EU: The Future

MalteseBarry

Here in the UK, there is a growing feeling that to leave the EU would be more than beneficial to the UK than to remain in what is seen as an expensive, wasteful and bossy institution. There is little love for the EU, and the British public just don’t trust the EU, nor do they see the supposed benefits of remaining in the EU. The EU is seen as unresponsive and bureaucratic, and wanting to amass more and more power to itself.

The 2010 Eurobarometer poll, shows that many in even Germany now distrust the EU, and also shows a majority in Ireland and England also distrust the EU.

There is a growing view that the EU is meddlesome and close to or worse than useless, and that to leave the EU and negotiate a trade agreement with the single market would have benefits. Not having to contribute to the EU budget would save double the coalition’s proposed tax cuts, would free industry from the shackles of unnecessary EU legislation, thus revitilising industry and reducing employment.

It appears dissatisfaction is growing in most of the older members, who also contribute most of the funding, and it will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. A smart betting man might be well advised to lay some money on the EU not being around in the form in which we know it in a few years time.

later12

MalteseBarry wrote: »

The 2010 Eurobarometer poll, shows that many in even Germany now distrust the EU

The UK mistrust of the EU is neither new nor surprising, much as is the case with France. I imagine the German, Austrian and Greek sense of mistrust is as much down to the bailout debates, as this was the big issue around the time of the survey you refer to being carried out.

There is a growing view that the EU is meddlesome and close to or worse than useless, and that to leave the EU and negotiate a trade agreement with the single market would have benefits. Not having to contribute to the EU budget would save double the coalition’s proposed tax cuts, would free industry from the shackles of unnecessary EU legislation, thus revitilising industry and reducing employment.

I studied in the UK and have long agreed that Euroscepticism is the UK's most sensible approach to its relationship with Europe. I am baffled that there is much support remaining at all, and can only conclude that this is down to the public's disillusion with domestic policymakers.

However, the same cannot be said of Ireland where a positive attitude towards the EU and its institutions is more beneficial, not least because of the current debt crisis. Euroscepticism is good for the UK, but it isn't as good a fit for everyone else.

and also shows a majority in Ireland and England also distrust the EU.

That's not really correct. In Ireland, 44% of respondents trusted the EU, 43% did not, and 13% didn't know. So it's much fairer to suggest that the country is divided over the issue of trust. It is also helpful to point out that such a response does not in itself indicate that the same respondents who answered negatively would necessarily wish for Ireland to leave the EU.

Asked what the EU means to them personally, only 11% of Irish respondents said 'waste of money', only 13% said 'bureaucracy' (surprising) and only 15% agreed it meant an erosion of culture. On the other hand, 27% associated it with economic prosperity.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb73/eb73_en.htm

MalteseBarry

later10 wrote: »

On the other hand, 27% associated it with economic prosperity.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb73/eb73_en.htm

I imagine that not many of those 27% would say so today!

My view is that the UK will eventually leave the EU, and the influence of the EU will decline over time.

later12

I think it's possible that the EU will give way to the progress of a more co-ordinated and integrated Eurozone and in that light the EU may become less relevant.

You cannot have a more harmonised Eurozone of the sort that is being advocated without impacting in some way on the single European market. I think the UK will continue to play a part in the EU, but a less relevant one than occurred under Labour led by Tony Blair.

From David Cameron:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2011/02/pm-statement-on-european-council-and-north-africa-60357

...while we shouldn’t prevent Eurozone countries coming together to deal with the problems they face, we must make sure that this doesn’t compromise the single market – which is an important British success story in Europe and remains one of our key interests.

There is a danger here which is that in developing stronger co-ordination Eurozone countries start affecting things that are more properly part of the single market of all EU members.

shadowninty

i am happy to have a Tory government try to get EU institutions share the economic effec (to little effect)
The EU needs to be based more on elected representitives, thats for sure - but this may be very diffficult to implement for various reasons

dont get the whole anti-EU thing tho, sure, it needs changing - but ending it would be terrible in so many ways

djpbarry

shadowninty wrote: »

The EU needs to be based more on elected representitives, thats for sure...

The principal decision-making “organs” of the EU, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, both consist of elected representatives – I’m not sure the EU can really be much more “based on elected representatives” than it already is.

shadowninty

djpbarry wrote: »

The principal decision-making “organs” of the EU, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, both consist of elected representatives – I’m not sure the EU can really be much more “based on elected representatives” than it already is.

what i mean is that the parliament needs more power

djpbarry

shadowninty wrote: »

what i mean is that the parliament needs more power

At the expense of? National governments?

shadowninty

djpbarry wrote: »

At the expense of? National governments?

sure if its neccessary - we elected them, I have no problem with the idea (tho I might with the powers being transferred. I'd like to see the council having less power too

caseyann

If you check out the latest.You would be right.
THE cost of living is set to soar with hikes in fuel prices, mortgage repayments and groceries.

The cost of petrol looks set to rise to €1.60 per litre by the weekend on top of a 7pc rise in food prices at the till.

Add this to the massive increases in mortgage rates in the months ahead and Irish consumers are set for a long, hard spring.

The IMF has warned that the world "may need to get used to higher food prices".

And petrol wholesalers are preparing to introduce a jump of 1c per litre in the price of fuel.

This would mean that a €300,000 mortgage repayment would jump by an additional €126 per month.

It's expected that the ECB rate will rise from 1pc to 1.75pc by the end of the year.

Axel Weber, European Central Bank governor, said that he would not disagree with the market view of where the interest rate is heading -- three separate hikes of 0.25pc.

ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet anticipates the first rise to be as early as next month.

Nevertheless, the main reason for rising demand for food reflects structural changes in the global economy that will not be reversed," they said.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/first-petrol-now-food-prices-starting-to-soar-2571858.html

djpbarry

shadowninty wrote: »

I'd like to see the council having less power too

Why?

caseyann wrote: »

If you check out the latest.You would be right.

Who would be right about what?

shadowninty

djpbarry wrote: »

Why?
Who would be right about what?

I don't feel they should be so in control of Europe's political direction

djpbarry

shadowninty wrote: »

I don't feel they should be so in control of Europe's political direction

But you’re happy enough for the same representatives to be in control of Ireland’s political direction?

shadowninty

djpbarry wrote: »

But you’re happy enough for the same representatives to be in control of Ireland’s political direction?

Ireland is part of Europe, so Europe's political direction deeply effects Ireland, so no, I am not too happy about that

djpbarry

shadowninty wrote: »

Ireland is part of Europe, so Europe's political direction deeply effects Ireland, so no, I am not too happy about that

Ok, I'm confused. You want the EU “to be based more on elected representatives”, but you’re not too happy that elected representatives are “in control” of Ireland’s political direction?

shadowninty

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, I'm confused. You want the EU “to be based more on elected representatives”, but you’re not too happy that elected representatives are “in control” of Ireland’s political direction?

i find that the council of ministers are to concerned about national politics, therefore i want the parliament to have more power at their expense

caseyann

djpbarry wrote: »

Why?
Who would be right about what?

To distrust the EU/imf all of them in all forms.While they call on Ireland to do cuts they talk about raising mortgages and food prices?
What the hell is that about!

View

shadowninty wrote: »

what i mean is that the parliament needs more power

The Parliament (and the European Council) are regarded by political scientist as having been the "big winners" (for want of a better phrase) in the latest reforms of the EU Treaties (by way of the Lisbon Treaty).

At this stage, in approx. 90-95% of cases the EP has co-equal powers with the Council of Ministers. The exceptions are some "sensitive" areas such as a common EU Foreign Policy which remains essentially inter-governmental. Presumably, should the member states find that agreeing a common Foreign Policy becomes easier over time, the EP will be given a greater role in the process as the member states get more comfortable with the process of agreeing common foreign policy positions.

shadowninty

caseyann wrote: »

To distrust the EU/imf all of them in all forms.While they call on Ireland to do cuts they talk about raising mortgages and food prices?
What the hell is that about!

lack of understanding of world FTW!

djpbarry

shadowninty wrote: »

i find that the council of ministers are to concerned about national politics, therefore i want the parliament to have more power at their expense

Fair enough. I don’t think you’re going to find a whole lot of support for that position (that’s not to say that I necessarily disagree with it myself)!

caseyann wrote: »

To distrust the EU/imf all of them in all forms.While they call on Ireland to do cuts they talk about raising mortgages and food prices?
What the hell is that about!

Indeed – do explain how “the EU/IMF all of them” are raising food prices in Ireland?

later12

caseyann wrote: »

To distrust the EU/imf all of them in all forms.While they call on Ireland to do cuts they talk about raising mortgages and food prices?
What the hell is that about!

Firstly, it is the ECB who is about to increase rates due to price pressures - i.e. to combat rising inflation i.e. with the aim to bring about a rate of disinflation or to keep inflation static.

The IMF have absolutely nothing to do with food prices and mortgages.

caseyann

So why are they commenting on it then? Like a comment of stuff you get used to it?

The IMF has warned that the world "may need to get used to higher food prices".
They are all part in parcel of each other and make money off the backs of public and enslaving Irish people into paying back debts they do not own.
Am i right to believe even paying back foreign debt.

djpbarry

caseyann wrote: »

So why are they commenting on it then?

You’re commenting on mortgages and food prices – do you have any control over them?

caseyann wrote: »

Like a comment of stuff you get used to it?

What?

caseyann wrote: »

The IMF has warned that the world "may need to get used to higher food prices".

The IPCC has warned that the world may need to get used to higher temperatures – they obviously control the weather.

caseyann wrote: »

They are all part in parcel of each other and make money off the backs of public and enslaving Irish people into paying back debts they do not own.

It’s real simple. Ireland approached the IMF for funding. Ireland and the IMF agreed a package for said funding. Ireland was under no obligation to accept said package. Ireland now needs to repay, as agreed, any funds it receives from the IMF. Meanwhile, the IMF has no influence on food prices or interest rates in Ireland.

K-9

It's a comment on food prices, I'd have thought.

Bit like when they warned Ireland about our economy and a construction bubble years ago, they call things as they see it.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

It's a comment on food prices, I'd have thought.

Bit like when they warned Ireland about our economy and a construction bubble years ago, they call things as they see it.

It's much like the comment that Ireland couldn't remain a low tax economy - which was interpreted somehow as a diktat to raise our taxes forthwith.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

I'm not sure anyone really understands what s going to happen the Euro, and then the EU. And its quite scary.

Consider that, between them, history shows us that Portugal, Greece & Spain have defaulted on debt a total of 23 times. Greece has spent approximately 50% of the 182 years since it achieved independence in a state of default. Historically, the response of many Eurozone countries to financial crises has been to default and not pay their debts. It's almost in their DNA.

The assumption that no Eurozone countries can, or will, default is simply wrong.

Mr Socrates’s failure to force his austerity package through the Portuguese parliament will be seen by future historians as a crucial turning point, and effectively sticks up two fingers at the EU.

The appalling scale of the problem is uncertain, but what is sure is that it has been gravely underestimated. The EU appears out of its depth and dealing with a situation which is out of its control, hopelessly pretending it knows what it is doing.

Financial chaos, the Euro breaking up, mass unemployment and social unrest are all now more certain than not. The consequences will be truly terrible.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

The appalling scale of the problem is uncertain, but what is sure is that it has been gravely underestimated.

You can't estimate the scale of the problem, but you're sure it's being underestimated? How does that work?

edwinkane

As a post script, I understand William Hague predicted, over ten years ago, that the Euro would be facing the very crises in which it is now embroiled. Then he likened it to being in a burning building with no exits.

Evidently, many banks outside the EU hold the view that it is likely EU sovereign debt is likely to become valueless as this drama unfolds, and that the process of the Euro collapsing will trigger a banking crises across Europe which will plunge the whole area into a prolonged and deep recession.

later12

edwinkane wrote: »

As a post script, I understand William Hague predicted, over ten years ago, that the Euro would be facing the very crises in which it is now embroiled. Then he likened it to being in a burning building with no exits.

From memory I think his exact words were that you cannot have a currency without a government.
That this basic macroeconomic principle nevertheless escaped so many of us who were so enthusiastic about the euro, is actually quite embarrassing.

It is now quite clear that the status quo cannot remain within the Eurozone's structure, much as (ironically) many of the most fervent Europhiles would have it.

edwinkane

later10 wrote: »

From memory I think his exact words were that you cannot have a currency without a government.
That this basic macroeconomic principle nevertheless escaped so many of us who were so enthusiastic about the euro, is actually quite embarrassing.

It is now quite clear that the status quo cannot remain within the Eurozone's structure, much as (ironically) many of the most fervent Europhiles would have it.

I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said "you can't buck the markets" and, from memory, it was Norman Tebbit who stressed that a single currency with 17 central banks and 17 governments, all with different economies at different stages in the economic cycle, would never work and would eventually bust apart.

It's with no great pleasure that both of those observations, so long ago now, seem to be only now obvious and look as if they are about to be proved correct.

One of the real issues with the EU is the lack of reality and the apparent belief that political will can overcome market forces. I suspect germany in particular are going to find it difficult to see all the money they are throwing at the problem countries evaporating, with little chance that they will be repaid. No matter how much money they do throw at it, the underlying problems still remain unfixed.

dizzywizlw

edwinkane wrote: »

One of the real issues with the EU is the lack of reality and the apparent belief that political will can overcome market forces.

It could were the E.U. a federal superstate :P


Basically it all comes down to a CBA of the whole Eurozone project, which will certainly be in favour of retaining the single currency. With more stringent financial controls under a European Monetary Fund ( which would in theory help alleviate the CDS/Bond problem) and within existing more observed frameworks you could in actuality have a situation where the Eurozone and EU as a whole emerge stronger and more integrated than ever before.


Lets not forget that the EU should have penalised Eurozone members over 60 times for bad budget policies and debt levels but didn't.

I think many people are buying into the eurosceptic view of events re: the death of the euro when the reality is that it is the largest and clearest example of 'too big to fail' in financial history.

Germany for example would lose devalued debt held in places like the PIGS, the Dmark would rapidly appreciate, kill export sector, stagnate growth etc.


If the right steps are taken, 10 years from now, William Hague and people like him with have to eat their words. This is an 11 Trillion dollar enterprise baby, it won't got down without a fight

edwinkane

dizzywizlw wrote: »

It could were the E.U. a federal superstate :P


Basically it all comes down to a CBA of the whole Eurozone project, which will certainly be in favour of retaining the single currency. With more stringent financial controls under a European Monetary Fund ( which would in theory help alleviate the CDS/Bond problem) and within existing more observed frameworks you could in actuality have a situation where the Eurozone and EU as a whole emerge stronger and more integrated than ever before.


Lets not forget that the EU should have penalised Eurozone members over 60 times for bad budget policies and debt levels but didn't.

I think many people are buying into the eurosceptic view of events re: the death of the euro when the reality is that it is the largest and clearest example of 'too big to fail' in financial history.

Germany for example would lose devalued debt held in places like the PIGS, the Dmark would rapidly appreciate, kill export sector, stagnate growth etc.


If the right steps are taken, 10 years from now, William Hague and people like him with have to eat their words. This is an 11 Trillion dollar enterprise baby, it won't got down without a fight

I hope you are right, but fear hopes may not be enough. My point was that political will is not enough to get over economic realities or commercial realities. Eventually, the markets will win over political manipulation, where it tries to buck the markets.

If that is a reality which you have yet to learn, then I hope it's not too expensive a lesson for the rest of us by the time you have learned it! But I fear it will, probably, be one of the most expensive lessons in history, the bill for which will be picked up by the citizens of Europe.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

My point was that political will is not enough to get over economic realities or commercial realities.

That makes little sense - political will shapes economic reality all the time. The two are intrinsically related.

edwinkane wrote: »

But I fear it will, probably, be one of the most expensive lessons in history...

Because William Hague said so?

Euroland

I don’t think that at the moment we should leave the EU, but definitely we should leave the Euro zone.

djpbarry

Euroland wrote: »

I don’t think that at the moment we should leave the EU, but definitely we should leave the Euro zone.

Because?

edwinkane

Euroland wrote: »

I don’t think that at the moment we should leave the EU, but definitely we should leave the Euro zone.

Many think the decision is no longer in our hands, as events are thought likely to dictate what happens, and our choices will be limited, if they even exist at all.

Euroland

djpbarry wrote: »

Because?

Because we need to have own monetary system as the current one (Euro) doesn’t suit our national interests. It only serves the German interests.

Euroland

edwinkane wrote: »

Many think the decision is no longer in our hands, as events are thought likely to dictate what happens, and our choices will be limited, or even exist at all.

We always have the opportunity to show two fingers to our “ECB friends” and leave the Euro zone.

edwinkane

Euroland wrote: »

We always have the opportunity to show two fingers to our “ECB friends” and leave the Euro zone.

Shurely ECB "partners"? Ed.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

Many think the decision is no longer in our hands, as events are thought likely to dictate what happens, and our choices will be limited, if they even exist at all.

More meaningless twaddle.

Euroland wrote: »

Because we need to have own monetary system as the current one (Euro) doesn’t suit our national interests.

Funny – it suited Ireland’s interests just fine when the country was awash with cheap credit.

Euroland

djpbarry wrote: »

Funny – it suited Ireland’s interests just fine when the country was awash with cheap credit.

No, it didn’t suit Ireland at that time either, but was heavily benefiting private Irish and EU banks.

djpbarry

Euroland wrote: »

No, it didn’t suit Ireland at that time either...

My point is that, during the property boom, nobody was claiming that monetary union wasn’t working for Ireland – the country was awash with readily-available Euros to be spent on masses of property. It is only now, since it has become apparent that Ireland has a great big mess that needs cleaning up, that monetary union suddenly looks like a bad idea. The fact is that all that cheap credit could have been spent differently (by investing in indigenous industry, for example) rather than being squandered.

Scrambled egg

It seems that these days a sizeable number of people have taken off their pro-European hats and are now going buying into the whole Euro-sceptic side of things. I for one am appalled at how we are behaving like such petty turncoats. 5 years ago ask someone on the streets of an city in this country what they thought of the EU and they would sing its praises.

Now though its been replaced with a 'them and us' attitude. We have the likes of Sinn Fein and the ULA spinning the line that the EU and bankers are just trying get one over on us and that we must reject everything the EU proposes. I don't like the bailout and I view it as unnecessary. Private enterprise is just that , private not public enterprise.

It is beginning to appear like the next few years could make or break the EU. We could end up further integrated with fiscal policy and tax rates being under EU control or the opposite will happen as the project as a whole takes a step back and re-evaluates itself. To be honest, a monetary union before a fully integrated political union was a silly idea in the first place and perhaps it was rushed. Hopefully a concerted effort is made at giving the EU much wider powers with regards to legislation and regulation of Euro-zone members.

Just my 2 cents.

edwinkane

Scrambled egg wrote: »

It seems that these days a sizeable number of people have taken off their pro-European hats and are now going buying into the whole Euro-sceptic side of things. I for one am appalled at how we are behaving like such petty turncoats. 5 years ago ask someone on the streets of an city in this country what they thought of the EU and they would sing its praises.

Now though its been replaced with a 'them and us' attitude. We have the likes of Sinn Fein and the ULA spinning the line that the EU and bankers are just trying get one over on us and that we must reject everything the EU proposes. I don't like the bailout and I view it as unnecessary. Private enterprise is just that , private not public enterprise.

It is beginning to appear like the next few years could make or break the EU. We could end up further integrated with fiscal policy and tax rates being under EU control or the opposite will happen as the project as a whole takes a step back and re-evaluates itself. To be honest, a monetary union before a fully integrated political union was a silly idea in the first place and perhaps it was rushed. Hopefully a concerted effort is made at giving the EU much wider powers with regards to legislation and regulation of Euro-zone members.

Just my 2 cents.

You are right and the Euro was always a political project and the EU believed, and still appears to believe, that political will can overcome practical issues. the growth of irish scepticism towards the EU (some might also say the growth of cynicism) is hardly a surprise when the EU has forced the poor irish taxpayer to be on the hook for the debts of the gamblers who "invested" in Irish banks.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

...the EU has forced the poor irish taxpayer to be on the hook for the debts of the gamblers who "invested" in Irish banks.

The EU has done no such thing.

Scofflaw

edwinkane wrote: »

You are right and the Euro was always a political project and the EU believed, and still appears to believe, that political will can overcome practical issues. the growth of irish scepticism towards the EU (some might also say the growth of cynicism) is hardly a surprise when the EU has forced the poor irish taxpayer to be on the hook for the debts of the gamblers who "invested" in Irish banks.

Eh, no, that's totally inaccurate. The decision to put the Irish taxpayer on the hook for the banks' debts was taken unilaterally by the previous government in September 2008 - not even "the government", really, but the inner circle of the Cabinet. It wasn't done in consultation with anyone (bar David McWilliams, if you like), and was highly unwelcome in the rest of Europe, particularly the UK, partly because it massively upped the ante for other countries in terms of protecting their banks, partly because it sucked deposits out of their banks into ours (particularly the UK). In the long run, however, it inextricably entangled bank and sovereign debt, because the banks were unable to source credit on the open markets, and had to borrow from the ECB, for which they needed State guarantees as collateral.

The ECB will not now allow us to unilaterally burn senior bondholders - not that there's any apparent wish to do so on the part of either our old or new governments - because at this stage the Irish banks' debt has become a touchstone confidence issue for the whole European banking sector, and because at this stage the ECB is in a position to have its preferences taken into account.

However, because there are plenty of people who have the same entirely inaccurate view of matters as you, it won't be surprising to see an erosion of trust in the EU - and perhaps the whole episode might be positive, if it involves a more grown-up Irish attitude to the EU spreading outside the political sphere, rather than the current "source of funds GOOD" versus "source of rules BAD" rubbish that characterises a lot of EU debate in this country.

Finally, of course the EU (and the Member States thereof) believe that political will can overcome practical difficulties. That's what political will is for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edwinkane

My understanding was that the EU required the european banks, particularly the French and German ones, to be guaranteed by the Irish people as a quid pro quo for giving the irish government what is referred to as the bailout. Perhaps I am mistaken about that, but if that means the irish Government volunteered to put the irish people on the hook for what are essentailly the bad gambling debts of european banks, then why are Cowan and Lenihans heads not on spikes on the railings of Leinster house?

View

edwinkane wrote: »

You are right and the Euro was always a political project and the EU believed, and still appears to believe, that political will can overcome practical issues.

The EU as a whole is a "political project" just as (an independent) Ireland is also (i.e. if there were no belief in the concept of the EU and/or an independent Ireland they wouldn't exist). I am not sure how you could have an apolitical political body.

View

edwinkane wrote: »

My understanding was that the EU required the european banks, particularly the French and German ones, to be guaranteed by the Irish people as a quid pro quo for giving the irish government what is referred to as the bailout. Perhaps I am mistaken about that, but if that means the irish Government volunteered to put the irish people on the hook for what are essentailly the bad gambling debts of european banks, then why are Cowan and Lenihans heads not on spikes on the railings of Leinster house?

The only "european banks" that the Irish people have guaranteed are ones based in Ireland - specifically the Irish HQed ones. The decision to do this was made by our democratically elected government(s).

Scofflaw

edwinkane wrote: »

My understanding was that the EU required the european banks, particularly the French and German ones, to be guaranteed by the Irish people as a quid pro quo for giving the irish government what is referred to as the bailout. Perhaps I am mistaken about that, but if that means the irish Government volunteered to put the irish people on the hook for what are essentailly the bad gambling debts of european banks, then why are Cowan and Lenihans heads not on spikes on the railings of Leinster house?

That's so wrong I have to ask for clarification - do you mean that you believe that the Irish taxpayer is literally guaranteeing the debts to German and French banks? As in "this money here is owed to the Bundesbank, so the Irish taxpayer must pay it"? As in, the State issued guarantees specifically for German and French banks?

Assuming you don't believe the above, which would be silly, consider the following two basic points.

First, think about the timing of what you're suggesting - you're saying that the Guarantee, September 2008, which resulted in the guarantee of all Irish bank debts, was a quid pro quo for the EU/IMF bailout in November 2010. The Guarantee, as a matter of really quite extensive record at this stage, had nothing to do with the ECB.

Second, think about the fact that the Central Bank records the counter-parties to Irish debt. Despite the quite common belief that Irish bank debt was largely held by German and French banks, the eurozone never in fact held more than about 16-17% of Irish bank debt.

The debt we guaranteed was largely debt held by the US and the UK. For anyone who knows the Irish banks' record in capital raising, this should come as no surprise - none of the Irish banks have eurozone subsidiaries, whereas nearly all of them have extensive UK and US subsidiaries. London and New York is where the Irish banks have traditionally traded, rather than Frankfurt.

When it comes to our banks, we've always been a lot closer to Boston than Berlin.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

...perhaps the whole episode might be positive, if it involves a more grown-up Irish attitude to the EU...

Hah.