 

Best not mention this in front of the UK public before June 23:-
Is Brussels killing the Paris climate dream? | Climate Home - climate change news

In that respect, Napoleon was right - traditionally, it takes brute force to bang together the heads of established nation states or other societal entities.
(my earlier post about the USA civil war, the establishment of a single form of government for China and the USSR refers).

Today, the EU, via the ECB and the Euro experiment that remains in progress, is using economic warfare to beat the southern Europe countries into submission.
What happens if that fails is yet to be seen: the Euro experiment continues.

You have a much closer example in the heart of Europe, the unification of Germany by Bismarck. From the start of the customs union between the German States, the Zollverein, to the effective unification under Prussia required three wars: the Schleswig-Holstein Question War (between Prussia and Austria on one side and Denmark on the other), the Austro-Prussian War and, finally, the Franco-Prussian War in which the remaining states resisting unification under Prussia lost their main backer, France, when this was defeated in 1871.


The Euro is an example of the application of the utopia. Northern and Southern countries have radically different approaches to money. A German and a Portuguese see money in radically different ways. For Germans (and others) money is something that you earn, conserve and invest in order to multiply the original amount. For Portuguese (and Greeks and others) money is something that when you have it you spend it in order to live the good life. The problems surrounding the current trouble in Southern European countries arise mostly because of this. The likes of Portugal, Greece, even Spain and Italy did not know how to live with a strong currency given that their whole recent history had been lived with the cycles of devaluation-inflation. When, all of a sudden, these countries started living with a strong currency they really didn't know what to do with it so they did what they knew better: borrow and spend. It was not surprising, at all.

I started writing about the possible bankruptcy of Portugal around 2000, 2001. Already then with what was being done it was clear where it would lead.

The only time in the last 200 years when the Portuguese lived with a strong currency was during the Salazar dictatorship and it worked under that regime. Even so the PTE wasn't nearly as strong as the Euro but strong, nevertheless, compared with what the PTE became in democracy. With each party having to earn (read, buy) votes among the populace there was financial and economic insanity and it quickly collapsed. In 1973 1 USD equaled around 24 PTE. In 1980 it was around 1 USD for 50 PTE. In 1985 around 170 PTE. From then onward it appreciated slightly and when of the introduction of the Euro the exchange rate hovered around 1USD for 150 PTE.

Good examples of the split personality of the EU.

The Germans spoke the same language, had similar cultures and still didn't manage to bring Austria, half of Switzerland, a chunk of the Czech republic etc. onboard. The successful federal states start with an almost empty landscape.

Andy

If we go behind in history, the German States, at times including Austria, at times not, had been under some form of union, at times looser, at times tighter, since at least the VII Century with Charlesmagne. Then they had the Holy Roman Empire, the First Reich. Even with this ancestral closeness, a full political union as we know it nowadays (which, even though, it's much looser than most European countries regions), the one done by Bismarck (Second Reich), required several years and three wars.

Other countries had similar histories. The unification of Italy is a tale of wars throughout the centuries. Even Switzerland as we know it today was a work in progress since the XIII Century up to the Congress of Vienna in 1815 when finally its borders were recognized. And it goes on and on.

Similarly several countries (Britain for starters) have separatist regions in their countries. The Brits with Scotland, the French with Corsica and French Basque Country, the Danes have the never ending story of the Faroe Islands and, of course, there isn't even the need to mention Spain and Belgium.

These (and others which I didn't mention) are the societies which the EU «utopises» to blend together under Nation Europe. It's crazy, It has always been crazy, it will be crazy for as long as it lasts.

It's -0.4%
 

Very recent commentary is shown below, abstracted from the website above, about the options open to Draghi.

The ECB governor has gone for the second option; the negative in all senses = -0.4% rate of interest.


The pointless option open to Dragula is yet more QE. I’m told even he now accepts this isn’t going to have any effect, but he will continue with QE anyway, as sounding doubtful about it would cause a selling panic and drop the euro by six points. As the US and Japan found, heroin is great at first, but then you need it to feel normal. Once detox is necessary, there is only cold turkey and diarrorhea.
The negative would be to plunge the pendulum further down the conversion of Zirp into Nirp pit. This is the expectation now, so as with so many of these ‘policy’ statements, Dragnet must do this at least. I posted last weekend about why this is a terrible idea, and that more or less guaranteed it being adopted.
The foolhardy but entirely sensible approach would be to tell Schäuble, the Bundesbank, Drizzlebang’s f**kwitted eurogrope and all the other austeritistas to grow up and accept the need for a change in strategy. While I do think that very unlikely indeed (for political, not economic, reasons) I did learn yesterday that Draghi is likely to drop in a reference along the lines of “we must look to sovereign governments for new ideas about economic stimulation, the monetary toolbag being empty” – albeit not quite that bluntly…..although that would be accurate: the only monetary solution left open to Signora Dragqueen is to bring down all the Monets lining the ECB corridors, and flog them off

The only other strategy possible is to normalize interest rates, end APP and end TLTRO. As a matter of fact there is a very strong case for the ECB to do so under its statutory mandate. This would, of course, spell the immediate (within six months maximum) bankruptcy of Portugal, Greece, probably also of Spain and Italy, and the exit of these countries from the Euro. There aren't many takers for such action. No one wants to go down in history as the responsible for the implosion of the Euro and of a few other things with it, the European Union among them.

One note about austerity. What has been called austerity in some countries is not austerity at all. It's merely going back to living within ones means. Several countries lived on credit for several years. That is over so they have to adapt their expenditures to their earnings. There is always the alternative of bankruptcy but since the XVI century the results of such have never been all that great, at least in the short term. Of course one can always argue that if Germany donated money to this and that countries the problem would be solved (at least for a decade) but I really don't see German taxpayers being happy with their money being donated to societies which don't know how to govern themselves.

I mentioned a while ago that we are due to get a visit from Pres Obama to tell us how it will be best for the USA if the UK remains a member of the EU.
Here's the analogy:
The American Union? | Matt Ridley

Abstracted from above:
"Most Americans I know think Britain would be mad to leave the EU, but that’s because they think the EU is like Nato or Nafta or the Organisation of American States — a club of nations bound by a treaty. They think it is a trading bloc. They do not appreciate that it is a common government, run by a common bureaucracy and answerable to a common court system."
footnote;
And since 2009 it now has "legal personality", as per an earlier posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

Nor do many Brits know about these aspects.

Steady as she goes, and full steam ahead
 

Unfortunately, I very much doubt that detailed deconstruction of the follies of the Euro machinations will win much interest in the referendum debate - within project FUD it would serve no purpose.
Certainly, the ECB has broken lots of its' own rules to the point of illegality, and no one gives a damn.
During our current referendum discourse I have yet to hear anyone of our great and good, via our MSM, get even near to serious discussion about the future of the Eurozone.

Perhaps post in the HUBB pub thread that relates to the economic crisis which will remain extant across Europe and everywhere else no matter what comes of our referendum?

Certainly so.
Personally, I have spent a life time living within my means but some of my relatives have seen things differently - as you say, it's the same with nations; it's the credit card analogy.
Such diversity is great when we are visiting countries (and for that matter living/working elsewhere) but "banging their heads together until they submit" can only end in a very ugly way.

The lady's not for turning
 

A female angle, by a Ukipper:-
Why women should vote to leave the EU

There lies the logical argument for a truly single* government for the EU, or at least for the Eurozone members - and hence the concept of two, or more, versions of the EU; an inner circle of those who use the Euro as their currency and an outer circle of those who have their own sovereign currency in perpetuity.
The issue then arises about how do those using their own currencies prop up the Euro when it is "struggling" and, for that matter, vice versa.
I guess recourse to the IMF is one answer.

*Slowly, step by step, it is getting there but the big hurdles remain fiscal union combined with greater integration of laws,especially the enforcement of such laws via the courts, a common police force and other judicial enforcement bodies (bailiffs, standing armed forces, border forces etc).

It isn't possible, Walkabout. We are very far from the 1990s euphoria when being against the European Union immediately labeled the ones against it as dissidents, outcasts and, sometimes, outright fascists, nazis and silly mambo-jambo of the sort.

Neither the societies from the wealthier countries accept it nor the ones from the poorer countries. The wealthier see further integration as something which will dig deeper unto their pockets on top of what these countries have contributed to European coesion during the last decades. The poorer countries, right now, see Germany as the source for all their trouble and see further integration as a way for Germany to boss them around even more than they feel Germany does today.

At the beginning the Euro wasn't supposed to be as widely extended as it later became. Italy was to be the line in the sand. However then prime-minister of Spain, José Maria Aznar, torpedoed this thinking when he placed Spain en route to comply with the criteria for adopting the Euro. Now, if Spain was accepted then Italy couldn't possible stay out neither could Portugal. Greece soon followed and in the end the adoption of the euro became mandatory for all EU countries except for the United Kingdom and Denmark which both have opt-outs. All other countries must, eventually, join the common currency.

Without Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy the Euro wouldn't need any prop-up. Quite the opposite in fact for the Euro without these countries would be way too strong and only with time and the normal functioning of the currency markets would weaken it a bit. But, in any event, it would be a much stronger currency than nowadays. The question now becomes if such strong currency would be adequate for the likes of France or, right now, Finland or if even this smaller version of the Euro would be too big. There are several lunacies in the Euro and this is just one of them. One of the reasons why it couldn't possibly function in the long term.

and now it looks like we are getting Turkey in the affray with a nice bit of blackmailing of the EU, marvellous, so pleased we are an island and still have border control

Wayne

A week is a very long time in dealing with the French.
 

I imagine that the UK PM has his fingers crossed that this one hangs together for a few more months.

It's just about a week since the UK PM pressed the flesh, again, with the Frenchman for building a nuclear power plant to provide about 7% of the UK future power requirement at a unit charge nearly 3x greater than current pricing for electricity – but it couldn't be anything whatsoever to do with the UK referendum though.
Mr Hollande did say “there will be consequences” in the event of a UK Brexit vote, so maybe he will prop up EDF until after 23 June, but thereafter he has elections next year.
EDF 'confident' Hinkley Point nuclear power station will go ahead - BBC News
Meanwhile a socialist French government that owns 85% of EDF is being asked by EDF to provide financial reassurance for the construction of a UK power generation plant, or they could go bust on this project.

“Imagine British Gas owners Centrica got into financial trouble after sinking billions into a French power station. And then imagine that the bill for rescuing it fell on to (UK) taxpayers. That is essentially the risk facing EDF and the French government”

Possible future without cash, based on a gold standard
 

There is another possibility, and that would be the renewed establishment of a gold standard.
This is not a subject that I know much about, but there is discussion online about how it could be accomplished, including this commentary from a Belgium:
http://www.jcaschipper.nl/2013/07/dr...gold/#more-634

Then, there is the BofE interest in developing their own crypto-currency which would put the central bank in a strong position to eventually banish paper cash; the RScoin.
https://thestack.com/cloud/2016/03/1...native-rscoin/