Why the Euro Prevents the UK from EVER REJOINING the EU
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 01. 2023
- Because of the economic costs of Brexit and the poor performance of the UK, there is a growing majority of people who want to rejoin the EU. But, the problem is rejoining would not be on the same terms we left. This explains why the Euro/single currency would create economic problems for UK.
Text version of video at
www.economicshelp.org/blog/18...
► Please subscribe! / economicshelp1
About
► www.economicshelp.org was founded in 2006 by Tejvan Pettinger, who studied PPE at Oxford University and teaches economics. He has published several economics books, including:
► Cracking Economics. www.economicshelp.org/shop/cr...
► What Would Keynes Do? Amazon amzn.to/2xShqq4
A video which goes into more detail on the costs of Brexit for the UK. czcams.com/video/wQEPfbCcp_g/video.html
You don't get it, do you? The cost and what you wish is on UKs side, and it is not the EUs responsibility to save the UK from the consequences of its decisions.
After the UK'a behavior you have no goodwill left, and surely can not expect to get any favors.
You have used that up.
You threatened and tried to extort concessions from the EU.
You think we want you back?
Think hard and long about its, for about, maybe 25 years?
Britain are already back or in the EU, effectively -the entire govt behaves as if it is.
Quick answer: because they're sick and tired of British rebate, cherrypicking and blaming EU for all of the UKs domestic problems....
So, cheerypicking again? why would the EU let the UK rejoin the singel market? It would weaken those, how want to deepen the integration if the EU would let the UK cheerypick again in any way.
Otherwise, I never thought about it this way. Thank you for explaining it so clearly.
UK joining the EU is like shackling race horses with oxen.
[GDP Nominal, source IMF]
1995 EU 7.5 trillion, US 7.5 Trillion, China 650 Billion ,
2022 EU 14 Trillion, US 23 Trillion, China 17 Trillion , the union is one big failure.
Don’t forget that the only people who lost their Freedom of Movement was you - British people. Europeans didn’t lose their Freedom of Movement. You did.
The idea that turning your back on one of the strongest markets in the world would be good for the Uk was insane
Tell that to all the Brexiters, it's literally impossible to have a conversation with common sense with any of them
The case for leaving goes beyond economics but there are alot of things that are not in individual member states economic interests to remain.
Free trade only....NOT political and federal union....NEVER voted for that in 1975.
Cheap EU labour drove down Brit. wages...bye-bye EU.
EU is a declining market globally, half what it was forty years ago.
UK thriving by joining booming far east markets. Go where money is.
The current EU generation is absolute fed up with little Britain. If ever,no more cherry picking, no British exeptionalism, no pound
except something like 8 EU member states retain their currencies and most have absolutely no plans to give it up
I see most EU people don't care about post Brexit UK
@@thegreypenguin5097 They also didn't cause extra costs and mess by first leaving and then wanting to come back.
It would suggest with Germany almost in recession and France on it’s why they are more worried about their own countries than the uk.
@@thegreypenguin5097 Mr Penguin, If you study the case for the more than ten minutes you will notice that these countries joined some time ago. Denmark for example is exempt and don't have to ever join. Uk will be a new country. It has to join according to Copenhagen.
As a Norwegian (not EU member state) this whole debacle has been strange to watch. I feel like the real reason the UK left the EU was the upcoming rules on the wealthy that would make it harder to hide illegal activites. We have always had these laws in our country and it works well in lowering corruption. The main reason we are not a member is because we have a (relative) strong economy due to high income and low population, meaning its mainly self-interest that keeps us out. If it was known by economists that a fall was coming why was not that a centerpiece in the brexit debate? Why risk leaving current stability if a fall is assumed?
to be fair though, norway is a bit of a special case. you got oil and gas plus that insane state fund going
not to say i disagree with anything you said
Good question. In case of the UK and especially for England I'd say the main reason was national pride and huge overestimation of its own economical strength, importance and leverage combined with the denial of the necessity of being part of an inter-european supply network. They really think the UK could survive self-sustaining. No European country can do so!
I lived in Norway for several years
and loved it . Honestly I do not believe the Norwegian people would ever give up their independence in order to join the
EU. ? Neither would the Swiss ?
@@Luggaster Yes, I cannot compare Norway and the UK on this issue I was only talking about the strange choice of time to leave stability when the economists seems to have known of the upcoming issues. It leads me to believe the motive was the upcoming law changes in the EU that drove the ultra-rich to campaigning for Brexit. Granted, I always assume the worst when it comes to political issues so I might very well be wrong.
It's not the Euro but the offshore money that won't allow Britain to rejoin the EU. Too many people don't want their wealth to be revealed for many reasons.
This is not money, this is contraband.
@@peterebel7899 The city is a massive financial center to pipe cash out from the regulated system. Brexit conveniently happened just when the EU was starting to close on its financial untraceable transactions. I don't think it was a coincidence. Thanks to Brexit big anonymous money can still breeze freely in the UK financial shady network.
@@peterebel7899 - This ! 👍
Most mps have the money they steal from the taxpayers stashed away in offshore bank accounts.
The UK is a tax haven for Russian oligarchs and the like. You're absolutely right.
Ireland is in the €uro and does it pretty well :)
The EU is in the Euro and it's the world's second largest economy ahead of China but yeah, according to brexitards it's a "failed project" or something 🙄
They voted no in 2 referendums
@@johnpugh3348 Support for leaving is in single figures. They've seen Brexit, and know what side their bread is buttered, thank you. Plus, they now have the confidence to do their own thing, not just hang on the UK's coat tails, as they may have done before.
@@johnpugh3348 So? They actually have a codified constitutional
@@johnpugh3348 I voted no in both them referendums, I was a stupid kid, clueless about the EU and only wanted to spite the Government.
Not propably but definitely. Article 50.5 of the Treaty of the EU says any country that has withdrawn from the EU may apply to rejoin. It would be required to go through the accession procedure as described in Article 49.
In Article 49 you can find out that to be able to apply UK has to satisfy the Copenhagen Criteria:
The applicant country must also satisfy EU eligibility criteria. These are commonly referred to as the Copenhagen criteria as they were defined by the European Council that took place in Copenhagen in June 1993. These criteria are the following:
- stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
- a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
- the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
Economic and monetary union = acceptance of the Euro. The cherry picking days for UK are over if it wants to join.
Agreed, the really stupid thing about Brexit is that the UK had a very sweet deal and the Conservatives blew it with their delusion of "the British Empire" somehow still being a thing and that therefore the EU needed the UK more than that the UK needed the EU.
That stupid delusion alone led to the debacle the UK is now in, because those idiots refused to negotiate properly, thinking that by them holding out would force the EU to cave in and give them what they wanted. They ended up with almost nothing instead. The sad thing is that the politicians that caused this situation to happen suffer NO consequences, as the businesses and the common man/woman always pay the price for political failures.
Well ...there's ways around that. Poland aren't in the Euro for example.
But I agree the UK is going to have to prove a lot about itself before we even bother to reapply.
And to think the EU were willing to readmit us in 2019 and pretend like nothing had happened :-( :-( :-(
That counts the UK out on all criteria given where the country is heading!
@@slaterslater5944 Omg you can’t help it to look for any exceptions can you? Really annoying.
@@louis-philippearnhem6959
What do you mean? It's an indisputable fact that Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden and Denmark for example don't use the Euro. Sorry if you find that annoying. I'm under no illusions about rejoining any of the EU institutions not being up to the EU, no matter how much I'd like us to do so.
Making money is not the same as keeping it there is a reason why investments aren't well taught in schools, the examples you gave are well stationed, the market crisis gave me my first millions, people shy away from hard times, I embrace them.. well at least my advisor does...
@@davedelva Not at all, having monitored edge my portfolio performance which has made a jaw dropping $473k from just the past two quarters alone, I have learned why experienced traders make enormous returns from the seemingly unknown market. I must say it's the boldest decision I've taken since recently.
@@belobelonce35 Glad to have stumbled on this conversation. Please can you leave the info of your investment advisor here? I’m in dire need for one.
"Julia Ann Finnicum, is my adviser and she is highly qualified and experienced in the financial market. She has extensive knowledge of portfolio diversity and is considered an expert in the field. I recommend researching her credentials further. She has many years of experience and is a valuable resource for anyone looking to navigate the financial market.
@@belobelonce35 I just looked up Julia online and researched her accreditation. She seem very proficient, I wrote her detailing my Fin-market goals.
Interest rates in the UK are not set to benefit the UK tho … they are set to benefit ‘the city’. Austerity is baked into the neoliberal playbook, if you hadnt noticed, the UK political elite are rather keen on neoliberalism.
The UK political elite are remainers and all they are interested in is the cheap foreign labour that open borders offer, the same as the EU political elite, be under no illusion about that.
The Bank of England is keen on raising interest rates to keep the pound strong.
@@kevb8544 Raising interest rates keeps inflation down which is why it is necessary to raise them, the pinch is felt by homeowners but it's great for retirees who have savings.
I am based in Ireland and trying to set a margin on buying goods from the UK is impossible with the wild undulations of sterling. The Euro is blamed on many things yet it is only tool among many tools, interest rates have not affected the energy inflation crisis. The Euro is now the worlds second reserve currency, the ECB issues uro debt at the lowest rates and this is part of the Next gen investment being pumped into Europe. As for a benefit in sterling flexibility, the recent swings have added to inflation and uncertainty in trade while failing to increase exports.
I think the fundamental arguments in this video are flawed and that the US is the working example of how 50 states with very diverse economies benefit from one dollar and one interest rate.
You iron out the flaws in a single currency and enjoy the benefits for example when the Irish housing market exploded in 2007/8 the Euro was blmaed because interest rates were too low for a booming Irish economy and housing market plus all the extra liquidity the Euro brought. But the proble was 100% loans, unlimited vs earnings, an earnings cap has solved the problem
Greece is the cautionary tale that says you give up your central bank independence at great peril. The US works primarily because the dollar is the world's reserve currency (for now). Politically, USA is every bit as factious as Europe. There are frequent calls by far-right lunatics for states to secede from the union. They don't seem to understand that that has been illegal since Reconstruction. There is also a high degree of federal funds transfer from richer blue states to poorer red ones. The blue states suffer that iniquity but if the USA were held together less tightly, something the far right are keen to implement, then those poorer red states would sink in the same way that Greece did at the expense of Germany profiting.
The UK had the best of all worlds in the EU (given geographic reality which doesn't seem to impact Leavers).
Asset bubbles are always the fault of bankers, but it is mainly retail and commercial banks that cause the damage rather than central banks, although the central banks set the stage for the former.
Yes 50 states with differing economies many which are devastated in depression when some industries finished up due to outsource globalisation and basically boarded up and leave .
This model is politically unacceptable for European countries
Thank you for this you put it far better than I could.
The Irish government at that time ( the noughties) should and could have made the banks enforce the standard lending criteria of 3 times income plus 1 time of partners income.
Had they done so, the building boom would have been held in check.
The reason they did not was the banks were giving 10s of thousands to the government party as political donations.
Giving 110% of purchase price of a dwelling was always going to end in the horrors.
Agree. And since 2008 to 2013 economic collapse in Ireland, the very painful correction has improved economic prospects in Ireland dramatically and currently Ireland is in an envied economic position despite a chronic housing shortage. Euro is working well for us now.
There is no way for UK to join the single market without EU membership. (EFTA and Swiss deal are already ruled out by Norway and EU) So no privileges for Britain without joining EU and accepting all requirements for EU membership, including the EURO currency.
er.....thanks but No Thanks .!
We'll manage.
Yep we’re never going back. Thanks to the EU for robbing us blind for all my working life.
@@butlerpa100 The only robbers are the tories.
@@2msvalkyrie529 Good luck. You'll need it.
@@2msvalkyrie529 Ah! but you are not managing and if you truly believe you are then you head is stuck in the sand.
The rule of the European Union is that the member countries of the European Union which were already members at the time of the birth of the Euro had the option to join or not (UK, Sweden and Denmark did not join the Euro), countries that have subsequently joined the Union are obliged to join the Euro when their economic standards allow it. Scotland or what will remain of the United Kingdom, when they enter the European Union, will be considered new members, with the obligation to adhere to the single currency.
But you are forgetting a crucial thing. New members are obligated to enter the euro zone but it is not defined WHEN. Which effectively is also an opt out. Countries who perceive it not being beneficial to them to join the euro (Poland, Czechia) have kept their currency. And they are able to conduct their own monetary policy which in the case of these two countries makes their labour costs lower for foreign investors. With higher costs of borrowing with their own currency they also stop themselves getting more in debt.
@@noodleppoodle Poland is cheating to EU and tries not to enter the euro zone. But at some point I think that the EU will say "stop". Now they don't say anything because of the war in Ukraine and Poland takes a lot of refugees and spends a lot of money, I'm sure it won't last too long, especially since there are also political problems between the EU and Poland, especially on societal issues such as abortion, gay rights, etc.
theoretically countries are obligated to access euro but the EU cannot force any country to meet all criteria
But because there is a sea border they could be given an exception to shengen.
@@carolinemcallister692 The EU does not force them, but the countries have pledged to do so. If a country abuses too long, the EU has the means at some point to say stop and go back (with sanctions for example ike, giving less advantages or money). For the moment this has not been done, but for Poland for example, I think it could happen
Those countries in the euro zone seemed to recover from the credit crunch faster than the UK
Quite a lot faster. But what do you expect from someone who takes economic advice from Varoufakis XD
They hid their debts to Germany (over 1T Euro). The German public will likely never get this money back and don't even realise. Look up Target2 imbalance.
@Churchill It's not even the future of Canada, New Zealand or Australia. It is literally only popular in some dreary English pubs.
@Churchill Yes, student debate clubs. The paragon of socially relevant commentary.
CANZUK is only a English fever dream.
@Churchill Hilarious.
I would think that this strong tendency to cherry-picking will prevent the UK from rejoining any European organization, whichever it is…
Oh there is always potential for an Association of Tea Cup Countries, a hollow organization modelling itself on the Commonwealth which the late Queen Elizabeth loved so much (sarcasm for those who won't understand).
In reality few people in the UK talk seriously about rejoining the EU. Politicians don't mention it. Some individuals on social media like to chat about it, but that's it.
@@Ok_yes_its_me This guy is talking about re-joining the Single Market and gets lots of views though.
I guess that's how he can make some money nowadays in UK.
Why should the different EU countries allow UK to re-enter ?
Why should we allow UK once more to be a brawling member ?
we shouldnt, we really shouldnt unless they fully understand and the greater populace understands....
Both the EU and the UK were better and stronger together. Ironically Brexit showed how special the vision of what the EU is. A community of countries drawing strength from each other to protect all of its citizens, promote peace and the best possible conditions for mutual economic success. No one is forced to remain if they wish to leave. They can do so without any fear of violence that often occurs in similar situations. The fact that it would be economically unwise to do so is ultimately a decision for the individual country. Unfortunately voting can be cast clouded by unrelated issues and concerns as if this can be a simple single solution to complex problems.
It will certainly be a fascinating process should the UK ever reapply for membership.
@@user-ei3dq2dw6i When we talk about Britain we are not talking about the people of Britain.
We are talking about a certain British elite that still thinks they can walk around the globe like a boss and demand anything at all.
look how talking as you lot can not get on any way
We were only a brawling member because we wanted to exit the EU. You will find that the UK will not be a brawling member of the CPTPP. The UK does not want to rejoin the EU and does not regret its choice to leave and its membership of the CPTPP prevents the UK from rejoining the EU anyway. That is precisely why this video post is nonsense.
Whipe out the word “probably “. No more special exceptions. Furthermore the EU is not a Free Trade Zone; the UK can’t join the SM without committing to join the EU as the latter is primarily a political project. It seems to me that even many rejoiners aren’t aware of that. Love from Belgium, EU.
Actually, I agree with most of your post, but I disagree with the fact that joining the SM means committing to a further membership. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein have absolutely no obligation to join the EU at any stage.
@@planeurs but they have free movement...
@@planeurs -- They form EFTA, see Wikipedia, and rejected the UK. No membership in the SM without membership in the EU or EFTA. Full-stop.
You are intent on making pro-EU Brits, the ones that voted to remain in the EU, into enemies of the EU? How sick and twisted are you?
The political project side is essential. It seems Brits are totally unable to understand what it could mean. As long they stick to economy, they'll give the vivid proof they cannot be accepted again in EU.
I would argue Polish trade increase has come from the general growth of their economy. A poorly developed economy has growth potential, obviously, so while its growing to its potential, growth rates are very high. And then they stabilise. Trade within the Eurozone had reached its potential so endless growth was not happening. Its a fallacy to say the currency is behind this. The tools of the Central Bank as well as the EU in general have improved tremendously after the lengthy period of crisis as well. Its ironic that Britain is now pushing for Austerity 2.0 without any EU help...
I would also argue that there are political reasons why UK would not join the EU. Yes, there are Schengen, single currency and so on. But for 20+ years Britain was blocking and vetoing almost all European integration. France, Germany and Western Europe wanted more integration and that has become the political mainstream in Europe. I do not want to debate who is wrong and right about more integration, but that is the political reality. If Britain wanted to rejoin, they would have to rethink their policy on integration, because EU is in many ways much more cohesive politically without the old half-in half-out Great Britain.
Dont worry. England will be vetoed.
The EU has also poured _a lot_ of money into Poland since it has been _the_ or one of the largest benefactors since it joined the union.
Without that money their economic growth would've been quite different.
@@Tim_Nilsson That infers that the money “poured” in has come from “the EU” as an institution and not from FDI from European and other firms, which isn’t true. Poland was the largest of the early 00s accession states and the one with the greatest potential for a lot of reasons (large population thus market, educated work force, borders EU largest richest country, land etc cheap by EU standards).
A lot of global companies, and their logistics providers, created new operations particularly in southern Poland (eg Katowice and Krakow) to serve Polish, Czech, German, Slovak and Hungarian markets while also providing good links to key entrepôt (eg DHL’s biggest hub at Leipzig). In the 15 years 2004 to 2019 Polish average annual GDP growth was over 5% - most of that was driven by real FDI, not just EU development funds.
The U.K. leaving the EU has shifted the political and economic centre of gravity southwards and eastwards eg weakening the influence of former U.K. policy allies (NL, DK, SE, FI) and strengthening the influence of the “Three Seas” and “Club Med” countries. There are a number of countries who are quite happy with that development and who might be less than enthusiastic about the return of a notably reluctant and disruptive former member.
Poland benefited from being able to export their unemployed to Britain for years. Saved them a fortune. Funnily enough lots of them are in no hurry to go back !
They like it here .! Maybe whining Remainers could all.move to Poland instead ??!
@@davidpaterson2309 Great post, you really nailed the issue
From my perspective this once again looks like the the Btitish cherry-picking the EU is so fed up with: after first acknowledging that the UK had the best possible conditions and still decided to leave the EU, he then explains that rejoining would only be viable if the own currency could be retained and chose to opt for only rejoining the single market which is not even an option
He explained how euro membership could potentially come at a high cost for the uk. He then goes on to conclude on just membership of the single market. This isn’t cherry picking because single market membership includes certain obligations the uk would have to follow.
@@loogmanpaul You can’t join the SM without joining the EU!
That's because he is only looking at it from an economic point of view.
Most voters made their choice to leave, not for economic reasons, but for democratic reasons. And those reasons haven't been changed by brexit. Indeed, we have seen exactly how undemocratic the pro eu lobby is. They did everything to try and overturn the referendum, and then tied the hands of our government in it's attempts to negotiate the withdrawal agreement and 'trade and cooperation' agreement. Joining the single market, is the absolute worst possible outcome for democracy!
@@loogmanpaul
"This isn’t cherry picking because single market membership includes certain obligations the uk would have to follow"?
The basic problem here is that you, like MOST British people, simply have NO idea what you think you are talking about. No more than the presenter of this video does, either....
The UK, since it VOTED to leave the EU, is now a 'Third Country' in EU terminology.
Membership of the EU's Single Market, or European Economic Area(EEA), is RESTRICTED to the 27 members of the EU, referred to as 'First Countries', and the four members of theEuropean Free Trade Association(EFTA, referred to as 'Second Countries'.
There is NO legal mechanism in the EEA's underlying treaties whereby ANY 'Third Country' can participate in the Single Market/EEA.
There is precisely ZERO interest among the 31 participating EEA member states in opening the underlying treaties to set up any such mechanism either.
The UK VOTED to abandon its 'First Country' status when it voted for Brixit.
There is NO possibility that it can secure 'Second Country' status either. Both Norway and Iceland have stated that they will veto any UK application for EFTA membership.
And EVEN IF the members of EFTA were serious about destroying their cozy little club of small, rich countries, every EU member state has a veto on EEA participation by any new EFTA member.
"Out Means Out!", remember?
@@louis-philippearnhem6959 Wrong! The EFTA members are also members of the SM, and that was indeed an option for the UK after the referendum until Theresa May foolishly ruled it out.
Also, even if the UK applied the EU is unlikely to look favorably on any UK application to rejoin as a full member. It is certainly not a fait accompli. It took three attempts to join originally with de Gaulle remarking that the UK lacked commitment to the European project and would act as a wrecker. De Gaulle's statements have proved prescient and in fact confirmed by the UK electing spoiler MEPs like Farage, and by the UK's highly acrimonious exit from the Union. Even now the UK is only seeing it's regrets in terms of monetarism. I suspect the EU will not want the UK back at any price. It needs a unanimous vote and I think Spain and Gibraltar and almost certainly France are roadblocks. The UK needs a fundamental cultural transformation to begin to see itself as European and committed to a something greater than itself and that is currently completely beyond it. I suspect that the EU would demand that the UK would adopt the Euro as a condition of re-entry and demonstration of its contrition and sincerity, and the UK giving up on sterling is never happening, so neither is re-entry of the EU.
De Gaulle’s attitude to the EEC/EU was far more complex than you realise. He was an intergovernmentalist, who loathed Monnet, and believed in a “Europe des Patries”. His vision for Europe was for something more like the 19th century “Concert of Europe”, rather than the “Country Called Europe” envisaged by Monnet. Hence the bust-up of the “Empty Chair Crisis”.
De Gaulle didn’t want the UK in the EEC because he thought the Brits were too obedient to the USA, and he thought the USA was far more of a threat to France than the USSR. However, once he realised that the Federalists had outmanoeuvred him with the Luxembourg Compromise, De Gaulle approached Christopher Soames, the UK ambassador to France, in secret, in 1969. He was looking for a way to leverage UK involvement in the EEC to outflank the Federalists. Unfortunately, Soames was himself a Federalist, who immediately leaked De Gaulle’s plans to the rest of the EEC, forcing him to back down. Soames was made a European Commissioner as soon as the UK joined the EEC in 1973.
Thanks that was most enlightening.
Don´t worry. Europe want Britan back... but only in pieces.
@@doncalicula7938 Divide et impera.
@@georgesdelatour Most likly
If I was a young adult in the UK, I would move to another country with a better future
It is a shame what is happening to the once wonderful country
RS. Canada
You know nothing about the uk look at your own countries problems .
Once the value of the British pound moves below that of the Euro I doubt the British will have an issue joining a stronger currency. The question is will the Euro members want to accept Britain at the state it will be in at the time.
@DoubtingThomas Yes, EU has no experts like Kwasi to lead them in brighter future.
Has nothing to with value - exchange rates are just that - exchange rates.
That a meter is 1,09361 yard doesn't mean that a meter is in any way better (of more value).
And it's not a question of if the EURO zone members would welcome the UK, but if the EU members would! By the standing contracts of the EU membership of the EURO zone is linked to EU membership (exception Denmark). All other EU members will by time have to take over the EURO as their currency. It's not a question of if, only of when!
@DoubtingThomas So you think that it would be good for Scotland to have an independent currency under Scottish control? Or perhaps Birmingham?
Yeah. Pretty much like the US$.
The States should have kept their own currency.
@@sinisatrlin840 I'm gonna do you a favor and assume you are joking.
When the UK finally comes to its senses and re-applies to join the EU it will have absolutely no choice about anything.
Beggars can't be choosrs?
@Simon John yeah and the country is sliding into oblivion. Did you vote for that in 2016?
What is your nationality?
@Simon John so you accept that Britain is poorer and less influential outside the EU. But it’s a price to pay for “sovereignty”. Interesting. While there is a House of Lords in the Uk and a king. While there is no proportional representation in the UK and a minority of votes decide the version of democracy. Very interesting. Did the Uk give up some sovereignty when it joined nato for example? Yes. Or signed a trade deal detrimental to Uk farmers with NZ? Yes. It’s all give and take. If you told a French person they are not a sovereign person they would send you to the guillotene. French are way more nationalistic than British 🤷♂️ but also self aware of the 21st century ….
The Eu cant stand you.
EU can survive without UK but UK can't without EU in the long run.
The most likely reason for joining the euro would be avoiding King Charles on the pound
Don't worry, when (if ever) you join the euro it surely won't be Charles on the pound but maybe Elizabeth the 5th or so.
The current rules for joining are much harsher now than in 73 because of rules the UK wanted to prevent others from joining. . You have to have a constitution (you don't have more than a collection of laws, but no unified constitution as other countries has, as you might know). And to prove that the union with NI and Scotland is a polity. It is not at the moment. You need to pass all 59 chapters in the acquis. You need to get all three bodies, the Council, the Commission, and the Parliament in the EU to approve. You will likely not get past the first hurdle, but then there are others. As a footnote: It would be a good idea to accept that these very fundamental rules also apply to you. Even if you are British. British exceptionalism is not as cool as you might think.
How did Greece get in the E.U.R,O?
@@johnpugh3348EU was eager to expand and the Greeks simply put, they forged statistics so that they seam ready to switch to euro, but since then none have had the courage to try that again
@@johnpugh3348 They were part of the EU, yet still had to meet the criteria, but unfortunately assisted by some of the UK's big accountancy firms, they fudged the fiscal criteria, and no-one in the EU checked the figures submitted. Moreover Greece was in the market for buying French and German military exports, so perhaps that also made the EU complacent.
@@BigHenFor Spot on, it's called fraud. Then again fraud is dependent on one's perspective! I think one of the strengths of the UK is the ability of their financial ecosystem to hide, duck, dive, not look if the gains are big enough the crimes of stealing, fraud and it would appear from recent government debacles lying. It's the English buccaneering spirit.....
@@BigHenForGreece became a eurozone member, even though the true state of its economy and finances ought to have ruled this out
Goldman Sachs stepped in to advise the Greek Government before the country joined the eurozone in 2001, it used sophisticated financial arrangements to conceal the extent of Greece's outstanding debts
What you have not mentioned is that the UK has zero growth, and while it is true so have a few other countries including Germany it is nowhere near as bad as it is here. The pound has absolutely tanked and if this does no reverse soon our currency will be junk in the near future. The loss in trade and 114b a year loss in GDP since leaving is not worth keeping our currency. There are disadvantages to being in the EU, however I think the. now obvious advantages far outweigh them
Absolute nonsense.
@@gnrseanra9070 Eloquent rebuttal. You must be a brexitter.
@@gnrseanra9070 Please talk some sense into me
When you say the GBP has absolutely tanked can you say in relation to what specifically please?
The USD, the Euro?
@@gerhard7323 clearly you did not see what was happening during the referendum results. As the results started to swing towards leave I was also watching the FOREX live and seeing the value of sterling fall. Before Brexit the pound was on par and slightly ahead of the EURO this is no longer the case. Every country has its problems but the UK is losing over 1billion a year in GDP because of BREXIT.
You guys had the best deal all around... But it was not enough...
Indeed! The UK was never really IN. First, they didn't want to join the EEC. Then, in the sixties, they wanted to join but only on their own terms. In 1975, only two-and-a-half years after having entered, the UK had a first referendum. In 1979 Maggie wanted her money back, which she eventually had back in 1984. But this was still not enough. Just before 2016, the UK had the best deal with exceptions and opt-outs, but it was still not enough as Cameron wanted yet more and more exceptions. It was never enough and it never would be enough. They saw the EU as a profitable free trade zone. Nothing more.
@@louis-philippearnhem6959 UK is like the abusive husband who is abandoned by their wife, then after this happens keeps claiming "She wants me back, it's only a matter of time until she accepts all my demands. I'm special after all."
Lol! If that's the best what is the worst?
You are forgetting something. Economic independence, and things like devaluation, favor only a few on its inside, not everyone. The benefits of the European unified market tend to give advantages to almost everyone on the inside of its market. I remember when I was young in Italy, before the Euro, devaluation was favoring a few big companies and corporations and making it really hard for everyone else in the country.
I remember having conversations with people about Brexit and it's potential impacts and likely outcomes. I'm no economics genius, but couldn't you see this trainwreck of an idea being anything other than a disaster?
They could have if they not believed they would get something for nothing by extortion, and that the spoils would be distributed.
Quite stupid, greedy, jingoistic and xenophobic. That mindset will cost you, and it already does...but the extent to which it will backfire only grows.
Always remember: You can not fool a honest man.
So...
Yeah ....I remember Remainer predictions : empty supermarket shelves .? Collapse of the City as
Financial centre .Troops on streets of N I. , Mass unemployment ?
Let us know when they will happen ? Or do you consider Full employment and shortage of Labour a sign of economic disaster ??! Prat !
@@2msvalkyrie529 Please tell us oh wise economist why then is UK one of the worst performing economies in G20? Only Russia is worse because of the sanctions imposoed by the western countries. UK on the other hand imposed sanctions upon itself ( brexit).
As you state, you are no economics genius.
@@2msvalkyrie529 You have had an explosion of Food Banks popping up all over the UK and have experienced food shortages of certain items already. You might not (thankfully) have troops in NI, but there is going to be even more financial jobs leaving London in advance of the Uk no longer being allowed to act as a clearing house for Euro trades come June 2025. I’d say next summer you will see the beginnings of a big retreat to NL, ireland, Frankfurt.
Not to rain on your parade or anything, but how do you intend to "join the Single Market"? You realize that the Single Market is for EFTA and EU member ONLY, don't you? Norway has already stated that they're not gonna allow the United Kingdom to join EFTA, and if the EU is, as you said yourself, not likely to be inclined to allow the United Kingdom to join the EU proper without accepting Schengen and the Euro, then what makes you think that they're gonna cut the United Kingdom a special deal to obtain access to the Single Market without joining EFTA or the EU?
It's a fantasy to believe that you can just join the Single Market, that's THE prize possession of the EU, they're not gonna just give that to you.
No, it is cherry picking and entitlement to the max with a whiff of jingoism. And that is why we should keep them out.
If the UK in 50 years were to decide and join the Single Market, it still has to abide by EU rules. Even if the UK joined EFTA, it would then have to be a member of the Schengen Agreement. You cannot pick and choose what EU rules to abide by, and I doubt a Currency Opt-Out would be offered the next time round.
No more exceptions.
he s bitish I doubt he understand that
Quote: "If the UK in 50 years were to decide and join the Single Market, it still has to abide by EU rules."
Yeah, well, if none of the EU members vetoes that rejoining attempt that is, as EU Members must agree unanimously and to be brutally frank I'm not seeing that for a bloody long time.
Quite happy with no exceptions being applied. UK is seeing the "truth" of our world standing. We've been acting and believed we are a superpower, when we are similar to Italy.
The EU will not be in existence in 50 years.
Lack of trust will guarantee a rejected application.
"we are special" attitude prevents UK to re-join EU, not Euro....
@Churchill maybe it is maybe it isn't. Time will tell
@Churchill Canzuk's population is much smaller than the EU's
@Churchill Also the Canzuk nations are nowhere near each other which makes trade less easy
@Churchill well... If you think politicaly, maybe. If you think in economy terms, not really. Whole canzuk trade is less then 5% of total UK trade. Whole comomonwealth is at about 8.7% of total UK trade. UK is not in first 5 trading parters list in neither of canzuk countries. To Australia and NZ, Eastern Asia and Pacific are much more important markets than UK, same goes for Canada - Americas and EU...
In real terms (if you count inflation) trade has actually fallen a bit.
So maybe for you Canzuk is important but numbers say something else.
You left the market that was 50% of your trade and now you rely on markets that are bringing you 5% on other side of the world.
Ok.... great plan mate. Good luck
@Churchill "standard of living is higher" in the USA, Canada and Australia, yes. New Zealand and Uk, you're having a laugh. There is no convergence in economic performance with the Big 3. NZ & UK rank alongside the USA's poorest states such as Alabama and Mississippi when looking at GDP per capita!
Relying on regular devaluations and higher interest rates to compensate for consistently lower productivity…..is that really a sound plan.
A future of steady decline, regular devaluation, lovely.
But it is! Devaluing your currency means your products and services are more competitive internationally, which overtime increases the value of your currency. A natural bounce back mechanism
Perhaps the member states of the EU do not accept a membership just valid for the common market but not the Euro. Why they should give the UK an advantage in competition by a floatable currency?
Too many Brits here are giving the impression that the UK is about to ask to come back. This is very much not the case! Politically it's impossible here in the UK for leaders to speak about going back in. Maybe in 20 years but not before.
@@Ok_yes_its_me As far as I know according to current polls most British regret Brexit. Otherwise would be difficult to explain, because things do not run smoothly. I rather think that Brexiteers are a lot louder in British media than the polls do actually justify.
@@Ok_yes_its_me UK knows the rules. It does not work like that "asking to come back". Article 50.5 of the treaty of EU says: "Any country that has withdrawn from the EU may apply to rejoin. It would be required to go through the accession procedure.". This is the accession procedure prequisite that UK has to meet in full to be able to apply for membership:
The EU assesses the readiness of applicant countries according to three accession criteria defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993
Specifically:
Political criteria: stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
Economic criteria: a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
EU acquis criteria: the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
At the same time, as defined by the 1995 Madrid European Council, applicant countries are expected to develop their administrative structures and the EU needs to be able to integrate new members.
The acquis is the body of common rights and obligations that is binding on all the EU member states. It is constantly evolving and comprises:
• the content, principles and political objectives of the Treaties;
• legislation adopted pursuant to the Treaties and the case law of the Court of Justice;
• declarations and resolutions adopted by the Union;
• instruments under the Common Foreign and Security Policy;
• international agreements concluded by the Union and those entered into force by the Member States among themselves within the sphere of the Union's activities.
Candidate countries have to accept the acquis before they can join the EU and make EU law part of their own national legislation. Adoption and implementation of the acquis are the basis of the accession negotiations.
"which enables us to have the main benefits of the European Union without the political costs". Where have I heard that before? That's just more cherry picking. The question for the UK is: will those costs outhweight the benefits for the UK, not which benefits to you take and which costs do you reject.
We are yet to find out.
But... isnt this all a bit like saying the UK would benefit if it could only have its cake and eat it too?
Very good video. I learned a lot.
Yep, certainly seems like the argument that the UK should expect to be able the 'run with the hares and hunt with the hounds' having the best of both worlds again a bit unlikely. On the otherhand if the UK did join the Euro, given the importance of Sterling, waning though it may be, the UK would have a very influential seat in the ECB.
@@joemulhall5202 My view is that the UK will eventually rejoin the EU, but it will take decades. And! The EU is changing. It may be a completely different structure in 50 years. Macron keeps talking about different "levels" of membership. So I guess anything is possible...
@@larslarsen5414 I doubt the EU will even be interested in having the UK back until it has fixed a lot of internal issues. I would expect the negotiations to start no sooner than 2035 but no later than 2040. It's going to be a very tough two decades for the UK.
U.K. will
1. Have to give up the Pound and join the EURO
2. Get no more EU rebate
3. Have no more opt-out options
4. Send the horsefaced family to exile
5. Drive on the correct side of the road
6. Pull the plug off the Londongrad laundromat
7. ... to be continued
@@lacdirk you exaggerated how tough it will be for the UK outside the EU. Our economy has been stagnant for 15 years, not just since Brexit. For normal people life won't be different outside the EU. Much was promised about leaving which of course was lies. But differences in economy are quite small.
The UK had an incredibly good deal. Most of the politicians in the UK knew this. But the UK blew it. Now the Uk is going into another round of austerity. That was not what the brexthickers promised.
It doesn't matter what deal that the UK had, it wasn't about the economy as 85% of UK total trade is done through its own domestic market, the brexiters promised that the UK would leave a political union with the EU which it has done. You remainers totally miss the point.
@@MyVinnyp The UK imports more than 40% of its food from where?
But it is what they wanted. Because the people who promised all those things are not the ones suffering now. They are still rich going on richer, and what do they care about the rest?
@@MyVinnyp They also promised billions to the NHS and better trade deals. How is that going for you?
@@daarianaharis They never promised anything of the sort. The bus read that rather than pay the EU 12 billion a year we could fund the NHS instead but it never said that they actually would. They also never promised better trade deals either, what they said was that that we could do our own trade deals, which meant outside of the EU single market, that we have done. The NHS is the UK's biggest employer and whatever the pay rises they give the NHS has a massive influence on the UK economy which is why they have been holding out against the current strikes at a time where the world suffers high inflation rates. It's good to see that they now have reached an agreement.
It seems the UK left the EU for emotional reasons not financial reasons. Was this smart? Just wondering.
Sounds like if you would have the UK rejoin the EU, you would only want it on a cake-and-eat-it-too posture, which is what got the UK into this mess in the first place.
You seem to be missing the point, hopefully not by design. It's a good thing if the Euro prevents currency manipulation as a means to fix a country's economy. Printing money is never a good solution. Finances reflect a country's economical health. If your economy sucks it means you're running your country poorly. Brought back to individual people it's like your saying a family shouldn't use currency because it prevents them from pretending they are rich. They should print their own bank notes instead.
Sure, printing money is fast and easy. Actually fixing a problem takes time and effort. So are you advocating for large scale laziness? Are you saying it's best for the UK to be lazy? Because that's what you sound like.
The situation is that joining the EU will not be an option, but a necessity for the UK when in a dreadful situation, the reason the UK joined the EU in the first place, was that it was the sick man of Europe. Remember beggars cannot be choosers, if the UK is in a really bad state it will accept the Euro and Schengan.
The mad wing of the Tory party has done more damage to the UK under guise of patriotism, we should be reminded patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Also if the economy is in such a bad way due to Brexit no one will have any time for the Brexit true believers, possibly nothing but hatred.
Attitudes to the EU are also a generational thing the young are Pro-EU and the old are against it, in time the UK will be very pro-EU. As well the Tory anti-EU press such as the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express and the Sun are basically not going to be here in 10 years time, spreading their poison.
The UK is also likely not to exist with Scottish independence, Irish unification and Welsh Independence also on the cards, with them wanting to join the EU, leaving England a poor third rate country, this may also increase the English acceptance of the EU.
Personally if the breakup of the UK occurs, the English economy is a total mess and the generational change happens, Brexit will be finished and seen as a total failure, joining the Euro and the EU will be supported by a vast majority of the English population.
You omitted one point-why should the EU care? The Uk is a total self serving, entitled basket case, as you have proven again with your post.
What has the UK to offer to the EU that is worth the trouble to talk to those loonies?
The EU works better without them, money, jobs and people as well as companies go from the UK to the EU. Why would we have to stop that advantageous situation? The UK touted they would plan for this in reverse, so the EU is under no obligation to save the gammons bacon.
Why would we? After being insulted by a bunch of aw-breakers?
The entitlement is strong in this one.
There is no reason why the EU would accept us, the Tory party has trashed the UK's reputation, the prodigal son only learnt when he was starving and eating with pigs of his stupidity, such will be the same with the people of the UK and especially the exceptionalism of the English.
The English can only hope in the future that our neighbours show us kindness and the English show that they are a changed country.
@@andytopham3781 Well, even if the viper promises not to bite and kill anymore-you only touch it with a long stick.
The viper is likely to be defanged and the poison removed.
One country in the EU was likely to leave at some point, the UK was the obvious one, it shows the other 27 what happens if you embrace a heady cocktail of exceptionalism, populism, liars, charlatans, dodgy libertarian ideology, dark money, false facts and off shore billionaires controlling your print media.
The final result of that heady cocktail is Brexit, do not blame the people, blame the politicians that let this happen, now the UK needs to sober up and deal with reality.
While it's true that the one-size-fits-all nature of the euro means that monetary policy and exchange rates may be too restrictive for some areas, we have to recognise that the same applies to the UK as an entity. The UK also imposes one-size-fits-all monetary policy, which for decades has been too restrictive for some areas of the UK, for example Scotland. If we accept the premise that regions setting their own interest rates gives economic flexibility and is therefore a good thing, then we must conclude that it would be economically beneficial for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and N. England to have monetary policy independence.
I was about to write the same but you have written it better. UK analists are basically English and it is from that point of view the see the problem. In this case as you say it would make sense to give the bank of Scotland independence to set its interest. Or to five independence to Scotland and hen for scotlan to join Europe and benefit from the arrangements given to Ireland.
The whole discussion is focused on the question how rejoining might benefit the UK, if it were not for the Euro. Price transparency might not be an advantage for businesses, but it certainly is one for consumers. From the perspective of an EU citizen, I'm extremely happy with the Euro. I did not feel any impact from the UK leaving the EU, except that now finally most of the bickering is over and more Europeans can appreciate the benefits of the EU, simply by looking across the channel. Not having figures like Farage poisoning the EU parliament is also a plus. I felt a huge impact from the Euro. First it raised prices, that sucked, but now it's just one more practical thing that's just great. I've never felt a positive impact from the UK being an EU member.
I think the real problem between the UK and EU always was one of different social concepts. Like the USA, the UK has a very similar concept of individualism and meritocracy that is not shared with the continent. The UK could easily integrate in a Union with the USA, even if that was to the material detriment of the people, simply because people would feel at home. The UK never felt at home in the EU and I don't see that changing.
Continental Europeans generally don't like each other. But there is an understanding that comes from the fact that they are socially compatible. Feeling at home is not necessarily a cosy feeling but more a lack of surprises. The UK generated so much confusion during Brexit, that the UK could have just as well have been an Islamic state and the cultural divide could not have been larger.
@@knobjockey76 I was speaking in relative terms regarding the EU or USA and how well the UK fits in either of these two "unions". The USA is a nation and joining it would mean to actually give up your own, which of course is not an option. Whether the USA would accept the UK as a "member" is a different question alltogether. They probably wouldn't.
You are right that there are many cultural and political differences between the UK and the USA, the most prominent being that the USA is the current dominant force on the planet, while the UK is no longer. Torries look like US Democrats, not proper "conservatives" from a US perspective. But that's circumstantial. They would come around fast if the context changed.
EU nationalist parties are in the same club as Torries and Republicans (todays version of both). The problem are not these guys, the problem is that established politics departed too far from their objectives so that people can no longer see any of them as their representatives. This has been so for a long time and it's not getting better. Trump is not the problem either, most of his critique on the establishment is solid. If Trump would actually care about this, he could be part of the solution, but then he wouldn't be Trump.
What is new in recent times is how "nationalists" or "right-wingers" are cooperating internationally. They should by their nature be adversaries (them being nationalists facing nothing but opponents on the international stage). Of course they all support Russia, because Putin is a role model in terms of personal achievements. The only real problem of Putin for these guys is that his methods cannot be used in their local contexts.
The UK could easily still be a member of the EU, in very good standing. The fact that Brexit succeeded, 52% at one day that could have been 48% the previous and the next (looking at polls that's exactly what we saw) is no more indicative of anything than the flip of a coin. The thing that separates the UK from most EU countries is the level of disdain of the UK towards the EU (both from the people and the state). You find such enmity also in countries like Greece or Poland for very different reasons, but for reasons that are contemporary and concrete. The enmity from the UK is a matter of principle, just like the adversity between the EU and USA is such.
The EU is not a family of loving brothers and sisters. There is dissent, bickering and animosity. But it is based on the principle of cooperation and most current members firmly subscribe to that principle (exceptions being Poland, Hungary and a few other countries).
The UK very much like the USA is firmly based on the principle of competition.
It's often difficult to spot, because competition rarely is a bilateral thing. Three competing actors often produce a cooperating pair fighting the third. During the cold war, the west stood firmly together facing a well defined enemy. It looked like there was a value community - freedom vs. tyranny. The EU is - among other things - a manifestation of that idea, a community defined by a set of values that eventually translate into regulations. The EU has interests, but it does not have something like a foreign policy. It does not really have an ideological identity, it's not really left or right. It has no leader and no recognizable parties. When people fight the EU politically, they talk about the shape of bananas, the weight or fluffiness of cushions. They call the EU a tyranny, but nobody was ever able to call out the tyrant. That's because as of now, the EU is more than anything else the expression of a very boring and unassuming principle - cooperation.The most valuable attribute of a partner is reliability. That's why EUans are regarded to be bloodless bureaucrats and not fiery patriots.
The UK is about the only European nation that was never really defeated in a consequential war. Everybody else learned that no matter how often you win, when you loose it wasn't worth it. Maybe that's why cooperation looks to be the inferior principle for Brits. I might be cynical here, but that explanation can be applied to both the USA and UK and delivers a plausible result.
The only way the UK has stayed competitive has been to devalue the pound and thus living standards of the working Man in the UK. We need to rejoin the EU single Market and Customs Union. But this time we need adopt the Euro and join wholeheartedly, the UK could have been the strongest member within the EU by now with rising living standards for the working man. Wealth should not be measured in a countrys total GDP or money that is generated but by the living standards of its working population. The UK generates a lot of wealth and the idea of Brexit was to allow it to generate even more but only for the richest in society.
"the UK could have been the strongest member within the EU by now with rising living standards for the working man"
I don't disagree with you overall but what makes you think that? The UK has one of the lowest productivity levels of all developed nations and you can't improve living standards without productivity. In terms of GDP per capita - not total GDP - UK ranks somewhere alongside the poorest states of the United States, like Alabama and Tennessee. It isn't generating a lot of wealth for a country of almost 68 million citizens.
@@pritapp788 don't worry the UK won't try to come back for at least 20 years. The old people who want Brexit need to die off. Racists like Farrage are still powerful in the background and sadly people still listen.
You mean that Italy, Spain and France are benefiting from their EU membership? Lol!
@@MyVinnyp Very much so Vincent. Spain and Italy and Greece got tens of billions of free Euros in post-Covid recovery money from the EU. Yes the EU had about 2 Trillion Euros in cold hard cash to refloat itself.
@@3replybiz And where do you think this money comes from? It comes from other EU member states and it took nearly two months to get it through with the Frugal 5 countries baulking at the prospect and nearly destroyed the EU. What i can't understand is that you never ask yourself why the major EU economies needed a bailout in the first place. They needed it because they are nigh on broke themselves. Italy is completely broke. The figure of 2 trillion in itself is just the amount that the EU needs to pay back its Target 2 imbalance of payments that is already keeping both Spain and Italy afloat lol! You lot do make me laugh, the EU is not a fiscal union it is a debt union!
Is the flexibility provided by a separate currency always an advantage ? Particularly in vicinity of a large trading block ?
There seems to be no problem with any of the large global trading blocs in regard to currency.
I just wonder: if having different currencies is so advantageous, why does the USA not have 50? Why does the UK not have 3 or 4? Why does not every city have its own? Or every individual?
You cannot lose what you don’t have. The UK doesn’t get a rebate now because it doesn’t pay in.
At present, the Bank of England sets interest rates to suit the city not the rest of the UK and it certainly doesn’t do Scotland any favours either. Joining the EU and adoption of the Euro would benefit Scotland as at present Westminster governs to suit the SE of England.
Scotland does not currently meet the criteria of EU membership, if ever Scotland were to join the EU it would lose all the benefits of UK membership and the subsidies offered by the UK and if it cannot run its economy well with UK subsidies how would it do without them?
@@MyVinnyp Well, as Scotland is not “subsidised “ by the UK and is a net contributor then joining the EU is a bonus.
@@craigevans6156 But Scotland does not meet EU criteria for membership and will not be able to join the EU. Scotland is currently subsidised by the UK government which is why it is not called an English government. With Scotland's current devolved government in total collapse and its economic failures becoming more apparent each day it just becomes more dependent on those subsidies. Scotland needs to lessen its trade deficit and elect a stable government before it can even imagine leaving the UK, it also has to increase the amount of Scots that wish to leave the UK as at the last official count it was 55%-45% in favour of remaining in the UK.
@@MyVinnyp Scotland does not have a separate economy to the rest of the UK. The notion that Scotland is not viable and requires subsidy only holds if you see Scotland as entirely separate country. Scotland cannot leave the UK because it would have no currency, no bank, no bonds, no gold, a hard border with its nearest market, out of the G7. It would be very very very poor and unable to afford to join the EU. Sounds a lot like Brexit all over again in a lot of ways.
I would change the pound to the euro tomorrow.
It is the same story when France or Germany lost their local currency.
it's pretty obvious now that without complete capitulation to the EU the UK is a) never returning to the European project, b) Britain's economy is - technical term - stuffed, probably for Rees Mogg's famous 50 year time horizon. The UK was first amongst equals and held the economic high ground yet chose to unilaterally cede it. That sort of stupidity, the stupidity that was loudly pointed out by remainers, deserves a hard lesson in reality. Unfortunately that lesson is also applied to those who did know better but still went down with the ship. We'll see how Britannia ruling the waves and never being slaves works out. Not well I fear.
@DoubtingThomas that was specifically regarding EU membership
Oh, the UK will do well as a pirates' nest and is going to live on colonies again.
@@peterebel7899 I think that's what the far-right thinks. Unfortunately as you've pointed out, they live in the past. Way in the past. It's not surprising is it that they're always banging on about going back to the 50s. Question is which 50s? 1950? 1850? 1750? ...
@@treyquattro Definitely not the 1950.
I am guilty not making me familiar with those times pre emancipation of working forces to give you the century they are aiming at. But I do expect them to prefer James Cook already having enlarged the horizon of Global Britain.
@@peterebel7899 You know what happens to pirates nests in the long run? Do the pirates realize that?
Euro is beneficial to Eurozone countries!
Thank you very much for your great video. I found it very helpful and interesting too. The points assisted by clear diagrams were concise and very easy to understand. Good job and I subbed.
Thanks!
Very interesting. It's good to hear both sides of the argument for a change !
The fact that you immediately came to Greece as a comparison for a potential UK membership of anything EUropean shows what you are really thinking and just don't want to speak out!
The UK isn't competitive in any form and is living far over its means - in so far the comparison with Greece is correct. The drastic cure, the IMF, the ECB and the EU forced Greece to take is showing some positive results. Not as fast and as far-reaching as wanted, but then - it took the Greek decades to get into their troubles, it will take time to get over them.
For the EURO - the only advantage of the GBP right now is that the UK can pay back their huge debt in printed paper instead of real money! That is, if they can ever save enough to start to pay something back!
So...they plan to default, obviously. We should keep them out until the default happened, so it is their problem, not ours, as they plan to make it.
I desperately hope we learned from the Greece machinations.
So out means out!
@@RealMash You really think a default of an economy with nearly 3 trillion of direct debt and 10 trillion of unfunded liabilities wouldn't impact every country on earth?
What EUrope should have learned from Greece - sometimes it's better to let a catastrophe happen than risking everybody else in the attempt to help!
EUrope should try everything possible to get away as far as possible from the impact of the coming UK collapse! Forbid EUropean banks and central banks to hold any sums of GBP or owning any UK gilts. Ruling that businesses with the UK are only possible on a pay in advance or against a letter of credit from a non UK registered bank. And so on!
@@RealMash "We should keep them out until the default happened"
No, we should keep them out forever!
These are really silly arguments. If you follow this logic, the north of Ingerland, should have a different currency than London. In any case, this is a moot point, as we don't want Ingerland back in the EU. Scotland is another issue.
Yes, but the EU is not only about economics as the British often think. It is also a political project for peace on the continent. Never again WWII, WWI or any civil war amongst nations of Europe. The British never see this.
Exactly! The European Union is a peace project, not a Free Trade Zone and thus not limited to the Single Market and Customs Union only, but primarily founded on the values of peace, respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities... a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women prevail. I am very proud to be part of that project. Greetings from Belgium, EU.
Agree, but UK hasn't always be member of EU, and has been a special member. Post Brexit doesn't mean war, links still exists
The UK joined the EEC for economic reasons. We stayed in the EU for economic reasons. We didn’t accept the political union and further integration bit. Much of Europe are all NATO members - we don’t need to be EU members to avoid fighting wars with each other! Also after the victory against the Nazis hell bent on dominating Europe, why would we voluntarily surrender our nations flag to be part of a federal state? Absolutely the EU is peaceful but the aim for a unified Europe as one nation, is not what being sovereign nations working together in a community is.
I think what prevents the UK from rejoining the EU is the absence of team spirit with the other Europeans. The impossibility to think that what is good for the team is good for its members. The question should be : would the UK in the euro be a good thing for the European Union? If so, wouldn't it be good for the UK ?
As for monetary independance, if i follow you, wouldn't it be "in the best interest of Scotland to have monetary independence (and be out of the pound) because of economic discrepancies with the rest of the UK?
Ever since it’s inception , the pound lost value against the euro. Simple .
Only Sky News thought the Euro Crisis was a crisis. Ramsey had to eat his words 🤣🤣🤣.
What you fail to consider:is, why the EU should be motivated to succumb to UK demands in order to secure UK membership. The EU to me operates very well w/o the UK, whereas I am not so sure that the UK can really gain economically, by considering itself a successful contender on world markets only w/o their nearest neighbors.
Great video - I have subscribed. Thanks
Any chance you could invest in a noise cancelling microphone - kill the echo.
I have just bought new microphone!
@@economicshelp1 Sorry to have been blunt. The sound is good now.
I've just popped back to watch this again. It's so good.
It's only a letter of time until the pound is worth less than the euro, then we'll be begging to join
This is fine if you believe that the UK decline is recent, its over 2 decades now and continues. If the pound is so special why is this happening, its value is also much diminished. The Brexit decision has added a bigger nail to the economic balloon, slow slow but detrimental decline looks inevitable
👍
Yes I believe the sources of decline were baked into the UK economy since the break up of empire. UK used to rely on the empire overseas for cheap labour, slowly independence of colonies led to the transfer of value to those. The city however remains dependent on earnings achieved internationally, including those that transact through the loose companies house regulations, aka shells and of course the hidden offshore funds. Unlike somewhere like Germany who made wealth through strong internal support of business. In time however despite the efforts the eurobloc will fracture, probably not in our lifetimes but like all 'empires' it will not endure.
@@markthomas919
The British Empire was about theft and the most gratuitous criminal exploitation of other countries and populations.
Well after the UK joined the EEC in 1973, it went from being 'The Sick Man of Europe' to being a major economy. Have you heard of the G7/G8?
Germany has a manufacturing base with products and brands exported all over the world very profitably. Have you heard of German cars and washing machines? The notion that the German economy was self-subsidised is just plain ignorant. Yes it of course follows that the EU will fracture seeing as it is so rich and inter-connected.
The West Germans were able to afford to absorb the bankrupt economy of the DDR. Germans are still paying 9% taxes today for that. Oh and the Germans bailed out the failed Greek economy twice. The Greeks had the option to go back to the middle ages with the re-adoption of the Drachma, but they wanted to stick with the Euro for obvious reasons.
How’s the sterling flexibility working out now?
Of the many ironies of brexit, this is my favourite. The UK had a clear favourable status within the EU: their own currency, independent monetary policy, the entire EUR financial infrastructure was in London. Yet they chucked that all away over a pack of lies. Rejoining us inevitable, conditions will be FAR less favourable.
My number one Brexit irony is Brexiteers claiming they need to leave the EU to strike their own bespoke independent deals that favours the UK without needing to consider all other EU members.
Then post Brexit they strike deals with Australia and New Zealand where negotiators didn't bother to consider its own farming industry.
Ok the thing is financial equivalence for the uk is the elephant in the room. 34% of UK financial services income crash’s without it. So far it is time limited to 2025 and 44% of businesses in this area are moving out. This is why the tories. Do not want to win the next election. Without equivalence you get an economic bloodbath in the UK market.
So? We in the EU get nice business. what is not to like about it? If they shoot themselves in the face...that is not an EU problem. Bleed well.
"the thing is financial equivalence for the uk"
Not going to happen!
Scotland would have much more influence on monetary policy in the EU while using the Euro than it has right now with its London overlords.
The Greek economy was in shambles and with a lot of money being given out and a lot of money not being brought in through taxes. The Greeks needed to adjust.
The people who most seek the Euro's demise are in London.
The UK was one of the prime drivers of the 2009 crisis. They greatly helped to built up that pyramid scheme of pretend-wealth.
All you give are reasons why the UK should be taken down as many pegs as possible.
Yanis Varoufakis is an ideologue first and foremost. Greece did not have the proper qualities to join the Euro-zone and since it is in, Greece needs to step up, not beg for more. Yanis promotes division himself.
The UK will not rejoin the EU for the longest time. When it does, it will beg to be allowed to use the Euro. And the UK's financial services will be greatly diminished. You completely fail to comprehend how toxic the UK was as a member of the single market and no one in the EU has any interest in reverting that. Screws to be the UK, but you lot did it to yourself. Embrace poverty and make the Greeks feel rich.
Lmao what aload of rubbish what influence u think Scotland would have would have less MEP in Brussels than has msp in Westminster. SNP can make amendments to any UK policy and recieves more money than it pays into the UK. U don't even know how much have pay into the EU budget. And u talk about overloads under EU regulations they set Ur tax standards their so all trade on members behalf. Ur sanctioned if don't follow all EU regulations like have done to Poland and Hungary recently. Ur clueless
Greek will recover they found large Gas reserves near Cyprus sooner or later they will drill
@@nabidisla.5086Don’t do like the Dutch and use all the gas revenues to fill the gaps of the budget every year, do like the Norwegians and save the extra money or invest it to use the revenues at a later time. We Dutch had to learn the hard way with stringent cost measures to balance the budget every year. I know the extra money is tempting, but save it or spend it wisely, think about the generations (coming) after you.
I agree entirely regarding Yanis Varoufakis. The guy has massive biases and has been on a decade long tirade against the EU , spreading all sorts of conspiracies to anyone with a microphone.
Surrendering control of monetary policy would be lunacy. It has seriously damaged countries like Italy who have lost their competitiveness due to having too strong a currency in the Euro. Having a single unified monetary policy without fiscal and political union doesn't work well. The US has this and that is why the dollar works for all 50 states. The EU needs the same.
As someone hoping to retire to France where I currently benefit from the exchange rate on my savings and pension , I think I might well in future vote AGAINST the UK being able to rejoin - I am quite hopeful of being a naturalised French citizen by then.
Don't worry, you won't have to.
If your pension is demoninated in sterling, which this guy expects to continually devalue due to poor gdp growth, voting against the UK joining the EU and Euro, is voting for a lower income in France for you.
@@timseytiger9280 Poor GDP growth affects the whole world currently with few exceptions. What people forecast through conjecture is a big mistake, who is this guy who posted this video?
@Vincent Pickering Sure thing UK's nearest neighbour Ireland had gdp growth of 12% in 2022, but tell yourself whatever stories you need to sleep at night.
@@timseytiger9280 Lol! Well you quoted one example and you missed the bit i wrote about few exceptions. I sleep soundly by the way and we'll look at the Ireland GDP growth for 2023 when it comes out.
YT put this is my feed to I gave it a listen - Interesting take - my comments: sorry they are long. The interplay of trade and politics is my interest and I know Brussels well.
1) I'm astonished that you are repeating the canard that the UK can join the EU SM but not be a member of the EU & EEA (full membership) or of the EEA alone (like Norway)
Single markets only exist inside truly federal nations like the US, Australia or Canada and uniquely the EU.
The EU single market is unique in that the EU is not a truly federal nation like the USA, Canada or Australia but a union of sovereign states that have pooled sovereignty in certain defined competencies to do with trade and trade related matters.
EU law is mostly related to trade and the ECJ is primarily and trade & employment court.
Membership of the EU SM with its privilege of seamless borderless trade in both goods and services in is best thought of as a constitutional state of being and not as a trade agreement between third parties such as a comprehensive FTA.
A comprehensive FTA with the EU (such as the Canada - EU CETA) gives Canada high quality low friction, no or low tariff access to the geographic EU SM for trade in goods (but not services) and in return EU members get similar access to the Canadian SM, but in no way is CETA the same for Canada as being a EU/EEA member but its the best a 3rd party can get.
As you will know the EU-UK TCA is a terrible trade deal its basically WTO terms with tariffs set at zero but with next to no agreements of mutual equivalence of standards (MEA's).
A comprehensive FTA has myriads of sectoral MEA's to get over all the non-tariff barriers (NTB's) in modern trade.
Why no MEA's?
Because the UK led by Frost refused to negotiate and sign any with the EU claiming they infringed UK sovereignty. Instead as Michel Barnier documented in his diary Frost told him that the EU must simply accept the UK as an equal with no signed agreements!
Hence no EU-UK SPS deal for example - which has killed off UK agri and fishing exports to the EU.
Simply negotiating the needed MEA's to fix the TCA has to be step one and it can be done in a year with the needed will. Labour has said it will do this.
But it will be no substitute for SM membership especially as no free trade in services as a domestic in the SM is possible.
There can be no ‘close association’ or 'close alignment' with any SM, there is only membership and for the EU SM that means being a member of either the EEA only (like Norway, Iceland & Lichtenstein and soon to be Switzerland as well) or a member of the full EEA and EU.
The difference between the two is that EEA members are in the SM but not the CU.
A CU applies to trade in goods only and all members of a CU agree to have the same common trade policy with third parties.
If you want to be in the EU SM but have (some) variation in your trade deals with third parties then that’s what the EEA is for. However EEA members must follow all EU rules that pertain to the SM including the four freedoms and in practice this is about 80% of EU law and its mediated via the EFTA court which sits under the ECJ.
It's cakeism of the first order to think that the UK can be in the EU SM but not a member of the EEA or full EU/EEA.
Both the Tories and Labour under Corbyn and now Starmer again have put forward this magical thinking (as The Economist aptly put it in its recent edition) in respective proposals.
The Tory Blue Unicorn was its Chequers Proposals that the EU rejected out of hand and the Labour Red Unicorn version was laid out by Corbyn in an opinion in the Guardian in Dec 2018 when he wrote that Labour:
"would honour Brexit (ie leave the EU and EEA) but it would negotiate"
"A new, comprehensive customs union with the EU, with a British say in future trade deals".
"a new and strong relationship with the single market that gives us frictionless trade, and the freedom to rebuild our economy and expand our public services"
"our plan would not leave Britain as an across-the-board rule-taker of EU regulations without a say."
Deluded to put it mildly.
Much to the anger of Mrs May Corbyn was invited to Brussels and met with Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier (all unofficially as he could not represent the UK but it was reported at the time) and he returned and gave gloomy answers to journalists saying that the EU was being 'very difficult'.
Starmer repeated Corbyn's ideas in a Labour policy statement in July 2022 and repeated it in Dec 2022
2) I do not think that joining the Euro will be a major issue blocking the UK rejoining.
Yes the UK will have to agree to join the Euro but "when the time is right" just like Sweden promised to join the Euro when it joined the EU 30 yrs ago "when the time is right". Sweden has no intention of joining the Euro and everyone knows it.
The UK will also have to commit to joining Schengen but again 'when the time is right' and anyway given the migrant crisis engulfing the world Schengen is de facto not really working as intended.
The aim of Schengen is that there are no policed borders between members but in order to stop migrants reaching southern Europe simply moving to northern Europe (which is where they all want to end up) member states are reimposing border checks (eg between France and Italy and between Germany/Austria and Italy) and these will only get more intense with time as the numbers of migrants seeking a new life in the EU goes up and up. In many ways Schengen is dead in the water except that a common visitors visa will remain.
3) The real blocks to the UK rejoining will come because IMO the UK will still try and get an opt out of FOM and the EU social chapter and also the UK want all its old financial rebates.
This is implicit in the idea that the UK can join the SM but not be in the EEA or EU.
The answer to that will be 'get lost'.
4) Plus lets not forget that as a third party the UK has to apply to the EU Commission for accession and under EU law that application must be accompanied by proof that it is the will of the majority and the proof must be via the 'usual constitutional means' of the applicant nation.
For the UK that means the application to rejoin must be accompanied by:
1) an Act of Parliament approving of and enabling the application
2) a new referendum with majority support
However, given the decades of anti-EU lies and delusions (overwhelmingly in England) that have poisoned the well with the EU will be very wary and IMO require
1) the Act be passed by a large majority with support of all major parties
2) the referendum not be another narrow 52 vs 48% affair but instead at minimum a 60% majority and with >50% of eligible voters casting a vote
I cannot see those conditions being met in England (85% of the UK population) for at least a generation.
As the Norwegian FM said some time ago (when it was though the UK might consider joining the EEA) "we don't want an abusive partner".
Very complete, but you omitted the high amount of debt, which would make it impossible for the UK to join as a member (Copenhagen criteria and more)-and the UK can forget to hire the same American criminals that helped Greece dupe the EU-we know the tricks by now. Besides a written constitution and more is required. The Uk will be unabele to fulfill those requirements
@@RealMash Thanks for the reply.
The time scale I'm talking of is over 1 maybe 2 generations as there will be no quick rejoin for the UK - however I do think the EU itself will have to change and become more a formalised 'two speed' union - Emmanuel Macron is very much on the money with his recent ideas as he sees that there are limits to what levels of federalisation and conformity members will accept at a political level and that there are many centrifugal forces in the EU.
Reform can probably be best achieved via incremental changes to the balance of powers and privileges between the EEA only nations and the core EU and this will mean those who do not want full(er) political integration (eg France and Sweden) may well change status.
In 2012 during the long financial crisis in the Eurozone post 2008 the newly installed French President François Hollande then still then full of Socialist zeal demanded that Germany allow the ECB to issue 'Eurobonds' to mutualise debt.
Mrs Merkel replied that Germany would be happy to do so when France agreed to a supra-national Eurozone Treasury/Finance Ministry modelled on Germany's system that had the authority to set a Eurozone wide fiscal policy and to audit and override the budgets set by national legislatures.
President Hollande replied that France 'would not give up an iota of sovereignty' and the matter died although of course in typical EU fashion the ECB later dreamed up a sort of back door debt mutualisation scheme that is controversial as it requires those getting support to set out a plan for self - reformation as a condition to getting help but as we all know it won't really happen to the needed degree and populist pols use it whip up anti-EU sentiment - here's looking at Matteo Salvini in Italy who rose to prominence on the back of attacking Germany for not allowing the ECB to give Italy a blank cheque.
The point I'm making is that the Copenhagen and Madrid criteria regarding ever more political and economic union will have to to tweaked. This will take a very long time (and more crisis in the EU) but the EU/EEA the UK could eventually rejoin will almost certainly be different.
Agree UK will probably need a formal written constitution that can give greater protections to the UK's international undertakings such as membership of the SM /CU / EU.
Such change is highly unlikely unless there is a total collapse of UK economy while the EU economy performs much better comparatively. Even the most extreme forecast do not suggest this.
@@joemulhall5202 The problem is that there can be no single formal written constitution in the UK.
The UK is not a unitary state but a union of 4 countries (England, Wales, Scotland, N Ireland) plus the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Isles of Scilly all linked by treaties/agreements made and amended over centuries and these treaties plus various interpretative rulings of Law Lords over centuries, (now Supreme Court) form the constitutional documents of the UK union.
Each part of the Union has a different constitutional status with NI and Scotland the most devolved each with their own legal system and courts and each with the right to choose to leave the Union via their own pathways.
However dating right from the era of George I a large faction of the Tory party has falsely claimed that the UK is a unitary state and historians have called this 'British Nationalism'.
It's overwhelmingly an English phenomenon whereby the English (85% of the population of the UK) regard Scotland, Wales, Ireland (now just NI) as being "ours" when the reality is that they are the last colonies.
Currently the British Nationalists are the ERG and hangers on who are determined to prevent the Scots their right to self determination and also the ERG (& DUP) fight over the NIP is in reality all about their refusal to accept the constitutional situation of NI after the 1920 Gov of Ireland Act, then updated in the 1998 Gov of NI Act (the GFA and St Andrews Agreement) and now the 2020 NIP all of which are the constitutional documents that relate to the status of NI in the UK union.
The infamous Internal Markets Bill in its original intended form was nothing less than an attempted constitutional coup in Scotland in that it was to impose English Law & Courts on Scotland and Westminster ministers could routinely override the Scottish Parliament and elected cabinet. This is why Joanna Cherry SNP MP and a KC described it on the floor of the HoC as a 'constitutional coup'. Fortunately these parts were withdrawn but the Tories still want to end Scottish devolution.
The author of the IMB Micheal Gove did not dare to try the same on NI at the time but in fact the UKG idea of repudiating the NIP are aimed to do just that. Fortunately the GFA is an international treaty brokered by the US and guaranteed by the US and embedded in UK law, EU law and international law and any attempt to change the status of NI will end very badly for the UKG.
There can be no single constitution for the UK although there could be a single bill of human rights that all parts assent to ...and in fact there is such ..its called the ECHR which was the brainchild of Churchill and of which the UK was a founder and the convention is embedded into UK union law as another constitutional document but which the hardline British Nationalists now want to repudiate as well.
@epincion where there is a will there is a way!
Takes political courage, which is in very short supply and in the current UK political climate is unlikely to give the politician in question a positive experience!
UK was able to circumvent political protocols in the 18th century with its 'Glorious Revolution ' where the royal dynasty was deposed for the simple reason that the new king was a Catholic !
The UK was able to agree the Anglo Irish treaty in 1921/2 with the provisional Irish Government of Eamonn DeVelera and Michael Collins which undermined the position of the Kingdom of Ireland in the United Kingdom despite all the protestations of King George V, and the British Establishment predicting the collapse of the British Empire if the Irish treated with.
The UK was able to agree the Anglo Irish agreement in the 1980s giving Ireland a consultative role in how Northern Ireland was run , despite previous rigid opposition from the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. This for the first timebgaveva foreign sovereign state rights in how part of the United Kingdom was run.
UK was able to agree the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland despite it running contrary to the interests of the union by allowing Ireland to have an official legal role in Northern Ireland.
Where there is political will in the UK the insurmountable can be overcome. Problem is the political climate would not support such bravery for several generations.
Ditch the £ adopt the €, join the Schengen. Single market, customs union, freedom of movement.... Quitters and Brex**itters in a terminal tailspin with an explosive fit of apoplexy... Job done.
You can only join if we allow it-and why should we?
I love your presentations. Keep going!
The Euro Zone it's like a wedding. You cannot expect to get only the advantages. As you told, UK get the chance to have this particularity to keep its pound, this will not happen again. If UK does want to get the advantage of the single market, it must accept to be in the euro zone. At least it's my opinion. Good presentation anyway, and cheers from France ;-).
No no no, food prices are lower in the UK!
Rees Mug said so!!!
And of higher standards of course !
Countries applying to join EU need to “commit” to joining the Euro - but there is not date and many countries didn’t do it yet (Danemark, Sweden, Poland). U.K. would be able to retain the pounds.
But for sure other optouts and rebates will be off the table, for fairness to other countries applying.
U.K. need to realise they are a third country, not an ex member…
yeah.. and no eu member.. none.. absolutely none.. is willing to deal with the "we are so special" uk shit anymore. if the uk tries re-joins in bad faith, there is absolutely no way. IF the uk rejoins it has to be the model boy on every level. no opt outs, ever again, nothing. schengen, euro etc. will be implemented on day one or there is no way the uk rejoins by any means... oh.. and on that note.. the uk has not ONCE in fourty years fullfilled the criterias to join the eu so far, let alone join the euro. the uk will have to get its shit together before it will be even considered a candidate.
Denmark does have a permanent opt-out I think.
@@imperatormaximus8952 "though Denmark has opted out of joining the eurozone and is therefore not obliged to do so. The United Kingdom also had an opt-out until it left the EU on 31 January 2020 (...) All EU members which have joined the bloc since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 are legally obliged to adopt the euro once they meet the criteria, since the terms of their accession treaties make the provisions on the euro binding on them. " - wiki
i was to lazy to look for it on the eu parliament website, but ive read that before and it says basically the same. no opt outs for new members.
@@MrNukedawhales I know there are no opt-outs for new members, the original comment just seemed to imply Denmark is in the same position as Sweden, which it isn't.
But the EU will know the UK might try to pull that trick so there will be extra clauses in the signup agreements making continued membership conditional on switching the pound for the euro within x years. Maybe even join Schengen before joining the EU itself.
Thanks for the video!
Where are our leaders. They get paid to sort these problems out.
Interesting. I already listened to this, but it’s nicely explained . I have a question . A single currency cannot allow to balance the disadvantage of low performing areas. Well this principle should work non only on continental scale . It should work even within a nation. Why Wales shouldn’t have it’s own pound to balance it’ disadvantage towards England ? Shouldn’t they need their own currency ?
If interest rates continue to rise within the EU and Italy with massive debts default on their loans this would collapse the Euro so how would the EU low performing economies benefit?
@@MyVinnyp this is just wishful thoughts. But the reality is that uk economy is collapsing, while Italy is growing faster than uk, whose debt is skyrocketing as well
@@lucapandini909 Not wishful thoughts at all. Italy's performing well economically this month and maybe next but any profit that Italy makes just goes to service their debts to the ECB while the Italian economy loses around 100 billion a year to Mafia corruption. In contrast the UK debt to GDP is around 99% and it owes money only to itself via gilts and bond issues with a 20 year lifespan. 28% of UK debt is owed to foreign investors and the UK are servicing their debt with no problems. On the other hand Italy's debt to GDP is around 160% owed to the ECB while billions have been borrowed by Italy via the EU's Target 2 balance of payments system that generally has now reached around 2 trillion Euros, While the ECB have to raise interest rates to curb high inflation Italy keeps struggling to service its debt, if Italy defaults on its loans it is all over for the EU and the Euro.
@@MyVinnyp , this is a wishful though and it is so evident as it’s out of topic. So it’s just a bad attitude of the usual brexiter. Italy is growing better than Uk since years .the European debt is granted and partially own by the Italians too. You’d better worry about the fact that in 2025 you will not have any longer euro denominated clearing houses. Moreover you financial services can be migrating (and they are) outside Uk . So you will have a stagnation, inflation , slow growth , low foreign investiments and no need for the lenders of your financial services . Should I add the housing costs crisis ? By the way it seems your politicians are not second to anyone if we talk of corruption , selling places in the House of Lords …
@@lucapandini909 The only thing growing in Italy is their debts. Italy have not turned in a sustained and decent economic performance since the start off its EU membership hence recently voting in a Eurosceptic Government. The Euro dominated clearing houses within London's financial centre account for around 15% of its total financial services centre and most of that has returned to it. Post brexit any EU financial services who had offices within the UK needed a permit to operate but not all were granted. If there was going to be an implosion in UK financial services it would have happened by now. Economic stagflation within the UK is down to poor governmental policies not brexit. It is why the current government is dying in the polls.
You forgot to say that the City benefits from an exemption for certain banking financial transactions which are made in euros (basically the euro could be good for the City and bad for the United Kingdom?). These exemptions are temporary and moreover many City staff have been redeployed within the EU and in particular to Paris. Last November the market capitalization of Paris, which exceeded that of London.
It always amazes me that the time-limited equivalence for UK is never mentioned in the discussions. We are talking about the likelihood of the City of London losing its approximately €100 trillion Euro derivatives clearing business to the Eurozone by June 2025.
@@micheltibon6552 exactly. the brexitors never mentioned that, as if it wouldn't also affect the City,
"And that would not necessarily be in the best interest of the UK!"
Yes. And that's why you stay outside. And we have our peace.
I don’t see how flexibility with the pound has helped the UK solve their monetary problems
Interesting piece. Agree joining the Euro would probably be a step to far for the any UK government now and in the near future given the positions of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party on the matter of Brexit. Sterling would need to see a catastrophic collapse and UK economy would need to see a Greek style economic collapse before adopting the Euro would be a realistic possibility for a UK government. Even the most pessimistic forecasts do not envisage that.
However rejoining the single market WOULD require the UK to adopt EU regulations niw and into the future, which presents a major political problem certainly for the Conservative Party.
Other factor that the piece overlooks is the EU itself. Why would the EU risk the damage of bring the UK back into the SM only for anti EU politicians in the UK (ERG/Hard Left/Neo UKIP) to orchestrate a BREXIT II a few years later and yet again cause economic damage to other EU member states ? Remember the UK has no formal constitution where membership of the SM can be enshrined and subject to greater protection than one simple majority vote in the lower chamber! This makes the UK government's ability to give long term guarantees to the EU in support of an application to rejoin the SM / CU / or even the EU not worth the paper they are written on.
UK stability depends on the quality of the political establishment ,principally the Prime Minister and the last 15 years have demonstrated to the rest of Europe exactly how disastrous this can be when relying on the individual personal talent of a politician in place. Historical the UK has been very lucky having the right person in place at the right time when the country faced major challenges...Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher etc but British luck is not a thing the EU can rely upon after the experience of the past 15 years. Can't see the Germans, French, Italian and Spanish governments falling over themselves to agree to any UK application even if supported by the Irish (me!), Dutch, Polish and Scandinavian governments. Just one 'black ball' will scupper any UK application. Joe
In reality hardly anyone in the UK is having a serious conversation about rejoining the EU. It's political suicide.
A collapsed economy may be a way to be freed of the euro obligation, the euro could support greece but not britain, maybe it's a cunning plan to rejoin
Britain is very welcome in Europe anytime !
It is so cool to work with our neighbours as easy, as if they were here.
But first Britain would have to recognize, that their empire is long gone and that it is on absolutely the same level as Poland, Italy, France , Spain, Germany and two dozen other countries.
I dont see that anytime soon.
After all the UK was allowed to pick the best from the menu for years. In a sense I am glad it is no longer the case.
Really sensible approach to the question. Thank you!
You compare as if the British pound is complete independent at this moment. This is not the case. If the ECB or the FED is taking an interest rate then the British Centra Bank follows. The independent British pound is a myth like the Swiss Franc or Swedish Crone.
Exactly! The Fed sets the tone. Whenever it raises interest rates every other central bank follows suit. Bank of England is no match for more powerful central banks and has to follow the moves of others regardless of its "independence" mantra.
It is hard to see Britain ever joining the single market as long as the major print media in the country are allowed to peddle their right-wing and xenophobic bile unchallenged.
For the first time in history nurses are on strike and the public are shouting at brown people in dinghies.
It is a truly wonderful time to be a Tory MP.
What I believe: Never does not exist (yes it may take some time though) There is no "rejoining". Only joining exists. The UK will be accepted BUT, no opt outs (Euro, Schengen, no rebate), no cherry picking AND this will be considered only if an overwhelming part of the voters together with both key parties select it
This lack of flexibility can occur within a country as well. For example, if a nation's central bank raises interest rates to cool an overheated economic situation happening in one part of the country, parts of the country experiencing an economic slump can be badly affected. This is what happened in Canada in the late 1980's.
The EU Will never never never allow uk Merry agad after their exit behaviour
Difficult to see alright.
There is no barrier our lot of rejoiner's cannot overcome they are that invested in rejoining.
Access to single market comes with strict appliance of European rules, to avoid unfair competition. These rules address goods quality, but also financial services transparency and citizen and non-citizen rights.
So even putting aside the issue of unique currency (which is not a prerequisite to join EU), and renouncing to the rebate, a lot of political issues will remain, that may be senseless for an economist, but not for a politician.
As an example, Tell to the Poles, who bore the brunt of European support to Ukraine, that they are UK's close allies, but might not move freely between UK and EU. Or ask the City to provide information about the investors from Nigeria, Gulf monarchies or Russia.
I love the word Quantitative Easing. It sounds a lot more sophisticated than 'money printer go brrrrrrt'
Why are you English still so obsessed with the EU and the Euro? (Thankfully) You are out. The Euro is not your business. Why still this obsession with the Euro?
Self-shooting remorse?
Ty for your vid and your assessment.
One question. Could UK keep the Pound and introduce the Euro as "currency for the single market". Means two legal currencies side by side. National currency for domestic issues, especially government funding, taxes, and wages of government employees. But cross border trade would be accounted in Euro. People living in the UK as well as tourist from the EU could pick and choose whether they pay in Pound or Euro.
Could this work in your opinion?
I don't think two parallel currencies is really an option.
Thank you for your analysis
Brilliant video, learnt a lot!!!