mikeroyboy

The forthcoming negotiations between the UK and EU could be reversed to consider the EU's application to join the UK. After a referendum of course.

An interesting read maybe for some on this board. Provided by The Telegraph regarding the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO). To paraphrase a comment from 24hoursfromtulsehill; it’s satisfying to read a report that can identify the same problematic, misguided, misjudged, miss managed financial concept of 19 countries working harmoniously and profitably together as I can. ************************* “The International Monetary Fund’s top staff misled their own board, made a series of calamitous misjudgments in Greece, became euphoric cheerleaders for the euro project, ignored warning signs of impending crisis, and collectively failed to grasp an elemental concept of currency theory. This is the lacerating verdict of the IMF’s top watchdog on the Fund’s tangled political role in the eurozone debt crisis, the most damaging episode in the history of the Bretton Woods institutions. It describes a “culture of complacency”, prone to “superficial and mechanistic” analysis, and traces a shocking break-down in the governance of the IMF, leaving it unclear who is ultimately in charge of this extremely powerful organisation. The report by the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) goes above the head of the managing director, Christine Lagarde. It answers solely to the board of executive directors, and those from Asia and Latin America are clearly incensed at the way EU insiders used the Fund to rescue their own rich currency union and banking system. The three main bail-outs for Greece, Portugal, and Ireland were unprecedented in scale and character. The trio were each allowed to borrow over 2,000 percent of their allocated quota – more than three times the normal limit – and accounted for 80pc of all lending by the Fund between 2011 and 2014. In an astonishing admission, the report said its own investigators were unable to obtain key records or penetrate the activities of secretive "ad-hoc task forces". Mrs Lagarde herself is not accused of obstruction. “Many documents were prepared outside the regular established channels; written documentation on some sensitive matters could not be located. The IEO in some instances has not been able to determine who made certain decisions or what information was available, nor has it been able to assess the relative roles of management and staff," it said. The report said the whole approach to the eurozone was characterised by “groupthink” and intellectual capture. They had no fall-back plans on how to tackle a systemic crisis in the eurozone – or how to deal with the politics of a multinational currency union – because they had ruled out any possibility that it could happen. “Before the launch of the euro, the IMF’s public statements tended to emphasize the advantages of the common currency, “ it said. Some staff members warned that the design of the euro was fundamentally flawed but they were overruled. “After a heated internal debate, the view supportive of what was perceived to be Europe’s political project ultimately prevailed,” it said. This pro-EMU bias continued to corrupt their thinking for years. “The IMF remained upbeat about the soundness of the European banking system and the quality of banking supervision in euro area countries until after the start of the global financial crisis in mid-2007. This lapse was largely due to the IMF’s readiness to take the reassurances of national and euro area authorities at face value,” it said. The IMF persistently played down the risks posed by ballooning current account deficits and the flood of capital pouring into the eurozone periphery, and neglected the danger of a "sudden stop" in capital flows. “The possibility of a balance of payments crisis in a monetary union was thought to be all but non-existent,” it said. As late as mid-2007, the IMF still thought that “in view of Greece’s EMU membership, the availability of external financing is not a concern". At root was a failure to grasp the elemental point that currency unions with no treasury or political union to back them up are inherently vulnerable to debt crises. States facing a shock no longer have sovereign tools to defend themselves. Devaluation risk is switched into bankruptcy risk. “In a monetary union, the basics of debt dynamics change as countries forgo monetary policy and exchange rate adjustment tools,” said the report. This would be amplified by a “vicious feedback between banks and sovereigns”, each taking the other down. That the IMF failed to anticipate any of this was a serious scientific and professional failure. In Greece, the IMF violated its own cardinal rule by signing off on a bail-out in 2010 even though it could offer no assurance that the package would bring the country’s debts under control or clear the way for recovery, and many suspected from the start that it was doomed. The organisation got around this by slipping through a radical change in IMF rescue policy, allowing an exemption (since abolished) if there was a risk of systemic contagion. “The board was not consulted or informed,” it said. The directors discovered the bombshell “tucked into the text” of the Greek package, but by then it was a fait accompli. The IMF was in an invidious position when it was first drawn into the Greek crisis. The Lehman crisis was still fresh. “There were concerns that such a credit event could spread to other members of the euro area, and more widely to a fragile global economy,” said the report. The eurozone had no firewall against contagion, and its banks were tottering. The European Central Bank had not yet stepped up to the plate as lender of last resort. It was deemed too dangerous to push for a debt restructuring in Greece. While the Fund’s actions were understandable in the white heat of the crisis, the harsh truth is that the bail-out sacrificed Greece in a “holding action” to save the euro and north European banks. Greece endured the traditional IMF shock of austerity, without the offsetting IMF cure of debt relief and devaluation to restore viability. A sub-report on the Greek saga said the country was forced to go through a staggering squeeze, equal to 11pc of GDP over the first three years. This set off a self-feeding downward spiral. The worse it became, the more Greece was forced cut – what ex-finance minister Yanis Varoufakis called "fiscal water-boarding". “The automatic stabilizers were not allowed to operate, thus aggravating the pro-cyclicality of the fiscal policy, which exacerbated the contraction,” said the report. The attempt to force through an "internal devaluation" of 20pc to 30pc by means of deflationary wage cuts was self-defeating since it necessarily shrank the economic base and sent the debt trajectory spiralling upwards. “A fundamental problem was the inconsistency between attempting to regain price competitiveness and simultaneously trying to reduce the debt to nominal GDP ratio,” it said. The IMF thought the fiscal multiplier was 0.5 when it may in reality have been five times as high, given the fragility of the Greek system. The result is that nominal GDP ended 25pc lower than the IMF’s projections, and unemployment soared to 25pc instead of 15pc as expected. “The magnitude of Greece’s growth forecast errors looks extraordinary,” it said. The strategy relied on forlorn hopes that the "confidence fairy" would lift Greece out of this policy-induced nose-dive. “Highly optimistic” plans to raise $50bn from privatisation sales came to little. Some assets did not even have clear legal ownership. The chronic “lack of realism” lasted until late 2011. By then the damage was done. The injustice is that the cost of the bail-outs was switched to ordinary Greek citizens – the least able to support the burden – and it was never acknowledged that the true motive of EU-IMF Troika policy was to protect monetary union. Indeed, the Greeks were repeatedly blamed for failures that stemmed from the policy itself. This unfairness – the root of so much bitterness in Greece – is finally recognised in the report. “If preventing international contagion was an essential concern, the cost of its prevention should at have been borne – at least in part – by the international community as the prime beneficiary,” it said. Better late than never.”

I feel reasonably sure you only thought it would be of interest to 'some' board members. It would also have needed to fit your viewpoint. Like the politicians you harp on about imminent hardship if we don't vote this way or that way. Unfortunately we have already voted. History tells us every election is based on doom and zoom according to each party. If the party in power don't deliver the can be removed by the electorate. This as been the case since women got the vote in 1918{I think). The referendum is a major deviation from the norm. In effect it was between our Sovereignty and the unelected EU. We choose Sovereignty. I agree that there wasn't much zoom being rolled out but plenty of unknowable/exaggerated doom. It is almost certain the EU will now look to reform a little, now the first horse has bolted there may be more. There is no sign of its economy improving and Brexit won't help nor will economic migration. The EU has had its head in the sand for too long I hope to heaven they don't stick it down a mine shaft during negotiations. It could be up to 3yrs before it's sorted. Meanwhile there are far more dangerous goings on around the globe that could be visiting an economy near you sooner than you think. Nothing is EVER straight forward in world affairs. No history of it whatsoever.

Would this be the same Lord Ashcroft who's poll on May 26th 2016 boasted "nearly two-thirds of voters think UK will remain in E.U. A decent enough sample of 5,000 took part. Off course this was somewhat shy of the c37,000,000 who took advantage of the privacy of a polling booth to answer the pertinent question. On immigration the referendum that I was closely following was never about sending anyone back, more to stem the flow from faster than we can build houses, hospitals, schools and other infrastructure.

“this 64 year old Savoyard is very under-estimated in French politics due to his distaste for small talk and his limited sense of humour.” ‘Under-estimated’ sounds as though you think more of him than they do. If, true it doesn’t say much for the credibility of French politics. You also make him sound a little like Teresa May, who was recently appointed Prime Minister. May, and her team though have a few weeks jump on him to be less ill prepared than he is. Further, why on earth would ‘either’ side have been preparing for Brexit. Neither of them saw it coming. The usual b******t before a poll has now been ignored twice by the electorate within two years. The only real negative to the first surprise last year is the wipeout of the Liberals and the implosion of Labour. Not an ideal scenario for the future. You appear to put a doomsday scenario on most things but not an unelected Federal inclined Commission gaining more and more power on an annual basis, unemployment at unparalleled levels in some Eurozone countries, and high in most Some Eurozone banks still in trouble (terrible second quarter results from Deutsche Bank today). Columns of unorganized refugees, many of them (and it could be most) economic, marching through Europe to a point of their choice. Safety, jobs, financial stability and democracy of the EU within the Eurozone are being challenged daily. And you put forward a view that EU are putting up the big guns to sort out the United Kingdom. May god give me strength. In my view Michel Barnier is there simply to negotiate the EU’s position. It would be quite naturally to choose someone competent. It may turn out ‘they’ get shot in the foot, there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge before getting too pedantic. Bullying and intransigence will have no place in the meetings over Brexit and I’m puzzled why you seem to be countenancing it. Are you on the EU over generous payroll and pension scheme by any chance? Germany may well be happy with a free trade agreement but maybe not many others unless Germany is persuasive. At the end of the day we are on course to trade with who we like. Judge people how we like, while making our own rulings and attempt to control immigration more efficiently. For which the latter two the UK electorate have never been consulted on. And it will take civility, respect and negotiation to conclude.

jimsleftfoot, piglinbland: I respect the time you took to answer the questions and regret my use of the phrase ‘lemon suckers’. Please accept my one post response. (1) David Cameron promised then called the Referendum to give the Tories a perceived better chance of winning an overall majority. It paid off. The very wide spectrum of media, IMO, created pretty decent coverage of the campaign, as they do with any major world event. They mainly represent the reader – how else could it work? (2) Why aren’t Germany as dominant in Technology and Financial Services as the UK? It is just how things have evolved. The City is held in very high esteem throughout the world for very good reasons including historical expertise, historical safety, historical stability and forward thinking governance. Is shunting over to the Eurozone likely to be an easily taken option to World Governments and Commerce? Like our Universities we are respected World Wide for deliverability, integrity and expertise. (3) A bit of a dopey question on my part, the answer of course, involves guesswork. 5th is however very satisfactory for our little neck of the woods and I don’t expect us to slip down due to Brexit. (4) We seem to be in some form of agreement on the construction of the EU. We have spent over a thousand years getting to what is still a stable, a globally well respected democracy. The EU is not bringing together the ‘best’ of Europe, it is bringing ‘down’ the best of Europe. The European Commissions and Judiciaries are running out of control and unelected. (5) Call our press and the European press what you like but it is their local readership that they are selling to. Suggesting pulling out of the EU to their readers, as a way forward, would be a lie, in most cases. (6) There is no first language in the EU, just 24 different ones. Over 1500 linguists + 600 or so support staff attempt to make (Common Market) policy work. Is there a successful working model of this somewhere? Has Mr, Airforce One, “you’ll be back of the queue” Barack Obama contemplated the EU system with anyone. The South Americans, for example? (7) A simple difference of opinions but agreeing there are problems. (8) I consider us lucky to have had the chance, there would never have been a good time. But it would have become harder to bring it to pass. I signed up for a Common Market Policy in 1974. Where the EU is now, without any further public consultation is a travesty common law and justice. (9) Would we have done better outside the EU over the last 8yrs is a rhetorical question. We can only compare how we have reacted to a world recession outside the Eurozone. The answer to that is, quicker and more efficiently. The EU were behind us for about four years on interest rate cuts and use of quantitative easing plus other austerity measures. We did a U-turn in a mini not a multi carriage train. The EU is still struggling because of its own complexity. The real drivers of world finances are multinational companies, market makers and pension funds to name three. They don’t do emotion or irrational. They do profit. IMHO it is beyond comprehension that they will be throwing themselves out of bed with the tried and trusted UK at the drop of a hat for a still struggling and in its infancy Eurozone. Angela Merkel will soon be smartened up by the German car industry if she thinks petulance and shooting herself in the foot is the way forward. Not that I think for one moment she will. I take the point about Remainer’s J, and it’s clear Brexiteers haven’t been listening to 'experts'. Where have these ‘experts’ gained their knowledge of a Brexit? Many of them are being proved wrong short term and most seemed to have had ‘political elite preservation’ stamped on their forehead. Some of them even appeared ridiculous, including the soon departing most powerful politician in the world and our jettisoned Chancellor. I wouldn’t be so bold as to surmise how it’s all going to go but I have little doubt that we are well able to engineer an exit from the EU while increasing our efficiency, dependability and expertise on a wider world stage. There are many reasons why world or our economies could nosedive over the next five years but I don’t expect Brexit to be one of them. I could write a book but I will leave you with two quotes attributed to the renowned economist John Maynard Keynes: “The engine that drives enterprise is not thrift but profit.” “When the facts change, I will change my mind. What do you do Sir?”

A few questions for those left sucking lemons. (1) What does the Anglo-Saxon media have to gain from Brexit? (2) How is our little Island (5th largest economy in the world) being badly run? (3) Where would you see our economy being if we were well run? (4) Why is unemployment so high in the Eurozone? (5) What has the ‘objective, European press’ had to say about democracy within the European Parliament and unemployment in the Euro-zone? (6) Do you think a European Parliament catering for 24 languages is sustainable? (7) Do you think it is sustainable for 24 Eurozone countries consisting of wildly differing cultures, economies and infrastructure to be tied to one interest rate? (8) Would you agree, in the great scheme of things it is sometimes necessary to take a pill in an attempt to regain democratic rights, many of which we invented? (9) What is actually improving over the last 8yrs in the EU? Brexit may well cause some unpleasant turbulence for us all. But so may a continuing economic slowdown in China, further unrest in the Middle East, further problems in Greece and Italy within the banking systems, stagnation or worse in European Unemployment figures, Especially in Greece and Spain with 24% and 20% respectively, and not to mention EU governance failing to acknowledge democracy. Over the next 5yrs some or all of these may come to pass, plus any number of other events that effect economies and markets but the lemon suckers will undoubtedly blame Brexit. This, while not having the faintest idea of where we would have been by remaining. We are a productive, inventive, imaginative, multiracial, hardworking and generally trustworthy little Island in the North Atlantic. We are definitely not going to bring the World or ourselves to its knees. What sensible reason could any country or body put forward to make trade agreements with the UK punitive? I’m not aware of a groundswell of the 17 million + Brexiteers clambering for a rerun via Twitter or Facebook. Nor, I suspect, would there have been had they lost. Time to talk us up not down, we are after all a very resolute nation. We are still in Europe. We will still defend Europe. We are still in NATO.

With reference to O'Driscoll: Turnbull on the Official yesterday: "I think with people of Sean O’Driscoll’s calibre and a very enthusiastic new manager in Steve Robinson, with a very able assistant in Ian Baraclough, along with Carlo Nash goalkeeper coach and Tom Hart the analyst, it’s a challenge I’m looking forward to". Everyone has a job title except O'Driscoll. Odd? Turnbull's phraseology doesn't imply O'Driscoll is here short term either. More like part of the team he's joining.

Early days but I'm optimistic and happy with the signings if Robinson thinks they can do a job for us. It would certainly be helpful early doors having a nucleus of players he has worked with. I'm guessing the best players, from fans perspective, are still to come. It's just a relieve to get the show on the road with a reasonably positive appointment after a nightmare close season.

'What do we do now?' 'What's the plan?' We negotiate a trading agreement with the EU that is acceptable to both parties. We also negotiate trading agreements with any other country we damn well like. Just like the rest of the world does. Does anyone see a problem with the world's 5th largest economy being able to do that? Can anyone put their finger on why this is causing so much concern around the globe by people in high places? What on earth are they worried about? The larger the EU gets the more dysfunctional it will become.

Further, 'nothing' is done and dusted yet anyway.

Thanks to all those who have correctly identified that the unelected European Commissions have the final say.

The more we all soak in Brexit the less daunting it will appear. The world wide furore is generated by the political, handsomely paid, pampered elite. No one is on the streets about what has happened. As we speak it seems the world is talking about us, while live around them carries on normally, as it is doing here. We are a small island in the North Atlantic. We have not gone bust, we have not started a war and there is no proposal to send anyone back anywhere. All our little island wants to do is reclaim our ability to rule ourselves and control our own borders. During the last 6yrs we have out performed the EU, as a nation, in stabilising our banks, dramatically reducing unemployment and out performed them on productivity. The EU is totally unable to move quickly and decisively in any sort of emergency. They are the highest employers of interpreters and translators in the world at 1,500. About one third of the parliamentary staff. Our elected MEP's do not have the final say in setting laws or directives. This is done by unelected committees. I could go on about wastefulness of the whole circus, maybe another time. Out of our situation now we have at least two years to secure trade agreements with the EU. It beggars believe that they will try and make the agreement punitive. Trade is a two way street and there is far more coming in our direction than theirs. European controls, standards and specification are hardly likely to be a problem, we are already complying with them. There is no way of guessing how well this will end or how badly, but we are a productive, inventive, hard working nation, well able to look after ourselves. We are respected world wide for a variety of trustworthy traits in business. I'm convinced powerful the elite are scared rigid of what we are capable of. What other reason could there be for little old UK causing so much fuss? And why is the EU so difficult to leave?

We have a general election every 5yrs (previously 4). Between us we choose every single member of every single parliament. After the surprise outcome of the last election and now this referendum, we have even given our 'appointed' representatives something to think about.

I notice you don't quote actual statistics or illegals, Romanian gypsies and asylum seekers. Selective to fit the argument - just like the politicians. Would you vote to join the European Union as it stands and is performing today? Have you voted to allow governance of our country to be ceded to the European government? Or, As we all regularly shout at politicians on TV, 'answer the damn question.'

I’ll tell you what was at the top of my reasons to leave (by a country mile) and many of my social group. Voting out was THE only way to grab the European politicians attention. Aboard the Gravy Train at our expense, they are out of control. My generation and the one in front of us signed up to a Common Market in 1973 - not an insidious and constant erosion of our ability to govern ourselves. No elections from the ruling body in 43 years is theft. Our own politicians are almost as bad for going along with this hijack although they did have the foresight to avoid joining the Euro. We can only guess where it’s going end but it’s not going to stop. I really can’t believe how the ‘remains’ are so gullible they are willing to sell our country down the river without a vote to do so. Are there any of the ‘remainder’s’ on here who, if we weren’t members, join today? Cameron gave us a vote in order to give him a chance of winning the last election. I and over 17,000,000 others grabbed it with both hand. WE WERE NOT PREPARED TO LET OUR COUNTRY SLIP THROUGH OUR HANDS WITHOUT BEING ASKED. That over 16,000,000 others were is quite shocking. IMHO. Further, ‘getting rid’ of Muslims was on no one’s manifesto. It seems we are still being misinformed now we’re out. Immigration is going to be major problem for the foreseeable future, IN or OUT.

World in meltdown as United Kingdom choose to govern themselves instead of an unelected European Parliament. You're having a Turkish. Pay day for the city is what's happening. No one else has tried to recreate the European model over the last 40 years, have they? Remember doomsday before the New Year 1999. Jan 1st turned out to be just another day. I can't understand people seeing the chronically flawed Union with no option to vote for change as being a credible option.

PLAYItLivo: So sorry for voting you down. Fat finger problem. I totally agree with your post and will pay you back when I get chance.

Of course the rest of the world want us to stay in the EU - we are a stabilising presence in the insidious colonisation of Europe. Do you think China, USA, Japan, or any other country out side Europe will be rushing to embrace this philosophy any time within the next 100yrs or ever? In or out who do you think will be second country in the world to send financial or military help to global trouble spots. We are not Norway or Switzerland with a combined population of 13 million. We have the 5th largest economy in the world. Which country or Union in their right mind would want to make trading complex or expensive for us or themselves? Trading is a two way street and we import a lot of stuff. Are we looking into the Union and seeing their economies growing? Are we looking into the Union and seeing low unemployment? Are we looking into the Union and seeing more secure borders? Does anyone understand how the laws made in Brussels are sanctioned? Does EVERYONE understand that the committees sanctioning European laws are unelected and pretty much unaccountable? Our MEP's are pigmies in a jungle. And not least the financial accounts have not been signed off for the last 11 years. Make no mistake NO ONE can make an accurate forecast to what will happen IN or OUT but it appears the ruling classes of the rest of the world believe little old United Kingdom is about to create Armageddon. Maybe, little old United Kingdom is going to show the rest of the world it is not about to roll over with the advance of an unelected super state. We.ve been there before. To enlighten yourself on how the European Union is run there is an excellent unbiased video on YouTube: Jeremy Paxman in Brussels. However you vote is unlikely to adversely effect the older generations too much but I do wonder if the younger generations are even looking at what is heading there way. As always the future will have to look after itself.

I would be thinking no one on here knows them well enough. So it's possible. I lawfully guggled my tax affairs on accountants advice during my working life.

The fact they paid the debt last month only to continue asset stripping the football side is puzzling. Filling their boots before bolting I just can't believe with no financial numbers to go off. Interviewing prospective managers doesn't fit that scenario either. No doubt things will soon become clear but I'm expecting it to be more dramatic than the usual pr-season.

So this is where we are: After 12yrs of circumstances and poor judgments of which we all suffer, we are still in L1. The following is not a full list of clubs subjected to worse circumstances and judgments and it doesn’t include regular big city clubs but there are quite a few of those who have visited us over the last 12yrs. Sheffield United seem reluctant to leave and Portsmouth who fell through the floor. Plymouth, Carlisle, Luton, Notts County, York, Newport, Grimsby, Tranmere, Wrexham, Lincoln, Chester, Stockport, Darlington, Mansfield. You may wish to offer a list of clubs like ours who have done better but first check out the owner and their connection with the club, not least any unconditional financial commitment they may have made. The dream started to sour in 2005 the housing boom started to slow before prices started to fall, and then recession hit. TTA’s grand plan for the land they had purchased blown out of the water before the sail had been put up. Moving to Failsworth (not a first option) mired in controversy, the Ford Stand flattened (not necessary in my view). We were just lurching from one disaster to the next and not all down to TTA’s ineptitude. Hind sight is a wonderful debating tool but quite useless. Then of course the new North Stand. There was nothing wrong with the concept of its facilities but obviously without the funding in place a disaster waiting to happen. Reading between the lines the escalating cost of the North Stand could be the reason for Johnson’s departure and recently Sheridan’s. All real fans will no doubt be able to add something to this overall scenario. Today a club statement says the liability concerning the winding up order was paid last month. This could be before much of the fire sale had been completed, including Sheridan. I have to wonder, if the club is stuffed (which is where we are now) why did TTA avoid bumping us on Monday? The effort has left us with no manager and very few players weeks before training starts. If the fire sale was to service a debt where is the money coming from to hire a new manager and possibly a dozen players. It doesn’t stack up. Unless there is new money on the horizon.

Relative to separating the wheat from the chaff it's brilliant.

If it happens yes. It's not quite stacking up otherwise, is it.

We are going backwards because no one is prepared to put money into the manager/playing fund above budget. Other than a wealthy fan, why on earth would they? Meanwhile fans continually fall by the wayside at the falling standards, why on earth wouldn't they? Most managers fail any way and very few are consistently successful at different clubs. Meanwhile the stalwarts will try and keep us ticking over.