JPM Warns UK Referendum More Likely In 2016 Than 2017 - The Pros & Cons Of Brexit

Tyler Durden's picture

JPMorgan expects U.K. won’t delay the promised in out referendum on EU membership until 2017 but will put the issue to vote in late 2016 instead. Given the ruling Conservatives have only a small majority, any legislation could fail if euro skeptics within the party vote against it, suggesting the party leadership will want to get the issue resolved sooner rather than later. The prospect of a vote could weigh on the economy, again arguing for an earlier vote, so here are the pros and cons of Brexit simplified...

 

via HSBC

JPMorgan goes on to note that

Cameron initially said the vote would happen before the end of 2017 to give the govt time to renegotiate with other EU members

 

Since it seems unlikely Treaty revisions will take place within that timeframe and there’s limited room for the U.K. to secure any deep change, there may be strategic reasons to hold the referendum in late 2016, JPMorgan says

 

France, traditionally less sympathetic to U.K. concerns than Germany, has presidential elections in early 2017, suggesting there’s little chance of any significant concessions.

Source: ValueWalk

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

I'm  rooting for the USexit 

BoPeople's picture
BoPeople (not verified) May 21, 2015 1:52 AM

If JPM is directing the actions of the UK government then most likely a referendum will happen to JPM's timetable. However, my guess is that the people of the UK would prefer to have that referendum tomorrow.

q99x2's picture
  • Arrest Jamie Dimon
  • Send him to Somalia
  • Liquidate JP Morgue
  • Convert existing JP Morgue offices into free range chicken ranches.
Ghordius's picture

The biggest pro in the case of a BreXit is that finally, finally, Britons would stop moaning about the EU

... oh. wait. that might sound like a con, then Britons love moaning, even more then breathing. never mind, 'nuff said

it's anyway impossible for Britons not to be forever wary of that strange continent that borders their English Channel

smacker's picture

Just think Ghordius ...when the EU finally collapses and all those expensive Euro-crats are sent home to find something useful to do, Europe's economic recovery begins the following day.

Ghordius's picture

smacker, you simply aren't serious when it comes to the EU, that red flag that makes your blood boil

fact is that continentals do not want the full globalized open economy that your country, the UK, preaches since the Victorian Age

the EU to collapse? possible, but only if there is an alternative. and I have yet to find any Briton that has an alternative in mind or in proposal

you Britons spend half of your time trying to break down barriers and boundaries... and the other half moaning about the results of that

just leave the EU and fend off for yourselves in the fully globalized borderless world economy, and stop moaning about us having a different opinion

but of course... that would mean less access to our markets, eh? except that of course the "classic" Briton does not see markets to belong to anybody

smacker's picture

The Pros/Cons chart is a banker's view, not a "people" view.

Cameron doesn't want to leave the EU but so far has kept his personal opinion a closely guarded secret.

As I have long predicted, the EU and Cameron will do a lot of huffing and puffing over negotiations to give the impression that they are tough. Cameron will achieve a couple of hard-won minor concessions (perhaps to do with immigration) which he'll big-up with help from large parts of obedient MSM (eg Sky News). He'll then go to the country and recommend support to stay in.

On the other hand, if the EU takes a very hard line and fails to move one inch, Cameron will be flummoxed and may recommend exiting the EU out of spite. But this is a very unlikely outcome.

 

Ghordius's picture

I'd say it's simple: it's all the EU's fault. according to your theory, the EU should take a very hard line versus Cameron

on the other side... he tells everybody that he wants to reform the EU... but has no clear proposal, yet. how do you take a hard line against... unclear proposals?

the clearest signal that the Cameron Cabinet has taken against "european" institutions is that he wants to take the UK out of the Human Rights "club" of europe

and there... you yourself think that it's... a bit strange, if not even worrysome

Cameron's problem is the same of the average Englishman versus the EU: no freaking clear idea what it is, just a vague feeling that it isn't British enough

(humming the inofficial anthem of the EU while writing those lines, though it morphed to the "Britannia Rules The Waves" while I was doing it. well, both unofficial anthems)

smacker's picture

Well, you already know I have mixed feelings about the EU myself.

On the one hand ...we have a British system of government that is out of control (witness Gordoom Brown pouring GBP countless billions of taxpayers' into the banks when his debt scam imploded, without any approval from anybody), and which has operated virtually without constraint for centuries due to there not being a meaningful Constitution. Because Cromwell failed us big time. It's no wonder Parliament has a larger than life statue of him outside their vipers nest.

This results in democratic dictatorship of the majority by the minority. Cameron governs today with less than 21% of the eligible vote. And as I've said before, if a British government wanted to pass a law banning me from eating sausages for breakfast on spurious health grounds, it could do so. It just needs Parliament's nodding donkeys to agree. Brits do not have inalienable Rights, they have rights granted to them by government which can be taken away at any time as we saw under the fascist Blair and his evil cronies.

On the other hand ...we have the EU which has contempt for democracy, accountability, financial controls and is utterly corrupt. But it does manage to reign in some of the excesses of British governments. Sadly it sometimes replaces them with EU excesses which are no better.

It's a tough choice.

Ghordius's picture

well, my advice would be: have a written constitution, have a proportional electoral law and then... leave the EU and find out how it is

meanwhile, I find your "the EU which has contempt for democracy, accountability, financial controls and is utterly corrupt" only half-right, i.e. half-wrong

the EU has a lot of contempt for financial controls, yes, with it's still non-audited accounts (reminiscent of the FED)

but accountability? hello? it's a club where members are fully armed sovereign states like the UK or Germany, both spying illegally on the EU org itself on behalf of the NSA, which then feeds this info to megacorps still trying to pry that oyster, pardon me, market open for megabusiness like that the US Secretary wants us to adopt, complete with GMO food and the private tribunals of the TTIP

keep an eye on the broader picture, will you?

RadioactiveRant's picture

Cameron doesn't want to leave the EU, but I dont think the media will help him keep the UK in.

Rupert hates the EU (he's pressured every PM since Major to exit), as does Richard Desmond (hes a financial backer of Ukip), and you don't have to waste long reading the Daily Mail to see what Viscount Rothermere thinks on the subject. The only media organisation that will support remaining in the EU is the Guardian and possibly the Independent (although a Russian owned rag might like to see its enemy broken up).

Also, as the Scottish Nationalists have demonstrated, a failed referendum doesn't necessarily mean defeat.

smacker's picture

I mentioned Sky News because although it has connections to Murdoch, it also has connections to Cameron's crowd, notably Jeremy Hunt. They want to take the BBC down a peg or two by sharing out the licence fee between other news organs and spread the PSB role more widely. But this will only happen if Sky plays good boy and does what it's told.

Then you have the BBC itself which gets some funding from the EU and is stuffed full of EU-fanatics anyway.

As for the printed MSM, I agree with you.

nicxios's picture
Germans propose linking the British renegotiation to Eurozone reform

 

Make it very attractive so the PIIGS settle there too and out of the euro.

GFORCE's picture

Don't let yourselves get dragged into the faux-democracy of a Brexit once more. This vote is already done and is likely why there are a barrage of calls to bring it early.

Britain's vote will go the way of scottish and catalan independence, which were manipulated to suit the Washington/Brussels agenda. No country will leave Europe now and Britain, regardless of what the polls say will stay in.

Ghordius's picture

your view does not explain why Scotland is mostly pro-EU

the funniest and most tragic thing about the Scottish independence drive is that roughly half of Scotland would prefer to exit the UK and stay in the EU

and this is the same in Catalonia, and many other independentist parts of the EU

they generally don't want to leave the EU, they want to leave their current political unions and be independent... while members of the EU club

smacker's picture

Totally agree.

What Brits will not realise is that they won't get another chance for a very long time, save the serious possibility that the EU implodes anyway. Labour will never offer a vote because they're all committed to it because it's a socialist gravy train and they love socialist gravy trains.

Enkidu78's picture

I think Ghordius is a paid EU shill, they actively employ them over here. The people want out, the ones that want to stay in haven't woken up to the propaganda that they are fed with everyday. 

Ghordius's picture

Enkidu78, and I think that you have a trollish side that you love to bring out here on ZH

take your "The EU is unelected, rah, rah" dogma

you still have not explained what you would like to see elected, in the EU setup

I'll help you: the EU is set up in three parts:

the EU Council, which is the "boss" and initiator of everything "EU". nothing is initiated elsewhere

the EU Parliament, which is the "co-boss" and has the right to approve or not. nothing moves without it's ok

the EU Commission, which works for both (like ministers in cabinets) and manages the bureaucracy of the "EU-org" (30'000 employees)

so, which parts would you like to see elected by the peoples of Europe? one, two, all three? I'm very curious to read from you about this

RadioactiveRant's picture

I'm broadly pro European, but one of my biggest gripes with the set up is that the Parliament is powerless - its votes are non-binding, which makes the election of MEPs a bit of a sham. It's also telling that the same band of accountants that signed off Enron, Madoff and Tesco refuse to approve EU accounts, yet the EU takes the fiscal high ground at every opportunity.

Ghordius's picture

RadioactiveRant, that's wrong, I fear. The EU Parliament's only difference to the National Parliaments is that it is not allowed to propose new laws or directives

I have no idea where you took that "non-binding" from

personally, I think this is the right way in order to keep the confederational setup. EU initiatives have to come from the member countries, not the central org/parliament

the EU Parliament has to stay in a junior position versus the national parliaments, a daughter of many mothers. otherwise you are arguing for a federal solution

the EU Accounts? funny stuff, eh? another reason not to allow a federal setup. the seven-year EU Budget is an allowance from the member countries

jjws's picture

Nothing like our Parliament - I've watched both in action. Also we elect representatives to our Parliament for Europe the members are appointed according to lists. 

Hank Reardon's picture

UK would undoubtedly benefit from exiting the EU which has become a bloated undemocratic greedy whore for socialists/ statists with illusions of power on the world stage but without any muscle or willpower to face reality. Look at the continual failure to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and lack of budgetary audits as examples of the corruption of this evil hydra behemoth.

Naively as a youth I used to believe that only through political integration could the world's issues be resolved. Now I see that whenever bureaucrats have influence and power all they want to do is wield their egos and feather their own nests. Complex organisations are ever the same, the organisation itself is more important that it's raison d'etre.

SparticusUK's picture

Spot the shill

If  the EU wants member states to keep increasing contributions then its time the accounts were made public. Spending by the EU appartchiks must be made a matter of public record.

 

This sort of waste of public money has to stop :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-t...

Ghordius's picture

and is Mr. Cameron, the PM of the UK, banging his handbag on the table of the EU Council and asking for more transparency and accountability in the financial accounts of the EU?

oh, that would bring in the old debate about the big special EU discount that the UK enjoys, eh? brought you by Maggie Tatcher's handbag. bah, the Telegraph as a source...

writingsonthewall's picture

The europhobes have to focus on the EU waste - it distracts them from the far greater waste created by ther local and national government!

Hank Reardon's picture

I feel sorry for those that think the way forward is ever more government control and regulation. Suggesting reading Kafka....

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

the main outcome of .gov is More .gov..EU or USA or any nation, can anyone name a .gov that got smaller over time?? w/o violence that is.. along with the expansion of .gov is the need beaurocracy..complex regulations and laws metastasize, which by magic require more beaurocrats to run the citizens lives.

The EU is nothing but a welfare for these connected beaurocrats living better than the ave citizen they "serve"..Ghordo falls in the beaurocracy tit some where. he is paid to not notice.

 

writingsonthewall's picture

I see one of the 'pros' for leaving is that JPM claim that immigration has grown faster than infastructure.

 

What shit analysis - the immigration has not increased, the infastructure has declined due to cuts

 

Typical of a bank, playing games with the truth to suit it's own ends. How does anyone trust the analysis of a bank which has manipulated fx, gold and interest rate markets for it's own enrichment?

 

If the UK leaves the EU - I wouldn't count on JPM keeping their european office here lol