Category Archives: England EU Referendum IN or Out.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS; WHAT EFFECT WILL THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM HAVE ON THE EURO.

19 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS; WHAT EFFECT WILL THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM HAVE ON THE EURO.

Tags

, ,

A quick read.

While there is plenty of discussion and fear mongering on the pros and cons there is little mention of the main driving force behind the European Union.Afficher l'image d'origine

The Euro.

The euro has proved to be exactly the job-destroying, recession-creating, undemocratic monster the doubters always warned it would be.

Unless the EU can construct a political governance system similar to that of a federal state it will be very difficult for the euro to survive never mind to overtake the dollar as the world’s dominant currency or, eventually, to maintain its status as the leading candidate to replace the dollar, although it could still be the dominant regional European currency.

Were the EU to approve a European Federal constitution, the euro would have a chance of replacing the dollar as the global currency in this century.

Meanwhile, the euro will continue to increase its global share of foreign currency reserves, financial and trade transactions and even exchange rate pegs and baskets in the coming years, but only as the second-best global currency.

Without the Euro there would be no European Union Market.

With the Euro the club members are locked to the strong economies whether they like it or not thus unable to reflect the state of their own economies making it unworkable in the long run.

In a few days the British will have their Referendum Stay or Leave.Afficher l'image d'origine

If they leave will they destroyed the euro on departure.

Indeed, there are possible upsides to the euro’s fall. When a currency declines, imports typically become more expensive and exports become cheaper, lowering the trade deficit and creating jobs. It should make European offerings — be they German automobiles, Italian leather, French wine or even Greek vacations — more affordable, eventually helping the recovery.

If they stay should they not be subject to the same rules that govern the current members.

Another words should the EU demand that Sterling make the transition from the pound to the euro.

I am no financial wizard.

The likelihood of this ever happening is highly unlikely. Especially now that the euro is donning the cloak of supercharged monetarism, which is almost total in the face of grinding austerity, a double-dip recession that has already lasted 18 months and a jobless rate of 12.2% and rising in the Euro Zone.

This is not the received wisdom on the left.

When the crash came in 2007 it was a spectacular one.

The financial markets imploded, the banks stopped lending and cheap credit dried up. The housing market collapsed, unemployment rose, tax receipts shrivelled and the government’s budget deficit went through the roof. Speculation that the UK might leave the euro, as it had left the European exchange rate mechanism in 1992, meant investors demanded a high premium for holding UK government debt.

So is it time to create Spanish Euros, Irish Euros, Germany Euros, and in the long term English Euros all with their own exchange rate set against the GDP of the combined Members and forget about Federalism returning all member states to as they were before the introduction of the Euro.

There is no deep attachment in Britain to Europe as a political identity. Far from it.

However the market turbulence that will be caused by Britain’s exit may prove terminal for the euro and the break up of the Union.

Recently the UK even after Quantitative Easing (Printing Cash) on a massive scale had to accept an IMF loan the biggest the IMF had ever organised. It came with severe conditions,  including deep cuts in welfare and pensions and wage reductions across the public sector.

Deprived of the safety valve of currency depreciation, Britain had no choice but to do what Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal were doing and drive down domestic costs to make the economy more competitive. Speculation that the UK might leave the euro, as it had left the European exchange rate mechanism in 1992, meant investors demanded a high premium for holding UK government debt. Benchmark bond yields rose, first to 5%, then to 6%. When they hit 7%, Blair had no choice but to ask for help from the troika – the International Monetary Fund, the ECB and the EU.

Unlike in Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, however, the buildup to the general election of 2010 promised the forthcoming Referendum.

Without this promise I believe Britain would have and would now be leaving the EU altogether.

So far only three currencies – have been able to become leading or dominant international currencies in the world’s history. Those that have done so tend to become monopolistic due to the centripetal forces derived from the existence of economies of scale, economies of scope and network externalities in their use.

The euro’s share in the world’s financial markets would receive a major boost if the UK were to adopt it, given London’s position as one of the world’s two leading financial markets, both in euros and in US dollars.

Furthermore, the UK has the EU’s second-largest GDP after Germany. In any case, the Euro Area (EA) is slowly expanding with the possibility of new EU members and other potential candidates joining in the future. At present, this is not the case with the US dollar.

The EU and the EA are only unions of independent nations and not a federal state, it will be extremely difficult to overtake the US dollar and maintain a dominant international role while the governance of the EU and EA remains unchanged.

Although in every country the currency is used by its citizens because it has the full guarantee of the State that issues it, in the international markets this guarantee is not a sufficient condition to make it of preferred use.

So the question is should the Uk be required to join the Euro irrelevant  of its own conditions to do so if it vote to remain.

Stage one would be the transition from the pound to the euro.

The most important part of this process, to fix the right level for the pound to join at, joining the euro at the wrong rate would penalise British manufacturers, while those already in the single currency were concerned that too cheap a rate for sterling entry would hand an added competitive advantage to the UK’s strong financial services sector.

The key to the Euro success will be to develop a wider export base, which means going beyond the euro zone itself.Afficher l'image d'origine

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: SHAKESPEARE QUESTION “TO BE OR NOT TO BE” HAS COME BACK TO HAUNT ENGLAND.

26 Thursday May 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: SHAKESPEARE QUESTION “TO BE OR NOT TO BE” HAS COME BACK TO HAUNT ENGLAND.

Tags

 

The main reason for Britain joining the EU was for the economic benefits, so obviously it shows that in the age of globalisation and increased competitiveness, Britain cannot act alone.

Perhaps IS BEST THAT we look at it from the EUROPEAN SIDE.

Why because there are two EUs in Britain.Afficher l'image d'origine

One is bashed in the Sun and the Daily Mail every day for ripping off Britain, sending over hordes of unwanted migrants, and forcing Brits to eat regulation square tomatoes.

The other is so deeply embedded in the UK’s legislation, business, trade, and foreign policy that most people do not notice it’s there.Afficher l'image d'origine

So what if any effect will there be on the EU if England votes to leave or stay.

The EU will lose some membership fees provide less for its members at a higher cost.

If Britain leaves it will be  easier for other countries to insist on their own special exceptions – for example, to the deficit and debt “requirements” established in the Maastricht Treaty – Brexit could pose serious problems for the EU’s future evolution.

Both Britain and the EU will It will a portion of their trading market which in turn, will weaken the Europe’s economic region.

The EU will save billions in EU subsidies to English farmers and lose some fishing rights.

The EU could counter one of England’s most controversial provisions to stay in ( Britain to withhold in-work benefits from EU migrants who have been there for less than four years) by increasing trading tariffs.

If it leaves or stays the EU will have to own up to its failures, damaging the political idea of the EU and disturbing the self-satisfied dust that has settled over Brussels.

Britain if it stays in does not want to be committed to further political integration into the European Union which potentially lead other countries to reassess their own membership.

If it leaves the EU could charge the English for European visas unless the UK accepts free movement of people. A British builder, or scholar, or artist, or businessman, does not need a special permit to live in Paris, Barcelona or Berlin.

Britain was one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights in 1959. These rights were established by the European Convention on Human Rights, signed by Britain and much influenced by British jurists. An English withdrawal from the European Arrest Warrant could mean it takes longer to extradite suspects from other European countries.

Then there is Sterling; If it leaves it will become more volatile, trade flows may be diverted or delayed, and some investment in British trade-related industries would be put on hold.

And of course Sovereignty. It is not absolute, inside the union or outside it. Just look at Facebook transferring all your personal data to American Servers.

You if you have not noticed are living in world where Data is King.

One more thing worthy of note. Not Immigration, Not the NHS, Not the lack of housing, not the strain on Services, ENERGY.

IF THE VOTE IS FOR OUT: YOU CAN BE CERTAIN THAT THE EDF AND THE CHINESE SOVEREIGNTY FUNDS WILL ABANDON HINKLEY POINT AND ALL OTHER PROJECTS.

There would be no more complaints from Britain against member states if they feel their rights have been breached.

It could save funds by the cancellation of UK European Health Insurance Cards.

It Britain goes the EU will have to admit that its hard-and-fast ground rules in order for states to participate, — say, keeping below a maximum debt level in order to retain membership in the euro zone have being broken willy nilly. Its member states of today have pretty much broke every one of these rules.

Already, EU members – especially the euro zone countries – have been avoiding concrete action to resolve their interdependent economic, social, banking, debt, and currency crises.

If the vote is for out a future re-entry, if desirable, would be difficult to negotiate (perhaps especially given European leaders’ desire to deter other member states from following the UK’s example).

The choice comes down to : Do you want to be a hostage to the bloc’s failing fortunes? or wallowing in memories of faded pomp and circumstance.

The Question is: To be or not to be “European.”

You are right to say that the EU is not worth staying in without fundamental reform.

And reform cannot be achieved from without.

Will Britain leave the European Union?https://youtu.be/VDij4vbS5ng

Go back

Your message has been sent

THE BEADY EYE ASKS : WILL ENGLAND IN THE FORTHCOMING REFERENDUM ON IN OR OUT OF THE EU SHOOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT

06 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS : WILL ENGLAND IN THE FORTHCOMING REFERENDUM ON IN OR OUT OF THE EU SHOOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT

Tags

,

 

We all know that there is going to be untold verbal and written diarrhea before the forthcoming Uk Referendum on the question of England staying or leaving the EU.

The debate has gone on so far as if there is a clear vision for what a “leave” vote might mean, which is total hogwash as there is no clear vision of what an EU exit would mean.

The outcome is highly uncertain as there are many unknowns including the timing of the vote and the outcome of the renegotiation.

The last time London broke away from Europe it was because of a fight with Rome. Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boleyn so broke off relations with the Pope, who opposed it.Afficher l'image d'origine

There is one thing for sure it will be a long and protracted process.

Quantifying the precise effects of leaving the EU is difficult but here are a few indisputable hard facts whether the vote goes one way or the other.

If there is a vote to exit the UK government has two years to negotiate the terms of withdrawal under Article 50 of the EU Treaty.

So if the referendum is in 2017 it will not be till 2019 that the UK formally exits the EU, but this is not the end of the process.

The UK must pursue a number of third-party negotiations to replace treaties that no longer apply, such as FTAs.

               David Cameron passes an exit signAs with any divorce, no-one              can be sure whether it will                  be amicable or hostile.

 

An exit would mean recasting not only future trade relations with the remaining members of the EU, but also those with the rest of the world, many of which are the result of the EU negotiating as a bloc.

Regulatory divergence would increase over time, affecting trade volumes and reducing the attractiveness of the UK for investment.

The EU is currently negotiating a major new FTA with the United States (the TTIP) – as well as an ‘economic partnership agreement’ (EPA) with Japan. If the UK leaves the EU, it will not benefit from these and other free trade agreements negotiated by the EU in future.

Non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland pay to be part of the European single market.

So retaining access to the single market means accepting all the rules decided by ‘Brussels’ and voted on by full members of the EU.

Those countries, like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, who want the market access, but stop short of seeking full membership, just have to accept whatever the EU decides.

A British exit from the EU would diminish rather than enhance the country’s standing and influence.

Reduced integration with EU countries is likely to cost the UK economy far more than is gained from lower contributions to the EU budget, the value of pound will fall worldwide.

The EU is seen as a major power in the world.

To say that Britain would somehow regain a unique and resonant voice in world affairs once it breaks away from a collective European identity is somewhat naive.

On the other hand the lost of the Uk to the EU would diminish its power standing in the world as a military power.

Britain’s exit would have far-reaching political ramifications for the rest of Europe. The ‘proof of concept’ of leaving the EU could liberate disintegrative, centrifugal forces elsewhere. Member states most exposed to Brexit are the Netherlands, Ireland and Cyprus. Each has very strong trade, investment and financial links with the UK and in the cases of the Netherlands and Ireland are closely aligned in policy terms.

The economic consequences for the UK from leaving the EU are complex.

However both the break with the EU and the uncertainty associated with it would be bad for business and damaging to the UK economy.

Being part of the EU does not restrict UK companies’ ability to trade with the rest of the world.

Beyond all the simple choice of ‘stay or leave’ there is a broader question that has, hitherto, been curiously neglected.

This is what not being a member of the EU would really mean: what, in short, is the most likely alternative to EU membership?

What is the reason after 43-year membership in the European Union the question is:  Why is the Uk is holding a referendum.

Is it because the population was never given an opportunity to say Yes or No.

Or is it because David Cameron won the 2015 general election on a pledge to hold an in-out vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union no later than the end of 2017.

Is it because the English Political phych is still stuck in its history of Empire.

Is U.K. ‘now holding a Gun’ to EU.

Should the EU be allowing Britain to set the terms of the future direction of the EU.

Britain’s relationship with the EU, troubled by decades of anxiety over waning national power, the euro area’s threat to London’s financial clout, subsidies to French farmers and, more recently, mass migration which is spiraling out of control.

Is it to secure a better deal for Britain’s relationship with the EU? while it has refused to go along with more integrationist policies like the single currency and the removal of border checks. Abolishing the U.K.’s obligation to “ever closer union.

Is it because it wants to limit access to welfare payments for non-British EU citizens in the U.K.

That has proved most contentious with governments in countries such as Poland and Hungary. They have sent thousands of people to set up home in the U.K. and say the move would make their countrymen and women second-class citizens in a club where everyone is supposed to be equal.Afficher l'image d'origine

The vital question is whether the U.K. will continue to have access to the single market.

There is little point howling from a distance.

In my opinion the European Union will not be shaped by England or for that matter any of its existing members. Current world events will shape its future.

Go back

Your message has been sent