Nigel Farage MEP

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

The fact that the Commission refers forward to a future event *in a very minor fashion* in a 30-page communication document demonstrates, let alone proves, nothing.

I'm afraid you simply don't comprehend the subject matter the Commission's Financial Services Action Plan was a very significant initiative, and providing for a financial services market in support of the euro was one of its central concerns.

McDave wrote: »

On your assumption that *all* member states were to adopt the Euro, you are *fundamentally* wrong. The UK and Denmark negotiated opt-outs from the Euro way back in 1992, seven years *before* the document you cite.

It's not my assumption. I've linked on this thread where the ECB explains how its decision making structures are built on the assumption that all Member States will join the euro, and the distinction between Eurozone and European Union is just a transitional matter.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

You're fundamentally confusing:

- the creating of a single financial market based on harmonisation of national legislation for an EU of *all* members

- with the establishment of a single currency for a *subset* of EU members with a distinct institution and distinct treaty provisions.

The fact that the Commission refers forward to a future event *in a very minor fashion* in a 30-page communication document demonstrates, let alone proves, nothing.

On your assumption that *all* member states were to adopt the Euro, you are *fundamentally* wrong. The UK and Denmark negotiated opt-outs from the Euro way back in 1992, seven years *before* the document you cite.

The 1999 Commission communication document refers to a single market, requiring EU member states to harmonise laws. It is not a founding document for the Euro and it's subset of EZ members. It isn't even law. I'm afraid you're running out of road.

I'm responding to this on the Barroso thread, as there's no point in a parallel dialogue, given that this matter is only a footnote as regards Farage but central to the subject of that other thread.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm responding to this on the Barroso thread, as there's no point in a parallel dialogue, given that this matter is only a footnote as regards Farage but central to the subject of that other thread.

Sorry, but your initial points, and the thrust of your claims, are on this thread. And the 'Barroso' thread is no more valid a host.

As this is a transparently evasive tactic on your part, I can only deducing that you're conceding on the merits. Which in the event doesn't appear that surprising.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

Sorry, but your initial points, and the thrust of your claims, are on this thread. And the 'Barroso' thread is no more valid a host.

As this is a transparently evasive tactic on your part, I can only deducing that you're conceding on the merits. Which in the event doesn't appear that surprising.

The answer you seek is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057109074&page=2

No point in two threads covering substantially the same topic, just like I said.

Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The answer you seek is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057109074&page=2

No point in two threads covering substantially the same topic, just like I said.

Please keep the posts in the thread which contains their context. Post moved back to this thread.

moderately,
Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Grand, I'll just repeat the link to the ECB material, that provides McDave with the explanation he needs; specifically, confirmation of the fact that the single currency institutions are designed on the principle that all EU States will join the euro..

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/annrep/ar2007en.pdf[/url]
The Eurosystem and the ESCB are governed by the decision-making bodies of the ECB: the Governing Council and the Executive Board. The General Council is constituted as a third decision-making body of the ECB, for as long as there are EU Member States which have not yet adopted the euro. The functioning of the decision-making bodies is governed by the Treaty, the Statute of the ESCB and the relevant Rules of Procedure. Decision-making within the Eurosystem and the ESCB is centralised. However, the ECB and the euro area NCBs jointly contribute, strategically and operationally, to attaining the common goals of the Eurosystem, with due respect to the principle of decentralisation in accordance with the Statute of the ESCB.
<...>When taking decisions on monetary policy and on other tasks of the ECB and the Eurosystem, the members of the Governing Council do not act as national representatives, but in a fully independent personal capacity. This is refl ected by the principle of “one member, one vote” applied within the Governing Council.

georgesstreet

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, I'll just repeat the link to the ECB material, that provides McDave with the explanation he needs; specifically, confirmation of the fact that the single currency institutions are designed on the principle that all EU States will join the euro..

It seems that some don't want an explanation, and just want an outlet for their own viewpoint, in spite any evidence or proof which might not flatter their own view.

It's possible change is afoot in the EU, and this change might be significant. Previously, the political establishments have not reflected the views amongst their populations which disagreed with handing over more and more powers to the EU. Such views were marginalised and belittled by the political establishment and, to some extent, we can see amongst these threads a reflection of those views here on www.boards.ie. However, across the EU now there is a change, probably brought about by UKIP in the UK and others in other countries, who are now seen as posing a tangible threat to the political consensus, and the views of their supporters can no longer be ignored as they pose a threat to the more established parties, and who may even hold some sort of balance of power in national elections.

The EU elections will be an interesting milestone along the road, although I don't expect dyed in the wool EU-o-philes to realise that the world is changing and is leaving them behind. Change is hard for some, especially when they are convinced in the rightness of their own particular cause.

2014 should be an interesting year, and the successive years may be even more interesting.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand, I'll just repeat the link to the ECB material, that provides McDave with the explanation he needs; specifically, confirmation of the fact that the single currency institutions are designed on the principle that all EU States will join the euro..

Euro institutions are designed to cover any country which joins the EZ. As all EU members are entitled to do once they have satisfied the convergence criteria. So what? You've demonstrated nothing here other than to state the obvious, i.e. that the Euro institutions apply to the members of the EZ. No cigar.

I'm afraid you're confusing some very simple concepts here.

1. European directives attempt to approximate national laws in a given area. It's left to national legislatures to implement the general principles, and to enforce them through national institutions. That also applies to banking and financial regulation insofar as it is pursued through directives.

2. The Eurozone is subject to specific rules, and to the governance of the ECB, a centralised body which acts as the single monetary authority. Should the EU or the EZ members by act of treaty provide for regulation and governance of all or many EZ banks by the ECB, that will be a specific set of circumstances. And quite distinct from the looser directive system.

Many European actors including the Commission look to the future and attempt to bring policies to fruition. However, the perfection of ensuing proposals requires the final action of the member states through the council and on a competence level through their ratification processes. The fact that you found a reference to the Euro in a Commission policy paper is all very interesting, but it proves nothing. Why? Because a policy paper has no legal standing. And the EU and the EZ are rules-based entities which operate on the basis of law.

Accordingly, the relatively loose directive system, aimed at harmonising legislation and creating single markets, is entirely different to the centralised, and not yet completed, regulation of EZ.

All of which helps to explain clearly why so much of the damage to certain EZ countries can only have been imposed locally by sovereign national or regional authorities, and not by the EZ itself.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

Euro institutions are designed to cover any country which joins the EZ.<..>
All of which helps to explain clearly why so much of the damage to certain EZ countries can only have been imposed locally by sovereign national or regional authorities, and not by the EZ itself.

I'm afraid your post is adding nothing new to the discussion. The point (as I explained, and as I expect you understand) is that the ECB structures are built on the assumption that all EU countries will join the Eurozone. You'll appreciate, assuming everyone will join is different to merely being prepared to accept new applications.

Incidently, while a Commission Communication has no binding legal effect, it most certainly does represent the formal European Commission opinion on a given topic. Hence, you are simply wrong to respond as if the Communication of the Financial Services Action Plan (which set out a table of legislative proposals which are now law) is some kind of casual document.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid your post is adding nothing new to the discussion.. The point (as I explained, and as I expect you understand) is that the ECB structures are built on the assumption that all EU countries will join the Eurozone. You'll appreciate, assuming everyone will join is different to merely being prepared to accept new applications.

You seem to be stuck in a bit of a rut here GCU. After misunderstanding the role of EU directives as concerns the de facto and de jure subset that is the EZ, you proceed to introduce a non sequitur about the ECB. Not to mention attempting to deflect discussion to another thread.

What precisely is your point?

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Incidently, while a Commission Communication has no binding legal effect, it most certainly does represent the formal European Commission opinion on a given topic. Hence, you are simply wrong to respond as if the Communication of the Financial Services Action Plan (which set out a table of legislative proposals which are now law) is some kind of casual document.

Please indicate where I made the highlighted statement. You'll find I didn't. Indeed you simply seem to be stuck in your own circular argument, introducing one diversionary non sequitur after another.

It was you who introduced the Commission document as a supposedly relevant source. As it transpires, it is no such source, merely a statement within a policy document, with no effect in law. You really have run out if road haven't you.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure that it can be boiled down as simply as that; just as I'm not convinced that EU decision-making bodies do face an adequate proxy for the public interest in the form of non-profit NGOs.

Just to demonstrate the complexity, consider how the outcome of the adoption of the euro was pretty much the opposite of what theory would suggest. A single currency, coupled with the common EU regulatory legislation adopted to facilitate the Single Market reform of 1992 and the freedom to move capital within the EU, should have seen capital from all around Europe flowing to wherever it might find the most productive use.

Instead, the opposite seems to have happened. Capital flowed into hopelessly unproductive uses, in the countries least able to generate a return.

All facilitated by an EU legislative framework, which was mean to ensure that all financial services regulators applied the same set of rules to the firms they regulated, and which included measures to ensure that all financial groups operating across borders had a clearly idenified consolidating regulator who would make sure the group, as a whole, was financially sound - again, according to a common set of requirements set out in EU legislation.

I think this demonstrates that the lack of cohesion in EU decision-making, and the relative influence of industry bodies vs the public interest in those legislative processes.

This seems to me to be the first post [no. 240] on the thread where you consider the legal circumstances of the single currency and the regulatory circumstances around it, raising interplay between the single currency and '1992' single market regulation.

I have to reiterate that the 1992 project was intended to create single markets for goods, and later services, which would reduce barriers to trade. The general mechanism to achieve these markets was the EU directive, i.e. through making national legislations more alike, not through making them identical, let alone creating powerful EU regulatory bodies.

The single market was not created to bring effect to a future single currency, which was not seriously considered for instigation in the mid-1980s when the single market idea was set in train. Subsequent developments in the 1990s on services, including financial services, were again aimed at breaking down barriers in the provision of (financial) services, not creating a centralised regulatory basis for a single currency. To that end, national financial regulators were just that, national regulators of entities in that state operating in markets on national, EU or international levels as appropriate. They were not controlled by either an EU/EZ financial regulator or the ECB.

As a consequence, member states operated more or less on their own terms within the limited enough constraints of EU directives. They, and their financial regulators, were free to be as active or passive as they liked. We can see in Ireland, our government opted for so-called light touch regulation.

When the single currency was introduced it was on the basis of general Maastricht criteria, with monetary policy vested in the ECB. There was no EU/EZ or nationally-operating regulatory regime put in place. Neither did the pre-existing single market legislation play this role, nor was it intended to. Nor could it have legally, because through the UK and Denmark getting EZ opt-outs, EU harmonisation legislation could not have been used as a basis for regulating the EZ subset.

On this topic, you have to distinguish between what the legal regime applying to the EZ can achieve, and what that applying to the EU can achieve. The EZ is a much more specialist undertaking than the EU, as will become clearer when steps are taken to create European-level institutions to regulate and oversee the EZ's affairs.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave, this is never an easy thing to either say or hear, but I'm afraid you simply didn't comprehend the topic to begin with, and you only partly seem to comprehend it now.

Can I also point out that EU Directives simply are binding on Member States. I know that the average Paddy thinks that every Directive comes with a list of derogations, which is why they react with horror when they discover an EU Directive prevents them from destroying what's left of our bogs. But, while it requires domestic legislation to spell it out in domestic law, EU Directives absolutely do have to be complied with.

Also, it is simply a fact that EU Directives specified the minimum standards that applied with respect to financial services supervision in EU Member States. I've demonstrated this fact with material from the European Commission and ECB. There's nothing more that anyone can say on the matter.

McDave wrote: »

<..>

The single market was not created to bring effect to a future single currency, <..>

I haven't particularly suggested that it was. I think you need to re-read what was actually posted, to see the actual point being made in that post.

tdv123

He's a good speaker, very articulate but I despise his far-right fascist politics however.

Boroso

tdv123 wrote: »

He's a good speaker, very articulate but I despise his far-right fascist politics however.

"far-right" is more a term of abuse than anything else. Can you tell us which of their actual policies you despise? Their policy of a referendum on the EU, perhaps? Is that policy "far-right" or "far-left" or just good old plain "far-democracy"?

It's curious how nowadays if anyone dislikes a political party they just hurl the term "far-right" at them and hope it sticks.

The Corinthian

Boroso wrote: »

"far-right" is more a term of abuse than anything else. Can you tell us which of their actual policies you despise? Their policy of a referendum on the EU, perhaps? Is that policy "far-right" or "far-left" or just good old plain "far-democracy"?

I'd imagine he's referring to their policies on immigration, which are in line with simelar policies by the Front national in France, Golden Dawn in Greece or Fiamma Tricolore in Italy.

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd imagine he's referring to their policies on immigration, which are in line with simelar policies by the Front national in France, Golden Dawn in Greece or Fiamma Tricolore in Italy.

Though, in fairness, UKIPs immigration policies aren't really that different from Canada, the US, Australia etc, and we don't call those far right.

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

Though, in fairness, UKIPs immigration policies aren't really that different from Canada, the US, Australia etc, and we don't call those far right.

Perhaps, I don't know much about Canadian or US immigration policies - I'm a well educated EU citizen, so I don't really have to worry about these things.

Australian immigration policy, however, I've discussed with people before and it does strike me as pretty right-wing and have heard it called as such many times, in the sense of being nationalistic, paranoid and even racist.

I think that the UKIP also gets branded as far-right on the basis that it's a pretty nationalistic and jingoistic political party - both things that tend to be the bread and butter of the right.

dlouth15

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, I don't know much about Canadian or US immigration policies - I'm a well educated EU citizen, so I don't really have to worry about these things.

You may not need to personally avail of their immigration policy but I think that if you are going to talk about a party's immigration policies as being far right, international comparisons are valid.

Australian immigration policy, however, I've discussed with people before and it does strike me as pretty right-wing and have heard it called as such many times, in the sense of being nationalistic, paranoid and even racist.

Well it is true that they've had racist immigration policies in the past but I'm not sure you can say that of their legislation today.

I think that the UKIP also gets branded as far-right on the basis that it's a pretty nationalistic and jingoistic political party - both things that tend to be the bread and butter of the right.

Sure but isn't that simply branding them guilty by association? I'll take you at your word that you're well educated but isn't your logic here a bit simplistic?

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

You may not need to personally avail of their immigration policy but I think that if you are going to talk about a party's immigration policies as being far right, international comparisons are valid.

Absolutely, which is why I compared the policies of far-right political parties with the corresponding policies of the UKIP. All I was saying of the US and Canada, is I can't comment as I don't know enough about their national immigration policies or how they came to be - or is it now expected that one has an opinion on things even when they don't know the facts?

Well it is true that they've had racist immigration policies in the past but I'm not sure you can say that of their legislation today.

They still gives preference to certain nationalities over others, for example, so yes the still have them.

Sure but isn't that simply branding them guilty by association? I'll take you at your word that you're well educated but isn't your logic here a bit simplistic?

Well if I had a simplistic view of politics whereby right-wing is evil and left or any other wing is good, then my logic would be flawed, but I don't simply judge a policy by what 'wing' it belongs to; tdv123 does - he/she made that judgement, while I never did.

You can pretty objectively put them in on the right wing of the political spectrum - further than the Conservatives, but less so that the National Front - in general, but that in itself does not make them bad.

dlouth15

Well if I had a simplistic view of politics whereby right-wing is evil and left or any other wing is good, then my logic would be flawed, but I don't simply judge a policy by what 'wing' it belongs to; tdv123 does - he/she made that judgement, while I never did.

No, the simplicity of thinking I was suggesting you have relates to reasoning that because immigration is something that UKIP campaigns on, and the fact that many far-right groups are anti-immigrant, that therefore UKIP themselves are far-right. What is lacking is any examination of UKIPs actual immigration policy, and whether it is extreme like those of genuine far right groups, or whether it is more akin to the policies of many other countries.

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

No, the simplicity of thinking I was suggesting you have relates to reasoning that because immigration is something that UKIP campaigns on, and the fact that many far-right groups are anti-immigrant, that therefore UKIP themselves are far-right.

That they share the same policies as recognised parties on the far right would be a good indicator that they are far right themselves, or at least sympathetic to far right policies.

There's nothing simplistic there, simply an acknowledgement of a strong correlation and a correlation is all we're looking at when making such general categorizations.

What is lacking is any examination of UKIPs actual immigration policy, and whether it is extreme like those of genuine far right groups, or whether it is more akin to the policies of many other countries.

Who said that the immigration policies of far right parties are necessarily extreme?

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Can I also point out that EU Directives simply are binding on Member States. I know that the average Paddy thinks that every Directive comes with a list of derogations, which is why they react with horror when they discover an EU Directive prevents them from destroying what's left of our bogs. But, while it requires domestic legislation to spell it out in domestic law, EU Directives absolutely do have to be complied with.

Link for this (ludicrous) contention, please.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I haven't particularly suggested that it was. I think you need to re-read what was actually posted, to see the actual point being made in that post.

You're conflating two differing phenomena: the harmonisation of market rules and the operation of a distinct policy. I've clearly addressed the context in which you've raised these phenomena. It's really up to you to demonstrate how these phenomena related to each other when it comes to the operation of the single currency. You haven't up till now. All you have done us demonstrate your clear misunderstanding of how the approximation of laws apply in the operation of the Euro (clue: they don't really play a primary role).

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Also, it is simply a fact that EU Directives specified the minimum standards that applied with respect to financial services supervision in EU Member States. I've demonstrated this fact with material from the European Commission and ECB. There's nothing more that anyone can say on the matter. I haven't particularly suggested that it was. I think you need to re-read what was actually posted, to see the actual point being made in that post.

That's simply not a strong enough basis to regulate and oversee fiscal and financial behaviour in the single currency. Which must be performed by a regulatory body at EZ level. Which cannot be achieved by EU directive, and can only be set in motion by further amendment to the EU treaties, or new treaty provisions applicable to EZ countries.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

McDave, this is never an easy thing to either say or hear, but I'm afraid you simply didn't comprehend the topic to begin with, and you only partly seem to comprehend it now.

Come back to me on this when you've boned up a bit on EU law. You're confused about what directives can achieve. You also have more than overplayed your hand on a passage in a 30 page Commission policy document which has no legally binding effect.

View

dlouth15 wrote: »

No, the simplicity of thinking I was suggesting you have relates to reasoning that because immigration is something that UKIP campaigns on, and the fact that many far-right groups are anti-immigrant, that therefore UKIP themselves are far-right.

Well. we could just look at the nice photos of a UKIP rally at this link http://www.eurallfree.org/?q=node/296

If you note the banners contain two clear logos - UKIP and the European Alliance for Freedom.

Who is in charge of the European Alliance of Freedom? Why there is a nice list of the people here http://www.eurallfree.org/?q=node/66

Have a look at the names and do some quick googling of the people and parties mentioned and - hey, presto - where do they all fall on the political spectrum?

Or do you suggest we just ignore the banners that UKIP carry at their rallies?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

You're conflating two differing phenomena: the harmonisation of market rules and the operation of a distinct policy.

No, that's still not the point made by the post you are quoting.

McDave wrote: »

That's simply not a strong enough basis to regulate and oversee fiscal and financial behaviour in the single currency.

But, sure, I'm not arguing that this was an adequate basis for embarking on a single currency project. It's Scofflaw, IIRC, who contends that the sheer scale of the EU means it's a more effective source of regulation than individual countries.

McDave wrote: »

Come back to me on this when you've boned up a bit on EU law. You're confused about what directives can achieve.

No, EU Directives are binding on Member States. Member States are obliged to give effect to them in their domestic laws.

That's why firms with a banking licence issued in one EU Member State can operate in all EU Member States. Its a product of the EU's supervisory and regulatory regieme, which is established by a set of EU Directives.

McDave wrote: »

You also have more than overplayed your hand on a passage in a 30 page Commission policy document which has no legally binding effect.

Well, no, that Commission Communication verifies my exact point - which is that the European Commission has no difficulty in using the term "EU supervisory and regulatory regime" in the text of its formal opinions.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, that's still not the point made by the post you are quoting.

I'm afraid I'm making a much better fist of explaining your 'point' (such as it is) than you are yourself. Maybe you should have another shot. Your efforts to date have been diffuse and contradictory.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, EU Directives are binding on Member States. Member States are obliged to give effect to them in their domestic laws.

The point being 'in their domestic laws', within their legal systems operated through national institutions.

The Euro, on the other hand, is managed through an EU/EZ-level entity above and beyond member state jurisdiction. As will be regulation and oversight of key fiscal and financial competences when the time comes.

This is a *fundamental* distinction you haven't yet grasped.