Slashdot Mirror
Bank of England Accidentally E-mails Top-Secret "Brexit" Plan To the Guardian
schwit1 writes: The first rule of "Project Bookend" is that you don't talk about "Project Bookend." In retrospect, maybe the first rule should have been "you don't accidentally e-mail 'Project Bookend' to a news agency," because as the Guardian reports, one of its editors opened his inbox and was surprised to find a message from the BOE's Head of Press Jeremy Harrison outlining the UK financial market equivalent of the Manhattan project. Project Bookend is a secret (or 'was' a secret) initiative undertaken by the BOE to study what the fallout might be from a potential 'Brexit', but if anyone asked what Sir Jon Cunliffe and a few senior staffers were up to, they were instructed to say that they were busy investigating "a broad range of European economic issues." And if you haven't heard the term before, "Brexit" refers to the possibility of Britain leaving the EU -- one of the possible outcomes of an upcoming referendum.
The European Central Bank has already declared that they won't let any of their member states go under, which means they are committed to printing as much money as needed....
Mario Draghi said, "Within our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough."
Financing a member state via printing money does not exist within the ECB's mandate. So the ECB cannot legally do what you say they are doing. Greece is financing itself via ELA Emergency Liquidity Assistance, where Greek banks loan the Greek government money that cannot be repaid, then the ELA rescues the Greek banks from the bad loans. This type of back-door financing is not sustainable and will eventuall collapse under its own weight. OTOH, the ECB also lacks the mandate to kick a member state out of the common currency when they are unwilling and unable to meet the conditions for membership. Only the political leadership of the member states have the authority to either change the ECB's mandate, or to kick a member state out. How this will turn out is anybody's guess.
Except that you aren't...
Yes, UK is a net contributor (if we only tally the directly measurable, like budget contribution vs funds awarded
So Britain *does* pay in more than that it gets back then? With regards to measurements, contributions vs rebate are the only solid numbers you can judge against.
(oh, oh, oh.... and also it negotiates budget cuts, like in... 2014... or.... 2013... and if I go back the calendar I'll find this going on, and on, and on).
No, all Osborne managed to do was defer part of a payment for a couple of months. He then deducted the rebate (that they'd get anyway) from the bill & claimed that he "halved" what had to be paid. As much as he wanted to claim, there was no negotiation involved - he rightly got told to fuck off & play by the legally agreed rules that everybody has to follow. He then went home & used "statistics" to make it look like he got some sort of concession.
So...schooled? Or want more? Stop reading The Guardian and such, try the official documents of your government or from the EU institutions.
I presume you don't read the Guardian. They're largely pro-union & were one of the leaders in pulling apart Osborne's claims.
George Osborne’s top five budget claims – and how they could be shot down
UK to pay £1.7bn EU bill in full despite Osborne’s claim to have halved it
George Osborne rebuked for boasting he halved £1.7bn EU surcharge
For what it's worth, I'm British & will be voting to stay in the union.
The only country that seems to benefit is Germany.
You do realize that Germany pays the biggest amount of money into the EU budget?
You do know that Germany gets very very little in return?
Please educate yourself before whining.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Yes. That's what we signed up for: economic and trade relations. Everything that has come after that has never been asked for or voted for here (or in many other EU member states, for that matter).
People who voted in the referendum tell me that it was made clear at the time that it wasn't just a trade agreement, it was a larger project. That was in fact one of the main points of the "no" campaign, particularly emphasised by the Morning Star newspaper and Tony Ben MP.
Why is this a problem? It worked fine for years, and good trade relations are mutually beneficial.
If it is working well why quit?
But the UK isn't asking for a free lunch. It's suggesting that if, say, Germany makes good bread and the UK farms good cows, they trade so everyone can enjoy a tasty burger-in-a-roll for lunch. Plenty of nations outside the EU have this kind of relationship with plenty of nations within the EU today. The UK has, and wants to develop, these kinds of relations with other global trading partners as well.
That isn't correct. Such free trade agreements only work if both countries are on an equal footing, otherwise there will be conditions to keep things fair. For example, Sweden has to abide by most EU rules even though it isn't in the EU, because it wants a free trade agreement. If it didn't abide by those rules it would be free to, for example, treat employees significantly worse and thus give companies an economic advantage, or have the government support failing industries which EU governments cannot. Thus there would be conditions to enable EU businesses to compete fairly and not be undercut.
So our choice would be to either accept most of the EU rules without having any say in them, and thus not be able to get rid of one of the most hated (and also beneficial) aspects of membership, or to forget about free trade and pay duties on products and services exported there. UKIP kind of acknowledges this and claims that the benefit of being able to trade with fewer restrictions with other countries would make up for it.
Note also that when people say the UK wants to develop relationships with other global trading partners, what they mean is that they want to reduce conditions and wages for employees to the same levels as those economies. Why should they pay you more than some guy doing the exact same job in China? How can they compete with that?
The UK is a net importer with most of its major trading partners within the EU. Financially speaking, there is probably more benefit to those nations if they preserve good trade relations with the UK than the other way around, but both sides benefit greatly.
Doubtful. There is the matter of principal, but more practically other countries will see it as an opportunity to improve their own positions. That's what the UK wants to do, it should expect the EU to do the same. Clearly there won't be a simple continuation of the existing arrangement because as you point out, the UK wants to ditch many of the rules on which that arrangement is reliant.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What I can tell you is that the UK is special in the EU since it is a net contributor.
One average contributor.
You are even behind Italy, which is telling.
This makes it easier for the US to control European objectives [...]
The most politically and economically aligned with USA country in the EU is UK.
UK even used several times its veto right - in matters it even didn't participate initially at all - because the regulations had threatened USA's business in EU (not even related to UK!).
It might seem different in the UK, but outside the bubble everyone knows that UK is the willing whore of the USA. You have established the fact with many actions over the past decades.
The UK would be better to cut ties with the conquered and recognize who are not its friends.
I wonder if UK has any friends at all. USA?
Otherwise, I have started that thread precisely because I think that removing people like you from the EU would make it a better place.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
People who voted in the referendum tell me that it was made clear at the time that it wasn't just a trade agreement, it was a larger project.
What referendum and what agreement?
The beginning of the European Union as we know it today was the Maastricht Treaty in 1991.
The last referendum on major European integration in the UK was held in 1975, and it was about membership of the European Economic Community, which was explicitly about trade -- in fact, it was widely known as the Common Market.
This went as far as some provisions for freedom of movement, but was long before the kind of centralised government and economic integration we see with today's European Union.
For those keeping score at home, yes, that means no-one under the age of 57 in the UK has ever voted in a referendum on European integration at all.
If it is working well why quit?
Because the EU today doesn't just have the useful trade agreements, but also a lot of other baggage.
That isn't correct. Such free trade agreements only work if both countries are on an equal footing, otherwise there will be conditions to keep things fair.
An interesting perspective, considering how unequal the footing is between different EU member states today, and how much this is responsible for many of the serious problems facing Europe recently.
Note also that when people say the UK wants to develop relationships with other global trading partners, what they mean is that they want to reduce conditions and wages for employees to the same levels as those economies.
Now you're just making things up and fear-mongering again.
For example, one of the widely reported pre-leaving business comments recently was from some of the senior executives at JCB, which is a large organisation that makes engineering vehicles and the like. They made a reasonable point that there is relatively little demand for such vehicles within Europe under the current economic conditions, while there is a great deal of demand and even more potential in rising global economies like China, to which the vehicles can be exported in large numbers. Limiting potentially beneficial trade agreements with those developing economies for the sake of keeping the EU happy simply isn't in the interests of a business like that, and in turn of that sector of the UK economy. This has nothing to do with the kind of exploitation of the workforce you're alleging.
Doubtful.
The numbers are what they are. The UK has a healthy balance in trade with most of the more economically advanced EU member states, but overall it is the non-UK side that tends to export slightly more at the moment, so they have more to lose if the bureaucrats throw their toys out of the pram instead of dealing with any UK exit like adults.
And there is no particular reason to assume the trade rules would change dramatically in any new agreements anyway. As I said before, the trade agreements are one of the areas where everyone saw common ground long before the EU was around, and they are one of the areas where there is still a lot of common ground today. You're just fear-mongering, again.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.