Was the Euro a mistake?

hatrickpatrick

Putting aside political positions on the wider EU question for a moment, was the Euro currency project a mistake from the beginning?

We have a situation now whereby the Euro is apparently close to collapse, if it does collapse it will allegedly mean complete havoc across its member countries (although personally I have other theories about this but they're for another thread), and whereby it is apparently impossible for a country to easily exit the Euro without, again, causing all sorts of internal havoc.

Most of the economists looking in from outside are proposing Eurobonds, fiscual unity, or various alternatives and combinations based on fiscal unity. Essentially though, almost all of the proposed solutions are suggesting that the only way out of this is for member states to surrender their economic sovereignty, to a certain extent.

So the question is: Was the original Euro idea a mistake? Was it naive and short sighted to believe that a common currency could work WITHOUT an accompanying fiscal unity? Was arriving at this point sooner or later always inevitable given the inherent impossibility of a common currency working without fiscal unity, or could it have survived?

Either way, the Eurozone as we know it - sharing a currency while maintaining individual national sovereignty on budgets - seems to be further and further from a possibility with each passing day.

So assuming people agree that economic sovereignty is desirable for each member state, was the Euro project badly designed in that regard? Was it doomed to failure by this from the start?

mike65

The euro is a doughnut currency, it has a great big hole - that of proper monetary union. Had it been sold with an understanding of that requirement of course the euro would never have been adopted.

Scofflaw

In a sense, you've put your finger on exactly what wasn't wrong with the euro. The problem was that in order to have the euro as it appeared to be, what was needed was closer monetary union, joint casting of national budgets, an agreement that the stronger states would be ultimately responsible for the debts of the weak, and that everybody would therefore run budgets that weren't merely temporarily sustainable but really balanced in the long term. That's what the euro was made out to be, but in reality it lacked all those things, because nobody would agree to them if they thought they could get away without them - and for nearly a decade, they did.

It's not that it can't be done, or is a bad idea in itself, but that you can't do it without doing it properly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gurgle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

the Euro is apparently close to collapse

There is a 5 point plan to help alleviate worrying about eurozone fiscal collapse:

1. Read / Listen to sensationalist reporting from 3rd grade arts graduates
2. Google the 'facts' reported by 3rd grade arts graduates
http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html
3. Discover that since 2003 the euro has never been below its initial rate against the US$.
4. Open bottle of German / Dutch / Spanish / French beer
5. Ignore nonsense spouted by 3rd grade arts graduates

odds_on

Was the Euro a mistake?

I'm not going into the ins and outs of the current situation.

However, I used to travel throughout Europe (both western and eastern) and didn't have enough pockets for all the different currencies. Basically, it was a nightmare - having to change money (often at the border crossing) and costing about 10% each time.

Having travelled around Europe since the introduction of the Euro life was so much easier - just one pocket needed until you hit a country that wasn't in the Euro zone.

Now, if only they could get their act together .......

irishh_bob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Putting aside political positions on the wider EU question for a moment, was the Euro currency project a mistake from the beginning?

We have a situation now whereby the Euro is apparently close to collapse, if it does collapse it will allegedly mean complete havoc across its member countries (although personally I have other theories about this but they're for another thread), and whereby it is apparently impossible for a country to easily exit the Euro without, again, causing all sorts of internal havoc.

Most of the economists looking in from outside are proposing Eurobonds, fiscual unity, or various alternatives and combinations based on fiscal unity. Essentially though, almost all of the proposed solutions are suggesting that the only way out of this is for member states to surrender their economic sovereignty, to a certain extent.

So the question is: Was the original Euro idea a mistake? Was it naive and short sighted to believe that a common currency could work WITHOUT an accompanying fiscal unity? Was arriving at this point sooner or later always inevitable given the inherent impossibility of a common currency working without fiscal unity, or could it have survived?

Either way, the Eurozone as we know it - sharing a currency while maintaining individual national sovereignty on budgets - seems to be further and further from a possibility with each passing day.

So assuming people agree that economic sovereignty is desirable for each member state, was the Euro project badly designed in that regard? Was it doomed to failure by this from the start?

who says the architechts of the single currency didnt envisage fiscal and politcal unity becoming a reality one day ?

i happen to think that theese people knew damn well that weaker countries would find themselves in need of rescue from the larger players and they carefully chorgeographed the crisis to make it look like the big guns rode in on a horse to rescue the likes of greece , ireland , portugal etc

irishh_bob

odds_on wrote: »

I'm not going into the ins and outs of the current situation.

However, I used to travel throughout Europe (both western and eastern) and didn't have enough pockets for all the different currencies. Basically, it was a nightmare - having to change money (often at the border crossing) and costing about 10% each time.

Having travelled around Europe since the introduction of the Euro life was so much easier - just one pocket needed until you hit a country that wasn't in the Euro zone.

Now, if only they could get their act together .......

by that logic , all of africa should have the same currency or all of south america for that matter , not everyone needs to travel on a regular basis and we cant make policy based soley on thier needs

Scofflaw

irishh_bob wrote: »

who says the architechts of the single currency didnt envisage fiscal and politcal unity becoming a reality one day ?

i happen to think that theese people knew damn well that weaker countries would find themselves in need of rescue from the larger players and they carefully chorgeographed the crisis to make it look like the big guns rode in on a horse to rescue the likes of greece , ireland , portugal etc

That's a very poorly thought out position, though, since what's largely keeping the crisis going is the unwillingness of the larger economies to do exactly what you claim was the point of the crisis. I think you should probably put your thinking cap back on, or save it for the CT forum, where they don't object to that kind of logical flaw.

regards,
Scofflaw

Yahew

Gurgle wrote: »

There is a 5 point plan to help alleviate worrying about eurozone fiscal collapse:

1. Read / Listen to sensationalist reporting from 3rd grade arts graduates
2. Google the 'facts' reported by 3rd grade arts graduates
http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html
3. Discover that since 2003 the euro has never been below its initial rate against the US$.
4. Open bottle of German / Dutch / Spanish / French beer
5. Ignore nonsense spouted by 3rd grade arts graduates

I am always amused by attacks on arts graduates, as a science grad, but I don't think the currency rate matters all that much. The US has been printing money like it was going out of fashion.

Sterling has also fallen against the Euro. Again printing money.

Maybe the ECB should take a hint. Strong currencies are not always the best strategy.

Gurgle

Yahew wrote: »

I am always amused by attacks on arts graduates, as a science grad, but I don't think the currency rate matters all that much. The US has been printing money like it was going out of fashion.

Sterling has also fallen against the Euro. Again printing money.

Maybe the ECB should take a hint. Strong currencies are not always the best strategy.

Hehe, It wasn't really an attack on arts grads.
More an attack on press coverage of the recession: The ignorant leading the gullible.

odds_on

irishh_bob wrote: »

by that logic , all of africa should have the same currency or all of south america for that matter , not everyone needs to travel on a regular basis and we cant make policy based soley on thier needs

In Europe, because so many of the countries are small in size, you can pass through many countries in one day, thus you may need several currencies in the same day. African and south American countries are in general much larger.

kennyb3

@ Yahew, its nothing to do with a strong currency. It's because Germany won't let them as any significant inflation (see the UK for this) would erode the ageing German populations savings.

Gurgle

kennyb3 wrote: »

It's because Germany won't let them as any significant inflation (see the UK for this) would erode the ageing German populations savings.

^^ Case in point; lazy repetition of the same old crap we hear reported by lazy journos who couldn't be bothered doing their research.

Age structure (Germany):
0-14 years: 13.3% (male 5,569,390/female 5,282,245)
15-64 years: 66.1% (male 27,227,487/female 26,617,915)
65 years and over: 20.6% (male 7,217,163/female 9,557,634) (2011 est.)

Age structure (UK):
0-14 years: 17.3% (male 5,575,119/female 5,301,301)
15-64 years: 66.2% (male 20,979,401/female 20,500,913)
65 years and over: 16.5% (male 4,564,375/female 5,777,253) (2011 est.)

kennyb3

Gurgle wrote: »

^^ Case in point; lazy repetition of the same old crap we hear reported by lazy journos who couldn't be bothered doing their research.

Age structure (Germany):
0-14 years: 13.3% (male 5,569,390/female 5,282,245)
15-64 years: 66.1% (male 27,227,487/female 26,617,915)
65 years and over: 20.6% (male 7,217,163/female 9,557,634) (2011 est.)

Age structure (UK):
0-14 years: 17.3% (male 5,575,119/female 5,301,301)
15-64 years: 66.2% (male 20,979,401/female 20,500,913)
65 years and over: 16.5% (male 4,564,375/female 5,777,253) (2011 est.)

Congratulations, you went to google typed in 'german age demographics' and index mundi came up as the 3rd search which you copied and pasted. Now who's lazy. That 4% is significant coupled with the facts that the median age is over 4 years higher in Germany and German people are more prolific savers.

Gurgle

kennyb3 wrote: »

Congratulations, you went to google typed in 'german age demographics' and index mundi came up as the 3rd search which you copied and pasted. Now who's lazy.

Nope, went straight to CIA world factbook.

kennyb3 wrote: »

That 4% is significant coupled with the facts that the median age is over 4 years higher in Germany and German people are more prolific savers.

I'm lazy for looking stuff up, then you throw out a vague 'is significant' without explaining why

I agree that Germans have a tendency to be more sensible, but I don't accept that they're keeping inflation down for the benefit of German pensioners.

conorhal

odds_on wrote: »

I'm not going into the ins and outs of the current situation.

However, I used to travel throughout Europe (both western and eastern) and didn't have enough pockets for all the different currencies. Basically, it was a nightmare - having to change money (often at the border crossing) and costing about 10% each time.

Having travelled around Europe since the introduction of the Euro life was so much easier - just one pocket needed until you hit a country that wasn't in the Euro zone.

Now, if only they could get their act together .......

Inconvenient as a multitude of currencies may have been to you, now that your bulging pocket is empty, that’s a fact which strikes me as far more inconvenient then your previous 'problem'.

SmartHass

odds_on wrote: »

Was the Euro a mistake?

I'm not going into the ins and outs of the current situation.

However, I used to travel throughout Europe (both western and eastern) and didn't have enough pockets for all the different currencies. Basically, it was a nightmare - having to change money (often at the border crossing) and costing about 10% each time.

Having travelled around Europe since the introduction of the Euro life was so much easier - just one pocket needed until you hit a country that wasn't in the Euro zone.

Now, if only they could get their act together .......

Visa Debit is quite widely accepted?!

kennyb3

Gurgle wrote: »

Nope, went straight to CIA world factbook.

I'm lazy for looking stuff up, then you throw out a vague 'is significant' without explaining why

I agree that Germans have a tendency to be more sensible, but I don't accept that they're keeping inflation down for the benefit of German pensioners.

Sorry didn't think i need to explain. 20.6% of a population of approx 82m versus 16.5% of 62m is 6.66m extra pensioners.

If we are comparing German and UK demographics, you d have to look at birth rates too, again which is much lower in Germany. And just to be clear I'm not saying Germany has an out and out demographics problem as
I don't see how a relatively stable and successful economy, that has an export surplus and a good savings rate etc. will end up with a demographic crisis. It will always attract young workers as required, who will move from a poorly performing economic area to Germany whether on a temporary or permanent basis.

Anyway i wasn't trying to have a fight with you and I didnt compare the Uk to Germany, you did, I just disn't like your lazy comment. I only mentioned UK inflation as it has to do with the QE policy they are pursuing.

And i's sure you are correct protecting against inflation is probably only one of the many reasons for Germans reluctance to allow the ECB to intervene in a meaningful way.

Gurgle

kennyb3 wrote: »

I didnt compare the Uk to Germany, you did

kennyb3 wrote: »

@ Yahew, its nothing to do with a strong currency. It's because Germany won't let them as any significant inflation (see the UK for this) would erode the ageing German populations savings.

kennyb3 wrote: »

I only mentioned UK inflation as it has to do with the QE policy they are pursuing.

QE isn't working for the UK, its not working for the US, why would it work for the Eurozone?

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a lot of things that in retrospect should have been done differently when the euro was introduced.It has done what was promised: provided stability. What went wrong in the boom, and what we're paying for now is a side effect of that stability: cheap and easy credit.

The decision should have been made then one way or the other: Either banks could depend on government bailouts and would be subject to strict regulation or they could go hell for leather after profits and suffer the consequences when it all came crashing down.

Failure to regulate was the mistake, not the unified currency itself.

kennyb3

Gurgle wrote: »

QE isn't working for the UK, its not working for the US, why would it work for the Eurozone?

I never once said they should follow these examples. I merely mentioned the UK was undergoing QE which was leading to inflation and that part of the reason for Germans refusal was because of the expected* inflation that would result. That was all. I never compared Uk and German demographics. You called my comment lazy but the figures above show a very different story.

* There are arguements whether significant inflation would actually result but that would need another thread.

odds_on

Originally posted by conorhal

Inconvenient as a multitude of currencies may have been to you, now that your bulging pocket is empty, that’s a fact which strikes me as far more inconvenient then your previous 'problem'.

Actually, the euro is stronger now than when it was first introduced to the markets and we all started to have euros in our pockets. And for some reason the euro zone "crisis" does not seem to have affected the value (to any great degree) of the euro against other major currencies.

About 10 years ago, I bought something from the US and at that stage, the euro was only marginally stronger than the dollar - about 10% more if my memory serves me correctly.


Originally posted by SmartHass

Visa Debit is quite widely accepted?!

Back in the 60s and 70s when I travelled around Europe, I never had a Visa Debit card nor a Credit Card - in fact I still don't (and won't) have a credit card - too many card frauds IMHO. And although I do have a debit card, I rarely use it "in-store" - just use to get my cash from the ATM.

Yahew

A currency is not successful just because it trades higher ( particularly since higher prices thwart export led growth). The Chinese keep their currency low. No flies on them.

QE isn't working for the UK, its not working for the US, why would it work for the Eurozone?

Without a counter factual history - of what would have happened without QE - you cant say whether it worked or not. It may have stopped a wider depression.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a lot of things that in retrospect should have been done differently when the euro was introduced.It has done what was promised: provided stability. What went wrong in the boom, and what we're paying for now is a side effect of that stability: cheap and easy credit.

So the stability caused the instability, but it has still done what it has promised - promote stability. Fair enough.

andrew

It's pretty clear that european leaders knew that there had to be some sort of fiscal coordination within the euro. That's why they came up with the stability and growth pact. The main aim of the SGP was to prevent to prevent inflation, by preventing countries from racking up deficits, and thereby pressuring the ECB to monetise their debt. It became the main aim because historically, the Germans, who have a heavy influence over the ECB, hate inflation. This makes sense, and isn't necessarily a bad aim, but the problem is that the SGP doesn't prevent countries from racking up debt, and leaves them with no other option than to rack up debt during a recession.

It doesn't prevent countries from racking up debt during a recession because it is unenforcable. Countries don't have an incentive to force other countries to adhere, lest they be the ones breeching the pact later. And the reality is that countries have regularly breeched the SGP. More significant, however, is that sometimes countries really don't have any option but to rack up deficits, and the SGP didn't provide for this. For example, it makes sense to run a deficit during a recession by enacting an expansionary fiscal policy, which softens the recession. Instead, the SGP just said that when there was a major recession, countries were free to rack up as much debt as they like. Since they no longer had the ability to lower interest rates themselves, this was the only options countries would have.

The idea was that the Euro operated within an optimum currency area, (OCA), or would come to be an OCA eventually. An OCA is basically a geographical region in which it is optimal to have the same currency. The main determinants of an OCA are labour and capital mobilty. While there is capital mobility within the EU, there isn't labour mobility. While in other currency unions such as the US workers readily move between states in search of jobs, the data shows that european workers are much less mobile. This makes sense, given language and cultural barriers.

If the Euro was an OCA, then the shocks would be symmetrical, and happen to every country in the euro. This would mean that euro monetary policy could be used to fix recessions, and to cool the jets when there was a boom. So countries wouldn't need to use monetary policy anyway and everything would be fine. But as pointed out above, the euro isn't an OCA. What does this mean?

It means that, for example, Ireland had a different business cycle to Germany, and could be in a recession/boom, while other countries weren't. For example, between 1999 and 2006 Ireland's interest rate was far too low, and so we had a housing bubble. And then, when the recession hit, we couldn't use monetary policy to dampen the effects of the recession either. (as it happens, we didn't use fiscal policy either, instead, we racked up debt due to the banks). In a general sense, though, it means that countries have no option but to run up large deficits in response to a recession, which is exactly the thing the ECB wanted to avoid in the first place.

And so it's clear that the euro wasn't particularly well designed. While it was clear before the euro that europe is not an OCA, measures weren't taken in order to cope with this fact. As OP mentions, fiscal integration (fiscal union) could be a solution to this. Of course, problems with this.

In terms of soverignty, we'd no longer be able to spend money any way we wanted, and indeed would have to give away money to other poorer countries. There's also the possibility that some countries would become chronically in need of transfers, in the same way that some Irish regions in the west constantly recieve trasfers from those in the east. In while people might not mind giving money to their own country men, they might not be so willing to give money to 'lazy Italians' or 'reckless Irish.' Finally, fiscal transfers don't solve the core problem; namely, that europe isn't an OCA, and might never be.

That said, there are benefits; namely, we are now one of those poorer countries which needs money. And in a more general sense, it would help the euro to survive in the long term. Instead of racking up debt in response to a crisis, they countries would recieve money from the EU, and a recession would be much less harmful both to them, and to the euro as a whole. There'd be no worry about countries racking up excessive debt on their own any more. It could also prevent countries from having overheating economies too, if in good times transfers mean that countries would have to give away money and so adopt contractionary policy. It's important to remember here that the euro does have benefits in terms of increasing trade significantly.

So the decision, then, is ultimately a political one, and comes with a lot of uncertainty. It depends how much you value economic soverignty, how much you value having an economically and politically integrated europe, and whether you think the benefits of a fiscal union will outweigh the costs.

Amtmann

I'm instinctively pro-European. I *feel* very European, just as much as I do Irish, and probably even more so. Conceptually, I think a single currency is a wonderful idea, and I remember the sense of bonhomie when it was first circulated in 2002. I think it would be deplorable if we lost it.

Wibbs

Tremelo wrote: »

I'm instinctively pro-European. I *feel* very European, just as much as I do Irish, and probably even more so. Conceptually, I think a single currency is a wonderful idea, and I remember the sense of bonhomie when it was first circulated in 2002. I think it would be deplorable if we lost it.

Ditto T. My heart loves it, but my head has always trailed behind.

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a very poorly thought out position, though, since what's largely keeping the crisis going is the unwillingness of the larger economies to do exactly what you claim was the point of the crisis. I think you should probably put your thinking cap back on, or save it for the CT forum, where they don't object to that kind of logical flaw.

regards,
Scofflaw

bah, I was hoping for "amused" instead of "regards"

Gurgle wrote: »

Nope, went straight to CIA world factbook.


I'm lazy for looking stuff up, then you throw out a vague 'is significant' without explaining why

I agree that Germans have a tendency to be more sensible, but I don't accept that they're keeping inflation down for the benefit of German pensioners.

Damn you with all of your lazy fact checking!

conorhal

odds_on wrote: »

Originally posted by conorhal
Actually, the euro is stronger now than when it was first introduced to the markets and we all started to have euros in our pockets. And for some reason the euro zone "crisis" does not seem to have affected the value (to any great degree) of the euro against other major currencies.

About 10 years ago, I bought something from the US and at that stage, the euro was only marginally stronger than the dollar - about 10% more if my memory serves me correctly.

I was speaking of all our metaphorical pockets that are about to be emptied come budget time as we are forced to pay for this Euro crisis.

The 'some reason' that the Euro is not falling against the dollar at the moment is because the US is printing dollars to beat the band (and deflate their debt and restore competitiveness, kind of what we need to ECB to be doing), just because a currency is falling at a slightly slower rate then others is hardly cause to celebrate, and If you think that what we, as heavily export dependent nation, need right now is a strong overvalued currency right now you're mad, thanks again Euro.

But, you know, so long as you can buy region 1 DVD's cheaply on Amazon and don’t have to bother with the hassle of foreign exchange, imminent great depression II be damned!

odds_on

conorhal wrote: »

I was speaking of all our metaphorical pockets that are about to be emptied come budget time as we are forced to pay for this Euro crisis.

The 'some reason' that the Euro is not falling against the dollar at the moment is because the US is printing dollars to beat the band (and deflate their debt and restore competitiveness, kind of what we need to ECB to be doing), just because a currency is falling at a slightly slower rate then others is hardly cause to celebrate, and If you think that what we, as heavily export dependent nation, need right now is a strong overvalued currency right now you're mad, thanks again Euro.

But, you know, so long as you can buy region 1 DVD's cheaply on Amazon and don’t have to bother with the hassle of foreign exchange, imminent great depression II be damned!

Funnily enough, there were no complaints in the "boom" time, with wages/salaries rising, minimum wage second highest in Europe (next to Denmark, I think it was).

However, once the "tiger" died, see how attitudes change - you can't have it both ways.

Sorry, I seem to be getting out of my depth here - as I said in my very first post

I'm not going into the ins and outs of the current situation.

My only interest in the Euro at the moment and as regards Ireland, is will the Euro stay or will we go back to a punt. Will the Euro break up?

I have no interest in politics; especially as I see each country voting in a government by the people sitting on the fence. You get those who will always vote one way - which ever party they adhere to. It's them in the middle (and possible about 20% of voters) who vote one way this time and another way the next time, who vote in a government. Thus, we are ruled by these "don't really know people". But I digress into an area with which I have no interest - I just accept whatever government is elected.

FreudianSlippers

odds_on wrote: »

or will we go back to a punt.

Not picking on you, but this is a common statement or question on the forum and in public at the moment. Not one person has said realistically how we can do this, how we can finance it or how it would operate.

I believe that ship has sailed and we actually couldn't even afford to print our own money if we left the Euro.

Gurgle

conorhal wrote: »

I was speaking of all our metaphorical pockets that are about to be emptied come budget time as we are forced to pay for this Euro crisis.

We're not paying for the euro crisis, we haven't been paying for the euro crisis, we're not going to pay for the euro crisis.

We're paying for the failure of our elected administration to do their jobs during the so called 'good times'.

Scofflaw

Gurgle wrote: »

We're not paying for the euro crisis, we haven't been paying for the euro crisis, we're not going to pay for the euro crisis.

We're paying for the failure of our elected administration to do their jobs during the so called 'good times'.

Nor, indeed, could we afford to pay for the euro crisis, or even our own part of it. I wonder if all those years of being told we were punching above our weight in Europe are responsible for these amazingly inflated notions we have of our role?

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

conorhal wrote: »

If you think that what we, as heavily export dependent nation, need right now is a strong overvalued currency right now you're mad, thanks again Euro.

Our exports are at record highs so clearly the Euro isn't a problem for them.

The reason "our pockets will have to be emptied" in the budget is because we are spending 5 Euro for every 3 Euro the state takes in in taxes - and that sort of math isn't sustainable in any currency.

geordief

conorhal wrote: »

The 'some reason' that the Euro is not falling against the dollar at the moment is because the US is printing dollars to beat the band (and deflate their debt and restore competitiveness, kind of what we need to ECB to be doing), just because a currency is falling at a slightly slower rate then others is hardly cause to celebrate, and If you think that what we, as heavily export dependent nation, need right now is a strong overvalued currency right now you're mad, thanks again Euro

I think another reason for that I heard (Stephanie Flanders) was that the markets are factoring in a collapse of the Eurozone to a core of stronger economies.

conorhal wrote: »

kind of what we need to ECB to be doing), just because a currency is falling at a slightly slower rate then others is hardly cause to celebrate, and If you think that what we, as heavily export dependent nation, need right now is a strong overvalued currency right now you're mad, thanks again Euro

I think I also heard that one of the worst dangers we face collectively is competitive devaluation

_Kaiser_

Tremelo wrote: »

I'm instinctively pro-European. I *feel* very European, just as much as I do Irish, and probably even more so. Conceptually, I think a single currency is a wonderful idea, and I remember the sense of bonhomie when it was first circulated in 2002. I think it would be deplorable if we lost it.

See... I'd feel the opposite... I don't *feel* very European at all. Bear with me now as this will be a bit of a ramble

While yes we got (and squandered!) a lot of cash from "Europe" and the "common market" plus our native English skills (and of course our in/famous low Corporation Tax and IDA subsidies) made us an attractive proposition for many of the global giants, many of these new jobs were actually not really that good in the larger scheme of things - witness countless numbers of manufacturing and callcentre-type staff now unemployed as their company moved further east for cheaper costs. People who now are effectively unemployable without significant retraining and investment.. assuming there were jobs for them to apply for, and investment to give them anyway!

As useless as we feel our own politicians often are, at least we can still call them to account or lobby/harass them for change. How are we meant to believe that tighter integration with "Europe" would be a good thing given some of the decisions that have been made despite our objections, or rejecting our democratic voice outright ("the Irish must vote again" and so on). Even now, it's clear our TD's have no real say or deciding role in what is arguably the most important "conference" to happen in Europe since the end of World War II

The single currency to me personally.. sure it's handy if shopping online (though that said any out-of-state purchasing I would tend to do comes from the UK or US) or if I was going on holiday to Spain (which I've actually never done - in fact I'm very bad at taking my holidays anyway ), but I feel we've given up too much for these conveniences, and that's become more evident than ever with the current/latest/ongoing crisis where the economic future of the country and its citizens is being put at risk (and I add, it's not just Ireland that's in this boat - virtually all the member states are in there with us) to save it at any cost.

andrew summed it up well. The countries in the EU are too different from a cultural and language perspective to ever integrate as well as the US (to follow his comparison) and not enough was, or is, being done to integrate that piece of the puzzle as well as the financial side.

For example, I've worked/work in multinationals for years and we have a very diverse staff... but for the most part they don't even integrate in the office very well - never mind into Irish society as a whole.

They're hired for their language abilities and in many cases their English wouldn't be great, so they (understandably I suppose) naturally tend to gravitate to their own countrymen/women, even to the point of speaking their native language in mixed company (which - and maybe it's me - I find a bit rude given this IS an English speaking country after all). Put them in a social setting (for example a Christmas party) and it's the same thing. There's always a "divide", usually subtle but there nonetheless.

Now before the "ooh racist!" types jump out, let me say I'm all for people coming here to work - but I think that we've made a mess of the integration element. We don't encourage our non-nationals to integrate into their new home... if anything we do the opposite by bending over backwards to accomodate them and their culture, lest someone call us "racist!" :rolleyes:
Rather than encouraging them to become part of Irish society and thus enriching our own culture, we do everything we can to ensure they don't have to really change at all.

The result is that many never really settle here. They work (hard in most cases!) but they don't really become part of their community or part of the local economy (they rent rather than buy, they shop in Lidl rather than the local supermarket etc) and when the work dries up, they're off home as quick taking their cash with them - leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces.
Of course there's exceptions to this but I'd say what I've described above is the "norm".

Contrast that say with the Irish who went to the US or UK in the last century and who not only worked hard (and yes partied hard too), but built lives and put down roots for themselves in their adopted homelands. Sure they (or their offspring) may come back to "the Emerald Isle" for a visit (and to have their pockets lightened!) but "home" will be somewhere else.

No doubt now I'll have all the PC types ranting at me, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's all very well striving for a single currency/economy and politcal system, but unless you get the PEOPLE to truely buy into it at a fundamental level, and the belief (backed up by reality) that they too have a part to play and a voice in shaping the direction - with opportunities and incentives to do so equally - then it's always going to fail in the end.

Jippohead

Hmmm, all my anecdotes are completely the opposite to yours. I've traveled extensively around Europe, had girlfriends from a few European countries, have worked very successfully with several European nationalities and count many as friends. Do we cancel each-other out then?

Maybe if this back-water managed to learn a few languages we wouldn't have such an issue integrating better as a union? (I suck at languages but am currently learning Italian)

Or hows this, in the current globalizing world where economies are congealing into blocs (i.e. US, China, India, EUROPE), we should in fact try and build a stronger Europe so that we as a country don't have a float around like some sort of Economic detritus?

Scofflaw

Contrast that say with the Irish who went to the US or UK in the last century and who not only worked hard (and yes partied hard too), but built lives and put down roots for themselves in their adopted homelands. Sure they (or their offspring) may come back to "the Emerald Isle" for a visit (and to have their pockets lightened!) but "home" will be somewhere else.

But not for those Irish who emigrated in the Eighties so much, because within a decade there was something to come back to in Ireland, and they came back in huge numbers - I include myself there, although I'm a slightly odd case.

More generally, I have to say that Irish society is very hard to integrate with. It's very easy to get a superficial level of integration, but if you didn't go to school with people here and nobody knows "your people" you'll only ever find yourself lumped in with the misfits at any deeper level.

cordially,
Scofflaw