Mark Carny on Italian bank collapse

michaels

Crashy_Time wrote: »

EU drone on TV just now said that the Italian banking crisis will be dealt with "Within Italy".

Is that in the same way that the Icelandic banking crisis was dealt with within Iceland :rotfl:

Honestly I can't see why anyone would keep cash in an Italian bank let alone buy their bonds. Iceland amply demonstrated how valuable a sovereign gaurantee is.....

Conrad

The EU as a concept is not fit for purpose. Those of you so bewitched by it still, well enjoy your delusion while it lasts.

Conrad

20 years of recession for Italy according to the expert, ahem, IMF. I reckon her people will tell Brussels to poke it, vote out and take their chances as a nimble autonomous nation with its own currency

mwpt

Conrad wrote: »

20 years of recession for Italy according to the expert, ahem, IMF. I reckon her people will tell Brussels to poke it, vote out and take their chances as a nimble autonomous nation with its own currency

I don't particularly think any one thing is to blame. I know people love black and white narratives, and particularly the villainous EU narrative, but I believe you are simplifying way too much.

DollarSaver

cells wrote: »

You've repeated Iceland multiple times but its not comparable for many reasons one is that in 2008 they finally finished and opened up a huge aluminium smelter and hudropower plant. So large that if England had the same per capita the hydro plant would be big enough to power the whole of England and Germany combined and the smelter would make england the largest manufacturer of aluminum even !!!!!! than China.

Good point that. And also population 323,002.

Must be easier to get something back on track when the losses were much much lower in magnitude and the population is miniscule.

DollarSaver

Conrad wrote: »

20 years of recession for Italy according to the expert, ahem, IMF. I reckon her people will tell Brussels to poke it, vote out and take their chances as a nimble autonomous nation with its own currency

Nah I reckon anyone with a brain in Europe will say : "Ok, the un-UK has stuck its neck out." Let's see how that goes. Then when they see it goes extremely badly. They will see the E.U. as the safe haven it relatively speaking is.

Just watch financial reports over the next 3-6-9-12 months. I suspect we are going to be hit with a sledgehammer and interestingly remainers are not in complete and total denial about this.

TrickyTree83

mwpt wrote: »

I don't particularly think any one thing is to blame. I know people love black and white narratives, and particularly the villainous EU narrative, but I believe you are simplifying way too much.

Possibly, fwiw I think it has been polarised due to recent events.

However there can be no arguments that EU legislation is now in the way for Italy. Were they part of EFTA or the EEA they would be able to solve their problems and still enjoy all of the benefits.

For me that is where the EU is the problem, the political part of the project. There simply is no need for all of this EU political apparatus. The leader of each country and appointed ministers from the national parliament would be sufficient to discuss and harmonise regulation and law. This would be closer to what the EU started out as and would be much more pallatable to people across Europe who see the EU's political institutions as the problem.

TrickyTree83

DollarSaver wrote: »

Nah I reckon anyone with a brain in Europe will say : "Ok, the un-UK has stuck its neck out." Let's see how that goes. Then when they see it goes extremely badly. They will see the E.U. as the safe haven it relatively speaking is.

Just watch financial reports over the next 3-6-9-12 months. I suspect we are going to be hit with a sledgehammer and interestingly remainers are not in complete and total denial about this.

We've stuck our neck out, and we'll take a hit for it.

But the financial disaster scenario is more likely to play out on the continent, in fact I would go as far as saying it's almost certain it would play out there instead of in the UK. You just need to look at the state of all of the Italian banks and the majority of the German banks, their ability to take a hit on trade with the UK and the hit on financial trading (where 19% of Deutsche Bank's income is from the UK).

When you consider

- their financial status and ability to deal with a crisis i.e. their own rules are preventing them from doing so at the moment. Countries on the watch list are: Portugal, Italy, Greece, Germany.

- their strongest nations (a.k.a the net contributors) having a truly huge trade deficit with the UK.

- the Visegrad group being ideologically opposed to the political goals of those involved with the 5 presidents report and the closer integration.

I don't think we're in a bad negotiating position. I think we'll get a good deal. We might need to take some form of the free movement option because the alternative of un-plugging the UK from the EU will cause them more harm than tinkering around the edges of a policy that isn't really required for trading.

DollarSaver

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Possibly, fwiw I think it has been polarised due to recent events.

However there can be no arguments that EU legislation is now in the way for Italy. Were they part of EFTA or the EEA they would be able to solve their problems and still enjoy all of the benefits.

For me that is where the EU is the problem, the political part of the project. There simply is no need for all of this EU political apparatus. The leader of each country and appointed ministers from the national parliament would be sufficient to discuss and harmonise regulation and law. This would be closer to what the EU started out as and would be much more pallatable to people across Europe who see the EU's political institutions as the problem.

It just so happens that you will be in the front row for whether being out of the E.U. is better. It will be your finances that will be the post Brexit experiment. I wish you well.:money:

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

However there can be no arguments that EU legislation is now in the way for Italy. Were they part of EFTA or the EEA they would be able to solve their problems and still enjoy all of the benefits.

Some people are never happy though. Should we or should we not have bailed out the banks? I think a lot of our fellows will say absolutely NO. But now that the EU steps in and says no to bailing out banks, suddenly this opinion becomes irrelevant and it's all about EU imposing on sovereignty.

And frankly, how do you imagine Italy are going to solve their problems with a swish of the magic wand? Have you noticed that there is a high correlation of poor performing economies with corruption and general mismanagement? Can they just magic up a new batch of money and print away all of those problems?

For me that is where the EU is the problem, the political part of the project. There simply is no need for all of this EU political apparatus. The leader of each country and appointed ministers from the national parliament would be sufficient to discuss and harmonise regulation and law. This would be closer to what the EU started out as and would be much more pallatable to people across Europe who see the EU's political institutions as the problem.

That, to me, is entirely down to the Euro. And for what it's worth, I partially agree with you on this. I don't feel strongly one way or another about political union. It doesn't resonate negatively or positively. Whatever works that makes people's lives better, all things taken into account, is fine with me. I cannot pretend to understand "all things taken into account" but it seems some of you guys can and you have very strong opinions about them.

That said, if the move towards political union is causing discontent with citizens, then what on earth are the leaders of our societies playing at by pursuing it? I am generally pragmatic and even if I think something is worthwhile pursuing, if it results in a large group of (in my opinion) misinformed people causing a lot of trouble then perhaps it is better to concede the issue in favour of a longer term strategy.