UK prime minister, David Cameron, promised to hold a referendum on whether Great Britain should remain in the EU, but only on two conditions. The first condition, that Cameron be re-elected as prime minister is iffy enough.

The second condition, that Cameron renegotiate the Lisbon Treaty, I said would never happen. And it won’t.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel sealed the fate on that score as Berlin plans to streamline EU but avoid wholesale treaty change.

Berlin is drawing up plans for treaty changes to streamline decision-making in the eurozone, while stopping short of any wholesale renegotiation that would allow the UK to repatriate powers from Brussels.

Although Angela Merkel, German chancellor, has expressed her desire to keep the UK inside the EU, the move being discussed in Berlin would thwart a plan by David Cameron, UK prime minister, to piggyback on eurozone reforms to renegotiate the British relationship with Brussels.

Mr Cameron had hoped to exploit renewed interest in Berlin for wholesale EU treaty changes as a way to renegotiate the UK’s membership terms. But Berlin’s strategy for a new, narrowly focused treaty could force the UK premier into a repeat of the dilemma he faced in December 2011, when Mr Cameron rejected the fiscal compact treaty but most other EU countries went along without him.

Senior German officials acknowledged that they were isolated on treaty change, which is fraught with political landmines in several countries – particularly France, which would probably require a national referendum if major changes were made to EU law.

The timing of treaty changes remains a matter of debate but it could come as early as next year, after elections to the European parliament in May. The way ahead is due to be discussed at a summit next month.

Pinned in the Corner

The sooner Merkel proceeds with her strategy, the better for everyone involved, especially UK citizens. Merkel has effectively preempted Cameron’s strategy in a way he cannot realistically deny.

Since there is now no possible hope of wholesale renegotiation (not that there ever really was in the first place), there is no reason for the UK to avoid a referendum now.

Will Cameron bury his head in the sand like an ostrich once again? We will find out shortly.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Here’s the question of the day: If you have a choice (and you many not for long because companies are abandoning grandfathered plans) Should you skip Obamacare and keep your old plan?

Any policy in place on March 23, 2010, the day health reform was enacted, falls under the grandfather exemption. As the Obama administration put it, if you like your plan, your doctor or both, you can keep them. Last year some 60 percent of employers, large and small, offered at least one grandfathered plan during open enrollment, according to the Kaiser survey. New employees can also join a grandfathered plan so long as the company has maintained consecutive enrollment in it.

For old plans as well as new ones, premiums are likely to rise next year – though the old plans still could be considerably more affordable than the newer ones.

Technically, a plan can stay grandfathered indefinitely, but few, if any, will. Most grandfathered plans have gone away already, according to the human-resources consultancy Mercer, which estimates only about a third of employers are expected to offer one in 2013.

Across the board, it is costs that will lead to the disappearance of most grandfathered plans. If employers or individual plans want to keep grandfathered status, they will have little leeway to pass higher costs along to policyholders. Any policy that increases co-payments, deductibles or co-insurance forfeits its grandfathered status.

Comparison Points

• Grandfathered plans don’t have to provide full, co-payment-free coverage of preventive services, such as flu shots, mammograms and cholesterol screenings.
• Grandfathered plans don’t have to cover a government-designated “essential benefits package” of procedures and treatments.
• Grandfathered plans may require prior authorization for out-of-network emergency care, unlike with new plans.
• Grandfathered policies bought by individuals carry their own exclusions, like a $750,000 annual cap on reimbursement for the aforementioned essential benefits, including hospitalization, emergency services or pediatric care.
• The online insurance broker eHealthInsurance found that premiums were 47 percent higher and deductibles were 27 percent lower than for individual plans that will incorporate all of PPACA’s new rules.
• Average monthly premiums for individuals in plans without the newly required benefits — the closest equivalent to grandfathered plans — were $190 versus $279. Average deductibles for individuals were $2,257 versus $3,079.

Obamacare Lie:  “You Can Keep Your Existing Plan”

That difference in monthly premiums of $190 vs. $279 will entice many to keep their existing plan, assuming it is still offered. However, that setup won’t last very long because companies cannot raise premiums on grandfathered plans.

Simply put, Obama lied when he said “you can keep your existing plan“, knowing full well the law was purposely written to make sure that would not happen over time.

Eventually you will be stuck with a new Obamacare plan and higher premiums whether you like your existing plan or not.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Overnight action in gold and silver was interesting to say the least. Silver plunged 10% and was halted four times in a flash crash, of sorts, yet is now in the green.

Silver 10-Minute Chart

click on chart for sharper image

Silver hit as low as $20.25 and as high as $23.24. The maximum rally from the low was 14.8%

Gold 10-Minute Chart

click on chart for sharper image

Action in gold was also pronounced, but not quite as wild as silver. Gold fell $25 from the open but is now up $22 and and in the second-to-last 1–minute candle (about 10 minutes ago from this posting) was up another $10.

Time to Give Up Hope?

Louise Yamada says it’s Time for Gold Bulls to Abandon Hope. Is it? I think most already have. There is amazing pessimism in the sector already, and abandonment of hope is what it takes to set a bottom.

Are We There Yet?

I don’t know if we have reached the point of extreme pessimism yet, but nor does anyone else.

Are we close? I believe so.

Large Specs Trim Gold, Silver Net Longs

Please consider Large Specs Trim Gold, Silver Net Longs.

Large speculators continued to pare their net bullish positioning for gold and silver futures and options but increased it for platinum and palladium during the most recent reporting period for data compiled by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Money managers in the CFTC’s “disaggregated” report were net long by 39,216 contracts for futures and options combined, but this is down from 49,260 the prior week and is the lowest tally since this reporting format began in 2009. In the longer-running “legacy” report, the non-commercials – commonly referred to as the funds – cut their net long to 68,942 lots from 78,871 the prior week. This now stands at the lowest level since late 2008.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch pointed out that large speculators continued to unwind long positions. The number of total longs in the disaggregated report fell by 2,986, while the number in the legacy report fell by 5,284.

Further, speculators continue to add short positions, pointed out UBS and TD Securities. TDS said this is occurring amid concerns the Federal Reserve may taper its monetary stimulus, thereby weighing on sentiment. Money managers added 7,057 fresh shorts, while non-commercials added 4,645. UBS reported that total speculative gross short positions in gold are at a record high and double the level from the start of the year.

Meanwhile, net speculative length rose for the platinum group metals. Standard Bank described these metals as “experiencing supply-side distress” that means more potential for increased investor demand.

Money managers bumped up their platinum net length to 23,703 lots from 21,819 the previous week, while non-commercials increased this to 32,734 from 30,641. In both cases, this was largely due to fresh buying. Money managers added 1,421 new long positions, while non-commercials added 1,247.

In percentage terms, the decline from just over 1900 to the $1325 area is just a normal looking correction. Yet, fund speculation is at the lowest level since 2008.

While not a timing mechanism, pessimism seems rather extreme for such a normal looking correction.

Nothing has changed fundamentally as irrational exuberance abounds in nearly all the equity and bond markets, all running on nothing but momentum and unwarranted faith in the Fed to keep the bubbles expanding.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

The threat by the EU to impose huge tariffs on solar panels from China has run into staunch opposition. The Financial Times reports Germany warns EU solar tariffs would be ‘grave mistake’

Germany’s vice-chancellor and economy minister put Berlin on a collision course with Brussels by warning that imposing anti-dumping duties on solar panels from China would be a “grave mistake”.

Philipp Rösler’s statement came as Germany’s leading manufacturing industry organisation also called for urgent negotiations with China to head off the threatened import duties, which are expected to be announced formally by the European Commission in early June.

The comments risk undermining Karel De Gucht, the trade commissioner, as he faces off against Beijing in the EU’s largest ever trade case, based on the €21bn of solar products China exported to Europe in 2011.

Mr De Gucht has recommended that such products face duties averaging 47 per cent after concluding that Chinese manufacturers illegally dumped their products, or sold them below cost, in Europe.

In an interview with the Welt am Sonntag newspa per, Mr Rösler said that “punitive duties are the wrong instrument” to deal with the dispute. “German industry is quite rightly very concerned” about the threatened action, he said, and its potential for retaliatory action by China affecting German exports.

A study commissioned by a group known as the Alliance of Affordable Solar Energy claimed that more than 242,000 jobs would be put at risk in Europe if punitive tariffs were imposed.

The commission’s own review, seen by the Financial Times, heaped doubt on those figures, predicting the negative impact would be far more limited.

Damage of Tariffs

I do not believe it is possible to accurately predict the damage caused by inane tariffs. Much depends on how China would respond. But even if China did not respond, there is no advantage to artificially forcing up prices.

Tariffs are simply a bad idea, period. As I have pointed out, much of the European overcapacity that led to the price crash was caused by European subsidies.

Somehow it is OK for Europe to offer subsidies but not China. EU policy is also hypocritical in regards to its stated emphasis on clean energy. For further discussion, please see Paul Krugman “Was” Right.

Yet Another Reason for UK to Exit EU

Note the continual bickering by Germany with the EU and
with France over trade, over eurobonds, over a political union, over
agricultural policy, over everything.

Why Cameron wants the UK to stay in the EU is a complete mystery, especially when the UK fears additional nannycrat idiocies like financial transaction taxes.

Fortunately the UK tide is changing, as a recent Poll Shows 46% in UK Want to Exit EU, 30% Want to Stay In.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

The Local, a website with German news in English reports Economists warn against German euro exit.

“Even a believable rumour that Germany would exit the euro would result in a massive capital flight from the countries of southern Europe to Germany.”

The southern European banking system would then collapse, bringing down entire economies with them, Schmieding said.

The consequences for Germany would be severe. The crisis countries could no longer pay back their debt and Germany’s important export markets would drop off. On top of that German taxpayers would be burdened with immense costs, he said.

On the other hand if you add up the expected growth advantages of euro membership between 2013 and 2025 there would be a profit of nearly €1.2 trillion – or about half Germany’s gross domestic product in a year.

Thomas Straubhaar of the Hamburg HWWI economic institute thinks a return to the D-mark would be “a worst possible scenario.”

“An upward valuation of the D-mark and an accompanying devaluation of the euro would result in a massive debt forgiveness of all other euro-countries – with the costs of that picked up by Germany. This could lead to a currency war and the end of monetary stability.”

Complete Rubbish

As is typically the case in such articles, the eurozone proponents ignore the costs of staying in the euro and overly trump up the benefits. The article perpetuates the myth that German taxpayers will suffer the consequences of a breakup, but suffer no costs if the eurozone stays intact.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have pointed out on many occasions, Germany is going to pay a steep price either way, and so will Europe.

The cost to Europe on the current path will be another decade of Southern European depression, resentment, and capital controls. Somewhere along the line, citizens in one or more countries will decide they have had enough, and vote to exit the Euro anyway.

It is a huge mistake to believe Germany can impose its will on Southern Europe forever while not paying through the nose with eurobonds or other transfer mechanisms. If Germany returns to the D-mark, it will get paid back in cheaper Euros, but it least its stands a chance of getting paid back.

On the other hand, target-2 imbalances are so great the cost of a destructive piecemeal splintering of the eurozone coupled with outright default, will be much higher.

Many economists don’t see this simply because they do not want to.   

Should France Lead Breakup of Euro?

I have argued that the best way to breakup the eurzone would be a German exit. Politically speaking that could be doable once Merkel is gone. But then aagin, perhaps not.

The problem is Germany has been the biggest beneficiary of this failed experiment, and will not give up those benefits easily, even if mathematically it must eventually (and destructively) happen anyway.

In a Bloomberg column, authors Brigitte Granville, Hans-Olaf Henkel, and Stefan Kawalec argue France Must Lead Breakup of Euro

Many observers concede that the euro was a mistake but think there’s no going back. They reckon that dissolving the monetary union would lead to economic chaos, first in Europe, and then around the world. European leaders are afraid that backtracking on the euro project would also be a lethal blow to the larger cause of European integration and could be the beginning of the end of the EU and the single market. These fears give rise to what we regard as the disastrous strategy of defending the euro at all costs.

Although a controlled segmentation of the euro system through the exit of the most competitive countries would actually be the most effective way to help the deficit countries, it could still be seen as a decision by the strong to abandon the weak. Europe’s history makes it difficult for Germany’s leaders to initiate such a move.
Protecting France

The deficit countries, struggling with recession and internal political divisions, and trying to get better terms for assistance from the rest of the EU, might be afraid of worsening their negotiating position by taking the lead. EU institutions, such as the European Commission and the ECB, couldn’t propose the solution we advocate.

French leadership in advancing this idea might work — and could be the only thing that will. France has played the leading role in EU integration for more than 50 years. The euro is very much a French product.

In 1990, President Francois Mitterrand won Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s support for the single European currency in exchange for France’s acceptance of German unification. Persuading Germany to give up the deutsche mark, whose strength had given the Bundesbank de facto control of monetary policy throughout Europe, was a remarkable French success — or so France believed.

The euro was seen as the ultimate underpinning for the edifice of European integration. The financial crisis and its aftermath have shown that the euro instead has the potential to destroy the whole project. It impedes the reforms necessary to restore France’s fading international competitiveness. Retaining the present euro system whatever the cost will cripple the French economy, undo French social cohesion, and weaken France’s position in Europe and the world.

As Europe’s founding father, only France has the standing to advocate a strategy of dismantling the euro system for the sake of the European Union. The alternative is economic failure, deeper divisions and bitter resentments among Europe’s nations, putting the most valuable achievements of European integration at risk. One way or another, Europe’s house will be divided.

The question is how much, or how little, this division will sweep away. Splitting the euro in the way we advocate is vital to the survival of the European idea.

(Brigitte Granville is a professor of international economics and economic policy in the School of Business and Management at Queen Mary University of London. Hans-Olaf Henkel is a professor of international management at the University of Mannheim and a former president of the Federation of German Industries. Stefan Kawalec is chief executive officer of Capital Strategy and a former vice minister of finance in Poland. The authors are signatories of the European Solidarity Manifesto.

Read Part One – Save Europe: Split the Euro. The opinions expressed are their own.)

The authors present an interesting viewpoint, well worth a closer look.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com