Merkel still backs Juncker...

[Frank Merton]

It is also a very bad idea to try to remove or diminish the risk in trading. That is called moral hazard.

[Harry_Dresden]

It is also a very bad idea to try to remove or diminish the risk in trading. That is called moral hazard.

You say moral hazard I say Casino Capitalism is what you are defending, Frank. It's the process of making money by manipulating the system, using high speed trading and volume to defeat smaller investors including the companies themselves. Companies that are compliant with rules and regulations that generate jobs, tax and real wealth have their share prices manipulated and markets sent into turmoil all because they can.

Now kindly explain to me why this type of predator trade, should be protected by the likes of the US and it's consistent side kick, Britain and what value it adds to the local economy if it can't be taxed and discouraged?

[Guest]

People get burnt only if they follow the herd - the leaders who manipulate the market generally win big time. Anyone who can start a seller panic can make m,oney on the buy back - its that simple and it happen all the time.

The point is that if this behaviour doesn't add value then it destroys value. If money ceases to represent value because the rewards for speculative manipulation are greater then long term investment in industry and civil society then money has lost its fundamental purpose - which is to reflect value. It represents an existential crisis of both money itself and capitalism in particular. Its either solved or it destroys the real economy.

This is why the UK and Germany are on opposite sides of the fence on this because Germany is all about generating a productive real economy (which it does very well) and the UK is all about making a quick buck off other people efforts. Britains activity in the Square Mile undermines Germanies efforts to create a strong economy and is the reason why there is a battle for the heart of the EU and the direction it will go in. I sincerely hope that Germany wins because that represents a positive future for a productive Eurozone. if Britain wins then the Eurozone is doomed to be pray to short termism and speculative spivs. this is why the British Government has had to contend with perpetual crisis management for the last 50years without setting out any real strategic vision for where the country is going - contrast that to Germany which has followed a definite strategy for strengthening the country year on year. Britain has been in steady decline where Germany has been in steady growth. Britain has to lose this battle.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 2, 2014 by Guest

[stevewinn]

I don't think micro-trading is really a problem; it is more like something we heard is going on that is new and different and somebody might make some money off of so it has to be stopped if I can't do it too. If it really were that valuable the brokers would be under pressure to let normal people participate. I think it adds a tad more liquidity but is not unfair. If they become burdensome for the exchanges let the exchanges deal with them.

What this tax is for is to destroy London's position in European trading, and the real benefit will go to New York and less to Tokyo and a few others. The Germans and French see this as a way to raise revenue from the pockets mainly of the British. That is bound to backfire and seems to be doing so already.

Frank you are absolutely right, the Tax is to try and destroy the UK as a Global financial centre. The Germans protect their Manufacturing, France their Agricultural industry.

the UK interest is its financial capital and they know they'll have to break us in this Island Nation before we totally join the EU hook line and sinker, destroying the city of London is the way to do it. you have foolish people who cannot see the wood for the trees and think this is a good Tax which can only bring benefit. who to is the question?

Here's the findings of the House of Lords committee into the impact and affect on the City of London and British economy - of the proposed EU tax.

CHAPTER 4: the effect of an ftt on the uk

a) The significance of the financial sector in the UK and EU economy

105. One key element of our assessment of the Commission's proposal concerns its likely impact upon the City of London and upon the wider UK economy. This question is of vital importance given the importance of the financial sector, not only for the domestic UK economy, but also for the EU as a whole.

106. Several witnesses stressed the strategic importance of the UK financial sector. The Mayor of London told us that it was "a key London industry and a significant employer, accounting for around 330,000, or 8% of London's workforce and around 20% of London's Gross Value Added Tax ... London is, effectively, with New York one of only two genuinely global financial services centres in the world ... In simple terms, London is the EU's primary financial services centre and it competes globally for business."[157]

107. The New City Initiative stated that the financial services sector in the UK contributed 11.2% of the Exchequer's total tax receipts for 2010, and that one-third of all financial services jobs in the UK are based in London, accounting for 36% of the capital's entire workforce. They pointed out that the UK accounts for one-third of all private equity funds in Europe, with a higher daily foreign exchange turnover than New York and Tokyo combined and the largest hedge funds market in Europe.

108. AIMA stated that the UK has the largest financial derivatives market, with an average daily turnover in interest rate derivatives of just over $1.4 trillion, equivalent to approximately 46% of the total. Furthermore, the UK has the largest asset management business in Europe, accounting for just under a third of the entire market.[159]

Assessing the impact of an FTT on the UK

109. In the light of this, several witnesses expressed to us their concern that an FTT could have an extremely damaging impact on London and the UK. Members of the New City Initiative warned that its introduction "would precipitate London's demise as a major financial centre by 2015, a grim prediction under any circumstances, but particularly so at a time when the City has never been more important as both an engine for the economy and a provider of jobs, taxes and exports."[160] The BBA agreed that London's pre-eminence as an international financial centre could not continue in the wake of an EU FTT.[161]

110. One particular concern was that, because of the size of its financial sector, the Commission's proposal would have a disproportionate effect on the UK compared with other EU Member States. The City of London Corporation argued that the concentration of EU and international financial services activity in the London markets, in areas including bond and equity issuance and trading, foreign exchange, asset management, insurance and reinsurance, meant that the impact on the UK would be unfavourable and disproportionate.[162] John Vella, Clemens Fuest and Tim Schmidt-Eisenlohr estimated that, on the basis of the Commission's figures, revenue raised in the UK would be 4.6 times higher than revenue raised in Germany and 10.9 times higher than revenue raised in France, and that 71.3% of overall revenue would be expected to come from the UK.[163]

111. Some witnesses told us that the proposal that tax revenues would accrue to the government(s) where the parties to a financial transaction reside would result in a net transfer of revenue from the UK to other Member States. Peter Sinclair, Professor of Economics, University of Birmingham, argued that a substantial slice of FTT proceeds, as much as 18%, would be transferred from the UK exchequer to other EU governments.[164] Richard Woolhouse agreed.[165]

112. Others expressed concern at the threat of significant relocation away from the City. The City of London Corporation cited trading in non-EU or euro and Sterling denominated equities and bonds, foreign exchange transactions in non-EU currencies and insurance or reinsurance contracts, as examples of transactions that could relocate.[166] BlackRock cited Clifford Chance's estimate that this could amount to a loss of about £60 billion in revenue a year.[167] The Mayor of London agreed that "an FTT would drive business to financial centres outside the EU and have a substantial negative impact on GDP across the EU ... Given the preponderance of financial services in London—and the centrality of financial services to London's economy—the impact would be keenly felt in the UK's capital city, with firms moving and jobs lost."

http://www.publicati...m/287/28707.htm

[Harry_Dresden]

Attention Steve,

Your argument seems to be one of speculators have a inherent right to feed off investors. Seems very parasitical to me. But the real problem as I see it isn't the morality of such a tax BUT the fact that the UK will be forced to collect tax for Brussels on speculative trading carried out in London against European companies and markets. So on top of the immigration debate, enforcing the metric system and the possibility of Europe imposing right hand driving, it seems to the euro-sceptics and you at least, that the EU is against British interests by taxing a form of bully trading. Those evil and manipulative Europeans...

[keithisco]

Attention Steve,

Your argument seems to be one of speculators have a inherent right to feed off investors. Seems very parasitical to me. But the real problem as I see it isn't the morality of such a tax BUT the fact that the UK will be forced to collect tax for Brussels on speculative trading carried out in London against European companies and markets. So on top of the immigration debate, enforcing the metric system and the possibility of Europe imposing right hand driving, it seems to the euro-sceptics and you at least, that the EU is against British interests by taxing a form of bully trading. Those evil and manipulative Europeans...

Whilst... your argument seems to be that the EU has an inherent right to feed off of the World's most successful Financial Centre without having paid a single Euro to create it in the first place. Since when did providing Insurance for your Life, House, Car, Boat, Illness etc become "Bully Trading"? Who do you think Underwrites Venture Capital Investments, and where do you think most of these Investors work?

The UK was at the forefront of Metrication back in the 19th century and iposing Right - Hand driving in the UK is illegal under EU Rules.

[keithisco]

People get burnt only if they follow the herd - the leaders who manipulate the market generally win big time. Anyone who can start a seller panic can make m,oney on the buy back - its that simple and it happen all the time.

The point is that if this behaviour doesn't add value then it destroys value. If money ceases to represent value because the rewards for speculative manipulation are greater then long term investment in industry and civil society then money has lost its fundamental purpose - which is to reflect value. It represents an existential crisis of both money itself and capitalism in particular. Its either solved or it destroys the real economy.

This is why the UK and Germany are on opposite sides of the fence on this because Germany is all about generating a productive real economy (which it does very well) and the UK is all about making a quick buck off other people efforts. Britains activity in the Square Mile undermines Germanies efforts to create a strong economy and is the reason why there is a battle for the heart of the EU and the direction it will go in. I sincerely hope that Germany wins because that represents a positive future for a productive Eurozone. if Britain wins then the Eurozone is doomed to be pray to short termism and speculative spivs. this is why the British Government has had to contend with perpetual crisis management for the last 50years without setting out any real strategic vision for where the country is going - contrast that to Germany which has followed a definite strategy for strengthening the country year on year. Britain has been in steady decline where Germany has been in steady growth. Britain has to lose this battle.

Br Cornelius

But what you are saying is actually, completely incorrect. Germany is faring worse than both the UK AND France. Its growth is far from steady.

Source 1: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/update/01/

Source 2: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10597418/UK-confirmed-as-fastest-growing-economy-in-Western-Europe.html

Italy, in its fifth recession since joining the euro, is not going to catch the UK up again. The Italian economy is no bigger now than when it joined the single currency in 1999. The OECD predicts it will shrink by 1.2 per cent this year, and only expand by 0.5 per cent next.

France does not look likely to hold on to second place in Europe for much longer: it spent the first half of the year in recession, and has emerged from it only as far as an annual growth rate of 0.1 per cent — more of a rounding error than an expansion. Socialist President François Hollande seems to be doing everything he can think of to destroy wealth, from punitive income tax rates to lowering the retirement age to taxing smartphones.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research has already predicted the British economy will be bigger than the French by next year

Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9039871/why-britains-economy-will-overtake-germanys/

.

[Space Commander Travis]

The trouble with all this stuff about Global financial centres and financial powerhouses and all the rest of it is, none of what they deal in actually exists, does it? None of it is real. None of it produces any useful or tangible product, does it, and its benefit to the population as a whole is very limited, just to the very well paid and wealthy elite who are involved in it. (Unless one really does believe in "trickle down economics", which I think we all know is a lie.)

[Frank Merton]

You don't have to produce tangible products to produce things of use. My haircut is not a tangible product, nor is a poem or the proof of a theorem or the teaching of a child how to tell time. Personally I like it that I don't have to keep all my money in the safe but the bank keeps if for me and even pays me for the privilege. I like it that I can go on the internet and buy US or British or Japanese securities and the broker will keep them for me and when I sell all I have to do is go on the internet again. I also like it that the local cement factory can raise capital by selling securities, which, if capital markets didn't exist, they would have to borrow or just not move.

A fair market sounds admirable, and gross misconduct can be and is regularly prosecuted. However, a lot is up to the buyer. When I go to the produce store and by some American sweet corn (I'm addicted to it and fortunately it's widely available here via some special arrangements I am not aware of but no doubt included bankers and brokers and freight forwarders and all sorts of people like that), I pick and choose lest the vendor cheat and sell me bad corn. I also check prices before I buy and count my change. You should do the same things in all transactions, as there is no way on earth law and rules and bureaucrats can protect you from any cheating.

[keithisco]

The trouble with all this stuff about Global financial centres and financial powerhouses and all the rest of it is, none of what they deal in actually exists, does it? None of it is real. None of it produces any useful or tangible product, does it, and its benefit to the population as a whole is very limited, just to the very well paid and wealthy elite who are involved in it. (Unless one really does believe in "trickle down economics", which I think we all know is a lie.)

Every single manufactured product had its birth in monetary investment. That money came from somewhere, and the usual source is Investment Banks, or Speculative Investors. The money earned from Insurance Policies is channelled through investment banks or Pension / Hedge Funds to provide Future Securities where the source of Production (i.e. you and I) are no longer active (retirement).

There is huge investment in emergent technologies, which simply would not be available without Financial Service involvement.

You simply cannot have manufacturing growth and innovation without Financial Investment - so "Yes" Financial Services really do equate to tangible products.

[Harry_Dresden]

Whilst... your argument seems to be that the EU has an inherent right to feed off of the World's most successful Financial Centre without having paid a single Euro to create it in the first place. Since when did providing Insurance for your Life, House, Car, Boat, Illness etc become "Bully Trading"? Who do you think Underwrites Venture Capital Investments, and where do you think most of these Investors work?

The UK was at the forefront of Metrication back in the 19th century and iposing Right - Hand driving in the UK is illegal under EU Rules.

Hang on, let's talk about feeding off others... those that make living out of attacking shares, markets and currencies from London, do so cause the government In the UK is sympathetic towards them, which really means that the UK makes stamp duty and capital gains tax from these transactions, and not because the UK is the last capitalist defender in Europe... so it's okay for the UK to play 'safe harbour' to these marauders (for a fee of course), BUT not for the EU to collect the same tax from the market pirates for disrupting and taking advantage of IT'S markets. Tad hypocritical of David and the UK to be claiming any capitalist high ground, don't you think?

Mate, if it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander...

Edited July 3, 2014 by Harry_Dresden

[Guest]

Those defending London square mile are defending the real market - the bit that actually produces value. we can all agree that the market has a critical role in efficient use of resources and matching capitol to productive activity. But thats not what we are talking about here - we are talking about all the noise on top of those markets, which represent the vast bulk of the actual activity, which produces nothing but profit without value. The trade performed on rising currencies and sold again seconds later which serve to deflate the real intrinsic value of the currency itself.

I would defends a market which serves its purpose - but lets be clear here - the London Stock market and all its offshoots is mainly about profiting from clever manipulation and split second trading and has absolutely nothing to do with the function of allocation of resources.

The London stock market is a pirate on the sea of commerce, laying waste where ever the weak drift into its path. So I support a stock market which supports productivity - but am totally against a stock market which is purely about making money whatever the real world consequences.

Br Cornelius

[Harry_Dresden]

Every single manufactured product had its birth in monetary investment. That money came from somewhere, and the usual source is Investment Banks, or Speculative Investors. The money earned from Insurance Policies is channelled through investment banks or Pension / Hedge Funds to provide Future Securities where the source of Production (i.e. you and I) are no longer active (retirement).

There is huge investment in emergent technologies, which simply would not be available without Financial Service involvement.

You simply cannot have manufacturing growth and innovation without Financial Investment - so "Yes" Financial Services really do equate to tangible products.

In theory I don't disagree with what you've written about funding enterprise BUT this isn't the Middle Ages and financial might should not make it right to pillage those that do the right thing to fund enterprise, make a profit or protect a tax revenue stream and the UK's penchant for short selling is indicative of this might is right philosophy.

[Guest]

The UK has consistently underperformed against the German economy since the 1970's and I think if you could find a graph going back further then the trend would be similar:

Let us not forget that they had to absorb East Germany in that period, a challenge I feel the UK would have struggled with in light of their total inability to produce balanced growth in the regions of the UK over a similar period.

I think that Ed Milliband is actually just starting to enunciate the right sort of development policies, but his almost total lack of charisma is going to scupper his chances of putting them into practice. Also the influential city lobbyists are going to crucify him over the next year as what he proposes will greatly rain in their form of cronie capitalism. I just hope the popularist siren song of Farage and his Eurosceptiuc friends doesn't drown out the much needed conversation about what a real industrial and civil developm,ent strategy will look like. I doubt it though as the media seems to be cheerleading the banking spiv Farage to the heavens.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 3, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

In continuing not just to make things but to enjoy making things well, Germany remains Europe's economic powerhouse. "Our economy is looking very robust", Philipp Rösler, Germany's minister for economics and technology, told Handelsblatt, the business newspaper, this week. BMW, Daimler and Audi asked workers to cut short their Christmas holidays to meet rising demand, while 60,000 new jobs in manufacturing are expected to be created in 2012.

........

Britain is certainly able to make things: we do notably well in hi-tech industries including aerospace, pharmaceuticals and electronics and, remarkably, the country ranks sixth among manufacturing nations – although the trend is downwards. More significantly, the numbers employed in manufacturing have fallen considerably in recent years. In 1994, 4.7 million of us were employed in making things; the latest figure, for 2009, is 2.6 million. So, even if we were to spend as much proportionately as Germany does on research and development to boost the quality of our products, the numbers of people making interesting things we could export at high added value would continue to fall.

http://www.theguardi...le:in body link

"Why can't we more like Germany?" center-left British weekly New Statesman asks on the cover of its latest issue. The cover image shows Chancellor Angela Merkel alongside Bastian Schweinsteiger, one of Bayern Munich's star players -- as role models in politics and football. Britain can prosper, the magazine suggests, if it understands Germany's success.

ANZEIGE

The author of the article, German-born Philip Oltermann, writes that British politicians and business people have the habit of talking about the "German model" every 20 years. That time has come again. The fact that two German teams, Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund, have reached the Champions League final which will be played in London's Wembley stadium on May 25 appears to have confirmed what a lot of people in Britain have been murmuring for months. The Germans are somehow getting it right.

Germany's top football league, the Bundesliga, whose clubs don't depend on the cash of oligarchs, sheikhs and business tycoons that own their top-flight English rivals, is often cited as an example of the successful, sustainable German business model. German clubs, many of which are majority-owned by their fans, are a microcosm of the structure of the German economy, the New Statesman's editorial states.

The British left has always admired Germany's concept of the social market economy, a principle that underpinned the West German post-war economic miracle, marrying free market economics with a focus on social progress. The system of giving workers a say in corporate decision-making, the state-owned savings banks whose purpose is to promote public welfare, the presence of strong, family-owned businesses that take a long-term approach in ther decison-making -- this is very much in line with the social democratic traditions of the opposition Labour Party.

Government Backs Apprenticeships

But even the Conservative-Liberal coalition of Prime Minister David Cameron is resorting to German recipes to get the stagnant British economy growing again. It launched an apprecenticeship scheme to encourage more busineses to train their own employees. A new state-owned business bank is to provide small and medium-sized businesses with credit. And state-backed credit guarantees are being used to help boost exports.

The Financial Times wrote in April that both the British government and the opposition were transfixed by German ideas. Even the Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru recently demanded an investment program to regenerate structurally weak parts of Britain -- similar to Germany's more than €1 trillion Aufbau Ost program to rebuild the former communist east of Germany.

The rethink began after the 2008 financial crash. The British economy, so heavily reliant on its banking sector, has yet to recover from the blow, while the German economy rebounded relatively quickly. Part of the reason Britain had remained sluggish is that manufacturing only accounts for 11 percent of the country's gross domestic product. In Germany, the figure is almost twice as high at 21 percent.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said back in 2011 that Britain needed its own version of the Mittelstand -- the small- and medium-sized German manufacturing companies often referred to as the backbone of the German economy. CBI chief John Cridland said Britain should boost its small business sector to promote innovation and growth. The government responded by setting up the business bank.

But the Labour Party is the most ardent supporter of the German model. Its leader, Ed Miliband, likes to talk about "responsible capitalism." He has put a stop to the close ties New Labour had with the big London banks under former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. Insteady, Labour dispatched members to Germany to learn how the Sparkassen savings bank system operates. Shortly after that, Miliband announced that if he wins the next election in 2015, he will set up regional banks focused on promoting their local economies.

The Independent newspaper was only half-joking when it referred to "Neue Labour." Two of Miliband's advisers, Maurice Glasman and Stewart Wood, are experts on Germany. They are calling for the return to the "Mitbestimmung" system of codetermination, in which any company with a workforce of more than 2,000 people must have half its supervisory board made up of worker representatives. It was the British who introduced the system in Germany after World War II.

Even the current Golden Boy of British politics, Nigel Farage, the leader of the staunchly anti-EU United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which just scored big in local elections, sees Germany as worthy of emulating -- at least in some respects. Instead of the strict smoking ban in force in British pubs, Britain should copy the Germans and allow pubs to designate smoking and non-smoking zones -- like they do in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/britain-increasingly-regarding-germany-as-an-economic-role-model-a-898399.html

Br Cornelius

Edited July 3, 2014 by Guest

[keithisco]

Contrary to common belief, UK manufacturing is strong with the UK currently the 11th largest manufacturing nation in the world. Manufacturing makes up 11% of UK GVA and 54% of UK exports and directly employs 2.6 million people. Despite the decline since the 1970s, when manufacturing contributed 25% of UK GDP, the UK ranks second globally in aerospace manufacturing.

The UK-based auto industry exported a record-breaking 84% of its production in 2011 and the chemical and pharmaceutical industries add £20m per day to the UK balance of trade. Underpinning these important statistics is an average annual productivity increase of 3.6% – two and a half times greater than the UK economy as a whole

Source: http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk-manufacturing-statistics/

According to OECD data, the U.K. and Australia have seen their share of manufacturing drop by around two-thirds since 1971. Germany’s share halved, and manufacturing’s contribution to gross domestic product there fell from 30 percent in 1980 to 22 percent today

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-28/why-factory-jobs-are-shrinking-everywhere

Simply stating a statistic (even old ones) is not the whole story as is well known. The decline in manufacturing is a Global Phenomenon, with automation and more efficient methods of production coming on-stream continuously. These are all less labour - intensive so is not a very good barometer for gauging manufacturing.

Now, as I have already mentioned, by far the largest contributor to GDP in ALL developed nations is the Services Sector. This cannot be denied, but what is often overlooked by the naïve is that the Service Sector includes manufactured components that are supplied to larger systems that may not be the final product. Aerospace, R & D are both excellent examples of this.

[Frank Merton]

All the froth and noise is what makes my holdings liquid. Odds are if I had to wait for a genuine investor to come along to buy my stock and I couldn't sell to a speculator, I would have to wait hours or days and would not get as good a price. So also firms raising capital would have a much tougher time of it were not speculators active. Besides, how do you say one day I'm a genuine investor when I might as easily be a speculator.

[keithisco]

Those defending London square mile are defending the real market - the bit that actually produces value. we can all agree that the market has a critical role in efficient use of resources and matching capitol to productive activity. But thats not what we are talking about here - we are talking about all the noise on top of those markets, which represent the vast bulk of the actual activity, which produces nothing but profit without value. The trade performed on rising currencies and sold again seconds later which serve to deflate the real intrinsic value of the currency itself.

I would defends a market which serves its purpose - but lets be clear here - the London Stock market and all its offshoots is mainly about profiting from clever manipulation and split second trading and has absolutely nothing to do with the function of allocation of resources.

The London stock market is a pirate on the sea of commerce, laying waste where ever the weak drift into its path. So I support a stock market which supports productivity - but am totally against a stock market which is purely about making money whatever the real world consequences.

Br Cornelius

1st Emphasis (mine):NO currency in the World has an "Intrinsic Value".

2nd Emphasis (mine): Do you not think that Short Selling, and Manipulation is a World Phenomenon? Because it is. The UK Stock Exchange, and the Gov had put in place the most stringent oversight of the FTSE of any nation in all the world. You would be better advised to venting your spleen against Frankfurt and Paris.

[Guest]

Keith your arguments are getting extremely tenuous here. So your in favour of trade which bring a profit but no actual value with them ?

Your in favour of increasing money without increasing productive growth ?

Your in favour of debauching the currency on a matter of principle ?

Your on very shackey ground - because I know that despite your arguments you really aren't in favour of any of these things, yet on a matter of principle of defending the stock market spivs in the square mile - you will advocate for all of these behaviours.

The main problem with the world today is the decoupling of money from intrinsic value - the printing press gone wild.

I think you should step back and think for a moment what you really mean.

Br Cornelius

[stevewinn]

Keith your arguments are getting extremely tenuous here. So your in favour of trade which bring a profit but no actual value with them ?

Your in favour of increasing money without increasing productive growth ?

Your in favour of debauching the currency on a matter of principle ?

Your on very shackey ground - because I know that despite your arguments you really aren't in favour of any of these things, yet on a matter of principle of defending the stock market spivs in the square mile - you will advocate for all of these behaviours.

The main problem with the world today is the decoupling of money from intrinsic value - the printing press gone wild.

I think you should step back and think for a moment what you really mean.

Br Cornelius

And even with all that said If you could pick the city of London up and placed it Paris or Berlin on the continent, the EU - they'd bite your hand off. The real issue here is the balance of the regional powers, Britain is in the EU to limit influence and prevent a German dominated Europe knowing full well the French are unable to do so, with the UK and Germany both being EU members we can both influence each other, not in a confrontational way but indirectly through a third party (EU) by doing it this way it makes it less personal and keeps a air of calm and confidence which allows for diplomacy and good relations to be done. If you think the EU is all about 28 member countries then think again. the EU exists for the great powers to predict, influence and dictate policy. something which they have done since time immemorial. the EU is just the modern day vehicle used.

The British don't want Germany to freely dominate europe in the same way the Germans - likewise are just as worried about Great Britain, they don't want a dominant Great Britain sitting to the north of europe outside and beyond the influence of Germany (EU). you'll see in the coming months and years the Germans will do what they can to keep the UK in the EU for this very reason and we'll stay in aswell if it means the interest of Britain and balancing of power continues, and people wonder why they don't give the British public a referendum. because in the game of long term national geopolitics the people might choose the wrong move at the wrong time. With that said, I still believe the UK outside the EU is the best option, let those who want a federation get on with building it. centralised control for its members in all areas, taxation, budget spending ect... As the Spanish Prime minister has called for today.-

Spanish premier Mariano Rajoy calls for eurozone 'centralised control' authority

Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister, has called for the eurozone to have “centralised control” over the budgets of all the countries using the euro.

Mr Rajoy has become the latest European politician to call for countries to, in effect, abandon their sovereignty in a last-ditch attempt to save the beleaguered currency

Mr Rajoy said a new central authority would go a long way to alleviating Spain’s economic crisis as it would send a clear signal to investors that the single currency is an irreversible project. He said: “The European Union needs to reinforce its architecture. This entails moving towards more integration, transferring more sovereignty, especially in the fiscal field. “And this means a compromise to create a new European fiscal authority which would guide the fiscal policy in the eurozone, harmonise the fiscal policy of member states and enable a centralised control of [public] finances.” Mr Rajoy is not the first to propose creating such an authority but the fact that Spain – a country deemed too big to fail – is backing the move may now accelerate talks.

Its set-up would require a change in the European Union treaties, a usually lengthy process that requires ratification in the 27 member states of the bloc, including those such as the UK which do not use the euro.

Germany, the de facto guarantor of the euro, has said further integration in Europe was required, including additional controls on national public finances. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said there should be no taboos when discussing such issues.

Last week Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, said the ECB could not “fill the vacuum of the lack of action by national governments on the structural problem” and that countries needed to give up some of their sovereignty. Separate plans put forward by France could see Britain facing a bill for another £1bn “backdoor” bail-out to recapitalise the European Investment Bank (EIB).

French President Francois Hollande has been pushing for the European Union’s 27 members to inject €10bn into the EIB to fund infrastructure projects as part of a plan to revive growth in the region. The proposal has won broad support among the international community, including the UK, where the Prime Minister’s spokesman has said: “We are open-minded about looking at how the EIB can support infrastructure

If the proposal is agreed, which would increase the EIB’s lending capacity from €450bn to as much as €550bn, the UK would be on the hook for 16pc of the new money, or £1bn.

http://www.telegraph...-authority.html

Edited July 3, 2014 by stevewinn

[keithisco]

In other words, Spain has rolled over before the might of the German Controlled EU Project. I can tell you now that this will not be received well Nationally - expect many, many more protests in Madrid and all of the Autonomous regions. Rajoy is a Minority Leader, and can never expect re-election.

Spain's economic crisis is entirely of its own making... it has now run out of EU Funding and has made no effort to fill the funding gap.

Catalunya and the Basque Region will see this as a total abrogation of national Identity - this will not end well... I can see UDI being declared within 5 years from these 2 regions, and quite frankly, why not?

Lets just hope that the UK will not be sucked into supporting the EIB - at which point is "enough actually Enough". Let those nations that have bought into the entire EU nonsense now pay their share of the bill, lets see Ireland or Greece, make up the funding gap...

Personally speaking... I am relocating to Gibraltar because I have had enough of supporting the corrupt regime in Spain.

Edited July 3, 2014 by keithisco

[Guest]

Steve, these notions of national rivalries driving the progress of the EU may appeal to some social Darwinist conception of human nature - which admittedly has been true for much of European history - don't really explain the reality of the future we face. The days when a country like Britain or Germany could dominate empires (the EU been an empire in your conception) by force of arms or technology, just don't stack up in the new reality of a globalized world. Neither Germany or the UK could compete on the global stage if such forces return to dominate the future development of Civilization. The shear weight of number, ingenuity and will coming from the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil will mean either country on its own will be sidelined. Only within a similarly scaled entity will we be able to stand our ground against cheaper and more hungry competitors. The decline of the British nation was arrested by its association with the EU and its future will only be strong with the weight of the EU behind it.

The UK, Germany and USA have called the shots in international trade negotiations up until now - but they will increasingly be challenged to level the playing field and accept the equality of it competitors. I certainly feel that the UK will not fair well if it stands outside this negotiating block, beyond some very short term gains for the City of London - before its predatory practices are closed out of international relations. The UK USA axis is weakening as the dominant player on the world economic stage and its time to look to the future we inevitably face. That is why withdrawal will never happen on any of the leading political parties watches as they do know where the wind is blowing. They will just attempt to make the wind blow a little more favourably in their own direction.

Br Cornelius

Edited July 3, 2014 by Guest

[stevewinn]

Steve, these notions of national rivalries driving the progress of the EU may appeal to some social Darwinist conception of human nature - which admittedly has been true for much of European history - don't really explain the reality of the future we face. The days when a country like Britain or Germany could dominate empires (the EU been an empire in your conception) by force of arms or technology, just don't stack up in the new reality of a globalized world. Neither Germany or the UK could compete on the global stage if such forces return to dominate the future development of Civilization. The shear weight of number, ingenuity and will coming from the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil will mean either country on its own will be sidelined. Only within a similarly scaled entity will we be able to stand our ground against cheaper and more hungry competitors. The decline of the British nation was arrested by its association with the EU and its future will only be strong with the weight of the EU behind it.

The UK, Germany and USA have called the shots in international trade negotiations up until now - but they will increasingly be challenged to level the playing field and accept the equality of it competitors. I certainly feel that the UK will not fair well if it stands outside this negotiating block, beyond some very short term gains for the City of London - before its predatory practices are closed out of international relations. The UK USA axis is weakening as the dominant player on the world economic stage and its time to look to the future we inevitably face. That is why withdrawal will never happen on any of the leading political parties watches as they do know where the wind is blowing. They will just attempt to make the wind blow a little more favourably in their own direction.

Br Cornelius

the Anglo-American alliance is as strong as ever in the world today, If you think the EU is the future then im afraid i've got some bad news. the EU will never become a superpower in any way shape or form. they'll long run out of money before they can get their act together.

At the end of the day there are only three economies in the EU Britain, Germany and France, once the UK leaves the contributions of the remaining members will have to increase, but even if we stay, the divide between the richer members and the poorer will need to be overcome, are the French and German people really willing to basically support the likes of Ireland, Portugal, Spain Greece, and that is before we move onto the likes of Lithuania, Slovenia Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania etc..

How long is it going to take to bring infrastructure, social services, health services, education, transport, manufacturing, wages including the standard of living to equal that of the richer members? and who's going to pay for all that? just the other day the EU give aid to Bulgarian banks. WHILE your bankrupting yourselves chasing the federalist ambition and socialist ideals resulting in the equal sharing of misery. those of us IE Great Britain will be free from entanglement watching from the sidelines as increasingly the EU falls apart. - you mark my words, the problems in the EU are only just starting Spain is still on the edge, poverty and deprivation is increasing just imagine if the EU actually puts in place Eurozone centralisation, Spain, France and Greece are suggesting it - But what is it they are actually suggesting that their own countries' debts should be shared out among the rest of the Eurozone. because that is the net result for such a proposal.

[keithisco]

How long is it going to take to bring infrastructure, social services, health services, education, transport, manufacturing, wages including the standard of living to equal that of the richer members? and who's going to pay for all that? just the other day the EU give aid to Bulgarian banks. WHILE your bankrupting yourselves chasing the federalist ambition and socialist ideals resulting in the equal sharing of misery. those of us IE Great Britain will be free from entanglement watching from the sidelines as increasingly the EU falls apart. - you mark my words, the problems in the EU are only just starting Spain is still on the edge, poverty and deprivation is increasing just imagine if the EU actually puts in place Eurozone centralisation, Spain, France and Greece are suggesting it - But what is it they are actually suggesting that their own countries' debts should be shared out among the rest of the Eurozone. because that is the net result for such a proposal.

Emphasis mine: Why is the EU collectively bailing out Local Banks in Bulgaria? They were getting into problems because they were offering unsustainably high Deposit Interest Rates. Isn't. The Bulgarian Lev is also pegged to the Euro (by agreement with the ECB) so shouldn't this be a bailout by the ECB and NOT the EU?