Leaving the €uro: Pros & Cons?

southsiderosie · 15-11-2010 04:58PM

SkepticOne wrote: »

But the poorest in society who may not have much in the way of savings are more likely to benefit from jobs growth due to increased competitiveness. The biggest losers, imo, would be the insiders who get paid by the state in Euros. A senior civil servant, for example, would have their salary devalued with the currency. An indigenous exporting country, on the other hand, will receive a boost.

Ireland imports the vast majority of its consumer goods. Since the poor spend a much larger percentage of their income on household consumption, they would be extremely hard-hit by a currency devaluation - household costs would jump astronomically.

The main export benefits for the Irish economy other than the corporate tax comes from the fact that there are a lot of people working for export-oriented MNCs who pay income tax and VAT. These people are not going to want to be paid in local currency, especially since a large number of them are not locals, and the new punt would most likely not be fully convertible. Plus, it is a bonus when you are paid in a currency that is worth more than the one you pay your bills with.

SkepticOne wrote: »

The problem is that a stable Euro, like any attempt at fixing a price, creates instability elsewhere. The Argentineans thought they were creating stability by linking their currency to the dollar but all they did was create imbalances that led to their currency crisis.

It's funny that you bring up Argentina, because I would point to them as a prime example of why going off the euro would be an absolute disaster for Ireland. The Argentines did create stability by pegging their currency, but they did not curb their fiscal profligacy, which is what ended up driving the crisis (aound familiar?). When they finally dropped the peg (which is what Ireland would be doing in effect), unemployment shot up to 25%, inflation was over 80%, and the exchange rate immediately went from 1:1 to 4:1. Yes Kirtchener told the bondholders to step off, but he also had a lot of help from Hugo Chavez, who not only bought a lot of bad Argentine debt, but also sent them subsidized oil. They were also helped by skyrocketing soybean prices.

Ireland is not a major commodities exporter, nor does it have a political sugar daddy waiting in the wings. Going off of the euro would be fiscal suicide.

Sand · 15-11-2010 04:59PM

@Count Dooku

Another option is to reduce welfare PS payroll bill by 30-40% and abolish minimum wage.
In short term it will be political suicide for any party, but in long term it could save country from expelling from Euro and give some chances for recovery.
Poorest will pay in any scenario, questions are only when and how much?

Well, certainly, our expenditure has to come in line with our revenue, and if it has to be done, its best that its done quickly. But Id prefer cuts are targeted at waste and unrequired services, rather than vital services.

The 30-minute-cheque-break has highlighted the potential there is in in the Civil Service and Public Sector for cutting out silly perks, which of course have to be administered.

Also, I heard a commentator on Sunday morning Newstalk highlighting there are 34 drug taskforces/quangos vs. 20 beds available in Dublin for 30,000 drug addicts which demonstrates the imbalance between highly salaried talking shops and actual front line service.

So whilst the 30-40% might be the headline, the cuts need to fall in the right places.

SkepticOne · 15-11-2010 05:54PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Ireland imports the vast majority of its consumer goods. Since the poor spend a much larger percentage of their income on household consumption, they would be extremely hard-hit by a currency devaluation - household costs would jump astronomically.

The cost of raw imports would increase, but bear in mind that a lot of what we pay is mark up by retailers who have to pay rents, professional fees, wages and other costs generated in Ireland. And even if we stay in the Euro, measures are going to have to be brought in that hurt the poor. Social welfare is going to come down as well as the minimum wage and taxes will start to be imposed on those on that reduced minimum wage. Property tax will be brought in which by its nature is regressive and will hit the poorest.

The main export benefits for the Irish economy other than the corporate tax comes from the fact that there are a lot of people working for export-oriented MNCs who pay income tax and VAT. These people are not going to want to be paid in local currency, especially since a large number of them are not locals, and the new punt would most likely not be fully convertible. Plus, it is a bonus when you are paid in a currency that is worth more than the one you pay your bills with.

I think you are correct here. It is not unusual for expats to be paid in the likes of US dollars when working abroad and I don't think it is a huge problem if that is what they want. Most people, however will get paid and be happy to be paid in the local currency. US expat managers working in, say, Malaysia for US multinationals get paid in dollars whereas ordinary staff get paid in ringgits since that is what is legal tender there.

It's funny that you bring up Argentina, because I would point to them as a prime example of why going off the euro would be an absolute disaster for Ireland. The Argentines did create stability by pegging their currency, but they did not curb their fiscal profligacy, which is what ended up driving the crisis (aound familiar?). When they finally dropped the peg (which is what Ireland would be doing in effect), unemployment shot up to 25%, inflation was over 80%, and the exchange rate immediately went from 1:1 to 4:1. Yes Kirtchener told the bondholders to step off, but he also had a lot of help from Hugo Chavez, who not only bought a lot of bad Argentine debt, but also sent them subsidized oil. They were also helped by skyrocketing soybean prices.

I'm not sure the facts back you up here. Looking at the graph and allowing for a lag,

it appears that the build up happened prior to devaluation and then after devaluation started to decline.

The problem with Argentina is that their currency was pegged to the dollar which appreciated significantly in the 90's. Then when Brazil devalued by 30%, Argentina couldn't cope. Pegging their currency to the dollar helped in one way (to curb inflation) but caused problems in other respects.

Ireland is not a major commodities exporter, nor does it have a political sugar daddy waiting in the wings. Going off of the euro would be fiscal suicide.

The fact that Ireland doesn't export commodities makes locally generated costs even more important and the competitiveness boost created by devaluation greater.

southsiderosie · 15-11-2010 09:59PM

SkepticOne wrote: »

The cost of raw imports would increase, but bear in mind that a lot of what we pay is mark up by retailers who have to pay rents, professional fees, wages and other costs generated in Ireland. And even if we stay in the Euro, measures are going to have to be brought in that hurt the poor. Social welfare is going to come down as well as the minimum wage and taxes will start to be imposed on those on that reduced minimum wage. Property tax will be brought in which by its nature is regressive and will hit the poorest.

I think you are correct here. It is not unusual for expats to be paid in the likes of US dollars when working abroad and I don't think it is a huge problem if that is what they want. Most people, however will get paid and be happy to be paid in the local currency. US expat managers working in, say, Malaysia for US multinationals get paid in dollars whereas ordinary staff get paid in ringgits since that is what is legal tender there.I'm not sure the facts back you up here. Looking at the graph and allowing for a lag,

it appears that the build up happened prior to devaluation and then after devaluation started to decline.

The problem with Argentina is that their currency was pegged to the dollar which appreciated significantly in the 90's. Then when Brazil devalued by 30%, Argentina couldn't cope. Pegging their currency to the dollar helped in one way (to curb inflation) but caused problems in other respects. The fact that Ireland doesn't export commodities makes locally generated costs even more important and the competitiveness boost created by devaluation greater.

What is that graph of? There is no key. Hopefully that is not meant to be inflation, because the Argentine government has been fudging the numbers on that since the currency crisis.

Argentina put itself in a Fiscal Straitjacket because it has never been able to control its spending. Ever. They export commodities that are valued in dollars, and this at least gave businesses some form of stability. The problem with the Argentines and the Irish for that matter is that they want credit markets and international companies to treat them like they are responsible countries, but they want to dole out political goodies like clientelist banana republics. They can't have it both ways, and no amount of blaming neighbors or bankers will rectify that.

Whatever will happen next in Ireland will hurt the poor. But dumping the euro will dramatically increase household costs at a time when social welfare payments will have to be slashed, as Ireland will have no access to international credit markets.

Dumping the euro will also crush the middle class, and destroy what is left of the banking system. If banks keep debt and savings in euros, but people are paid in punts, most people will never be able to afford to pay of their mortgages. If banks completely switch over to punts, perhaps some debt could be inflated away, but people would theoretically lose their savings...and I say theoretically because the minute the government announces that they are switching to punts, people will race to withdraw their euro savings and move them abroad.

Again, dumping the euro would be fiscal suicide.

ei.sdraob · 15-11-2010 10:26PM

SkepticOne wrote: »

The Argentineans thought they were creating stability by linking their currency to the dollar but all they did was create imbalances that led to their currency crisis.

Argentinian problem was much deeper than that running back decades, lookup Peronism

SkepticOne · 15-11-2010 10:47PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

What is that graph of? There is no key. Hopefully that is not meant to be inflation, because the Argentine government has been fudging the numbers on that since the currency crisis.

Sorry it is unemployment. You can see that it was on the rise prior to devaluation and then started to decline.

Argentina put itself in a Fiscal Straitjacket because it has never been able to control its spending. Ever.

I'm not sure that is a valid point. Are you arguing that because they could not control their spending that they therefore should have maintained the peg with the dollar?

They export commodities that are valued in dollars, and this at least gave businesses some form of stability. The problem with the Argentines and the Irish for that matter is that they want credit markets and international companies to treat them like they are responsible countries, but they want to dole out political goodies like clientelist banana republics. They can't have it both ways, and no amount of blaming neighbors or bankers will rectify that.

The fact that they have exports in dollars should have mitigated the need to devalue somewhat but they could not, even with their commodities, survive the combined effect of the appreciated US dollar with the devaluation of Brazilian currency. As I said earlier, since we don't have valuable commodities, we only have our people, the case for devaluation is stronger, other things being equal.

Whatever will happen next in Ireland will hurt the poor. But dumping the euro will dramatically increase household costs at a time when social welfare payments will have to be slashed, as Ireland will have no access to international credit markets.

I think it is important to note that the idea that Ireland should devalue and leave the Euro for me only applies in a situation where Ireland is about to default anyway and since our banks are dependent on the state, that they are in a state of collapse also. At this point, we are out of the credit markets anyway and are relying purely on what we can export. This is the point at which we should cut loose.

Dumping the euro will also crush the middle class, and destroy what is left of the banking system. If banks keep debt and savings in euros, but people are paid in punts, most people will never be able to afford to pay of their mortgages. If banks completely switch over to punts, perhaps some debt could be inflated away, but people would theoretically lose their savings...and I say theoretically because the minute the government announces that they are switching to punts, people will race to withdraw their euro savings and move them abroad.

No, all savings as well as debts to Irish banking operations should be re-denominated. Debts by Irish banks to foreign institutions should also be re-denominated as part of the default.

Again, dumping the euro would be fiscal suicide.

Again, all this is from the point of view of taking the Morgan Kelly article seriously. That if we're offered the likes of 5% interest in a bailout arrangement, we're heading for a situation where we default anyway and we're out of the credit markets.

SkepticOne · 15-11-2010 10:49PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Argentinian problem was much deeper than that running back decades, lookup Peronism

I know but does that mean they should have staid with the dollar instead of devaluing when they did?

ei.sdraob · 16-11-2010 12:02AM

SkepticOne wrote: »

I know but does that mean they should have staid with the dollar instead of devaluing when they did?

They shouldn't have pegged to it in the first place, their problems were not related to currency but to disastrous political choices made (sound familiar?).

I was recently reading an interesting book which touched on Argentina , their troubles literary go back decades, the country went from having larger economy than France before WW2 to being a developing country, really tragic. An example of why protectionism and import substitution are disastrous policies.

SkepticOne · 16-11-2010 12:21AM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

They shouldn't have pegged to it in the first place, their problems were not related to currency but to disastrous political choices made (sound familiar?).

You are evading the question here. In 2001 before they had their massive 30% devaluation, their option was to either continue with the peg or devalue. They did not have the option to go back in time so that they never pegged in the first place just like we don't have the option now of going back in time till before we joined the Euro. So the question remains: were they right to devalue when they did?

ei.sdraob · 16-11-2010 12:35AM

SkepticOne wrote: »

You are evading the question here. In 2001 before they had their massive 30% devaluation, their option was to either continue with the peg or devalue. They did not have the option to go back in time so that they never pegged in the first place just like we don't have the option now of going back in time till before we joined the Euro. So the question remains: were they right to devalue when they did?

I am not evading the question, I pointed out in this thread that Argentine problems had very little to do with the currency peg and are due to issues that go back a long time. Same way as changing a bandage doesn't suddenly heal a knife wound.

You are trying to compare Ireland and Argentina and I am trying to tell you that the two are beyond comparison, your question is based on a false premise.
For example we had a fairly healthy economy heading into the euro on a crest of export led boom in late 90s, Argentina on the other hand had 2-3 decades of hyperinflation (5000% some years) due to political mismanagement and money printing. Pegging to the dollar in early 90s solved the hyperinflation problem somewhat but Argentinas underlying problem wasnt hyperinflation, that was just a symptom of the chronic mismanagement of what was once a world leading economy.
Apples vs Oranges I say

ei.sdraob · 16-11-2010 12:51AM

BTW @ ScepticOne I have argued for the euro before, but now I think a third option could be pursues

dual-currency, pay PS/Welfare etc in local currency which must be accepted within the republic :P

It doesnt have to be an either/or choice could take the best of both worlds

hinault · 16-11-2010 12:56AM

I don't believe that Ireland can/will leave the Eurozone.

If we leave the Eurozone the cons vastly outweigh the pros, in such a move.

Citizens need to remember that our policymakers in Ireland have brought us to this present situation.
Blaming "de Lehmans" or "de EU" for our present difficulties make no sense.

We're responsible for where we find ourselves now.

SkepticOne · 16-11-2010 01:17AM

hinault wrote: »

I don't believe that Ireland can/will leave the Eurozone.

If we leave the Eurozone the cons vastly outweigh the pros, in such a move.

Citizens need to remember that our policymakers in Ireland have brought us to this present situation.
Blaming "de Lehmans" or "de EU" for our present difficulties make no sense.

We're responsible for where we find ourselves now.

Arguing to leave the Euro is not the same as blaming external factors such as Lehmans or the EU. We, after all, chose to enter the Euro. We could have opted out like Britain or Denmark, but that does not mean that it is right to stay in it forever even though it was our choice in the first place.

hinault · 16-11-2010 01:24AM

SkepticOne wrote: »

Arguing to leave the Euro is not the same as blaming external factors such as Lehmans or the EU. We, after all, chose to enter the Euro. We could have opted out like Britain or Denmark, but that does not mean that it is right to stay in it forever even though it was our choice in the first place.

As I said leaving the Euro now would present us with a lot more "cons" than "pros".

I made reference to Lehmans because there seems to be a viewpoint that we're in this current situation due to external factors.

I would contend that we're in this current situation because of our own actions primarily.

SkepticOne · 16-11-2010 01:45AM

hinault wrote: »

As I said leaving the Euro now would present us with a lot more "cons" than "pros".

I made reference to Lehmans because there seems to be a viewpoint that we're in this current situation due to external factors.

I would contend that we're in this current situation because of our own actions primarily.

I'm not disputing the fact that you have the opinion that the cons outweigh the pros. I disagree with it but you are entitled to your opinion nevertheless. My point is that unless someone brought Lehmans up in this thread the fact that some people (mainly the pro-Euro government as far as I can see) believe that Lehmans is to blame is largely irrelevant in this discussion.

hinault · 16-11-2010 02:18AM

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm not disputing the fact that you have the opinion that the cons outweigh the pros. I disagree with it but you are entitled to your opinion nevertheless. My point is that unless someone brought Lehmans up in this thread the fact that some people (mainly the pro-Euro government as far as I can see) believe that Lehmans is to blame is largely irrelevant in this discussion.

I didn't suggest that someone brought up Lehmans in this thread.

I made a general point that the decisions taken by the policymakers in this country are responsible for delivering us to where we now find ourselves.

Scofflaw · 16-11-2010 02:52AM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

BTW @ ScepticOne I have argued for the euro before, but now I think a third option could be pursues

dual-currency, pay PS/Welfare etc in local currency which must be accepted within the republic :P

It doesnt have to be an either/or choice could take the best of both worlds

The Irish renminbi!

amused,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne · 16-11-2010 10:07AM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You are trying to compare Ireland and Argentina and I am trying to tell you that the two are beyond comparison, your question is based on a false premise. For e ample we had a fairly healthy economy heading into the euro on a crest of export led boom in late 90s, Argentina on the other hand had 2-3 decades of hyperinflation (5000% some years) due to political mismanagement and money printing. Pegging to the dollar in early 90s solved the hyperinflation problem somewhat but Argentinas underlying problem wasnt hyperinflation, that was just a symptom of the chronic mismanagement of what was once a world leading economy.
Apples vs Oranges I say

Different economies but both suffered high unemployment and banking difficulties when their currency became seriously overvalued and the economy failed to adjust. I don't think Ireland entered into the Euro at the right time either (not that i would have expected the government of the time to realise this). We were at the beginnings of the property bubble and had house price growth of up to 30%. It was widely known by people that when Ireland joined interest rates would come down sharply and this further inflated the bubble.

View · 16-11-2010 10:30AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The rules can be bent, but can't be broken without legal consequences - and even the bending has been the subject of legal challenge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

It would happen through a process of renegotiation like the changes we have seen so far which would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago. If the Euro doesn't suit Ireland, then it also doesn't suit other Eurozone countries to have Ireland in the Euro.

A process of renegotiation would take months if not years. Even at the best of time, EU negotiations are slow moving.

As it is, I am not sure that a renegotiation called largely because we can't get our budget math right would be very credible.

If the other member states have to engage in a renegotiation with us on that, they might as well renegotiate Ireland's right to access the EU's internal market tariff free at the same time - that, after all, would be no more or less a tearing up of a clause of the EU Treaties as creating a special mechanism for Ireland to leave the Euro would be (since both the tariff free internal market and the Euro are stated objectives of the EU).

SkepticOne · 16-11-2010 12:50PM

View wrote: »

A process of renegotiation would take months if not years. Even at the best of time, EU negotiations are slow moving.

As it is, I am not sure that a renegotiation called largely because we can't get our budget math right would be very credible.

If the other member states have to engage in a renegotiation with us on that, they might as well renegotiate Ireland's right to access the EU's internal market tariff free at the same time - that, after all, would be no more or less a tearing up of a clause of the EU Treaties as creating a special mechanism for Ireland to leave the Euro would be (since both the tariff free internal market and the Euro are stated objectives of the EU).

I think these are fair points but I also think there's an underlying assumption in your comments that keeping Ireland in the Euro is something that the other EU member states actually want at all costs both to themselves and Ireland.

It is more likely that the large core economies want peripheral economies like Ireland in the Euro only if they can handle the fiscal discipline that that demands.

If they can't - and I think Ireland falls into this category - then it is not only in Ireland's interest to leave but also in the interests of other Eurozone countries to assist us to leave as keeping keeping us in creates instability.

Look at these bailout plans. Initially such bailouts were prohibited under EU rules. Later they were seen as a necessary evil. Now Ireland is actually under pressure to accept a bailout.

There's nothing particularly strange about the position Ireland is in. We have a pretty poor government and a history of poor governments. However our membership of a currency union means that the poor decision making of governments leads to more unemployment and business failures than would be the case if we had a floating currency.

The Euro was a noble experiment but it is time for us to realise that it was unrealistic to expect it to work simultaneously for the likes of Germany while at the same time working for Ireland and Portugal. Time to move on.

View · 16-11-2010 01:26PM

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think these are fair points but I also think there's an underlying assumption in your comments that keeping Ireland in the Euro is something that the other EU member states actually want at all costs both to themselves and Ireland.

It is an assumption based on the stated objectives of the EU (See Article 3 TEU).

Whereas your assumption is largely based on the idea that member states put clauses in the EU Treaties because they want to figure out how to breech them later...

SkepticOne wrote: »

Look at these bailout plans. Initially such bailouts were prohibited under EU rules. Later they were seen as a necessary evil. Now Ireland is actually under pressure to accept a bailout.

There is no clause which prohibits bailouts. There IS a clause which prohibits one member state taking over the debts of another member state. You are welcome to point out where this has been breeched - Given someone a loan is not taking over their debts for the record.

SkepticOne wrote: »

However our membership of a currency union means that the poor decision making of governments leads to more unemployment and business failures than would be the case if we had a floating currency.

If, of course, you ignore the evidence from the 1980's when we had much higher unemployment and business failures than we have today...

SkepticOne wrote: »

The Euro was a noble experiment but it is time for us to realise that it was unrealistic to expect it to work simultaneously for the likes of Germany while at the same time working for Ireland and Portugal. Time to move on.

Sure. Just as soon as you persuade the other member states to change the EU Treaties and get a democratic mandate from the electorate here for that in a referendum.

Based on your stated position here, I look forward to seeing you explain to the electorate why a new Irish pound could be realistically expected to work for Leitrim and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown given their clear disparate economic performances over the decades...

SkepticOne · 16-11-2010 02:48PM

View wrote: »

It is an assumption based on the stated objectives of the EU (See Article 3 TEU).

Whereas your assumption is largely based on the idea that member states put clauses in the EU Treaties because they want to figure out how to breech them later...

What the lesson with the bailout tells us is that EU rules relflect the national interests of member states at the time they were created. Once they stop being in the national interest of the more influential member states then they are either ignored or ways are thought up of getting around them. Another example would be Ireland setting up a "special purpose vehicle" as a means of getting around EU rules on state aid to banks. This was allowed by the EU because it was in the interest of certain core economies to have the Irish tax payer prop up Irish banks.

There is no clause which prohibits bailouts. There IS a clause which prohibits one member state taking over the debts of another member state. You are welcome to point out where this has been breeched - Given someone a loan is not taking over their debts for the record.

But the intent of that prohibition was that bailouts were not going to be part of the Eurozone. The prohibition was to prevent individual member states getting around that. In the end the EU itself set up a mechanism when hitherto they would have been opposed to it on principle.

If, of course, you ignore the evidence from the 1980's when we had much higher unemployment and business failures than we have today...

But Ireland did not have a fully floating currency. We were part of the ERM and in fact were forced to exit it briefly in order to devalue in the early nineties. Britain exited it and did not see the need to return.

murphaph · 16-11-2010 03:32PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not only would we be a low tax haven, we'd also be payable in 'funny money' - we'd probably wind up with a requirement that tourists coming to the country convert so many euro a day (or whatever hard currency they had) to help us fund our still-euro-denominated foreign debt. Even if the state defaulted - and the state is probably the least likely to need or want to - the banks are still holding euro-denominated debt, and so are many of our companies and citizens.

Sounds a bit like East Germany tbh. They had such rules for visitors and they got 1 Mark for 1DM!!

Leaving the Euro is simply not an option if we want to stay part of the 1st world IMO.

We just need to grow up as a nation!

murphaph · 16-11-2010 03:34PM

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is more likely that the large core economies want peripheral economies like Ireland in the Euro only if they can handle the fiscal discipline that that demands.

If they can't - and I think Ireland falls into this category - then it is not only in Ireland's interest to leave but also in the interests of other Eurozone countries to assist us to leave as keeping keeping us in creates instability.

Surely it's more in our interests to learn a bit of fiscal discipline?

SkepticOne · 16-11-2010 03:47PM

murphaph wrote: »

Surely it's more in our interests to learn a bit of fiscal discipline?

If you want to see Ireland punished to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case then I would agree with you that the a currency union is the way to go, but we must be honest with ourselves as to whether that is what we want. I don't think the majority of people opposing leaving the Euro are doing so in order that the country be punished properly for fiscal indiscipline. I could be wrong but I don't get the impression that that is the case. It is possible that they are not consciously acknowledging it though.

SkepticOne · 16-11-2010 03:57PM

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds a bit like East Germany tbh. They had such rules for visitors and they got 1 Mark for 1DM!!

Leaving the Euro is simply not an option if we want to stay part of the 1st world IMO.

We just need to grow up as a nation!

This is another not very good example for those against a floating currency. The East Germans operated a sort of currency peg with the West German mark. Officially, it was one to one with the DM as you point out. However in reality, the true exchange rate was very different and unofficially you could get several East German marks for one DM with money changers operating on the black market. They would have been far better off to allow the currency to float on the markets. Sure it would not have been worth much, but the pretence that it was worth 1 DM never did them any good.

The sort of arguments against allowing the ost mark to float would have been similar to the sorts of arguments people here might make against leaving the Euro: "Oh, the value of our savings will go down" or "Oh all our imports will get very expensive". I think we can see though that they were merely deluding themselves just as we are if we think the value of our wealth lies in the value of our currency.

The truth is that we are wealthy (or not) not because of the currency we use but because our businesses are capable of exporting goods and services abroad and bringing wealth into the country in exchange.

K-9 · 16-11-2010 04:03PM

SkepticOne wrote: »

If you want to see Ireland punished to a greater extent than would otherwise be the case then I would agree with you that the a currency union is the way to go, but we must be honest with ourselves as to whether that is what we want. I don't think the majority of people opposing leaving the Euro are doing so in order that the country be punished properly for fiscal indiscipline. I could be wrong but I don't get the impression that that is the case. It is possible that they are not consciously acknowledging it though.

Well, did our last devaluation work?

Devaluing is a short term measure. Staying in the Euro and seriously addressing competitiveness is the way to go in that regard. We already have improved it in the last 2 years, more needs to be done.

murphy93 · 16-11-2010 04:59PM

Oh no please stick with the Euro hate the thought of all those again

caseyann · 16-11-2010 07:08PM

hinault wrote: »

I don't believe that Ireland can/will leave the Eurozone.

If we leave the Eurozone the cons vastly outweigh the pros, in such a move.

Citizens need to remember that our policymakers in Ireland have brought us to this present situation.
Blaming "de Lehmans" or "de EU" for our present difficulties make no sense.

We're responsible for where we find ourselves now.

Can i just say first off,you contradict yourself.First you say our policy makers have brought us to our present situation.And then you say we are responsible for where we find ourselves now.

Possibly the people who voted Fianna fail are at fault for the countries economic crisis,but only to the amount of trusting the people who were meant to be looking out for the public and the countries best interests.And they hid it well with the smoke screen of plenty of jobs and false money.
So the people arent to blame at all,but the people who falsified and used promises that were not even available and took advantage of the name of Fianna fail.
First off i was against and have been all along the euro acceptance,on top of that i was also completely opposed to Fianna fail two elections ago.It was in the air you could smell the failure and the lies and the back handers and the false wealth in Éire.
I would say if we left the euro currency it would not make one bit of a difference to current climate,and we would have to build it back up as we have to with the euro,only difference is we could make the Irish punt worth more if the people and or establishments worked at it.And then we wouldnt be caught in such a conundrum,like the voting yes to the treaty made no difference to the countries economy.Even though they said it would,and then retracted the statement when it was voted in.
Been sold lies all along is what the Irish have been and other EU members,and people are still chewing it up.
Concocting of false fears and possibilities is what they do best,time to listen to the facts and see whats happening right in front of your eyes.

There is no pros and cons as either way the country needs to be fixed and there is a big hole to be dug out of.
I am for one against keeping the euro,and have always thought the currency been the same in so many countries devalues it and makes the markets to close together for proper profits.

caseyann · 16-11-2010 07:11PM

murphy93 wrote: »

Oh no please stick with the Euro hate the thought of all those again

All what?:p

Leaving the €uro: Pros & Cons?

Comments