Nigel Farage MEP

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

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

But, sure, it's a distinction that's irrelevant to the discussion. Check back on this and the other thread on Baroso, and I expect you see where (several times) I have stated that the EU supervisory and regulatory regime (to use the European Commission's way of describing it) is implemented through national regulators.

The point is that all of those national regulators can issue a banking licence that qualifies you to offer banking services in any EU/EEA country.

I don't think you comprehend quite how big a step it is for a country to accept a requirement to allow banks authorised in other countries to trade in its jurisdiction. The reason that EU countries do this is because of the EU supervisory and regulatory regime (again, to use the European Commission's way of describing it).

Now, maybe you think the European Commission in incompetent when it states, in its official opinions, that such a regime exists. Or maybe you think it simply hasn't the capacity to provide a robust framework for regulation. In that case, you probably share an amount of common ground with Nigel Farage, which you might not have been aware of before following this thread.

Boroso

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.

It's often been observed that imagining what anyone else might not have said is frequently wrong. The other poster did not say that one or two individual policies of UKIP are right wing, he said "...I despise his far-right fascist politics...". In context the term "far-right fascist politics" is clearly meant as a term of abuse and not as a critique of any individual or single policy.

And the other poster is entirely free to despise whoever he likes, although I don't suppose it's going to affect UKIP or their followers much, or their chances of success at the upcoming elections.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, it's a distinction that's irrelevant to the discussion.

Well as it happens, it was actually *you* who conflated the two concepts in post 240:

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.

Indeed, not only did you pair the two concepts, you *intrinsically* linked them to an unsubstantiated claim that the arrangement led to 'hopelessly unproductive' uses (since when has *all* money in *any* system been allocated to 'the most productive use'?) - and without any regard or reference to the productive use Euros have been put to.

McDave

From your post 292 above:

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All banks across the EU (in fact, across the EEA) are subject to the same financial services framework. The Irish regulator applied the same rules as any financial services regulator would in any EEA country. That framework - where national regulators applied the same set of EU determined rules - has proven to be inadequate. But thems is the rules. This is fact, and very rarely (in ever) mentioned. The article below, from 1989, sets out the pertinent facts

McDave

From your post 295 above:

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's simply a fact that the minimum capital requirements of banks in the EU were established by the Second Banking Directive, which applied from the start of 1993. Other Directives defined the rest of the common EU framework for banking and financial sector regulation.

It wasn't an adequate system, particularly given the demands of a single currency. But it was the framework established by EU Directives.

McDave

As evidenced by the quotes at 365 and 366 above, you have further gone on to erroneously claim that 'national regulators applied the same set of EU determined rules'. No they didn't. They interpreted in their national systems general legal guidelines laid down in EU directives. *Not* the same rules.

As for being 'applied', that's yet another issue. Because the directives were implemented in different member states, the rules in each state would by definition diverge, even if in minor ways, and those rules would furthermore be applied in different ways.

Accordingly, there is no evidence to support your contention that the Irish regulator 'applied' 'the same rules' at all. Indeed experience would in fact seem to demonstrate that the Irish regulator didn't apply much at all!

You then proceeded in post 295 to yet again directly and explicitly conflate the banking framework with the single currency, in particular the 'demands' the currency paced on the framework.

What you fail to understand is that the banking framework aimed to break down barriers to financial services, helping to create a single market. That's nowhere near establishing a regulatory system for the single currency, which as it happens will need to be through an EU/EZ level body likely to be established by a new treaty.

What you further fail to understand is that your earlier claim that the Euro is a 'fiasco' is more accurately described as a fiasco in certain member states, such as Ireland and Greece, particularly in their failures to develop and implement appropriate governance structures.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

Indeed, not only did you pair the two concepts, you *intrinsically* linked them to an unsubstantiated claim that the arrangement led to 'hopelessly unproductive' uses (since when has *all* money in *any* system been allocated to 'the most productive use'?) - and without any regard or reference to the productive use Euros have been put to.

I'm not sure how to proceeds, as explanation only seems to add to your incomprehension. I repeat, you are not addressing the point in the post that you are responding to. The point in the post you are responding to (IIRC) is that it (in turn) responds to Scofflaw's suggestion to the effect that the advantage of being part of a large entity like the EU was that (in theory) it is large enough to impose better regulation on MNCs than a smaller country, as the smaller country would fear that the MNCs would simply leave if regulated too strongly.

The point I'm making in that post is that a suite of measures implemented by the EU of relevance to the movement of capital didn't have the result that theory would suggest - they actually seem to facilitated the opposite outcome. I'm not aware of anyone contradicting this point on this thread. You're not even addressing it. I'm afraid, I feel you simply don't understand the point, and I can't see how to make it comprehensible to you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

As evidenced by the quotes at 365 and 366 above, you have further gone on to erroneously claim that 'national regulators applied the same set of EU determined rules'. No they didn't. They interpreted in their national systems general legal guidelines laid down in EU directives. *Not* the same rules.

Again, you don't understand what an EU Directive it. EU Directives are always intended to achieve a common result. The reason that they are transposed into domestic laws is just to give Member States the opportunity to ensure that the common result doesn't create some incoherence in domestic law. The EU doesn't always give Member States the opportunity to do this - sometimes the Commission proposes a Regulation, rather than a Directive, which has direct effect in domestic law of all Member States.

For what it's worth, an EU Directive takes precedence over all Member State domestic law. If there's a conflict between an EU Directive and some Article in the Irish Constitution, its the Directive that takes precedence. Article 29 of our Constitution concedes this.

McDave wrote: »

What you further fail to understand is that your earlier claim that the Euro is a 'fiasco' is more accurately described as a fiasco in certain member states, such as Ireland and Greece, particularly in their failures to develop and implement appropriate governance structures.

Just to try to build a bridge to your incomprehension of the issues in play, consider how irresponsible it was for the EU to adopt criteria for adoption of the euro that were so clearly vulnerable to failures by individual member states.

I'm not particularly saying that's what happened. I'm just trying to help you to understand why your opinion is quite deeply flawed.

SeanW

tdv123 wrote: »

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

Methinks this poster is a lefty who needs to check up a few word definitions.

[MOD]Methinks you could make points without calling people what you evidently consider to be names. Yellow carded.[/MOD]

There is nothing in either Nigel Farages speeches or UKIP policies that are anywhere near fascism. From Wikipedia:

Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenationm, and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations. Fascist ideology consistently invokes the primacy of the state. Leaders such as Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany embodied the state and claimed undisputable power.

Pretty much anything I've ever heard from Nigel F. has been the diametric opposite of all of this, all he or UKIP want is to have the UK governed from London as opposed to Brussels and to have individual control over borders and immigration policy.

Perhaps the poster things anyone to the right of Karl Marx is "far right?" Either way, I would suggest to tdv123 go away and open up a dictionary before coming back here. Preferably open up your mind as well, but I wouldn't hope for miracles.

SeanW

McDave wrote: »

What you further fail to understand is that your earlier claim that the Euro is a 'fiasco' is more accurately described as a fiasco in certain member states, such as Ireland and Greece, particularly in their failures to develop and implement appropriate governance structures.

The entire reason for fiat currency in any circumstance is so that an area, such as a nation-state, may set monetary policy specific to its own requirements. Ireland, Greece etc all had higher interest rates - dictated both by national central banks and prevailing economic conditions - in the pre-Euro era than the mid-2000s.

The Euro is a fundamental mis-construction because there will always be different needs and prevailing conditions in countries as disparate as Greece and Germany. Yet, interest rates were set low to fit the needs of Germany and France in the mid 2000s while the economies of Ireland, Greece etc were overheating and otherwise subject to forces that should have commanded a far higher interest rate.

When an interest rate is too low for an areas needs, there is no debate over what will happen;

1. Keynesian economists believe such things to be pro-cyclical, i.e. that its like pouring petrol on a fire, causing it to explode then die, rather than continue at a sane, sustainable burn. Sound familiar?
2. Austrian economists believe any setting of interest rates too low will cause funds to be invested in unviable projects, float bubbles etc. E.g. that newly created money will eventually find its way into mal-investments, wrecking the economy.

How people can continue to defend the monetary policy associated with a common currency is absolutely staggeringly unbelievable, considering that we are all suffering the consequences. Like that former Maoist tool, Barrosso, claiming that the Euro was the VICTIM of the problems in the PIIGS, not the perpatrator, was something I found breathtakingly galling.

SeanW

From one who should know about these things:

Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild wrote:

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

Pretty much anything I've ever heard from Nigel F. has been the diametric opposite of all of this, all he or UKIP want is to have the UK governed from London as opposed to Brussels and to have individual control over borders and immigration policy.

The UK is governed from London, and the UK controls its borders. It also sets its own immigration policy, except insofar as it has agreed to free movement of labour by signing up to the EU treaties.

So it might be more accurate to say that what UKIP wants is to pander to the popular and inaccurate beliefs that the UK is run from Brussels and has no control over its borders.

SeanW wrote: »

The Euro is a fundamental mis-construction because there will always be different needs and prevailing conditions in countries as disparate as Greece and Germany.

...or New York and Wyoming. There's no way they could ever have a single currency with a single central bank, is there?

Boroso

oscarBravo wrote: »

The UK is governed from London, and the UK controls its borders. It also sets its own immigration policy, except insofar as it has agreed to free movement of labour by signing up to the EU treaties.

So it might be more accurate to say that what UKIP wants is to pander to the popular and inaccurate beliefs that the UK is run from Brussels and has no control over its borders.

...or New York and Wyoming. There's no way they could ever have a single currency with a single central bank, is there?

My goodness! Who would ever have thought that politicians would pander to the electorate! How disgraceful! How appalling that anyone should be allowed to have an opinion which does not agree with giving ever more power to the EU!

It would appear the world is changing, and you attempt here to marginilise those who have views with which you, presumably, disagree seems, now, old fashioned.

Just because one may not like UKIP and the other parties across Europe, seems to prevent many EU-o-philes from realising change is afoot right across Europe.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

<...> ...or New York and Wyoming. There's no way they could ever have a single currency with a single central bank, is there?

Strangely enough

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2012/Introduced/HB0085.pdf

STATE OF WYOMING

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0085

(b) The task force shall study potential impacts on Wyoming of, and preparation of the government and the people of Wyoming for, a potential disruption of the United States federal government including, but not limited to:

(i) Potential effects of the rapid decline of the United States dollar and the ability to quickly provide an alternative currency;

More seriously, you can't lightly dismiss problems that the common monetary policy has caused in the EU. It's simply there. And, yes, you do get similar problems in the US. They're just amplified in the EU, as the euro is a somewhat artificial construction. The dollar, on the other hand, evolved as the US evolved. The current shape of their central banking system only dates back to 1913. And for what it's worth, the US has twelve Federal Reserve Banks, which reflected the (vain) desire to establish a single currency that wouldn't be dominated by the East coast.

SeanW

oscarBravo wrote: »

The UK is governed from London,

Ok, so what happens if the House of Commons recieves a directive from Brussels that all of its MPs oppose?

and the UK controls its borders.

What happens if the entire population of Eastern Europe, or a large chunk of it, decides to move to the UK. What powers would the London government have to stop it?

It also sets its own immigration policy, except insofar as it has agreed to free movement of labour by signing up to the EU treaties.

That's a rather bizarre claim. It's like telling a prisoner "you are absolutely free to go wherever you like, except insofar as you are surrounded by these walls and bars.

So it might be more accurate to say that what UKIP wants is to pander to the popular and inaccurate beliefs that the UK is run from Brussels and has no control over its borders.

NF claims that Brussles makes over 75% of the UKs laws, that means that according to UKIP, 75% of UK law, is simply directives from Brussles that are rubber stamped by the House of Commons.

How the hell do you call getting 75+% of your laws imposed from above by a supernational government with its own flag, anthem, currency, president, foreign relations apparatus etc make a country not "run from Brussels?"

...or New York and Wyoming. There's no way they could ever have a single currency with a single central bank, is there?

Ah yes, the Federal Reserve, a.k.a. the Creature from Jekyll Island as libertarians call it.

And you might recall it took the Fed less than 10 years to start a major Boom and Bust cycle, the Roaring Twenties followed by the Great Depression. Really good example you picked there. You are also forgetting the United States is one country, with to a large extent a shared culture and identity.

More seriously, you can't lightly dismiss problems that the common monetary policy has caused in the EU. It's simply there.

Well, those who support the Brussels/Strasbourg administration are certainly doing their best, "lightly dismissing problems" is very easy when you stick your fingers in your ears and close your mind.

Like my Mayer Rothschild quote. Those who seem to take the view that the European Central Bank had no part whatsoever in the problems of the peripheral countries, to do so must not only ignore BOTH Austrian and Keynesian economics which both have the same view of inappropriately low interest rates, but must also claim - whether directly or indirectly - that they know more about the fundamental aspects of currency and banking than the man who started the Rothschild dynasty ...

IMHO that level of dismissiveness can only come from an astounding level of intellectual and ideological blindness.

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

Ok, so what happens if the House of Commons recieves a directive from Brussels that all of its MPs oppose?

That would be a strange thing to happen, given that the Council - including the relevant minister from the UK - would have agreed to the directive in the first place.

What happens if the entire population of Eastern Europe, or a large chunk of it, decides to move to the UK. What powers would the London government have to stop it?

[...]

That's a rather bizarre claim. It's like telling a prisoner "you are absolutely free to go wherever you like, except insofar as you are surrounded by these walls and bars.

I'll concede the point: if the single most important thing to you is keeping foreigners out of your country, then EU membership definitely has its drawbacks.

NF claims that Brussles makes over 75% of the UKs laws, that means that according to UKIP, 75% of UK law, is simply directives from Brussles that are rubber stamped by the House of Commons.

He's wrong, but I'm sure the accuracy of his claims are precisely as important to him as they are to you.

How the hell do you call getting 75+% of your laws imposed from above by a supernational government with its own flag, anthem, currency, president, foreign relations apparatus etc make a country not "run from Brussels?"

First of all, I call it an untruth. Secondly, it requires some very careful forgetting of the fact that the UK has a say in all the legislation that comes from the EU, including having agreed to all the treaties that limit the Union's competencies.

But, again, mere truth or facts rarely have a place in any discussion that involves the UK and the EU.

Ah yes, the Federal Reserve, a.k.a. the Creature from Jekyll Island as libertarians call it.

Who, like Nigel Farage, are always right whenever they say something you agree with.

You are also forgetting the United States is one country, with to a large extent a shared culture and identity.

Yeah. Wyoming is so exactly like New York it's hard to tell which state you're in.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

<...> it requires some very careful forgetting of the fact that the UK has a say in all the legislation that comes from the EU, including having agreed to all the treaties that limit the Union's competencies.<...>

Ah, that's more than a little naïve. Firstly, it doesn't involve any forgetting at all if a person is expressing the view that too much power has been ceded to the EU. It just involves people saying "we made a mistake".

Also, it is profoundly unrealistic to talk as if merely having "a say" in legislation is just as good as having the capacity to independently determine legislation. Sure, to the extent that we participate in National and EU elections, we all have "a say" in legislation. Obviously, the UK as an entity has more of "a say" than an individual like you and I. But having to co-operate with other Member States clearly limits the freedom of all individual countries, even in those areas where consensus between Member States is required.

We can argue whether, on balance, participation in the EU is a good or bad thing. I'd feel Ireland probably benefited from having an amount of environmental legislation forced on us by the EU, which we'd never have gotten through our domestic legislature. However, that means I'm saying EU Membership was a good thing in that specific policy area precisely because it steamrolled over our domestic political system.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, that's more than a little naïve. Firstly, it doesn't involve any forgetting at all if a person is expressing the view that too much power has been ceded to the EU. It just involves people saying "we made a mistake".

Granted - but if we're going to have a conversation based on actual reason, then it's only fair to ask for reason on all sides. It's not true to say that 75% of UK legislation is merely handed down from Brussels, which is a falsehood designed to pander to people who don't believe that foreigners should have any input whatsoever into how they run their country.

Also, it is profoundly unrealistic to talk as if merely having "a say" in legislation is just as good as having the capacity to independently determine legislation. Sure, to the extent that we participate in National and EU elections, we all have "a say" in legislation. Obviously, the UK as an entity has more of "a say" than an individual like you and I. But having to co-operate with other Member States clearly limits the freedom of all individual countries, even in those areas where consensus between Member States is required.

Yes. This is only a bad thing if what's most important to you is to be able to do whatever the hell you want with no regard for the consequences for anybody else.

The narrative in the UK implies that somehow Belgium is in control over the London government. In fact, the UK has ceded a certain amount of sovereignty in return for an equal secession of sovereignty on the part of every other member state. Rather than just doing what works for the UK, the UK has agreed to arrive at a consensus about what's best on balance for all the member states.

We can argue whether, on balance, participation in the EU is a good or bad thing. I'd feel Ireland probably benefited from having an amount of environmental legislation forced on us by the EU, which we'd never have gotten through our domestic legislature. However, that means I'm saying EU Membership was a good thing in that specific policy area precisely because it steamrolled over our domestic political system.

Absolutely. And when the conversation about the EU matures to the point where we can point to something that we've done in cooperation with our EU partners and say that we would have been much better off had we been in a position to do the opposite, we'll be a long way down the road to having an intelligent discussion.

sin_city

All Nigel Farage really wants is a referendum on whether or not the people of the UK want to be in the EU.

I don't see any problem with that.

He's a very straight talking politician in comparison to most others.

There is a definitive attempt to smear him in the media as this shows he is a threat to the bland and probably bought and sold politicians.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not true to say that 75% of UK legislation is merely handed down from Brussels, which is a falsehood designed to pander to people who don't believe that foreigners should have any input whatsoever into how they run their country.

I can even agree that a statement like "75%" is meaningless. How would you count it? A piece of legislation could amount to a couple of pages, but mean a lot. Our the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 only has 9 sections, but tremendous significance. On the other hand, the 55 page European Directive on the capital adequacy of banks and investment firms issued in 2006 seems to have had no real-world effect at all. If it had, those 9 expensive sections wouldn't have been necessary.

However, it would be unrealistic to deny that substantial powers have been conceded to the EU. It would also be unrealistic to deny that EU regulation has a considerable impact on Member States.

oscarBravo wrote: »

In fact, the UK has ceded a certain amount of sovereignty in return for an equal secession of sovereignty on the part of every other member state. Rather than just doing what works for the UK, the UK has agreed to arrive at a consensus about what's best on balance for all the member states.

Grand, but isn't the issue all about whether the necessity to achieve consensus (or near consensus) makes for an ossified decision making process. Its hard to envisage Member States agreeing to operate without a need for consensus on really important stuff. Nationalism might be a bit of a laugh, but people do seem to genuinely see it as defining their identity. Hence, folk can basically accept that a nation state will work on the basis of a straight majority.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Absolutely. And when the conversation about the EU matures to the point where we can point to something that we've done in cooperation with our EU partners and say that we would have been much better off had we been in a position to do the opposite, we'll be a long way down the road to having an intelligent discussion.

Although, I'd feel the discussion is a bit more dynamic than that. Because folk can find themselves wondering "is this really the best we can do".

To be honest, I find the choice quite stark. I don't really have much confidence in the European Blandwagon. At the same time, I don't want to be stuck in a lifeboat where Ming Flanagan and the Healy-Raes might actually have some influence over the course we'd follow. I think the UK is in a slightly different position. It's conceivable that they could make a go of it, if they really want independence. Haven't they a pretty strong tradition of being reluctant Europeans?

Our engagement with Europe is tied up with a mix of different things. It offered money to farmers, at a time when they were a significant economic group. At the same time, it offered the urban middle class a chance to escape from rural political dominance. Finally, engagement with the EU provided a way of escaping from the shadow of Britain. Yes, we might notionally lose powers to Brussels. But we'd never had sufficient economic independence to even really run an independent currency, so it was (up to a point) deciding that being a satellite of Brussels was a richer prospect than being a satellite of London.

Just a damn pity we didn't have a bit more critical analysis of what joining the European single currency entailed, and a lot more capacity in digesting what that required us to do.

Boroso

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just a damn pity we didn't have a bit more critical analysis of what joining the European single currency entailed, and a lot more capacity in digesting what that required us to do.

While the rest of your post is erudite and interesting, your last paragraph is just wrong, and illustrates so well what is wrong with the EU.

We had the analysis of what joining the Euro would mean economically, but Ireland never joined the Euro for economic reasons. The Euro was conceived as a political project and Ireland joined for political reasons and simply ignored the obvious economic realities, and that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the EU, and wrong with Irelands relationship with the EU.

Britain didn't join the Euro because it discussed endlessly the economic case (and not the political case) and eventually decided, on the economics, that the UK could not join.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Boroso wrote: »

We had the analysis of what joining the Euro would mean economically, but Ireland never joined the Euro for economic reasons. The Euro was conceived as a political project and Ireland joined for political reasons and simply ignored the obvious economic realities, and that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the EU, and wrong with Irelands relationship with the EU.

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with what you say there. While it might not look like it on the surface, it's actually pretty much what I meant.

Boroso

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with what you say there. While it might not look like it on the surface, it's actually pretty much what I meant.

Of course, but I felt that it illustrates so well what is wrong with the EU, and what is wrong with Irelands relationship with the EU.

On balance, it would probably be a bad idea for Ireland to leave the EU, as nothing I have ever seen convinces me that Ireland is a politically mature country, and it's political class is just not competent to run a country.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure how to proceeds, as explanation only seems to add to your incomprehension. I repeat, you are not addressing the point in the post that you are responding to. The point in the post you are responding to (IIRC) is that it (in turn) responds to Scofflaw's suggestion to the effect that the advantage of being part of a large entity like the EU was that (in theory) it is large enough to impose better regulation on MNCs than a smaller country, as the smaller country would fear that the MNCs would simply leave if regulated too strongly.

The point I'm making in that post is that a suite of measures implemented by the EU of relevance to the movement of capital didn't have the result that theory would suggest - they actually seem to facilitated the opposite outcome. I'm not aware of anyone contradicting this point on this thread. You're not even addressing it. I'm afraid, I feel you simply don't understand the point, and I can't see how to make it comprehensible to you.

You don't seem quite sure of much TBH. You're the one making wild claims about the single market in financial services leading to money going to the wrong places. First of all, that's not a primary regulatory goal as such, although in broad terms it is probably integral to the background thinking of more efficient markets.

Secondly, if you were honest enough to follow through on the logic of your aspirations for the single market in financial services, you'd accept that much money has gone to the right places too, as evidenced by the relatively healthy state of most economies in the EZ, and even in many sectors in the troubled economies.

Instead, all you have done is characterise the single financial market initiative as a component in the 'fiasco' of the single currency as it has affected certain countries. Moreover, you have incorrectly attempted to characterise the single market as a component of the regulation of the Euro. The directives were not intended to manage the Euro, even if the desired outcome might have been national financial regulators acting to similar high standards to promote the success of the single market. But the directives don't set this bar.

In short, the ECB has a limited mandate. Problems in certain EZ member states are of largely domestic origin, and could have been significantly avoided. Changes to the EZ regime will be needed to prevent similar problems in the future. To achieve this, changes to the treaties will be required.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Again, you don't understand what an EU Directive it. EU Directives are always intended to achieve a common result. The reason that they are transposed into domestic laws is just to give Member States the opportunity to ensure that the common result doesn't create some incoherence in domestic law. The EU doesn't always give Member States the opportunity to do this - sometimes the Commission proposes a Regulation, rather than a Directive, which has direct effect in domestic law of all Member States.

For what it's worth, an EU Directive takes precedence over all Member State domestic law. If there's a conflict between an EU Directive and some Article in the Irish Constitution, its the Directive that takes precedence. Article 29 of our Constitution concedes this.

I did suggest you go away and bone up on some of the basics of EU law. So, well done you for checking out Wikipedia, to wit:

A directive is a legislative act of the European Union,[1] which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result. It can be distinguished from regulations which are self-executing and do not require any implementing measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)

You might as well add from the same Wikipedia entry:

Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just to try to build a bridge to your incomprehension of the issues in play, consider how irresponsible it was for the EU to adopt criteria for adoption of the euro that were so clearly vulnerable to failures by individual member states.

It might be a help you if you were honest to yourself about the evolution of the single currency. The essential criteria were laid out in treaty form for all to see. The EU was in reality not well placed to add further finesse to the terms and conditions largely because of obstruction from Thatcher who didn't want a single currency at all, even if the UK was not going to join itself.

As to failures, they were down to the performance of member states, most of whom are now slowly rectifying their positions to comply with the Maastricht criteria.

McDave

SeanW wrote: »

The entire reason for fiat currency in any circumstance is so that an area, such as a nation-state, may set monetary policy specific to its own requirements. Ireland, Greece etc all had higher interest rates - dictated both by national central banks and prevailing economic conditions - in the pre-Euro era than the mid-2000s.

The Euro is a fundamental mis-construction because there will always be different needs and prevailing conditions in countries as disparate as Greece and Germany. Yet, interest rates were set low to fit the needs of Germany and France in the mid 2000s while the economies of Ireland, Greece etc were overheating and otherwise subject to forces that should have commanded a far higher interest rate.

When an interest rate is too low for an areas needs, there is no debate over what will happen;

1. Keynesian economists believe such things to be pro-cyclical, i.e. that its like pouring petrol on a fire, causing it to explode then die, rather than continue at a sane, sustainable burn. Sound familiar?
2. Austrian economists believe any setting of interest rates too low will cause funds to be invested in unviable projects, float bubbles etc. E.g. that newly created money will eventually find its way into mal-investments, wrecking the economy.

How people can continue to defend the monetary policy associated with a common currency is absolutely staggeringly unbelievable, considering that we are all suffering the consequences. Like that former Maoist tool, Barrosso, claiming that the Euro was the VICTIM of the problems in the PIIGS, not the perpatrator, was something I found breathtakingly galling.

Interest rates were not in fact low when those economies were overheating. They were in fact 3.5-4% percent.

In reality, those economies had failed on their own terms, and with high interest rates under national currency regimes, those rates would also have been proof positive of their failures. So rather than ranting about the evils of the Euro, maybe it might be more constructive to focus on what those countries could do to rectify their own macroeconomic, regulatory and/or governance problems. On the positive side, it is membership of the Euro which has demonstrated the deficiencies of those economies and societies for all to see while also giving them both the opportunity and the template to correct their problems.

It's kind of staggering how the Euro is portrayed as a problem without any consideration of the solution it aspires to be.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

Secondly, if you were honest enough to follow through on the logic of your aspirations for the single market in financial services, you'd accept that much money has gone to the right places too, as evidenced by the relatively healthy state of most economies in the EZ, and even in many sectors in the troubled economies.

I'm afraid, with that single statement, you've demonstrated again that you just don't comprehend the subject matter.

McDave wrote: »

I did suggest you go away and bone up on some of the basics of EU law.

I'm quite clear on the basics of EU law. EU Directives must be complied with. As the European Commission explain

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/what_directive_en.htm

EU directives lay down certain end results that must be achieved in every Member State. National authorities have to adapt their laws to meet these goals, but are free to decide how to do so.

You'll notice, that's exactly what I said. Am I going to have yet another of these situations where I'm effectively told that the European Commission don't know what they're talking about?

McDave wrote: »

The EU was in reality not well placed to add further finesse to the terms and conditions largely because of obstruction from Thatcher who didn't want a single currency at all, even if the UK was not going to join itself.

Why would you feel I'd have a problem with that particular view? I've no opinion on whether that individual statement is valid. But I've no problem with you stating a situation were you felt the EU was incapable of taking necessary actions and decisions.

View

Boroso wrote: »

We had the analysis of what joining the Euro would mean economically, but Ireland never joined the Euro for economic reasons. The Euro was conceived as a political project and Ireland joined for political reasons and simply ignored the obvious economic realities, and that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the EU, and wrong with Irelands relationship with the EU.

Ireland joined the Euro for economic reasons as did the other Eurozone member states.

Boroso wrote: »

Britain didn't join the Euro because it discussed endlessly the economic case (and not the political case) and eventually decided, on the economics, that the UK could not join.

That's a definite case of cart before horse. The UK has consistently sought and received opt-outs on evey major EU issue since the SEA in 1987. To suggest that that isn't as a result of political decisions is just bonkers.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid, with that single statement, you've demonstrated again that you just don't comprehend the subject matter.I'm quite clear on the basics of EU law. EU Directives must be complied with. As the European Commission explainYou'll notice, that's exactly what I said. Am I going to have yet another of these situations where I'm effectively told that the European Commission don't know what they're talking about?Why would you feel I'd have a problem with that particular view? I've no opinion on whether that individual statement is valid. But I've no problem with you stating a situation were you felt the EU was incapable of taking necessary actions and decisions.

Who really cares what kind of situation you think you find yourself in? You might be better advised to concentrate on a substantive points, rather than pointlessly meandering around banalities and generalities. Yours is a situation many critics of the Euro find themselves in. Unearthing isolated theoretical or practical problems, attempting to play them up, but nonetheless realising that the Euro somehow still manages to function.

Getting back to Farage and UKIP, it's a similar situation, not to mention for other Eurosceptic parties elsewhere. Populist demagoguery gets you so far with a certain kind of voter. But over time, negative demeanour palls with middle ground voters, and the lack of a constructive alternative comes home to roost. Options like EFTA aren't going to fly, and the purely national route will only be pursued in exceptional circumstances, which may well apply to the UK, although I doubt it.

As I see Farage, he's ultimately a stage the Tories are going through. Perhaps in the course of a referendum campaign, the Tories themselves will finally unshackled themselves from the Thatcher years, and in an election or two absorb some of the more moderate UKIP members.