Why are the British so anti Europe?

QuentinL

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a standard trope, usually based solely on GDP and GDP growth rates, and their projection into the future without change. Minor issues like human welfare, happiness, freedom etc don't really feature.

Europe could probably have the same raw numbers as the US if it dropped human welfare standards to US levels, but why would we want that Europe?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The one thing we have learned in Europe in recent years is that everything has to be paid for, and there is a cost for everything. For example, if we choose to have higher benefits, they have to be paid for out of either increased taxation or increased borrowing. Higher taxation generally leads to a disincentive to economic growth. You pays your money and you take you choice.

Ireland, for example, spent in 2010 almost €21 Billion on social welfare, out of a total tax revenue of +- €35 Billion.

Ireland spent just shy of €16 billion on public health expenditure in 2010.

So between social welfare and public health expenditure, Ireland spent €37 billion in 2010, and took in €35 billion in taxes. Whether we judge that to be too much, too little, or about right is an individual view.

As ever, we have to try to take a balanced view and it may well be that some Irish view those numbers as perfectly fine.

Other countries take a different view, countries like Germany for example.

The European model differs from the USA model, and the consequences for that seem to be that the USA is growing their economy by leaps and bounds faster than Europe. The UK model is more akin to the USA model than the European model, and it's hardly surprising that some in the UK question.

Increasingly, many in Ireland question too, and many in France and Italy and Germany and elsewhere are questioning, which is a good thing. Unquestioning allegiance, without rigorous questioning and without a democratic will, seems destined to fail.

The hubris of some in Europe is reminiscent of any great movement, who believe the size and longevity of the movement itself can defy the laws of gravity, economics and physics.

If Europe (and Ireland) want to recover economically, and not lose jobs and whole industries abroad, we have to realise we are competing for those jobs and industries with other countries like the USA, China, Brazil, India and so on. If others can pay less for labour, energy and all the other input costs, and Europe remains complacent and holds it's nose aloft, then there will be a price to pay. There already is.

Scofflaw

QuentinL wrote:

If Europe (and Ireland) want to recover economically, and not lose jobs and whole industries abroad, we have to realise we are competing for those jobs and industries with other countries like the USA, China, Brazil, India and so on. If others can pay less for labour, energy and all the other input costs, and Europe remains complacent and holds it's nose aloft, then there will be a price to pay. There already is.

Sure, and if we choose to compete with them on their terms, there is also a price to pay, and already has been. Also, the extrapolation into the future of current trends is generally a mistake, exemplified by the 1970s-1980s belief that Japan would dominate the world as an inevitable result of their then greater productivity and lower costs.

I agree that the degree of tradeoff is a policy choice, and therefore a political decision. But the UK public is not actually as right wing as the US public.

cordially,
Scofflaw

QuentinL

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, and if we choose to compete with them on their terms, there is also a price to pay, and already has been. Also, the extrapolation into the future of current trends is generally a mistake, exemplified by the 1970s-1980s belief that Japan would dominate the world as an inevitable result of their then greater productivity and lower costs.

I agree that the degree of tradeoff is a policy choice, and therefore a political decision. But the UK public is not actually as right wing as the US public.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course there is a price to pay for everything, but the price for not competing with the new economic superpowers is that Europe slides deeper and deeper behind. It’s happening already.

If we continue to hold our noses aloft, and not compete with the USA, China, Brazil, India and other emerging economic powers, and continue with the policies of high taxes, high labour costs and high energy costs, the price Europe will pay is higher levels of unemployment (Europe already has very high levels of unemployment), and continually increasing Welfare spending.

Unfortunately the commercial world knows no allegiances, and if they can produce it better and cheaper elsewhere, then that’s where they are going to go. Many have gone already, and this is not some theoretical argument. Less jobs for Europe, higher unemployment, even higher taxes to pay for the unemployment…

Barring a miracle, the only hope Europe has is to stop making excuses and change. To not do so it to condemn Europe to a possible, if not probable, Japanese style period of stagnation and deflation. Ireland is one of the few countries which has managed to get some control over its labour costs, but those savings have been gobbled up by crushing extra taxation to pay for its previous and continuing profligacy.

Europe needs to make the changes to create the conditions for economic prosperity, or more importantly the individual countries of Europe have to make the changes. Waiting around for someone else to do it, or simply clinging together, closing our eyes, and hoping for the best isn’t an economic policy which is likely to be successful. It’s not going to be easy, but the alternative is we slide further and further into poverty, into a Japanese style period of deflation and watch the unemployment statistics rise.

oscarBravo

QuentinL wrote: »

Barring a miracle, the only hope Europe has is to stop making excuses and change.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to ask, since none of your previous incarnations showed any interest in answering questions, but: what specific policies do you feel the EU should implement?

Scofflaw

QuentinL wrote: »

Of course there is a price to pay for everything, but the price for not competing with the new economic superpowers is that Europe slides deeper and deeper behind. It’s happening already.

It's a little hard to make long term predictions at the moment - conditions aren't quite normal.

QuentinL wrote: »

If we continue to hold our noses aloft, and not compete with the USA, China, Brazil, India and other emerging economic powers, and continue with the policies of high taxes, high labour costs and high energy costs, the price Europe will pay is higher levels of unemployment (Europe already has very high levels of unemployment), and continually increasing Welfare spending.

That assumes that lower levels of unemployment are something worth paying for with lower levels of welfare and tax, and that's a particular policy preference.

As to energy costs, funnily enough it's the UK that has Europe's highest.

QuentinL wrote: »

Unfortunately the commercial world knows no allegiances, and if they can produce it better and cheaper elsewhere, then that’s where they are going to go. Many have gone already, and this is not some theoretical argument. Less jobs for Europe, higher unemployment, even higher taxes to pay for the unemployment…

And yet during the period of rising labour costs and increasing welfare, we had no lack of jobs. Possibly the current dearth of jobs is in some way related to the recession.

QuentinL wrote: »

Barring a miracle, the only hope Europe has is to stop making excuses and change. To not do so it to condemn Europe to a possible, if not probable, Japanese style period of stagnation and deflation. Ireland is one of the few countries which has managed to get some control over its labour costs, but those savings have been gobbled up by crushing extra taxation to pay for its previous and continuing profligacy.

Europe needs to make the changes to create the conditions for economic prosperity, or more importantly the individual countries of Europe have to make the changes. Waiting around for someone else to do it, or simply clinging together, closing our eyes, and hoping for the best isn’t an economic policy which is likely to be successful. It’s not going to be easy, but the alternative is we slide further and further into poverty, into a Japanese style period of deflation and watch the unemployment statistics rise.

There's no sign that Europe, or the EU, does close its eyes, either collectively or individually. But when it comes to implementation of policies, certain "European" preferences, particularly that of social solidarity, tend to creep into the mix, even in the UK's national policies.

As for Japanese style deflation, given their unemployment rate is steadily lower than the US or Europe, it seems that perhaps that's not something to be quite so terrified of.

Meanwhile, Europe is prosperous - yes, it's not growing as fast as China or India, but neither will they when they get to be as prosperous as us. The US is ahead, certainly, but at a price in terms of inequality that Europeans seem unwilling to pay. It's relevant that Europe's currently resurgent further-left and further-right populist parties by and large don't offer policies that go too far from what's on offer from the mainstream consensus - their main policy plank is just restriction of the goodies to the right kind of people, often liberally seasoned with state control of industry "for the good of the people". They don't advocate taking pensions or welfare away from everybody, they advocate taking it away from the undeserving, generally characterised as immigrants.

As far as I can see, most Europeans aren't interested in aping the US, and show little sign of being interested in the policies espoused by the US Republican mainstream, never mind the Tea Party. Maybe it's just because we live on a more crowded continent, maybe it's the longer history of less than benevolent revolutions, but that seems to be the way it is, and I would say that China and India will tend to similar outcomes in the longer term, perhaps leaving the US the one shining example of a country willing to keep its competitiveness honed sharp for the sake of its rich.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

QuentinL wrote: »

Of course there is a price to pay for everything, but the price for not competing with the new economic superpowers is that Europe slides deeper and deeper behind. It’s happening already.

Maybe in your head it is. But, out here in the real world, your so-called "new economic superpowers" are still having having a hard time addressing serious problems such as poverty, corruption, pollution and lax health and safety regulations. For example, are you aware that eight people have died during the construction of football stadiums in Brazil for this summer's World Cup? Is that the kind of example we should be following in Europe?

QuentinL wrote: »

If we continue to hold our noses aloft, and not compete with the USA, China, Brazil, India and other emerging economic powers, and continue with the policies of high taxes, high labour costs and high energy costs, the price Europe will pay is higher levels of unemployment (Europe already has very high levels of unemployment), and continually increasing Welfare spending.

Europe also has very high levels of adult literacy and life expectancy and very low levels of infant mortality.

QuentinL wrote: »

Unfortunately the commercial world knows no allegiances, and if they can produce it better and cheaper elsewhere, then that’s where they are going to go. Many have gone already…

And many have returned. For example:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/manufacturing/us-multinational-to-create-500-jobs-in-cork-1.1669531

In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, the number of people in employment in Ireland has been increasing steadily since the end of 2012. Employment is also on the up here in the UK.

QuentinL wrote: »

Europe needs to make the changes to create the conditions for economic prosperity, or more importantly the individual countries of Europe have to make the changes. Waiting around for someone else to do it, or simply clinging together, closing our eyes, and hoping for the best isn’t an economic policy which is likely to be successful. It’s not going to be easy, but the alternative is we slide further and further into poverty, into a Japanese style period of deflation and watch the unemployment statistics rise.

And of course, as we all know, Japanese people endure a considerably lower standard of living than their Brazilian, Indian and Chinese counterparts.

QuentinL

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to ask, since none of your previous incarnations showed any interest in answering questions, but: what specific policies do you feel the EU should implement?

I am not sure it's up to the EU specifically. One of the issues highlighted in recent years is that the EU takes a very long time to make decisions compared to its competitors. Its very bureaucratic nature makes it cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy. Decision by committee really is not beneficial at times.

Perhaps it's better if individual countries took action themselves, as they can act swiftly when necessary.

Obviously the policies should be to reduce labour costs, reduce energy costs and reduce taxes. Policies of high labour costs, high energy costs and high taxes don't work, (as France so aptly demonstrates).

djpbarry

QuentinL wrote: »

One of the issues highlighted in recent years is that the EU takes a very long time to make decisions compared to its competitors. Its very bureaucratic nature makes it cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy. Decision by committee really is not beneficial at times.

And yet, according to World Bank data, EU states rank among the best in the world for government effectiveness:

QuentinL

djpbarry wrote: »

Maybe in your head it is. But, out here in the real world, your so-called "new economic superpowers" are still having having a hard time addressing serious problems such as poverty, corruption, pollution and lax health and safety regulations. For example, are you aware that eight people have died during the construction of football stadiums in Brazil for this summer's World Cup? Is that the kind of example we should be following in Europe?

Ireland has a hard time addressing poverty, corruption, pollution and lots of other issues. Many countries do. I think exactely the issue Ireland should be addressing is trying to attract events like World Cup, of course, and attract and encourage innovation and entrepreneurs.

djpbarry wrote: »

Europe also has very high levels of adult literacy and life expectancy and very low levels of infant mortality.
And many have returned. For example:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/manufacturing/us-multinational-to-create-500-jobs-in-cork-1.1669531

In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, the number of people in employment in Ireland has been increasing steadily since the end of 2012. Employment is also on the up here in the UK.

If it's your view that everything is rosy in the Irish/European garden, then we disagree. Its great news that Irish employment is increasing, but that has to be put into context of mass emigration. EU unemployment is 10.8% and USA unemployment is 6.6%. Irish unemployment is hovering around 12% after an estimated 400 000 emigrated from Ireland because they could not find work.

The UK is a different case as they have followed different economic policies to Ireland, which appear successful to a degree and means, even after they absorb some of the 400000 imigrants from Ireland, employment is still growing.

So many French have left France that the French consulate estimates that London is not the 6th largest "french" city, with up to 400000 French also now living just in London.

djpbarry wrote: »

And of course, as we all know, Japanese people endure a considerably lower standard of living than their Brazilian, Indian and Chinese counterparts.

And yet 25 years ago japan was one of the richest nations in the world, and China one of the poorest. China turned its fortunes around by the policies it deliberately pursued, and Japan ignored the signs and its fortunes crumbled and economy tanked. You seem to imply you think Europe is immune to following the example of Japan, anthought many economists now consider that one more shock to the EU is all it wil take to turn the Euro into a deflationary spiral similar to that experienced in Japan. Let's hope you are right and they are wrong.

QuentinL

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, according to World Bank data, EU states rank among the best in the world for government effectiveness:

Is the World bank, in the example you give, talking about the EU government, or individual governments within the EU?

Individual EU states are pretty good, I'd agree. It is governance at the EU level, which is cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy.

oscarBravo

QuentinL wrote: »

Perhaps it's better if individual countries took action themselves, as they can act swiftly when necessary.

Yes, I'm sure Ireland and Malta would be economic superpowers if only they weren't fettered by the EU.

Obviously the policies should be to reduce labour costs, reduce energy costs and reduce taxes. Policies of high labour costs, high energy costs and high taxes don't work, (as France so aptly demonstrates).

Can you point to the high labour cost, high energy cost and high tax provisions of the European Union treaties? Because those don't seem to me to be EU policies.

QuentinL wrote: »

Individual EU states are pretty good, I'd agree. It is governance at the EU level, which is cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy.

Is that actually true anywhere outside of UKIP talking points? I hear an awful lot of talk about how terrifyingly awful EU red tape is, but I hear very little in the way of concrete examples of it.

I happened to be tangentially involved in a freedom of information request at EU level recently. The initial request is dealt with in a couple of weeks, and the appeals process, if any, takes about the same time. There is no (or minimal) cost involved to the party requesting the information. By contrast, the Irish FoI process is positively byzantine, opaque, and often prohibitively expensive.

QuentinL

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a little hard to make long term predictions at the moment - conditions aren't quite normal.

It’s always hard to do that, and conditions are never quite normal.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That assumes that lower levels of unemployment are something worth paying for with lower levels of welfare and tax, and that's a particular policy preference.

For me, I think it’s better overall for society and for individuals to be in work, supporting themselves and contributing to society. It’s beneficial to themselves, their families, and to society, and welfarism should not be a life choice, but a support. It’s a cruel irony that Ireland needs to increase taxes (with its knock on effects of increasing unemployment) to pay the welfare bill.

If you think it’s a good thing that Ireland spends over 100% of the total revenue it raises from all taxation on Welfare and health, then we disagree.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And yet during the period of rising labour costs and increasing welfare, we had no lack of jobs. Possibly the current dearth of jobs is in some way related to the recession.

The “no lack of jobs” was caused by excessive credit which inflated the economy and is where the roots of Irelands current problems lie. The current dearth of jobs is cause by no single factor, and of course the recession is part of it. So are high taxes and high energy costs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no sign that Europe, or the EU, does close its eyes, either collectively or individually. But when it comes to implementation of policies, certain "European" preferences, particularly that of social solidarity, tend to creep into the mix, even in the UK's national policies.

I agree that individually individual countries are waking up,. The news from France this week is a case in point, and lets hope they can turn things around and prosper.

You are spot on about “social solidarity” and who could disagree with that. The trick is to make it proportionate and the best form of social solidarity we can have is to have jobs for the people.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As for Japanese style deflation, given their unemployment rate is steadily lower than the US or Europe, it seems that perhaps that's not something to be quite so terrified of.

Japan hasn’t fallen into the sea, but has gone from being one of the leading economies, to an economy which has suffered badly.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Meanwhile, Europe is prosperous - yes, it's not growing as fast as China or India, but neither will they when they get to be as prosperous as us. The US is ahead, certainly, but at a price in terms of inequality that Europeans seem unwilling to pay. It's relevant that Europe's currently resurgent further-left and further-right populist parties by and large don't offer policies that go too far from what's on offer from the mainstream consensus - their main policy plank is just restriction of the goodies to the right kind of people, often liberally seasoned with state control of industry "for the good of the people". They don't advocate taking pensions or welfare away from everybody, they advocate taking it away from the undeserving, generally characterised as immigrants.

Consensus is, probably, the reason why Europe, or at least the EU, is slow and cumbersome and almost paralysed in the recent crises. Consensus means you don’t do what is right, but do instead what is popular and compromise correct decisions for the sake of harmony.

When the UK changed course and decided on QE, it didn’t look for consensus and the government did what it considered was right. China doesn’t do “consensus” either and nor does the USA. Perhaps the price for “consensus” is one worth pondering.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I can see, most Europeans aren't interested in aping the US, and show little sign of being interested in the policies espoused by the US Republican mainstream, never mind the Tea Party. Maybe it's just because we live on a more crowded continent, maybe it's the longer history of less than benevolent revolutions, but that seems to be the way it is, and I would say that China and India will tend to similar outcomes in the longer term, perhaps leaving the US the one shining example of a country willing to keep its competitiveness honed sharp for the sake of its rich.

Of course most Europeans may not be, as you claim, interested in aping the US, and who can blame them. Neither society is perfect and both far from perfect. Demonising “the rich” has never once, in the history of the world, led to anything but poverty and misery. It is, perhaps, that so many in the USA want to emulate the rich and become rich themselves, which is part of the reason for their success.

djpbarry

QuentinL wrote: »

Ireland has a hard time addressing poverty, corruption, pollution and lots of other issues.

But Ireland’s doing a far better job on those fronts than Brazil, India or China.

QuentinL wrote: »

Many countries do. I think exactely the issue Ireland should be addressing is trying to attract events like World Cup…

You think Ireland should follow Brazil’s example and build lots of stadia it doesn’t need, at a cost of several human lives, just to attract a one-off soccer tournament?

QuentinL wrote: »

If it's your view that everything is rosy in the Irish/European garden...

It’s a hell of a lot rosier than it is in Brazil, India or China and that’s unlikely to change any time soon.

QuentinL wrote: »

Irish unemployment is hovering around 12% after an estimated 400 000 emigrated from Ireland because they could not find work.

An estimated 275,000 people have arrived in Ireland over the same period that 400,000 left and a large chunk of those emigrants left jobs behind – only about a quarter were unemployed, according to UCC’s Émigré study.

QuentinL wrote: »

The UK is a different case as they have followed different economic policies to Ireland...

So Ireland has high taxes, high welfare and high energy costs, but the UK does not?

QuentinL wrote: »

You seem to imply you think Europe is immune to following the example of Japan...

What I’m actually posting and what you think I’m implying are clearly two very different things.

I never said that Europe is “immune to following the example of Japan”.

What I am saying is, what’s so bad about life in Japan?

QuentinL wrote: »

Individual EU states are pretty good, I'd agree. It is governance at the EU level, which is cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy.

This looks like something lifted straight out of a UKIP pamphlet.

QuentinL wrote: »

When the UK changed course and decided on QE, it didn’t look for consensus and the government did what it considered was right. China doesn’t do “consensus” either and nor does the USA.

Virtually every government in the world “does consensus” in one form or another.

If the UK is such a model of efficiency, then why the hell is it going to take almost twenty years to finish HS2?

Scofflaw

QuentinL wrote: »

I am not sure it's up to the EU specifically. One of the issues highlighted in recent years is that the EU takes a very long time to make decisions compared to its competitors. Its very bureaucratic nature makes it cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy. Decision by committee really is not beneficial at times.

Perhaps it's better if individual countries took action themselves, as they can act swiftly when necessary.

Obviously the policies should be to reduce labour costs, reduce energy costs and reduce taxes. Policies of high labour costs, high energy costs and high taxes don't work, (as France so aptly demonstrates).

And as the case of France also aptly demonstrates, those things are national competences. Which means that these are areas where individual countries can take action themselves.

What exactly is it you think the EU actually does? What areas do you believe it has decision-making control in?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

QuentinL wrote:

Consensus is, probably, the reason why Europe, or at least the EU, is slow and cumbersome and almost paralysed in the recent crises. Consensus means you don’t do what is right, but do instead what is popular and compromise correct decisions for the sake of harmony.

Not really. Consensus means you do what is acceptable to everybody - that is, decisions go ahead if nobody really objects.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gallag

djpbarry wrote: »

If the UK is such a model of efficiency, then why the hell is it going to take almost twenty years to finish HS2?

Yep, inefficient bunch altogether, taking that long to build 330miles of track (60 miles of tunnel) capable of taking trains with 1100 passengers at over 200 mph, serving 8 of top ten largest city's. What a ridiculous rebuttal.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

Yep, inefficient bunch altogether, taking that long to build 330miles of track (60 miles of tunnel) capable of taking trains with 1100 passengers at over 200 mph, serving 8 of top ten largest city's.

It has been suggested that it could be completed in about ten years:

The 20-year time lag is a "complete nonsense" says Sir Peter Hall, professor of planning and regeneration at The Bartlett, University College London. If it wasn't for political considerations, the line could be built in about 10 years, he says.

...

Prof Hall, an advocate of high speed rail, says the phasing makes little sense. Why not start on both now so that they will be finished sooner? The same thing happened with the Channel Tunnel rail link, which could have been finished in 2003 but was done in two phases, he says. "The whole (HS2) line could be open in theory by 2023," he argues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21231044

SpaceTime

QuentinL wrote: »

It’s interesting to contemplate the different worlds in which the UK signed the treaty of Rome, and today. Is it possible what was right in the world of 1972 is no longer right for 2014?

In 1972, Europe had had 20 years of impressive growth and Europe, and the USA, dominated the world economy. China was impoverished and a remote agricultural country, and India, Brazil and the Far East in similar impoverished shape.

Today the Far East, India, China (and even South America) are where the action is. The USA has proved to be far more dynamic than Europe in recovering from the shocks, and the dominance of China and increasingly India seems to ensure that Europe will find id difficult, if not impossible, to avoid continued and comparative decline.

Europe has gone in 40 years from its post war dynamic powerhouse of the world status, to a sclerotic region which is falling further behind the USA, India China etc.

An interesting observation is that all these rising powers are independent countries, and not part of sprawling “unions”. It is, perhaps, the bureaucracy of the EU and Europe which is part of it’s Achilles heel, and it is many times more extensive, intrusive and paralysing than the level of bureaucracy in China, Brazil, India or the USA. The really depressing thing for many in Europe is lack of realisation that this has to change 180°, before Europe can even hope to turn its sclerotic performance around. Europe seems destined to continue its comparative decline, unless or until it can reverse the bureaucracy which plagues it.

The arguments for staying in the EU are all based on fear and threats. Britain will be “isolated” if it leaves the EU, banished from “the largest economy in the world” “lose jobs” “be denied a seat at the top table” and so and so on. Threats and fears are not reasons, and should be seen for what they are. As Switzerland and Norway show, it’s possible to thrive in both the EU and outside the EU.

It still has a bigger GDP than the US, twice as big as China and it runs a substantial trade surplus vs the US' substantial trade deficit.

It's also not basing that GDP on cheap exports and unlike China the EU and its members stand for democracy, human rights etc etc

China could quite easily flop if things become unstable. That's always possible in an authoritarian state that lacks democracy.

The big challenge in the EU is unemployment.
A lot of people however are extrapolating Greece or Spain's situation to the entire EU, that's just not an accurate reflection at all.

Scofflaw

SpaceTime wrote: »

It still has a bigger GDP than the US, twice as big as China and it runs a substantial trade surplus vs the US' substantial trade deficit.

It's also not basing that GDP on cheap exports and unlike China the EU and its members stand for democracy, human rights etc etc

China could quite easily flop if things become unstable. That's always possible in an authoritarian state that lacks democracy.

The big challenge in the EU is unemployment.
A lot of people however are extrapolating Greece or Spain's situation to the entire EU, that's just not an accurate reflection at all.

And indeed generalising from the current situation to some kind of universal characteristic of the EU. 10 years ago, Germany was "the sick man of Europe", and we were the bright stars, now that's reversed. Twenty years ago the Asian Tiger economies were going to take over the world and render us all unemployed, but that didn't happen. Thirty years ago the Japanese were going to eat everybody else's lunch, but then didn't. Fifty years ago people were afraid the USSR would win the economic race, and it didn't.

Economies are something people do, not some kind of autonomous process driven by purely internal logic to inexorable outcomes. As economies grow more prosperous, people want to start enjoying the fruits of that prosperity, because that's the point of the whole exercise. No population has ever gone on becoming remorselessly better than everybody else, and the differences between rich nations tends to be a matter of degree and emphasis, rather than the stark ones regularly conjured up for exercises in "country X will eat our lunch!!!!".

To be honest, I suspect such scare stories to be fundamentally arguments for right wing policies to benefit the wealthy. Selling them to the less wealthy is a necessary part of having such policies adopted in a democratic state, and tends to go hand in hand with jingoism, because "pride in your nation" is a proven way for the wealthy to sell a smaller slice of real pie to the lower orders.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SpaceTime

I think the EU itself does a VERY bad job of communicating some of its positives.
Things like EU balance of trade surpluses and our enormous GDP as a bloc would be shouted from the rooftops if it were getting the PR right!

It's letting the story be led by the economic basket case economics of Greece etc.

Can you imagine the US economy being described in terms of how Mississippi is doing? That's kind of what the media is doing with the EU.

kravmaga

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why do Irish posters like The Guardian so much? It's practically the only UK paper quoted on Irish forums. It's a figure of ridicule in The UK.

These are whats known as the West Brit brigade here in ROI.

Guardian paper buyers = I vote for the conservative party.

Peregrinus

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why do Irish posters like The Guardian so much? It's practically the only UK paper quoted on Irish forums. It's a figure of ridicule in The UK.

Because the two British newspapers with the strongest online presence are the Guardian and the Daily Mail, so if you google for reports or articles dealing with something, these are the hits you are most likely to get. And, obviously, if you want to avoid universal scorn and derision, you're not going to cite the hits from the Daily Mail in support of whatever argument you're making.

Peregrinus

kravmaga wrote: »

Guardian paper buyers = I vote for the conservative party.

You serious?

SpaceTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

You serious?

Confusing it with the Daily Torygraph.

The Guardian would be a lot closer to New Labour kind of thinking.

It's not a figure of ridicule in the UK, other than amongst right wing commentators.
The Guardian has a pretty good reputation.

Every paper in the UK is politicised though.

Max001

kravmaga wrote: »

Guardian paper buyers = I vote for the conservative party.

Boards has its value, but sometimes people do talk the biggest load of ****.

As is often the case Yes Minister gets straight to the truth
(you may find this on YouTube also)

Yes, Minister: Newspapers

Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

• The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
• The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
• The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
• The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
• The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
• The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
• And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.

As to the original question of why the UK leans towards a euro sceptic point of view, the answer to this can also be found on Yes Minister.
As Margaret Thatcher said, its more documentary than fiction, or words to that effect.

Max001

SpaceTime wrote: »

Confusing it with the Daily Torygraph.

The Guardian would be a lot closer to New Labour kind of thinking.

It's not a figure of ridicule in the UK, other than amongst right wing commentators.
The Guardian has a pretty good reputation.

Every paper in the UK is politicised though.

The Manchester Guardian under the editorship of Alistair Hetherington in the 1960's built a reputation for breaking major stories, as well as the depth of its international news coverage. This was built upon the strong foundation laid by the Scott family in the late 1800's and early 1900's who first edited, then owned the paper and who emphasised objective, factually accurate reporting. The paper originally reflected centrist liberal values, but to an extent lost the middle ground to the Independent when it launched.
Unfortunately the Guardian attracted derision due to its weak copy editing during the post war years, which tended to undermine the value of its journalism and it was derided by all shades of commentators, not just those on the right.

Scofflaw

Max001 wrote:

Unfortunately the Guardian attracted derision due to its weak copy editing during the post war years, which tended to undermine the value of its journalism and it was derided by all shades of commentators, not just those on the right.

I think you're referring here to the origins of its alternative title "the Grauniad", but to suggest that the paper is "a figure of ridicule in the UK" is to take that very gentle historical derision both out of context and far too seriously. It might still be in vogue amongst those who haven't opened its pages since the 1960s, but it's not easy to think of another UK paper that has broken a news story of the seriousness of the Snowden revelations in the last couple of decades.

Well, bar the News of the World, but that was more a case of being broken.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Max001

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think you're referring here to the origins of its alternative title "the Grauniad", but to suggest that the paper is "a figure of ridicule in the UK" is to take that very gentle historical derision both out of context and far too seriously. It might still be in vogue amongst those who haven't opened its pages since the 1960s, but it's not easy to think of another UK paper that has broken a news story of the seriousness of the Snowden revelations in the last couple of decades.

Well, bar the News of the World, but that was more a case of being broken.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I dip into The Grauniad regularly and find its still full of typos. I didn't say it is ' a figure of ridicule .....' The point I made was that it was regularly derided by left and right.

Scofflaw

Max001 wrote: »

I dip into The Grauniad regularly and find its still full of typos. I didn't say it is ' a figure of ridicule .....' The point I made was that it was regularly derided by left and right.

Quite a few people would argue that as a good sign.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sock puppet

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think the EU itself does a VERY bad job of communicating some of its positives.
Things like EU balance of trade surpluses and our enormous GDP as a bloc would be shouted from the rooftops if it were getting the PR right!

Why is that necessarily a good thing?