Yeah and Lisbon would not be ratified ever either.
Irish Finance minister has made clear that any referendum will basically be an in-out vote, and that is true for any other country that doesn't ratify.
Printable View
Yeah and Lisbon would not be ratified ever either.
Irish Finance minister has made clear that any referendum will basically be an in-out vote, and that is true for any other country that doesn't ratify.
Nobody ever claimed Lisbon wouldn't be ratified so that sarcasm doesn't achieve anything.
The Irish Finance Minister can claim what he likes, there's no process to expel a member from the EU let alone the Eurozone itself. Are you claiming the UK is now out? That Sweden if they don't ratify etc will be out.
I'd be curious to know what the response would be if we told Berlin to fuck off, we're not paying any more.
All nations are heavily in debt, some more than others. Defining sovereign debt as percent of national GDP doesn't make much sense to me...not since globalization means everyone has mixed different currency valuations, traded inter-national bond debts as 'investments'...in order to fund public obligations that are based on political decisions/policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
(Plus, as I understand it, GDP is nothing more than aggregate numbers of money moving around, including borrowing/lending, credit/debt. GDP doesn't include context or type of debt, and bubbles are easily ignored.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Reading Rand and Hazir debate the Euro--as a 'united' trading zone or currency--is a reminder that "money" is a powerful political force. But money/currency, or lending/borrowing debt (as investment or profit) can't necessarily bring different political ideologies together. Instead, it's the kind of thing that leads to such social turmoil and polarity, that extremists can find their way to power. It's how the seeds of protests, riots, and wars are started. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Rand, it seemed that Cameron was trying to protect Fleet Street (aka The Bankers and Financial Industry), because they're such a large part of the UK's income. He bowed out of the EU as a "trading zone" because he wanted the UK to be a powerful financial center? :confused:
While I'm generally more in agreement with your position than Hazir's when it comes to the imminent "kicking out" of members of the European Community's formal organizations, I have always been and remained puzzled by this blind and grossly inaccurate insistence you have that the formal tools and processes are the only way change can ever come.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
edit: GGT, you are aware that there is a "delete post" option at the top of the edit page, yes?
It has to do with the way the British press deals with the EU too I suppose. After the friday deal there were two stories; one was how Britain was robbed of influence this way, the other was a slew of stories about how the UK could stop this agreement by throwing some spanners in the work. Like not allowing the europlus group to convene in EU buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
To me it's quite simple now, countries that would like to wriggle out of last friday's deal can be divided in two groups; the first group are the countries that already use the euro. They actually have no other choice than to sign up to the deal, unless they want out of the euro. A situation of non-ratification would dangerously expose them to the markets as they would also be exposed as a country that is not backed by either EFSF or ESM (and ultimately the ECB even though nobody dares say that yet)
The second group consists of the rest; their signing up the deal is less urgent, though in the long run they can't escape it as they still want to join the euro. Thinking about it I am not so certain which group Denmark belongs to.
Merkel declared in the Bundestag yesterday that the EU had been set on a path to political union. Seems to me that means she didn't change her mind about anything, and that counts a hell of lot more than what any other person in Europe declares about what will happen.
@GGT; it's The City, not Fleet street. Fleet street is where British newspapers used to be located in the last century (IIRC pre-Thatcher)
Fuzzy, yes, I tried to delete the duplicate post but it still won't work :confused:
Hazir, whatever 'street' it's on, it seems to me the British Financial Industry is being favored above the nation's interest in eurozone unity. Rather like how 'Wall Street' was favored above 'Main Street' in the US. It's one thing to save the entire global banking sector, but at whose expense?
Well, to be honest, the behaviour of Cameron is a bit puzzling the more details become clear. For starters, it is highly questionable if The City was really under such attack from Brussels. There are even signs that London wanted more regulation than Brussels, not less. Then you have to see that under EU rules what he asked was excessive; he effectively wanted a veto over a part of the market. Something that violates even his own professed 'europeanism'. And then finally, by walking away from the deal (that would only have affected the UK for real if it joined the eurozone) he created a forum inside the EU where 26 governments come together talking about financial affairs. Now how much imagination does it take to imagine them cooking up regulations for the financial sectore while they are at it.
The only positive about his walk-out is that he threw a bone to his most jingoistic party-members. But it seems what it did was not calm them but rather than that it caused a feeding frenzy.
Financial Services are still part of a bubble, IMO. It's just harder to "see" as part of structural flaws, because it's still paramount to how we think about and value money and investments. That's why any big bank, beginning in the UK with Northern Rock, and moving to Iceland/Ice-Save got automatic preference over their tax payer non-depositor bail-outs. The banks were holding pension plans and sovereign debts....with more political clout than financial power.
Hungary and Czech Republic WON'T join treaty unless Sarkozy drops his tax harmonisation plans. Oops.
This whole treaty is unravelling as fast as a kid unwraps his Christmas presents :D
Interesting all these people with an opinion on a treaty that hasn't been written yet. Also their opinion is quite irrelevant, as they may not accept the deal now, but then would have to give up any hope of ever joining the euro.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
But I thought, like Sweden, they were obliged to join it no matter what they wanted.
Not sure saying they can't join theTitanicEuro is as much of a threat as you think it is.
Spain has got it's Euros easier and cheaper than expected.
BTW the Titanic was British.
So were Chamberlain and Churchill; nation states are never friends, the purpose of a state is to protect its own well-being, and by extension her own citizenry. Naturally a Briton is gleeful about ruptures on the main-land, so long as he's not getting bombed/the banking in London isn't hurting too much.
And the UK had a less than perfect auction; which is amazing considering that the BoE is in a buying mood. Those French officials are right about the UK being a worse risk than most of Europe, it is of course not nice of them to point this out so publicly, but then again, the UK needn't trumpet the fact that there are meetings about contingency plans for a break up of the Eurozone.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
This pissing match between you and RandBlade about whose country is superior is really rather pointless, given that the matter was decided last year and you both lost. Spain's the best country in the world, and no one cares about the UK or Germany or the EU because Spain's the reigning world champion, so you need to just learn to deal with it and move on. :downcast:
:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Speaking of which, Spain (and Ireland) show why this new treaty or whatever you want to call it is utterly meaningless. Neither Spain nor Ireland got into the crisis they're in by violating what will be the conditions of the new Treaty ... or violating the old Growth and Stability Pact. Unlike Germany and France who both did. It's neither fixing this problem, nor preventing it from happening again.
It's like closing the houses windows after the horse has bolted from the stable.
Sigh, it's getting so tedious talking with somebody who doesn't understand the mechanics of international politics. You brits have chips implanted that stop you from thinking outside of what is presented to you by your national rags? Everybody with half a braincell working knows that this deal is to put the ECB in a position where it can act without compromising its mandate. This whole austerity thing has got ECB written over it. The ECB has some very specific wishes that these countries have to fullfill before it will cover them in a crisis like we are seeing today.
Also, you can forget your dreams about countries not signing up to the deal. Finally the leaders of the eurozone are drawing conclusions from the fact that a system where every idiot can block anything is not a system that works. The new agreement will come in force once 9 countries of the eurozone have ratified it. Non-ratifying countries of the eurozone will effectively be forced out, non-ratifying non-euro countries will simply not be accepted into the eurozone, thus effectively negating their accession to the EU when that still stood for being part of Europe for them.
Ireland will get one vote, they can choose between a yes to the deal or facing the capital markets after a disorderly default.
CC ; I officially hate you now.
P.S. I am really going to laugh my ass off if we're going to see a British U-turn on the treaty by the end of january :)
Rand, what's the general reaction to Cameron's decision in your area? I didn't find much of anything at BBC, but other financial news makes it look like a split between 'favoring London's bankers/financiers over the general economy' and 'speculating the future values of Sterling will beat the Euro'.
Interesting that you now acknowledge defaults or the possibility of some nations leaving the euro but still want to cloud things in insults.
I understand the mechanics of international politics quite well thank you, its remarkably similar to any other type of politics. The mechanics are simple, if you have something to offer then people will try and make a deal, if you don't then put up or shut up. If you roll over for everything people will expect you to do the same again. Simply nodding along to everything does not help you one jot in international politics.
GGT: Not seen any of the latter. Overall opinion seems mainly to be that there was no alternative. Overall as well people have already moved on and its no longer big news.
Moved on, really? :confused: Here are a couple of articles I read just today that suggest otherwise:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Cameron cited defending London’s financial-services industry as the main reason he refused to join 26 other nations in a European Union treaty to rescue the euro last week. He was left out of further negotiations with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to criticism from the Liberal Democrats, his coalition partners, that Britain would be frozen out of decision-making in Europe.
Quote:
London is the world’s biggest market for interest-rate derivatives, with $1.4 trillion of daily revenue, or 46 percent of the world’s total, according to the Bank for International Settlements. The U.K. is also home to the world’s biggest foreign-exchange market and 251 foreign banks, more than in any other country.
“The City is relieved” at Cameron’s refusal to sign the treaty, according to Steven Bell, chief economist at hedge fund GLC Ltd. in London and a former U.K. Treasury economist. “For the U.K. economy it’s the equivalent of North Sea oil and it’s not running out.”
The U.K.’s financial-services industry makes up about 10 percent of the country’s gross domestic product and 11 percent of its total tax receipts, according to The City U.K., a lobby group backed by the City of London Corporation, which governs the financial district. Financial-services employ more than 1 million people in the U.K., the group said.
About 288,000 of these work in the City of London, according to the CEBR. That’s 9.3 percent fewer than in 2010 and the lowest headcount since at least 1998 as firms cut jobs amid the European debt crisis and tougher regulation.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...ntipathy-.html
That looks like what people in the US have been complaining (and Occupying) about since the global financial melt-down of '07-'08---public policy to prop up the same "experts" who caused the trouble in the first place, with politicians' help. Well, that's my take on it.
Combined with what we know about synthetic derivatives, it looks like a precarious position for the UK to choose to "go it alone". More on those financial WMD, including interest-rate swaps, to which London's financial-services industry is heavily exposed:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...fit_99422.html
:eek:
That article was written 4 days ago.
Why does the date of the article matter? :confused:
After re-reading the OP, I wonder if anyone wants to dissect the politics of money further, and more structurally...? The eurozone isn't becoming a 'single state' any more than the euro as a currency defines statehood. But that's part of the inherent problem, when monetary policy competes with fiscal policy. We shouldn't kid ourselves---both are fundamentally political.
The US Federal Reserve is supposedly "neutral" and non-political, but that's bull. It's a group of private bankers that work closely with our Treasury, often in secrecy behind closed-doors, and Treasury relies on appointments/confirmations by the executive and legislative branches. The public doesn't have a real-time clue to the Fed's balance sheet, and relies on Beige Papers and quarterly press releases. Efforts to audit the Federal Reserve have been ignored for decades....since Ron Paul started the mission. People used to laugh at that, until post-crisis of 2008 showed monetary AND fiscal policy (politics) were killing savers, fixed-income retirees, small businesses, and middle-class earners.
For Europe and the Eurozone, or those using the Euro as a currency or investment 'tool'...that means national Treasurys and central bankers bumping up against ECB and IMF, trying to decide what's best for the union AND their own populace. It's not clear how the whole thing was constructed, or what the treaties contractually mandated (as an American, I didn't pay that much attention, to be honest).....but it's rather late in the game to realize political pressures from each nation might throw a monkey wrench in the cogs of the machinery if/when it wasn't working well for each nation involved. Wasn't there some sort of contingent plan at the beginning? Like what "to do" with members that had fudged their accounting, or refused to deal with debts/deficits (aka Greece) :confused:
Anywho....it's probably high time everyone asks who's in charge of "our money", and how it's done. We're all intertwined by global financial markets, treasurys and central banks, but that's not becoming one global nation or using one currency, let alone one body politik.
I suggested people were already moving on, you be butted that by quoting an article you'd read 'just today'. You may have read it just today but it wasn't published just today.Quote:
Why does the date of the article matter? :confused:
That's even stranger; to suggest people have "moved on" because I read and linked a four day old article as a rebuttal? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Let's try this approach instead: Can the UK survive as a single state outside the eurozone? Does it have enough economic power to compete on its own as a "single state"? Can the pound sterling compete against the eurodollar, the USD, remnimbi or yen?
No offense, but there's nothing in my home marked "Made in the UK". I may have some Irish linens, wool, or lace, but only thanks to American importers and distributors. London might be a leading financial district in Europe, but it's easily replaced. It seems silly for Cameron to make decisions based on an outdated assumption that anything English is best...simply because it's English. Same mistake the US has made, assuming US superiority, and resting on its laurels.
Eurozone? It's already outside of the eurozone and has been for its entire history (minus the brief period during which the pound was pegged to the precursor of the euro). :bored: And typical socialist using manufacturing as the key determinant of economic strength.
Cheap shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Typical Loki, though. :rolleyes: He knows damn well that meant could UK compete outside or with the eurozone, without any negotiating power, Domestic manufacturing isn't SSSocialist---it doesn't imply old world industrial assembly lines, but includes high tech and highly skilled engineering, too. Seems a pretty tall order for the UK to keep hoping London's financial services can/will continue to hold top spot, with their growth "trickling down" to the rest of their nation's workers. It doesn't work so great for financial services to be the foundation, when it implodes and takes the house down...using the US as a good example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita
Britain seems to be doing just fine, only marginally behind the industrial powerhouse of Germany.
Britain has the same problems as everyone else: tons of debt, slow or sluggish growth, politicians fighting with central bankers over stimulus or austerity, monetizing sovereign debt, and fiscal policy that favors banking/financial sectors over the general public. While using the public's money and/or value of their money to correct structural problems...that are tied to legislators acting as self-serving politicians instead of wise national leaders.
I've said it before, I'll say it again---GDP doesn't reflect other important things like employment or quality of life, and shouldn't be trotted out as some all-inclusive number that means much without context. Expert economists used to believe (emphatically) that globalization and being a service-oriented economy wouldn't have any down-side for the US, or that losing/exporting blue collar jobs to cheap labor overseas would be replaced by more (wealthier) white collar professionals, who'd turn around and buy cheap imports.
They were wrong, of course. Not just because no one really understood the impact of growing internet/computer services <<who needs a language teacher when we have Rosetta Stone, who needs a local customer rep when someone in India can do that?>>, but because it was assumed our schools and corporations were actively involved in preparing every student and employee for a New Economy.
Yeah, we all have the same problems as evolving first world nations. No one is exempt.
GGT the financial industry is undeniably important to the UK but it's not the only important industry. In fact it's not even the most important by a long way. The UK does export more financial services than other nations, but we also do export more manufactured goods than financial services. In fact I think finance is ranked about 6th.
Its important but not exclusive.
http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...l=1#post103400Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Was there anything incorrect in those links? Does the UK have anything else that compares to $1.4 TRILLION of daily revenue from interest-rate derivatives, or something that's 46% of the world's total? Does any other industry provide more than 11% of UK's overall tax receipts?
The Bank of International Settlements has apparently collected some jaw-dropping stats.
Rand, since you didn't reply otherwise, I'll assume you can't name another UK industry that's "as" important as the Financial District. Especially if/when it falters or fails....with enough political clout to drive Cameron's decisions. Financial services may be ranked 6th as a UK export, but you'd be hard pressed to prove the other top 5 are as heavily linked or coupled to other nations' economies. It's not like the UK is a net energy exporter, or even a big commodity/food exporter.
No offense, but I can't think of one damn thing the UK offers the world that can't be found elsewhere, with less expense. We all love watching Princes marry commoners, with the pomp and ceremony, but we can watch that on youtube now. If tourism and financial services are the bulk of your global trading....I'd say you've got real cause for worry.
British pound can't really compete against the euro dollar or US dollar, or any Asian currency. Begs the question---does your best national economic plan mean currency speculation, using your financial industry....?
Why should we be a big food exporter? Or commodities? That's a third world economies exports. There is nothing remotely skilled, advanced or productive about producing raw resources. I don't see why it is a worry about tourism and financial services being key industries. However the UK does have a very productive and efficient agricultural industry for what its worth. It is a lot harder to start up and attract tourism or financial services than it is to start a farm. I would be worried if farming was our key industry.
As for other important industries:
London is not just the leading financial city in the world, it is also (by a remarkably large margin) the world's main tourist destination city. London gets 15.6million visitors a year, 50% more than its nearest rival Bangkok that gets 10.4m while third placed Paris gets 9.7m annual visitors. The top US destination (New York) I would have expected to be much higher but it has 6.2million annual visitors.
Manufacturing is more important to the UK economy than financial services. Primarily highly-skilled manufacturing though, not robotic simpleton factory manufacturing which is why you don't see Made in UK stamped instead of Made in China on cheap tat. The UK is second or third (depending upon how you measure it) largest aerospace industry and is a leading producer in engines.
Pharmaceuticals is another industry we're a net producer in, heard of GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZenica?
I don't think you understand the purpose of a currency if you think a currency is a "competition". How does a currency "compete"? The pound sterling is a freely-floating currency and is part of all major "baskets" of key currencies along with the dollar, euro, yen etc
Exporting food is a third world activity? Interesting.
(FYI; food exporters 1,2 and 3 in the world are US, France and The Netherlands)
By volume or as a percentage of overall exports?
Tulips are food? :think:
By volume, it is also good for 20% of our exports. About 2% of our workforce is employed in agriculture but it's a big exporting sector and we make a lot of money exporting food.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Tulip bulbs appearantly can be eaten, but they are generally not considered to be a food crop. Besides producing flowers a big part of flowers grown anywhere in the world are sold (and shipped) through Holland. Roses you buy in London may be sold to the seller there by Dutch auctioneers who imported them from Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
98% of people not being employed in agriculture seems about right.
Dutch export figures/import are often a bit funny due to the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect.
Rand, my point was that the UK imports fuel/energy, commodities, food. You're not a self-sufficient nation that can thumb your nose at basic necessities (imported), while relying on tourism or Financial Services to fuel your economy. Not in a global economy that's changing so rapidly. The internet can let investors use Hong Kong or Tokyo for Financial Services.
It's only a matter of time before using a British (or American) investment firm operating in Asia isn't as efficient as using an Asian firm. I have trouble envisioning the UK being a very important player in the future, but it's easy to imagine British professionals emigrating to Asia. In fact, it's already underway. Right now that means surrogate executives for US/UK/EU corporations setting up business in Asia....but eventually that will mean some entrepreneurs leaving the corporation, and starting up their own businesses in Asia. With the UK being an importer.
And I think you're naive if you don't understand that currencies are "competing" for value on the global stage. Our central banks, comptrollers of currency, treasury departments, and legislators are very busy making currency plays and trades every damn day. When China does it, we tend to call it "currency manipulation", but when we do it, we call it "monetary policy".Quote:
I don't think you understand the purpose of a currency if you think a currency is a "competition". How does a currency "compete"? The pound sterling is a freely-floating currency and is part of all major "baskets" of key currencies along with the dollar, euro, yen etc
When nations want to apply political pressures, one of the first moves is to create a tariff or tax, or threaten a trade embargo, or banking freeze. That directly affects their currency value, because it affects their trading ability. Just look at what "we" are trying to do with Iran and their nuclear endeavors, by threatening their central bank's ability to borrow or lend in the global trade environment. It's viewed as a direct threat to their nation, and they're willing to cut off any oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz.
So, yeah, currency is money, money is power, and both have political profiles. :bored: