It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
post links please
Writing in the Economist magazine in 2012, Albrecht Ritschl, a professor of economic history at LSE, said: “The Marshall plan had an outer shell, the European recovery programme, and an inner core, the economic reconstruction of Europe on the basis of debt forgiveness to and trade integration with Germany. The effects of its implementation were huge. While western Europe in the 1950s struggled with debt/GDP ratios close to 200%, the new West German state enjoyed debt/GDP ratios of less than 20%. This and its forced re-entry into Europe’s markets was Germany’s true benefit from the Marshall plan.”
The US wanted to create demand in Europe for its products - credit was extended to buy US goods. The situation was far more complex.
I did this as part of my degree course .... lots of politics and anti-British resentment from the USA which wanted our Empire broken up and Britain diminished so the USA was the major western power.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
However, the net contribution is about 19% of the EU budget, why would the EU not care?
I think you are naive to rule out an EU appetite for punishing the UK
please explain why Uk GILTS would collapse if the UK pay less than the EU wants
And as far as retail banking goes, collecting deposits from the public without a banking license is a criminal offence in every country on earth with a functioning banking system.
A Chilean bank that wants to take deposits in Venezuela as well as at home needs both a Chilean and a Venezualan banking license. A UK authorised bank that wants to do retail business in any of the 30 other EEA states doesn't need any more licenses to do so. Its UK license is good throughout the EEA.
I commend your enthusiasm for the debate but it is evident that you do not understand how banking is regulated, generally speaking, or how financial passporting in particular works in the EU.
The fact that you don't see branches of NatWest or Halifax on Italian high streets has got absolutely nothing to do with rules governing the provision of retail banking in the UK, Italy or the EU. Both those UK institutions are (for the time being) at liberty to go take deposits in Italy if they want to. You and I are not. Because we are not banks.
As for accessing UK finance being 'hard for Europeans who are not big entities' I've already explained this to you in my post about insurance. Let me guess, as a Brit in Spain it's a real pain to have to go down to the local branch of BBVA and to negotiate a loan or saving product in Spanish? Tell me about it. I used to live in Madrid. It sure would be easier if you could pick up the blower and get NatWest to fix you up, or wander into a local Lloyds. The reason you can't do this is because UK retail banks are simply not interested. For them there is no profitable business opportunity - for a host of commercial and economic reasons - although nothing in EU or Spanish rules is stopping them.
Honestly, when it comes to the provision of financial services in the EU I'm not quite sure which corner of Donald Rumsfeld's infamous grid this puts you in but you clearly don't even appreciate the extent of your own ignorance.
British politicians realised Britain was no longer a great power (read Churchill) which is why the likes of Churchill thought the unthinkable - he wanted an EU-like superstate. It's all very complicated.
As for the US the first US/British dispute was over Palestine. The US considered sending troops and put pressure on the UK. The result was the UK left Palestine and was humiliated. Then in 1947 five RAF Spitfires were shot down by Israeli planes flown by US volunteers. The US stepped in to back Israel. The UK backed Egypt. This was repeated elsewhere around the world with the final humiliation coming during the Suez crisis when the US told the British to get out of the Middle East or it would destroy the UK's financial system by selling sterling bonds. That was the end of Britain as a world power.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
When you suggest "British politicians realised Britain was no longer a great power", Barnett would likely disagree. As you point out, Britain's efforts to maintain it's status as a global military power, not least in the middle east, are where it came unstuck. If we'd invested what was available to us in industrial recovery, as Germany and France did, rather than trying to be an important power on another continent, would things have turned out differently?
"The French and German tenders for Marshall Aid resemble today's four-year business plans, being detailed technocratic strategies which give clear priority to investment in reconstructing industry and infrastructure. However, the British tender, originally drafted by a senior Treasury civil servant, resembled an Oxbridge economist's prolix prize-essay - with a tour of the world's economic horizon and Britain's place within it.
In the words of Sir Stafford Cripps, Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was a 'general statement' rather than a set of 'detailed proposals'. Certainly it amounted to nothing like an action-plan with a clearly stated strategic objective."
Reading that, I wonder if things ever change.
The biggest advantage for the UK is to be free of corporatism and protectionism. Medium and small companies are no longer require to obey every EU diktat and the enormous expense that entails. It's not a surprise that very few life changing innovations have come out of the EU. Corporatism kills innovation stone dead so people turn to property and central banking to try and drive the economy.
Getting out of the empire cost billions - the UK needed a presence in the Middle East as that's where the oil came from. The US wanted to be a major player in the region and sided with Israel and funded anti-British resentment. Think the US were our allies then think again.
As for our industry it was crippled after the war. Labour nationalised industries and invested - and it worked. Coal, steel and shipbuilding output rose. And it's a myth that the UK was the sick man of Europe.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Feedback
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!