Very recent commentary is shown below, abstracted from the website above, about the options open to Draghi.

The ECB governor has gone for the second option; the negative in all senses = -0.4% rate of interest.


The pointless option open to Dragula is yet more QE. I’m told even he now accepts this isn’t going to have any effect, but he will continue with QE anyway, as sounding doubtful about it would cause a selling panic and drop the euro by six points. As the US and Japan found, heroin is great at first, but then you need it to feel normal. Once detox is necessary, there is only cold turkey and diarrorhea.
The negative would be to plunge the pendulum further down the conversion of Zirp into Nirp pit. This is the expectation now, so as with so many of these ‘policy’ statements, Dragnet must do this at least. I posted last weekend about why this is a terrible idea, and that more or less guaranteed it being adopted.
The foolhardy but entirely sensible approach would be to tell Schäuble, the Bundesbank, Drizzlebang’s f**kwitted eurogrope and all the other austeritistas to grow up and accept the need for a change in strategy. While I do think that very unlikely indeed (for political, not economic, reasons) I did learn yesterday that Draghi is likely to drop in a reference along the lines of “we must look to sovereign governments for new ideas about economic stimulation, the monetary toolbag being empty” – albeit not quite that bluntly…..although that would be accurate: the only monetary solution left open to Signora Dragqueen is to bring down all the Monets lining the ECB corridors, and flog them off

__________________
Dave

The only other strategy possible is to normalize interest rates, end APP and end TLTRO. As a matter of fact there is a very strong case for the ECB to do so under its statutory mandate. This would, of course, spell the immediate (within six months maximum) bankruptcy of Portugal, Greece, probably also of Spain and Italy, and the exit of these countries from the Euro. There aren't many takers for such action. No one wants to go down in history as the responsible for the implosion of the Euro and of a few other things with it, the European Union among them.

One note about austerity. What has been called austerity in some countries is not austerity at all. It's merely going back to living within ones means. Several countries lived on credit for several years. That is over so they have to adapt their expenditures to their earnings. There is always the alternative of bankruptcy but since the XVI century the results of such have never been all that great, at least in the short term. Of course one can always argue that if Germany donated money to this and that countries the problem would be solved (at least for a decade) but I really don't see German taxpayers being happy with their money being donated to societies which don't know how to govern themselves.

I mentioned a while ago that we are due to get a visit from Pres Obama to tell us how it will be best for the USA if the UK remains a member of the EU.
Here's the analogy:
The American Union? | Matt Ridley

Abstracted from above:
"Most Americans I know think Britain would be mad to leave the EU, but that’s because they think the EU is like Nato or Nafta or the Organisation of American States — a club of nations bound by a treaty. They think it is a trading bloc. They do not appreciate that it is a common government, run by a common bureaucracy and answerable to a common court system."
footnote;
And since 2009 it now has "legal personality", as per an earlier posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

Nor do many Brits know about these aspects.

__________________
Dave

Unfortunately, I very much doubt that detailed deconstruction of the follies of the Euro machinations will win much interest in the referendum debate - within project FUD it would serve no purpose.
Certainly, the ECB has broken lots of its' own rules to the point of illegality, and no one gives a damn.
During our current referendum discourse I have yet to hear anyone of our great and good, via our MSM, get even near to serious discussion about the future of the Eurozone.

Perhaps post in the HUBB pub thread that relates to the economic crisis which will remain extant across Europe and everywhere else no matter what comes of our referendum?

Certainly so.
Personally, I have spent a life time living within my means but some of my relatives have seen things differently - as you say, it's the same with nations; it's the credit card analogy.
Such diversity is great when we are visiting countries (and for that matter living/working elsewhere) but "banging their heads together until they submit" can only end in a very ugly way.

__________________
Dave

A female angle, by a Ukipper:-
Why women should vote to leave the EU

__________________
Dave

There lies the logical argument for a truly single* government for the EU, or at least for the Eurozone members - and hence the concept of two, or more, versions of the EU; an inner circle of those who use the Euro as their currency and an outer circle of those who have their own sovereign currency in perpetuity.
The issue then arises about how do those using their own currencies prop up the Euro when it is "struggling" and, for that matter, vice versa.
I guess recourse to the IMF is one answer.

*Slowly, step by step, it is getting there but the big hurdles remain fiscal union combined with greater integration of laws,especially the enforcement of such laws via the courts, a common police force and other judicial enforcement bodies (bailiffs, standing armed forces, border forces etc).

__________________
Dave

It isn't possible, Walkabout. We are very far from the 1990s euphoria when being against the European Union immediately labeled the ones against it as dissidents, outcasts and, sometimes, outright fascists, nazis and silly mambo-jambo of the sort.

Neither the societies from the wealthier countries accept it nor the ones from the poorer countries. The wealthier see further integration as something which will dig deeper unto their pockets on top of what these countries have contributed to European coesion during the last decades. The poorer countries, right now, see Germany as the source for all their trouble and see further integration as a way for Germany to boss them around even more than they feel Germany does today.

At the beginning the Euro wasn't supposed to be as widely extended as it later became. Italy was to be the line in the sand. However then prime-minister of Spain, José Maria Aznar, torpedoed this thinking when he placed Spain en route to comply with the criteria for adopting the Euro. Now, if Spain was accepted then Italy couldn't possible stay out neither could Portugal. Greece soon followed and in the end the adoption of the euro became mandatory for all EU countries except for the United Kingdom and Denmark which both have opt-outs. All other countries must, eventually, join the common currency.

Without Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy the Euro wouldn't need any prop-up. Quite the opposite in fact for the Euro without these countries would be way too strong and only with time and the normal functioning of the currency markets would weaken it a bit. But, in any event, it would be a much stronger currency than nowadays. The question now becomes if such strong currency would be adequate for the likes of France or, right now, Finland or if even this smaller version of the Euro would be too big. There are several lunacies in the Euro and this is just one of them. One of the reasons why it couldn't possibly function in the long term.

and now it looks like we are getting Turkey in the affray with a nice bit of blackmailing of the EU, marvellous, so pleased we are an island and still have border control

Wayne

__________________
The Balkans
https://new.horizonsunlimited.com/poi_entity/8417

I imagine that the UK PM has his fingers crossed that this one hangs together for a few more months.

It's just about a week since the UK PM pressed the flesh, again, with the Frenchman for building a nuclear power plant to provide about 7% of the UK future power requirement at a unit charge nearly 3x greater than current pricing for electricity – but it couldn't be anything whatsoever to do with the UK referendum though.
Mr Hollande did say “there will be consequences” in the event of a UK Brexit vote, so maybe he will prop up EDF until after 23 June, but thereafter he has elections next year.
EDF 'confident' Hinkley Point nuclear power station will go ahead - BBC News
Meanwhile a socialist French government that owns 85% of EDF is being asked by EDF to provide financial reassurance for the construction of a UK power generation plant, or they could go bust on this project.

“Imagine British Gas owners Centrica got into financial trouble after sinking billions into a French power station. And then imagine that the bill for rescuing it fell on to (UK) taxpayers. That is essentially the risk facing EDF and the French government”

__________________
Dave

There is another possibility, and that would be the renewed establishment of a gold standard.
This is not a subject that I know much about, but there is discussion online about how it could be accomplished, including this commentary from a Belgium:
http://www.jcaschipper.nl/2013/07/dr...gold/#more-634

Then, there is the BofE interest in developing their own crypto-currency which would put the central bank in a strong position to eventually banish paper cash; the RScoin.
https://thestack.com/cloud/2016/03/1...native-rscoin/

__________________
Dave