Why are the British so anti Europe?

Scofflaw

Ruby4711 wrote: »

I'd be of a similar position myself. Once the executive sees itself as more important than the people to whom they are meant to serve, it's time for change. That's what happened in "Lisbon 2", that the project became more important that the people, and thats when the people all around Europe began to look more closely and more critically at the EU.

Since then we have seen the debt the institutions of the EU has forced on the irish people, and the astonishing thing is that so many in ireland still support the EU.

That might well be because the Irish people are aware that over 95% of our debt was taken on by the Irish governments they had repeatedly voted into office.

We have €192bn or so in general government debt. Of that, the amount possibly attributable to the refusal of the ECB to burn senior bonds in 2010 amounts to maybe €6-8bn. On the flip side, the amount of junior Irish bank bonds burned under the troika's management was €16bn, whereas the amount of junior bonds burned before that was a big fat zero.

With respect to the bank recapitalisation money - which at €64.1bn is only a third of our debts - 70% of that was spent before the troika got involved, too, and the remaining amount that was put in after the PCAR exercises in 2011 was unavoidable if the government didn't want to lose the 70% already put in.

Those are the facts - your preferred spin may vary, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ruby4711

Scofflaw wrote: »

That might well be because the Irish people are aware that over 95% of our debt was taken on by the Irish governments they had repeatedly voted into office.

It may well be that the Irish people don’t think it’s some sort of competition between one or the other. Just because Irish governments have been rotten, doesn’t mean the EU is marvellous, and I really don’t get the impression that the irish people see it as some sort of a competition.

Scofflaw wrote: »

With respect to the bank recapitalisation money - which at €64.1bn is only a third of our debts - 70% of that was spent before the troika got involved, too, and the remaining amount that was put in after the PCAR exercises in 2011 was unavoidable if the government didn't want to lose the 70% already put in.

Those are the facts - your preferred spin may vary, of course.

This is not a pantomime, where oh-yes-it-is-oh-no-it-isn’t is the order of the day. I don’t think many people across Europe see it as some sort of competition between the EU and national governments. The fact is that the EU is increasingly unpopular with the people of Europe, and the people of Europe seem to be no longer behind the drive for greater integration. Who said what to whom and when in Ireland a few years ago seems to miss that greater point.

oscarBravo

Boroso was just one of the latest incarnations of someone who feels the need to continue to sign up accounts to soapbox. Repeatedly signing up accounts to discuss wouldn't be too bad.

I have a feeling in my bones that yet another incarnation will be banned shortly.

This is off-topic, so I won't be discussing it further.

View

Ruby4711 wrote: »

[ The fact is that the EU is increasingly unpopular with the people of Europe, and the people of Europe seem to be no longer behind the drive for greater integration.

That seems to be wishful thinking on the part of posters here.

In the forthcoming elections to the EP, MEPs will be elected by the people on roughly a 3:1 (or 4:1) pro-EU:anti-EU basis.

Likewise, there is no member state where an anti-EU party or parties are likely to form a government (with the votes necessary to take their member state out of the EU).

djpbarry

View wrote: »

Likewise, there is no member state where an anti-EU party or parties are likely to form a government (with the votes necessary to take their member state out of the EU).

Indeed. Although, given how much media coverage Nigel Farage receives (for example), it's easy to forget that UKIP doesn't have a single MP.

kevin bd

Qoute's and opinions such as all of those above are the very reason why i usually stay away from politics. Free? I would love to have this explained to me sometime. Some persons opinion/version of freedom is another persons privilage. Western democracy is fueled by greed. Simple mind's and unenlightened persons. Eu, un, and the rest of the bull**** is just a screen.

Rightwing

Ruby4711 wrote: »

It may well be that the Irish people don’t think it’s some sort of competition between one or the other. Just because Irish governments have been rotten, doesn’t mean the EU is marvellous, and I really don’t get the impression that the irish people see it as some sort of a competition.



This is not a pantomime, where oh-yes-it-is-oh-no-it-isn’t is the order of the day. I don’t think many people across Europe see it as some sort of competition between the EU and national governments. The fact is that the EU is increasingly unpopular with the people of Europe, and the people of Europe seem to be no longer behind the drive for greater integration. Who said what to whom and when in Ireland a few years ago seems to miss that greater point.

I think the EU mean well, but are becoming increasingly out of touch with economic reality.

Ruby4711

View wrote: »

That seems to be wishful thinking on the part of posters here.

In the forthcoming elections to the EP, MEPs will be elected by the people on roughly a 3:1 (or 4:1) pro-EU:anti-EU basis.

Likewise, there is no member state where an anti-EU party or parties are likely to form a government (with the votes necessary to take their member state out of the EU).

It’s impressive you know how Europeans are going to vote, even down to knowing how many will vote one way or another in the future. Not having any psychic abilities myself, I generally prefer evidence, such as reputable polls, rather than clairvoyance.

The polls across Europe seem not to reflect your view, for example with UKIP in the UK polling ahead of the Conservatives and The Freedom Party in the Netherlands leading in the polls.

No one is claiming that UKIP will form the next government in the UK, but to dismiss support across Europe for anti EU parties, and pretending it is wishful thinking to read the polls which show the extent of support for such parties, might be unwise.

Rightwing wrote: »

I think the EU mean well, but are becoming increasingly out of touch with economic reality.

There is some evidence to suggest the EU is more in touch that it was, and it remains to be seen if the EU can turn it around and take back into the fold some of those who now support anti-EU parties, and stop the growth in those supporting such parties.

Bearing in mind the UK Royal family in a few short years turned the tide of public opinion about the Royal family, it’s possible.

However, rumblings of a new treaty to hand over more power to the EU, and take more power away from nation states, will probably do more than counteract a PR strategy to make the EU more popular.

Scofflaw

It’s impressive you know how Europeans are going to vote, even down to knowing how many will vote one way or another in the future. Not having any psychic abilities myself, I generally prefer evidence, such as reputable polls, rather than clairvoyance.

The polls across Europe seem not to reflect your view, for example with UKIP in the UK polling ahead of the Conservatives and The Freedom Party in the Netherlands leading in the polls.

An approximately 25% eurosceptic parliament is the most common prediction from the polls. The countries with strong eurosceptic parties are only part of the EU, and some of those parties have put in solid performances in previous euro elections (UKIP, for example, put in a solid 2009 performance, and even on current best polling would gain seats, but not spectacularly). In other countries anti-EU parties are very minor.

It might have been worth checking what the polls were actually saying before describing a poll-based prediction as "psychic" and claiming to prefer polls yourself.

regards,
Scofflaw

Ruby4711

Scofflaw wrote: »

An approximately 25% eurosceptic parliament is the most common prediction from the polls. The countries with strong eurosceptic parties are only part of the EU, and some of those parties have put in solid performances in previous euro elections (UKIP, for example, put in a solid 2009 performance, and even on current best polling would gain seats, but not spectacularly). In other countries anti-EU parties are very minor.

It might have been worth checking what the polls were actually saying before describing a poll-based prediction as "psychic" and claiming to prefer polls yourself.

regards,
Scofflaw

It might have been worth checking if ones interest was limited to predicting what might happen in one election.

My interest goes beyond that, and is in the wider picture in what is happening across Europe. Individual elections have little to tell us about medium and long term trends, and the interesting thing about the growth of anti-EU politics is the medium and long term trend.

Rightwing

Ruby4711 wrote: »

It’s impressive you know how Europeans are going to vote, even down to knowing how many will vote one way or another in the future. Not having any psychic abilities myself, I generally prefer evidence, such as reputable polls, rather than clairvoyance.

The polls across Europe seem not to reflect your view, for example with UKIP in the UK polling ahead of the Conservatives and The Freedom Party in the Netherlands leading in the polls.

No one is claiming that UKIP will form the next government in the UK, but to dismiss support across Europe for anti EU parties, and pretending it is wishful thinking to read the polls which show the extent of support for such parties, might be unwise.



There is some evidence to suggest the EU is more in touch that it was, and it remains to be seen if the EU can turn it around and take back into the fold some of those who now support anti-EU parties, and stop the growth in those supporting such parties.

Bearing in mind the UK Royal family in a few short years turned the tide of public opinion about the Royal family, it’s possible.

However, rumblings of a new treaty to hand over more power to the EU, and take more power away from nation states, will probably do more than counteract a PR strategy to make the EU more popular.

I think a big problem the British have is movement of people, and associated entitlements. I don't think they are wrong.

View

Ruby4711 wrote: »

It’s impressive you know how Europeans are going to vote, even down to knowing how many will vote one way or another in the future. Not having any psychic abilities myself, I generally prefer evidence, such as reputable polls, rather than clairvoyance.

I rely on the evidence of how people actually vote. Others can rely on wishful thinking if they prefer.

Ruby4711 wrote: »

The polls across Europe seem not to reflect your view, for example with UKIP in the UK polling ahead of the Conservatives and The Freedom Party in the Netherlands leading in the polls.

That may keep their supporters happy but they both remain minorities and will remain minorities for years to come based on current election results.

Ruby4711 wrote: »

No one is claiming that UKIP will form the next government in the UK, but to dismiss support across Europe for anti EU parties, and pretending it is wishful thinking to read the polls which show the extent of support for such parties, might be unwise.

Should they ever command a majority in their reapective parliaments or the EP they'll be in a position to implement their policies.

In the meantime, they aren't and it is the current pro-EU majorities in the parliaments of the member states and the EP that will win the votes to pursue their pro-EU agenda.

Scofflaw

Ruby4711 wrote: »

It might have been worth checking if ones interest was limited to predicting what might happen in one election.

My interest goes beyond that, and is in the wider picture in what is happening across Europe. Individual elections have little to tell us about medium and long term trends, and the interesting thing about the growth of anti-EU politics is the medium and long term trend.

Hmm. I would say that that's almost exactly wrong - in fact, you seem to be generalising from a couple of cherry-picked data points to claim a general trend which is not supported by the wider polls.

Others, such as LSE, have considered the picture across the whole of the EU, and their most probable outcome is a c.25% nationalist/anti-EU share of the next Parliament.

Now, they may be wrong, of course, as polls can be, but your claim that you are somehow relying on EU-wide polls is not something you've really shown to be the case. What polls are you using?

regards,
Scofflaw

Ruby4711

View wrote: »

I rely on the evidence of how people actually vote. Others can rely on wishful thinking if they prefer.

The only way you can know the result of an election which has not yet happened is if you claim you are a psychic. If you do think you are psychic, I’d suggest you call up Mr Randi and claim his million dollar prize.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. I would say that that's almost exactly wrong - in fact, you seem to be generalising from a couple of cherry-picked data points to claim a general trend which is not supported by the wider polls.

Others, such as LSE, have considered the picture across the whole of the EU, and their most probable outcome is a c.25% nationalist/anti-EU share of the next Parliament.

Now, they may be wrong, of course, as polls can be, but your claim that you are somehow relying on EU-wide polls is not something you've really shown to be the case. What polls are you using?

regards,
Scofflaw

There have been many polls across the EU, and I have not the time to search out for you all the polls I have looked at over the years.

However, I’d suggest you start with the Eurobarometer poll run by the EU, and the most recent one was done in 2013.

You’ll see there that trust in the EU is at its lowest level since records began, with less than one in three EU citizens expressing trust in the EU in 2013.

Contrary to popular opinion, the UK is not the most Eurosceptic country, and Cyprus was the country with the least trust in the EU, as just 13 per cent of those asked said they trusted the European union.

All EU countries, except Finland and Sweden, have seen trust levels drop from 2007.

Support for European Union membership was at its peak in 1991 with 71 per cent across the bloc saying they supported their country's membership, while in the same year the UK recorded an all-time high with 57 per cent.



Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive, with only Cyprus and the Czech Republic registering lower figures.
UKIP are currently polling around 26% in advance of the forthcoming EU Elections, and at a corresponding period before the 2009 EU elections, UKIP was polling around 7%.


This wouldn’t mean much if it’s just one snapshot, or if it’s the result of dissatisfaction for an isolate event, such as the financial crises, or anything transient. Where it might be important is if it’s part of a longer term trend.

View

Ruby4711 wrote: »

The only way you can know the result of an election which has not yet happened is if you claim you are a psychic. If you do think you are psychic, I’d suggest you call up Mr Randi and claim his million dollar prize.

I have made no such claim. You are the one making claims about the opinions of the electorate(s) within the EU despite the clear evidence of how the electorate(s) have voted in elections and that of current opinion polls which point toward the combined pro-EU parties continuing to command the support of the overwhelming majority of voters both at member state level and at EP level. Such voter opinion could of course change between now and late May but it would take an astonishing political earthquake to do so.

You can believe that to be imminent or not if you wish. I personally see no reason why it would radically change from a roughly 3:1 ratio between now and then.

djpbarry

Ruby4711 wrote: »

The only way you can know the result of an election which has not yet happened is if you claim you are a psychic.

Accurate predictions can be made. For example, Nate Silver correctly predicted the outcome of the 2012 US Presidential Election in almost every state.

Scofflaw

Ruby4711 wrote: »

The only way you can know the result of an election which has not yet happened is if you claim you are a psychic. If you do think you are psychic, I’d suggest you call up Mr Randi and claim his million dollar prize.


There have been many polls across the EU, and I have not the time to search out for you all the polls I have looked at over the years.

However, I’d suggest you start with the Eurobarometer poll run by the EU, and the most recent one was done in 2013.

You’ll see there that trust in the EU is at its lowest level since records began, with less than one in three EU citizens expressing trust in the EU in 2013.

Contrary to popular opinion, the UK is not the most Eurosceptic country, and Cyprus was the country with the least trust in the EU, as just 13 per cent of those asked said they trusted the European union.

All EU countries, except Finland and Sweden, have seen trust levels drop from 2007.

Support for European Union membership was at its peak in 1991 with 71 per cent across the bloc saying they supported their country's membership, while in the same year the UK recorded an all-time high with 57 per cent.

Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive, with only Cyprus and the Czech Republic registering lower figures.

When quoting from a source, such as the Telegraph, as here, please indicate that you're quoting, and give a link to the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10586961/Trust-in-EU-at-an-all-time-low-latest-figures-show.html

UKIP are currently polling around 26% in advance of the forthcoming EU Elections, and at a corresponding period before the 2009 EU elections, UKIP was polling around 7%.

Er, yes, but does that mean they'll repeat the same trick of doubling their support?

To be honest, I'm not sure you understand what you're claiming. You are dismissing polls of voting intention in the 2014 euro elections - the ones we're talking about - by referring to polls of "levels of trust in the EU".

That would require you to be able to accurately project the results of those Eurobarometer trust figures onto party voting intentions, something which would be a very large breakthrough in voting prediction if you had actually done it. Unfortunately, you haven't actually done it.

Essentially, you prefer your own personal and rather 'psychic' projections from the trust polls to polls of voter intention, because they give you a falsely large impression of the current support for eurosceptical parties.

You're entitled to your preference, of course, but were I you I would be very much less quick to deride people using polls of voting intention as "psychics", and the polls themselves as "inaccurate", when your own predictions are based on polls that don't even measure that intention.

Ruby4711 wrote: »

This wouldn’t mean much if it’s just one snapshot, or if it’s the result of dissatisfaction for an isolate event, such as the financial crises, or anything transient. Where it might be important is if it’s part of a longer term trend.

The Telegraph article you quoted explains it as a result of the current crisis, so I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming otherwise, other than that the idea appeals to you.



The drop in trust for the EU rather visibly follows the crisis, and is matched by a drop in trust for national parliaments and governments. Such falls in trust are extremely well known to be associated with recessions and crises, and the attempt to claim it as some kind of long-term slow-growing rejection of the EU is sorely strained.

I appreciate you want things to work out well for your preferred side in the elections, and I would imagine you will have reason to be pleased come the day, but I think you're currently making the kind of projections that partisan supporters always make - and such back of a fag packet calculations of sweeping victories rarely come true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

sin_city wrote: »

Firstly, Norway does have oil. The reason they are not a member is because the people from Norway voted no. We did this too but we were pressurized into voting again. You can say what you like, if our vote was respected it would not have been necessary to have double referendum votes.

You have given no basis for the rubbish argument of "a different matter" in the case of Switzerland coming to an end.

And Iceland? Oh yeah...if they didn't have the balls to stand up to the bankers...they'd be in the EU too.

You originally said:

Just look at how Norway and Switzerland do without being in the EU.

Norway is doing so well because of its oil revenues. Take them out and Norway would be financially poorer off. No doubt they would survive fine without oil and the EU. But you can't seriously pose a question about how Norway is doing without reference to its oil industry.

Switzerland has done well for centuries largely on its own terms. It's a very particular kind of country which has managed physical security and industriousness to its own unique advantage.

Neither is in any way comparable to Ireland or its circumstances.

As for Iceland, it would be interesting to see how we would have managed with the kind of cuts to pay and jobs, and the hikes in mortgage payments Icelanders had to endure. They paid a high price for their financial misadventures.

oceanman

id say they just took a look at where we are and said thanks no thanks...

sin_city

McDave wrote: »

You originally said:

Norway is doing so well because of its oil revenues. Take them out and Norway would be financially poorer off. No doubt they would survive fine without oil and the EU. But you can't seriously pose a question about how Norway is doing without reference to its oil industry.

So, from this are you saying that countries like Finland and Sweden will have more similar economic growth with the likes of Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and Spain than they would with Norway.

Is it a case of the Nordic economies doing well despite the EU?

If Scotland were independent they'd also be better off outside the EU?

If Denmark gains access to large oil reserves in the Arctic through Greenland should they leave?

McDave wrote: »

Switzerland has done well for centuries largely on its own terms. It's a very particular kind of country which has managed physical security and industriousness to its own unique advantage.

Rubbish explanation, no content...on its own terms, very particular kind of country? What's that? :rolleyes:

Mate, its a mountainous country that was not worth the trouble invading in the past which has led it to be neutral in wars that involved others around them.....hmmm, Ireland 1945?

I would say Switzerland has more in common with Luxembourg than Ireland does.

We could try to model ourselves on the Swiss economy if we wanted as a long term objective.

McDave wrote: »

As for Iceland, it would be interesting to see how we would have managed with the kind of cuts to pay and jobs, and the hikes in mortgage payments Icelanders had to endure. They paid a high price for their financial misadventures.

It would be interesting to see how we would have managed if we did the right thing as Iceland did?

Are you questioning them not paying a banks debt or that they put some of the bankers in prison?

I believe Ireland is paying a higher price than Iceland.

sock puppet

It would probably depend on who you ask. The Iceland finance minister gave an interview a while ago saying he's of the opinion that Ireland's prospects are probably better than Iceland's.

edit: or maybe he was in the opposition.

Scofflaw

sock puppet wrote: »

It would probably depend on who you ask. The Iceland finance minister gave an interview a while ago saying he's of the opinion that Ireland's prospects are probably better than Iceland's.

edit: or maybe he was in the opposition.

Unfortunately, the complex realities of the Icelandic crisis have been boiled down to a simple moral fable, where Iceland has done well by doing right.

Gurdgiev's comparison suggests that there's hardly any clear blue water between the two recoveries, although he does his best to find for Iceland at the end.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the complex realities of the Icelandic crisis have been boiled down to a simple moral fable, where Iceland has done well by doing right.

Gurdgiev's comparison suggests that there's hardly any clear blue water between the two recoveries, although he does his best to find for Iceland at the end.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So, just to make it clear....you are for bailing out banks and providing welfare to the rich in place of jailing people that break the law and not paying the debts of someone else?

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

So, just to make it clear....you are for bailing out banks and providing welfare to the rich in place of jailing people that break the law and not paying the debts of someone else?

You know, I'm not sure even the grammar works in that attempt to put words in my mouth. The funny thing is that despite addressing absolutely nothing I actually said in my post, it does perfectly make the point I was making.

Fair warning - you need to engage with what people actually say, and not try playground tactics like these. They'll be given short shrift.

regards,
Scofflaw

feargale

Why are the British anti-Europe? Because a united Europe impkies that empire is passe and that overseas links are played down.

sin_city

Scofflaw wrote: »

You know, I'm not sure even the grammar works in that attempt to put words in my mouth. The funny thing is that despite addressing absolutely nothing I actually said in my post, it does perfectly make the point I was making.

Fair warning - you need to engage with what people actually say, and not try playground tactics like these. They'll be given short shrift.

regards,
Scofflaw

I'm sorry but that's what I got from what you said.

At the very least you seem to be saying maybe Ireland was right to bail out the bankers and not put them in jail as opposed to what Iceland did which was the opposite.

Fair warning? Have I had too much to drink?

I think I'll just leave rather than be threatened by a bouncer.

Scofflaw

sin_city wrote: »

I'm sorry but that's what I got from what you said.

At the very least you seem to be saying maybe Ireland was right to bail out the bankers and not put them in jail as opposed to what Iceland did which was the opposite.

Fair warning? Have I had too much to drink?

I think I'll just leave rather than be threatened by a bouncer.

Up to you, but, yes, what you took from what I said wasn't something I said at all. What I said was that Iceland's rather complex story had been reduced to a simplistic morality fable - "Iceland good, Ireland bad".

What you did was, in effect, to confirm that, by assuming that someone criticising the simplistic story was therefore a supporter of everything bad about Ireland's actions in the crisis. To put it another way, you took it that if I didn't say "Iceland good, Ireland bad" then I was obviously saying "Iceland bad, Ireland good". What kind of one-dimensional thinking is that, and of what value or interest is it to man or beast?

To a very large extent, Iceland did what it did because it had no other choice. Our banks were 3.5 times our GDP, but Iceland's were 10 times theirs. They had no chance to rescue their banks - but if they believed they could have done so, they would have done so. And doing so didn't avoid costs, either:

“Is there an Icelandic model for dealing with failing banks? My conclusion is mostly no,” says Már Gudmundsson, the governor of Sedlabanki, the central bank. “There is a lot of misunderstanding about Iceland.”

The confusion comes because in the autumn of 2008 Iceland’s three largest banks – Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir, which together had assets 10 times the size of the country’s economy – were allowed to fail. Rather than bailing them out and protecting bondholders, as did countries such as Ireland, Iceland forced losses on to the bank’s creditors.

In the popular imagination – particularly in Ireland, Portugal and Spain – that means that the government avoided the bill for the financial implosion. But that is not true.

Iceland, in fact, spent more as a percentage of GDP than any other country apart from Ireland in rescuing its banks, according to the OECD.

More recently, two Icelandic experts have estimated that the crisis cost Icelandic taxpayers 20-25 per cent of GDP, principally because of a big loss in the value of collateral that the three collapsed banks had pledged to the central bank when the authorities were trying to do all they could to save them.

Mr Gudmundsson underlines that the domestic banking and payment system continued without interruption. The three banks “were more off-border than cross-border”, he points out, meaning that the economic consequences of the collapse of 90 per cent of the financial system were far less dramatic than they might otherwise have been.

“It is a myth that Iceland allowed banks to fail completely and that other countries could do the same without feeling consequences,” Mr Gudmundsson adds.

The issue of foreign creditors has not gone away either. Most of their claims are now owned by hedge funds, banks or restructuring specialists, opening them up to attack from the centre-right opposition who are threatening to pay them back very little.

Another big debating point in the country is the merit or otherwise of having its own currency. Unlike eurozone countries, Iceland took much of its pain through the exchange rate rather than unemployment rate – the krona fell by more than 50 per cent against the euro.

But by boosting the cost of imported goods and thus consumer prices, the sinking currency has been a double-edged sword, as most Icelandic loans are linked to inflation.

The boost to exports from the falling currency has not been as great as many predicted, Mr Gudmundsson says. “The level [of the krona] does give stimulus to exports, that is absolutely true. But export growth has been lower than you would expect given the depreciation. Even if you depreciate the exchange rate you can't create more fish.”

That has led to a big political debate about adopting another currency, with the euro as a favourite – but some even proposing the Canadian dollar.

“If we would have another currency we would have more stability,” says Katrín Júlíusdóttir, finance minister.

A related myth for some Icelanders is that capital controls – restrictions on the flow of currency in and out of the country – have been proven to be a success on the island. Mr Gudmundsson calls them “in some sense” Iceland’s version of quantitative easing in terms of putting a floor under asset prices.

But, like QE, many wonder if it is easier to establish capital controls than dismantle them. Says Vilhjálmur Egilsson, head of the Confederation of Icelandic Employers: “They were a big mistake. There is no exit strategy.”

There may be doubts about whether Iceland and its crisis policies can serve as a model for others. But, for Ms Júlíusdóttir and many other Icelanders, there is little doubt that it was the right course to save the tiny island of 320,000 people.

She says: “It was the right way to do it for Iceland. A lot of people lost a lot of money because of the failed banks. It is quite a sad story. Hopefully we can learn from it. A lot of mistakes were made here in Iceland.”

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bfdff83a-7a60-11e2-9cc2-00144feabdc0.html

As a response, even a forced response, it has worked out as it has worked out. It's not a success story, it's not a disaster movie either. It had different costs, some of which have been reputational, and which the Irish government regard as unacceptable for a country which acts as an offshore banking hub, as Ireland does. And not a lot of bankers or politicians have actually gone to prison or even on trial, although more than in Ireland.

In answer to the words you put in my mouth - I don't like what either Iceland or Ireland did. Both were incredibly short-sighted and greedy to get themselves into the positions they were in, and if I could force Ireland to learn one lesson from the whole sorry spectacle, it wouldn't be that we should do what Iceland did, but that we should avoid getting ourselves into such a position in the first place, by adequately regulating our banks. And if that means an end to a key plank of Irish state policy for over twenty years - providing a lightly regulated offshore haven for banks to do dodgy business - then I'm happy with that too.

regards,
Scofflaw

Ruby4711

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, yes, but does that mean they'll repeat the same trick of doubling their support?

I agree, and would never claim otherwise, and why you introduce the point seems uncertain. The point I made was their support now, is at 26%, whereas at the same point at the last electoral cycle it was at 7%.

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not sure you understand what you're claiming. You are dismissing polls of voting intention in the 2014 euro elections - the ones we're talking about - by referring to polls of "levels of trust in the EU".

I have little interest in predicting the results of any single election. Indeed, I have little interest in the upcoming elections. My interest is in the medium and long term trends, and has little to do with any one election.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That would require you to be able to accurately project the results of those Eurobarometer trust figures onto party voting intentions, something which would be a very large breakthrough in voting prediction if you had actually done it. Unfortunately, you haven't actually done it.

My interest is in the medium and long term trends, and I have little interest in how that affects any individual or party, or any individual election.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially, you prefer your own personal and rather 'psychic' projections from the trust polls to polls of voter intention, because they give you a falsely large impression of the current support for eurosceptical parties.

You asked what polls I had seen, and I responded with some evidence. I have made no personal projections. I have given some evidence of the trend, and if you think that’s a falsely large impression, than that’s your conclusion based on the evidence.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Telegraph article you quoted explains it as a result of the current crisis, so I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming otherwise, other than that the idea appeals to you.

I am more interested in the facts than the opinion of any individual or news organisation.

For example, in 1991 71 per cent across the EU saying they supported their country's membership. Less than one in three EU citizens expressed trust in the EU in 2013.

Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive. 57% said they supported their country's membership in 1991.

You may well decide to agree with the Telegraoph and put that solely down to recent events, or not. For example, I’d suggest there is strong evidence to suggest Cyrpus 13% support for the EU is due to recent and local events. However, to assume because the people of Cyprus have a concrete recent reason to dislike the EU does not necessarily mean that their level of support is temporary and will automatically revert to previous levels.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The drop in trust for the EU rather visibly follows the crisis, and is matched by a drop in trust for national parliaments and governments. Such falls in trust are extremely well known to be associated with recessions and crises, and the attempt to claim it as some kind of long-term slow-growing rejection of the EU is sorely strained.

It’s great you say it’s extremely well known why the level of trust in the EU has declined since 1991, which seems to indicate you agree the level of trust has declined. Even if I did claim that it was some sort of slow-growing rejection of the EU, that doesn’t mean I would be right, or that’s true, and we have to look at the facts and decide for ourselves. There is no right or wrong when it comes to opinion.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate you want things to work out well for your preferred side in the elections, and I would imagine you will have reason to be pleased come the day, but I think you're currently making the kind of projections that partisan supporters always make - and such back of a fag packet calculations of sweeping victories rarely come true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your appreciation is misplaced as I have little interest in the elections, and I don’t know why you imagine I have any interest in a single election. I have made no projections apart from looking at the polls. They are the projections of the pollsters, and are not, as you claim, my projections.

I don’t even know when the day is, and very much doubt any pleasure I derive will come from an election result, so why you imagine otherwise is a matter for yourself.

Scofflaw

Ruby4711 wrote: »

I agree, and would never claim otherwise, and why you introduce the point seems uncertain. The point I made was their support now, is at 26%, whereas at the same point at the last electoral cycle it was at 7%.

True, but their actual vote on the day was 16%. Unless they do repeat the trick of more than doubling their vote, that's the more relevant figure - if we're talking about elections, that is.

Ruby4711 wrote: »

I have little interest in predicting the results of any single election. Indeed, I have little interest in the upcoming elections. My interest is in the medium and long term trends, and has little to do with any one election.



My interest is in the medium and long term trends, and I have little interest in how that affects any individual or party, or any individual election.



You asked what polls I had seen, and I responded with some evidence. I have made no personal projections. I have given some evidence of the trend, and if you think that’s a falsely large impression, than that’s your conclusion based on the evidence.


I am more interested in the facts than the opinion of any individual or news organisation.

For example, in 1991 71 per cent across the EU saying they supported their country's membership. Less than one in three EU citizens expressed trust in the EU in 2013.

Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive. 57% said they supported their country's membership in 1991.

You may well decide to agree with the Telegraoph and put that solely down to recent events, or not. For example, I’d suggest there is strong evidence to suggest Cyrpus 13% support for the EU is due to recent and local events. However, to assume because the people of Cyprus have a concrete recent reason to dislike the EU does not necessarily mean that their level of support is temporary and will automatically revert to previous levels.





It’s great you say it’s extremely well known why the level of trust in the EU has declined since 1991, which seems to indicate you agree the level of trust has declined. Even if I did claim that it was some sort of slow-growing rejection of the EU, that doesn’t mean I would be right, or that’s true, and we have to look at the facts and decide for ourselves. There is no right or wrong when it comes to opinion.



Your appreciation is misplaced as I have little interest in the elections, and I don’t know why you imagine I have any interest in a single election. I have made no projections apart from looking at the polls. They are the projections of the pollsters, and are not, as you claim, my projections.

I don’t even know when the day is, and very much doubt any pleasure I derive will come from an election result, so why you imagine otherwise is a matter for yourself.

Well, I'll take you at your word on that, but the impression remains strong that you were using the results of polls to make general predictions about the elections, and that the polls you were using to do so were in fact not even polls of voting intentions.

As to the general trend, the art of picking the highest point in a time series and drawing a line through it and the current situation in order to show a continuous declining trend is a well-established piece of statistical abuse. It produces no trend that requires debate, because it's purely an artefact.

Having said that, it would take Panglossian efforts to claim that there is not a problem with the EU/citizen relationship - there is of course a problem. How one interprets the current negativity is open to debate. The option is there of interpreting it as a trend that predates and is only partly explained by current events, and of claiming it as a meaningful and motivated rejection of the EU in particular rather than as part of a general loss of trust in the political establishment - but if you are going to claim that, you need to do rather better than two hand-picked data points and ignoring the identical results for trust in national institutions of governance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ruby4711

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but their actual vote on the day was 16%. Unless they do repeat the trick of more than doubling their vote, that's the more relevant figure - if we're talking about elections, that is.

You may be right, you may be wrong. I have little interest in one election, as I have said, and have little interest guessing what the results might be.

I am stating a fact that at this stage in the previous election cycle UKIP were on 7%, and at this stage in this electoral cycle, UKIP are on 26%.

Of course, at different stages they have been on different percentages, and I can’t imagine anyone would disagree with that statement.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I'll take you at your word on that, but the impression remains strong that you were using the results of polls to make general predictions about the elections, and that the polls you were using to do so were in fact not even polls of voting intentions.

I don’t ask you to take me at my word, neither do I ask you to reply to your impressions of what you think I said, and it’s up to you to take me at my word, or not, just as it’s up to you to take anyone at their word, or not. I don’t request it, nor do I require it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As to the general trend, the art of picking the highest point in a time series and drawing a line through it and the current situation in order to show a continuous declining trend is a well-established piece of statistical abuse. It produces no trend that requires debate, because it's purely an artefact.

The fact is that in 1991, 71% of the EU citizens said they supported their country's membership. Less than one in three EU citizens expressed trust in the EU in 2013.

Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive. 57% said they supported their country's membership in 1991.

Facts are facts and there is no “art” involved, nor is their “statistical abuse” involved.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having said that, it would take Panglossian efforts to claim that there is not a problem with the EU/citizen relationship - there is of course a problem. How one interprets the current negativity is open to debate. The option is there of interpreting it as a trend that predates and is only partly explained by current events, and of claiming it as a meaningful and motivated rejection of the EU in particular rather than as part of a general loss of trust in the political establishment - but if you are going to claim that, you need to do rather better than two hand-picked data points and ignoring the identical results for trust in national institutions of governance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We could all play the game of guessing why things are as they are, and am reasonably sure some of us have favourite guesses and explanations as to how much emphasis we should put on this event versus that circumstance and so on. Guessing has never seemed to be particularly constructive or illuminating.

I don’t see there to be a particular problem, which you claim, with the EU/citizen relationship, and even if there was I don’t see how you propose to rectify it. You seem to have a need to explain the why and the how and how much is recent, and if its recent is it real or will it be temporary, or is it just a pox on all your houses both at national level and at EU level, or is it a more general level of trust etc etc.

I have no explanation to offer, and don’t intend to make guesses on these, or on any other points. Just as I see no point in guessing election results, I see no point in guessing why the electorate make the choices they make, for example as reported in the Eurobarometer polls, or elsewhere.