Another new Brexit thread

[mcfc1632]

c) people haven't watched your videos yet because they have other things to do.

You will see that my reply was in the context of Ric's reply to me

I fully accept your point that some people will have neither the time nor inclination to spend 30mins listening to a video and others will do it at a later time

 

[hgblue]

You will see that my reply was in the context of Ric's reply to me

I fully accept your point that some people will have neither the time nor inclination to spend 30mins listening to a video and others will do it at a later time

And others can’t face the truth of what you posted. Can you imagine if the EU actually does implode as many leavers have predicted. The meltdown will be epic.

 

[mcfc1632]

Just wondering what other posters think would be the implications for the UK's level of contributions, if

a) we had Remained in the EU and

b) that the EU proceeds with its consideration/intention to integrate the massive recovery funding required to address Covid-19 into the Multi-Annual Framework (MFF) to cover 2021-2027.

As described in this article from the EU Commission POV:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-eus-budget-and-the-covid-19-recovery-plan/

"There are many advantages of doing things this way. Placing the recovery plan into the MFF implies that it will be the Commission, not the member states, deciding how to distribute the money...…"

So - what do people feel about what would have been the impact on our contributions????

Personally, I feel that with the EU's established attitude towards priorities, we would have been badly damaged through being required to spend £billions on the recovery of other nations rather than on the UK's recovery - with all investment decided by the Commission.

Does this not seem a straight-forward and undeniable/non-contentious fact?

Through association/extension - can posters accept that this is another reason why:

a) the UK should not consider any extension and

b) why the EU are keen to get us to embroiled in as long an extension as possible

 

[mcfc1632]

And others can’t face the truth of what you posted. Can you imagine if the EU actually does implode as many leavers have predicted. The meltdown will be epic.

As the collapse/implosion of the EU is a matter of when not if, then we should all be hoping that it is delayed for many years - but also that we have been lucky to:

a) not have gotten dragged into the Euro (well done Mr Brown - shame on you Mr Blair) and
b) have now left

My previous post on the Covid-19 recovery plan being integrated into the MFF is very relevant.

 

[Saddleworth2]

My post here is intended essentially for the Leavers and those Remainers who make the effort of objective thought and analysis - I consider @Saddleworth2, to be such and there must be other such Remainers I am sure.

I do not wish to be seen as shutting down debate - that is left to others - but I would genuinely suggest that the majority of Remainers do not bother with this post or following the links. Treat it with the contempt that I am told my posts deserve - and please simply ignore it.

Going back to the months after the referendum there was a narrative attempted on here by the Remainers that Leavers are 'little Englanders' (which itself demonstrates a lack of understanding) and that Leavers were xenophobes who just wished 'ill' on the EU and hoped for it to collapse.

In fact I think that I have seen further daft posts like that only recently - I see it as just part of the pettiness of some Remainers that have always sought to characterise the Leavers as thick, racists etc.

I have many times sought to explain that this is not the case - I have explained that when the EU implosion/collapse does commence and picks up pace - then the UK will be badly affected whether we are still a member or have already left.

The main point though is that I and many others have had no doubt that the collapse will happen and that it is inevitable and, relatively, not long off. Therefore, the sooner that we are away and the cleaner that break is, then the better the chance that the impact to the UK will be less and the greater the chances of our recovery.

I want us away asap and I really really hope that the EU implosion is delayed - which will help us - but, as it will happen, it is essential that the EU are not allowed any influence/control over our economic and fiscal policies.

Anyway, I have chosen to make another post on this as I stumbled across a couple of videos that I thought gave a good explanation of just one of the number of reasons that the collapse of the EU is inevitable and is just being delayed.

The first clip is worth a listen - 19mins - but you need to have the time to concentrate on it - the 2nd half of it is when the penny starts to drop...………….

The 2nd link for me explains it much better - but it is 27mins long

You could almost feel sorry for the Germans:





These presentations were given in 2018 and it is worth considering that since then...……….

• Macron has started to be much more bullish about seeking to secure/tie in Germany to obligations to provide ongoing/perpetual support.....
• Germany has started to be less enamoured with what their role has developed into.....
• Christine Largarde has taken on leadership of the ECB - FFS!!!!

And................

• Covid-19 has occurred – and the EU has committed to........

Take the recent judgement by the German constitutional court and then consider how that will mean nothing once the ECJ asserts the supremacy that Germany gave them when it signed the Lisbon Treaty.... So the EU powerhouse Germany will start to become unable to control events.

https://www.ft.com/content/d93008c5-2b3c-4b2e-9499-5eabaaa959db

Add 2 and 2 and it turns out to equal - that Germany could/will be fucked along with the rest of the EU construct. As I say, you could almost feel sorry for them.

Of course if some Remainers have ignored my request not to follow the links - then I can predict their response.............

"But it does not matter – the UK is not in the Eurozone" – which will of course just further demonstrate their lack of understanding

I watched the second presentation. A German with a sense of humour! I liked his metaphor about monopoly, that was certainly me as a child.

Whilst I found some of his anecdotes a little difficult to believe - the President of the Bundesbank needed an economist to tell him what an asset item on his balance sheet was - really, I found it an interesting presentation.

Target 2 was never intended to be used as it is being. It was supposed to be a relatively simple RTSG system facilitating payments between Euro central banks. I would be lying if i claimed to know about this previously and all the times I was genuinely asking for reasons to support Brexit you had this up your sleeve ;-). Having read a bit more about the issue this morning, there are a range of views amongst German economists about just how serious this is, but from my relatively noddy appreciation of macro economics it is a shitty stick and I can well understand how it would form a strong part of a brexit case. That this is the first time anyone on here has raised it makes me think it is not widely known.

I also found this paper which I thought was helpful

https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/faculti...t-system-keeps-the-euro-project-alive-for-now

a couple of extracts:
How much longer will Germany’s hard-working, inflation-averse population tolerate paying for other countries’ excesses? There is considerable anger across the Eurozone’s largest economy, even though most voters don’t know the half of it. Obscure data shows that under so-called Target2 operations, the ECB’s intraeurozone payments system, the Bundesbank is owed a mighty €620bn by other member states. This stealth bail-out dwarfs German’s covert contributions to previous Eurozone rescues, which themselves provoked bitter public criticism.

More recently, Evans-Pritchard wrote:
Vast liabilities are being switched quietly from private banks and investment funds onto the shoulders of taxpayers across southern Europe. It is a variant of the tragic episode in Greece, but this time on a far larger scale, and with systemic global implications. There has been no democratic decision by any parliament to take on these fiscal debts, rapidly approaching €1 trillion. They are the unintended side-effect of quantitative easing by the European Central Bank, which has degenerated into a conduit for capital flight from the Club Med bloc to Germany, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands. This 'socialisation of risk' is happening by stealth, a mechanical effect of the ECB's Target2 payments system. If a political upset in France or Italy triggers an existential euro crisis over coming months, citizens from both the Eurozone's debtor and creditor countries will discover to their horror what has been done to them.

I thought the papers conclusions summed their findings up very succinctly:

To conclude, the answers to the four specific questions asked at the beginning are:
• No, the Eurozone is not an Optimal Currency Area. This is because it does not satisfy the conditions for monetary union. These conditions can only be satisfied if the Eurozone adopts fiscal and political union by becoming a federal state.
• The euro can therefore survive only so long as Germany, in particular, continues – albeit reluctantly – to finance the balance of payments deficits of other Eurozone members, in particular, Italy and Spain. This requires it both to recycle its trade surpluses back to countries with trade deficits and to be the main recipient of capital flight from Eurozone states with weak and weakening banking systems.
• Target2, the apparently innocuous Eurozone payments system, is critical to facilitating the payment flows between surplus and deficit countries. The Target2 credits of countries such as Germany almost exactly match the balance of payments deficits of countries such as Italy and Spain. Since these deficits can never be repaid, the euro can only survive if Germany, in particular, agrees to mutualise Eurozone debts so that the Eurozone becomes a transfer union.
• Political union together with a common fiscal as well as monetary policy is the only realistic way of saving the euro in the long term and avoid further failed rescue packages.208 This is, of course, what Europe’s political establishment wants and has been preparing for since the days of Jean Monnet, but it is not obvious that this is what the people of Europe want. However, given the size of the Target2 imbalances, it is also conceivable that the Eurozone will not survive and will eventually break up; this becomes more likely if political support for the euro project, particularly in Germany, begins to wane.

Target2 is indeed the silent bailout system that keeps the euro afloat – for now.

If Italy were to trigger a new Euro crisis, the only two outcomes would seem to be the collapse of the Euro project (and Brexit or not we would not come out of that unscathed) or the final push of Euro states into a single political and fiscal union where all financial power would lie in the old Germany. Given the cultural differences, I would say option 1. is the far more likely.

So thanks for posting. It has shifted my thinking a little and I will follow this with interest. For fellow 'remainers' please correct me if you think I am missing something here or overstating the importance of the issue.

 

[Bovril]

I watched the second presentation. A German with a sense of humour! I liked his metaphor about monopoly, that was certainly me as a child.

Whilst I found some of his anecdotes a little difficult to believe - the President of the Bundesbank needed an economist to tell him what an asset item on his balance sheet was - really, I found it an interesting presentation.

Target 2 was never intended to be used as it is being. It was supposed to be a relatively simple RTSG system facilitating payments between Euro central banks. I would be lying if i claimed to know about this previously and all the times I was genuinely asking for reasons to support Brexit you had this up your sleeve ;-). Having read a bit more about the issue this morning, there are a range of views amongst German economists about just how serious this is, but from my relatively noddy appreciation of macro economics it is a shitty stick and I can well understand how it would form a strong part of a brexit case. That this is the first time anyone on here has raised it makes me think it is not widely known.

I also found this paper which I thought was helpful

https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/faculti...t-system-keeps-the-euro-project-alive-for-now

a couple of extracts:
How much longer will Germany’s hard-working, inflation-averse population tolerate paying for other countries’ excesses? There is considerable anger across the Eurozone’s largest economy, even though most voters don’t know the half of it. Obscure data shows that under so-called Target2 operations, the ECB’s intraeurozone payments system, the Bundesbank is owed a mighty €620bn by other member states. This stealth bail-out dwarfs German’s covert contributions to previous Eurozone rescues, which themselves provoked bitter public criticism.

More recently, Evans-Pritchard wrote:
Vast liabilities are being switched quietly from private banks and investment funds onto the shoulders of taxpayers across southern Europe. It is a variant of the tragic episode in Greece, but this time on a far larger scale, and with systemic global implications. There has been no democratic decision by any parliament to take on these fiscal debts, rapidly approaching €1 trillion. They are the unintended side-effect of quantitative easing by the European Central Bank, which has degenerated into a conduit for capital flight from the Club Med bloc to Germany, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands. This 'socialisation of risk' is happening by stealth, a mechanical effect of the ECB's Target2 payments system. If a political upset in France or Italy triggers an existential euro crisis over coming months, citizens from both the Eurozone's debtor and creditor countries will discover to their horror what has been done to them.

I thought the papers conclusions summed their findings up very succinctly:

To conclude, the answers to the four specific questions asked at the beginning are:
• No, the Eurozone is not an Optimal Currency Area. This is because it does not satisfy the conditions for monetary union. These conditions can only be satisfied if the Eurozone adopts fiscal and political union by becoming a federal state.
• The euro can therefore survive only so long as Germany, in particular, continues – albeit reluctantly – to finance the balance of payments deficits of other Eurozone members, in particular, Italy and Spain. This requires it both to recycle its trade surpluses back to countries with trade deficits and to be the main recipient of capital flight from Eurozone states with weak and weakening banking systems.
• Target2, the apparently innocuous Eurozone payments system, is critical to facilitating the payment flows between surplus and deficit countries. The Target2 credits of countries such as Germany almost exactly match the balance of payments deficits of countries such as Italy and Spain. Since these deficits can never be repaid, the euro can only survive if Germany, in particular, agrees to mutualise Eurozone debts so that the Eurozone becomes a transfer union.
• Political union together with a common fiscal as well as monetary policy is the only realistic way of saving the euro in the long term and avoid further failed rescue packages.208 This is, of course, what Europe’s political establishment wants and has been preparing for since the days of Jean Monnet, but it is not obvious that this is what the people of Europe want. However, given the size of the Target2 imbalances, it is also conceivable that the Eurozone will not survive and will eventually break up; this becomes more likely if political support for the euro project, particularly in Germany, begins to wane.

Target2 is indeed the silent bailout system that keeps the euro afloat – for now.

If Italy were to trigger a new Euro crisis, the only two outcomes would seem to be the collapse of the Euro project (and Brexit or not we would not come out of that unscathed) or the final push of Euro states into a single political and fiscal union where all financial power would lie in the old Germany. Given the cultural differences, I would say option 1. is the far more likely.

So thanks for posting. It has shifted my thinking a little and I will follow this with interest. For fellow 'remainers' please correct me if you think I am missing something here or overstating the importance of the issue.

Good informative post, thanks. My German father-in-law summed up the danger of target 2 in that commercial banks are kept afloat by assets to the tune of a Trillion Euro's owed, a Trillion Euros that neither exists or that will never be paid.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Good informative post, thanks. My German father-in-law summed up the danger of target 2 in that commercial banks are kept afloat by assets to the tune of a Trillion Euro's owed, a Trillion Euros that neither exists or that will never be paid.

Yeah, it appears that Germany is keeping Spain and Italy afloat. I’m not sure the majority of German taxpayers have ok’d that though.

 

[Bovril]

@Saddleworth2 That paper was a fantastic read, so its there in black and white total Federalism or a Tsunami of monumental proportions. Very scary.

 

[mcfc1632]

I watched the second presentation. A German with a sense of humour! I liked his metaphor about monopoly, that was certainly me as a child.

Whilst I found some of his anecdotes a little difficult to believe - the President of the Bundesbank needed an economist to tell him what an asset item on his balance sheet was - really, I found it an interesting presentation.

Target 2 was never intended to be used as it is being. It was supposed to be a relatively simple RTSG system facilitating payments between Euro central banks. I would be lying if i claimed to know about this previously and all the times I was genuinely asking for reasons to support Brexit you had this up your sleeve ;-). Having read a bit more about the issue this morning, there are a range of views amongst German economists about just how serious this is, but from my relatively noddy appreciation of macro economics it is a shitty stick and I can well understand how it would form a strong part of a brexit case. That this is the first time anyone on here has raised it makes me think it is not widely known.

I also found this paper which I thought was helpful

https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/faculti...t-system-keeps-the-euro-project-alive-for-now

a couple of extracts:
How much longer will Germany’s hard-working, inflation-averse population tolerate paying for other countries’ excesses? There is considerable anger across the Eurozone’s largest economy, even though most voters don’t know the half of it. Obscure data shows that under so-called Target2 operations, the ECB’s intraeurozone payments system, the Bundesbank is owed a mighty €620bn by other member states. This stealth bail-out dwarfs German’s covert contributions to previous Eurozone rescues, which themselves provoked bitter public criticism.

More recently, Evans-Pritchard wrote:
Vast liabilities are being switched quietly from private banks and investment funds onto the shoulders of taxpayers across southern Europe. It is a variant of the tragic episode in Greece, but this time on a far larger scale, and with systemic global implications. There has been no democratic decision by any parliament to take on these fiscal debts, rapidly approaching €1 trillion. They are the unintended side-effect of quantitative easing by the European Central Bank, which has degenerated into a conduit for capital flight from the Club Med bloc to Germany, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands. This 'socialisation of risk' is happening by stealth, a mechanical effect of the ECB's Target2 payments system. If a political upset in France or Italy triggers an existential euro crisis over coming months, citizens from both the Eurozone's debtor and creditor countries will discover to their horror what has been done to them.

I thought the papers conclusions summed their findings up very succinctly:

To conclude, the answers to the four specific questions asked at the beginning are:
• No, the Eurozone is not an Optimal Currency Area. This is because it does not satisfy the conditions for monetary union. These conditions can only be satisfied if the Eurozone adopts fiscal and political union by becoming a federal state.
• The euro can therefore survive only so long as Germany, in particular, continues – albeit reluctantly – to finance the balance of payments deficits of other Eurozone members, in particular, Italy and Spain. This requires it both to recycle its trade surpluses back to countries with trade deficits and to be the main recipient of capital flight from Eurozone states with weak and weakening banking systems.
• Target2, the apparently innocuous Eurozone payments system, is critical to facilitating the payment flows between surplus and deficit countries. The Target2 credits of countries such as Germany almost exactly match the balance of payments deficits of countries such as Italy and Spain. Since these deficits can never be repaid, the euro can only survive if Germany, in particular, agrees to mutualise Eurozone debts so that the Eurozone becomes a transfer union.
• Political union together with a common fiscal as well as monetary policy is the only realistic way of saving the euro in the long term and avoid further failed rescue packages.208 This is, of course, what Europe’s political establishment wants and has been preparing for since the days of Jean Monnet, but it is not obvious that this is what the people of Europe want. However, given the size of the Target2 imbalances, it is also conceivable that the Eurozone will not survive and will eventually break up; this becomes more likely if political support for the euro project, particularly in Germany, begins to wane.

Target2 is indeed the silent bailout system that keeps the euro afloat – for now.

If Italy were to trigger a new Euro crisis, the only two outcomes would seem to be the collapse of the Euro project (and Brexit or not we would not come out of that unscathed) or the final push of Euro states into a single political and fiscal union where all financial power would lie in the old Germany. Given the cultural differences, I would say option 1. is the far more likely.

So thanks for posting. It has shifted my thinking a little and I will follow this with interest. For fellow 'remainers' please correct me if you think I am missing something here or overstating the importance of the issue.

Good post - and it is nice to see someone take the effort to research and analyse.

You mention:

" I was genuinely asking for reasons to support Brexit you had this up your sleeve ;-)....."

This has been an issue widely discussed - but not in general public circles - for many years - and indeed I was aware of it - although I found that this explanation by a German attempting humour - a good may of explaining it. I would have been more clunky in my posts - explaining that there is an ever-increasing debt issue that will cause fracture of the Eurozone and that there is no point in monetary union without political union

For a couple of other reasons I am going to ask @Ric to make the earlier Brexit threads available and if he does that, I will be able to find some posts in which I frequently sought to explain that my motivations for supporting Brexit was because the EU was indeed going to collapse/implode - and nothing to do with the reasons that were being suggested and used as smears.

I am sure that there will be many posts from me that make reference to the titanic and expressing recognition that when the good ship EU does go under that we will still be damaged - but at least if we are in a lifeboat and have started putting distance between ourselves and the sinking ship - then we will at least have a good chance of survival - even if we have a hard and perilous journey ahead...……..

This issue is never going to go away - and it will 'come home to roost'

This major fault line can only be hidden as long as the debt is allowed to continue to balloon - but there will be a significant bill to be paid when one of the Eurozone defaults...….. And actually, it could be Germany left most damaged.

When you think this issue through more deeply you then start to bring to bear other developments:
​

• Macron's push for a 2-speed Europe​
• The loss of capital and assets from the countries that are in ever-increasing hock as collateral for their debt​
• Why Italy and Greece ended up capitulating to the demands of the Troika​
• Why the Northern and richer nations keep reluctantly bailing out - but the bubble is getting bigger and close to bursting​
• etc.​

There is no way out of this - it would have required the Southern nations to undertake major and long-term austerity programmes - way beyond the pain that Greece feels that it has already gone through.

Culturally it is not going to happen by consent - so it will need political union and the imposition of controls from the centre of the EU to direct fiscal and economic policies

A scan of the previous threads will also show my posts where I have explained that having 'opt-outs' etc. will be no protection for the UK. I sought to get people to review the '5 Presidents Report' from 2015 - they set it all out quite clearly - but all I got back was abuse and assurances that it would not affect the UK as it was not in the Euro - yeah right....

You will also find posts from me saying that if we do not leave - then we need to go full-on for integration and seek to look after our interests - because the journey was not going to be avoided.

This was and is only going to go one way...……………... and then along came Covid-19 and the promises of the EU/ECB to do whatever it takes...………….

I am not using hindsight - I sought to inform the discussion over years - but there was no interest/echo - so I welcome you making the effort - thanks
​

 

[mcfc1632]

I watched the second presentation. A German with a sense of humour! I liked his metaphor about monopoly, that was certainly me as a child.

Whilst I found some of his anecdotes a little difficult to believe - the President of the Bundesbank needed an economist to tell him what an asset item on his balance sheet was - really, I found it an interesting presentation.

Target 2 was never intended to be used as it is being. It was supposed to be a relatively simple RTSG system facilitating payments between Euro central banks. I would be lying if i claimed to know about this previously and all the times I was genuinely asking for reasons to support Brexit you had this up your sleeve ;-). Having read a bit more about the issue this morning, there are a range of views amongst German economists about just how serious this is, but from my relatively noddy appreciation of macro economics it is a shitty stick and I can well understand how it would form a strong part of a brexit case. That this is the first time anyone on here has raised it makes me think it is not widely known.

I also found this paper which I thought was helpful

https://www.cass.city.ac.uk/faculti...t-system-keeps-the-euro-project-alive-for-now

a couple of extracts:
How much longer will Germany’s hard-working, inflation-averse population tolerate paying for other countries’ excesses? There is considerable anger across the Eurozone’s largest economy, even though most voters don’t know the half of it. Obscure data shows that under so-called Target2 operations, the ECB’s intraeurozone payments system, the Bundesbank is owed a mighty €620bn by other member states. This stealth bail-out dwarfs German’s covert contributions to previous Eurozone rescues, which themselves provoked bitter public criticism.

More recently, Evans-Pritchard wrote:
Vast liabilities are being switched quietly from private banks and investment funds onto the shoulders of taxpayers across southern Europe. It is a variant of the tragic episode in Greece, but this time on a far larger scale, and with systemic global implications. There has been no democratic decision by any parliament to take on these fiscal debts, rapidly approaching €1 trillion. They are the unintended side-effect of quantitative easing by the European Central Bank, which has degenerated into a conduit for capital flight from the Club Med bloc to Germany, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands. This 'socialisation of risk' is happening by stealth, a mechanical effect of the ECB's Target2 payments system. If a political upset in France or Italy triggers an existential euro crisis over coming months, citizens from both the Eurozone's debtor and creditor countries will discover to their horror what has been done to them.

I thought the papers conclusions summed their findings up very succinctly:

To conclude, the answers to the four specific questions asked at the beginning are:
• No, the Eurozone is not an Optimal Currency Area. This is because it does not satisfy the conditions for monetary union. These conditions can only be satisfied if the Eurozone adopts fiscal and political union by becoming a federal state.
• The euro can therefore survive only so long as Germany, in particular, continues – albeit reluctantly – to finance the balance of payments deficits of other Eurozone members, in particular, Italy and Spain. This requires it both to recycle its trade surpluses back to countries with trade deficits and to be the main recipient of capital flight from Eurozone states with weak and weakening banking systems.
• Target2, the apparently innocuous Eurozone payments system, is critical to facilitating the payment flows between surplus and deficit countries. The Target2 credits of countries such as Germany almost exactly match the balance of payments deficits of countries such as Italy and Spain. Since these deficits can never be repaid, the euro can only survive if Germany, in particular, agrees to mutualise Eurozone debts so that the Eurozone becomes a transfer union.
• Political union together with a common fiscal as well as monetary policy is the only realistic way of saving the euro in the long term and avoid further failed rescue packages.208 This is, of course, what Europe’s political establishment wants and has been preparing for since the days of Jean Monnet, but it is not obvious that this is what the people of Europe want. However, given the size of the Target2 imbalances, it is also conceivable that the Eurozone will not survive and will eventually break up; this becomes more likely if political support for the euro project, particularly in Germany, begins to wane.

Target2 is indeed the silent bailout system that keeps the euro afloat – for now.

If Italy were to trigger a new Euro crisis, the only two outcomes would seem to be the collapse of the Euro project (and Brexit or not we would not come out of that unscathed) or the final push of Euro states into a single political and fiscal union where all financial power would lie in the old Germany. Given the cultural differences, I would say option 1. is the far more likely.

So thanks for posting. It has shifted my thinking a little and I will follow this with interest. For fellow 'remainers' please correct me if you think I am missing something here or overstating the importance of the issue.

I finished my last post with the comment...………….

"…... and then along came Covid-19 and the promises of the EU/ECB to do whatever it takes...…………."

To keep the improvement in the quality of dialogue going - I would draw your attention to my recent posts with regard to the findings of the German Constitution Court and how I think that will end up when set against the comments from Lagarde about the EU's commitment.....

and also.....

My question earlier today to Remainers and Leavers as to what would be the implications for the UK in managing its recovery from Covid-19 if we had not left the EU and if we do not ensure freedom from EU controls and regulations - especially if the Covid-19 recovery programme is integrated into the MFF

Just think these things through together - and they all start to show linkage - and the answers and what would have been our future become obvious

 

[Saddleworth2]

Good post - and it is nice to see someone take the effort to research and analyse.

You mention:

" I was genuinely asking for reasons to support Brexit you had this up your sleeve ;-)....."

This has been an issue widely discussed - but not in general public circles - for many years - and indeed I was aware of it - although I found that this explanation by a German attempting humour - a good may of explaining it. I would have been more clunky in my posts - explaining that there is an ever-increasing debt issue that will cause fracture of the Eurozone and that there is no point in monetary union without political union

For a couple of other reasons I am going to ask @Ric to make the earlier Brexit threads available and if he does that, I will be able to find some posts in which I frequently sought to explain that my motivations for supporting Brexit was because the EU was indeed going to collapse/implode - and nothing to do with the reasons that were being suggested and used as smears.

I am sure that there will be many posts from me that make reference to the titanic and expressing recognition that when the good ship EU does go under that we will still be damaged - but at least if we are in a lifeboat and have started putting distance between ourselves and the sinking ship - then we will at least have a good chance of survival - even if we have a hard and perilous journey ahead...……..

This issue is never going to go away - and it will 'come home to roost'

This major fault line can only be hidden as long as the debt is allowed to continue to balloon - but there will be a significant bill to be paid when one of the Eurozone defaults...….. And actually, it could be Germany left most damaged.

When you think this issue through more deeply you then start to bring to bear other developments:
​

• Macron's push for a 2-speed Europe​
• The loss of capital and assets from the countries that are in ever-increasing hock as collateral for their debt​
• Why Italy and Greece ended up capitulating to the demands of the Troika​
• Why the Northern and richer nations keep reluctantly bailing out - but the bubble is getting bigger and close to bursting​
• etc.​

There is no way out of this - it would have required the Southern nations to undertake major and long-term austerity programmes - way beyond the pain that Greece feels that it has already gone through.

Culturally it is not going to happen by consent - so it will need political union and the imposition of controls from the centre of the EU to direct fiscal and economic policies

A scan of the previous threads will also show my posts where I have explained that having 'opt-outs' etc. will be no protection for the UK. I sought to get people to review the '5 Presidents Report' from 2015 - they set it all out quite clearly - but all I got back was abuse and assurances that it would not affect the UK as it was not in the Euro - yeah right....

You will also find posts from me saying that if we do not leave - then we need to go full-on for integration and seek to look after our interests - because the journey was not going to be avoided.

This was and is only going to go one way...……………... and then along came Covid-19 and the promises of the EU/ECB to do whatever it takes...………….

I am not using hindsight - I sought to inform the discussion over years - but there was no interest/echo - so I welcome your making the effort - thanks
​

In my attempts to understand the Brexit position which you might remember was a sincere one. There was nothing I saw from that was as specific as this. I don’t doubt for a moment that you knew of the issue but it is clear from the little research I did this morning that the stealthy funding of the med euro countries using a payment mechanism that was designed for something else entirely is not widely known or understood on here or seemingly anywhere else. Anyway, please don’t seek to justify your post history on my account. I’m just pleased you posted this yesterday and it has honestly shifted my thinking. If you haven’t already, read the paper I attached. It’s saying the same thing but more depth

 

[hgblue]

Good post - and it is nice to see someone take the effort to research and analyse.

You mention:

" I was genuinely asking for reasons to support Brexit you had this up your sleeve ;-)....."

This has been an issue widely discussed - but not in general public circles - for many years - and indeed I was aware of it - although I found that this explanation by a German attempting humour - a good may of explaining it. I would have been more clunky in my posts - explaining that there is an ever-increasing debt issue that will cause fracture of the Eurozone and that there is no point in monetary union without political union

For a couple of other reasons I am going to ask @Ric to make the earlier Brexit threads available and if he does that, I will be able to find some posts in which I frequently sought to explain that my motivations for supporting Brexit was because the EU was indeed going to collapse/implode - and nothing to do with the reasons that were being suggested and used as smears.

I am sure that there will be many posts from me that make reference to the titanic and expressing recognition that when the good ship EU does go under that we will still be damaged - but at least if we are in a lifeboat and have started putting distance between ourselves and the sinking ship - then we will at least have a good chance of survival - even if we have a hard and perilous journey ahead...……..

This issue is never going to go away - and it will 'come home to roost'

This major fault line can only be hidden as long as the debt is allowed to continue to balloon - but there will be a significant bill to be paid when one of the Eurozone defaults...….. And actually, it could be Germany left most damaged.

When you think this issue through more deeply you then start to bring to bear other developments:
​

• Macron's push for a 2-speed Europe​
• The loss of capital and assets from the countries that are in ever-increasing hock as collateral for their debt​
• Why Italy and Greece ended up capitulating to the demands of the Troika​
• Why the Northern and richer nations keep reluctantly bailing out - but the bubble is getting bigger and close to bursting​
• etc.​

There is no way out of this - it would have required the Southern nations to undertake major and long-term austerity programmes - way beyond the pain that Greece feels that it has already gone through.

Culturally it is not going to happen by consent - so it will need political union and the imposition of controls from the centre of the EU to direct fiscal and economic policies

A scan of the previous threads will also show my posts where I have explained that having 'opt-outs' etc. will be no protection for the UK. I sought to get people to review the '5 Presidents Report' from 2015 - they set it all out quite clearly - but all I got back was abuse and assurances that it would not affect the UK as it was not in the Euro - yeah right....

You will also find posts from me saying that if we do not leave - then we need to go full-on for integration and seek to look after our interests - because the journey was not going to be avoided.

This was and is only going to go one way...……………... and then along came Covid-19 and the promises of the EU/ECB to do whatever it takes...………….

I am not using hindsight - I sought to inform the discussion over years - but there was no interest/echo - so I welcome you making the effort - thanks
​

I can remember many Brits warning our German friends that the Euro would end in tears. Somehow ‘I told you so’ just doesn’t do it justice ;)

 

[Vic]

I finished my last post with the comment...………….

"…... and then along came Covid-19 and the promises of the EU/ECB to do whatever it takes...…………."

To keep the improvement in the quality of dialogue going - I would draw your attention to my recent posts with regard to the findings of the German Constitution Court and how I think that will end up when set against the comments from Lagarde about the EU's commitment.....

and also.....

My question earlier today to Remainers and Leavers as to what would be the implications for the UK in managing its recovery from Covid-19 if we had not left the EU and if we do not ensure freedom from EU controls and regulations - especially if the Covid-19 recovery programme is integrated into the MFF

Just think these things through together - and they all start to show linkage - and the answers and what would have been our future become obvious

I think we can be sure that your not replying to my devastating dismantling of your nonsense about EU grants was not for want of time to reply.

Anyway my admittedly shallow riposte to the Target 2 stuff would be:

1. Is Hartwich saying much different to what Hans-Werner Sinn was saying eight years ago? (I can post a couple of responses to that.)

2. The balances now are because of asset purchases (so not based on nothing).

3. If I heard him right Hartwich said if it all goes wrong it could cost German taxpayers €100billion. With a national debt of €2trillion, are they bothered so long as target2 still works in Germany's interests?

4. In relation to Brexit, I don't think Hartwich thinks No Deal would be good for us.

5. The Finns seem ok with Target2.
https://www.bofbulletin.fi/en/2018/4/target2-balances-a-truth-more-boring-than-fiction/

I suspect you'll say I don't understand the issue (and the finer points of international finance are well beyond my ken) but is Target2 any more of a financial scam than creation of credit by banks generally? "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled" (Galbraith)

 

[smudgedj]

Cracker of a statement from President Von de Leyden

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_846
Telling the German courts to shut the fuck up

...
that EU law has primacy over national law and that rulings of the European Court of Justice are binding on all national courts.

The final word on EU law is always spoken in Luxembourg. Nowhere else.

 

[hgblue]

Cracker of a statement from President Von de Leyden

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_846
Telling the German courts to shut the fuck up

Haha, so funny watching this.

 

[mcfc1632]

In my attempts to understand the Brexit position which you might remember was a sincere one. There was nothing I saw from that was as specific as this. I don’t doubt for a moment that you knew of the issue but it is clear from the little research I did this morning that the stealthy funding of the med euro countries using a payment mechanism that was designed for something else entirely is not widely known or understood on here or seemingly anywhere else. Anyway, please don’t seek to justify your post history on my account. I’m just pleased you posted this yesterday and it has honestly shifted my thinking. If you haven’t already, read the paper I attached. It’s saying the same thing but more depth

The inherent dangers of this issue have been known and 'widely' discussed - I am guessing and cannot be arsed to check - since about 2011.

I say 'widely' - because it was widely in certain specialist circles - but not at all discussed amongst the general public.

I also did not become aware of it to the extent that people are now aware - because it was spoken of as a 'potential risk' - something that could develop into a major issue if not addressed. In those days my understanding was limited to the increasing issues of debt and the clarity I felt about the adoption of a common currency being only practicable if it was part of an overall adoption of political union/federalisation.

I have recently found some other clips about this issue that are from years before the ones I posted - and it was described as something that could 'become' something to worry about if not addressed. Subsequently, it has not been addressed and therefore...……...

So I am not claiming to have been a specialist or obsessed about Target 2 - and as you mentioned "Target 2 was never intended to be used as it is being...." - but I came across the issue years before there was a referendum - but for me the issue was more the drive towards federalism for which the ability for the UK to opt out would not be more than a temporary avoidance and no comfort at all. This is what I made many posts about.

I am grateful for you taking the time to do some research and analyse - and I will indeed read the paper that you linked. I do not feel the need to justify my post history - my request to @Ric to have access to the previous Brexit threads for a limited time is for a different reason - which I will explain in another post.

 

[mcfc1632]

Cracker of a statement from President Von de Leyden

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_846
Telling the German courts to shut the fuck up

No ambiguity there!!

Makes me miss being a member already

And some are keen for us to accept ECJ rule over UK law

 

[mexico1970]

No ambiguity there!!

Makes me miss being a member already

And some are keen for us to accept ECJ rule over UK law

But it's just a trading bloc isn't it :)

 

[smudgedj]

No ambiguity there!!

Makes me miss being a member already

And some are keen for us to accept ECJ rule over UK law

Someone needs to remind the Eu president that parliaments are sovereign and EU law did not supplant National law. :-)

 

[Saddleworth2]

I think we can be sure that your not replying to my devastating dismantling of your nonsense about EU grants was not for want of time to reply.

Anyway my admittedly shallow riposte to the Target 2 stuff would be:

1. Is Hartwich saying much different to what Hans-Werner Sinn was saying eight years ago? (I can post a couple of responses to that.)

2. The balances now are because of asset purchases (so not based on nothing).

3. If I heard him right Hartwich said if it all goes wrong it could cost German taxpayers €100billion. With a national debt of €2trillion, are they bothered so long as target2 still works in Germany's interests?

4. In relation to Brexit, I don't think Hartwich thinks No Deal would be good for us.

5. The Finns seem ok with Target2.
https://www.bofbulletin.fi/en/2018/4/target2-balances-a-truth-more-boring-than-fiction/

I suspect you'll say I don't understand the issue (and the finer points of international finance are well beyond my ken) but is Target2 any more of a financial scam than creation of credit by banks generally? "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled" (Galbraith)

Good post Vic. You are right that it was Sinn that first uncovered this around 8 years ago. What assets do you believe are being purchased and would they have value in the case of a crisis I wonder? My take was the German balance was €1trillion which was the sum at risk. Thanks for the Finnish article, it does seem to position the reasons for the balances differently to the paper I posted yesterday though. I watched and read all the stuff yesterday and was left with a feeling of ‘this looks pretty serious, but am I missing something’ it worries me that this has been around for years and very little is being made of it. We shall see.