Why are the British so anti Europe?

getz

Scofflaw wrote: »

It seems highly probable, and is certainly an expressed concern of the UK business community.

cordially,
Scofflaw

at this moment in time up to 51% of EU citizens speak english ,english and french are the two languages that the EU conducts all its conferences and which it publishes all its official reportage.the french have expressed a disire for their language to have the higher profile in the unions activities,without the UKs involvement ,the french with get their way,so english will be dropped down to a lower status,and as many EU MEPs also speak german,

Scofflaw

getz wrote: »

at this moment in time up to 51% of EU citizens speak english ,english and french are the two languages that the EU conducts all its conferences and which it publishes all its official reportage.the french have expressed a disire for their language to have the higher profile in the unions activities,without the UKs involvement ,the french with get their way,so english will be dropped down to a lower status,and as many EU MEPs also speak german,

Ah - you think the reason for the use of English in the EU is the UK's membership, as opposed to the global reach of English and its place as the lingua franca of international business, science, and increasingly diplomacy? And that without the UK poor little Ireland will find itself in a linguistically difficult position in some way?

You appreciate, perhaps, that any Irish person who goes to work for the EU already has to be multilingual, that English has only recently achieved its current dominance within the EU's institutions, and that every EU citizen (let alone country!) who speaks one of the official languages has the right to deal with the EU in their own language - including Irish?

This is a very pale and weakly bogeyman, getz.

cordially,
Scofflaw

getz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah - you think the reason for the use of English in the EU is the UK's membership, as opposed to the global reach of English and its place as the lingua franca of international business, science, and increasingly diplomacy? And that without the UK poor little Ireland will find itself in a linguistically difficult position in some way?

You appreciate, perhaps, that any Irish person who goes to work for the EU already has to be multilingual, that English has only recently achieved its current dominance within the EU's institutions, and that every EU citizen (let alone country!) who speaks one of the official languages has the right to deal with the EU in their own language - including Irish?

This is a very pale and weakly bogeyman, getz.

cordially,
Scofflaw

three good reasons for the UK to leave the EU, since the UK joined the EU we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except europe,over those 27 years we have had a trade deficit with other member states that averages out at £30 million per day-on the commissions own figures,the annual cost of the EU regulations outweigh the advantages of the single market by 600 to 180 billion euro,-the common agricultural policy costs every family £1200 a year on higher food bills- the german federal justice ministry showed that 84% of regulation comes from the EU--leave and we can be a democracy again.

The Corinthian

Getz, you appear to be throwing out economic arguments against membership of the EU, these are then quickly shot down and then rather than defend your points, you instead move onto new arguments that are, in turn, shot down.

It's a rather rambling, almost incoherent strategy to employ, I must admit, unless you're going for the old "if you throw enough mud, some will stick" approach.

Scofflaw

OK, so you won't defend that bogeyman, so you've offered up some more...and it would be a little more polite to reference Daniel Hannan when quoting his talking points.

getz wrote: »

three good reasons for the UK to leave the EU, since the UK joined the EU we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except europe,over those 27 years we have had a trade deficit with other member states that averages out at £30 million per day

So? You understand that if you're running a trade deficit with the rest of Europe, it's because British people and businesses want what Europe is selling? That those imports will at best be replaced from somewhere else, either more expensively or with lower quality, because if they were available elsewhere more cheaply or in better quality they would be being sourced there already? That leaving will not prevent people wanting BMWs - it will just make BMWs more expensive? That a trade deficit is a voluntary outcome of the choices made by UK residents, not some kind of naughty foreign imposition?

getz wrote: »

-on the commissions own figures,the annual cost of the EU regulations outweigh the advantages of the single market by 600 to 180 billion euro,

Er, no. This one is a very badly made up piece of statistical misunderstanding and conflation. The second figure, that of €180bn as the benefits of the single market, is from 1992, while the second figure, which is made up, is based on a figure from 2006. So the benefits from a much smaller market - a 12-member EU - during a period of recession is being compared to the costs of a much larger market - a 27-member EU - at the height of a boom. Strike one.

The source of the second figure is actually a Commission point that if regulation were reduced by 25%, there's a further possible gain in benefits of €150bn, which a journalist (or Hannan) has parlayed into "the cost of regulation is €600bn". Such a claim isn't tenable in the first place, because you can't do that sort of simplistic arithmetic with such a figure. Strike two.

More easily understood, perhaps, is that the figure does not refer to "EU regulations" but to regulations in the EU, which is something that EU regulation reduces, not adds to, because a single EU regulation replaces multiple national regulations, which reduces the regulatory burden of doing business within the single market. So what Hannan is doing is actually using figures that highlight the possible further gains from EU regulation, but in such a grossly incompetent or dishonest way that he portrays them in reverse. Strike three.

getz wrote: »

-the common agricultural policy costs every family £1200 a year on higher food bills

CAP is expensive, certainly, but I'm rather wary of Daniel's facility for pulling numbers out of the air and then misusing them. A more realistic estimate seems to be somewhere around £300 per family - that's for a family of four, so perhaps Daniel just multiplied the figure by 4.

Again, though, the comparison hides as much as it reveals. The cost being considered there is that of agricultural subsidies, which predate the EU, and which can and would exist without the EU. The UK, being very much a non-agricultural country, would almost certainly have lower subsidies without the EU, but the cost would be very unlikely to be zero, so the idea that the whole £300 is the result of the EU, as opposed to the result of the idea of agricultural subsidies more generally, is false.

getz wrote: »

- the german federal justice ministry showed that 84% of regulation comes from the EU-

Er, no, again. The German federal study showed that 84% of environmental regulation at the federal level was EU-derived during a period when most of the EU's environmental legislation was being brought in. The estimate is therefore specific to an area of legislation, a time, and a particular level of German legislative effort - the Lander bring in a large proportion of environmental legislation in Germany, but the EU legislation is primarily effected at the federal level. The House of Commons estimate for the UK across the board was less than 20%:

In the UK data suggest that from 1997 to 2009 6.8% of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1% of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations, although the degree of involvement varied from passing reference to explicit implementation.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62.pdf

And whether the UK was in EFTA or the EEA, the majority of that legislation will still be required, because the majority of EU regulations are trade regulations.

getz wrote: »

-leave and we can be a democracy again.

It won't make the slightest bit of difference.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

getz wrote: »

you cannot stand anyone with a anti-EUview

And your *positive* point of view is...

UKIP et al.'s Achilles Heel is their largely negative and populist stance. The UK has been on the international defensive since the end of WW2. In that time, many, if not most, European countries have moved on from a militaristic and nationalistic sense of state to one of cooperation and pooling of interests through the establishment of manifold European institutions including the EU. The UK has not fully bought into this vision, as is their right.

For sure, clear lines of sovereignty have been breached, but in the EU model this has been by state consent within a legal framework which can be formally exited at any time. It is clear to many at this stage that:

- there are international benefits to pooled sovereignty, e.g. the Euro;
- specific EU sovereignties vis-a-vis the rest of the world will evolve, e.g. how the EU protects its specific values (like the notion of the social market) in its dealings with others on the global stage;
- this will not stop countries understanding and retaining aspects of sovereignty that they are not prepared to share, e.g. policing, education and cultural policy. The German constitutional court Lisbon case went a long way to set some useful parameters here.

Core EU countries have been working on this vision for decades.

Instead of firmly deciding to either stay out or commit to European union, Th UK has chosen to be, at best, a hurler on the ditch on the EU, without offering a cohesive alternative of its own that attracts any kind of meaningful support. So much so that the extreme anti-EU/Eurosceptic approach adopted by many in the UK has become demagogic, duplicitous and disreputable. And deeply negative.

So, come on UK. Get the finger out. One way or another.

gallag

McDave wrote: »

And your *positive* point of view is...

UKIP et al.'s Achilles Heel is their largely negative and populist stance. The UK has been on the international defensive since the end of WW2. In that time, many, if not most, European countries have moved on from a militaristic and nationalistic sense of state to one of cooperation and pooling of interests through the establishment of manifold European institutions including the EU. The UK has not fully bought into this vision, as is their right.

For sure, clear lines of sovereignty have been breached, but in the EU model this has been by state consent within a legal framework which can be formally exited at any time. It is clear to many at this stage that:

- there are international benefits to pooled sovereignty, e.g. the Euro;
- specific EU sovereignties vis-a-vis the rest of the world will evolve, e.g. how the EU protects its specific values (like the notion of the social market) in its dealings with others on the global stage;
- this will not stop countries understanding and retaining aspects of sovereignty that they are not prepared to share, e.g. policing, education and cultural policy. The German constitutional court Lisbon case went a long way to set some useful parameters here.

Core EU countries have been working on this vision for decades.

Instead of firmly deciding to either stay out or commit to European union, Th UK has chosen to be, at best, a hurler on the ditch on the EU, without offering a cohesive alternative of its own that attracts any kind of meaningful support. So much so that the extreme anti-EU/Eurosceptic approach adopted by many in the UK has become demagogic, duplicitous and disreputable. And deeply negative.

So, come on UK. Get the finger out. One way or another.

So to recap,
The british are stupid nuckle dragging inbreds that pine back to an era when the ruled the waves and have a hard time acceping that they are now worthless specs on the radar, they also stroke their egos pretending they helped in ww2 but their effort meant nothing and being net contributers to the eu budget and net importers from eu country's means nothing.

You guys have the facts and figures and while the same few mods are in a circle jerk of agreement and talking to any body who has the audacity to believe the UK could survive out of the eu like somthing they scrape of their shoe this forum section is pretty mutch just a eu propaganda/brit hate pit.

McDave

gallag wrote: »

So to recap,
The british are stupid nuckle dragging inbreds that pine back to an era when the ruled the waves and have a hard time acceping that they are now worthless specs on the radar, they also stroke their egos pretending they helped in ww2 but their effort meant nothing and being net contributers to the eu budget and net importers from eu country's means nothing.

That's quite the defensive response. There are plenty of positive things to say about Britain. However, when it comes to the EU, the British have adopted quite a contrary stance. It seems it's not enough to want out, but many - including Cameron - also want to prevent others in the EU going about their business.

In its most extreme form the stance finds expression in the jingoistic Torysceptic right and latterly UKIP. A succession of high profile anti-EU Tories has consistently adopted a haughty and dismissive attitude to the EU, its institutions and its prominent representatives. In recent years Farage has carved out quite a populist and demagogic niche for himself in the EU. IMHO, this makes the smart-arsed end of the Eurosceptic spectrum a perfectly legitimate target. What's good for the goose...

As for being a net contributor to the EU, that's down to the UK having a GDP above the EU average. Being in such a position confers responsibilities on the UK, which includes net transfers to the less developed EU member states. Club rules so to speak. Countries like France and Germany don't complain on that score, because they're aware of the developmental side of EU politics. If the UK doesn't like these rules, then take your money and leave the club.

McDave

gallag wrote: »

You guys have the facts and figures and while the same few mods are in a circle jerk of agreement and talking to any body who has the audacity to believe the UK could survive out of the eu like somthing they scrape of their shoe this forum section is pretty mutch just a eu propaganda/brit hate pit.

Of course the UK can survive outside the EU. And the EU can make do quite well without the UK. Personally, I'd prefer to see a positive UK engage with the EU, but that looks increasingly less likely on the cards in the immediate future.

As for EU propaganda and Brit hating, there are other fora where you might find more congenial company, and where pro-EU posters like myself have received substantial and sustained hostility from UKIP and Eurosceptic posters. I'm not suggesting for a second that you decamp there, but perhaps you should recognise that there are different approaches to moderation on politics-related boards in Ireland and elsewhere, and that you can't expect everything everywhere to be sympathetic to your world view.

_Kaiser_

McDave wrote: »

Of course the UK can survive outside the EU. And the EU can make do quite well without the UK. Personally, I'd prefer to see a positive UK engage with the EU, but that looks increasingly less likely on the cards in the immediate future.

As for EU propaganda and Brit hating, there are other fora where you might find more congenial company, and where pro-EU posters like myself have received substantial and sustained hostility from UKIP and Eurosceptic posters. I'm not suggesting for a second that you decamp there, but perhaps you should recognise that there are different approaches to moderation on politics-related boards in Ireland and elsewhere, and that you can't expect everything everywhere to be sympathetic to your world view.

To be fair to him, there is a distinctly pro-Europe slant to the Politics (and sub-fora) section on these Boards (including the moderation) where anyone who questions what exactly we (or in this case the UK) get out of membership vs what it's ultimately costing us to remain a member of this little club which seems intent on maintaining the status quo and kicking the can as far down the road as possible at the expense of the people it supposedly represents, is shouted down as some sort of heretic (although at least it hasn't gotten as far as Bertie telling people to go top themselves instead just yet)

You only need to read how FF were forced into accepting the "bailout", the railroading of most EU related referenda through fear and scaremongering and outright lies ("Yes for Jobs" indeed!) until the desired result is achieved etc to recognize that it does no harm for someone to stand up and say "hang on.." every now and then as the UK has done in recent times. If only we were so fortunate as to have someone standing up for our interests - rather than the golden child/European of the Year we're stuck with instead.

oscarBravo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

...anyone who questions what exactly we (or in this case the UK) get out of membership vs what it's ultimately costing us to remain a member of this little club which seems intent on maintaining the status quo and kicking the can as far down the road as possible at the expense of the people it supposedly represents, is shouted down as some sort of heretic...

Sure: if having the basis for your views questioned is being "shouted down", then that's what happens.

But you'd want to be an awfully tender and sensitive soul to consider discussion of your views the same thing as being shouted down.

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

So to recap,
The british are stupid nuckle dragging inbreds that pine back to an era when the ruled the waves and have a hard time acceping that they are now worthless specs on the radar, they also stroke their egos pretending they helped in ww2 but their effort meant nothing and being net contributers to the eu budget and net importers from eu country's means nothing.

No one has actually said this, so it's not a very good recap. To begin with, Britain's imperial past, and perceived victory in World War II, has only been cited as a factor in the British attitude towards Europe, and foreigners in general.

There's a lot more to it than that, of course. An almost entirely Eurosceptic tabloid press. Unresolved rivalries with both France and Germany, who are central to the EU. A failure of British diplomacy at the birth of the EU, as highlighted by Luigi Barzini in his book The Europeans, and ironically Napoleon Bonaparte.

Bonaparte cannot be underestimated in this regard, as he is one of the biggest reasons that most continental European countries have similar social systems to each other than Britain - legal systems, the metric system, even the side of the road you drive on. This has added to the 'alien' character of Europeans in British eyes and greater commonality on the continent.

And then there is America - the UK, in particular looks to the US strategically from a geopolitical perspective, the rest of Europe looks to itself. This was a direct result of the fallout of the Suez crisis, as France reacted to the American failure to support the adventure by forging closer European links and Britain instead concentrating on the 'special relationship' with the US.

And of course there is the difference in economic philosophies, that has caused no end of friction between the more protectionist continentals and the libertarian British.

Finally, as a correction, no one has suggested that she did not help win World War II, only that she did not win World War II - she was on the winning side, like the French - but no one with a straight face would claim the French won the war. World War II was won my Russians and Americans.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

To be fair to him, there is a distinctly pro-Europe slant to the Politics (and sub-fora) section on these Boards (including the moderation) where anyone who questions what exactly we (or in this case the UK) get out of membership vs what it's ultimately costing us to remain a member of this little club which seems intent on maintaining the status quo and kicking the can as far down the road as possible at the expense of the people it supposedly represents, is shouted down as some sort of heretic (although at least it hasn't gotten as far as Bertie telling people to go top themselves instead just yet)

Indeed, but in fairness there's not exactly been a deluge of quality Eurosceptic argument here. Instead it appears to largely consist of soapboxing; a claim against the EU is made, which almost always is ridiculously easy to shoot down in discussion - then rather than defend the point, the Eurosceptic will instead move to the next claim to throw and see if it will stick. So you're always going to see people shouted down when they're coming out with nonsense that is easy to disprove.

Europe has become a very emotive topic (ironically, as the EU institutions are hardly something one would have thought would engender passion). On the Europhile side, one could make a similar accusation to the British on of wallowing in past glories - having realized that the twentieth century was not kind to them, Europeans have hit upon the notion of coming together to regain some of that lost glory with a Größere europäische Reich. This alone is not a good reason for the EU.

The Eurosceptic side is the other side of the coin, except without the full realization that the twentieth century left Britain as a second rate power.

However, what I truly dislike in a lot of Eurosceptic argument, is the attempt to use pseudo-arguments based on economics or democracy to cover up what is almost always a viewpoint based upon petty nationalism and xenophobia. Bate most Eurosceptics and eventually, they'll let slip that it really comes down to not wishing to be conquered by 'foreigners' - just like getz eventually did here.

To me, the EU makes sense for the vast majority of Europe, including some non-EU members such as Norway and Iceland. It does not yet make sense to some, such as Switzerland. The idea of a European superstate also makes sense in the longer term, as we see individual Europeans nations loose influence and huge developing nations, such as Brazil, India and, of course, China rise.

This doesn't mean that the EU is ideal - frankly it's a mess and always has been because of it's inability to decide what it wants to be. But if you add things up, it's in Ireland's interests to remain in and even Britian's, on balance.

Unfortunately people waving flags seldom think that way.

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one has actually said this, so it's not a very good recap. To begin with, Britain's imperial past, and perceived victory in World War II, has only been cited as a factor in the British attitude towards Europe, and foreigners in general.

There's a lot more to it than that, of course. An almost entirely Eurosceptic tabloid press. Unresolved rivalries with both France and Germany, who are central to the EU. A failure of British diplomacy at the birth of the EU, as highlighted by Luigi Barzini in his book The Europeans, and ironically Napoleon Bonaparte.

Bonaparte cannot be underestimated in this regard, as he is one of the biggest reasons that most continental European countries have similar social systems to each other than Britain - legal systems, the metric system, even the side of the road you drive on. This has added to the 'alien' character of Europeans in British eyes and greater commonality on the continent.

And then there is America - the UK, in particular looks to the US strategically from a geopolitical perspective, the rest of Europe looks to itself. This was a direct result of the fallout of the Suez crisis, as France reacted to the American failure to support the adventure by forging closer European links and Britain instead concentrating on the 'special relationship' with the US.

And of course there is the difference in economic philosophies, that has caused no end of friction between the more protectionist continentals and the libertarian British.

Finally, as a correction, no one has suggested that she did not help win World War II, only that she did not win World War II - she was on the winning side, like the French - but no one with a straight face would claim the French won the war. World War II was won my Russians and Americans.

Indeed, but in fairness there's not exactly been a deluge of quality Eurosceptic argument here. Instead it appears to largely consist of soapboxing; a claim against the EU is made, which almost always is ridiculously easy to shoot down in discussion - then rather than defend the point, the Eurosceptic will instead move to the next claim to throw and see if it will stick. So you're always going to see people shouted down when they're coming out with nonsense that is easy to disprove.

Europe has become a very emotive topic (ironically, as the EU institutions are hardly something one would have thought would engender passion). On the Europhile side, one could make a similar accusation to the British on of wallowing in past glories - having realized that the twentieth century was not kind to them, Europeans have hit upon the notion of coming together to regain some of that lost glory with a Größere europäische Reich. This alone is not a good reason for the EU.

The Eurosceptic side is the other side of the coin, except without the full realization that the twentieth century left Britain as a second rate power.

However, what I truly dislike in a lot of Eurosceptic argument, is the attempt to use pseudo-arguments based on economics or democracy to cover up what is almost always a viewpoint based upon petty nationalism and xenophobia. Bate most Eurosceptics and eventually, they'll let slip that it really comes down to not wishing to be conquered by 'foreigners' - just like getz eventually did here.

To me, the EU makes sense for the vast majority of Europe, including some non-EU members such as Norway and Iceland. It does not yet make sense to some, such as Switzerland. The idea of a European superstate also makes sense in the longer term, as we see individual Europeans nations loose influence and huge developing nations, such as Brazil, India and, of course, China rise.

This doesn't mean that the EU is ideal - frankly it's a mess and always has been because of it's inability to decide what it wants to be. But if you add things up, it's in Ireland's interests to remain in and even Britian's, on balance.

Unfortunately people waving flags seldom think that way.

all i have read in your post, is the history of great britain by corinthian, and his obvious hate of anything to do with the british, quotes of WW11,wallowing in past glories,xnophobia,petty nationalism,suez,imperialism,and for god sake driving on the wrong side of the road,if the EU is better of without the UK in it why dont you say so without the republican rant ?

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

all i have read in your post, is the history of great britain by corinthian, and his obvious hate of anything to do with the british, quotes of WW11,wallowing in past glories,xnophobia,petty nationalism,suez,imperialism,and for god sake driving on the wrong side of the road

With respects, if that is all you have read then I would have to question your level of literacy.

For example, where it comes to harking back to past imperial glories, I made the exact same accusation of other European nations, citing this a one factor in their support for the European project - so you can hardly claim I'm picking on the UK, when I am making similar criticisms of other European countries.

It seems you lacked the capacity or patience to actually read what I wrote, and simply responded with another diatribe, rather than bothering to defend your now countless nonsensical points that have been demolished in this discussion. Any more mud to throw?

if the EU is better of without the UK in it why dont you say so without the republican rant ?

I actually did so in a previous post - although I doubt you bothered reading it. I don't believe the EU is better off without the UK, at least in the short term. In the long term and on balance, I'm not so sure, but am certainly not decided one way or another.

Unlike you, I've been quite open about my true opinions.

djpbarry

getz wrote: »

all i have read in your post, is the history of great britain by corinthian, and his obvious hate of anything to do with the british...

All I have read in your post is your obvious dislike of anyone who dares to question the rationale behind Britain's hostility toward the EU.

getz

looks as if 60 million of us are going to have to give up our irish lamb and butter for the cheaper new zealand produce,and i wonder what will happen to the EU citizens who now live and work in the UK,on a side issue ,every country in the world used to travel on the left hand side of the road[even the USA] now only 64 countries do,] it was all about protecting your loved ones,

djpbarry

getz wrote: »

...i wonder what will happen to the EU citizens who now live and work in the UK...

Many will probably leave when their jobs are gone.

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

looks as if 60 million of us are going to have to give up our irish lamb and butter for the cheaper new zealand produce,and i wonder what will happen to the EU citizens who now live and work in the UK,on a side issue

Better for Ireland to lose the UK export market than the EU one. The former accounts for 15.4% of exports, while the EU as a whole accounts for 57.9% - thus some basic arithmetic should explain the rest to you. Irish agricultural exports would still end up going to the UK, but would likely become luxury goods, further mitigating any drop in exports.

As to EU citizens who now live and work in the UK, not to mention UK citizens who now live and work in the EU (which you conspicuously didn't mention) - this has been mooted in various articles examining the possible scenarios following a Britxit, and it seems like an amnesty would be most likely. Future movement of labour might be more restricted, but not much more. After all, there is effectively free movement of labour between the EU and non-EU EFTA nations such as Switzerland already.

So at this stage all you appear to be doing is throwing out increasingly weaker bogeymen, as Scofflaw might call it.

every country in the world used to travel on the left hand side of the road[even the USA] now only 64 countries do,] it was all about protecting your loved ones

Actually, every country in the World did not use to travel on the left hand side, but I presume you're not going to let facts get in the way of one of your claims. The origin for the difference, as I alluded to, in Europe was principally Napoleon - which was why I earlier cited his influence in having engendered more commonality in continental Europe, which the UK does not have.

I'm not sure what you meant by "protecting your loved ones" on this topic - left or right makes no difference, so long as the side is standardized, unless you believe that driving on the left possesses some occult advantage. Did you mean protecting your loved ones from the French?

So, any more bogeymen we can have a good laugh at?

K-9

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You only need to read how FF were forced into accepting the "bailout",

This is one that always seems to get trotted out as a criticism of the EU but barring some self-interested parties in FF, I've yet to see anybody else back it up. Given that often the people who say it would be very harsh critics of self-interest in FF generally, I find it hard to understand why they'd believe them on it in this particular case.

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

Better for Ireland to lose the UK export market than the EU one. The former accounts for 15.4% of exports, while the EU as a whole accounts for 57.9% - thus some basic arithmetic should explain the rest to you. Irish agricultural exports would still end up going to the UK, but would likely become luxury goods, further mitigating any drop in exports.

As to EU citizens who now live and work in the UK, not to mention UK citizens who now live and work in the EU (which you conspicuously didn't mention) - this has been mooted in various articles examining the possible scenarios following a Britxit, and it seems like an amnesty would be most likely. Future movement of labour might be more restricted, but not much more. After all, there is effectively free movement of labour between the EU and non-EU EFTA nations such as Switzerland already.

So at this stage all you appear to be doing is throwing out increasingly weaker bogeymen, as Scofflaw might call it.

Actually, every country in the World did not use to travel on the left hand side, but I presume you're not going to let facts get in the way of one of your claims. The origin for the difference, as I alluded to, in Europe was principally Napoleon - which was why I earlier cited his influence in having engendered more commonality in continental Europe, which the UK does not have.

I'm not sure what you meant by "protecting your loved ones" on this topic - left or right makes no difference, so long as the side is standardized, unless you believe that driving on the left possesses some occult advantage. Did you mean protecting your loved ones from the French?

So, any more bogeymen we can have a good laugh at?

about a quater of the world drives on the left,up untill the late 1700 everybody travelled on the left side of the road, thus they would be enabled to draw swords from their right,

McDave

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You only need to read how FF were forced into accepting the "bailout"

Surely you mean how:

- FF countercyclical, pump-priming policy racked up enormous budget requirements; and
- FF failed to regulate our financial sector.

So when the bubble finally burst, FF didn't have a notion what was going on let alone what to do about it.

In reality, by the time Lehmans happened, the horse had truly bolted on a woefully under-managed Irish economy.

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

about a quater of the world drives on the left,up untill the late 1700 everybody travelled on the left side of the road, thus they would be enabled to draw swords from their right,

Incorrect. Many countries were always RHD, or often a mixture of both, such as France, as the standardization of which side to drive on is actually very modern. Even in ancient times evidence exists that both sides were used in different parts of the Roman Empire.

So, no - every country in the World did not use to travel on the left hand side, despite your claim that it did.

Not that we've figured out why this is such a big deal for you, or how LHD somehow better protects our loved ones. Is it that we will be better able to reach our swords to do so? In fairness, I don't thing the UK economy will get that bad if it leaves the EU to require that facility...

McDave wrote: »

In reality, by the time Lehmans happened, the horse had truly bolted on a woefully under-managed Irish economy.

I wouldn't use the term under-managed, even though it's technically correct, as it may give the impression that economies should be far more managed than they are (more, yes, but far more I would not agree with).

The Irish government's (and population's) problem was that it began to live in a fantasy land, where the good times would never end and increasingly we began to invent scenarios such as the 'soft landing' to reinforce this sense of security. As such the problem is that the Irish government didn't so much under-manage as not manage at all, which is why monetary policy control would have been moot - we simply wouldn't have used it.

As to the government not having a clue what to do when it fell apart, I agree - to this day I really cannot understand how they thought it would make sense to take financial crisis advice from people like Peter Sutherland, who cannot be said to be entirely neutral where it comes to the question of how to deal with the banks.

The bubble had already burst in the Irish property market in 2007 - I remember coming to this conclusion around the time, or just before, Northern Rock went bust in the UK, and was certainly not alone in this. Lehman Brothers was just the icing on the cake.

McDave

The Corinthian wrote: »

The bubble had already burst in the Irish property market in 2007 - I remember coming to this conclusion around the time, or just before, Northern Rock went bust in the UK, and was certainly not alone in this. Lehman Brothers was just the icing on the cake.

I think it took external stimulus to crystallise our problems. Lehmans was that stimulus. Irish policy-makers did not respond to any internal, domestic stimulus. Which made our crash all the sharper when it happened.

The Corinthian

McDave wrote: »

I think it took external stimulus to crystallise our problems. Lehmans was that stimulus. Irish policy-makers did not respond to any internal, domestic stimulus. Which made our crash all the sharper when it happened.

Indeed, we couldn't ignore the elephant in the middle of the room any more or delude ourselves with any more fantasy scenarios involving 'soft landings'.

McDave

The Corinthian wrote: »

I wouldn't use the term under-managed, even though it's technically correct, as it may give the impression that economies should be far more managed than they are (more, yes, but far more I would not agree with).

I was wondering which term to use. I settled on 'management' because in a properly functioning state with regulation and political oversight as a given, it would have devoved to civil service and regulatory staff to pick up on signs and keep an eye on trends.

To that extent we needed an adequate staff, properly managed, in at least Finance and the Regulator's office. But no-one seemed to be doing the number-crunching, or even following trends reported elsewhere. Hell, Finance wasn't even hiring PhDs.

SoulandForm

Personally I cant stand UKIP however people should remember that it was Old Labour that was far more euroskeptic than the Tories.

There was an attempt to create a left wing alternative to UKIP; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_to_EU_%E2%80%93_Yes_to_Democracy ; sadly it didnt get anywhere.

getz

i know if the UK leaves the EU,things will for a time get worse,many on boards are already sounding the death knell for the UK,when it is not yet certain that the citizens will vote to leave less than 48% so far said they would vote to, now if i was in the euro ,i would be more worried by the emnid poll for bild am sonntag that says 51% of germans want to ditch the euro,then you would see the EU unravel.

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

i know if the UK leaves the EU,things will for a time get worse,many on boards are already sounding the death knell for the UK,when it is not yet certain that the citizens will vote to leave less than 48% so far said they would vote to, now if i was in the euro ,i would be more worried by the emnid poll for bild am sonntag that says 51% of germans want to ditch the euro,then you would see the EU unravel.

Funny how you criticize others for claiming the death knell for the UK, in the event of it leaving the EU, then go and claim the death knell for the EU, in the event of Germany leaving the Eurozone.

Germany will not leave the Euro as it has the most to lose from doing so - I wouldn't take too seriously what a rag like Bild says in that regard (it's the German equivalent of the Sun). It might set up an 'alternative' Eurozone, with some of the stronger Eurozone nations, like Holland, but that too is a bit of a desperate stretch.

The UK leaving the EU would be painful for everyone in the short term, that much is certain.

The UK will likely 'survive', if she did, but it will lose political and economic influence - there's no escaping that. Her economy will eventually adjust, making more use of trade with the Commonwealth nations and North America, and likely arrive at some form of trade agreement, akin to Norway's, with the EU.

The UK's biggest danger is if leaving the EU has any knock-on effect on Scottish independence (having an EU referendum before the Scottish one is a really bad idea, IMHO), especially as the short-term economic hardships will likely engender further support for it. If Scotland votes for independence, then this would undoubtedly have consequences for Northern Ireland too. So who knows, an unravelling of the UK could well be more likely than one of the EU?

In reality, speculation like this, for either the EU or UK, is seriously pie in the sky.

McDave

getz wrote: »

looks as if 60 million of us are going to have to give up our irish lamb and butter for the cheaper new zealand produce

It's precisely this kind of mentality which convinces me it's necessary to maintain diverse dependencies away from the UK. The EU is a nicer fit in in this regard.

I wouldn't like Ireland to have been in any obliged towards the British political classes during the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq. Just imagine the threats: "If you don't join 'the coalition of the willing', we'll jack up the NZ quotas!!"

The Corinthian

McDave wrote: »

It's precisely this kind of mentality which convinces me it's necessary to maintain diverse dependencies away from the UK.

Prior to our joining the EEC, and for some time after (until our export market adjusted), Ireland was ridiculously dependant on the UK economically.

By 1971, 63% of Irish exports were to the UK, our currency was pegged to the British Pound, at a 1-to-1 rate - yes, we didn't have monetary policy back then either, but this was in the days before we had 'media economists', so we didn't care.

For those who feel that breaking with Brussels and realigning ourselves economically with London is a good idea, you should remember that we have a say in Brussels, we don't in London. This is an important point, as being over-reliant on any single foreign market, with no representation, for your trade is a dangerous business, as we discovered in the economic war with the UK, the consequences of which crippled the Irish economy for decades after.

Finally, in 1973 we joined the EEC and in 1978 the European Monetary System (EMS), finally breaking our fixed rate with the British Pound by 1979. Today 16% of our exports are to the UK and our currency is no less free than it was in 1971 - actually, at least now we have a say in it.

We're a lot better off - strategically and relatively - than we used to be, even with the current recession. You don't have to read for long about the economic history of Ireland to realize this.