Why are the British so anti Europe?

oscarBravo

masculinist wrote: »

lets see- we were bullied into voting for Lisbon twice.

I wasn't even bullied into voting once. I distinctly remember having the option to vote either way at both referendums; or even not to vote at all.

gallag

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wasn't even bullied into voting once. I distinctly remember having the option to vote either way at both referendums; or even not to vote at all.

Why no third vote? best out of three? you know why, because they finally got the answer they wanted! you can be sure their would have been a third vote if the Irish electorate return the incorrect answer the second time also.

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

Why no third vote? best out of three? you know why, because they finally got the answer they wanted!

Yes. You announce that as if it's some sort of "gotcha" or "aha!" revelation, but it's really not.

The government wanted to ratify the treaty - of course it did; the government negotiated the treaty. Therefore, the government wanted the electorate's permission to ratify the treaty. Having received that permission, why would they ask a third time? That would be stupid, and I'm not sure why you're presenting this lack of stupidity as somehow unfair or undemocratic.

you can be sure their would have been a third vote if the Irish electorate return the incorrect answer the second time also.

I doubt it.

Scofflaw

masculinist wrote: »

lets see- we were bullied into voting for Lisbon twice.

Hardly. The government barely put it in any effort in the first referendum, and then had to run it again to get the result they wanted. That's pretty much a feature of the Irish system.

Bullied into bailing out European banks via the proxy of our own

And this, I'm afraid, is simply a myth. There was never very much eurozone money in our banks - most of the foreign money there was US/UK, which should hardly be a surprise given that those are where our banks traditionally operate.

.... it looks like the British were spot on when you see how the EU bullied us with an infamous letter to Brian Lenihan which they refuse to release. so much for democracy and freedom eh ?

And that letter is apparently to be released - by the ECB, whereas our Department of Finance has never expressed any intention of releasing their copy.

It's amazing the fuss that's made over the fact that we were "bullied" into a bailout. When you look back, at the time we were all deriding the government's "Chemical Ali" style claims that they didn't need no stinking bailout - but now FF are the heroes, and that claim is apparently taken at face value. Funny that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

I'll just point out for about the billionth time since the referendum all those years ago that the Lisbon II vote was on the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon) Act 2009, which was in reference to a different version of the Treaty of Lisbon than was voted for in the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008.

Many of the concerns were addressed in the amended Treaty and, therefore, we were not voting on the same thing twice.

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

Why no third vote? best out of three? you know why, because they finally got the answer they wanted! you can be sure their would have been a third vote if the Irish electorate return the incorrect answer the second time also.

The only problem with your argument is that it was the other way around! The EU came up with a new treaty which they had to put to the Irish people, who said: nope we don't like that! So they had to sit down and come up with a new version which was more to the like of the Irish.

And yes if they Irish rejected it once more, then the EU would have had to decide was it possible to rework it some more or abandon it and start again.

Compared that to the UK who voted in 1975 to join the EEC and have not been consulted since on any of the issues since and today find themselves in the EU. Successive PMs have simply committed them to whatever came up as and when it did.

By comparison the Irish clearly are in the driving seat! The fact that the government has to consult them on every significant move just proves it.

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll just point out for about the billionth time since the referendum all those years ago that the Lisbon II vote was on the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon) Act 2009, which was in reference to a different version of the Treaty of Lisbon than was voted for in the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008.

Many of the concerns were addressed in the amended Treaty and, therefore, we were not voting on the same thing twice.

But everybody knows they weren't real concerns...oops.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's true. You could form a coalition which had as its only agreed goal the running of another election on the basis that the results of this one were silly - or, to put it another way, that the election had produced a situation that couldn't provide stable government.

Could happen in the UK next year...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Could happen in Ireland in 2016.

NIMAN

Even Manchester City seem to be in a hurry to get out of Europe.



I'll get my coat.

Jonblack

The Letter is printed in Irish Times today.

McDave

gallag wrote: »

Why no third vote? best out of three? you know why, because they finally got the answer they wanted! you can be sure their would have been a third vote if the Irish electorate return the incorrect answer the second time also.

The second vote was a resounding Yes on a high turnout.

It's not the first time we've returned to an issue in a referendum. If people were against Lisbon, more could have simply voted No. Noone is controlling their hands in the privacy of the voting booth.

professore

Lemming wrote: »

You are assuming that financial activity will decamp by default to those locations. Remember that it is Germany and France that are pushing for financial transaction tax. The world of finance does not like turbulence; but it will try to ride out turbulence over taking a leap into the unknown. So the net effect will be sitting still for a while to see what comes out of any break-up before making a decision either way. That means turbulence for the markets (EU/UK and anyone else using the UK to trade inside the EU) and a significant loss of income to the EU along with free access to said financial hub.

Regardless, it would be idiotic for the UK to have resisted the financial transaction tax only to leave the EU and sign up to the EEA where they would have absolutely no say in Germany & France bringing in such a tax. Not even the city of London, for all its bluster, is that short-sighted.



Who said anything about trade negotiations? I'm talking about border controls. Any point of access that could involve the UK will need policed.

I agree with Sand that this is the culmination of appalling leadership by UK leaders. It shows just how much that EU relations have been neglected over the last few years (in particular) and just how much it has been used as some sort of domestic bogeyman by a media that clearly has no clue (how else could you explain the over infatuation with UKIP?!!). Most of the political leadership of the UK now really has no clue how to engage with the EU.

There's this thing called democracy, it appears to be what the people want. We've surrendered ours without a whimper unfortunately. Had we not joined the euro things would be much better here now - much higher interest rates and inflation would have kept things in check.

When the crash came we could have devalued and become competitive overnight. It would have hurt short term but would be better long t term.

Jim2007

professore wrote: »

When the crash came we could have devalued and become competitive overnight.

No it would not! Ireland is a net exporting country and as a result the exchange rate would actually rise, just the same as a DMark would in the same situation. As a result both Ireland and Germany have benefited from the Euro in export markets. Request a copy the research report from Credit Suisse for further reference.

The Corinthian

professore wrote: »

When the crash came we could have devalued and become competitive overnight. It would have hurt short term but would be better long t term.

Suddenly everyone is an economic expert without knowing the first thing about it. Eddie Hobbs and company have a lot to answer for.

Scofflaw

professore wrote: »

There's this thing called democracy, it appears to be what the people want. We've surrendered ours without a whimper unfortunately. Had we not joined the euro things would be much better here now - much higher interest rates and inflation would have kept things in check.

As would, say, a 20% deposit rule. The idea that we would have done things differently given control over our interest rates is rather contradicted by the fact that not only did our Central Bank and Dept Fin. not use tools they had at their disposal, they didn't even look to see what tools they had.

The problem was not that our CBI was unable to act to control the bubble, but that they believed there wasn't a problem.

professore wrote: »

When the crash came we could have devalued and become competitive overnight. It would have hurt short term but would be better long t term.

No, it would have hurt short term and achieved nothing long term - that's been shown time after time. It solves none of the problems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem was not that our CBI was unable to act to control the bubble, but that they believed there wasn't a problem.

Nobody in any relevant institution believed there was a problem.

Trichet gave a speech in Ireland back in 2004 where he hailed Ireland as an economic success and model for the rest of Europe - specifically stating that "the economic recovery was grounded on far-reaching home made structural reforms in the labour, capital and product markets.” and he was particularly blind on an aspect that was specifically his remit "But the further integration of national capital markets towards a truly European financial market could make an even more important contribution to safeguarding against country-specific shocks."

Indeed he praised the worst aspect of Ireland in and around 2004:"Moreover, Ireland developed a transparent regulatory framework."

Oh and this peach: "let me express my profound admiration for the example you have shown to Central Bankers everywhere in your endurance and constant commitment to the public good. The fruits of your life’s work are all around us today and will play a role in inspiring policy reform in Europe"

If there was a sense of complacency at the CBI, it was certainly not challenged by Trichet or anyone with an interest in the Eurozone. Everything was grand.

While its true to say that being in the Eurozone did not deny the government and the CBI options if they wished to keep the economy cool, there is certainly something to be said for the idea that the government and the CBI might have been paying a little more attention if they were outside the complacency bubble within the Eurozone.

sock puppet

Scofflaw wrote: »

As would, say, a 20% deposit rule.

When central bankers introduced such measures recently there was talk about how they haven't actually been proven to work. So I'm not sure how you can speak with such certainty on the matter?

The idea that we would have done things differently given control over our interest rates is rather contradicted by the fact that not only did our Central Bank and Dept Fin. not use tools they had at their disposal, they didn't even look to see what tools they had.

The problem was not that our CBI was unable to act to control the bubble, but that they believed there wasn't a problem.

Monetary policy pre-crisis was pretty formulaic and rules-based as the accepted wisdom among central bankers was that inflation targeting was the best way of setting monetary policy. Given that inflation rose to 5% at times it is beyond doubt that interest rates would have been higher under some hypothetical scenario where the central bank was setting interest rates. It didn't prevent a housing boom anywhere else but interest rates would have been higher.

dlouth15

I posted this a while back when someone was claiming that interest rates in Ireland would probably have been 2% during the boom:

'm not disputing that the national central banks had other powers, limited as they may be, but I don't think your assertion that interest rates would have been 2% during the height of the bubble in Ireland stands up to much scrutiny.

First of all, interest rates were higher prior to entry to the Euro. They came down immediately upon entry. Secondly, there's fairly established methods a central bank uses for determining interest rates. Whilst the central bank doesn't need to follow these exactly, they suggest that Irish interest rates would have been much higher during the period of the boom simply as a result of standard procedure of the central bank.



You can see that the Eurozone as a whole follows the Taylor-rule recommendation reasonably closely but when you get down to individual countries, there's a huge variation between the recommendation for a particular economy and the rate that was actually set. In particular at the rates for Ireland in last graph.

Have a read of the article here.

Scofflaw

sock puppet wrote: »

When central bankers introduced such measures recently there was talk about how they haven't actually been proven to work. So I'm not sure how you can speak with such certainty on the matter?

Because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making whether they work. The point was that the CBI now find they have these tools, whereas during the bubble they didn't even look for them. That says to me that whatever tools might be considered available from having the punt wouldn't have been used either.

As Sand says, the problem was one of widespread complacency, although I'm not sure why he thinks such complacency was limited to the eurozone, when it rather obviously wasn't. It was pretty much global - we've had two decades of belief that the financial system has tamed risk, that financial markets are self-regulating, and that deregulation is the best thing ever.

Monetary policy pre-crisis was pretty formulaic and rules-based as the accepted wisdom among central bankers was that inflation targeting was the best way of setting monetary policy. Given that inflation rose to 5% at times it is beyond doubt that interest rates would have been higher under some hypothetical scenario where the central bank was setting interest rates. It didn't prevent a housing boom anywhere else but interest rates would have been higher.

Sure - in Iceland they hit 18% without damping down their property bubble. After all, if the price of your house is going to go up to €100k in a year, the interest rate to cool that down would have to be very large indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

porsche959

Sand wrote: »

Nobody in any relevant institution believed there was a problem.

Trichet gave a speech in Ireland back in 2004 where he hailed Ireland as an economic success and model for the rest of Europe - specifically stating that "the economic recovery was grounded on far-reaching home made structural reforms in the labour, capital and product markets.” and he was particularly blind on an aspect that was specifically his remit "But the further integration of national capital markets towards a truly European financial market could make an even more important contribution to safeguarding against country-specific shocks."

Indeed he praised the worst aspect of Ireland in and around 2004:"Moreover, Ireland developed a transparent regulatory framework."

Oh and this peach: "let me express my profound admiration for the example you have shown to Central Bankers everywhere in your endurance and constant commitment to the public good. The fruits of your life’s work are all around us today and will play a role in inspiring policy reform in Europe"

If there was a sense of complacency at the CBI, it was certainly not challenged by Trichet or anyone with an interest in the Eurozone. Everything was grand.

While its true to say that being in the Eurozone did not deny the government and the CBI options if they wished to keep the economy cool, there is certainly something to be said for the idea that the government and the CBI might have been paying a little more attention if they were outside the complacency bubble within the Eurozone.

Fair points. I remember that speech you refer to, I was in the audience. And I have a very distinct recollection that Trichet referred to the, then very obvious and numerous cranes in the Dublin skyline as something praiseworthy.

porsche959

Scofflaw wrote: »

And this, I'm afraid, is simply a myth. There was never very much eurozone money in our banks - most of the foreign money there was US/UK, which should hardly be a surprise given that those are where our banks traditionally operate.

Ahem. Cough.


http://order-order.com/2010/10/15/anglo-irish-bondholders-should-take-the-lossesis-the-ecb-forcing-ireland-to-protect-german-investments/

Godge

porsche959 wrote: »

Ahem. Cough.


http://order-order.com/2010/10/15/anglo-irish-bondholders-should-take-the-lossesis-the-ecb-forcing-ireland-to-protect-german-investments/

That list was debunked years ago and had no basis in fact.

One of the crazy things about the internet is that outlandish conspiracy theories never die no matter how many times they are shown to be false.

Jim2007

Godge wrote: »

That list was debunked years ago and had no basis in fact.

One of the crazy things about the internet is that outlandish conspiracy theories never die no matter how many times they are shown to be false.

Not to mention that if you start to go down the list you'll realise that most of them are asset managers, which means that the bonds are held within funds and other financial products, which in turn are most likely held ordinary people saving for retirement, putting their children through college etc....

Scofflaw

Even Guido Fawkes admitted as much - that it was a heavily edited version of a full list of bondholders, which he edited to tell a particular story. A quick reprise of the status of the list: it's actually a mixture of junior and senior bondholders, and includes both bonds that were protected in the Anglo bailout and bonds that were heavily burnt. More importantly, perhaps, it contains the names of institutions that held only bonds that were also held by Irish credit unions - Dexia held the same junior Anglo bonds as Wexford Credit Union, and on which the bondholders got 20c in the euro, or 1c in the euro - but Dexia appears on the list, while Wexford CC doesn't, because the list is edited to highlight "European" bondholders. The amount of money involved is also not shown - again, deliberately, because some of those bondholders only held trivial amounts.

People should spot at least some of that for themselves, but the "it was the Germans and French" narrative is sufficiently strong to allow them to "fill in" the rather important missing features and assume it's senior bondholders and accounts for a lot of money. porsche959 has used it here, for example, to oppose the statement that there was little eurozone money in the Irish banks, even though the list very clearly doesn't show any amounts, and therefore can't possibly refute such a statement.

If people (including porsche959) want to know how much eurozone money was in the Irish banks, it's a matter of record, and can be looked up on the Central Bank of Ireland website.

cordially,
Scofflaw

porsche959

I put up the link to the Fawkes in response this post from Scofflaw, in which he alleged, citing no evidence whatever:

Scofflaw wrote:

And this, I'm afraid, is simply a myth. There was never very much eurozone money in our banks - most of the foreign money there was US/UK, which should hardly be a surprise given that those are where our banks traditionally operate.

Presumably those attacking the credibility of the Fawkes list can furnish the correct list.

So, let's see it.

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

I put up the link to the Fawkes in response this post from Scofflaw, in which he alleged, citing no evidence whatever:



Presumably those attacking the credibility of the Fawkes list can furnish the correct list.

So, let's see it.

There isn't a "correct list", and the Fawkes' list can be shown to be dodgy without any such thing. You've ignored the point that the list doesn't make any mention of the amounts, and that by itself discredits the list, because it means you have no idea whether the bonds held by those creditors appearing on the list amount to anything much, let alone cover the full amount involved.

As to the point about Irish creditors being redacted, and some of the bondholders appearing holding only junior bonds, I'll repost my original research on the subject:

z0oT wrote: »

If most of the bondholders are indeed Irish and not French or German, where does that leave the following touted and apparently leaked Anglo bondholder list?
http://order-order.com/2010/10/15/anglo-irish-bondholders-should-take-the-lossesis-the-ecb-forcing-ireland-to-protect-german-investments/

Of course the authenticity of such a list is undoubtedly questionable, nonetheless the first few entries on the list do if I recall correctly co-incide with the few names David Norris read out in the Seanad late last year. Regardless that's just Anglo, and not the others.

I've covered this before on another thread - it leaves the list as a red herring very conveniently leaked just as Fianna Fáil were denying that they needed a bailout. And leaked to a eurosceptic British blogger who could be guaranteed to give the right spin.

The really interesting thing about that list is this:

Deka Investment GmbH says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:37 pm

We’re on the list?

News to us.

*
12
Guido Fawkes says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:49 pm

You hold USD EQUIV 1.756 Million of the EURO MEDIUM-TERM NOTES 2004-25.6.14 FLOATER COUPON 1.689 TERM 06/25/2014

Do you want to know what day you bought it?
o
17
Deka Investment GmbH says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:55 pm

That’s a pretty **** coupon for junior debt.
+
26
Guido Fawkes says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:02 pm

You bought it.

Junior debt? But the list is supposed to be Anglo's senior bondholders - the people who couldn't be burned. To quote another comment:

Without knowing whether or not the firms listed are sub or senior debt holders, this entire thread is bull****.

Junior debt holders were burned - if Deka was holding junior Anglo debt, then they got 20 cents in the euro, that being the offer on 2014 junior debt: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/anglo-offer-on-subordinated-debt-tantamount-to-default-2394045.html

And no Irish institutions at all? The other one has bells on. We know there were Irish bondholders: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1209/1224285100497.html:

WEXFORD CREDIT Union is unable to pay a dividend to its members this year because it has been forced to write down a €3 million investment in Anglo Irish Bank.

Manager Ultan Ryan said the credit union owned subordinated Anglo bonds worth €2.99 million, an investment which has now been written down by 80 per cent.

That's the same writedown as Deka suffered, and Deka are on the list (because they're German), with a bond coupon from the same issue as Wexford's, while the Wexford Credit Union isn't. The list, therefore, has been carefully filleted of any Irish names.

So we know that the list is a mix of different types of debt, some of whom were burned, and that the list is deliberately void of Irish names. It was leaked in the run-up to the bailout, and it was leaked to someone who could be counted on to take the right angle - that a European bailout was being forced on Ireland for the benefit of European banks.

Goodness, I wonder who might benefit from that? They'd need to be the kind of people who weren't afraid of a little media manipulation. I'm sure the name will come to me in a minute...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hope that helps, although I suspect you won't be happy to give up this convenient and alluring fake no matter what.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

porsche959 wrote: »

Presumably those attacking the credibility of the Fawkes list can furnish the correct list.

The onus lies with someone claiming something to be true to prove their claim, not on others to disprove it.

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

People should spot at least some of that for themselves, but the "it was the Germans and French" narrative is sufficiently strong to allow them to "fill in" the rather important missing features and assume it's senior bondholders and accounts for a lot of money. porsche959 has used it here, for example, to oppose the statement that there was little eurozone money in the Irish banks, even though the list very clearly doesn't show any amounts, and therefore can't possibly refute such a statement.

If people (including porsche959) want to know how much eurozone money was in the Irish banks, it's a matter of record, and can be looked up on the Central Bank of Ireland website.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hope that helps, although I suspect you won't be happy to give up this convenient and alluring fake no matter what.

I'm amused by the exchanges where one set of data indicating much Eurozone money in Irish banks is attacked as incomplete and misleading. Yet another set of incomplete and misleading data is hailed as demonstrating relatively little Eurozone money was in Irish banks.

I think both sides find it difficult to give up their convenient and alluring fakes and acknowledge the reality that exposure is *intensely* difficult to track back more than one layer.

View

Sand wrote: »

I'm amused by the exchanges where one set of data indicating much Eurozone money in Irish banks is attacked as incomplete and misleading. Yet another set of incomplete and misleading data is hailed as demonstrating relatively little Eurozone money was in Irish banks.

I think both sides find it difficult to give up their convenient and alluring fakes and acknowledge the reality that exposure is *intensely* difficult to track back more than one layer.

So, in other words, the allegation can't be proven, so it is just random speculatuon at best?

And the official data that the Central Bank has published should be just ignored lest it contradict the speculation?

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

So, in other words, the allegation can't be proven, so it is just random speculatuon at best?

And the official data that the Central Bank has published should be just ignored lest it contradict the speculation?

It appears that Sand subscribes to the view that the CBI data could be inaccurate because it might be the case that what appears to be non-eurozone money could be eurozone money coming via non-eurozone or Irish banks.

I highlight the various "coulds" and "mights" because this has been claimed elsewhere, but never demonstrated at all at any point.

The problem is that despite the persistence of the myth, there remains no evidence at all that demonstrates a large amount of eurozone money entering the Irish banks. There never has been such evidence, or at least nobody has presented it - supporters of the "eurozone money flood" have presented data like the BIS data which provably can't support what they claim, or the "Anglo list" which proves nothing at all, and reject data from the CBI by claiming it could have flaws, which they are regrettably unable to demonstrate.

I don't regard the issue as definitively settled, but all the usable data does point one way. Which means that the whole "eurozone money flood" narrative exists entirely separate from any facts - which in turn means its proponents are unlikely to be dissuaded by facts.

All that, and then the fact that banks don't actually borrow to lend anyway, which makes the whole thing rather moot.

cordially,
Scofflaw