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
Why are the British so anti Europe?
Options
Comments
-
I think Britain and continental Europe have different expectations from the EU project.
And while I don't think everyone in continental Europe has the same expectations overall I believe the continentals see Europe as a common market but also as a long term peace keeping project - ultimately seeking political union to some extent, whenever the time will be right for it and that may take another hundred years or longer.
For GB it's just the former and an opportunity to keep tabs on the continentals as towards their political aspirations. They have no aspirations of it ever becoming a federation of sorts I think, not even in a hundred years. Of course that's a long time, but at least that seems to be their position to date.
I think that's fair enough as no one should be pressured into going beyond what they want and therefore the political advancing of the EU should ideally be in unison if at all.
But I guess sometimes the GB position comes across as someone who has really no interest, but is merely in it for themselves and to obstruct the whole thing. This can then be very frustrating for the rest.
As for the average man...well...look around here and you know why.
The average man is not very well informed and has very little intention to be well informed or even informed at all. He has also no inkling that the mainstream media are advocating certain agendas and so he lives off soundbites that appeal to him. The average man is also very opinionated which is a dangerous mix.
So you get very black and white opinions with the average man IMO. Therefore the average eurosceptic man is usually more than sceptic.It's like doomsday stuff as in we signed our sovereignity away, the Euro is going down in 10 days, the EU is Hitler coming through the backdoor. That kind of stuff.0 -
Not as far as I can tell. My brother in law was at a civil engineering meeting in Brussels of all places with a bunch of different nationalities. He said it was like a selection of national archetypes. The French guy wouldn't stop monopolising the conversation and managed to insult several people, the Germans just wanted to get on with it and go home and the two English fellows wouldn't speak to anyone including each other. But the brother in law, the Welsh guy and a few others (Italian and Spanish maybe) went off to the pub afterwards and had a great time.
Probably means nothing except that the Irish can do business with anyone.
Drink! If they had a Portugese engineer it could be a meeting of the PIGS either.0 -
i think the Euro's fundamental problem is the only thing that can really stabilise the currency is Germany guarenteeing all Euro-area national debt - all this other crap about leveraging the stability fund, getting a Tobin tax etc... its just short term frantic scrabbling around for a solution that doesn't involve Germany being responsible for everyone else - why? because everyone knows that when push comes to shove goes to bloody-great heave, the Germans are going to say 'no'.
everyone knows that when that final 'no' is said, the Euro is going to collapse - simply because the German 'no' means that the Euro is litterally not worth the paper its written on. so whatever hairbrained scheme that anyone can come up with that kicks the German 'no' a bit further down the street is going to be leapt on like the key to a Parisian brothel.
this week its financial regulation, last week it was austerity, next week it might be the firstborn child - all that matters is not putting the Germans in the position where they are forced to say 'no, not ever' when there are no other options left. sadly its obvious, it reeks of desperation and everyone can see through out like glass, which is why none of these other options work for more than a week and then the hunt for a new 'solution' starts again.0 -
That would be rather irrational though because I don't think Germany has the capacity to say 'yes' in any case.
I mean there is the whole moral hazard thing. Why should they come in and back the fallout from other countries recklessness one may ask, especially when say in Greece's case this recklessness seems deep rooted in their political culture and is unlikely to change?
One may argue the Germans have a moral obligation to do so as they have caused havoc in Europe and had received help themselves and there is indeed voices in Germany going along with that. But would it not send the wrong signal to the budget offenders and more importantly would it not stress Germanic economic power beyond breaking point? Germany has accumulated significant debt herself and the stricter rules with regards to debt ceilings are badly needed in Germany too because they were the first to break the stabilty pact rules. Germany received a ratings warning from S&P only the other week.
Would the markets not just have us by the throat then as we're all-in then with no more reserves and no more wiggle room left?0 -
i'm split on the issue - i believe in moral hazard, so i don't believe that Gunther and Hannah, hard working people in their small house in Munich should foot the bill for a bunch of lazy arse fcukers in Greece who want to retire when they graduate university and never pay any tax. however, a slow child on a remote polynesian island could of told you on the day the Euro was formed that Fiscal union went hand in hand with monetary union, and that the debt of one meant the debt of all, so there's a side of me that says that the Germans wilfully turned a blind eye to an obvious possibility purely because it was politically convenient to do so - and so its right that they should suffer the consequences of that.
i believe that Merkel is absolutely right to defend German interests - and at no point could footing the bill for every chaotic country in €land be considered in Germanys interests. that said, its more Germanys problem than it is the UK problem (thats not to say it isn't the UK's problem), and if they decide that the Euro is worth continuing with - because its in their interests for it to do so - then they get to stump up the cash, not the UK.0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree with that funny enough and I think that political union will mean all-in for all members. The downside for being one if not the economic powerhouse in that setup is that you're going to be more all-in than others. Obviously Germany has more to lose in this than e.g. Greece.
I'm beginning to come round to the opinion that the €uro may have been a case of putting the cart before the horse. I fully sympathise with Germanies position of trying to revert that to some extent before they throw in their lot.
The problem is that cart and horse are accelerating on a steep downslide and we're not sure our brakes are working either. Not a good climate for well thought out treaty changes and an unhurried debate.
I also fully sympathise with the UK position on a financial transaction tax as it would impact one of their industries unfairly but from what transpires the UK position went far beyond that. They were apparently looking for their right to veto all financial regulation matter embossed into the treaty and that does not sound reasonable but more like a free ticket to obstruct anything and everything from here on in. It seems it sounded unreasonable to most if not all other EU members too.0 -
...It seems it sounded unreasonable to most if not all other EU members too.
certainly that would be true on the face of it, however my understanding of the UK position is that they simply did not trust anything other that 50ft high, bright red letters across the front of any document to keep their position safe. they feel that the EU, and other member states, never miss an opportunity to encroach the power/juristiction of the EU regardless of previous promises given.
so, instead of the normal small print, technical 'fence' that would be thrown around an issue, they decided that they wanted a huge 'safe area' cast around the whole subject - theoretically far larger in scope than it needed to be, but in view if the outright distrust they have towards both the French and Germans on this issue, they felt that overkill was required.
this is, imv, one of the problems - and very much part of the 'horse/cart' issue you mention - these 'partners' have absolutely zero trust in each other, they know that when the **** hits the fan, all will revert to narrow self-interest and if that means shafting your 'long term strategic partner' then so be it.
'Europe', far from being the petrie dish in which we experimented with a collective where all were equal, where solidarity and group interest over-came narrow self-interest, has become an essay on the need for, and use of sheer, brute power, intergovernmental intimidation and national self-interest.0 -
'Europe', far from being the petrie dish in which we experimented with a collective where all were equal, where solidarity and group interest over-came narrow self-interest, has become an essay on the need for, and use of sheer, brute power, intergovernmental intimidation and national self-interest.
Something which - if true - is a lamentable indictment of humanity's inability to get past the primitive tribalism that is responsible for so much of our woes.
The effort to do just that - to move beyond nationalism/tribalism - is what the idea of European integration is actually about. That's why I think European union cannot be allowed to fail.0 -
Britain, hummm, if it was the largest economy in Europe maybe their attitude would be more different.
It could be down to long historical reasons, such as England loosing all it's territory on the continent to modern day France.
We don't know
Or it could be that it sells newspapers, and scaring people is the best way to do that.0 -
Empire o de Sun wrote: »Britain, hummm, if it was the largest economy in Europe maybe their attitude would be more different.
It could be down to long historical reasons, such as England loosing all it's territory on the continent to modern day France.
We don't know
Or it could be that it sells newspapers, and scaring people is the best way to do that.
You could re-phrase the question as "why is Ireland, Spain, Portugal etc so happy to blindly throw their sovereignty in with Merkozy". Brits wanting to be more independent I don't see as a sinister / xenophobic / empire related thing at all. Just a proud country not wanting to become part of some german ruled superstate, which at this stage seems inevitable0 -
Advertisement
-
You could re-phrase the question as "why is Ireland, Spain, Portugal etc so happy to blindly throw their sovereignty in with Merkozy". Brits wanting to be more independent I don't see as a sinister / xenophobic / empire related thing at all. Just a proud country not wanting to become part of some german ruled superstate, which at this stage seems inevitable
German ruled? please explain this statement0 -
Britain, in particular England, and Europe have had a long and uncomfortable relationship. Being an island nation and Anglo-French rivalry have been at the centre of much of this in the last thousand years and has resulted in a sense of mistrust and xenophobia that is ingrained in the British psyche far more than you'll find on the continent.
The legacy of the British Empire has further compounded this problem. Britain still believes itself to be a superpower on some level, despite the last century, and so an element of pride is also a factor.
When the European 'project' began, Britain sent diplomats to the table, but it instructed them not to sign up to anything, because of this mistrust and it's own belief that is was still a superpower. As a result, France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries signed up and Britain abstained.
What followed was a number of events that brought the reality of the post-war World to Britain. The first was the Suez Crisis, which actually happened one year before Treaty of Rome, and demonstrated how the age of European imperialism was well and truly over.
As a reaction to this new reality Britain latched onto the 'special relationship' with the US, epitomized by Harold Macmillan's appeal to the UK parliament that they should "be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans". The French, who were also burnt by the Suez Crisis, turned to Europe instead.
It is interesting to note that Suez also marked the last major military joint venture between the UK and France until Libya this year. This divergence in policy was probably the de facto end of the entente cordiale that had weathered through two World Wars, returning them to the traditional relationship of rivals - as exemplified by the French veto of British entry into the EEC a few years later.
Britain tried to get around this with EFTA but ultimately gave up and was finally admitted into the EEC. However, Britain still was only interested in a trade organization, because it's political and foreign policy was aligned to the 'special relationship', while France and, increasingly, Germany, saw a European 'superbloc' as the only long term solution to their dwindling influence.
Coming up to the present, the fall of Communism and the Iraq war had profound influences on Europe. The former resulted in the accession of Eastern Europe to the fold and the latter irrevocably damaged European trust in the US; if they were able to act unilaterally and against all objections, then to place too much faith in them to safeguard your political, military and economic future was foolish. I still maintain that Bush did more for European unity than half a century of the EEC/EU.
Add to all this, decades of the British tabloids drip-feeding jingoistic and xenophobic nonsense to the population, which has further distanced the UK from any hope of European integration.
I think the British failure came at the birth of the EU and Suez. They bet on the 'special relationship' while the French bet on Europe and, so far, it looks like France ultimately made the better bet. But the damage was done, and as a result Britain has been increasingly out of step with the aspirations of the other 26 EU members, leaving them sidelined and ultimately (I expect) out altogether.
But they're kind of stuck now with the consequences of these policies and this leaves them little room for maneuver.0 -
I think the British only pushed to join the EEC because the French didn't want them to, and since joining, have never thrown their weight into Europe (although they have thrown in a lot of cash), and have also never appeared to see other EU countries as equal partners. An isolationist reluctance to participate fully.
That's my impression anyway.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Britain, in particular England, and Europe have had a long and uncomfortable relationship. Being an island nation and Anglo-French rivalry have been at the centre of much of this in the last thousand years and has resulted in a sense of mistrust and xenophobia that is ingrained in the British psyche far more than you'll find on the continent.
The legacy of the British Empire has further compounded this problem. Britain still believes itself to be a superpower on some level, despite the last century, and so an element of pride is also a factor.
When the European 'project' began, Britain sent diplomats to the table, but it instructed them not to sign up to anything, because of this mistrust and it's own belief that is was still a superpower. As a result, France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries signed up and Britain abstained.
What followed was a number of events that brought the reality of the post-war World to Britain. The first was the Suez Crisis, which actually happened one year before Treaty of Rome, and demonstrated how the age of European imperialism was well and truly over.
As a reaction to this new reality Britain latched onto the 'special relationship' with the US, epitomized by Harold Macmillan's appeal to the UK parliament that they should "be the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans". The French, who were also burnt by the Suez Crisis, turned to Europe instead.
It is interesting to note that Suez also marked the last major military joint venture between the UK and France until Libya this year. This divergence in policy was probably the de facto end of the entente cordiale that had weathered through two World Wars, returning them to the traditional relationship of rivals - as exemplified by the French veto of British entry into the EEC a few years later.
Britain tried to get around this with EFTA but ultimately gave up and was finally admitted into the EEC. However, Britain still was only interested in a trade organization, because it's political and foreign policy was aligned to the 'special relationship', while France and, increasingly, Germany, saw a European 'superbloc' as the only long term solution to their dwindling influence.
Coming up to the present, the fall of Communism and the Iraq war had profound influences on Europe. The former resulted in the accession of Eastern Europe to the fold and the latter irrevocably damaged European trust in the US; if they were able to act unilaterally and against all objections, then to place too much faith in them to safeguard your political, military and economic future was foolish. I still maintain that Bush did more for European unity than half a century of the EEC/EU.
Add to all this, decades of the British tabloids drip-feeding jingoistic and xenophobic nonsense to the population, which has further distanced the UK from any hope of European integration.
I think the British failure came at the birth of the EU and Suez. They bet on the 'special relationship' while the French bet on Europe and, so far, it looks like France ultimately made the better bet. But the damage was done, and as a result Britain has been increasingly out of step with the aspirations of the other 26 EU members, leaving them sidelined and ultimately (I expect) out altogether.
But they're kind of stuck now with the consequences of these policies and this leaves them little room for maneuver.
Or maybe it is a lot simpler than that.
Maybe it is just that for the past 2000 years, europeans have been nothing but a pain in the arse for the people of England and now, through its own folly, europe has gotten itself into an absolute ****ing mess and Britain is again being asked to help foot the bill to sort it out.
How is it that three G8 countries can enter into fiscal unions with countries that blatantly lied to get into bed with them. The big question is not "how do you sort out Greece?", it is "how the hell was Greece allowed to join the eurozone in the first place?".0 -
I think it would be kind to describe that as a simplistic analysis.Fratton Fred wrote: »Maybe it is just that for the past 2000 years, europeans have been nothing but a pain in the arse for the people of England and now, through its own folly, europe has gotten itself into an absolute ****ing mess and Britain is again being asked to help foot the bill to sort it out.
Right now, I think the former is the bigger question. When you're hanging by your fingernails off the edge of a cliff, it's hard to imagine that recriminations as to how you got there are more important than a discussion on how to get out of it.The big question is not "how do you sort out Greece?", it is "how the hell was Greece allowed to join the eurozone in the first place?".0 -
Perhaps you could argue its propaganda or you could argue its just poor information, but myself and my sister are living in the UK at the moment and the level of knowledge on how the EU works is abysmal here.
I am constantly finding myself in the role of Scofflaw needing to correct or inform people of basic functions of the EU.
Now I wouldnt say Ireland is a shining example of EU knowledge and understanding, but even our most uninformed seem to know the basic layout of the EU, that there is a parliament, Commission etc. Even if they are misinformed on how these institutions work
Most British people we have talked to simply dont know the first thing on the EU, they assume the worse and go from there.
What makes it weird as the OP pointed out is that the media does little to address this, I have found myself in the morning making corrections to articles in the metro when I see them incorrectly report on EU powers. Though its more the absence of information with the papers then genuine misinformation, articles about a new EU treaty leave out that it needs to be approved by the parliament (cue facebook post from UK based friend complaining about the EU overstepping its government) or that the UK has had numerous amendments put on prior EU treaties to protect its self interest before.
Perhaps the media thinks too highly or its readers?0 -
Empire o de Sun wrote: »German ruled? please explain this statement
you're joking, right? Europe is run by Merkozy, and some unelected Merkozy lap-dogs, and you know who wears the Y-fronts in that relationship!0 -
I don't think they're anti europe, they're anti Germany having control, andit's only about 60 years that they were fighting against them controlling Europe too, only for them, we'd all be speaking German today. I can't say that I don't agree with the UK, mainland europe won't and don't give a flying fiddlers about Ireland, or anyone else for that matter, all they care about is getting their money back, no matter who has to pay. I cannot see that a German Franco led financial intrustion, I mean integration will be good for anyone except them.0
-
BlitzKrieg wrote: »Perhaps you could argue its propaganda or you could argue its just poor information, but myself and my sister are living in the UK at the moment and the level of knowledge on how the EU works is abysmal here.
I am constantly finding myself in the role of Scofflaw needing to correct or inform people of basic functions of the EU.
Now I wouldnt say Ireland is a shining example of EU knowledge and understanding, but even our most uninformed seem to know the basic layout of the EU, that there is a parliament, Commission etc. Even if they are misinformed on how these institutions work
Most British people we have talked to simply dont know the first thing on the EU, they assume the worse and go from there.
What makes it weird as the OP pointed out is that the media does little to address this, I have found myself in the morning making corrections to articles in the metro when I see them incorrectly report on EU powers. Though its more the absence of information with the papers then genuine misinformation, articles about a new EU treaty leave out that it needs to be approved by the parliament (cue facebook post from UK based friend complaining about the EU overstepping its government) or that the UK has had numerous amendments put on prior EU treaties to protect its self interest before.
Perhaps the media thinks too highly or its readers?
It is simple. The British idea of Europe is a trading bloc of friendly countries with loose ties. The Germans and French, and now everyone else, sees Europe as region of politically and fiscally unified countries - effectively a superstate, and a rather undemocratic one. I would imagine there are more public in Europe that would rather see the UK version of Europe. but the politicians stopped listening to the people a long long time ago0 -
What I proffered wasn't that complicated, TBH. Certainly it makes more rational sense that the Daily Mail school of political science.Fratton Fred wrote: »Or maybe it is a lot simpler than that.
Actually Britain is not really being asked to help foot the bill; it may contribute, but it would be principally Germany that takes the biggest hit. Additionally Britian, even outside of the Euro, does very well out of the collective trading bloc; and there's a price to that.Maybe it is just that for the past 2000 years, europeans have been nothing but a pain in the arse for the people of England and now, through its own folly, europe has gotten itself into an absolute ****ing mess and Britain is again being asked to help foot the bill to sort it out.
As to the '2000 years comment', that's actually just dreadful xenophobic nonsense. Britain, as with the rest of Europe (it is still in Europe even if it wishes it were a few thousand kilometres further west) is as much a product of the various migrations and invasions of Europe as everywhere else on the continent - Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans, to name but a few in the last 2000 years.
That may be a "pain in the arse" for the British, but without them, they wouldn't be 'British'.
No argument there. Never should have done so with Greece.How is it that three G8 countries can enter into fiscal unions with countries that blatantly lied to get into bed with them. The big question is not "how do you sort out Greece?", it is "how the hell was Greece allowed to join the eurozone in the first place?".0 -
Advertisement
-
How do you know? Do you have much experience with other European cultures and nations? How many languages do you speak?I would imagine there are more public in Europe that would rather see the UK version of Europe. but the politicians stopped listening to the people a long long time ago0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »How do you know? Do you have much experience with other European cultures and nations? How many languages do you speak?
Well there was the rejection of the EU constitution in France. Somewhere else too.
That said I did find the Dutch to be far more pro-EU than the Irish or British
I actually think this thread is making a massive mistake in assuming British are more anti-EU than the Irish.
I think the Irish would love to get rid of the EU but fear the consequences much more. The British at least believe they don't need the EU so can more freely condemn it.
All this talk about the British empire having a big effect on national psyche - well we were part of the UK until not that long ago.
Its actually rather amusing Irish anti-EU sentiment is so low given recent history. If Britain wielded as much power over Ireland as the EU currently does we'd likely have conditions for 1916 all over again.0 -
Its actually rather amusing Irish anti-EU sentiment is so low given recent history. If Britain wielded as much power over Ireland as the EU currently does we'd likely have conditions for 1916 all over again.
and the award for most out of context BS comment on European affairs & History goes to...0 -
Not by a long shot; Ireland consistently voted overwhelmingly in favour of greater integration in the EEC/EU up until ten years ago: Joining (83.1% for), Single European Act (69.9%), Maastricht Treaty (68.7%), Treaty of Amsterdam (61.7%). Where we the later opposed further integration, the margins were significantly smaller: Treaty of Nice (53% against) and Treaty of Lisbon (53.2%) and in both cases these referenda were overturned with significantly higher majorities (63% and 67.1% respectively).Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »I actually think this thread is making a massive mistake in assuming British are more anti-EU than the Irish.
Meanwhile the British have consistently been eurosceptic - it's one of the reasons they've avoided referenda there, as they most likely would be defeated. Indeed, the only referendum they ever had was to remain in the EEC (shortly after they joined) in 1975, which was passed with a majority of 67.2% - far less than Ireland's 83.1% two years earlier.
So, most evidence (as opposed to opinion) does show that the British really are far more eurosceptic that the Irish, or for that matter, most if not all of the other member states.
To a minor extent you are correct; the Irish, like everyone else, want to have our cake and eat it. That's why we were such Europhiles up until Nice, when we'd gone from being a poor nation to a wealthy one expected to become a net contributor and why we quickly changed our minds on Lisbon once we were in the economic toilet.I think the Irish would love to get rid of the EU but fear the consequences much more. The British at least believe they don't need the EU so can more freely condemn it.
However, to go from our rejecting closer integration to wishing to "get rid of the EU" is a bit of a bizarre jump in logic, for which you actually have absolutely no evidence.
I'm sorry, but that analogy is laughable. Are you suggesting that our relationship to the EU in any way mirrors our relationship to the UK during their domination of our Island? That's surreal.All this talk about the British empire having a big effect on national psyche - well we were part of the UK until not that long ago.
Its actually rather amusing Irish anti-EU sentiment is so low given recent history. If Britain wielded as much power over Ireland as the EU currently does we'd likely have conditions for 1916 all over again.
Is it just me, but have others noticed recently that the Politics Board has become markedly more prone to being populated with opinions as opposed to arguments, let alone facts or evidence?0 -
Is it just me, but have others noticed recently that the Politics Board has become markedly more prone to being populated with opinions as opposed to arguments, let alone facts or evidence?
It has been progressing
the EU is like the UK ruling Ireland comments have been growing wilder and wilder
they started simple with comments like:
"Freeing outselves from being ruled by one empire to willingly join another"
to
"We had better representation in Westminster then in Brussels"
to finally:If Britain wielded as much power over Ireland as the EU currently does we'd likely have conditions for 1916 all over again.
which I think is the first one to openly say the EU holds more power over Ireland then the UK did.
Which when simply take in the Act of Union, the land laws, religious persecution & plantations...0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »What I proffered wasn't that complicated, TBH. Certainly it makes more rational sense that the Daily Mail school of political science.
Actually Britain is not really being asked to help foot the bill; it may contribute, but it would be principally Germany that takes the biggest hit. Additionally Britian, even outside of the Euro, does very well out of the collective trading bloc; and there's a price to that.
As to the '2000 years comment', that's actually just dreadful xenophobic nonsense. Britain, as with the rest of Europe (it is still in Europe even if it wishes it were a few thousand kilometres further west) is as much a product of the various migrations and invasions of Europe as everywhere else on the continent - Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans, to name but a few in the last 2000 years.
That may be a "pain in the arse" for the British, but without them, they wouldn't be 'British'.
No argument there. Never should have done so with Greece.
Yeah, ok, my post wasn't entirely serious.
To respond better and also to comment on Blitzcreigs post, the problem the British have with europe is that on the face of it, it all appears to be one way traffic.
The UK has been one of the largest net contributors to the EU for years and when the majority of Brits travel, it is to the likes of Spain, Greece and Ireland where you see massive signs announcing that the road they are driving on is being funded by the EU.
Or you see the French illegally blockading British lamb, or blocking imports of British beef despite the EU telling them not to. You also had the French throwing their toys out of their pram over Toyota and Nissan coming to the UK.
Sure, a lot of people owe their jobs to the EU, but Britain buys more from the EU than it sells, so a lot of europeans owe their livelyhood to the British as well.
Most people are happy with a trade block, but fiscal intervention is a step too far. Just look at all the knicker wetting that goes on in this country everytime Merkozy mention corporation tax rates.0 -
Being a cynic, I would suggest that now the money has stopped flowing inwards, Ireland is becoming more and more euro sceptic.0
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »Being a cynic, I would suggest that now the money has stopped flowing inwards, Ireland is becoming more and more euro sceptic.
Being a cynic, I would suggest people always look to put the blame for their own personal circumstances at the furthest door.0 -
"Since the formation of the eurozone, the cost of producing one unit of output in Germany has barely risen. By contrast, unit labour costs in southern Europe and Ireland have increased by around 40%, causing these economies to lose competitiveness. This is a flaw in the single currency which cannot be put right by bailouts or debt write-offs." ROGER BOOTLE, MANAGING DIRECTOR CAPITAL ECONOMICS0
-
Advertisement
-
Maybe you should have also mentioned that he's a weekly columnist for the Daily Telegraph."Since the formation of the eurozone, the cost of producing one unit of output in Germany has barely risen. By contrast, unit labour costs in southern Europe and Ireland have increased by around 40%, causing these economies to lose competitiveness. This is a flaw in the single currency which cannot be put right by bailouts or debt write-offs." ROGER BOOTLE, MANAGING DIRECTOR CAPITAL ECONOMICS
Additionally, do you know what precipitates increases in unit labour costs?0
Advertisement