Why are the British so anti Europe?

BettyM

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's been the case in most of the West. The reliance of the UK political establishment on spin-doctors and, as recent events have shown, the media betray a similar lack of substance. US politics have become ridiculously over-choreographed at this stage too and this trend has been increasingly evident elsewhere.

Except the key problem was not simply one of borrowing, but what people borrowed for, and to counteract this there were numerous other tools available at our disposal - and we ignored them, just as we would have ignored monetary one's.

It's actually getting a little tiresome at this stage that I have to repeat this point again and again and you continue to ignore it TBH.

Actually that Ireland gave away its ability to control its own interest rates is not a theory, but that it lost the ability to use this key measure to prevent the enormous building boom and consequent economic destruction is.

I've pointed out why, repeatedly, and you have ignored this rebuttal, repeatedly. Are you going to or simply repeat the same tired theory in the hope that people will accept it despite it having been rejected?

Really, you are free to "reject" anything of mine with which you disagree, and I am able to realsie that people disagree as part of a normal discourse.

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

Really, you are free to "reject" anything of mine with which you disagree, and I am able to realsie that people disagree as part of a normal discourse.

Of course, in a normal discourse, when someone disagrees with a position the person proposing it will either defend it or concede that their position is, either in part or in whole, false.

Ignoring challenges against a position and instead repeating the position as if nothing was said is not part of a normal discourse; it's part of rhetoric.

Or are you suggesting that you're entitled to your opinion?

BettyM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, in a normal discourse, when someone disagrees with a position the person proposing it will either defend it or concede that their position is, either in part or in whole, false.

Ignoring challenges against a position and instead repeating the position as if nothing was said is not part of a normal discourse; it's part of rhetoric.

Or are you suggesting that you're entitled to your opinion?

In fairness you don't seem to be disagreeing that interest rates are the key machanism used by governemnts worldwide to cool off economic activity when it looks like overheating, and this was one of the key reasons why the UK did not enter the Euro, and they argued at the time that to remove this power from the member states of the Euro was going to cripple economically some of those states.

I didn't see you challenge that position, and I made no claims to be entitled to anything.

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

In fairness you don't seem to be disagreeing that interest rates are the key machanism used by governemnts worldwide to cool off economic activity when it looks like overheating, and this was one of the key reasons why the UK did not enter the Euro, and they argued at the time that to remove this power from the member states of the Euro was going to cripple economically some of those states.

I have not disagreed that interest rates are the key mechanism to anything principally because it is irrelevant to what you have claimed; that the government would have used such a mechanism.

I have pointed out that whether it is a key mechanism or not, the government would not have employed any such monetary policy, just as it ignored fiscal policies to the same end, or in fact derided the notion that any such policy was even required.

This fact blows a wide hole in your claim that Irish membership of the Eurozone was at the centre of our current economic ills and one that you are continuing to ignore, while still repeating the same erroneous claim.

BettyM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have not disagreed that interest rates are the key mechanism to anything principally because it is irrelevant to what you have claimed; that the government would have used such a mechanism.

I have pointed out that whether it is a key mechanism or not, the government would not have employed any such monetary policy, just as it ignored fiscal policies to the same end, or in fact derided the notion that any such policy was even required.

This fact blows a wide hole in your claim that Irish membership of the Eurozone was at the centre of our current economic ills and one that you are continuing to ignore, while still repeating the same erroneous claim.

I have never claimed the government would have used interest rates, but that they could have done so, had Ireland not chosen to give up the right to use interest rates to dampen excessive economic activity.

Just as now being in the Euro means that Ireland does not have the ability to indulge in what has been called quantative easing either, which is what is needed urgently to help address the imbalances via a vis the stronger members of the euro zone.

You may well judge that both of those features have no bearing whatever or have in any way contributed or can contribute to irelands current predicament, and if so we'll have to disagree, secure in the knowledge thaty if you get 10 economists you'll invariable get 11 different opinions!

View

Just to drag some official statisics into this, as can be seen on pages 4-9 of this, the UK's government deficit (as a % of GDP) has been:
i) 4th worst in the EU in 2008,
ii) 3rd worst in 2009,
iii) 3rd worst in 2010, and
iv) 4th worst in 2011.

Given that the top two slots (of worst performers) have been "locked up" by Greece and Ireland during this time frame, then this does beg the question if having your own currency and managing your own interest rates are the be all and end all of economic management then why aren't we seeing the UK as one of the best performing economies, if not the best, using this measure? After all they have complete economic freedom as a non-Eurozone state yet seem to be condemned to under-performing everyone bar Greece and Ireland.

Who would have thought, even five years ago, that the cry of "Ah but we are doing better than Greece" would be the economic benchmark by which British Ministers seem to be measuring themselves?

golden lane

The Corinthian wrote: »

I read what you said and you simply soapboxed without any substance whatsoever.

Neither did I reply to you with anything that could even be vaguely considered anti-British; I questioned the truth in your claim and pointed out that loss of freedoms in Britain can be far more attributed to British than EU legislation or treaties.

So can you back up what you claim or shall we just put it down to soapboxing?

i have posted what people think.......as i live with them on a daily basis.....

what people think, as you are well aware....is not always what is the facts......

if they had a referendum, i believe there would be a vote to withdraw.....

loss of freedom.....what loss of freedom, are you reading the papers or something.......

if there is a loss of anything in the uk.....it has not shown up yet.....

there is talk about the future, things will change....but at the moment, very few people are affected......all social payments have just had a substantial rise.........

the debts are being paid back.....and as usual the public sector don't want their lucrative pensions interfered with.......
and there will be staff cuts in that sector......but less than they were increased in the last ten years.....

the headliners have to have headlines..it is their way of making a living.....

there is a recession...one of many in my lifetime.....life goes on...no problem...

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

I have never claimed the government would have used interest rates, but that they could have done so, had Ireland not chosen to give up the right to use interest rates to dampen excessive economic activity.

You're backtracking now. You stated:

BettyM wrote: »

On the Euro, for example, the UK decided not to join for what have been since proved to have been sound and valid economic arguments. Ireland, by contrast, decided to join the Euro out of a sort of political loyalty and decided to ignroe the economic or other arguments. The price of that decision has all but destroyed Ireland.

Not some vague musing that things may have been different had Ireland not joined the Euro, but that Ireland was definitively paying the price for doing so, with the implication that the Euro caused it.

Just as now being in the Euro means that Ireland does not have the ability to indulge in what has been called quantative easing either, which is what is needed urgently to help address the imbalances via a vis the stronger members of the euro zone.

Other than the fact that quantitative easing's effectiveness is debatable, it could not be employed to curb the bubble that has caused this mess in the first place.

You may well judge that both of those features have no bearing whatever or have in any way contributed or can contribute to irelands current predicament, and if so we'll have to disagree, secure in the knowledge thaty if you get 10 economists you'll invariable get 11 different opinions!

Of course the loss of monetary policy will likely have a bearing on Ireland's current predicament, however 'a bearing' is not quite the same thing as what you originally claimed.

Not to mention that were we not in the Eurozone we would be paying a different price given that we have benefited from the single currency in terms of trade and attractiveness to multinationals seeking to operate from Ireland.

Of course, one could argue that had we not joined the Eurozone, the boom times may have been far more mooted, due to the benefits of the Euro not taking place, and as a result a bubble may not have formed in the first place - but that's hardly a sound argument to use against the Euro, is it?

golden lane wrote: »

i have posted what people think.......as i live with them on a daily basis.....

what people think, as you are well aware....is not always what is the facts......

I see, you're not making any claims other than what you perceive to be prevailing public opinion, regardless of whether this is rational or not. Fair enough, although this was not clear in what you wrote earlier.

if they had a referendum, i believe there would be a vote to withdraw.....

I don't deny that, indeed that corroborates what I wrote. Britain has never been comfortable in the EEC/EC/EU for a variety of cultural, historical and political reasons. However economic reasons are not amongst that list and are presently only been trotted out as a justification by those who would wish to leave even if things were going well.

BettyM

View wrote: »

Just to drag some official statisics into this, as can be seen on pages 4-9 of this, the UK's government deficit (as a % of GDP) has been:
i) 4th worst in the EU in 2008,
ii) 3rd worst in 2009,
iii) 3rd worst in 2010, and
iv) 4th worst in 2011.

Given that the top two slots (of worst performers) have been "locked up" by Greece and Ireland during this time frame, then this does beg the question if having your own currency and managing your own interest rates are the be all and end all of economic management then why aren't we seeing the UK as one of the best performing economies, if not the best, using this measure? After all they have complete economic freedom as a non-Eurozone state yet seem to be condemned to under-performing everyone bar Greece and Ireland.

Who would have thought, even five years ago, that the cry of "Ah but we are doing better than Greece" would be the economic benchmark by which British Ministers seem to be measuring themselves?

Is your argument that the UK is in as bad a position as Greece, and the UK government can’t pay its debts just like the Greek government?

While the UK’s government debt is a disgrace, comparing two countries government debt to GDP doesn’t tell us much, especially in the case you have given. The UK is a large industrialised, diverse and sophisticated economy, selling goods and serviced all over the world from financial services to chemicals, aerospace, engineering, technology and so and so on. The UK’s economy is such that it can absorb much higher levels of government debt to GDP than can an economy like Greece, whose economy is nothing like as developed as the UK and earns nothing like the UK does in foreign currency.

The UK’s government debt is a disgrace, but the effect on the UK economy is nothing like the effect similar levels of government debt have on the Greek economy.

The UK has also availed of the practice of quantative easing which also helps. The Greek government’s hands are tied and they are not able to avail of any form of quantative easing due to having joined the Euro, and is another instance of how the Euro has helped destroy the Greek economy.

BettyM

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're backtracking now. You stated:

Ah, that old irregular verb. I explain, You hedge, He backtracks.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're backtracking now. You stated:

Not some vague musing that things may have been different had Ireland not joined the Euro, but that Ireland was definitively paying the price for doing so, with the implication that the Euro caused it.

There is no implication at all, and it is my contention that the hardship being caused around the Eurozone is caused directly by membership of the Euro. You may well differ which is, as I said earlier, is fine by me as I am here trying to convince anyone of anything.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Other than the fact that quantitative easing's effectiveness is debatable, it could not be employed to curb the bubble that has caused this mess in the first place.

I look forward to you debating how, for example, quantative easing right now would make no difference to the Greeks.

However, that’s not the point, which is that Greece no longer has the ability to make that decision, as their membership of the Euro denies then that choice.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course the loss of monetary policy will likely have a bearing on Ireland's current predicament, however 'a bearing' is not quite the same thing as what you originally claimed.

I’m glad eventually we agree that the Euro does have at least a bearing on Ireland’s current predicament, although I suspect we differ still on the magnitude of that effect.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not to mention that were we not in the Eurozone we would be paying a different price given that we have benefited from the single currency in terms of trade and attractiveness to multinationals seeking to operate from Ireland.

Ireland had multinationals long before the Euro, and will have multinationals long after the Euro.

If it’s your judgment that some multinationals chose to come to Ireland because they wanted to avoid currency transaction costs, then that’s your judgment.

Having worked for a number of multinationals, I am not aware of single one made a decision to go to Ireland for that reason, and no business of any size would be influenced by such an obscure and minor feature.

The main reasons why they go to Ireland are for other substantial and major reasons, such as corporation tax rates, availability of suitable labour, access to markets, transport and communications networks and so on, and not because their accounts departments find it difficult to deal with different currencies.

That you put forward here, as a serious point, that a multinational or multinationals would make a decision to locate a plant in a foreign country based on the prospect of having to work out or pay for currency transactions or not, seems to be to misunderstand how multinationals make decisions.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course, one could argue that had we not joined the Eurozone, the boom times may have been far more mooted, due to the benefits of the Euro not taking place, and as a result a bubble may not have formed in the first place - but that's hardly a sound argument to use against the Euro, is it?

.

It’s why that might be the case which determines whether or not it’s a sound argument against the Euro. The argument that the Euro was going to be bad for the smaller economies was based on economics, and the arguments for the Euro we based on politics.

The predictions made by the economists as to what would happen to the smaller countries in the Euro have, unfortunately, come true, and it seems impossible from here to imagine that the currency can continue for much longer.

paddyandy

The British don't see the rest of Europe as disciplined enough for their company .

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

Ah, that old irregular verb. I explain, You hedge, He backtracks.

No, you're just backtracking and attempting to change your original claim now that it has been debunked.

There is no implication at all, and it is my contention that the hardship being caused around the Eurozone is caused directly by membership of the Euro. You may well differ which is, as I said earlier, is fine by me as I am here trying to convince anyone of anything.

Nice try but you're backtracking again. You specifically cited Ireland and not the Eurozone as a whole (which is another discussion) - I even quoted where you made your claim.

Why are you so transparently attempting to change your story now?

I look forward to you debating how, for example, quantative easing right now would make no difference to the Greeks.

I shall once you address the earlier rebuttal without attempting to redefine your claims. Otherwise, any tangent is frankly an attempt to deflect and obfuscate on your part.

I’m glad eventually we agree that the Euro does have at least a bearing on Ireland’s current predicament, although I suspect we differ still on the magnitude of that effect.

Of course it has a bearing, I'm not so blinkered that I would claim otherwise - as you have, because from what I can see, you have rejected any hint that it has had a positive bearing.

Having worked for a number of multinationals, I am not aware of single one made a decision to go to Ireland for that reason, and no business of any size would be influenced by such an obscure and minor feature.

Unless you work at close to CFO level, which given your understanding of economics is unlikely, I would doubt you would have much awareness of why such decisions are made.

The main reasons why they go to Ireland are for other substantial and major reasons, such as corporation tax rates, availability of suitable labour, access to markets, transport and communications networks and so on, and not because their accounts departments find it difficult to deal with different currencies.

And what do you think 'access to markets' means? It's not simply a question of being in a common market, but also that this access is simplified through a common currency.

Indeed, that we are a member of the Eurozone has been cited time and time again as one of the various reasons why multinationals base themselves in Ireland.

The predictions made by the economists as to what would happen to the smaller countries in the Euro have, unfortunately, come true, and it seems impossible from here to imagine that the currency can continue for much longer.

Source?

Better still, stop backtracking on your earlier claim and address my rebuttal.

old hippy

paddyandy wrote: »

The British don't see the rest of Europe as disciplined enough for their company .

Indeed. That's what I thought when this happened last year

Ping Chow Chi

I dont consider myself anti-european. It does look a bit of a mess at the moment though.

old hippy

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I dont consider myself anti-european. It does look a bit of a mess at the moment though.

No more of a mess than the UK, tbf

The Corinthian

old hippy wrote: »

No more of a mess than the UK, tbf

It's difficult to say, but in fairness the Eurozone, as a whole, is a bit of a mess at the moment. Then again so is the UK. And most other places.

Which is worse off, is arguable. The UK is certainly better off than Greece, Spain or Ireland, but at the same time it's worse off than Germany, Austria or the Netherlands, who are all in the Eurozone. Call a spade a spade, but there's not many places in the World that are unaffected by the last five years of economic turmoil, and those that did escape... well, I wouldn't exactly envy those living in some of them.

All of which really is irrelevant, because as has been repeatedly been pointed out British Eurosceptism pre-dates the Euro crisis and that's the topic here. The Eurozone crisis may have added to this Eurosceptism, but it's not the reason it exists in the first place.

Ping Chow Chi

old hippy wrote: »

No more of a mess than the UK, tbf

Indeed, but I cant see how a mess joining a mess will solve anyones problems. Maybe when the dust is settled and the euro is stable again...

*edit* and the british econemy has picked up again

Stillorganboy

Rupert Murdock is anti Europe and he has been and still using his media to undermine the EU.

golden lane

timbyr wrote: »

Um.... I've no idea how you have managed to link these.
Arguably the stability afforded by the Euro and low interest rates kept stable by the ECB has had a pretty large benefit for such a small peripheral country like ours.
Especially in regards to our exports. Which have now shifted from majority UK to majority Euro zone and have been growing even during the recession.

The building bust would have a lot more to do with poor domestic financial regulation, and planning regulation and lots of other things that could/should have been looked at on a domestic level.
So if you really want to look at why parts of Irelands economy went tits up you really don't have to look beyond our shores.

when the economy was faltering...it was the irish government that kept the building boom going.....guarenteeing the banks to dob so...economics of the madmen...imo..

old hippy

Stillorganboy wrote: »

Rupert Murdock is anti Europe and he has been and still using his media to undermine the EU.

I'd say Murdoch's days are numbered, in terms of influence at any rate.

View

BettyM wrote: »

Is your argument that the UK is in as bad a position as Greece, and the UK government can’t pay its debts just like the Greek government?

I didn't refer to either the Greek or the UK's debt at all. The figures are for the government's deficit - the "hole" in a government' budget between what they are spending and what they are collecting in taxes.

Obviously, the larger the hole in your public finances, the larger the financial adjustment you have to do to fix it sooner or later. Equally obviously, if you find yourself facing one of the larger such adjustments in the EU, you can't legitimately claim to be one of the better states at managing your government finances (or indeed anything other than that you are one of the poorer such managers).

Were having our own currency the be all and end all of economic management, the we should expect the UK to be the envy of all the EU, yet instead we have UK politicians doing an "Ah but we are better than Greece" line on it.

UK politicians if you note are increasingly blaming the Eurozone for all negative UK economic news. All of which shows the UK is in effect as "independent" of the Euro as a passenger in a motorbike sidecar is of its motorbike. The UK sidecar passenger has neither control of where the Eurozone motorbike is going nor can it avoid the unpleasant aftermath should the motorbike crash.

paddyandy

Old institutions with old lessons well learned .

The Corinthian

I was reading up on Britain's relationship with Europe and was surprised to find that Churchill originally argued - shortly after World War II - for a United States of Europe:

We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.

Of course, while he favoured this idea, he didn't favour Britain's participation:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

This probably explains Britain's attitude twoards the EU in many respects. They are not against a united Europe, but do not want to be part of it themselves - as evidenced by their refusal to sign the treaty of Rome.

Problem is though, that the EEC/EC/EU also represents a common market that Britain also realized it needed to be in, which is why it chose to set up EFTA in competition. When EFTA turned out not to work out as well as they'd hoped, they eventually joined the EEC, and then pursued a policy to obstruct the unification project, if favour of keeping it all as little more than a common market - in other words have tried to make the EEC/EC/EU into what they wanted EFTA to be.

This attitude of being "with Europe, but not of it" is almost certainly a throwback of pre-WW2 grandeur - of Britain as a superpower, which in practical terms was debunked largely by the failure of EFTA and the Suez fiasco. Yet, despite the new reality of the post-war World, Britain has maintained this policy, preferring instead to forge closer ties to its Commonwealth and Anglophone 'cousins'.

Yet at the same time it is bound by the EU also and perhaps it is this 'wanting your cake and eat it' approach to the EU is much of the reason for British Eurosceptism, not to mention some of the Anglophobia on the part of the other European nations.

TheLastLazyGun

OS119 wrote: »

they don't, the vast majority of Brits are aware of how important the EU is for UK trade, and not many believe that we can unilaterally change our relationship to a 'free-trade only' basis with the other EU states meekly accepting that.

The EU isn't as important for UK trade as the lying Europhile loons would have us believe.

For a start, when it comes to trade the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

southsiderosie

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

The EU isn't as important for UK trade as the lying Europhile loons would have us believe.

For a start, when it comes to trade the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

MOD NOTE:

If your only contributions to this forum are going to be snarky rants against the EU without any actual analysis or facts to back up your point, you will not be posting here much longer. Per the charter:

This is a Politics forum, not Liveline.

Certain standards of debate are expected, and will be enforced. Your posts must contribute to debate, not derail it or drag it into mob chanting. There's been a serious decrease in the signal to noise ratio in the forum recently, and that trend requires reversal.

If your posts consists of little more than a statement that some group of people or other are bad people and/or deserve prison/execution as traitors, think long and hard before pressing "submit", because we'll be treating that as trolling from here on in.

Please be mindful of this when posting.

The Corinthian

Satire often hits the nail on the head, and with regards to British policy to the rest of Europe, Yes Minister probably best summed it up almost thirty-three years ago:

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?"

Jim Hacker: "That's all ancient history, surely."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times."

It's hardly a secret that the British are considered a largely negative influence within Europe, which was why their membership was originally vetoed by de Gaulle, and that Britain leaving is not only be painful and inevitable in the long run, but ultimately preferable.

LincolnsBeard

The EU needs Britain

The Corinthian

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

The EU needs Britain

To a degree - just as the UK 'needs' the EU.

There is no doubt that Britain's membership of the EU, given its political and economic status, adds to the EU's influence and were she to leave this would be an enormous blow to the bloc. Politically it is also preferable to have the UK in the tent, as it were, pissing out than outside, pissing in.

Given this, one must also balance this against Britain's negative influence on the bloc - particularly it's repeated attempts to stifle any progress in making the EU anything more than a trading group - a geopolitical need that is becoming increasingly important given the rise of large developing nations that are increasingly dwarfing the 'old' West. In this regard, while the EU may need the UK, it may also, on balance, decide in the future that it's better off without it.

getz

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

whatstherush

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

It surprises me that some people equate democratic decisions taken by a populace to join and integrate into a political union as similar to being colonized by a belligerent neighbor.