Brexit Referendum Superthread

Rightwing

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Seems you do not understand, the terrorist last night was French Tunisian, nothing do do with the EU

Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay, Hasib Hussain, Michael Adebolajo & Michael Adebowale had nothing to do with the EU

Thanks for the laugh. :rolleyes:

That's 1. There are tens of thousands who will.

Harika

Rightwing wrote: »

Thanks for the laugh. :rolleyes:

That's 1. There are tens of thousands who will.

How does closing the borders protect you from homegrown terrorists?

CMOTDibbler

Rightwing wrote: »

People talk about investments, tell that to the people of Nice today.

Britain is a safer place moving away from the position craved by the loony left. Europe is going nowhere fast.

Ironic that the example you crassly choose is one of post-imperialist immigration.

Now I wonder what other European country nearby has a post-imperialist immigration history? :rolleyes:

Enzokk

Rightwing wrote: »

Thanks for the laugh. :rolleyes:

That's 1. There are tens of thousands who will.

The only way the UK will be safe is if they get rid of all the non British on their land. But there are British people that aren't white and "safe", so you get rid of them as well. But then you have people that will be white but disagree with your own point of view (i.e. Protestants and Catholics) so you get rid of them as well. Once you are rid of all these undesirables you start fearing even those that have almost the same point of view but a little different, right? So in the end you are never safe but at least you can wallow in ignorance and hate.

511

Harika wrote: »

How does closing the borders protect you from homegrown terrorists?

1. It helps keeps them out of the gene pool. A place like Molenbeek is very poor and the areas breeds jihadists. It wouldn't exist if the Belgians had better immigration control.
2. Closing the borders would also prevent ISIS members returning from the battlefield. Salah Abdeslam is an example of an ISIS member returning to Europe undetected because he pretended to be a refugee. He went on to commit the massacre in Paris last November.

Rightwing

We see what's happening in Turkey at the moment. These places are just a disgrace. Best have nothing to do with them.

molloyjh

511 wrote: »

1. It helps keeps them out of the gene pool. A place like Molenbeek is very poor and the areas breeds jihadists. It wouldn't exist if the Belgians had better immigration control.
2. Closing the borders would also prevent ISIS members returning from the battlefield. Salah Abdeslam is an example of an ISIS member returning to Europe undetected because he pretended to be a refugee. He went on to commit the massacre in Paris last November.

Was he the guy that later turned out not to be a returned immigrant?

Also, there's an element there of closing the door after the horse has bolted. The issue in many respects is integration as much as anything else. If you throw a load of immigrants into one area and treat them differently to others what else would you expect? It's the same in France.

Of course they're hard questions. Why ask those when you can blame it all on the immigrants and just tell them to F off!?

ancapailldorcha

Rightwing wrote: »

People talk about investments, tell that to the people of Nice today.

Britain is a safer place moving away from the position craved by the loony left. Europe is going nowhere fast.

Stop dragging this thread off topic please. It's about the UK's in-out referendum, not terrorist attacks.

HiJacques

You can't help wonder if Brexit and this Turkish coup are related in some way.

There are more significant events happening on Turkey's border but it's been going on for years, a coup within weeks of Brexit seems a bit too coincidental.

Rightwing

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Stop dragging this thread off topic please. It's about the UK's in-out referendum, not terrorist attacks.

Ok. But I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Just like investment in the UK economy is Brexit related. Interconnected in a big way.

ancapailldorcha

Rightwing wrote: »

Ok. But I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Just like investment in the UK economy is Brexit related. Interconnected in a big way.

Fair point but I don't want this thread to go too far in that direction. Investment in the UK is a central topic while immigration has the potential to derail the thread.

Thanks.

Rightwing

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fair point but I don't want this thread to go too far in that direction. Investment in the UK is a central topic while immigration has the potential to derail the thread.

Thanks.

I may be wrong, but I think the underlying current for Brexit is mostly immigration, particularly non EU immigration. It's also becoming increasingly important in the rest of Europe. But I respect your viewpoint.

As for investments, was reading in the FT today, the US is moving Britain to the top of the queue, depsite Obama saying a few weeks ago, they'd be at the back of it. I would also see them get a good deal from the EU.

smjm

HiJacques wrote: »

You can't help wonder if Brexit and this Turkish coup are related in some way.

There are more significant events happening on Turkey's border but it's been going on for years, a coup within weeks of Brexit seems a bit too coincidental.

Brexit will now be blamed for pretty much everything!

https://twitter.com/RhonddaBryant/status/754087371252101124

CMOTDibbler

Rightwing wrote: »

As for investments, was reading in the FT today, the US is moving Britain to the top of the queue, depsite Obama saying a few weeks ago, they'd be at the back of it. I would also see them get a good deal from the EU.

That article also said it would be heavily dependant on what sort of deal the UK brokered with the EU. So until that happens, the US will not commit to anything which might be scuppered by tariff or regulatory agreements made with the EU.

The article didn't say anything about moving the UK to the top of the queue, it merely editorialised that the indications were that they wouldn't be at the back. However since the EU is currently in trade talks with the US (since July 8th), that certainly puts the UK behind any EU/US agreement.

freddyuk

BoatMad wrote: »

You have obviously no clear understanding of both the Irish banking crisis or the primary attributes of a fiat currency. ( or the basis of the Greek crisis )

Sterling is a weak has been currency whose financial centre has largely survived being tied to EU monetary activity. This will most likely end.

I've no problem with uk leaving the EU. But don't in any way fool yourself ( you ) are leaving a sinking ship in some clever prescient move. That's just little englander speak

As the UK sunders apart with Scotland, NI issues etc and becomes an economic backwater , you'll realise all you collectively did was jump of a ship without a life jacket.

It's amazing to listen to idiots that would project the failure of the EU ( and potential misery to millions ) just to justify The monumentally stupid decision that was Brexit

Ps : U.K. Banks or taxpayers have never bailed any Euro country thanks but no thanks

" fog in channel , continent cut off" says the little englander

Ignoring the blatant insults......... you have to understand that the problem is the EU and the way it is mismanaged. The problems around Europe stem from lack of fiscal control which stems from a single currency and the corruption and poor governance. Greece was not eligible to join the EU under the fiscal rules but it was allowed to and look what happened. The EU model is not working hence if you leave you will be able to protect yourself from negative market forces.
The Irish banking system collapsed due to corrupt banking practices and the government guaranteeing the huge losses resulted in the Irish economy collapsing with it. Then came the household charges, water charges etc. etc. but sadly a large number of taxpayers had left the country thus compounding the problem.
The UK made large contributions to the Irish banking system to plug the holes per Daily Telegraph 2013:
Between 2009 and 2011, RBS made "capital contributions" totalling €9.13bn (£7.6bn) to its Dublin-headquartered subsidiary Ulster Bank Ireland. Over the same period, Lloyds transferred £6.41bn to its Irish operation, Bank of Scotland (Ireland), before dissolving the business.

The total – £14bn – amounts to more than a fifth of the £65bn UK taxpayers injected into RBS and Lloyds in 2008 and 2009, and is expected to rise further. Analysts estimate that RBS transferred another £2bn last year.

RBS and Lloyds used the funds to write off billions of pounds of debt loaned to Irish commercial property developers and households in the "Celtic Tiger" boom years.

After the bubble burst, Ireland's banks brought the country to its knees and forced the government into a €67.5bn (£56.5bn) international rescue, including £7bn from the UK Government. Since the financial crisis, Dublin has injected €80bn into its banks and nationalised or part-nationalised six of them.


The EU banks are still toppling as they were never bailed out successfully and were in denial but now realising the game is up and the longer it goes on the worse the results will be so you would have to be stupid to just go down with them. The fact the Brexit vote was won on the subject of Immigration is unfortunate as that is not the main issue.

CMOTDibbler

freddyuk wrote: »

Ignoring the blatant insults......... you have to understand that the problem is the EU and the way it is mismanaged. The problems around Europe stem from lack of fiscal control which stems from a single currency and the corruption and poor governance. Greece was not eligible to join the EU under the fiscal rules but it was allowed to and look what happened. The EU model is not working hence if you leave you will be able to protect yourself from negative market forces.
The Irish banking system collapsed due to corrupt banking practices and the government guaranteeing the huge losses resulted in the Irish economy collapsing with it. Then came the household charges, water charges etc. etc. but sadly a large number of taxpayers had left the country thus compounding the problem.
The UK made large contributions to the Irish banking system to plug the holes per Daily Telegraph 2013:
Between 2009 and 2011, RBS made "capital contributions" totalling €9.13bn (£7.6bn) to its Dublin-headquartered subsidiary Ulster Bank Ireland. Over the same period, Lloyds transferred £6.41bn to its Irish operation, Bank of Scotland (Ireland), before dissolving the business.

The total – £14bn – amounts to more than a fifth of the £65bn UK taxpayers injected into RBS and Lloyds in 2008 and 2009, and is expected to rise further. Analysts estimate that RBS transferred another £2bn last year.

RBS and Lloyds used the funds to write off billions of pounds of debt loaned to Irish commercial property developers and households in the "Celtic Tiger" boom years.

After the bubble burst, Ireland's banks brought the country to its knees and forced the government into a €67.5bn (£56.5bn) international rescue, including £7bn from the UK Government. Since the financial crisis, Dublin has injected €80bn into its banks and nationalised or part-nationalised six of them.

I really don't know where to start here, there are so many inaccuracies. Bank of Scotland Irealnd were one of the most aggressive lenders in the Irish market. It was they who started the 100% mortgage race to the bottom in a bid to increase market share. They were mismanaged and completely out of their depth. They lost billions. How you can turn around and blame that on the EU is incomprehensible. Everybody wanted to get in on the Septic Kitten 'boom' and made poor business decision in their rush to get a slice of the pie.

There was no 'free' bailout money from anyone. It was all repayable. UK banks lost bilions betting on the Irish property market. They lost.

Calina

freddyuk wrote: »

Ignoring the blatant insults......... you have to understand that the problem is the EU and the way it is mismanaged.

Eh, no it isn't. That mismanagement takes place at national level.

freddyuk wrote: »

The problems around Europe stem from lack of fiscal control which stems from a single currency and the corruption and poor governance. Greece was not eligible to join the EU under the fiscal rules but it was allowed to and look what happened.

TBF, I don't think Greece would have avoided its meltdown whether it had retained the drachma or not. One of the key reasons Greek people value the euro is that it theoretically limits some of the issues that Greece has had with governance. This is happening now although at great cost.

freddyuk wrote: »

The EU model is not working hence if you leave you will be able to protect yourself from negative market forces.

The extent to which you can protect yourself from negative market forces is linked with the scale of your economy. The bigger you are, the more you can protect yourself. The smaller you are, the less you can.

freddyuk wrote: »

The Irish banking system collapsed due to corrupt banking practices and the government guaranteeing the huge losses resulted in the Irish economy collapsing with it.

This was not a EU problem but a locally caused problem.

freddyuk wrote: »

Then came the household charges, water charges etc. etc. but sadly a large number of taxpayers had left the country thus compounding the problem.
The UK made large contributions to the Irish banking system to plug the holes per Daily Telegraph 2013:
Between 2009 and 2011, RBS made "capital contributions" totalling €9.13bn (£7.6bn) to its Dublin-headquartered subsidiary Ulster Bank Ireland. Over the same period, Lloyds transferred £6.41bn to its Irish operation, Bank of Scotland (Ireland), before dissolving the business.

The total – £14bn – amounts to more than a fifth of the £65bn UK taxpayers injected into RBS and Lloyds in 2008 and 2009, and is expected to rise further. Analysts estimate that RBS transferred another £2bn last year.

RBS and Lloyds used the funds to write off billions of pounds of debt loaned to Irish commercial property developers and households in the "Celtic Tiger" boom years.

After the bubble burst, Ireland's banks brought the country to its knees and forced the government into a €67.5bn (£56.5bn) international rescue, including £7bn from the UK Government. Since the financial crisis, Dublin has injected €80bn into its banks and nationalised or part-nationalised six of them.

The UK contributed to the bail out because their retail sector - which was already weak - is heavily exposed in Ireland. The extent is unclear because the likes of Tesco and M&S do not provide separate figures for Ireland. As for the behaviour of their banks, they were responsible for the loans they made here. They were insane but they happened.

freddyuk wrote: »

The EU banks are still toppling as they were never bailed out successfully and were in denial but now realising the game is up and the longer it goes on the worse the results will be so you would have to be stupid to just go down with them. The fact the Brexit vote was won on the subject of Immigration is unfortunate as that is not the main issue.

If you want to be truly honest, Brexit was won on ignorance. There are people in Wales, Cornwall and the NE of England who are about to find out how dependent on the EU they were. Given what Jeremy Hunt has been doing to the NHS and Andrew Lansley before him, I am stunned anyone believed that any money the UK saved from its contribution to the EU would be directed towards the NHS and that's already before you look at the scale back in economic prospects which will almost certainly result in less funding being available.

The point is that the European Union is a large complex organisation. A key response to banking issues is banking regulation but I don't see too many people screaming for that right now, either here or in the UK or in the EU. If the banks are critically important then their risk profiles have to change. In the meantime, it's not just about banking. Freedom of movement is one of the great, great benefits that comes with the European Union. Cheap flights with Ryanair are thanks to the European Union and open skies. Roaming charges will be gone next year thanks to the European Union.

Much of the European Union's impact has been in opening markets and reducing nationalistic regulation. When the UK screams on about red tape, they are missing the point that the EU put the red tape at a supranational level which is how the single market exists. 28 separate markets would have a lot more red tape for exports and whether the UK likes it or not, they're going to need to figure out where those exports are going to come from and how they might possibly be cost effective from the UK which has few raw materials, and whose indigenous financial services industry is dependent on access to a single market they voted to leave. And yes, if they want to get rid of freedom of movement, access to the single market will be going with it.

Voting to exit the EU is a good idea if you live on an island and want to limit your horizons to that island. But the fishermen are not going to get increased quotas and right now, trade with the world outside the UK is incredibly unclear in what terms will be applied.

Harika

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/theresa-may-flies-to-edinburgh-to-tell-scots-that-she-believes-w/

Theresa May has indicated that Brexit could be delayed as she said she will not trigger the formal process for leaving the EU until there is an agreed “UK approach” backed by Scotland.

This is too good. The whole Brexit campaign should be taught as blueprint in schools to show how to manipulate people and when it counts turn around and do the opposite.

Really excellent synopsis of available known 'Brexit Options'

http://app.shorthand.com/export/dd8ca8c6e0d144608999f5dc5d1c3f0d/index.html

BoatMad

freddyuk wrote: »

Ignoring the blatant insults......... you have to understand that the problem is the EU and the way it is mismanaged. The problems around Europe stem from lack of fiscal control which stems from a single currency and the corruption and poor governance. Greece was not eligible to join the EU under the fiscal rules but it was allowed to and look what happened. The EU model is not working hence if you leave you will be able to protect yourself from negative market forces.

"negative " market forces obviously only affect EU countries , ah I see.....
( not to mention that the UK is not and never would have been in the Euro , which is what you are taking about )

The Irish banking system collapsed due to corrupt banking practices and the government guaranteeing the huge losses resulted in the Irish economy collapsing with it.

Again you have clearly accepted the " Irish Mirror " version of that happened , the facts are entirely different

Its easy to throw the word " corruption " around as its its self -explaining. You have offered no proof of any material corruption ( nor has anyone )

Then came the household charges, water charges etc. etc. but sadly a large number of taxpayers had left the country thus compounding the problem.

Compounding what problem exactly ( the fact that tax receipts lagged spending by significants amounts perhaps )

The UK made large contributions to the Irish banking system to plug the holes per Daily Telegraph 2013:
Between 2009 and 2011, RBS made "capital contributions" totalling €9.13bn (£7.6bn) to its Dublin-headquartered subsidiary Ulster Bank Ireland. Over the same period, Lloyds transferred £6.41bn to its Irish operation, Bank of Scotland (Ireland), before dissolving the business.

This was UK banks protecting their own business, it has nothing to do with UK " helping Ireland "

by the way capital contributions are investments not " bailouts". The UK did loan Ireland some billions ( NOTE it was a loan and it extracted an interest rate )

The total – £14bn – amounts to more than a fifth of the £65bn UK taxpayers injected into RBS and Lloyds in 2008 and 2009, and is expected to rise further. Analysts estimate that RBS transferred another £2bn last year.

Yes UK banks made a fool of themselves in Ireland , so what

RBS and Lloyds used the funds to write off billions of pounds of debt loaned to Irish commercial property developers and households in the "Celtic Tiger" boom years.

NO evidence of that , and even if they did, stupid banking lending decisions are just that - stupid

After the bubble burst, Ireland's banks brought the country to its knees and forced the government into a €67.5bn (£56.5bn) international rescue, including £7bn from the UK Government. Since the financial crisis, Dublin has injected €80bn into its banks and nationalised or part-nationalised six of them.

NO what brought the state to its needs was firstly (a) Lehmans, caused a liquidity crisis and halted construction in Ireland (b) the resulting collapse in the in construction related tax income, exposed a huge hole in Ireland state finances,i.e. we were collecting too little in other taxes and carrying way to much public service costs and ( b) a decision to guarantee the banks ( you can argue the merits one way or the other ) exposed the state to the requirement to recapitalise ( not a bailout ) its main pillar banks. The only money ( and it was a lot ) was the loss the liquidating Anglo ( but that money is essentially free , made available via the ECB)

The state will made a tidy gain from selling its shares in the Bailout banks by the way ( some bailout huh , rather its seems a canny investment , buy low sell high sort of thing )

The EU banks are still toppling as they were never bailed out successfully and were in denial but now realising the game is up and the longer it goes on the worse the results will be so you would have to be stupid to just go down with them. The fact the Brexit vote was won on the subject of Immigration is unfortunate as that is not the main issue.

agin , inside the EU or outside the UK is not concerned with the situation as it pertains to the Euro

You do understand do you not that the Euro , like Sterling and the US dollar, is a fiat currency , the EU has no trouble generating trillions to fix the banks, no mor then the US did after lehmans. The delay is the historic issue with German reluctance to allow the ECB to be a bank of last resort

NO , Brexit leave campaign was a tissue of lies and mis information that a gullible and hurting public listened to without fact checking anything , as Prof Michael Doohan said , its was " misinformation on an industrial scale "

Referendums on complex subjects are very very difficult processes, the average voter neither has the time or the inclination to fact check and understand the real truth behind each sides " facts " or contentions. Hence these issue get hi-jacked by " perceived fears " based on junk facts and media soundbites

Our own divorce and 8th amendments are clear example of complex questions that should never be put to a referendum


The fact is that hubris is behind Brexit , David Cameron, believed he could silence the Eurosceptics in the Tory party by offering a referendum , he thought was a slam dunk affair ( as early polls predicted) , He gambled the fate of a whole nation on solving his Tory party issues and he is destroying the UK in the process

The whole process was a mind boggling corruption of the democratic process.

The fact is referendums only make sense where a clear unambiguous defined principle( s) is being discussed,

For example a referendum on gay marriage was within the bounds of a referendum, as the legal and constitutional principles could be easily elucidated

whereas the 8th amendment here was clearly one that should never have been proposed as the ramifications and unintended consequences are never considered ( to such an extent that we will have to have another ) In that regard Brexit is like our 8th amendment.

as ,an aside, the UK was never designed as a referendum based constitutional process, in effect you elected a parliament , which behind the scenes uses expert opinion to form the basis of law. A referendum short circuits that and exposes non-experts to questions they are ill prepared to consider and answer

( rather like handing a differential calculus question to a person with ordinary level maths )

Brexit will in my opinion proves disastrous for the UK, leading to its breakup economically at the very least and possible a constitutional breakup as well, its resulting deal to gain access to the single market and retain passporting rights will prove extraordinary expensive for the UK.


Its the ultimate delusion that some Brexiters have latched onto certain issues in the Eurozone, a zone the UK does not play a part in ( only then to make a lot of money from it) as a justification ( mostly post justification ) for the " leave " vote is hilarious, the main plank of Farage and others was (a) fear off uncontrolled immigration ( 28 million people want your job nonsense ) and ( b) a EU "shackles: argument , that was largely based on deliberate falsifications and mis-truths

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Really excellent synopsis of available known 'Brexit Options'

http://app.shorthand.com/export/dd8ca8c6e0d144608999f5dc5d1c3f0d/index.html

and its an extraordinary pessimistic summary particularly since its the Telegraph , essentially stating that non of the options are either likely to be offered by the EU or where they are , are not in the Uks interest

its summary " bumpy road ahead" is perhaps the most sanguine

BoatMad

Theresa May has indicated that Brexit could be delayed as she said she will not trigger the formal process for leaving the EU until there is an agreed “UK approach” backed by Scotland.

UK- Parliament - January 2020. Leaders question time,

" would the honourable member " for Maidenhead please up date us on the progress towards leaving the EU "

" Well , progress to date has been slow, the Scottish issue is proving most difficult to resolve satisfactorly and the progress with the EU on agreeing suitable agreements that are in the interests of the UK have proven extremely difficult and complex". In my opinion , the issue of triggering Article 50, without any comphrensive understanding of the nature of any forthcoming agreement will now be in the hands of the next prime minster and parliament based on the outcome of the next general election"

" but madam PM, the will of the UK people is being thwarted "

" Her Majesties Government , fully respects the wishes of the 2016 vote, but of course giving effect to such wishes is proving complex and difficult, We cannot simply exit the EU with a constitutional issue over Scotland and without an agreement with the EU thats protects our economic base and access to one of the worlds largest markets "

Sam Russell

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I really don't know where to start here, there are so many inaccuracies. Bank of Scotland Irealnd were one of the most aggressive lenders in the Irish market. It was they who started the 100% mortgage race to the bottom in a bid to increase market share. They were mismanaged and completely out of their depth. They lost billions. How you can turn around and blame that on the EU is incomprehensible. Everybody wanted to get in on the Septic Kitten 'boom' and made poor business decision in their rush to get a slice of the pie.

There was no 'free' bailout money from anyone. It was all repayable. UK banks lost bilions betting on the Irish property market. They lost.

Actually it was First Active that first introduced the 100% mortgage. They were taken over by Ulster Bank.

BoatMad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually it was First Active that first introduced the 100% mortgage. They were taken over by Ulster Bank.

yes but CMOTDibbler, is badly correct , the UK banks landed in Ireland , determined to "break the domestic monopoly( triopoly) " of the Irish bank sector, I remember well RBS and BOS(I) presentations to our business on their benefits over Irish domestic banks

They gambled and lost , boo who, and their rich owners simply recapitalised them with funny money and on we went

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

yes but CMOTDibbler, is badly correct , the UK banks landed in Ireland , determined to "break the domestic monopoly( triopoly) " of the Irish bank sector, I remember well RBS and BOS(I) presentations to our business on their benefits over Irish domestic banks

They gambled and lost , boo who, and their rich owners simply recapitalised them with funny money and on we went

I certainly agree that BOS did a lot of damage to the Irish mortgage market, together with Anglo Irish Bank. Reckless lending was their game, but other banks joined in.

BoatMad

andrew wrote: »

I feel like that'd be massively outweighed by the fact that we don't have the power to negotiate a unilateral trade deal with the UK, and so our exports to them would, for a period at least, fall massively, which would be pretty bad.

Ireland is the 33rd largest export economy in the world and the 17th most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index (ECI). In 2014, Ireland exported $142B and imported $72.6B, resulting in a positive trade balance of $69.7B. In 2014 the GDP of Ireland was $250B and its GDP per capita was $49.4k.

The top exports of Ireland are Packaged Medicaments ($22.8B), Nitrogen Heterocyclic Compounds ($19.1B), Human or Animal Blood ($9.6B), Scented Mixtures ($7.46B) and Orthopedic Appliances ($5.61B), using the 1992 revision of the HS (Harmonized System) classification. Its top imports are Refined Petroleum ($4.29B), Packaged Medicaments ($3.48B), Computers ($2.67B), Cars ($2.31B) and Crude Petroleum ($2.13B).

The top export destinations of Ireland are the United States ($28.5B), the United Kingdom ($19.2B), Belgium-Luxembourg ($18.2B), Germany ($10.8B) and France ($7.98B). The top import origins are the United Kingdom ($24.3B), the United States ($7.45B), Germany ($6.35B), China ($4.15B) and the Netherlands ($4.14B).


Note that as a percentage of GDP the UK is less then 8% of Irelands exports, ( even if that export is predominantly food ) and the UK actually exports about twice as much to us as we export to them

on the other hand

The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are the United States ($51B), Germany ($46.5B), the Netherlands ($34.2B), Switzerland ($33.6B) and France ($27B). The top import origins are Germany ($100B), China ($62.7B), the Netherlands ($50.7B), the United States ($44.4B) and France ($41.5B).

the EU countries makes up a huge proportion of both the UKs exports and imports

Consequence :

The UK needs access to the EU ( and Ireland ) more then we need access to it

BoatMad

Sam Russell wrote: »

I certainly agree that BOS did a lot of damage to the Irish mortgage market, together with Anglo Irish Bank. Reckless lending was their game, but other banks joined in.

indeed , however it was the entry into a once fairly closed and conservative irish banking market of the UK bank sector ( newly deregulated under Thachter) that spurred the competitive and collective madness that came over the irish banking market

This was exacerbated by the Euro and low interest rates , in a low rate economy banks have to massively increases trading volumes to retain and growth absolute profit values. The housing market offered ( or seemed to offer) large volumes at competitive returns ( and asset backed lending ) as against business lending for example and the frenzy of competition to grow trade caused the bubble

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

indeed , however it was the entry into a once fairly closed and conservative irish banking market of the UK bank sector ( newly deregulated under Thachter) that spurred the competitive and collective madness that came over the irish banking market

This was exacerbated by the Euro and low interest rates , in a low rate economy banks have to massively increases trading volumes to retain and growth absolute profit values. The housing market offered ( or seemed to offer) large volumes at competitive returns ( and asset backed lending ) as against business lending for example and the frenzy of competition to grow trade caused the bubble

Exactly - supported by light touch regulation - or put more correctly - no regulation.

Another factor was the speculative holding of bank share by international traders (US based) who demanded higher and higher returns (and growth) from their bank shares. They looked at Anglo and said 'Why can't you return performance like that?' not realising that much of the miracle of Anglo was actually mirage.

CMOTDibbler

Sam Russell wrote: »

Exactly - supported by light touch regulation - or put more correctly - no regulation.

Another factor was the speculative holding of bank share by international traders (US based) who demanded higher and higher returns (and growth) from their bank shares. They looked at Anglo and said 'Why can't you return performance like that?' not realising that much of the miracle of Anglo was actually mirage.

The 'Anglo effect' was also part of the problem. Anglo had traditionally held the position of 'lender of last resort' to businesses and developers who couldn't get funding from the mainstream banks. The model was based on high margins and high risk. Their continued growth was seen initially as unsustainable and then as it continued on into the noughties with double digit growth year on year, the mainstream banks, facing increased competition in the retail market from the new UK banks, loosened their requirements and started aggressively chasing the booming property market.

You then got these developers playing one bank off against the other and spreading their lending amongst them to further leverage their overheated expansion. The ludicrous situation of the Jurys site purchase was just one example of the unsustainable lending model.

BoatMad

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The 'Anglo effect' was also part of the problem. Anglo had traditionally held the position of 'lender of last resort' to businesses and developers who couldn't get funding from the mainstream banks. The model was based on high margins and high risk. Their continued growth was seen initially as unsustainable and then as it continued on into the noughties with double digit growth year on year, the mainstream banks, facing increased competition in the retail market from the new UK banks, loosened their requirements and started aggressively chasing the booming property market.

You then got these developers playing one bank off against the other and spreading their lending amongst them to further leverage their overheated expansion. The ludicrous situation of the Jurys site purchase was just one example of the unsustainable lending model.

in review after review , Anglo was seen as a bank with impeccable security of its loan book.

Anglos failure came because it was almost exclusively operating in a market that itself failed , i.e. property development. There was nothing else wrong with Anglos model over any other bank . Europe is full of potential Anglos