Off Topic Thread 3.0

irishbucsfan wrote: »

None of that applies to the executive body of EU governance however. You can attempt to blame a fickle electorate for the EU, but you're wrong.

Rather than blaming the thickos in the electorate, people should be focusing on fixing the systemic problems with the EU, and the answer is more democracy not less of it. Varoufakis' Diem25 are a group who are lobbying for exactly that (although with an estimated 10,000 lobbyists, the majority of whom want exactly the opposite, in Brussels it's probably unlikely that sense will prevail).

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/leftist-debate-european-union-by-yanis-varoufakis-2016-06

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-how-europe-s-leaders-can-fix-the-union-1.2701889

Ah Jesus IBF I never blamed "thickos" for anything. Reign it in there. I simply made the point that when the system is set up to have politicians elected for short terms in office we have to expect that there will be a real element of shot termism from politicians as they seek reelection. It was a general point. Do you have to look for a row in everything!?

EDIT: I used the term "fickle", a far cry from "thickos", because an electorate is fickle by nature. What was important in 2005 was different to what was important in 2009 for example.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I didn't actually say you called anyone thick. That's just been the prevailing wisdom on display from some corners in recent days, as was pointed out quite succinctly by Vincent Browne in his article.

As I pointed out, democracy, or term length, is absolutely not the cause of the problems we're currently seeing. The problem is the subversion of it both in Brussels and Westminster.

Thing is I didn't say it was the cause of the problems we were seeing. I just replied to a comment about short term thinking from politicians. I'm not getting into a debate over something I was never talk about and you can stop applying the "prevailing wisdom" to my posts as well. If I didn't say it then it doesn't apply.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I meant prevailing wisdom like this:



You replied to a comment about short term thinking about politicians blaming term length and claiming it's an inherent flaw in the whole system. I pointed out it's not a flaw in the whole system. The rest of my post had nothing to do with that.

Again, how does that say "thickos"?

Clue: It doesn't.

A system can have many flaws. I made a general point about one. It wasn't something that deserved all these additional follow up posts. You're just looking to have a row and I'm not going to facilitate any further.

awec wrote: »

Lads lads lads, can we all relax and think of the boobs?

That implies that there would need to be a time I'm not thinking about boobs

Podge_irl wrote: »

Unless Slovakia decides otherwise. Or Slovenia, or maybe Greece. Maybe France wants to get it over and done with.

A unanimous agreement is a big thing to be betting on when there is so much politics involved. Absolutely everything is going to need to be conducted on the assumption that there is a 2 year hard deadline.

Wouldn't disagree with that they need to assume there is a hard deadline.

In reality the EU are masters at "discovering" loopholes when they are needed, yet another example this afternoon when the Italians announced they are being allowed to bail out their banks despite it being explicitly disallowed (and I can't imagine the Germans are too pleased about this).

Podge_irl wrote: »

Oh yeah, sure. Loophole central when needs arise.

I wouldn't be so sure as you that they will even try and find it in this scenario. There comes times when politics trumps economics (not even sure that's a fair description in this case - there also comes a time when long term interests trump short term ones).

I don't think I can think of a time when the Union has ever put politics above economics. Possibly in the Troika's dealings with Syriza and the Greeks but I think they genuinely believe in the economic argument in favour of austerity.

bilston wrote: »

Urrrggghhhh I really really hope Gove doesn't win. How could anyone possibly trust him? He has betrayed Cameron and now he has stabbed Boris in the front while looking him in the eye and making no apology for it either.

Theresa May may not be the worst option. She can probably bring the Remainers and Leavers together as well which Gove will never do. The fact she has survived 6 years as Home Secretary is an achievement in itself. I seem to remember it changed hands a few times under Blair.

I've never heard of Angela Leadsom. Liam Fox is too right wing and Steven Crabb is most likely preparing the ground for a proper craic at it next time round.

To be fair the Tories could announce Kermit the Frog as their new leader and they'd still probably win the next UK election given the state of the Labour Party.

Andrea Leadsom was involved in the Brexit campaign which might help but it appears they're all behind Gove now, unfortunately.

Does anyone here believe Europe is a success?

I get the whole free movement of goods and people but after that? There was a great post on AH stating that Americans are American first and foremost but really in Europe we feel no real pride at being European.

I have to be honest and say I've never thought of myself as "a European citizen".

To me Europe is a bunch of completely different countries thrown together. Countries with different cultures, languages, weather, people etc. Even our attitudes to things like work, immigration etc are completely different yet we are all "European".

Will the whole "run from Brussels" still be workable in 10 or 20 years?

mfceiling wrote: »

Does anyone here believe Europe is a success?

I get the whole free movement of goods and people but after that? There was a great post on AH stating that Americans are American first and foremost but really in Europe we feel no real pride at being European.

I have to be honest and say I've never thought of myself as "a European citizen".

To me Europe is a bunch of completely different countries thrown together. Countries with different cultures, languages, weather, people etc. Even our attitudes to things like work, immigration etc are completely different yet we are all "European".

Will the whole "run from Brussels" still be workable in 10 or 20 years?

You can't compare the US to the EU at all though. As you said the EU is a collection of a variety of countries and cultures and isn't aimed at doing the exact same thing as the US.

In terms of whether it is a success or not I suppose that depends a lot on what constitutes "success". It has certainly achieved a hell of a lot. It started out as a means to prevent further conflict in Europe so it's obviously been a success there. The Single Market was another big move and has been a success as well. It's investments around the Member States has seen the standard of living across the EU rise to a very decent level so that's another massive success. Think of where this country might be without EU funding for example. If you compare the EU to the US in some ways we're way ahead. The US has major infrastructural problems and AFAIK their debt levels exceed that of the entire EU. The EU is a bigger player on the international stage than any single country within the EU could ever be. So there's a load of positives there.

The real problems with the EU have come in more recent years. The recession, the subsequent inability of countries to devalue their currency, the austerity and the rush to include additional countries into the Union have all, to some degree or other, caused issues around the Union. The question is whether this is a failure of the EU itself, or a failure of the Governments and politicians within the EU. I read an interesting article in the Guardian yesterday (here). It's pretty long, but the general jist is that over the last couple of decades politicians have been slowly but surely losing the faith of the people. This applies domestically as well as in the EU. And in the last few years we've started seeing situation where the politicians are warning us about things and we've been ignoring them. Like the boy who cried wolf, politicians have lied to us so often that if/when they tell us the truth we don't believe them.

For me I think that's probably the big issue right now. There is a very serious disconnect between the politicians and the people, which leaves the door open for the Declan Ganleys and the Nigel Farages. The disconnect manifests itself in all politics, including the EU. So for me it's a far more general issues than strictly an EU issue. And if we can't sort that out then politics in general in Europe is screwed at all levels. Now I do also think the electorate have a large part to play in it all. It's our job to keep the politicians honest through the voting booth and we have a responsibility to inform ourselves come voting time. We haven't been great at either which has definitely contributed to the problem. But I wouldn't call it a failing of the EU itself tbh.

TL;DR: The EU is a success in the main, but politics in general is f**ked so that's impacting the EU as well.

Deleted User wrote: »

The economic arguments in favour of the austerity that the Troika required of Greece are valid.

'Austerity' is quite simply not spending money you don't have.

Sometimes it makes sense to spend money you don't have (for example, taking a mortgage out on a house).
More often it makes sense not to spend money you don't have (for example, taking a credit union loan to go to Ibiza when you don't have a job).

If this premise is false, and "Not-Austerity" is always good then zero distinction between necessary and unnecessary expenditure is irrelevant.

Consider that for a moment. It suggests that if Ireland's Government chose to build the LUAS in Athlone instead of in Dublin, that would have the same net benefit to Ireland's GDP. Or if Ireland's Government chose to increase public sector wages 15% instead of building hospitals that would have the same net benefit to Ireland.

Are these reasonable arguments?

Little bit of a straw man there I think emmet. Is there anyone serious who suggests that not austerity is always the right choice? It's primarily Keynesians who would have advocated an increase in spending instead of austerity and they would be of the opinion that government spending should be reduced in good times. Of course the reality of politics often mean that politicians only look at the arguments for spending rather than a more holistic view of the theory which poses it's own difficulties. It was totally inadequate but we did at least in Ireland get our debt down to about 25% of GDP and established the NPRF which was a small way of reducing spending. On the flip side we went bananas in so many other ways that it made little difference in the end.

Austerity can very definitely include spending money that you haven't got. Ireland borrowed plenty of money as it implemented 'austerity'. It's difficult to define exactly but a significant reduction in spending compared to the previous year or period of time would be agreeable to many although I think that it's useful in the context of the last decade or so to include a comment noting that it's a reduction in spending contrary to what Keynesian economic theory would advise.

I think that if you want to explain why austerity was appropriate for Greece, Ireland and others that you need to make reference to the US where a lukewarm version of the classic keynesian response to recession in the form of a stimulus lead to a much better economic outcome compared to Greece/Ireland and others.

I think that you're suggesting that there was too much day to day spending in the form of salaries compared to capital spending (investment) and/or that there weren't appropriate investment opportunities for the government that would justify borrowing to fund? N.B. The lack of appropriate investment opportunities could well be due to corruption which leads to inefficient investment the perception/reality of which I'm certain played a role in the treatment of Greece.

The case then becomes the imposition of austerity in an effort to reform the bureaucracy and I think that that's the point at which moral and economic judgements/decisions begin to blur together.