Is the end nigh for the Euro? [vol. 3]

[LongQ]

stongle said:

UK political infighting has little to do with collapse of the EU. Thread is going of topic.

Especially as the Euro's future is controlled by the ECB. Or rather would be unless we see a switch from Monetary to Fiscal policy. It's difficult to see how additional stimulus will improve the Eurozone, so common sense (often in short supply) might suggest another approach. I certainly think the UK needs to consider this post referendum result. Especially if you review the demographic of the majority leave voters - if you hadn't made it into the upper middle class / equity owners now; your pretty screwed.

Too early to tell for the UK, but the Eurozone needs radical restructure.

It might just be that the radical restructure you espouse would be best catalyzed by a combination of the UK Leave vote and some ensuing uncertainty about what could happen.

To be frank I think those who have been natural Remainers (possibly partly because they have known nothing other than membership of course) are pretty much screwed on several fronts already. Indeed anyone not already retired on an EU style generous pension scheme, Civil Service plan or something gold plated in the way of final salary. Many of the "ordinary" workers around my way worked for Public Utilities - power stations for example - and were fortunate enough to be able to take early retirement at 50 or so. Generous terms and index linked pensions seem to have left them very comfortably off in ways that later generations will be challenged to match no matter whether in or out of some wider geographical political structure.

I note that today is Independence Day in the USA. So they clearly feel that making their own decisions was important and worth fighting for. Since then they have celebrated that success.

Perhaps we should encourage people to demand a public holiday for Referendum Day? An extra day off work would probably be worth a million or more votes when the referendum is re-run.

Of course it won't be re-run. Not unless the opposite result would be guaranteed.

Having U-turned on EU membership requirements Dave screwed up by rushing things through. Those tasked with setting out guidance for how to set up and run a referendum suggest that the lead in period should be around 18 months as a minimum. That was based on lessons learned - obviously such lessons and advice by-passed the Oxford Graduate team. As they say - you can always tell and Oxford man but you can't tell him much.

There have been reports that people like Branson have suggested that the Referendum result should be ignored. It is, after all, only an opinion and the politicians could easily ignore the apparent will of the people.

In some ways that would seem to be an honest message from Branson, Kinnock and many others. Democracy, however tenuously the original philosophical concept may be applied, is not to be trusted. The people, being most often pretty much split 50:50 when voting whether they understand the issues or not, are irrelevant as a crowd, and so strong bureaucratic guidance is the only way forward. More Europe but with less politics and greater integration of political and, of course, fiscal integration.

Then, just maybe, Germany will realise that as part of that approach places like little Greece have to be hugged just as West Germany hugged East Germany a generation back. The Greek problems will be European problems without any of the devisive "Nationhood" issues that mess thing up at the moment.

Having established that the Greeks will be able to welcome Turkey to the EU with open arms and Cyprus can be made whole once more.

At that point, should it be reached, the nature of Continent-wide politics will have changes and so the logic of a common currency would pass without question. The so called "wealth generating" areas of the Union would, without question, support the areas that struggled to produce wealth, just as happens now within country boundaries - except for those matters of wealth re-distribution where the EU claims competence and demands funds from countries just to give the bureaucrats a salary for the receipt and return of the cash to those who have handed it over in the first place.

Until the European Continent reaches that integrated state the Euro will always look rocky without wasteful support for the sake of support. Not "progress". Just support.

Will the EU and its controlling bureaucrats ever be able to achieve the total integration they desire by continuing to run things as they are currently run? I would suggest not - or at least not in a timely period. They have already displayed a penchant for using (or even creating) crises to try and deliver change (perhaps even progress). The UK referendum vote it really just another chance for them to make a crisis work on their favour. The only problem is that they were not expecting the result and it was not their plan so they have no follow up actions prepared. Hence the apparent panic and xenophobic reactions.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks.

[superlightr]

how does the finances of the EU look after we leave the EU ie we no longer pay our membership fee.

Does the EU trim its spending/redistribution ?
Does the EU borrow more?
Do the remaining countries pay more?


Does the EU run a overdraft?

[GoodOlBoy]

LongQ said:

There have been reports that people like Branson have suggested that the Referendum result should be ignored. It is, after all, only an opinion and the politicians could easily ignore the apparent will of the people.

In some ways that would seem to be an honest message from Branson, Kinnock and many others. Democracy, however tenuously the original philosophical concept may be applied, is not to be trusted. The people, being most often pretty much split 50:50 when voting whether they understand the issues or not, are irrelevant as a crowd, and so strong bureaucratic guidance is the only way forward. More Europe but with less politics and greater integration of political and, of course, fiscal integration.

We've increasingly had more Europe and less democracy for the last few decades and that doesn't seem to be working too well.

Bureaucratic governance without the accountability of a democratic process is effectively dictatorship. For all it's faults I prefer democracy.

You're basically repeating elements of the mandate contained in the founding principles of European Federalism going as far back as the 1930's.

Namely to homogenise the European population by encouraging mass immigration from outside Europe and the removal of internal borders. To then govern the mass population or "Quantity people" by a "Quality people" a non-elected political elite.

Not for me thanks.

[chris watton]

GoodOlBoy said:

We've increasingly had more Europe and less democracy for the last few decades and that doesn't seem to be working too well.

Bureaucratic governance without the accountability of a democratic process is effectively dictatorship. For all it's faults I prefer democracy.

You're basically repeating elements of the mandate contained in the founding principles of European Federalism going as far back as the 1930's.

Namely to homogenise the European population by encouraging mass immigration from outside Europe and the removal of internal borders. To then govern the mass population or "Quantity people" by a "Quality people" a non-elected political elite.

Not for me thanks.

I agree. And who decides who is 'Quantity People' and who is 'Quality People'. And what exactly does that mean?

[superlightr]

chris watton said:

GoodOlBoy said:

We've increasingly had more Europe and less democracy for the last few decades and that doesn't seem to be working too well.

Bureaucratic governance without the accountability of a democratic process is effectively dictatorship. For all it's faults I prefer democracy.

You're basically repeating elements of the mandate contained in the founding principles of European Federalism going as far back as the 1930's.

Namely to homogenise the European population by encouraging mass immigration from outside Europe and the removal of internal borders. To then govern the mass population or "Quantity people" by a "Quality people" a non-elected political elite.

Not for me thanks.

I agree. And who decides who is 'Quantity People' and who is 'Quality People'. And what exactly does that mean?

so a sort of master race controlling the masses of unwashed? with their own army to exert their authority/right to govern if their political message is not understood.

[GoodOlBoy]

superlightr said:

so a sort of master race controlling the masses of unwashed? with their own army to exert their authority/right to govern if their political message is not understood.

More a master group than a master race. A non-elected group of political elite, of superior moral and intellectual background, who would govern the homogenous European populace.

I forgot to mention that a common currency was considered an essential tool for achieving these goals.

Edited by GoodOlBoy on Monday 4th July 15:02

[Jockman]

superlightr said:

how does the finances of the EU look after we leave the EU ie we no longer pay our membership fee.

Does the EU trim its spending/redistribution ?
Does the EU borrow more?
Do the remaining countries pay more?


Does the EU run a overdraft?

We will still have to pay some sort of fee apparently, though I can't determine it with any real degree of accuracy.

[LongQ]

chris watton said:

GoodOlBoy said:

We've increasingly had more Europe and less democracy for the last few decades and that doesn't seem to be working too well.

Bureaucratic governance without the accountability of a democratic process is effectively dictatorship. For all it's faults I prefer democracy.

You're basically repeating elements of the mandate contained in the founding principles of European Federalism going as far back as the 1930's.

Namely to homogenise the European population by encouraging mass immigration from outside Europe and the removal of internal borders. To then govern the mass population or "Quantity people" by a "Quality people" a non-elected political elite.

Not for me thanks.

I agree. And who decides who is 'Quantity People' and who is 'Quality People'. And what exactly does that mean?

Well, my daughters and their partners, aged early 30s, have never known non-EEC/EU times so for them it is change to a previously unexperienced state and people don't like change. Plus most of their education has been about being told how to obtain exam results and although they can and do think for themselves in many ways their depth of knowledge seems to lack breadth in many areas and where there is breadth there seems to be little depth. Politics is something assiduously ignored, or so they claim. It seems that politics in not a cool subject. In the main the same comments apply to their friends.

They and their friends all have good degrees or, at worst, degree equivalent qualifications from respected Universities.

They have on the past expressed the opinion that they can't influence anything anyway so why no just go with the flow ....

I only know one young person who shows a specific and involved interest in politics.

More recent education, starting from primary school, seems to be dedicated to the same concepts of "given wisdom" and even deeper indoctrination.

It would seem to be part of the preparations for assimilation. If that is what the young really want then so be it. Sadly I'm not at all sure they fully appreciate what they are seeking. I suspect that was partly why Cameron wanted things done quickly before people had an opportunity to properly hear well presented arguments from all sides.

This would be their last chance to influence their world to be something other than superstate non-democracy. I don't really see why it had to be rushed unless "the authorities" felt they had something to fear. It was probably just a vanity pitch from Cameron - which is something that the "Quantity people" should always reject. The "Quality" people too.

[mikees]

Guys, is there an easy to understand article I can point wifey at that explains the whole euro mess including Greek bail out and risk of the other PIGS? I'm having trouble explaining the multiple dimensions (GDP, loans, repayments, loans to repay interest, failure to pay public employees, exchange rates and wage differentials etc making southern countries less attractive etc etc etc)

Thanks
Mike

PS. Hope this isn't a thread derail Steffan. A current summary of the status quo would be useful I think. The more numbers the better. I'd like a time line with repayment deails etc with a precursor summary if such a thing exists.

PPS good post longq.

[Gargamel]

mikees said:

Guys, is there an easy to understand article I can point wifey at that explains the whole euro mess including Greek bail out and risk of the other PIGS? I'm having trouble explaining the multiple dimensions (GDP, loans, repayments, loans to repay interest, failure to pay public employees, exchange rates and wage differentials etc making southern countries less attractive etc etc etc)

Thanks
Mike

PS. Hope this isn't a thread derail Steffan. A current summary of the status quo would be useful I think. The more numbers the better. I'd like a time line with repayment deails etc with a precursor summary if such a thing exists.

PPS good post longq.

Slightly dated but the fundamentals are all there. I know there is good stuff on YouTube, but can't find any right now.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/3806/economics/e...

[mikees]

Thanks garmel, as usual this thread delivers.

[CrutyRammers]

GoodOlBoy said:

superlightr said:

so a sort of master race controlling the masses of unwashed? with their own army to exert their authority/right to govern if their political message is not understood.

More a master group than a master race. A non-elected group of political elite, of superior moral and intellectual background, who would govern the homogenous European populace.

Edited by GoodOlBoy on Monday 4th July 15:02

AKA an Aristocracy. Very Plato.
Unfortunately it always ends in corruption and totalitarianism. Democracy is the best safeguard yet found against that.

[V8RX7]

superlightr said:

how does the finances of the EU look after we leave the EU ie we no longer pay our membership fee.

Does the EU trim its spending/redistribution ?
Does the EU borrow more?
Do the remaining countries pay more?
Does the EU run a overdraft?

I think they are so bankrupt our £8.5BN net contribution won't really be missed - it seems shuffling bits of paper is all that's required.

[LongQ]

mikees said:

Guys, is there an easy to understand article I can point wifey at that explains the whole euro mess including Greek bail out and risk of the other PIGS? I'm having trouble explaining the multiple dimensions (GDP, loans, repayments, loans to repay interest, failure to pay public employees, exchange rates and wage differentials etc making southern countries less attractive etc etc etc)

Thanks
Mike

PS. Hope this isn't a thread derail Steffan. A current summary of the status quo would be useful I think. The more numbers the better. I'd like a time line with repayment deails etc with a precursor summary if such a thing exists.

PPS good post longq.

Thanks Mike.

I keep reminding myself about the Heath era referendum and what we youngsters thought we were voting about then.

Whatever it was it was not what we thought it was.

BTW I thought Gargamel's assistance was very un-PH. Not the help that was offered - PH is good for that, mostly. But rather that he did not point out that the matters are so complicated even those at the heart of "Europe", the architects of the mess, seem unable to understand them. Many of them, like our would be new political leaders, are of the female persuasion and they seem to have no clue. That leads me to believe that no one will really ever understand what is going on - so detailed understanding, if acheiveble, may not be worth the effort. On the other hand a new knitting machine might be a very important family asset in coming years. And a sheep to supply raw material for it.

[Digga]

mikees said:

Guys, is there an easy to understand article I can point wifey at that explains the whole euro mess including Greek bail out and risk of the other PIGS?

Greece is a good place to start looking in terms of what's happened so far, but Italy looks like the next and biggest yet to be on the brink; http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/look-insi...

[Steffan]

quote=LongQ]

mikees said:

Guys, is there an easy to understand article I can point wifey at that explains the whole euro mess including Greek bail out and risk of the other PIGS? I'm having trouble explaining the multiple dimensions (GDP, loans, repayments, loans to repay interest, failure to pay public employees, exchange rates and wage differentials etc making southern countries less attractive etc etc etc)

Thanks
Mike

PS. Hope this isn't a thread derail Steffan. A current summary of the status quo would be useful I think. The more numbers the better. I'd like a time line with repayment deails etc with a precursor summary if such a thing exists.

PPS good post longq.

Thanks Mike.

I keep reminding myself about the Heath era referendum and what we youngsters thought we were voting about then. 

Whatever it was it was not what we thought it was.

BTW I thought Gargamel's assistance was very un-PH. Not the help that was offered - PH is good for that, mostly. But rather that he did not point out that the matters are so complicated even those at the heart of "Europe", the architects of the mess, seem unable to understand them. Many of them, like our would be new political leaders, are of the female persuasion and they seem to have no clue. That leads me to believe that no one will really ever understand what is going on - so detailed understanding, if acheiveble, may not be worth the effort. On the other hand a new knitting machine might be a very important family asset in coming years. And a sheep to supply raw material for it.

Good to see helpful interesting and varied posts on the thread and an excellent seres of opinions which are both useful and considered. I think LongQ has been particularly lucid and written a good deal with his usual, dry, laconic twist and the comments from Gargamel, Digga and a number other contributors have certainly added to the mix!

To my mind the Brexit game (which is what this has become, politically) is evolving and changing steadily and significantly as the sheer size of the task itself, and the amount of work that needed to effect this determination, gradually dawns over the UK politicians. All of whom collectively  been in shock since the UK Referendum shattered their little metaphoric golden palaces. Politics has change fundamentally overnight and this is without a doubt the most unexpected decision political in 70 years. I thought it might be time to see if I can summarise the likely consequences and consider some further possibilities?
 
Cameron has bought time for a new leader of the Conservative  party to attempt to draw the new leader of the party, now currently being polled, to draw together the government into an organised and effective administration and begin the distinctly barbed task of effecting Brexit in the best possible way for the UK. I think that conservative leader is likely to be Theresa May. Whether she can actually run the show remains to be seen. 

A number of posts on this thread over time have quite properly (IMO) reminded us that this is  a highly complex and highly technical process and once the UK formally commits to Article 50, (always assuming we do actually do that), it will still take literally years for the UK to extract itself from the EU.

So far as I can see there is actually no way (As Yet??!!) for the EU to dismiss the UK from the EU. On paper (of which there's a hell of a lot in the EU) only the UK can decide to withdraw from the EU. So far as I  know no nation has ever ever done so before?

I have been reviewing the many posts all over the media and considering (so far as i am able) where this major event is likely to take the UK and how long this matter will require to be properly assessed, agreed, voted upon and finalised?  From all I can see this is bound to be a very contentious and lengthy withdrawal. A little too long, for the good of the EU, I suggest. I think, in fact, as I set out below, that this event marks the beginning of the end of the EU, in its current form 

The real conundrum, I believe is trying to judge how the EU itself, will actually be effected, in the longer term by this event. I suspect that it will  really start to bite, particularly concerning the future of the EU itself, before very much longer in the financial markets  The question therefore must be, to what extent this wholly unexpected event could actually undermine the efforts of Mario Draghi and his cohorts, who are currently trying to hold up the Euro, knowing full well that the QE money they are printing, is never, ever, coming back?

The UK may well face financial difficulties itself in consequence to the decision to leave the EU. But I suspect that, as this year progresses more and more questions are gong to be asked about the future of  the EU itself, by the markets. The platitudes currently being offered, by the EU, will become less and less convincing, I suggest. The reality of the steadily falling surpluses and steadily increasing debt burden within the poorer EU members and the visibly increasing unrest  and rising unemployment within the poorer states, that will be, reported repeatedly month by month, will have a very detrimental affect upon the position of the EU. 

I honestly think we are looking at precisely the scenario, that I could see all too vividly, all those years ago, when I first began this thread,  The EU has become a fraud.  It cannot actually work in its current  form. That is why the UK has seen the problem for what it is and that is why  the UK pulled out IMO!  The markets are not going to ignore such a major change. There are going to be serious concerns and the EU hoas no answer for those concerns. 

Why would a reasonably solvent Sovereign State decide to pull out of a supposedly efficient and effective successful trading block, after being members for over 40 years. unless there were deeply serious concerns within that Sovereign State that all was not at all well and getting out was essential, is the question, that I propose? It really does beg the question, I think?

To my mind we really are looking at the beginning of the end for the EU. I have no doubt that the block will continue short term and Draghi and his conspirators may well be able to keep the pretence up initially! But as time goes by and greater and greater QE printing with absolutely no possibility of any returns from the insolvent borrowers, gradually undermines the currency itself, there can be only one end. 

All the focus, currently, is on the UK and our decision to be the first state to withdraw from the European union.  In time I suggest,  the question, "Why has the UK actually made this decision", will be beginning to surface.  Before very much longer I suggest, inevitable doubts will begin to rise around the future of the EU as a trading block, itself.  Serious trouble! 

Draghi can hold the currency whilst the general perception in the markets, remains that the EU is a stable entity. But as time goes and the reality of    the reasons for the decision by the UK  become apparent, the pressure is  going to rise upon the EU itself. 

It does seem to me that we are looking at huge changes within our own position initially and then gradually huge changes will come upon the EU itself. Once again I say:Matter of Time.  The clock is steadily ticking.  I wonder how long  this development will take? Rather less time that might be expected I think? 

I

[gothatway]

Steffan said:

So far as I can see there is actually no way (As Yet??!!) for the EU to dismiss the UK from the EU. On paper (of which there's a hell of a lot in the EU) only the UK can decide to withdraw from the EU. So far as I  know no nation has ever ever done so before?

I saw somewhere that Article 7 could be invoked to eject a troublesome state, but I haven't confirmed that for myself or seen it elsewhere. Greenland left the EU, but in radically different circumstances.

[Steffan]

gothatway said:

Steffan said:

So far as I can see there is actually no way (As Yet??!!) for the EU to dismiss the UK from the EU. On paper (of which there's a hell of a lot in the EU) only the UK can decide to withdraw from the EU. So far as I  know no nation has ever ever done so before?

I saw somewhere that Article 7 could be invoked to eject a troublesome state, but I haven't confirmed that for myself or seen it elsewhere. Greenland left the EU, but in radically different circumstances.

Indeed you are right, Greenland did. Very different circumstances.

We are I think the second highest contributor in the EU? Not a good place to be for us and we are coming out! The extent of the fudges and lack of transparency wthin so much f the activities of the EU and the 10,000 bureaucrats all earning more than Cameron was too much for the UK I think?

I found the ease of movement very useful. But the thousands of motorways leading nowhere, which I followed when looking for a home was just too much for me. Then I witnessed the Italian nonsense, with cash is king, massve black markets, ridiculous tax evasion etc, and the Greek nonsense brought out the finishing touches to my beng absolutely certain we were better out.

Matter of time before the EU fails I regret to say.

As Lincoln said 'You cannot fool all the people, all the time.

Brexit is the start of the long slide down for the EU.

[Andy Zarse]

Steffan said:

All the focus, currently, is on the UK and our decision to be the first state to withdraw from the European union.  In time I suggest,  the question, "Why has the UK actually made this decision", will be beginning to surface.  Before very much longer I suggest, inevitable doubts will begin to rise around the future of the EU as a trading block, itself.  Serious trouble! 

Draghi can hold the currency whilst the general perception in the markets, remains that the EU is a stable entity. But as time goes and the reality of    the reasons for the decision by the UK  become apparent, the pressure is  going to rise upon the EU itself. 

Strangely emough, I think the one thing which will survive the nuclear winter is the actual "trading bloc". It is the currency and the political project which will slowly die of radiation sickness.

The trading bloc concept is, if you like, the endo-skelington upon which the (now putrifying) flesh of political union and single currency hangs. Like with most dead beings, there's usually absolutely nothing the matter with their skeleton.

[mph]

Andy Zarse said:

Strangely emough, I think the one thing which will survive the nuclear winter is the actual "trading bloc". It is the currency and the political project which will slowly die of radiation sickness.

The trading bloc concept is, if you like, the endo-skelington upon which the (now putrifying) flesh of political union and single currency hangs. Like with most dead beings, there's usually absolutely nothing the matter with their skeleton.

So we might actually end up with the organisation we thought we were joining all those years ago ? Heath truly was a visionary.