Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should Ireland Leave the EU?
Options
Comments
-
-
Also, basic point, events unfold, they aren't "revealed".
You seem to believe there is an accurate future scenario that tells the central planners with confidence what the outcome of all this will be...or that they understand the issue. (hint...solvency, not liquidity).
No one knows. There is HUGE uncertainty in the markets...stocks, bonds and currency...and in politics and law as well.
How many times do they have the be plain vanilla wrong/backtrack/eat their words/mark to fantasy/be humiliated by the markets...for you to see this?
My guess is that you are incapable of seeing reality if it conflicts with your world view.0 -
Indeed. Switzerland is a federal state. The EU is not.
Nor is Ireland. Many of the complaints about our political system here (in Ireland) really arise from the absence of two political concepts which are basic in Federal states and, for that matter, in most non-Federal states.
They are:
i) "Internal Sovereignty" - that is to say the individual states/communites/counties have clearly defined sovereignty in particular areas with the Federal/Central government has separate sovereignty in other areas. The two have no legal authority to interfere in each other's areas (Although the "grey area" where the two bump into each other does generate many disputes). We, on the other hand, have an almost complete absence of understanding about why this might be a good idea...
i) "Fiscal Federalism" - that is to say the legal authority to raise taxes and the financing of services by these. As above they are done by different levels of government (usually with a central top-up to help with inequalities). This ensures the local government have meaningful decision and spending capacity and aren't just talking shops like they largely are here.
Were we able to formulate a coherent answer to the questions: "What services (and taxes) do you want ....
a) local government to handle?", and,
b) central government to handle?",
we might then be able to formulate a coherent answer to the question of what we'd like (and dislike) the EU to handle.0 -
Also, basic point, events unfold, they aren't "revealed".
You seem to believe there is an accurate future scenario that tells the central planners with confidence what the outcome of all this will be...or that they understand the issue. (hint...solvency, not liquidity).
No one knows. There is HUGE uncertainty in the markets...stocks, bonds and currency...and in politics and law as well.
How many times do they have the be plain vanilla wrong/backtrack/eat their words/mark to fantasy/be humiliated by the markets...for you to see this?
My guess is that you are incapable of seeing reality if it conflicts with your world view.
Unfold/reveal, whichever you prefer. Some of what's now seen to be happening is a relatively predictable outcome of what we already knew was happening - and, to point out a rather obvious if unkind truth, claims that things are going to get worse are also projections.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Unfold/reveal, whichever you prefer. Some of what's now seen to be happening is a relatively predictable outcome of what we already knew was happening - and, to point out a rather obvious if unkind truth, claims that things are going to get worse are also projections.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Unkind, perhaps. Wrong, certainly. No, they are not claims, but observations. See bond markets/bank stock prices/debt to GDP ratios etc.
It is the degree to which the central planners predictions are routinely off which is telling and which you seem unable to grasp.
To have faith in their ability to accurately predict with so much uncertainty is a mistake...and a foolish and needless one given their miserable track record.0 -
Advertisement
-
Unkind, perhaps. Wrong, certainly. No, they are not claims, but observations. See bond markets/bank stock prices/debt to GDP ratios etc.
It is the degree to which the central planners predictions are routinely off which is telling and which you seem unable to grasp.
To have faith in their ability to accurately predict with so much uncertainty is a mistake...and a foolish and needless one given their miserable track record.
I'm not sure why you're dragging in "central planners", though, or which "central planners" you're referring to? Are we living in a Soviet economy?
slightly puzzled,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Or the box market "He won't respond to the actual argument being made, so I win".
But the argument you're making - apparently against what I've said - doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've said. We seem to be on to "central planners", whoever they're supposed to be - what next, the argument that "fiat currencies" are invariably doomed, or that Goldman Sachs controls the whole thing anyway?
As far as I can see, you believe that things are going to get much worse - which is, as I pointed out, a projection - but you seem to be arguing that one cannot believe that things aren't getting much worse because any argument that claims that relies on...projections.
So it seems to me that you don't have any real issue with projections as such - despite putting it that way - but rather with projections that don't agree with your view of where things are going. The difference is hardly subtle.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
But the argument you're making - apparently against what I've said - doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I've said. We seem to be on to "central planners", whoever they're supposed to be - what next, the argument that "fiat currencies" are invariably doomed, or that Goldman Sachs controls the whole thing anyway?
As far as I can see, you believe that things are going to get much worse - which is, as I pointed out, a projection - but you seem to be arguing that one cannot believe that things aren't getting much worse because any argument that claims that relies on...projections.
So it seems to me that you don't have any real issue with projections as such - despite putting it that way - but rather with projections that don't agree with your view of where things are going. The difference is hardly subtle.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Give me strength!
How many times do I have to explain this to you?
I am not using projections, but observations.
I am not saying that things are going to get much worse, I am saying they have gotten worse recently based on the data. I am looking in the rear view mirror, if you like...not through the windscreen.
(I do happen to believe that things will continue to get worse, but thats besides the point).0 -
Give me strength!
How many times do I have to explain this to you?
I am not using projections, but observations.
But using only observations, one can form no views about the likely future course of the crisis - unless one uses them to make projections. On the other hand, if you're claiming that using observations leads one to conclude that the depth of the problems is much greater than first officially believed, then I'd obviously agree. Stating that that's a deterioration begs the question - relative to what? Because if it's relative to where official claims should have the situation, then, again, that's hardly something I'd disagree with.
I don't think, though, that you're claiming those things - I think you're claiming that the situation is actually getting worse (that is, actively disimproving rather than more of it coming into view as it unfolds), and, more importantly, that it will continue to do so, presumably to some kind of point of failure. And that seems to me to be a matter of projection.
Edit: caught up with your edit there. I think we're arguing over whether more of the crisis has unfolded, or whether it has really become worse. My view is the former, yours is the latter, yes? I'm not sure how projections are relevant, though.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
But using only observations, one can form no views about the likely future course of the crisis
Correct...observations tell you what has happened...not what will happen.
You can take a point, lets say, 6 months ago and compare it, say, with the most recent data and arrive at a conclusion about the two "snapshots"...which can broadly be better, worse or the same. I am arguing that the situation is worse now than it has recently been.On the other hand, if you're claiming that using observations leads one to conclude that the depth of the problems is much greater than first officially believed, then I'd obviously agree. Stating that that's a deterioration begs the question - relative to what?
Not that the crisis is greater than officially believed (though clearly it is) but (to use your word) that the situation is disimproving based on recent data.
Relative to...before. Take any starting point you like as your baseline.
FYI, I am specifically thinking about the last few quarters as the baseline...but clearly, you could argue that we are in worse shape than the period around the Lehman blowup...we just haven't had the fireworks go off yet, but they are primed and ready to blow.
I think the situation has deteriorated in terms of debt loads and costs, wages, unemployment, GDP growth etc. They are all ticking in the wrong direction based on the latest data.Because if it's relative to where official claims should have the situation, then, again, that's hardly something I'd disagree with.
Ok.I don't think, though, that you're claiming those things - I think you're claiming that the situation is actually getting worse (that is, actively disimproving rather than more of it coming into view as it unfolds),
I am claiming that it has gotten worse based in the data.and, more importantly, that it will continue to do so,
This seems like a relatively safe bet to me...but I could be wrong and wouldn't bet the farm on it.
There is a lot of bad news yet to come from the banking system and a lot of debts that need to be rolled over in banks and sovereigns. I am not sure how this can be accomplished in a sustainable way.presumably to some kind of point of failure. And that seems to me to be a matter of projection.
Some point of failure? A failure of what? Currency union in its current form? No idea about that one. Ask Germany.
This would be a projection, as it hasn't happened yet.0 -
There is no mechanism by which the EU can take powers from the Member States that the Member States do not give to it. Even where the ECJ rules that a power granted to the EU by the Member States in a treaty implies or requires that the EU exercise another power, reversal of the ruling only requires a clarification be inserted into the next Treaty.
So if, as a result of this crisis, the Member States (or the eurozone ones) decide to use the EU as a forum for jointly making economic decisions, that's what will happen - and if not, not. The EU cannot make it happen, because the EU doesn't write the EU Treaties.
Really, there's no excuse for this kind of ignorance of the basic legal processes of the EU.
regards,
Scofflaw
You are right technically, my point wasn't about the legal processes, but about the desire of the EU to want to take more and more powers away from the member states, and about the way the EU tries to prevent those member states having a democratic vote, as they know that many, if not most, people across the EU don't want that.
They will use any tools to take powers away from the member states, even if those tools are undemocratic. They are politicians, after all! And I bet this time wil lbe no different, and they will end up brow-beating us all, and forcing us to hand over tax and fiscal powers to the EU, and away from the member states. I'll bet anyone that they will use the crises they have created to try to do just that.0 -
You are right technically, my point wasn't about the legal processes, but about the desire of the EU to want to take more and more powers away from the member states, and about the way the EU tries to prevent those member states having a democratic vote, as they know that many, if not most, people across the EU don't want that.
They will use any tools to take powers away from the member states, even if those tools are undemocratic. They are politicians, after all! And I bet this time wil lbe no different, and they will end up brow-beating us all, and forcing us to hand over tax and fiscal powers to the EU, and away from the member states. I'll bet anyone that they will use the crises they have created to try to do just that.
We seem to be well over the boundary of conspiracy theories here - the EU "created" the crises? And "the EU" prevents countries operating according to their own internal rules about democracy? "They" are politicians? "They" will "force us to hand over tax and fiscal powers"?
Seriously, this is a Politics forum - so the "technical" issue that the EU has no powers to do any of what you've claimed is relevant. If your views are going to be based on conspiracy theory, they're not really at home in this forum.
I can repeat that warning with my mod hat on if you prefer. Conspiracy theories of how the EU works were part of the forum's remit during the Lisbon debates, because they were a regrettably large feature of the campaign, but outside such times, there's no real reason why they should pretend to the status of political discussion any more than the Bilderberger NWO stuff gets to.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
We seem to be well over the boundary of conspiracy theories here - the EU "created" the crises? And "the EU" prevents countries operating according to their own internal rules about democracy? "They" are politicians? "They" will "force us to hand over tax and fiscal powers"?
Seriously, this is a Politics forum - so the "technical" issue that the EU has no powers to do any of what you've claimed is relevant. If your views are going to be based on conspiracy theory, they're not really at home in this forum.
I can repeat that warning with my mod hat on if you prefer. Conspiracy theories of how the EU works were part of the forum's remit during the Lisbon debates, because they were a regrettably large feature of the campaign, but outside such times, there's no real reason why they should pretend to the status of political discussion any more than the Bilderberger NWO stuff gets to.
regards,
Scofflaw
The EU created the crises by creating the Euro in the first place. The Euro was created as a political project, and as was predicted at the time it would not work, and would end in disaster, which seems to be what has happened.
It seems impossible that no one in the EU was aware of the arguments at the time, and events seem to have proved the arguments correct.
I have no idea what Bilderberger is, or what relevance it has. Or what conspiracy theories have to do with Bilderberger, or anything else..
Of course, it is a fact that domestic politicians from around Europe have given various powers away from their countries to the EU. To pretend there has been no pressure from the EU to do so is a judgment, and perhaps we differ in that. Certainly, it is unlikely that the people of Europe would vote to do so, if asked, but again that's a judgment we all have to make for ourselves.
However, I'll bet that the EU will try to use the present crises to encourage, or force, countries to cede power to the Eu in the areas of tax and fiscal competences.
Would anyone care to make a bet?0 -
The EU created the crises by creating the Euro in the first place. The Euro was created as a political project, and as was predicted at the time it would not work, and would end in disaster, which seems to be what has happened.
It seems impossible that no one in the EU was aware of the arguments at the time, and events seem to have proved the arguments correct.
But surely you must concede that in time someone was going to be proved right given all virtually all predictions were on the table regarding the Euro? So that one of those predictions came about was inevitable and it is fairly crazy to say they knowingly set it up for this purpose.
If anything it shows politicians believe if they talk up something enough, their talking will come through and given the business they are in, it is inevitable that they have this character flaw and the more successful they are, the larger this character flaw usually is.
I wouldn't say they planned this to force further integration but are too incompetent at setting up systems for pretty much anything to have any real success at it which is why they usually request expensive reports and then a report on those reports to try to work out what the hell they should do whenever they are asked to make a real decision.
I think it is the same reason I would never trust a salesman to make a purchasing decision because he will buy from the person with the best sales pitch no matter what nonsense was in it rather than examining the actual capabilities of each product.0 -
The EU created the crises by creating the Euro in the first place. The Euro was created as a political project, and as was predicted at the time it would not work, and would end in disaster, which seems to be what has happened.
It seems impossible that no one in the EU was aware of the arguments at the time, and events seem to have proved the arguments correct.
I have no idea what Bilderberger is, or what relevance it has. Or what conspiracy theories have to do with Bilderberger, or anything else..
Of course, it is a fact that domestic politicians from around Europe have given various powers away from their countries to the EU. To pretend there has been no pressure from the EU to do so is a judgment, and perhaps we differ in that. Certainly, it is unlikely that the people of Europe would vote to do so, if asked, but again that's a judgment we all have to make for ourselves.
However, I'll bet that the EU will try to use the present crises to encourage, or force, countries to cede power to the Eu in the areas of tax and fiscal competences.
Would anyone care to make a bet?
Not really, because of the Member States decide to pool sovereignty on any tax or fiscal matters, you'll believe that you've won your bet.
Again, "the EU" didn't create the euro - the euro was created by the Member States. The EU simply doesn't have any legal power to do something like that - unfortunately, discussing it with you is pointless, since it's completely true and something you can't accept.
Tell you what - for the sake of discussion, how do you believe "the EU" does these things that you believe they do, and would you be prepared to offer a convincing example of the EU doing one of these things? "Convincing" there means with rather more impressive evidence than "it happened, the EU was the beneficiary, QED".
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
You are right technically, my point wasn't about the legal processes, but about the desire of the EU to want to take more and more powers away from the member states, and about the way the EU tries to prevent those member states having a democratic vote, as they know that many, if not most, people across the EU don't want that.
As has been pointed out before, it is the member states of the EU who have the sole right to decide what the EU has the power to do or not to do.
Were I re-write part of your paragraph as follows:My point wasn't about the legal processes, but about the desire of the Dail to want to take more and more powers away from the TDs, and about the way the Dail tries to prevent those TDs having a democratic vote, as they know that many, if not most, people across the country don't want that.
then this - if you'll excuse the slight re-writing - is essentially what you are claiming is happening at EU level. That claim is wrong just as the above re-writing is wrong.
But, just as it is the TDs who are masters of the Dail, so also it is the member states who are masters of the EU in this regard.
This is what the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany's Supreme Court) in its judgment on the Lisbon Treaty classified as the "Kompetenz-Kompetenz Frage" - that is to say "Who has the Competence to decide the Competence of the EU?" Its answer was clear - the member states do.0 -
There's obviously a political vision behind the Euro. No project of such magnitude is simply whipped up out of thin air. The fact that it's political is not the problem. It's more that certain constituent members have not been taking sustainable political and economic decisions to buttress their treaty commitments.The EU created the crises by creating the Euro in the first place. The Euro was created as a political project, and as was predicted at the time it would not work, and would end in disaster, which seems to be what has happened.
There's a lot to play for yet. Much of the unfolding crisis is being forced with a view to getting certain countries to prove their bona fides, and their fitness to function in a single currency in the coming decades.
I personally think it's a mistake to interpret every reported negative event as proof of actual failure. To my mind the bad news is part of a corrective process. Which is not to say that it won't be painful for some. Particularly Greece.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, new competences must be expressly transferred by the member states in line with their constitutional procedures. Furthermore, national sovereignty concerns dictate that the transfers of such competences are not permanent and irrevocable. Although in practice, the reclaiming of competences would probably require an exit from the EU. Truly a nuclear option. But an option that is there for any member state, and an option which keeps manners on the EU project overall.But, just as it is the TDs who are masters of the Dail, so also it is the member states who are masters of the EU in this regard.
This is what the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany's Supreme Court) in its judgment on the Lisbon Treaty classified as the "Kompetenz-Kompetenz Frage" - that is to say "Who has the Competence to decide the Competence of the EU?" Its answer was clear - the member states do.0 -
We seem to be well over the boundary of conspiracy theories here - the EU "created" the crises? And "the EU" prevents countries operating according to their own internal rules about democracy? "They" are politicians? "They" will "force us to hand over tax and fiscal powers"?
Seriously, this is a Politics forum - so the "technical" issue that the EU has no powers to do any of what you've claimed is relevant. If your views are going to be based on conspiracy theory, they're not really at home in this forum.
I can repeat that warning with my mod hat on if you prefer. Conspiracy theories of how the EU works were part of the forum's remit during the Lisbon debates, because they were a regrettably large feature of the campaign, but outside such times, there's no real reason why they should pretend to the status of political discussion any more than the Bilderberger NWO stuff gets to.
regards,
Scofflaw
Certainly the EU created the Euro crises. It certainly wasn't created by the Australians, or the Chinese, or anyone else other than the EU. The EU consists of all the countries making up the EU, and if you think that's a conspiracy then I can't agree.
Being honest, your reply is a little bizarre. You appear to be saying that the EU has, for example, no powers to create the Euro, but the evidence is that the Euro has been created by the very same EU to which I belong. So I must be not reading you correctly, even if that appears to be what you are saying.
In any case, its not really relevant to what is happening today. What we appear to be witnessing today is the final death dance of the Euro. In addition China's economic slowdown coupled with America's inability to create jobs, and the EU's economic meltdown means we are in probably a more serious situation than the World was in the 1920's, and the great economic depression.
But these problems are minor compared to the elephant in the room, which is that the USA and most EU economies are only able to function by borrowing mind bogglingly enormous amounts of money every year. If that funding either dries up or becomes more expensive, then the current crises will seem like a fond memory as the world is plunged into a deep and prolonged depression, which will impoverish much of the developed world for years to come.
Many judge that the bond market has become a bond bubble, and like all bubbles it is only a matter of time until it bursts. Like the Irish housing market,
in 1995, foreign exchange reserves held by the world’s central banks stood at about $1.4 trillion. It is now $9.7 trillion, and is a classic bubble.
The bond bubble is dangerous because, in recent years, our governments have become used to borrowing cheap money on the bond markets, and spending it like drunken sailors, hailing the results as growth in their economies, and even claiming it as proff of their wonderful stewardship of the economy.
The growth turned out to be illusory, and now that the real costs are coming home to roost, just as the cost of the borrowing in shooting up, the USA and EU are likely to be crippled with more and more expensive debt for years.
What we are seeing in the EU now is the death dance of the Euro, as the strains on the various economies become impossible to bear. the German people, many of whom work productively until they are 65 or 70, will not let the German government spend their hard earned savings and their current taxes, to allow the financial aid to allow greek postal worker to retire at 50. In turn the Greek postal workers are prepared to take to the streets and become violent to protect what they see as their hard earned right to retire at 50 taken away, and having to work to 65 instead.
The leaders flop about unsure what to do, and the crises is teh proverbial can which is being kicked down the road. At this stage, it's been kicked down the road so often its amazing there is any road left, but as we can all see the crises deepens the longer action is put off.
Truly, we live in the most worrying time for over one hundred years, and its hard to see a chink of light for years ahead.0 -
-
Certainly the EU created the Euro crises. It certainly wasn't created by the Australians, or the Chinese, or anyone else other than the EU. The EU consists of all the countries making up the EU, and if you think that's a conspiracy then I can't agree.
Being honest, your reply is a little bizarre. You appear to be saying that the EU has, for example, no powers to create the Euro, but the evidence is that the Euro has been created by the very same EU to which I belong. So I must be not reading you correctly, even if that appears to be what you are saying.
To be honest, I consider the failure to distinguish between "the EU as a set of institutions created by the Member States" and the Member States themselves as members of the EU deplorable in itself, since it leads to misleading statements like "the EU writes the EU Treaties" or "the EU always votes more powers for the EU", which imply something completely false by mixing up two senses of "EU".
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I think either the waters are muddied in your head, or else you're trying to muddy them to create your own "spin".
:rolleyes: Certainly you hit the nail on the head as to what Scofflaw was saying there.Certainly the EU created the Euro crises. It certainly wasn't created by the Australians, or the Chinese, or anyone else other than the EU.
Certainly, the EU does consist of all member states "making up the EU", however that's certainly not true of the Eurozone.The EU consists of all the countries making up the EU, and if you think that's a conspiracy then I can't agree.
This is why I think you are just confused and not trying to "spin".Being honest, your reply is a little bizarre. You appear to be saying that the EU has, for example, no powers to create the Euro, but the evidence is that the Euro has been created by the very same EU to which I belong. So I must be not reading you correctly, even if that appears to be what you are saying.
Firstly, you do not belong to the EU. You are a sovereign of Ireland which has voted to become a member state of the EU. Yes, Article 20(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives you "citizenship" of the EU, but it does not afford you direct and personal membership of the European Union. Ireland is a member of the EU, you are not.
Secondly, the European Union did not create the Euro (€) currency. Certain Member States of the EU (10 or 11) opted to create a Single European Currency under the new EC pillar developed by the Maastrict Treaty which set guidelines for countries which were going to join this Economic and Monetary Union.
The "EU" as we know it today didn't actually exist in its current form until we ratified Lisbon in 2009.
Are you partially correct... yes and no. One thing that the Eurozone Member States did as part of the Euro/Maastrict bundle was give governance to essentially nobody. Yes, the ECB is in charge of interest, but nobody really has the ability to make larger fiscal policy decisions. In retrospect, the Euro Group should have been given much more policy and decision power in the Euro.
Just not going to happen. It really isn't. The Euro must survive in one form or another, its decline would cripple the world economy so it must be saved - simple as that. We need to do an orderly wind-down of Greece, but the Euro will live on.In any case, its not really relevant to what is happening today. What we appear to be witnessing today is the final death dance of the Euro.
I think it's too early to tell... the U.S. has their problems, but they are nearing a large decision in relation to spending and taxes at the moment.In addition China's economic slowdown coupled with America's inability to create jobs, and the EU's economic meltdown means we are in probably a more serious situation than the World was in the 1920's, and the great economic depression.
It won't really ever dry up in the US. Also, go back a few posts - this is a liquidity and, probably more specifically, a liquidity confidence issue at the moment. The major central banks announced 2 weeks ago that there is enough liquidity and guaranteed that this would be the case.But these problems are minor compared to the elephant in the room, which is that the USA and most EU economies are only able to function by borrowing mind bogglingly enormous amounts of money every year. If that funding either dries up or becomes more expensive, then the current crises will seem like a fond memory as the world is plunged into a deep and prolonged depression, which will impoverish much of the developed world for years to come.
Source?Many judge that the bond market has become a bond bubble, and like all bubbles it is only a matter of time until it bursts. Like the Irish housing market,
in 1995, foreign exchange reserves held by the world’s central banks stood at about $1.4 trillion. It is now $9.7 trillion, and is a classic bubble.
I agree that we need stronger leadership. One thing that worries me is that we have had no real plan put forward by the leaders of the Eurozone Member States or, in fact, any EU leaders as to how to solve the problem.The bond bubble is dangerous because, in recent years, our governments have become used to borrowing cheap money on the bond markets, and spending it like drunken sailors, hailing the results as growth in their economies, and even claiming it as proff of their wonderful stewardship of the economy.
The growth turned out to be illusory, and now that the real costs are coming home to roost, just as the cost of the borrowing in shooting up, the USA and EU are likely to be crippled with more and more expensive debt for years.
What we are seeing in the EU now is the death dance of the Euro, as the strains on the various economies become impossible to bear. the German people, many of whom work productively until they are 65 or 70, will not let the German government spend their hard earned savings and their current taxes, to allow the financial aid to allow greek postal worker to retire at 50. In turn the Greek postal workers are prepared to take to the streets and become violent to protect what they see as their hard earned right to retire at 50 taken away, and having to work to 65 instead.
The leaders flop about unsure what to do, and the crises is teh proverbial can which is being kicked down the road. At this stage, it's been kicked down the road so often its amazing there is any road left, but as we can all see the crises deepens the longer action is put off.
Truly, we live in the most worrying time for over one hundred years, and its hard to see a chink of light for years ahead.
I think mainly because of Greece - they're doing damage control and Greece is volatile. Watch this space... the EU will deal with Greece in one way or another over the next month or two and then go on to deal with the systemic issue.
The Euro isn't dead... it simply cannot go without causing mayhem. Anyone who suggests otherwise is merely posturing or fearmongering. There is no viable alternative and no reason for the Euro to collapse. We have been promised liquidity and really that's all we need to care about right now.0 -
To be honest, I consider the failure to distinguish between "the EU as a set of institutions created by the Member States" and the Member States themselves as members of the EU deplorable in itself, since it leads to misleading statements like "the EU writes the EU Treaties" or "the EU always votes more powers for the EU", which imply something completely false by mixing up two senses of "EU".
cordially,
Scofflaw
I agree it can be confusing, and many find it so, and if your main worry is about misleading statements, raher than the magnitude, and actual, and potential effects of the crises in which we find ourselves, that suggests a slightly unbalanced view.FreudianSlippers wrote: »
Certainly, the EU does consist of all member states "making up the EU", however that's certainly not true of the Eurozone.
.
Of course, I assume everyone knows that the UK, and Denmark, Norway, Sweden and so on all opted not to join the Euro. And now they are all rejoycing every day at the wisdom of their decision, not to be part of a currency which has all but imploded.FreudianSlippers wrote: »
Firstly, you do not belong to the EU. You are a sovereign of Ireland which has voted to become a member state of the EU. Yes, Article 20(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives you "citizenship" of the EU, but it does not afford you direct and personal membership of the European Union. Ireland is a member of the EU, you are not.
.
On a point of accuracy, I am not a sovereign of Ireland, and why you should assume that I am is uncertain. I make no such assumptions about you, or anyone else, and why you should do so is uncertain, but I take the point you make nonetheless, and I had assumed most of us alredy knew that.
However, it's curious how, for example, passports issued to citizens of Europe all now state “European Union” on the front, which seems to imply at least a loose association with the holder of the passport and the EU. I can see just why Scofflaw is confused. Imagine how us less intelligent mortals feel! If I am not a member of the EU, why is your passport issued saying its from the “European Union”? Why is Scofflaw's and everyone elses's who gets a passport in the EU?
I don't agree that citizens of the EU are not also in the EU, and belong to the EU. I am aware of the difference between being a paid up member of the EU, so to speak, (countries) and being in the EU(individuals) .FreudianSlippers wrote: »2009.
Are you partially correct... yes and no. One thing that the Eurozone Member States did as part of the Euro/Maastrict bundle was give governance to essentially nobody. Yes, the ECB is in charge of interest, but nobody really has the ability to make larger fiscal policy decisions. In retrospect, the Euro Group should have been given much more policy and decision power in the Euro.
I guess that comes into the category of coulda woulda shoulda. It seems even now the leaders flop about seemingly unable to make decisions. That was always going to be the weakness in the Euro, and it's not as if that wasn't flagged at the time, and the potential for disaster also flagged a the time. However, the EU ignored the warnings and ploughed on regardless, the results of which we can see today.FreudianSlippers wrote: »
The Euro must survive in one form or another, its decline would cripple the world economy so it must be saved - simple as that.
You may not have noticed, but the Euro's inevitable, and avoidable, outcome has crippled Europe already. And we're not finished yet with its poisonous tentacles, which have spread to all those countries not in the Euro, and we have not seen the end of its destructive hand yet. I'm sure all those Irish developers also said that their companies “must” survive sincerely meant it too, but statements of desire don't really make good economic policy, as we have seen with the Euro itself, which was founded on many wonderful political statements, and the hubris was that the politicians thought that they could control it, and that they could ignore the problems which were ponted out and which were predicted to cause the very dangerous instability that the Euro has caused.FreudianSlippers wrote: »
It won't really ever dry up in the US. Also, go back a few posts - this is a liquidity and, probably more specifically, a liquidity confidence issue at the moment. The major central banks announced 2 weeks ago that there is enough liquidity and guaranteed that this would be the case.
.
Again, fine intentions don't make markets work. If you think all the billions owed to French and German banks, the American banks and all the others by Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the UK, the USA and so on is just a confidence issue, as opposed to a real problem involving billions and billions of whatever currency you're having yourself, then you seem to be in a very small minority of people who think its just a matter of instilling a bit of confidence somewhere or other and the problems will evaporate. It's this kind of woolly thinking which ignored the warnings which gave us the Euro, and we can see where that leads.FreudianSlippers wrote: »
I agree that we need stronger leadership. One thing that worries me is that we have had no real plan put forward by the leaders of the Eurozone Member States or, in fact, any EU leaders as to how to solve the problem.
I think mainly because of Greece - they're doing damage control and Greece is volatile. Watch this space... the EU will deal with Greece in one way or another over the next month or two and then go on to deal with the systemic issue.
The Euro isn't dead... it simply cannot go without causing mayhem. Anyone who suggests otherwise is merely posturing or fearmongering. There is no viable alternative and no reason for the Euro to collapse. We have been promised liquidity and really that's all we need to care about right now.
I suppose that could be said to be the bolting-the-stable-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted strategy. The time for stronger leadership was when the Euro was created, and which would have not ignored the warnings and plughed ahead with a project for hubristic reasons, the results of which has taken the EU to the brink of disaster with the Euro. The Euro isn't dead, and to say it “simply can't go away without causing mayhen” might be ironic if it wasn't so serious. Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but the Euro has already casued more than it's fair share of “mayhem”, and has plunged the whole Eu into crises, which I'd categorise as a lttle more than just “mayhem”. As to the future, we can disagree on that, but my guess is that the Euro will not be around in the form as we know it for much longer.
What the politicians and EU officials need to learn is that they can't buck, or control, the markets, and their attempts to do so by introducing the Euro in teh form they did will probably be the most expensive lesson is history of that principle. Unfortunately, in your post here you seem to believe also that someone somewhere can just wave a magic want and make all this go away. The only way this will go away is when the problems causing it are resolved.0 -
The fact that you’ve repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of “the crisis” suggests a slightly unbalanced view.I agree it can be confusing, and many find it so, and if your main worry is about misleading statements, raher than the magnitude, and actual, and potential effects of the crises in which we find ourselves, that suggests a slightly unbalanced view.
Norway is not a member of the EU. As for the UK, “wisdom” had little to do with it – there is absolutely no way Britain will adopt a currency that doesn’t have a British monarch on it anytime soon. Besides, you’re aware that the British Pound is worth far less relative to the Euro than it was, say, five years ago?Of course, I assume everyone knows that the UK, and Denmark, Norway, Sweden and so on all opted not to join the Euro. And now they are all rejoycing every day at the wisdom of their decision, not to be part of a currency which has all but imploded.
Define “crippled”. The lights are still on, trains are running on time, post offices are open ... help me out here.You may not have noticed, but the Euro's inevitable, and avoidable, outcome has crippled Europe already.
So Greece’s, Ireland’s and Portugal’s instability was caused by the Euro? Not by the complete inability of respective governments to balance the books?... as we have seen with the Euro itself, which was founded on many wonderful political statements, and the hubris was that the politicians thought that they could control it, and that they could ignore the problems which were ponted out and which were predicted to cause the very dangerous instability that the Euro has caused.
Let’s put a figure on that, shall we? How much does Ireland owe to French and German banks?If you think all the billions owed to French and German banks, the American banks and all the others by Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the UK, the USA and so on is just a confidence issue, as opposed to a real problem involving billions and billions of whatever currency you're having yourself...
Eh, surely the introduction of the Euro gave individual governments less control of “the markets”?What the politicians and EU officials need to learn is that they can't buck, or control, the markets, and their attempts to do so by introducing the Euro...0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »You are a sovereign of Ireland which has voted to become a member state of the EU.
I presume you meant citizen of Ireland here? Sovereigns are Monarchs, I believe.
(Ok - And old coins as well)0 -
Just listening to the radio this morning, I am reminded that another person who predicted this was Bernard Connolly, who wrote a book "The Rotten Heart of Europe", in which he predicted just this crisis for the Euro.
He argued that the single currency project would be used to generate an irresistible momentum for fullscale political union in Europe, dominated by an implicit power-sharing agreement between the German and French political elites. Further, he argued it was a political project which had to be pursued by stealth because neither the peoples, nor the parliaments, of major European nations had ever been willing to support it when it was presented openly as an explicit aim.
He was promptly sacked by the Commission from his job as head of the European Commission's monetary affairs department.
It's an interesting book and I'd recommend anyone to read it to understand how the EU works, from the inside. His book was written in 1995, and its curious how much of what he predicted has come to pass.
Naturally, I expect some here to want to rush to rubbish him, as former head of the European Commission's monetary affairs department, because they don't like what he says. However, I'd ask that we can look beyond the personality, and look at what he said, rather than try to avoid that and throw muck at the person.0 -
Advertisement
-
I just guessed that since you were on an Irish forum waffling on about the EU and the Euro that you were Irish.On a point of accuracy, I am not a sovereign of Ireland, and why you should assume that I am is uncertain. I make no such assumptions about you, or anyone else, and why you should do so is uncertain, but I take the point you make nonetheless, and I had assumed most of us alredy knew that.
However, it's curious how, for example, passports issued to citizens of Europe all now state “European Union” on the front, which seems to imply at least a loose association with the holder of the passport and the EU. I can see just why Scofflaw is confused. Imagine how us less intelligent mortals feel! If I am not a member of the EU, why is your passport issued saying its from the “European Union”? Why is Scofflaw's and everyone elses's who gets a passport in the EU?
I don't agree that citizens of the EU are not also in the EU, and belong to the EU. I am aware of the difference between being a paid up member of the EU, so to speak, (countries) and being in the EU(individuals) .
I really don't care where you're from, you're just plain wrong, and your strange hypothesis about your membership of the European Union is baffling and illogical (almost up there with Freeman strangeness).
Tell you what, go to Brussels and demand a seat since you're a "member of the EU" and see how far you get, ok?A bunch of rubbish
0
Advertisement