As for economists, most thought we should join the Euro; few saw Labour's credit bubble crash coming and just as few saw the problems building in French, German and Italian banks, which Greece has been sacrificed to pay for.
Well, of course no one saw the credit bubble, thats one of the factors that make it a bubble...you slipped in Labour, I'm grateful for you letting my industry off the hook this time :-). Some did and were predicting a sub-prime bubble, some did comment how a rate rise could trigger defaults. But its hard to get people to listen during good times.
With regards to the banks, are you talking recent or previous? Well an economist's job isn't to know the intricacies of each bank's business model. They work in macro models, not in knowing how a bank generates revenue, what its asset book is like etc. While people are lauding you because your words are, no offence, a populist view point, its factually incorrect. In opaque markets, no one knows the composition of, say, a derivatives book. Its the nature of the beast. As for Greece, its a different topic, however they have their own structural problems, and have their own expenditure problems. Many, many many economists were viewing them, and continue to view them as a real issue.
Moody's and other credit agencies were blithely unaware of the meltdown taking place around them too. All in all I think you're about the last person left who gives their opinion any credence.
Again, this is just incorrect. The credit ratings play a part in most debt issuances, they have a direct impact of debt on the secondary market, and can substantially impact the cost of borrowing for institutions and corporates alike. Honestly, and I don't mean this in a condescending manner, apologies if it comes across like that, but a lot of your comments seem like propoganda. Much like corbyn et al blaming the bankers for everything from the sub-prime crisis right through to scraping their knee.
The biggest powers in the world, the USA, Russia, China, are not in the EU, nor are Australia, the UAE, Iceland, New Zealand and plenty of other countries both large and small who manage fine.
The USA, Russia and China are all reflective of the EU in size and in GDP. Thats my point.
Australia, and the UAE are all part of a trading bloc. Now I know you will say its not like the EU, and I would agree, mostly. However, its indicative of a continuing trend, and I expect more EU like unions in the future.
However, to compare Iceland and New Zealand with this discussion really isn't appropriate. for one, Iceland is part of the trading bloc in the EU and until recently was applying to be a part of the EU. It must also implement EU legislation to movement of goods, capital and people with no voice at the table.
Also to suggest that Iceland was doing fine is categorically incorrect. It had a deep, structural recession much like most of the western world.
New Zealand also felt hardship with unemployment skirting around 10%, I think? Somewhere close to that.
So to suggest they do fine is not the whole story.
But would you rather compare yourself to a country with a population of 300,000 and laud it as a bastion of success? How do you think they fair in bilateral trade negotiations. Answer this honestly, in a negotiation scenario, if one side is one entity, and the other is a group of people with shared goals, who do you think would do better? Who has the greater bargaining power? To me its a no brainer.
Once we become independent we can stay in NATO if we wish, we will still be one of just 5 permanent members of the UN security council and we can retake our seat at the WTO. Independence means more internationalism for the UK not less.
I recognise the first part, a disagree with the second. Again, a lone voice is not as strong as a group of voices with shared goals. I disagree that "more internationalism" will occur, as I believe we are actin in an isolationist manner. We are a great, strong country, but we can't shout as loud as a number of them. I think the patriotic thing to do is to align ourselves with the EU, have a real voice at the negotiating table, and rather than voting in idiots into the MEP who abstain from everything, insult everyone, we should vote in people who will represent britain's interests.
The 28 member counties of the EU accounted for 30% of world trade in 1980 which has fallen to 17% now and looks set to drop below 10% inside a decade as there continues to be no overall growth in the EU, unlike literally all other trading blocs in the world. Independence means removing ourselves from this millstone. The EU also represents a declining market for UK exports so in short it's becoming less significant to us over time and that process is continuing.
This is a good point, and you're correct. The lack of growth is due to a number of reasons, but you are right and I can't argue with this. Other than to say that I believe the EU is reforming, and I believe it will continue to do so. I believe eurobonds should exist and the private sector should help to stimulate the european economies. I can't see these pressures lasting forever, however I do think most of the world should perhaps come to understand that the hgih levels of growth we experienced prior to the crisis were propped up on lose credit policies. I think this (well a little bit more growth than what we expect nowadays) is in fact the new normal.
There is no reason at all why we should be any less strong at negotiating trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world than they are. None.
Again, I disagree wholeheartedly, if the other side of the negotiating table stands to lose out on access to 28 countries rather than one, they are on the defensive. simple game theory.
You make no mention of our net contribution to the EU's funds - some 10 billion per year that we could have back immediately. What about the added expense of the CAP which inflates our food bills by an even larger amount? Imagine the positive benefits on our balance of trade when we get our fishing waters back - a primary industry with a ready export market worldwide.
Its negligible, 0.5% of GDP. It doesn't take into account the FDI, the inward investment, the boost to trade etc. that almost every single academic literature on the subject says we gain. upwards of GBP 400bn.
I know you said before you don't count any of the sources I previously quoted as being good sources. The london school of economics, UCL, Imperial many many more. Eventually surely the weight of academic evidence will be enough to say, "yeah, the EU probably does bring benefits"?
First and foremost though, by making this an economic argument you are suggesting that you are prepared to put a price on your right to vote for your legislators. We should not be ruled by appointees - let's leave tha for China and the ghosts of the USSR.
Again, disagree. If we stopped voting in UKIP into MEPs, and had people that would actually engage, it would be no different to the government we have now. They negotiate and contribute to policy decisions in much the same way. We vote them in to represent us, they do just that. How is that different to voting in the tories and being annoyed with their approach to trident, etc.
Cameron has accidentally given us a chance to choose independence and remove ourself from the clutches of The Enemies Of Democracy. We have to take it as we might not get another opportunity for decades. And we will be financially better off anyway.
How will we be financially better off, can you explain that to me now please?
Can you also tell me how the negotiation process will go? How you will prepare for basically a unilateral process. How will you negotiate preferential treatment. Can you also explain how you suggest britain approach new trade negotiation. What are the procedures you would follow, what process would you undertake if you were in power?
Also, how quick would we be able to separate? Can you explain how you expect inflation, GBP, the rate environment would react to the exit? How about economic growth?
Just like many here have not seen irrefutable evidence to show why the UK is better in the EU, nor have I heard the above from the "out" campaign
Currency fluctuations are very much a short term phenomenon and derive from the uncertainty not the possible vote for independence. If the polls showed we were 90% in favour of independence then that uncertainty would not exist. Long term there's as much reason to suspect that the pound will rise against the Euro as fall, that is if there still is a Euro which is not necessarily the case as most of the EU's banking industry remains on a precipice.
you're not wrong, currencies do have short term fluctuations, they also have structural issues which makes them unappealing to investors. When you say "that uncertainty would not exist", I'm afraid that is simply an opinion. Look, I'm no FX investor, and I do find some of its mechanics relatively esoteric. However, I do sit a few feet away from our FX trading desk, and they all tell me the same thing. The real money investors who speculate in the FX market do not want to touch it if they can help it, because they feel there is considerable, additional downside. They see a protracted, basically unilateral, negotiation period as having a great deal of downward pressure on GBP. When compiled with our macro strategy team, they seemingly all have a similar view point. With negotiation and prolonged uncertainty and a rate environment with a ceiling, that inflation is likely to increase over the middle term. Couple this with a depreciating GBP/EUR exchange rate, and we could very easily tip into a recession. That's an up to date market view, I've no reason to bullshit. Whether you believe/agree is a completely different story