[PopeBuckfastXVI]

Originally Posted by Wibbs

Even as members of the EU the EU our biggest export market by far is the UK

Not true, if you take the UK against the rest of the EU you'll see that we export far more to the rest of the EU, and of course, EU membership, which Britain also has, does nothing to impede our trade with Britain, and in fact helps it by not necessitating another set of trade agreements outside of the EU.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/rel...de_jan2012.pdf

Edit: just to note that we export as much to Belgium as we do to the UK, if we want to look at individual countries only.

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by Wibbs

I disagree, in the case of scenario 3 the demographics would be the same and said workers would likely be even cheaper, if not close to the cheapest in Europe. Also English speaking with huge cultural and trade links with both the US and UK. Even as members of the EU the EU our biggest export market by far is the UK and Ireland in the mid noughties was the world's most profitable country for US companies and is still up there. We're far more entwined in cultural and practical terms with Boston and Birmingham than Bonn or Barcelona, even if personally(as I would) we would prefer the latter.

But we'd still have been outside the EU's tariff wall, not inside.

Originally Posted by Wibbs

There's another scenario. If the EEC existed and Ireland was a part of that, but the EEC didn't start adding/removing letters to get to the EU and the Euro. For me we gained great advantage from being in the EEC, but that advantage went tits up when we bought into the Euro. Now the usual europhiles will likely say(in essence) that it was all our fault and nothing to do with the euro. Of course it's nothing to do with the euro, blah blah ad nauseum . Sure, we are partly to blame, with successive governments pissing taxes up the walls and too many of our population buying into the madness. However the Euro most certainly added petrol to that fire. Gallons of it. Lakes of it. Forget Ireland, look to Spain.

There is certainly a tendency to point out that the current crisis isn't even slightly confined to euro countries, and not all euro countries have a crisis - which means someone claiming that the euro was the problem has some further explaining to do.

Originally Posted by Wibbs

Some seem to regard Spain as another Greece in the making, another "PIIG", more feckless Latins ahoy, but slight problem with that. Spain was about the most stingy government in the EU, even more so than Germany. Their government debts were half that of Germany's. It also was earning more in tax than it was spending(even with health and other services we could only dream of) and was paying off government debts. On the borrowing front Spain(unlike Germany) stayed within the 3% limit every single year from the euro's creation until the late naughties. Their government did everything or damn close to right. What the Europhiles rightly claim was our fcuked up government spending didn't happen there, so what changed?

Our government's spending wasn't what got us into trouble! It was their inappropriate policy responses to globally low interest rates, their inappropriate (OK, frankly insane) policy responses to the property bubble, and their decision to make Ireland a financial services hub that was the problem. You know our Financial Regulator was statutorily tasked with promoting Ireland as a financial services destination?

Originally Posted by Wibbs

The euro comes along with borrowing interest rates tagged to Germany(and to a lesser degree France). So - and it gets real familiar here - People started taking out loans and fueled a big oul property boom to it's all too inevitable bust. Even though the Spanish government tried to calm it down in ways suggested we should have . One of the biggest commonalities of the nations now in trouble is that interest rates fell to their lowest in each nations modern history when they joined the euro. This fueled mad spending, either/or public or private, drove up wages etc and the rest is history.

The EEC was a mutually beneficial entity for all concerned for the most part, the EU and especially the euro much less so.

Again,the problem is that global interest rates were low, not just euro interest rates - and Irish property saw its biggest rises before we joined the euro, not after.

No offence intended, Wibbs, but this is the very shallowest of analysis you're offering here, which completely fails to explain how non-euro countries like Iceland ended up in exactly the same place as we did, while other small eurozone countries didn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[Wibbs]

Originally Posted by PopeBuckfastXVI

Edit: just to note that we export as much to Belgium as we do to the UK, if we want to look at individual countries only.

Not according to the overall figures on page 24 of that document. UK and NI amount to 1300000 odd, compared to 1200000 for Belgium and our imports from the UK are quadruple anywhere else in the EU. Our exports to the US are in the order of 1500000 plus.

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

But we'd still have been outside the EU's tariff wall, not inside.

True enough. That's why I said I would have preferred that the EEC/EC continued on, but not the great one size fits all euro currency experiment(with the aim of an even more federal Europe).

There is certainly a tendency to point out that the current crisis isn't even slightly confined to euro countries, and not all euro countries have a crisis - which means someone claiming that the euro was the problem has some further explaining to do.

Of course it's not confined to the Eurozone. That's not the point. The point is the Euro exacerbated the problem in certain economies. Hence I said "the Euro most certainly added petrol to that fire". You'll note I didn't say it started it. BTW in your scenario how did we get access to low interest rates in the first place? Interest rates were high in the late 90's here(and in Spain and Portugal). Nothing to do with the Euro being backed by the main players in Europe with their own low interest rates and seen as good investments?

Our government's spending wasn't what got us into trouble! It was their inappropriate policy responses to globally low interest rates, their inappropriate (OK, frankly insane) policy responses to the property bubble, and their decision to make Ireland a financial services hub that was the problem. You know our Financial Regulator was statutorily tasked with promoting Ireland as a financial services destination?

My point was that Spain didn't do any of that, yet trace a graph of their property boom(house prices more than tripled in the same period as our boom), rising labour costs et al and it strongly follows the introduction of the Euro.

Again,the problem is that global interest rates were low, not just euro interest rates - and Irish property saw its biggest rises before we joined the euro, not after.

For a couple of reasons and it wasn't the biggest rise BTW or the initial rise is not quite how it seems. Irish property was considered one of the most undervalued in Europe, the initial rise was much more of an adjustment. This also came on the back of one of the youngest populations in Europe(many returning from abroad), with increased prosperity from multinational investment(little of it European in nature). Economic brakes such as high interest rates that fell to the floor in the wake of the Euro's introduction had a huge effect. To deny that is just as daft as those who say "twas all the bankers Joe".

No offence intended, Wibbs, but this is the very shallowest of analysis you're offering here, which completely fails to explain how non-euro countries like Iceland ended up in exactly the same place as we did, while other small eurozone countries didn't.

Show me any EU country that at the time of the Euro's introduction was in economic growth with high employment, whose interest rates fell to the floor that isn't suffering today. Dropping interest rates in a rising economy is beyond daft and that wouldn't have happened to nearly the same degree if we had stuck with the punt(and the Spanish the peseta). To deny that is to deny economics 101

[PopeBuckfastXVI]

Originally Posted by Wibbs

Not according to the overall figures on page 24 of that document. UK and NI amount to 1300000 odd, compared to 1200000 for Belgium and our imports from the UK are quadruple anywhere else in the EU. Our exports to the US are in the order of 1500000 plus.

It seems to me that the UK do better out of us than we do out of them then.

Yes Belgium is slightly less, but very much comparable, it gives lie to the myth that our exports to the UK far outweigh our exports to anywhere else. Again I'll point out that overall the rest of the EU account for multiples of our exports to the UK, which you may have overlooked.

[Wibbs]

Originally Posted by PopeBuckfastXVI

It seems to me that the UK do better out of us than we do out of them then.

Yes Belgium is slightly less, but very much comparable, it gives lie to the myth that our exports to the UK far outweigh our exports to anywhere else. Again I'll point out that overall the rest of the EU account for multiples of our exports to the UK, which you may have overlooked.

No I didn't. Plus I have no issue at all with the idea of a Europe based on something like the EEC. I did and do have an issue with increasing federalisation. BTW it's little to do with "ze germanz R taking over" BS. It's to do with the economics of a more fiscally allied Europe and the problems that brings. One size can't fit all. It doesn't fit all in a significantly more homogenised nation like the US. They share a language, they share pretty damn similar political and economic ideals, their workers are fully mobile and can go where the work is, they simply trust each other more as "fellow 'Murkins". While the EU is catching up in some respects, it's got a long way to go on these points. On the trust front look how the stronger EU nations tend to look on the weaker. There's a lot of "them and us" going on. Opinion polls in Germany and France show this pretty clearly. People are generally dubious about giving their hard earned to those they feel little or no connection with. Understandably.

You will always have a greater tendency to have losers and winners in such a set up. When one country needs to lower or heighten interest rates or needs to print more or less money because it's advantageous to do so, they can't in such a system and problems are much more likely to accelerated than not. Yes there are other economic tools that can help, but a Euro like currency quite simply reduces the amount of tools a government/national bank have at their disposal. That's quite simply undeniable.

It's equally shíte for the "winners" too as they end up footing the bill of the losers. Look at what Germany's people will quite likely have to do to save the currency(if they can). For something they had feck all to do with causing(except as a side effect, though some German banks needed to cop on). They're facing either pumping more of their money into the pot, printing more money, looking down the barrel of inflation(a cultural rubicon up there with Irish people being evicted).

Trying to shoehorn a single currency across many different nations and cultures(even just on the economic front) was always gonna be a hard sell and an even harder fit. Christ the ineptitude shown from the very start shows this. Why wasn't Greece(among others) spotted for having hooky books? Highly qualified and expensive accountants, economists, bankers and bureaucrats signed off on that, when even a half decent small business bookkeeper would have asked questions. Ditto for Portugal. While the Irish government lost the run of themselves and no mistake, the various EU powers that be weren't exactly sporting egg free faces. If we are going down the road of a more US of E(and this crisis may well help that along) that hardly bodes well for the future.

[DanDan6592]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

and their decision to make Ireland a financial services hub that was the problem. You know our Financial Regulator was statutorily tasked with promoting Ireland as a financial services destination?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just curious as to why this was a bad thing?

[swampgas]

Originally Posted by DanDan6592

Just curious as to why this was a bad thing?

It could be a serious conflict of interest - regulation and promotion are not always compatible.

Stupid example: a regulated company starts making noises about making a big investment, more jobs, more tax revenues etc, but not until some of the regulatory "red tape" is removed.

When the Irish regulator has - by law - two conflicting responsibilities, what do you think the result is going to be?

[DanDan6592]

Originally Posted by swampgas

It could be a serious conflict of interest - regulation and promotion are not always compatible.

Stupid example: a regulated company starts making noises about making a big investment, more jobs, more tax revenues etc, but not until some of the regulatory "red tape" is removed.

When the Irish regulator has - by law - two conflicting responsibilities, what do you think the result is going to be?

A bit of a disaster I'm guessing! Thanks for answering.

[View]

Originally Posted by Wibbs

No I didn't. Plus I have no issue at all with the idea of a Europe based on something like the EEC. I did and do have an issue with increasing federalisation.

Well, the EEC - like the EU - was based on the idea of "an ever closer union". Hence, you can hardly object to the idea behind the EU if the idea behind the EEC was okay - unless that it is an objection to the method of achieving that idea that is the problem?

[Wibbs]

The practice behind the EEC was OK. A looser commonwealth of independent countries, not a more single entity like the EU.