Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

MDS posted:

I suspect you're right about the timescales of managing the exit process, Don. And given that this would cover three parliaments the long-term management of the change process would fall to the civil service.

Hi Mike,

Yes, the management would fall to the civil service. I probably shouldn't have mentioned "management". I had intended to focus on "leadership" with regard to change.

I don't see any real leaders-in-waiting who would be up to the task with regard to a Brexit, or more importantly, to the consequences of a Brexit, of which negotiating trade deals would be a modest, but essential element.

Mind you, I also don't see any leaders-in-waiting to take a far more stronger lead in reforming the EU, if we decide to remain. And IMHO serious reform is long overdue.  I don't just mean some trivial exceptions for the sole benefit of the UK.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Don, who can see the future?

ATB from George

 

Hi George,

Precisely. That is why I have mentioned a few times that we need to consider the balance of probabilities. Not base our decision on some sentiment.

Don Atkinson posted:

Hi Mike,

I don't see any real leaders-in-waiting who would be up to the task with regard to a Brexit, or more importantly, to the consequences of a Brexit, of which negotiating trade deals would be a modest, but essential element.

Mind you, I also don't see any leaders-in-waiting to take a far more stronger lead in reforming the EU, if we decide to remain. And IMHO serious reform is long overdue.  I don't just mean some trivial exceptions for the sole benefit of the UK.

Rather depressingly I fear you are right, Don.

Mike 

+1 Hook / +1 Tonym.

I listened to Obama's press conference yesterday and IMO he talked a lot of sense. His main point being, staying in the EU would be better for the UK, better for the EU and better for America.

To be honest I'm amazed at the fuss people are making, the UK deciding whether to leave the EU isn't a domestic affair, it's an international affair. It effects directly the other EU member states and Obama seems to think it will effect the U.S.  (As Father Jack would say "That would be an ecumenical matter" )

No reason why he shouldn't comment.

However, if he commented on the UK taxing sugar or turning every school into an academy, that would be interfering with our domestic affairs.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

...

And for Hook, Mr Cameron was not in Washington commenting on Trump. He did not see the US President in the White House the same week. It will not have been reported in the same way. The situation is by no means parallel.

ATB from George

 

Did you watch the press conference?  Your PM was asked directly about his previous comments about Trump, and his reply was that he did not wish to add to or subtract from his previous statements.

The press conference was broadcast live at midday on all US news channels, and that particular Trump comment (like all things Trump-related unfortunately) has been replayed on US news and talk shows, along with references to Cameron's original comments (all of which, by the way, I agree with).

Please try and recall that it was you who said above that the US electorate would be, to use your words, horrified if British political leaders intervened in the US election with comments about Donald Trump. My sole points are that 1) they already have, and 2) we are not. 

Dear Hook,

I do not watch British Television, let alone have access to US Television. so you have the advantage over me. However, I deplore Cameron commenting on Trump, for all that.

It is a question of US internal affairs, and would only concern the UK if Trump, once elected, expected the UK to support some US International policy that is not in the interest of the UK.

I deplore meddling in other countries’ affairs, particularly where the meddler is supposed to be a staunch ally.

I even deplore it when the country being meddled with is no ally at all. That is what the UN is for ...

ATB from George

It's a lot smaller world than it used to be George.  Just look us now - separated by great distance, by birth and culture, and yet here we are, able to communicate in real time on subjects of mutual interest simply by slinging zeros and ones over the Internet. It is the same with nations all over the world. For better or worse, it is a real-time, 24-hour a day global economy. Global politics are interrelated, and our policies effect one and all.

I hear what you saying about meddling, as it implies bad intentions. Perhaps that's what's at the heart of this controversy, and that some (including you) perceived Obama as having bad intentions. I did not hear his comments that way, but I'll let you judge his response to a British reporter who seemed to feel as you do.

"First of all, let me repeat: this is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I'm not coming here to fix any votes. I'm not casting a vote myself. I'm offering my opinion. And in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn't be afraid to hear an argument being made. That's not a threat."

Obama also answered her charge that he would never endorse the US joining anything similar to the EU. He argued that America had already sacrificed sovereignty by being part of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and NATO. He could have also mentioned free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which grants investor states the right to sue the US government.

Speaking to those who think there is a future in isolationism, Obama quoted the 17th century writer John Donne by saying: "I think there was a British poet that said 'no man is an island.' Even an island as beautiful as this."

ATB.

Hook

Goerge for goodness sake put your shovel away,  you are digging that bottomless pit again .  !!!!   Neither Obama or Cameron are meddling in the others country affairs,  they are expression an opinion & making it known what each others countries stance would be.   Its what friendly countries do with each other.  

Well if we vote out of Europe , USA will probably bomb us in the near future.

Hook posted:

It's a lot smaller world than it used to be George.  Just look us now - separated by great distance, by birth and culture, and yet here we are, able to communicate in real time on subjects of mutual interest simply by slinging zeros and ones over the Internet. It is the same with nations all over the world. For better or worse, it is a real-time, 24-hour a day global economy. Global politics are interrelated, and our policies effect one and all.

I hear what you saying about meddling, as it implies bad intentions. Perhaps that's what's at the heart of this controversy, and that some (including you) perceived Obama as having bad intentions. I did not hear his comments that way, but I'll let you judge his response to a British reporter who seemed to feel as you do.

"First of all, let me repeat: this is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I'm not coming here to fix any votes. I'm not casting a vote myself. I'm offering my opinion. And in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn't be afraid to hear an argument being made. That's not a threat."

Obama also answered her charge that he would never endorse the US joining anything similar to the EU. He argued that America had already sacrificed sovereignty by being part of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and NATO. He could have also mentioned free trade agreements such as NAFTA, which grants investor states the right to sue the US government.

Speaking to those who think there is a future in isolationism, Obama quoted the 17th century writer John Donne by saying: "I think there was a British poet that said 'no man is an island.' Even an island as beautiful as this."

ATB.

Hook

Dear Hook,

The Threat was well stated by Obama - lame duck president - that the formerly subject to the special relationship country, the UK, would be at the bottom of US priorities if we dared to vote for leaving the EU.

If that is not meddling and threatening then I need to buy a new dictionary. He went far beyond expressing an opinion. 

It is as near as can get to trying in Gerrymandering a referendum as you can get, short of throwing away ballot papers. 

Too bad that Obama went too far. He could have done much better to merely make the suggestion without the threat.

Too bad. Much too bad, President Obama.

George 

It's much better to listen to an old aussie newspaperman tell you what to do, eh?

Dear howard,

It is much better to think it through for one’s self.

Then the result is valid.

ATB from George

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Dear howard,

It is much better to think it through for one’s self.

Then the result is valid.

ATB from George

Totally agree George.

IMHO, most people in the UK (or anywhere else for that matter) are totally incapable of thinking this thing through for themselves.

People are asking for facts so as to be able to make an informed decision on how to vote.

Obama provides a couple of facts. You join the queue at the back ! (that's normal). Hence no free-trade agreement anytime soon!

There is outrage !

Perhaps it's the shock of hearing the truth from a politician. The US president is surely better placed to tell us what will happen in respect of UK-US trade deals than any of the Brexit campaigners, who are being reckless in saying that everything will be fine, when in all likelihood our economy will take a massive downturn for the foreseeable future.

The idea that Britain can be 'great' again, recalling halcyon days (largely built on exploitation of others) is simply preposterous in the globalised economy. It's time to look outwards rather than inwards and embrace a future on the world stage, with real influence, rather than as an isolationist island thinking only of ourselves. 

So much for the "special relationship" between our two countries.  If it was so special we would get special treatment and consideration.  The USA wants us in Europe to ensure a smooth passage for TTIP which might come as a surprise to some , benefits the USA more than Europe otherwise the USA would not be pushing so hard for its acceptance........

Well, here's an American with excellent credentials commenting :-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...nough/?smid=fb-share

tonym posted:

Well, here's an American with excellent credentials commenting :-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...nough/?smid=fb-share

 

A good argument.  A 2% fall in the UK's economy wouldn't do anyone any good. I also like the analogy to the singing contest.  The Brexit gang are asking us to jump into the dark.

Until some real supported facts for leaving turn up, I think it best we stay where we are.

Saying some magic "empire " fairy will turn up and wave their magic wand and all the problems will go away.

Only evidence of us outside from 1972 doesn't encourage leaving. Fictitious evidence for leaving is all that's left. 

Just in case anyone in the UK reading this thinks that the “special relationship” has all that much to offer us in the UK, here is an interesting BBC documentary on the repayment of UK War Debt to the USA.

Even those of us who would cheer if the Referendum goes in favour of the UK leaving the EU need to be aware that the USA is the friend of nobody but the USA. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...list=WL&index=25

ATB from George

Plus you might like to consider the roles of Ford and General Motors in Nazi Germany. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMKnH2BlkBA

One must ask why global business would prefer the UK to stay in the UK. It has nothing to do with the benefit of the UK population.

Food for thought, I am sure, and Mrs FD Roosvelt was none to impressed when the stories emerged!

ATB from George

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

One must ask why global business would prefer the UK to stay inthe UK. It has nothing to do with the benefit of the UK population.

Food for thought, I am sure, and Mrs FD Roosvelt was none to impressed when the stories emerged!

ATB from George

Did you mean the UK (as written) or the EU ?

Quite correct Don. Thanks for pointing out the typo.

ATB from George

Clearly - as you note - it should read:

One must ask why global business would prefer the UK to stay in the EU? 

It has nothing to do with the benefit of the UK population.

Food for thought, I am sure, and Mrs FD Roosevelt was none to impressed when the stories emerged!

ATB from George

I had hoped that I would not regret posting on this thread, but now I very much do.

It appears I may have given a certain member of this forum a convenient excuse for xenophobic comments, ones that desperately attempt to promote a few highly selected historical facts while ignoring so many others.

Rather than play tit-for-tat, I will simply apologize to all and take my leave. Best of luck to my UK friends with your decision in the upcoming Referendum. 

Hook (out)

Paul Krugman is a f***ing idiot.  PhD and Nobel Prize notwithstanding.  Mr. "Trillion Dollar Coin."  A classic Ivory Tower economist with no connection to economic reality.

Western economies (including Britain and the USA) are almost all heading into the toilet.  NIRP is exhibit A, along with obscene amounts of "QE", increasing capital controls, & a war on cash.  These are signs of desperation.  As are endless wars. 

The Central Bankers have played a bad game for too long, and the question is not if, but when bad monetary policy will come home to roost. Almost all Western banks are VERY badly capitalized, and when the governments come to bail them out, they will use our money to do it.  I cringe at the thought of being required to invest X% of my 401K or IRA money in "the safety and security of US Treasury Bonds" because they can't get anyone else to buy the s**t.  That is basically stealing my money from me so they can paper over their mistakes.  And this won't be only in the USA - several European nations have resorted to confiscating pension funds.

And this will happen irrespective of a Brexit or not.  I do not know (nor does anyone) how such an event would play out economically over the long term, but don't count on Krugman to give you rational information.  His concepts are akin to pouring gas on a fire, and then complaining that the reason the house burned down is you just didn't pour enough gas on the fire.  Of course the beauty of that approach is you never have to admit to being wrong.

So when things go poorly economically, don't look at the Brexit or no Brexit as the source of woe.  Look squarely at the likes of Bernanke, Lagarde, Yellen, Draghi, Kuroda, et al, who have mismanaged nearly everything they have touched, and made stable and sound monetary policy a complete fiction.