How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
This guy here, Tony Connolly is a great source for straight up European analysis. Far too many journalists put too much spin in their articles or confirmation bias skews their writing - not this guy.
It's an interesting read.
My take on it:
UK is clearly againsts EU alignment - not being a rule taker. The issue with the EU isn't that they want control, but its that if UK don't agree, the EU become the rule takers. If the UK diverges in some areas, EU may end up being 'forced' to diverge too, otherwise, they'll not be competitive. The rule takers could become the rule makers in some areas. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
While there is lots of political posturing on this, the realisation is there and it can't be swept under the carpet. The language from the EU is starting to soften already.
Phil Hogan, the EU commissioner, has said that in the absence of official dynamic alignment, the dynamic alignment is kind of already there anyway, via numerous international treaties like the Paris agreement. Is it necessary to have it written in stone?
On workers rights (not in this article) the Tories broke the labour red wall in the last election. If UK goes backwards on workers rights, they'll be out on their ear in the next election anyway. So while it's a 'risk' for the EU, is it likely to materialise? Probably not.
Overall, the EU and the UK both need each other and you can see the openings for an eventual landing point. I can see the UK getting a trade deal without dynamic alignment being necessary, although some looser terminology might be required. Its entirely possible for both sides to get 'most' of what they want.
One thing that irks me about this thread is a strange desire for someone to fail miserably. Whether it's the UK, the EU, the Irish - why the desire for someone to suffer? We're all connected so prosperity for all is a good thing. If China fails, the world feels the pain - if USA goes into recession, its felt across the globe - same for the EU.
If the EU goes into a bad recession - it's not a cause for celebration although I reckon some people would still be popping champagne corks.
I'm cautiously confident that we'll end up with a deal that satisfies both sides. And if you want good journalism, worth following Tony Connolly on Twitter. He tells it like it is.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/...
It's an interesting read.
My take on it:
UK is clearly againsts EU alignment - not being a rule taker. The issue with the EU isn't that they want control, but its that if UK don't agree, the EU become the rule takers. If the UK diverges in some areas, EU may end up being 'forced' to diverge too, otherwise, they'll not be competitive. The rule takers could become the rule makers in some areas. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
While there is lots of political posturing on this, the realisation is there and it can't be swept under the carpet. The language from the EU is starting to soften already.
Phil Hogan, the EU commissioner, has said that in the absence of official dynamic alignment, the dynamic alignment is kind of already there anyway, via numerous international treaties like the Paris agreement. Is it necessary to have it written in stone?
On workers rights (not in this article) the Tories broke the labour red wall in the last election. If UK goes backwards on workers rights, they'll be out on their ear in the next election anyway. So while it's a 'risk' for the EU, is it likely to materialise? Probably not.
Overall, the EU and the UK both need each other and you can see the openings for an eventual landing point. I can see the UK getting a trade deal without dynamic alignment being necessary, although some looser terminology might be required. Its entirely possible for both sides to get 'most' of what they want.
One thing that irks me about this thread is a strange desire for someone to fail miserably. Whether it's the UK, the EU, the Irish - why the desire for someone to suffer? We're all connected so prosperity for all is a good thing. If China fails, the world feels the pain - if USA goes into recession, its felt across the globe - same for the EU.
If the EU goes into a bad recession - it's not a cause for celebration although I reckon some people would still be popping champagne corks.
I'm cautiously confident that we'll end up with a deal that satisfies both sides. And if you want good journalism, worth following Tony Connolly on Twitter. He tells it like it is.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/...
Edited by soupdragon1 on Saturday 22 February 09:42
amusingduck said:
Is that the type of even handed attention where Sway should be punished for replicating the behaviour of others to illustrate it's ridiculousness, yet the originator of that behaviour is free to continue smearing s
t up the walls?
Of course it is
I've no idea Duckie.t up the walls? Of course it is
You tell me ?
I'm no fan of CB's apparent previous line off work but well known trolls and no-marks claiming he he is "living off his eu funded wife" really are overstepping the mark.
Labour have lost the 'worker's vote' almost completely. They are now perceived as the party of the middle class metropolitan left elite.
Even trade union reps are ridiculing Labours opposition to the end of cheap migrant workers. When the likes of Portillo - as Tory as they come - are able to articulate the dissonance in a way that meets with approval from ordinary workers, the game is up.
To that end, the U.K. is actually looking to raise the bar, not lower it.
Even trade union reps are ridiculing Labours opposition to the end of cheap migrant workers. When the likes of Portillo - as Tory as they come - are able to articulate the dissonance in a way that meets with approval from ordinary workers, the game is up.
To that end, the U.K. is actually looking to raise the bar, not lower it.
Brooking10 said:
amusingduck said:
Is that the type of even handed attention where Sway should be punished for replicating the behaviour of others to illustrate it's ridiculousness, yet the originator of that behaviour is free to continue smearing st up the walls?
Of course it is
I've no idea Duckie.t up the walls? Of course it is
You tell me ?
I'm no fan of CB's apparent previous line off work but well known trolls and no-marks claiming he he is "living off his eu funded wife" really are overstepping the mark.
The CB wife remark was totally over the line
Brooking10 said:
Sway said:
Go and have a look at the Cummings job thread, since the Sabisky issue...
When I discuss the potential positive and non-fascist types of eugenics becoming possible, via things like CRISPR, I got accused of supporting Sabisky because I didn't use the words "I condemn Sabisky"... The approach was exactly the same as "when did you stop beating your wife?".
In exactly the same vein as DE has used on me (and now cross posting across threads), he never denied beating his wife - in his methods of "debate", that must mean he still does.
He's merely getting a dose of exactly the posting and debating style he's used in the last couple of days on me.
One day, you'll take an even handed approach and might even part something pertinent to the topic...
You need to calm down Chief.When I discuss the potential positive and non-fascist types of eugenics becoming possible, via things like CRISPR, I got accused of supporting Sabisky because I didn't use the words "I condemn Sabisky"... The approach was exactly the same as "when did you stop beating your wife?".
In exactly the same vein as DE has used on me (and now cross posting across threads), he never denied beating his wife - in his methods of "debate", that must mean he still does.
He's merely getting a dose of exactly the posting and debating style he's used in the last couple of days on me.
One day, you'll take an even handed approach and might even part something pertinent to the topic...
It wasn't a comment aimed at you or anything you or DeepEnd have said.
Read the thread back ref CB and feel free to apologise
Typos......
Edited by Brooking10 on Saturday 22 February 09:52
amusingduck said:
Brooking10 said:
amusingduck said:
Is that the type of even handed attention where Sway should be punished for replicating the behaviour of others to illustrate it's ridiculousness, yet the originator of that behaviour is free to continue smearing st up the walls?
Of course it is
I've no idea Duckie.t up the walls? Of course it is
You tell me ?
I'm no fan of CB's apparent previous line off work but well known trolls and no-marks claiming he he is "living off his eu funded wife" really are overstepping the mark.
The CB wife remark was totally over the line
soupdragon1 said:
This guy here, Tony Connolly is a great source for straight up European analysis. Far too many journalists put too much spin in their articles or confirmation bias skews their writing - not this guy.
It's an interesting read.
My take on it:
UK is clearly againsts EU alignment - not being a rule taker. The issue with the EU isn't that they want control, but its that if UK don't agree, the EU become the rule takers. If the UK diverges in some areas, EU may end up being 'forced' to diverge too, otherwise, they'll not be competitive. The rule takers could become the rule makers in some areas. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
While there is lots of political posturing on this, the realisation is there and it can't be swept under the carpet. The language from the EU is starting to soften already.
Phil Hogan, the EU commissioner, has said that in the absence of official dynamic alignment, the dynamic alignment is kind of already there anyway, via numerous international treaties like the Paris agreement. Is it necessary to have it written in stone?
On workers rights (not in this article) the Tories broke the labour red wall in the last election. If UK goes backwards on workers rights, they'll be out on their ear in the next election anyway. So while it's a 'risk' for the EU, is it likely to materialise? Probably not.
Overall, the EU and the UK both need each other and you can see the openings for an eventual landing point. I can see the UK getting a trade deal without dynamic alignment being necessary, although some looser terminology might be required. Its entirely possible for both sides to get 'most' of what they want.
One thing that irks me about this thread is a strange desire for someone to fail miserably. Whether it's the UK, the EU, the Irish - why the desire for someone to suffer? We're all connected so prosperity for all is a good thing. If China fails, the world feels the pain - if USA goes into recession, its felt across the globe - same for the EU.
If the EU goes into a bad recession - it's not a cause for celebration although I reckon some people would still be popping champagne corks.
I'm cautiously confident that we'll end up with a deal that satisfies both sides. And if you want good journalism, worth following Tony Connolly on Twitter. He tells it like it is.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/...
I like this post.It's an interesting read.
My take on it:
UK is clearly againsts EU alignment - not being a rule taker. The issue with the EU isn't that they want control, but its that if UK don't agree, the EU become the rule takers. If the UK diverges in some areas, EU may end up being 'forced' to diverge too, otherwise, they'll not be competitive. The rule takers could become the rule makers in some areas. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
While there is lots of political posturing on this, the realisation is there and it can't be swept under the carpet. The language from the EU is starting to soften already.
Phil Hogan, the EU commissioner, has said that in the absence of official dynamic alignment, the dynamic alignment is kind of already there anyway, via numerous international treaties like the Paris agreement. Is it necessary to have it written in stone?
On workers rights (not in this article) the Tories broke the labour red wall in the last election. If UK goes backwards on workers rights, they'll be out on their ear in the next election anyway. So while it's a 'risk' for the EU, is it likely to materialise? Probably not.
Overall, the EU and the UK both need each other and you can see the openings for an eventual landing point. I can see the UK getting a trade deal without dynamic alignment being necessary, although some looser terminology might be required. Its entirely possible for both sides to get 'most' of what they want.
One thing that irks me about this thread is a strange desire for someone to fail miserably. Whether it's the UK, the EU, the Irish - why the desire for someone to suffer? We're all connected so prosperity for all is a good thing. If China fails, the world feels the pain - if USA goes into recession, its felt across the globe - same for the EU.
If the EU goes into a bad recession - it's not a cause for celebration although I reckon some people would still be popping champagne corks.
I'm cautiously confident that we'll end up with a deal that satisfies both sides. And if you want good journalism, worth following Tony Connolly on Twitter. He tells it like it is.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/...
Edited by soupdragon1 on Saturday 22 February 09:42
Neither side should want the other to fail, as net net both lose in the long run.
If you look at most independent voices, they talk of the need for compromise and to drop unreasonable demands. There are a several digital positions that really need to be reviewed, but landing zones, constant dialogue etc have been mooted - digital divergence really is only a concept that exists in DeepEnd and one or two others heads.
The fact that its repeated in here, is more to do with ignorance than anything else.
Tbh, if I was the EC I'd start broadly where they are; the only demand they need to drop is equivalence withdrawal. No one outside the EC sees this as beneficial, it's purely for coercion. It aligns with your point on being a rule taker. If they have no stick, they end up being a rule taker from London on some FS. Whilst that might stick in the craw, it's not without basis that they really should be.
Re the wanting to fail, or more specifically the EURO. Pointing out a risk is not a desire to see it happen. In fact, it's the opposite. It's likely to spark a contagion event. People want the EUzone stabilised, but its smashes headlong into politics. Defending a global financial crisis (cos it will be), to save a few politicians skins (or the sycophants view) really is a total nonsense and shows a superficial view of global economics (and what happened last time). If the Fed didnt step in to save Goldman and Stanley's in 08, we were going back to the stone age. If you listen to what the central bankers are now saying...
We. Are. Out. Of. Magic. Bullets.
Is it likely, dunno. But it's enough of a probability, with a total loss to be taken very, very seriously (like at the G20). If you then try and weasel out of those financial stability commitments - politically - you do need an intellectual kick in the sponge.
To save the EUROzone economy and what asset managers are calling on:
Debt reduction (write off)
Banking Union
Proper risk metrics
Reversal of NIRP
Cross Border Capital Movement
Evaluation of LLPs
Etc etc
Really come at too great a political cost right now. It's a forward thinking position, the cock blocker is vested interests (politics).
stongle said:
soupdragon1 said:
This guy here, Tony Connolly is a great source for straight up European analysis. Far too many journalists put too much spin in their articles or confirmation bias skews their writing - not this guy.
It's an interesting read.
My take on it:
UK is clearly againsts EU alignment - not being a rule taker. The issue with the EU isn't that they want control, but its that if UK don't agree, the EU become the rule takers. If the UK diverges in some areas, EU may end up being 'forced' to diverge too, otherwise, they'll not be competitive. The rule takers could become the rule makers in some areas. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
While there is lots of political posturing on this, the realisation is there and it can't be swept under the carpet. The language from the EU is starting to soften already.
Phil Hogan, the EU commissioner, has said that in the absence of official dynamic alignment, the dynamic alignment is kind of already there anyway, via numerous international treaties like the Paris agreement. Is it necessary to have it written in stone?
On workers rights (not in this article) the Tories broke the labour red wall in the last election. If UK goes backwards on workers rights, they'll be out on their ear in the next election anyway. So while it's a 'risk' for the EU, is it likely to materialise? Probably not.
Overall, the EU and the UK both need each other and you can see the openings for an eventual landing point. I can see the UK getting a trade deal without dynamic alignment being necessary, although some looser terminology might be required. Its entirely possible for both sides to get 'most' of what they want.
One thing that irks me about this thread is a strange desire for someone to fail miserably. Whether it's the UK, the EU, the Irish - why the desire for someone to suffer? We're all connected so prosperity for all is a good thing. If China fails, the world feels the pain - if USA goes into recession, its felt across the globe - same for the EU.
If the EU goes into a bad recession - it's not a cause for celebration although I reckon some people would still be popping champagne corks.
I'm cautiously confident that we'll end up with a deal that satisfies both sides. And if you want good journalism, worth following Tony Connolly on Twitter. He tells it like it is.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/...
I like this post.It's an interesting read.
My take on it:
UK is clearly againsts EU alignment - not being a rule taker. The issue with the EU isn't that they want control, but its that if UK don't agree, the EU become the rule takers. If the UK diverges in some areas, EU may end up being 'forced' to diverge too, otherwise, they'll not be competitive. The rule takers could become the rule makers in some areas. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
While there is lots of political posturing on this, the realisation is there and it can't be swept under the carpet. The language from the EU is starting to soften already.
Phil Hogan, the EU commissioner, has said that in the absence of official dynamic alignment, the dynamic alignment is kind of already there anyway, via numerous international treaties like the Paris agreement. Is it necessary to have it written in stone?
On workers rights (not in this article) the Tories broke the labour red wall in the last election. If UK goes backwards on workers rights, they'll be out on their ear in the next election anyway. So while it's a 'risk' for the EU, is it likely to materialise? Probably not.
Overall, the EU and the UK both need each other and you can see the openings for an eventual landing point. I can see the UK getting a trade deal without dynamic alignment being necessary, although some looser terminology might be required. Its entirely possible for both sides to get 'most' of what they want.
One thing that irks me about this thread is a strange desire for someone to fail miserably. Whether it's the UK, the EU, the Irish - why the desire for someone to suffer? We're all connected so prosperity for all is a good thing. If China fails, the world feels the pain - if USA goes into recession, its felt across the globe - same for the EU.
If the EU goes into a bad recession - it's not a cause for celebration although I reckon some people would still be popping champagne corks.
I'm cautiously confident that we'll end up with a deal that satisfies both sides. And if you want good journalism, worth following Tony Connolly on Twitter. He tells it like it is.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/...
Edited by soupdragon1 on Saturday 22 February 09:42
Neither side should want the other to fail, as net net both lose in the long run.
If you look at most independent voices, they talk of the need for compromise and to drop unreasonable demands. There are a several digital positions that really need to be reviewed, but landing zones, constant dialogue etc have been mooted - digital divergence really is only a concept that exists in DeepEnd and one or two others heads.
The fact that its repeated in here, is more to do with ignorance than anything else.
Tbh, if I was the EC I'd start broadly where they are; the only demand they need to drop is equivalence withdrawal. No one outside the EC sees this as beneficial, it's purely for coercion. It aligns with your point on being a rule taker. If they have no stick, they end up being a rule taker from London on some FS. Whilst that might stick in the craw, it's not without basis that they really should be.
Re the wanting to fail, or more specifically the EURO. Pointing out a risk is not a desire to see it happen. In fact, it's the opposite. It's likely to spark a contagion event. People want the EUzone stabilised, but its smashes headlong into politics. Defending a global financial crisis (cos it will be), to save a few politicians skins (or the sycophants view) really is a total nonsense and shows a superficial view of global economics (and what happened last time). If the Fed didnt step in to save Goldman and Stanley's in 08, we were going back to the stone age. If you listen to what the central bankers are saying...
We. Are. Out. Of. Magic. Bullets.
Is it likely, dunno. But it's enough if a probability, with a total loss to be taken very, very seriously (like at the G20). If you then try and weasel out of those financial stability commitments - politically - you do need an intellectual kick in the sponge.
To save the EUROzone economy and what asset managers are calling on:
Debt reduction (write off)
Banking Union
Proper risk metrics
Reversal of NIRP
Cross Border Capital Movement
Evaluation of LLPs
Etc etc
Really come at too great a political cost right now. It's a forward thinking position, the cock blocker is vested interests (politics).
The problem appears to be that the more the EU refuse to take action the worse the ultimate effects will be. Debt write-off is inevitable, is it not? What I can't get my head around is the magnitude of the fall-out this will cause - to the banks and to the politicians and general public of those nations that have to suck up the write-offs and the nature of the fall out when their public realise what their governments have done. Surely the EU is totally kaput at that point!
Is it possible to can kick for ever?
stongle said:
soupdragon1 said:
This guy here, Tony Connolly is a great source for straight up European analysis. Far too many journalists put too much spin in their articles or confirmation bias skews their writing - not this guy.
It's an interesting read.
My take on it:
UK is clearly againsts EU alignment - not being a rule taker. The issue with the EU isn't that they want control, but its that if UK don't agree, the EU become the rule takers. If the UK diverges in some areas, EU may end up being 'forced' to diverge too, otherwise, they'll not be competitive. The rule takers could become the rule makers in some areas. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
While there is lots of political posturing on this, the realisation is there and it can't be swept under the carpet. The language from the EU is starting to soften already.
Phil Hogan, the EU commissioner, has said that in the absence of official dynamic alignment, the dynamic alignment is kind of already there anyway, via numerous international treaties like the Paris agreement. Is it necessary to have it written in stone?
On workers rights (not in this article) the Tories broke the labour red wall in the last election. If UK goes backwards on workers rights, they'll be out on their ear in the next election anyway. So while it's a 'risk' for the EU, is it likely to materialise? Probably not.
Overall, the EU and the UK both need each other and you can see the openings for an eventual landing point. I can see the UK getting a trade deal without dynamic alignment being necessary, although some looser terminology might be required. Its entirely possible for both sides to get 'most' of what they want.
One thing that irks me about this thread is a strange desire for someone to fail miserably. Whether it's the UK, the EU, the Irish - why the desire for someone to suffer? We're all connected so prosperity for all is a good thing. If China fails, the world feels the pain - if USA goes into recession, its felt across the globe - same for the EU.
If the EU goes into a bad recession - it's not a cause for celebration although I reckon some people would still be popping champagne corks.
I'm cautiously confident that we'll end up with a deal that satisfies both sides. And if you want good journalism, worth following Tony Connolly on Twitter. He tells it like it is.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/...
I like this post.It's an interesting read.
My take on it:
UK is clearly againsts EU alignment - not being a rule taker. The issue with the EU isn't that they want control, but its that if UK don't agree, the EU become the rule takers. If the UK diverges in some areas, EU may end up being 'forced' to diverge too, otherwise, they'll not be competitive. The rule takers could become the rule makers in some areas. Kind of obvious when you think about it.
While there is lots of political posturing on this, the realisation is there and it can't be swept under the carpet. The language from the EU is starting to soften already.
Phil Hogan, the EU commissioner, has said that in the absence of official dynamic alignment, the dynamic alignment is kind of already there anyway, via numerous international treaties like the Paris agreement. Is it necessary to have it written in stone?
On workers rights (not in this article) the Tories broke the labour red wall in the last election. If UK goes backwards on workers rights, they'll be out on their ear in the next election anyway. So while it's a 'risk' for the EU, is it likely to materialise? Probably not.
Overall, the EU and the UK both need each other and you can see the openings for an eventual landing point. I can see the UK getting a trade deal without dynamic alignment being necessary, although some looser terminology might be required. Its entirely possible for both sides to get 'most' of what they want.
One thing that irks me about this thread is a strange desire for someone to fail miserably. Whether it's the UK, the EU, the Irish - why the desire for someone to suffer? We're all connected so prosperity for all is a good thing. If China fails, the world feels the pain - if USA goes into recession, its felt across the globe - same for the EU.
If the EU goes into a bad recession - it's not a cause for celebration although I reckon some people would still be popping champagne corks.
I'm cautiously confident that we'll end up with a deal that satisfies both sides. And if you want good journalism, worth following Tony Connolly on Twitter. He tells it like it is.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2020/...
Edited by soupdragon1 on Saturday 22 February 09:42
Neither side should want the other to fail, as net net both lose in the long run.
If you look at most independent voices, they talk of the need for compromise and to drop unreasonable demands. There are a several digital positions that really need to be reviewed, but landing zones, constant dialogue etc have been mooted - digital divergence really is only a concept that exists in DeepEnd and one or two others heads.
The fact that its repeated in here, is more to do with ignorance than anything else.
Tbh, if I was the EC I'd start broadly where they are; the only demand they need to drop is equivalence withdrawal. No one outside the EC sees this as beneficial, it's purely for coercion. It aligns with your point on being a rule taker. If they have no stick, they end up being a rule taker from London on some FS. Whilst that might stick in the craw, it's not without basis that they really should be.
Re the wanting to fail, or more specifically the EURO. Pointing out a risk is not a desire to see it happen. In fact, it's the opposite. It's likely to spark a contagion event. People want the EUzone stabilised, but its smashes headlong into politics. Defending a global financial crisis (cos it will be), to save a few politicians skins (or the sycophants view) really is a total nonsense and shows a superficial view of global economics (and what happened last time). If the Fed didnt step in to save Goldman and Stanley's in 08, we were going back to the stone age. If you listen to what the central bankers are now saying...
We. Are. Out. Of. Magic. Bullets.
Is it likely, dunno. But it's enough of a probability, with a total loss to be taken very, very seriously (like at the G20). If you then try and weasel out of those financial stability commitments - politically - you do need an intellectual kick in the sponge.
To save the EUROzone economy and what asset managers are calling on:
Debt reduction (write off)
Banking Union
Proper risk metrics
Reversal of NIRP
Cross Border Capital Movement
Evaluation of LLPs
Etc etc
Really come at too great a political cost right now. It's a forward thinking position, the cock blocker is vested interests (politics).
In theory, you would think that for Brexit negotiations, some compromises will eventually be made by the EU. Sanity and sensible decisions 'should' prevail over the politics....you would think/hope!
stongle said:
Its much more likely that an economic or political change force an exit rather than anyone choosing as the UK has done.
I see 2 outcomes. The EU reinvents itself, or it has exits. A rational reinvention, may well see the UK re-engage ala Norway. A federal reinvention validates 2016. UK wins either way.
.
But you are using eurozone and EU interchangeably. The UK has never been part of the euro - whatever the EZ group do as long as the non EZ EU countries sit outside it would have mattered far less....I see 2 outcomes. The EU reinvents itself, or it has exits. A rational reinvention, may well see the UK re-engage ala Norway. A federal reinvention validates 2016. UK wins either way.
.
isaldiri said:
stongle said:
Its much more likely that an economic or political change force an exit rather than anyone choosing as the UK has done.
I see 2 outcomes. The EU reinvents itself, or it has exits. A rational reinvention, may well see the UK re-engage ala Norway. A federal reinvention validates 2016. UK wins either way.
.
But you are using eurozone and EU interchangeably. The UK has never been part of the euro - whatever the EZ group do as long as the non EZ EU countries sit outside it would have mattered far less....I see 2 outcomes. The EU reinvents itself, or it has exits. A rational reinvention, may well see the UK re-engage ala Norway. A federal reinvention validates 2016. UK wins either way.
.
The more the EZ needs 'special' measures to try and keep it afloat, the more that the peripheral nations are constrained, effected and have increased risks loaded on them.
Especially thanks to the budget mechanisms, for example where we get an extra couple of billion bill thanks to growing our economy better than the other states - after they all criticised our approach to recovery...
isaldiri said:
stongle said:
Its much more likely that an economic or political change force an exit rather than anyone choosing as the UK has done.
I see 2 outcomes. The EU reinvents itself, or it has exits. A rational reinvention, may well see the UK re-engage ala Norway. A federal reinvention validates 2016. UK wins either way.
.
But you are using eurozone and EU interchangeably. The UK has never been part of the euro - whatever the EZ group do as long as the non EZ EU countries sit outside it would have mattered far less....I see 2 outcomes. The EU reinvents itself, or it has exits. A rational reinvention, may well see the UK re-engage ala Norway. A federal reinvention validates 2016. UK wins either way.
.
There are some who believe that Brexit affords mitigation in the event of a Euro banking collapse.
There are others, me included, who believe our economic fortunes as far as any potential banking crisis are concerned are intertwined as a result of history and geography as opposed to membership.
Brooking10 said:
It’s a question of whether one believes in mitigation or contagion.
There are some who believe that Brexit affords mitigation in the event of a Euro banking collapse.
There are others, me included, who believe our economic fortunes as far as any potential banking crisis are concerned are intertwined as a result of history and geography as opposed to membership.
Your latter point is more than just an opinion but backed by historical fact. There are some who believe that Brexit affords mitigation in the event of a Euro banking collapse.
There are others, me included, who believe our economic fortunes as far as any potential banking crisis are concerned are intertwined as a result of history and geography as opposed to membership.
The idea we can watch economic issues in Europe that may affect our own health and triumphantly stand back proud of “our” brexit giving us a free pass doesn’t tally with recent history.
The back peddle motion on the schadenfreude is good to watch. The mask does slip so quickly once the echo chamber gets into full swing and the back slapping starts.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff