Not my circus, not my monkeys is not good enough- a thread for those who actually want answers

[Bearbehind]

I was going to give this up as a bad job but given the post on the last Leave thread that's nearly full saying that 'any woman with half a brain voted to leave' I felt the discussion needs to go on.

I completely agree Peregrina within the EU we would go on jostling along with all the interests of the other members, and the organisation would have evolved as a result. I agree with the analysis that out of a historical sense of arrogance and a failed political system which tried to shift the resentment it caused on to immigration, we have dealt the EU a huge shock and that from it will probably evolve more quickly and effectively an EU that is less dogmatic and more pragmatic in accommodating the interests of it's member states. However the UK is now going to struggle for decades in the face of the economic shock and it's loss of face on the world stage (and make no mistake the UK's image does not emerge well from this.......)

So easy to say 'evolve'. What sense are you using this word in? Evolve into what?

You don't need an end goal with 'evolution' you just need to react to circumstances as they arise.

That's the massive difference larry.

My issue is and always has been the lack of a plan for Brexit.

Far too many people are happy with a form of evolution for leaving but that cannot happen. There will be a hard deadline once a50 is invoked and there should be a very definite set of goals for this.

Larry: "I would hate to grow up in a country where all the best and brightest want to leave."

Well congratulations - I think that's exactly what the vote has achieved.

Yes,

It is a massive difference. In fact evolution does not have a goal at all, except survival of the gene. And it comes at the cost of extinctions.

Economic evolution does not happen, though, really. We reach a crisis and then take a political decision as to who should bear the cost and who should reap the benefits. Have people learned nothing from 2008 or the Greek Euro crisis?

Brexit is an economic crisis and we don't have the upper hand in deciding who bears the costs and who reaps the benefits so that doesn't really support your argument.

"Evolve" as a result of the balance of power and the interests of the member nations, as long as there is a will to make it work. Impossible to predict how exactly since we do not know how the member states will emerge from the next two years of political change. From what I can see there is little evidence that that will to make it work is not going to get stronger. The U.K. is a powerful lesson in what happens if the forces of nationalism take hold.

Bear,

Your last post is a complete non sequitur. Sorry.

We did reach a crisis and take a political decision. Those who benefit and disbenefit will be decided politically. I never anywhere spoke of 'us' having the upper hand.

My bet is that asset values will be maximised. That is how we seem to take every political decision these days: support the banks and plenty of easy money. Until we stumble into the next crisis.

'We' meaning the global political community, to clarify.

In who's opinion did we reach a crisis?

In an economic sense you have a trade off between market forces and the extent to which politically you decide to manage and regulate them. it is the political system and values that govern the economy which will change/ develop/ evolve. After the financial crash a political system that had deregulated the banks and taken the brakes off without controlling the risk did learn it's lesson and with the EU in the lead imposed greater regulation. At least the lesson was learned, now there are Brexiters who want to do away with those regulations and let the bankers have their head again, what could possibly go wrong?

'In who's opinion did we reach a crisis?'

Well, clearly those that voted leave!

If leave voters percieved we had reached a crisis, and it seems to be that it was the levels of immigration and it's impact on public services that was perceived to be the crisis, then it was a perception created by politicians and two newspaper proprietors. A fairly hefty proportion of those who percieved it was a problem had no direct experience of it, only a perception based on the Conservative Party building it up as a problem so they could pain themselves as the ones who would solve it and divert attention from the effects of austerity and how two newspaper proprietors chose to present it in their media.

'After the financial crash a political system that had deregulated the banks and taken the brakes off without controlling the risk did learn it's lesson and with the EU in the lead imposed greater regulation. At least the lesson was learned'

Real unicorns making the rainbows in the sky!

SIV inventors back in business:

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-06/gordian-knot-siv-creators-are-back-with-bank-license-after-crash

Return of the CDO:

www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324423904578525701936124838

Total compensation not really affected:

www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/12/uk-banks-expected-to-pay-out-5bn-pounds-in-bonuses

news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/201689/analyst-associate-vp-salaries-bonuses-london-2015-dartmouth-partners-bonus-survey/

larry I've never heard a leave voter describe it as a 'crisis' though.

It's caused one certainly.

If it were a 'crisis' then there would perhaps have been more thought put into the alternatives.

It seems to me much of the problem is down to the fact it wasn't at crisis point, it was just a vague 'ultimately I'd rather be out of the EU then in it'

Larry Prior to the crash compliance and risk were consigned to the back office of the banks, they had no control and no power. There was huge risk as a result, both in terms of what could be done legitimately and the lack of process to stop what couldn't. Now every bank is controlled by both regulations and regulatory authorities with real bite. A lot of financial institutions, particularly the British ones have had to make huge changes to their processes and to elevate the status of risk and compliance in their structures. Of course as always with these things, there is always some clever bugger trying to get round any regulation / process you implement, there will always be an element of catch up in response. However what is in place already makes it much much harder.

As to pay, well the economy has been doing well and pay inequality worsening, no body has been doing anything about that. It will be interesting to see if Theresa May actually does.

Hi everyone, I heard my "mate" not Ian Duncan Smith on Radio Four Today programme this morning. The man wants A50 invoked early in 2017! So he is still deluded but thought you might find it interesting to hear www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07vhk66#play

Go to time 2.10 to hear what that particular Leaver has to say (not a lot other than wishing for unicorns IMO)

We did reach a crisis and take a political decision.

No, Cameron reached a crisis with the Eurosceptic wing of his party, which had previously seen off Major. He then foolishly called a Referendum, didn't get the result he blithely assumed he would, and now he has delivered a crisis to everyone else and b*ggered off.

There has always been a low level chuntering about the Common Market - there was in Harold Wilson's day. I don't think it's got louder.

(I don't think the Eurosceptics can claim Thatchers scalp; I believe that was primarily as a result of the poll tax.)

Your post of 9.30 is spot on ron.

Larry regarding your best and brightest point. The highest skilled would be able to leave under a posts system anyway. Still not an argument for cutting freedom of movement. We had Romanian doctors long before we Romania had freedom of moment.

The UK benefits from 50 bn in remittances per year btw. Also the development trap of emigration is not reflected in Poland which had the highest number of emigrants in the EU but also one of the fastest growing economies. It's only really applicable to developing economies..

Re free trade = free movement it may be interesting to read this article on how the Mercosur (South American countries) work the principle, unfortunately it is dated 2014 so it could be that things have moved along since then and I am no expert.
I am also not really an expert of how the free movement is applied in practice within the Eu but found it interesting to read this

MERCOSUR’s Residence agreement differs from the EU’s free movement regime in various ways. For instance, in contrast to the EU, where there is an obligation to be working or to prove sufficient resources in order to be able to reside in another Member State for longer than 3 months, citizens in South America may reside for up to two years by simply providing an identification document and proof of a clean criminal record for the previous five years. However, under the MERCOSUR agreement the burden is on the individual to prove that they are not a threat to public policy or security by producing such a clean criminal record. In Europe, by contrast, the responsibility lies with the national authorities to demonstrate that the person endangers public policy or public security of the State

In a bit of irony we have heard the leavers here celebrating that we can Trade with African countries who are "desperate" to send us their cheap agricultural produce. I have posted a couple of times the African Unions agricultural policy, basically focusing on emerging Asian markets, especially China who need to keep their middle classes with their changing food tastes happy. So it is not so much that Africa is desperate to send us cheap food as that there is a new set of competitors for that food in the market which will inevitably drive prices up. Now it seems as a result of Brexit we are not only facing competition in Africa to bring home the bacon....... www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/25/brexit-vote-pushes-up-price-bacon-china-british-pork?client=safari

Also on remittances Larry, it boosts the economy in both the short and long run, consumption increases in the short, but this leads to higher tax payments which can be spent on education and health, ad well.as jobs created by the increased aggregate demand.

It's not a short run thinguest at all.

Haven't read the whole thread yet but I can tell you exactly what my mother expects having voted leave:

• to see the back of Cameron
• to see the back of Osbourne
• to remind the Germans and the French who actually won the war
• the end of the bedroom tax
• retirement age for women to be returned to 60
• reinstating of lifelong widow's pension instead of year long
• an increase in the ratio of white to black faces in London (she's never actually been to London but she read about whites being a minority in some areas and thinks 'this can't go on')
• ESA assessments to be scrapped

That's it. Any questioning of how leaving the EU will achieve her goals is met with a tutting eye roll.