Why are the British so anti Europe?

The Corinthian

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

True, but they've also benefited hugely also, in particular in the financial services sector, far surpassing the cost to them. It's a common complaint shared my other EU nations, most notably Germany; they too grumble about paying for everyone else, but often forget how much they've benefited, especially from the (undervalued) Euro.

As I proffered (IMHO) earlier, Britain's particular attitude to Europe is both cultural-historical and political-strategic; the latter down to their principle foreign affairs strategy being tied to the US, while France, Germany, et al looked to Europe.

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.

A lot of this 'knicker wetting' appears to be based upon FUD. An agreement has not even been formulated yet - in reality they still have to negotiate it, yet people have decided already that it's a step too far.

Fratton Fred

The Corinthian wrote: »

True, but they've also benefited hugely also, in particular in the financial services sector, far surpassing the cost to them. It's a common complaint shared my other EU nations, most notably Germany; they too grumble about paying for everyone else, but often forget how much they've benefited, especially from the (undervalued) Euro.

As I proffered (IMHO) earlier, Britain's particular attitude to Europe is both cultural-historical and political-strategic; the latter down to their principle foreign affairs strategy being tied to the US, while France, Germany, et al looked to Europe.

A lot of this 'knicker wetting' appears to be based upon FUD. An agreement has not even been formulated yet - in reality they still have to negotiate it, yet people have decided already that it's a step too far.

A set level of corporation tax is a step too far for Ireland, eurobonds are too much for Germany and a banking tax is too far for the uk.

I can't help think that the UK is being made a scapegoat here by leaders with either a set personal agenda, or leaders who have no choice but to hand over the crown jewels.

p.p.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe you should have also mentioned that he's a weekly columnist for the Daily Telegraph.

Additionally, do you know what precipitates increases in unit labour costs?

hmm, he still an economist first and foremost

funny you should mention the telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100013758/europes-blithering-idiots-and-their-flim-flam-treaty/

'Did France and Germany really have to cause this rift by throwing in an assault on the City that has precious little do with the EMU crisis? Yes, I suppose they did.

Given that Merkozy cannot bring themselves to accept that Europe's debacle stems from the euro itself, from a 30pc currency misalignment between from North and South, and from an over-leveraged €23 trillion banking bubble that German, French, Dutch, Belgian regulators allowed to happen… given that, yes, I suppose they have to find a scapegoat.


They have to whip up a witchhunt against somebody, so why not Anglo-Saxon bankers? Nasty reflexes are at work. German and French politicians in particular should be very careful about inciting populist hatred against a group that makes such easy prey. We have been there before.


No doubt these dramatic events will be uncomfortable for Britain, but this will all be swept away by bigger events before long. The Europols have not begun to work out a viable solution to their deformed and unworkable currency union, and perhaps no such solution exists. The system will lurch from crisis to crisis until it blows up in acrimony.'

Bottle_of_Smoke

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

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...

I completely typed that wrong, and left out my main point, but you have me genuinely pissing myself laughing here the way you put that together, as my comment does look like something the Daily Mail would reject as too crazy for their letters to the editors page. Have a feeling I will never be taken seriously on this forum again.

What I meant to say that it is actually is amusing that the kind of republican who was who supported say Sinn Fein a few decades ago is not as anti-eu as you would expect, or they should be. I know they're sort of anti-eu but for example, many republicans would be vehemently against going with Sterling on sovereign grounds, but only slightly miffed about the euro. Imagine it was the British telling us how much bogs we could cut, or how much fish we could catch.

I didn't actually say the EU has more power now than the British had when we were in the UK, but that if the British had the powers the EU had, there'd be a lot more friction, conditions for 1916 was a jokey remark.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote: »

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).

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.

I think there's a case to be made for "then and now" regarding all those statistics. Sure they were very enthusiastic results, but back then Ireland had much to gain from EU membership.

So to compare British attitudes to the EU with Irish is not comparing like with like. The EU would be less attractive to the average Briton because they had less to gain. I think this is backed up by your next point, about how the Irish voted on Lisbon

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.

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.

Sure, "get rid of the EU" was flippant, though I think most Irish people now are very nearly as Euroskeptic.

If it came down to a referendum in the UK, I think it would be very close once parties in favour of staying (which would likely be all of the big three) started talking of damage to trade, jobloss etc.

Essentially its impossible to guage how "inherently" eurosceptic the Irish and British are compared to one another, until we are in similar economic standing. If that ever happens, I think the British would be *slightly* more anti europe, but liek I said, only slightly

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.

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?

Have explained in post above

The Corinthian

p.p. wrote: »

hmm, he still an economist first and foremost

There's a lot of 'media economists' out there who make that claim, but frankly are more interested in the media side of things, TBH.

funny you should mention the telegraph:

I mentioned the Telegraph because, as with the Guardian, one should automatically take everything with a pinch of salt given that editorial bias will tend to trump truth in the British media.

Given that Merkozy cannot bring themselves to accept that Europe's debacle stems from the euro itself, from a 30pc currency misalignment between from North and South, and from an over-leveraged €23 trillion banking bubble that German, French, Dutch, Belgian regulators allowed to happen… given that, yes, I suppose they have to find a scapegoat.

That makes no sense whatsoever. No one is suggesting that the UK or Cameron is to blame for the Euro's woes. Neither is anyone suggesting that UK abstention from any such compact would make a difference to it's effectiveness.

They have to whip up a witchhunt against somebody, so why not Anglo-Saxon bankers? Nasty reflexes are at work. German and French politicians in particular should be very careful about inciting populist hatred against a group that makes such easy prey. We have been there before.

LOL - yes, in the Telegraph article you posted that begins with the title referring to "Europe's blithering idiots" and then has the gall to claim that they're "inciting populist hatred" - the hypocrisy is actually quite amusing.

And lest I forget, you never answered my question; do you know what precipitates increases in unit labour costs?

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think there's a case to be made for "then and now" regarding all those statistics. Sure they were very enthusiastic results, but back then Ireland had much to gain from EU membership.

I did make that point already. However I also demonstrated that both then and now EU support was and is markedly higher in Ireland than the UK by comparing like with like.

Sure, "get rid of the EU" was flippant, though I think most Irish people now are very nearly as Euroskeptic.

It was an exaggerated conclusion.

Have explained in post above

You explained the validity of your claim that we meet the same criteria of foreign domination as we did in 1916? Where did you do that? Or was this just another 'flippant' remark?

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did make that point already. However I also demonstrated that both then and now EU support was and is markedly higher in Ireland than the UK by comparing like with like.

Its more complicated that that though. The British tend to at least believe they wouldn't be adversely affected by leaving the EU, and whilst I think that is wrong, I don't think they'd be as adversely afffected as Ireland. If the Irish believed the same, we'd be able to adequately compare our "euroskepticness" levels to the British. I don't think that it can be properly compared given the differences in our economy sizes and economy state

You explained the validity of your claim that we meet the same criteria of foreign domination as we did in 1916? Where did you do that? Or was this just another 'flippant' remark?

No I explained the comment was ridiculous.

meglome

p.p. wrote: »

"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

I'm certainly not an economist but if I read the implication here correctly he saying this happened because of the euro. Membership of the single currency may have assisted us and some other countries to go crazy with credit bubbles but it certainly didn't cause it. Bad management caused it, so his implication is bull. And obviously if being in the Euro caused the problem there should have been rampant inflation in all euro zone countries but there wasn't. So no degree in economics needed, just some logic.

The Corinthian

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its more complicated that that though. The British tend to at least believe they wouldn't be adversely affected by leaving the EU, and whilst I think that is wrong, I don't think they'd be as adversely afffected as Ireland. If the Irish believed the same, we'd be able to adequately compare our "euroskepticness" levels to the British. I don't think that it can be properly compared given the differences in our economy sizes and economy state

This is a theory, your theory. In fairness, I suspect you need to give something more to back it up. Even at the height of our Eurosceptic hubris (Niece 1 and Lisbon 1) the margins by which we voted against further EU integration were a fraction of whenever we voted in favour, both times during periods where things were going well for us and we felt less 'indebted' to the EU.

So there's little or no evidence to show that Ireland has comparable euroscepticism to the UK.

heate

The Irish republic is slowly being beaten by France and Germany in submission.
Perhaps there is not enough Euro Scepticism in Ireland. The French and German have essentially dictated to the rest of the union what they want and Ireland is seemingly not getting a word in edgeways.
You think that DSK leaving the IMF and Burlo ring bunga'd out of power in Italy have not worked to te supreme advantage of Merkozy?
As for the the British have they suffered as a result of keeping the pound? Nope! If Ireland had some control over its monetary policy we might have stemmed the economic destruction - though i'd imagine the gombeens in the Dail would've messed that up to

meglome

heate wrote: »

The Irish republic is slowly being beaten by France and Germany in submission.

How exactly have they done this?

heate wrote: »

Perhaps there is not enough Euro Scepticism in Ireland. The French and German have essentially dictated to the rest of the union what they want and Ireland is seemingly not getting a word in edgeways.

Perhaps there's not enough cake in Ireland either. Now how exactly did they dictate this? They managed to bully all 24 other countries too did they?

heate wrote: »

You think that DSK leaving the IMF and Burlo ring bunga'd out of power in Italy have not worked to te supreme advantage of Merkozy?

I have no idea, wanna explain what the advantage is?

heate wrote: »

As for the the British have they suffered as a result of keeping the pound? Nope! If Ireland had some control over its monetary policy we might have stemmed the economic destruction - though i'd imagine the gombeens in the Dail would've messed that up to

So how do you think not having the Euro would have stopped people repeatedly voting for an idiot government who made the mess?

Bottle_of_Smoke

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is a theory, your theory. In fairness, I suspect you need to give something more to back it up. Even at the height of our Eurosceptic hubris (Niece 1 and Lisbon 1) the margins by which we voted against further EU integration were a fraction of whenever we voted in favour, both times during periods where things were going well for us and we felt less 'indebted' to the EU.

So there's little or no evidence to show that Ireland has comparable euroscepticism to the UK.

I'm not trying to claim my opinion is anything more than a hypothesis, this is a discussion board after all, I'm not looking to win an argument here. I'm using disclaimers such as "I think" "I don't think" before making claims

Furthermore, the evidence you have put forth ie the results of treaty referendums, in my opinion is not very convincing. To me that is good evidence the Irish will vote pro-europe when they fear being poorer, but that doesn't indicate lack of euroskepticism. Being poorer is a big factor in voiting like. There's also the issue that a greater percentage of the Irish population are of farming backgrounds than the UK. Obviously they are going to put euroskepticism to one side if it means they or their family's SFP may be at risk.

Lisbon 1 there was a lot of talk of impending recession and property crash. The boom was certainly over so I don't think that can be used in favour of your argument. I do not know much about the climate during Nice 1.

The Corinthian

heate wrote: »

If Ireland had some control over its monetary policy we might have stemmed the economic destruction

How? I hear this claim from time to time and get the feeling that people come out with these terms without actually knowing what they actually mean.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm not trying to claim my opinion is anything more than a hypothesis, this is a discussion board after all, I'm not looking to win an argument here. I'm using disclaimers such as "I think" "I don't think" before making claims

OK, but then in that case it's fair enough to point out that it is just a wild theory.

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

I think the issue is many people here believe he stood up for the city of London and his Euro-sceptic party members and not the UK.

Interestingly, I was in London at the weekend, and of the people there those from outside London were very sceptical of Cameron's actions, while those from London (and the blue rinse belt) were gung-ho about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

OS119 wrote: »

Mr Balls couldn't talk me out a burning car - if he told me it was raining i'd put my shorts on. substantively i'm not sure what alliances there were to be made - no one else in Europe, and certainly none of the 'wavering' countries, have the exposure to financial survices that the UK has, so none of them has anything like what the UK has to lose on this issue, so they could be pressured/bought off by France and Germany for relatively little. sure we might have had half a dozen friends a few days ago, but how many in 6 months?

obviously i'd have prefered the diplomacy to be better - i'd far rather that the BG had spoken to Germany privately and said 'we're not interested in this - but this is what i can do and this is what i need in return to push it through' so that even if a deal could not be reached, it wouldn't neccesarily have been as public a falling out as it was. that said, the papers - and not tory-friendly papers - are indicating that France was pushing for this in a way that brooked no compromise, and that Cameron was left with a 'take it or leave' decision.

i'm no head-banging, swivell-eyed loon on the EU, i'm quite keen on it - but i'm not prepared to sacrifice UK interests in the interests of France and Germany just because both of those government have political problems at home. Sarkozy needs to be the big man in Europe to get re-elected but hasn't got deep enough pockets to pay for the suit, and Merkel won't get re-elected if she promises to guarentee non-German debt, or allows the ECB to print funny-money that reminds Germany of 1932. that, to me, is not a good enough reason to allow any danger whatsoever to a body that, while it helped get us into this mess, still provides 10% of UK GDP.

I don't think we're talking about UK interests here - I really think we're talking about the interests of a particular sector of the UK economy. And it's actually a very small sector, which doesn't contribute a heck of a lot:

So what is it that justifies the kid-glove treatment of the finance sector? Switch on the news and you normally hear some minister or lobbyist (come on down, Angela Knight of the British Bankers' Association) talking about the vital contribution banking makes to employment. Our tax revenue. Or the role banks ideally play in directing money to needy businesses.

These claims are repeated so often that they rarely get even the briefest patdown from interviewers, let alone backbench MPs or economists. Yet they are largely bogus, as explained in a new book called After the Great Complacence, produced by academics at Manchester University's Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (Cresc). Indeed, on nearly any important measure, finance actually contributes less to Britain than manufacturing.

Take jobs. The finance sector employs 1m people in Britain. Chuck in the lawyers, the PRs and the smaller fry that swim in its wake and you are up to a grand total of 1.5m. And most of these people are not the investment bankers for whom Cameron went to war in Brussels. At the big British banks such as RBS and HBOS, 80% of the staff work in the retail business. Even if Sarkozy were to shroud Canary Wharf in a giant tricolore, those staff would still be needed to staff the branches and man the call centres. Even in its current state of emaciation, manufacturing employs 2m people.

What about taxes? Lobbyists like to point out that banks are usually the biggest payers of corporation tax, but usually omit to mention that corporation tax isn't that big a money-spinner. For their part, even leftwingers will usually assume that the bankers effectively paid for the tax credits, hospitals and schools we enjoyed under Labour.

It's not true. The Cresc team totted up the taxes paid by the finance sector between 2002 and 2008, the six years in which the City was having an almighty boom: at £193bn, it's still only getting on for half the £378bn paid by manufacturing. It would be more accurate to say that the widget-makers of the Midlands paid for Tony Blair's welfarism. But that would be a much less picturesque description.

Even in the best of times, the finance sector hasn't paid anything like as much to the state as the state has had to pay for them since the great crash. According to the IMF, British taxpayers have shelled out £289bn in "direct upfront financing" to prop up the banks since 2008. Add in the various government loans and underwriting, and taxpayers are on the hook for £1.19tn. Seen that way the City looks less like a goose that lays golden eggs, and more like an unruly pigeon that leaves one hell of a mess for others to clear up.

Ah, but what about lending? After all, this is why we have banks in the first place: to channel money to productive industries. The Cresc team looked at Bank of England figures on bank and building society loans and found that at the height of the bubble in 2007, around 40% or more of all bank and building society lending was on residential or commercial property. Another 25% of all bank lending went to financial intermediaries. In other words, about two-thirds of all bank lending in 2007 went to pumping up the bubble.

This doesn't look like a hard-working part of an economy humming along: it's nothing less than epic capitalist onanism.

If the statistics don't support the arguments for the City's pre-eminence, the public don't either. In 1983, 90% of the public agreed that banks in Britain were well run, according to the British Social Attitudes survey. By 2009, that had plunged to 19%.

In other words, both the evidence and the voters are against investment bankers. So why do the politicians cling on to them?

But perhaps the answer is more obvious:

Part of the answer is financial. Bankers used the boom to buy themselves influence – so that, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the City now provides half of all Tory party funds. That is up from just 25% only five years ago.

Another part must be cultural. Running this government are two sons of bankers. Cameron's father was a stockbroker, Clegg's is still chairman of United Trust Bank (and famously helped his son get some work experience). For its part, Labour spent so long outsourcing all economic thinking to Gordon Brown and Ed Balls that it has long lost the ability to argue against the orthodoxy of giving the City what it wants.

In a poorer country, the cosiness of relations between bankers and politicians would be scrutinised by an official from the World Bank and disdainfully pronounced as pure cronyism. In Britain, we need to come up with a new word for this type of dysfunctional capitalism – where banks neither lend nor pay their way in taxes, yet retain a stranglehold on policy-making. We could try bankocracy: ruled by the banks, for the banks.

And it's something of an open question as to whether he has even protected the interests of the banking sector;

The freshly chilled relations between the U.K. and the EU resulting from Mr. Cameron's move have stoked fear among London financial firms that the loss of goodwill with Brussels lawmakers could deal a blow to the U.K.'s financial sector.

Losing battles in Brussels, they said, could jeopardize London's standing as a world financial center, potentially transforming the U.K.'s political isolation into an economic one, they said.

"It's going to make it so much more difficult to be heard" on these matters, said the head of government relations for a large bank in London.

Finally, and a very important point - some of the biggest banks and finance firms in the city are eurozone.

On balance, I wouldn't be surprised to see further entertaining back-tracking from Cameron during the week.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

p.p. wrote: »

"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

Unless you bring in a European minimum wage I can't see how that can be addressed, Germany doesn't even have one IIRC. The average German hasn't had much wage increases in the last decade. I suppose its a strange anomaly as normally wealthier areas have higher wages, London eg. compared to the rest of the UK.

There have been reductions in wage costs here but its going to be a long term in the Euro to readjust. Little or no wage increases for years.

Scofflaw

p.p. wrote: »

"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

It's interesting to see that his argument against the euro in 2003 was more or less the direct opposite:

And the evidence on relative economic performance within the euro zone gives some superficial support to this view. In this country we hear a great deal about the weakness of Germany and its hopelessly rigid markets and it is true that its growth performance has been lamentable and its unemployment figures deeply worrying.

But Germany is not the euro zone. Some other countries have managed to do well, including, most spectacularly, Ireland. Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands have also managed to put in very reasonable growth performances and the Netherlands has in addition enjoyed very low rates of unemployment.

There's a strong element here of the author picking his statistics to fit his preferred conclusion. If you have a more general look at unit labour cost changes over, say 2001-2008, the picture of the eurozone being some sort of cause of labour cost rises painted by Bootle's one-line explanation immediately clouds over:

Country|Eurozone|Labour Cost Change 2001-2008
Germany|EUR|-0.6
Austria|EUR|6
Poland||6.9
Sweden||11.7
Finland|EUR|14.8
France|EUR|15.6
Netherlands|EUR|16.4
Belgium|EUR|16.6
Portugal|EUR|19.1
United Kingdom||20.6
Malta|EUR|22
Italy|EUR|23.5
Cyprus|EUR|23.6
Czech Republic||24.7
Spain|EUR|26.8
Denmark||26.8
Greece|EUR|27.3
Ireland|EUR|29.6
Norway||38
Iceland||45.3

Some did, some didn't, and nobody beat the complete outsiders Norway and Iceland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

basillarkin

moceri wrote: »

Hmmmmmm....
I wonder if it is a case that when compared to the Irish Government who love to fawn to our European Over-masters, the British seem Euro-skeptic by comparison. Every time Enda meets with Frau Merkel, he loves to wag his tail and roll on his back so that she can tickle his tummy.
He is now looking for every possible way to avoid putting the latest EC treaty changes to a referendum.
Since Ireland Joined the EEC (EU) in 1972, the net inflow of funds has been €50 Billion. We now have to repay €45 of Bank Debt as ordered by Jean-Claude Trichet. To say nothing of the estimated €500 Billion of the fishing rights we signed away.

Have you a source for this 500 billion or is it something you pulled out of a hat.

heate

The Corinthian wrote: »

heate wrote: »

If Ireland had some control over its monetary policy we might have stemmed the economic destruction

How? I hear this claim from time to time and get the feeling that people come out with these terms without actually knowing what they actually mean.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm not trying to claim my opinion is anything more than a hypothesis, this is a discussion board after all, I'm not looking to win an argument here. I'm using disclaimers such as "I think" "I don't think" before making claims

OK, but then in that case it's fair enough to point out that it is just a wild theory.

The issue is that of economics - the ability to have increased Irish interest rates to restrict house price inflation, to increase saving and to possibly on a worst case scenario devalue our currency to make our exports more desirable - all very idealistic though!

As regards are loss of power to Germany and France I would just find it important that Ireland can still hold its own - there has been no mandate given to this Franco-German alliance the commission and MEP's have not been involved (according to McWilliams anyway) in this current economic decision process!
That is the only democratically elected is not involved in something do important?
There is however one overriding concept to be taken here - control needs to be in place if the world has seen anything in the last 20 years its that politicians and their ilks vanity projects and ridiculous promises which have resulted in hue over spending world wide has to stop.
And if an EU fiscal pact can achieve that then perhaps we can step away from the short termism that has reeked havoc on society

shannon_tek

Up the anti British people. But no seriously. I would agree with them to be Anti Europe . I think we should leave first thing in the morning. In fact why did we ever join. The Germans and French hate us. They push us around and really dont care about us. im just saying thats all that i see.

You may disagree with me and i dont have any points backing me. but personally i would rather be an African Citizen. Hopefully some day i can join the US of A there in a bad situation but least no one bosses them around and treats them like dirt

steve9859

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

and the award for most out of context BS comment on European affairs & History goes to...

Do you think that the majority of the public want to be told what to do by an unelected group of beauracrats headed up by Merkel and Sarkozy??? What do honestly think would be the result if every European country held a referendum on the treaty tomorrow?

The Corinthian

heate wrote: »

The issue is that of economics - the ability to have increased Irish interest rates to restrict house price inflation, to increase saving and to possibly on a worst case scenario devalue our currency to make our exports more desirable - all very idealistic though!

Do you actually know how one can do this through monetary policy?

You briefly mention devaluation, I presume currency, but have you considered the consequences of this, the alternatives and, most importantly, if devaluation would actually make any difference to Irish economic problems (hint: it wouldn't).

So, tell me more about economics.

That is the only democratically elected is not involved in something do important?

Actually our democratically elected representatives are agreeing with this compact. They could always walk away, like the UK. We voted them in with a mandate to do this sort of thing, remember?

shannon_tek wrote: »

You may disagree with me and i dont have any points backing me. but personally i would rather be an African Citizen. Hopefully some day i can join the US of A there in a bad situation but least no one bosses them around and treats them like dirt

So you have an opinion, freely admit that it's not really thought through but wanted to share it with us all anyway...

carveone

shannon_tek wrote: »

You may disagree with me and i dont have any points backing me. but personally i would rather be an African Citizen. Hopefully some day i can join the US of A there in a bad situation but least no one bosses them around and treats them like dirt

Like. Wow. Is that a troll?

Did you know that there are 6 Walton kids (as in Walmart, not as in the TV series)? Their combined net worth is the same as the lowest 30% of the US population. That's 95 million people. (link)

You think Europe is unequal? Hah! The US is like some giant corporate stealfest.

PS: I'm 40 years old (argh!). If I was an African citizen the odds on me still being alive now would be very much stacked against me.

PPS: I grew up in Zambia. (Was a) nice country.

mike65

Watching the Punch and Judy show from the Euro parliament earlier, God some of them can only be there as no one would elect them to national office.

heate

The Corinthian wrote: »

heate wrote: »

The issue is that of economics - the ability to have increased Irish interest rates to restrict house price inflation, to increase saving and to possibly on a worst case scenario devalue our currency to make our exports more desirable - all very idealistic though!

Do you actually know how one can do this through monetary policy?

You briefly mention devaluation, I presume currency, but have you considered the consequences of this, the alternatives and, most importantly, if devaluation would actually make any difference to Irish economic problems (hint: it wouldn't).

So, tell me more about economics.

That is the only democratically elected is not involved in something do important?

I don't know you tell me since you couldn't bloody take note of the fact that I mentioned some of the tools that we did not have access to because we are part of the euro. I'm not saying we'd of actually used them if we had the ability to!
And I have devaluation as an extreme example of what could be done Iceland for example has seen hue increases in price of imports whilst exports have risen and the domestic economy has resurged as a result of the need for Icelandic goods which are cheaper than exports.

KINGVictor

shannon_tek wrote: »

Up the anti British people. But no seriously. I would agree with them to be Anti Europe . I think we should leave first thing in the morning. In fact why did we ever join. The Germans and French hate us. They push us around and really dont care about us. im just saying thats all that i see.

You may disagree with me and i dont have any points backing me. but personally i would rather be an African Citizen. Hopefully some day i can join the US of A there in a bad situation but least no one bosses them around and treats them like dirt

A bit over the top I would say.

The British have benefited from the EU and vice versa and I really dont share your view that the Germans and French hate the British. Admittedly, there is a lot of history between these countries and indeed competition in terms of economics, politics, foreign policy etc.

However, I have a problem with the EU and its modus operandi especially in relation to the handling of whole Euro crisis. Like I said recently in a post on boards, the Euro project was ill-thought out and attempts to point out the apparent deficiencies are usually met with stiff oppostion and in most cases the people that ask questions or put forward a critique of the whole Euro project are automatically dismissed as Europhobic.

He is not omniscient, but P.Krugman (alongside other economic/political commentators) have argued over the years that the Eurozone was unsustainable/untenable in the long run without the fundamentals of an Economic Monetary Union like the USA; which essentially comprises of 3 basic elements: Geography, Fiscal convergance and a political union.

The dream of a United States of Europe which France(In particular), Germany and other European idealists promoted led to a blind pursuit without considering future bottlenecks which is haunting them now. The big problem was that France and Germany sought a deepening of European integration for different reasons. The UK(and other member countries) have always maintained the position that the EU should be primarily based on trade/ single market and they have used a widening policy to negate the Franco-German position. We will be naive not to know that the events at the last EU summit wasn't going to occur at some point.

Now, a dangerous game is going on.

Cameron made a controversial call by vetoing an ammendement to the Lisbon treaty but it is daft to think that the 17-Eurozone inter-governmental agreement would solve the problem. Apparently, 9 other countries have indicated that they would participate in the agreement, however the Swedes, Hungarians and the Czechs are not safe bets yet. The Finnish are contesting the use of QMV rather than unanimity in making decisions related to the transaction tax. More importantly, the markets have not welcomed the agreement made by the 27-.

My take is that Europe is far divided than acknowledged, Germany is not ready to make eternal transfer payments to less rich (more approriately ,poorer) member countries; which is why based on national interests they would never support Eurobonds or the ECB to take up the role of a traditional Central Bank. France would have loved this because they would not shoulder close to a tenth of the responsibility and yet would like to take a center stage in Europe. Sarkozy was adamant that France's triple A rating was secure but (un)surprisingly now he says the eventuality of that happening is not a big deal. I didnt hear him say the same when the PIGS were pounded by the markets.

In the words of Sarkozy, the EU needs a lot of rethinking.

The Corinthian

heate wrote: »

I don't know you tell me since you couldn't bloody take note of the fact that I mentioned some of the tools that we did not have access to because we are part of the euro. I'm not saying we'd of actually used them if we had the ability to!

You didn't say much. You mentioned monetary policy and devaluation, but do you know what either of those two terms mean, let alone how they are relevant to the Irish (or any) economy?

And I have devaluation as an extreme example of what could be done Iceland for example has seen hue increases in price of imports whilst exports have risen and the domestic economy has resurged as a result of the need for Icelandic goods which are cheaper than exports.

Hate to break it to you, but balance of trade ain't our problem.

heate

The Corinthian wrote: »

heate wrote: »

I don't know you tell me since you couldn't bloody take note of the fact that I mentioned some of the tools that we did not have access to because we are part of the euro. I'm not saying we'd of actually used them if we had the ability to!

You didn't say much. You mentioned monetary policy and devaluation, but do you know what either of those two terms mean, let alone how they are relevant to the Irish (or any) economy?

And I have devaluation as an extreme example of what could be done Iceland for example has seen hue increases in price of imports whilst exports have risen and the domestic economy has resurged as a result of the need for Icelandic goods which are cheaper than exports.

Hate to break it to you, but balance of trade ain't our problem.

The absolute lack of expenditure in the Irish economy is!
You know what monetary policy is or at least you purport to know.
If you actually do you know you'd understand that the economy was boiling over and we were not able to adjust our interest rates to exercise some modicum of control..
I'm not saying it was the whole problem but I think it has some berance on the situation. And yes I realise Ireland's exports are growing nicely - is that helping the economy an providing jobs? Not as far as I can see

The Corinthian

heate wrote: »

The absolute lack of expenditure in the Irish economy is!

Not the principle problem, no.

You know what monetary policy is or at least you purport to know.
If you actually do you know you'd understand that the economy was boiling over and we were not able to adjust our interest rates to exercise some modicum of control..

Actually only one part of our economy was 'boiling over' and adjusting interest rates would have adversely effected not only it but all of the economy - even areas that did not need 'cooling down'. Legislation to specifically targeting that sector would have far better served us than any ham-fisted move on interest rates. Does the term 'stamp duty' ring a bell?

I'm not saying it was the whole problem but I think it has some berance on the situation. And yes I realise Ireland's exports are growing nicely - is that helping the economy an providing jobs? Not as far as I can see

You're the one who was talking about devaluation earlier - what sector of the economy do you think that influences?