Michel Barnier

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

quarky said:

I don't think that is entirely accurate.

As I said the UK was the largest recipient of Marshall Plan aid, and the money lent to the UK for the "socialist miracle", the NHS, was lent at something derisory like 2% P.A. interest. So it was a no-brianer to take really.

No strictly true as the US split aid between cash and aid. Over $14 billion was spent or loaned during the postwar period through the end of 1947, and is not counted as part of the Marshall Plan. The UK got cash, but had to give up some territory and countries like West Germany got cash but also a lot of aid .. food, medicine, machine tools, weapons - US companies like Ford/General Motors setup in West Germany.

The big difference was the UK got loans whilst other countries got aid - they didn't have to repay it.

no, Uk got more grants than axis countries - see earlier post

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

Fretwired said:

quarky said:

I don't think that is entirely accurate.

As I said the UK was the largest recipient of Marshall Plan aid, and the money lent to the UK for the "socialist miracle", the NHS, was lent at something derisory like 2% P.A. interest. So it was a no-brianer to take really.

No strictly true as the US split aid between cash and aid. Over $14 billion was spent or loaned during the postwar period through the end of 1947, and is not counted as part of the Marshall Plan. The UK got cash, but had to give up some territory and countries like West Germany got cash but also a lot of aid .. food, medicine, machine tools, weapons - US companies like Ford/General Motors setup in West Germany.

The big difference was the UK got loans whilst other countries got aid - they didn't have to repay it.

no, Uk got more grants than axis countries - see earlier post

Earlier post focuses on initial Marshall Plan .. the USA provided countries like West Germany with more than cash that was outside the Marshall Plan. They also got debts written off - the UK had to repay in full.

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

Fretwired said:

quarky said:

I don't think that is entirely accurate.

As I said the UK was the largest recipient of Marshall Plan aid, and the money lent to the UK for the "socialist miracle", the NHS, was lent at something derisory like 2% P.A. interest. So it was a no-brianer to take really.

No strictly true as the US split aid between cash and aid. Over $14 billion was spent or loaned during the postwar period through the end of 1947, and is not counted as part of the Marshall Plan. The UK got cash, but had to give up some territory and countries like West Germany got cash but also a lot of aid .. food, medicine, machine tools, weapons - US companies like Ford/General Motors setup in West Germany.

The big difference was the UK got loans whilst other countries got aid - they didn't have to repay it.

no, Uk got more grants than axis countries - see earlier post

Earlier post focuses on initial Marshall Plan .. the USA provided countries like West Germany with more than cash that was outside the Marshall Plan. They also got debts written off - the UK had to repay in full.

ooooh interesting

post links please

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

ooooh interesting

post links please

The direct transfers of money were only part of the help Germany received through the Marshall plan. Far more important than the $1.4bn was the granting of debt relief at the London conference of 1953.

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.

ToneControl

Limehouse_Blues said:

 

some good points

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

Limehouse_Blues

Evilmags said:

Erm Swiss (non EU) service companies do as much EU business as anyone, so I don't see how EU membership enables service selling. The reality is you simply cannot sell on the ground at a retail level in many EU countries. Try selling banking services in Italy. The authorities will have you out in a month. 

Do you know why UBS and Credit Suisse headquarter their investment banking businesses in London rather than in Zurich? I bet you can guess.

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.

dtr

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

ooooh interesting

post links please

The direct transfers of money were only part of the help Germany received through the Marshall plan. Far more important than the $1.4bn was the granting of debt relief at the London conference of 1953.

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.

As an alternative perspective (more "our own damn fault" than "blame the yanks") I find Corelli Barnett interesting (Pride and Fall, The Lost Victory).  This short piece for BBC history gives a sense of his view that Britain had all the potential it could want, post war, but chose to piss it's advantages away simply by assuming it was a 'great power' rather than coming up with an actual plan of how to be one in the future.  A theme that I think about a lot these days.

Evilmags

Limehouse_Blues said:

Evilmags said:

Erm Swiss (non EU) service companies do as much EU business as anyone, so I don't see how EU membership enables service selling. The reality is you simply cannot sell on the ground at a retail level in many EU countries. Try selling banking services in Italy. The authorities will have you out in a month. 

Do you know why UBS and Credit Suisse headquarter their investment banking businesses in London rather than in Zurich? I bet you can guess.

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 29 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.

I've seen about five attempt's at purchasing Italian banks by foreign banks knocked out of the water by the authorities. UK banks are, in practical terms, not able to take deposits in any EU country they don't have subsidiaries in unless they are corporate or aggregated hrough wealth managers. Financial passporting is limited as well. If you do substantial business you need local regulation,  licence ect or you have a limit time wise.  No easier than selling into Canada. Accessing UK finance is hard for Europeans that are not big entities. And big entities can go anywhere anyway. Compliance regimes are also very different which is a massive barrier to smallet businesses. It is not hard for experienced burocracy to keep business out of a country even though it's not meant to. The UK does not behave like this. Many European countries do.

prowla

The EU just saw the UK as a source of funds; the illegal "divorce bill" is just a continuance of that mindset.

ToneControl

dtr said:

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

ooooh interesting

post links please

The direct transfers of money were only part of the help Germany received through the Marshall plan. Far more important than the $1.4bn was the granting of debt relief at the London conference of 1953.

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.

As an alternative perspective (more "our own damn fault" than "blame the yanks") I find Corelli Barnett interesting (Pride and Fall, The Lost Victory).  This short piece for BBC history gives a sense of his view that Britain had all the potential it could want, post war, but chose to piss it's advantages away simply by assuming it was a 'great power' rather than coming up with an actual plan of how to be one in the future.  A theme that I think about a lot these days.

looks interesting, but the link does not work for me, can you help please?

Limehouse_Blues

Evilmags said:

Limehouse_Blues said:

Evilmags said:

Erm Swiss (non EU) service companies do as much EU business as anyone, so I don't see how EU membership enables service selling. The reality is you simply cannot sell on the ground at a retail level in many EU countries. Try selling banking services in Italy. The authorities will have you out in a month. 

Do you know why UBS and Credit Suisse headquarter their investment banking businesses in London rather than in Zurich? I bet you can guess.

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 29 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.

I've seen about five attempt's at purchasing Italian banks by foreign banks knocked out of the water by the authorities. UK banks are, in practical terms, not able to take deposits in any EU country they don't have subsidiaries in unless they are corporate or aggregated hrough wealth managers. Financial passporting is limited as well. If you do substantial business you need local regulation,  licence ect or you have a limit time wise.  No easier than selling into Canada. Accessing UK finance is hard for Europeans that are not big entities. And big entities can go anywhere anyway. Compliance regimes are also very different which is a massive barrier to smallet businesses. It is not hard for experienced burocracy to keep business out of a country even though it's not meant to. The UK does not behave like this. Many European countries do.

Now you're talking about change of control (which is different from branching or cross border activity and has an entirely different commercial motive). But guess what? The rules on change of control of banks and other regulated financial firms are harmonised at EU level. Yep. Same rules in UK and Italy.

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. 

Fretwired

dtr said:

As an alternative perspective (more "our own damn fault" than "blame the yanks") I find Corelli Barnett interesting (Pride and Fall, The Lost Victory).  This short piece for BBC history gives a sense of his view that Britain had all the potential it could want, post war, but chose to piss it's advantages away simply by assuming it was a 'great power' rather than coming up with an actual plan of how to be one in the future.  A theme that I think about a lot these days.

The link doesn't work but I can imagine what it says. The truth is Britain had few friends in 1945 - the Empire was breaking up, the country was impoverished, there was a need to shift from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy and houses needed to be built.

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.

Evilmags

The US is of course vulnerable to concerted sales of dollar denominated bonds. China holds trillions with Russia and India not far behind, as well as many powerful I divide also in gulf states. Over a third of gilts are essentially owned by the state through central banking these days and the overall global system is so interlinked that it would be impossible to attack London without screwing every other center. The UK financial system is considered by the US treasury (along with Germany,  France,  Japan and not many otgers) as too big to fail. So basically if one goes down they all do. 

dtr

Sorry for the bust link - it's here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

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.

Evilmags

Harmonised lawn in theory and in practise is very different. UK common law and Southern European Napoleon code have vastly different ways of interpreting and implementing EU directives. When you live and do business in the EU you quickly learn that. It doesn't matter what Brussels says, there is no real life fair playing field for medium and small UK companies in the EU. 

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.

ToneControl

Am I the only one here who is wondering whether Limehouse_Blues does or doesn't know what Evilmags does for a living?

Fretwired

dtr said:

Sorry for the bust link - it's here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

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.

Poor article. Britain was bankrupt and it was saddled with an empire it couldn't afford. Churchill understood this as did others. We actually had some clever politicians. As for West Germany they had their debts written off - Britain didn't. That was a major reason West Germany prospered while Britain was mired in debt. Thatcher's government made the last repayment.

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.

Jalapeno

Fretwired said:

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.

It was by the 1970s .....

Fretwired

Jalapeno said:

Fretwired said:

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.

It was by the 1970s .....

Not the 1950s though .... the UK had to help defend Europe while the French and the Germans spent nothing.

Evilmags

The UK then defended Germany for the entire cold war. The lack of gratitude is somewhat galling. France has a long history of losing wars and winning the outcome.