Concerns with the Prime Minister's proposed Brexit agreement.

Discussion in 'Economics' started by morganist, Nov 29, 2018.

  1. Visaria likes this.
  2. Visaria

    Visaria

    V good, but do u think he's gonna bother reading your case? After all he's just a lackey ...no one else wanted the job.
     
  3. Yes they seem to, they raised the position of the legal case for Brexit which this is so I guess they must have.
     
  4. Visaria

    Visaria

    Great, more power to u!
     
  5. piezoe

    piezoe

    Morgan, your arguments are weak but not entirely meritless. Incorporatioin of an EZ within an EU has created a monetary problem that should have been foreseen, but either was not or was simply ignored in the end. The UK is at fault in equal measure as they are aggrieved. Let us not forget that the UK is a party to the EC.

    Underlying the difficulties faced by the EU are two defects. One is the untenable dichotomous structure of the EU which has both EZ and non-EZ countries included. The other is the absolute necessity of a Eurobond being adopted, something now missing from the EZ. Without a Eurobond the ECB will forever be hobbled. The UK was a prime culprit when it decided to attempt to have its cake and eat it too. I am referring to not wanting to be cutout of the EU with regard to trade but desirous of maintaining exclusive control over its currency, for understandable reasons of course.

    But one simply can not have ones cake and eat it too. Two things are essential for ultimate success of the EU. There can not be allowed more than one currency. Thus all members must accent to a single currency, the Euro obviously, or Exit the EU. And a Eurobond must be adopted so that the ECB can effectively manage EU monetary policy. Only those countries that can agree with these conditions should remain in the EU; thus making the EU synonymous with the EZ. The UK and Germany must both agree, or else both exit and negotiate a trade agreement with the remaining EU countries.

    The argument that the Euro crisis created within the EZ was unfairly and illegally visited on the UK is a weak one, because the UK is a party to the EC/EU and it was an indirect party to the difficulties within the EZ. It is not an innocent bystander as your argument implies. It contributed to the problem indirectly by not joining the EZ. And Germany* is contributing by refusing to agree to a Euro bond. The best solution will not be the one adopted. But the only reasonable choice left appears to be exit of both Germany and the UK, any non-EZ country, from the EU. Then the remaining EZ countries must complete their monetary union with adoption of a Eurobond. The stronger economies must subsidize the weaker. Otherwise their is no true union. And in a world of Fiat currencies which have productivity as their backing, this is a practical solution to different regions having somewhat different economies and productivity. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    _____________
    * I am left with the impression that those in Germany, who seem to want to play the role of a thorn in the side of the ECB's monetary policy, are living in the pre- Nixon Shock era. They don't seem to fully except that we are now all on fiat money, and the constraints of a gold standard have been eliminated. They don't evidence much understanding of the modern incarnation of Keynesian economics, but rather they seem to be stuck in an Hayekian time warp. Thank goodness Mario Draghi thoroughly understands modern money theory.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2018 at 1:07 PM
  6. Your answer makes me think you have not read the legal case I put forward. There was infringements of ESA 95 rules which were legally binding. It is completely valid as a reason for constitutional requirement to leave the EU and also to claim against the costs of doing so. Read the document I put forward it is 13 pages long and includes my book as evidence.

    http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.com/2018/11/letter-to-brexit-secretary-rt-hon.html
     
  7. piezoe

    piezoe

    I did read what you posted actually. You have a point. I doubt the UK authorities have overlooked it however.
     
  8. There is no way out of it, it is legally binding and the European Commission has been in breach of its own legislation. There is just cause for constitutional requirement to leave the EU and grounds to sue the EC. If you read the 'No Deal' Brexit contingency plan at the last three pages of the document it explains the correct process to trigger article 50 was not followed. It may only be possible to leave the EU under its grounds by suing for failure to comply to its own regulations, which it has. The UK would also likely get a better deal.