nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why are the British so anti Europe?

thechanger

And I'm not simply referring to just Daily Mail readers. I've noticed quite an anti Europe trend on more liberal papers like the Guardian recently.

I'm guessing the average man on the street couldn't explain the whole euro economic situation to a kid, so why do they want to leave the EU so badly?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

later12

Read the thread.

It's clear that the thread began by focusing on the summit that saw Britain veto an EU treaty which was potentially harmful to its own economic and commercial interests.

General scepticism towards the European Union is another issue entirely, and is far more complex than the pretty straightforward, and perfectly legitimate, scepticism that many British politicians have towards EMU.

The Corinthian

later12 wrote: »

Read the thread.

I have and I disagree with you. While triggered by current affairs the question for discussion is clearly not tied to those and this was reflected in the responses almost immediately - indeed, read the title of the thread.

General scepticism towards the European Union is another issue entirely

It's another issue if we redefine the debate according to your definition.

francois

trendyvicar wrote: »

Why do Irish posters like The Guardian so much? It's practically the only UK paper quoted on Irish forums. It's a figure of ridicule in The UK.

it is one of the most visited news sites on the web

later12

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have and I disagree with you. While triggered by current affairs the question for discussion is clearly not tied to those and this was reflected in the responses almost immediately - indeed, read the title of the thread.

It's another issue if we redefine the debate according to your definition.

In fairness I'm not expecting you to come out of whatever trench you're sitting in so lets leave it there shall we.

The Corinthian

later12 wrote: »

In fairness I'm not expecting you to come out of whatever trench you're sitting in so lets leave it there shall we.

I'd say the same of you, so fine.

BettyM

Its curious why you imagine I have said things which I have never said.

It seems to me that many people in most countries are considerably more sceptical to the EU than has been the case previously. The UK has always been more openly questioning to the EU than has been the case in other countries, although to imply that it is not good to question seems an unusually unintelligent stance. If only Ireland had questioned to the same degree, and had not joined the disasterous Euro, the country would be likely to be in a much better situation than it is now.

Latchy

The British have never taken kindly to the EU ( Brussels ) telling them how to do things ie, '' your pastries should be 2 metres shorter then they are'' and they sure as hell don't like the Europen court of human rights blocking every move they make with regards to immigrant control and getting shot of the likes of Abu Qatada .

BettyM

Latchy wrote: »

The British have never taken kindly to the EU ( Brussels ) telling them how to do things ie, '' your pastries should be 2 metres shorter then they are'' and they sure as hell don't like the Europen court of human rights blocking every move they make with regards to immigrant control and getting shot of the likes of Abu Qatada .

Are you making the assumption that because both the EU and the European Court of Human Rights both have the word "European" that the European Court of Human rights is an EU institution? I know many get confused by that, but the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution.

The Corinthian

The thread asks "why are the British so anti Europe?" Recent history may have increased it, but that is not why they are "so anti Europe".

They are not eurosceptic because they are 'vindicated' by current events or because there is an increase in eurosceptism elsewhere. They were demonstrably eurosceptic long before this as has already been discussed here.

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of trying to claim that recent history has caused this attitude is supposed to prove. That they were right all along? Maybe, but the jury's still out on that one and it wasn't the question. That they were pro Europe up until recent history? Well, that's a major porkie.

Is there another reason why this line of argument is important to some?

McDave

BettyM wrote: »

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. Just because the UK, for example, forsaw the problems with the Euro and decided not to join it doesn't mean they are anti-EU. They are anti bad decisions, and it seems they must be rejoicing daily at their correct decision to have nothing to do with the Euro.

When the original EEC was being considered the UK was invited to participate. In the event, the UK set up an alternative arrangement with Austria and some Scandinavian countries - EFTA.

As the EEC became more successful, enthusiasm for EFTA dwindled. Key members including the UK jumped ship, but not until after finally overcoming French objections.

Despite the clause on 'ever closer union' the UK has pretty much objected to most further developments of the EEC-EC-EU. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, Thatcher took the opportunity to push for a rapid widening of membership, with the intention of diluting the EU. France and Germany had to settle for a deal on parallel 'deepening' of competences which resulted in the notoriously half-assed Maastricht criteria.

When Bush decided to invade Iraq, Blair lost an opportunity to coordinate foreign policy with the likes of Germany and France, and showed Britain's true leanings by sticking with the 'special relationship' over EU relations.

Then we had David Cameron's refusal to back the idea of a fiscal compact within the EU treaties.

The UK may as well have decided to stay out of the EEC. Their reasons for joining seem at best to have been ambivalent. But from the POV of the continental EU drivers, at every hand's turn the UK has played an essentially obstructionist role. The outcome has been the Lisbon treaty with its establishment of a framework for common policies which only require a core of participation.

I think if you look back over the history of the EU, it's fairly plain to see that the UK is still primarily motivated by its age old policy of divide and conquer the continental powers. The main problem is that this is a primarily negative policy. Whether one accepts or not that the UK is anti-EU/Europe, that's the perception, and the EU has evolved new rules to deal with obstructionism.

The Corinthian

McDave wrote: »

The UK may as well have decided to stay out of the EEC. Their reasons for joining seem at best to have been ambivalent. But from the POV of the continental EU drivers, at every hand's turn the UK has played an essentially obstructionist role.

Luigi Barzini did an analysis of British attitudes towards Europe in is 1983 book 'The Europeans' which mirrors much of what you've written. There's practical economic and political benefits to being in the EEC/EC/EU, but they never liked the longer term agenda, which is why they tried EFTA, and failed. Suspicion of 'foreigners', in particular French and Germans, the Special Relationship with the US and a retention to past Imperial glory has probably all contributed to this.

An old friend of mine was involved in the negotiations between the Frankfurt and London exchanges, back when it was proposed they should merge. According to her it was doomed to failure, because largely on her (UK) side the level of xenophobic mistrust was such that there would never be any agreement between the two.

As I suggested earlier, the events around Suez were probably a major turning point for both Britain and France where it came to Europe, and ultimately set policy for decades to come.

BettyM

McDave wrote: »

When the original EEC was being considered the UK was invited to participate. In the event, the UK set up an alternative arrangement with Austria and some Scandinavian countries - EFTA.

As the EEC became more successful, enthusiasm for EFTA dwindled. Key members including the UK jumped ship, but not until after finally overcoming French objections.

Despite the clause on 'ever closer union' the UK has pretty much objected to most further developments of the EEC-EC-EU. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, Thatcher took the opportunity to push for a rapid widening of membership, with the intention of diluting the EU. France and Germany had to settle for a deal on parallel 'deepening' of competences which resulted in the notoriously half-assed Maastricht criteria.

When Bush decided to invade Iraq, Blair lost an opportunity to coordinate foreign policy with the likes of Germany and France, and showed Britain's true leanings by sticking with the 'special relationship' over EU relations.

Then we had David Cameron's refusal to back the idea of a fiscal compact within the EU treaties.

The UK may as well have decided to stay out of the EEC. Their reasons for joining seem at best to have been ambivalent. But from the POV of the continental EU drivers, at every hand's turn the UK has played an essentially obstructionist role. The outcome has been the Lisbon treaty with its establishment of a framework for common policies which only require a core of participation.

I think if you look back over the history of the EU, it's fairly plain to see that the UK is still primarily motivated by its age old policy of divide and conquer the continental powers. The main problem is that this is a primarily negative policy. Whether one accepts or not that the UK is anti-EU/Europe, that's the perception, and the EU has evolved new rules to deal with obstructionism.

To be fair theh UK was missold the EU by Ted Heath who hid from then the objectives of political and economic union. Had this been spelled out by Heath, he thought it likely the UK would not vote to join what was called the "common market". Even the name "Common Market" was intended to deceive.

The term "anti-Europe" is another term which is designed to be emotive even if it doesn't bear scrutiny. The facts are the UK has been a member of what is now the EU for many years, and the fact is that they are amongst the biggest contributors when ti comes to funding the EU ( the second biggest I think). All of which doesn't support the proposition that the Uk is "anti-Europe".

Certainly the UK are more sceptical than the Irish, although the only intelligent position to take is to be sceptical, to take each issue on its merits, and make a decision.

The alternative is not a very intelligent positiion, which is to just keep saying "yes" to anything which is proposed, whether it be good, bad or indifferent. More or less in roundabout terms, that has been Irelands position, and was Irelands position to the Euro.

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

Does Ireland learn and lessons from that decision? Apparantly not, as now Ireland is facing another decision to hand over yet more powers to the EU, and the main argument seems to be "we have to be nice to them and do what they want in order for them to keep funding us for the next few years".

In the UK, were it voting on the same issue, the argument would be about giving up soverignty to unelected officials, and the short term financial problems would be seen for what they are - short term. In Ireland, no politicians seem to care about anything other than the short term, and no irish politicians make great speeches about anything other than giving muted messages about how we have no choice but to give in to the blackmail emanating from the EU.

Certainly the UK takes a more sceptical look at what the EU proposes, and if only Ireland had done the same then it is a virtual certainty that Ireland would not be in the problems it is in today.

Perhaps many of the attitudes in Ireland stem from the attitude that anything "D'Inglish" do must be bad, but the evidence seems to suggest, on the EU, they seem to have outsmarted the irish, who have sold their souls to the EU for a price which has yet to be calculated or realised.

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

To be fair theh UK was missold the EU by Ted Heath who hid from then the objectives of political and economic union. Had this been spelled out by Heath, he thought it likely the UK would not vote to join what was called the "common market". Even the name "Common Market" was intended to deceive.

I would agree with this. Heath did sell it as a 'common market' even though the long term plan was always quite different and no one really made a secret of it. His dilemma was that Britain could not afford to be outside of such an economic bloc, yet at the same time did not like the long term agenda - that's why they founded EFTA as an alternative in the first place and EEC membership was only considered after this failed.

Certainly the UK are more sceptical than the Irish, although the only intelligent position to take is to be sceptical, to take each issue on its merits, and make a decision.

The only intelligent position to take is to be sceptical, but only in the interests of objectivity. Britain's position has long been sceptical not because it wishes to be objective, but because it chose to do so to keep Europe at arms length from the onset.

This is best exemplified by her strategy when the treaty of Rome was originally being negotiated; she sent diplomats to take part, but instructed them not to sign up to anything before anything had even been discussed. That's not scepticism for the sake of being objective, but essentially a foregone conclusion, irrespective of the merits of what is discussed and that too is not a very intelligent position.

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

That is factually completely false. One may argue that membership of the Euro precluded our use of monetary tools, but Ireland's woes do not actually stem from the Euro and it is delusional to suggest they do.

Ireland was hit by a double whammy; a property bubble that would have plunged us into recession regardless if we were buying overvalued houses in Euro or Punt and a credit crisis that has affected the whole World. Membership of the Euro in many respects is irrelevant because its going to effect Britain too despite it not being in the Euro. So what you are arguing is completely false.

In the UK, were it voting on the same issue, the argument would be about giving up soverignty to unelected officials, and the short term financial problems would be seen for what they are - short term.

Unfortunately the debate would be quickly coloured by xenophobic rhetoric, regardless of short or long term considerations.

I was having a beer and watching the match with an Englishman yesterday evening and he confessed to me when Bayern-Munich lost to Chelsea that one gets a little bit of of pleasure still from seeing the Germans suffer.

And while most nations have their pet dislikes of others, it is far more stark and all encompassing in Britain. Wherever this originated historically in the British psyche, the reality is that it is there, it is engrained and it is likely to determine every policy that Britain will have with the rest of Europe, just as has in the past.

Certainly the UK takes a more sceptical look at what the EU proposes, and if only Ireland had done the same then it is a virtual certainty that Ireland would not be in the problems it is in today.

Which of course is nonsense, as I've already pointed out. The only possible argument might be that control of monetary policy may have alleviated much of the pain, but in reality this is very, very doubtful.

Perhaps many of the attitudes in Ireland stem from the attitude that anything "D'Inglish" do must be bad, but the evidence seems to suggest, on the EU, they seem to have outsmarted the irish, who have sold their souls to the EU for a price which has yet to be calculated or realised.

In many other cases, I would likely agree with you, but not here. It is simply that Ireland does not have the same degree of 'little islander' mentality that is prevalent in Britain.

Indeed, I find it ironic that you would ignore this part of the British identity and paint her reasoning as some form of objective scepticism, while accusing others of being ruled by their prejudices. Ah sure, we're only drunk little Paddies anyway...

golden lane

the uk stance on eu membership is simple......business is for it, most politicians are for it, most institutions are for it..........

the ordinary person in the street is mostly against it...............they think they have lost control of their everyday life and their future...........
and are paying too high a price to be a member.........

The Corinthian

golden lane wrote: »

the ordinary person in the street is mostly against it...............they think they have lost control of their everyday life and their future...........
and are paying too high a price to be a member.........

What price are they paying to be a member exactly that is too high, where "they have lost control of their everyday life"?

I don't mean simply some future fear of a United States of Europe, but given you've framed this loss in the present tense, you must be able to point to some fundamental loss of control.

Because from what I can see, most if not all of the controls on British "everyday life" (loss of privacy, lack of freedom of information, increased surveillance, etc) are coming from Westminster, not Brussels.

golden lane

The Corinthian wrote: »

What price are they paying to be a member exactly that is too high, where "they have lost control of their everyday life"?

I don't mean simply some future fear of a United States of Europe, but given you've framed this loss in the present tense, you must be able to point to some fundamental loss of control.

Because from what I can see, most if not all of the controls on British "everyday life" (loss of privacy, lack of freedom of information, increased surveillance, etc) are coming from Westminster, not Brussels.

read what i said............

and don't reply with an anti british diatribe........please

The Corinthian

golden lane wrote: »

read what i said............

and don't reply with an anti british diatribe........please

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

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

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

BettyM

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is factually completely false. One may argue that membership of the Euro precluded our use of monetary tools, but Ireland's woes do not actually stem from the Euro and it is delusional to suggest they do.

Ireland was hit by a double whammy; a property bubble that would have plunged us into recession regardless if we were buying overvalued houses in Euro or Punt and a credit crisis that has affected the whole World. Membership of the Euro in many respects is irrelevant because its going to effect Britain too despite it not being in the Euro. So what you are arguing is completely false.

.

Calling someone else names such as "delusional" isn't really much of an argument.

If you judge that the property bubble in ireland ( and in Spain) had no connection to the Euiro, thats your judgment. Other economic commentators judge it ratehr differently, and point out that the property buubble was caused by an influx of cheap money where the interest rate was outside the control of Ireland. If Ireland had the Punt, the Irish government could, and in the pasts governemnts frequently did, use interest rates to make a correction early on. It was the fact that the interest rates were kept so low for so long ( which was outside irealnds control) coupled with an influx of Euros from French and German banks, which was the catalyst which fuelled the property bubble.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunately the debate would be quickly coloured by xenophobic rhetoric, regardless of short or long term considerations.

I was having a beer and watching the match with an Englishman yesterday evening and he confessed to me when Bayern-Munich lost to Chelsea that one gets a little bit of of pleasure still from seeing the Germans suffer.

And while most nations have their pet dislikes of others, it is far more stark and all encompassing in Britain. Wherever this originated historically in the British psyche, the reality is that it is there, it is engrained and it is likely to determine every policy that Britain will have with the rest of Europe, just as has in the past.

Which of course is nonsense, as I've already pointed out. The only possible argument might be that control of monetary policy may have alleviated much of the pain, but in reality this is very, very doubtful.

In many other cases, I would likely agree with you, but not here. It is simply that Ireland does not have the same degree of 'little islander' mentality that is prevalent in Britain.

Indeed, I find it ironic that you would ignore this part of the British identity and paint her reasoning as some form of objective scepticism, while accusing others of being ruled by their prejudices. Ah sure, we're only drunk little Paddies anyway...

I am not really qualified to judge which country has the greater "little islander" mentality, and even if I was its of little relevance to the argument. As someone who lives in both the UK and Ireland, I judge both countries have a wide spectrum of opinions, and I also recognise there is a thread which runs through Ireland about "D'inglish". Personally, I love both countries and feel privilaged to live in both.

mike65

If the British are Anti Europe its because of things like Greece and the Euro, everyone knew and they looked the other way as it didn't suit the politics of the project.

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

If Ireland had the Punt, the Irish government could, and in the pasts governemnts frequently did, use interest rates to make a correction early on. It was the fact that the interest rates were kept so low for so long ( which was outside irealnds control) coupled with an influx of Euros from French and German banks, which was the catalyst which fuelled the property bubble.

If Ireland had the Punt, the Irish government could, and in the pasts governemnts frequently did, use interest rates to make a correction early on - but we wouldn't have. Why? Because we still had fiscal tools to make a correction too and we didn't use them either, so ultimately it made no difference if we were in the Euro or not.

I am not really qualified to judge which country has the greater "little islander" mentality, and even if I was its of little relevance to the argument. As someone who lives in both the UK and Ireland, I judge both countries have a wide spectrum of opinions, and I also recognise there is a thread which runs through Ireland about "D'inglish". Personally, I love both countries and feel privilaged to live in both.

Yet while you can recognise a thread which runs through Ireland about "D'inglish" yet are completely blind to a thread which runs through Britian about "Europeans", despite it being well documented even in popular media:

I don't remember ever seeing anything like this with regards to "D'inglish" in the Irish media - do you? Yet somehow for you British attitudes are rationally sceptical and Irish ones are instead tainted by prejudice. Go figure.

The Corinthian

mike65 wrote: »

If the British are Anti Europe its because of things like Greece and the Euro, everyone knew and they looked the other way as it didn't suit the politics of the project.

So why were they anti-Europe before Greece and the Euro?

BettyM

The Corinthian wrote: »

If Ireland had the Punt, the Irish government could, and in the pasts governemnts frequently did, use interest rates to make a correction early on - but we wouldn't have. Why? Because we still had fiscal tools to make a correction too and we didn't use them either, so ultimately it made no difference if we were in the Euro or not.

If you really believe that it made no difference that Ireland were in the Euro, then we disagree. I don't understand the argument that the irish government in the past had very snesibly used interest rates to head off this problem, but if they had the punt this time they would not have used interest rates.

I prefer to deal in facts and not in speculation, and the fact is that the tool used by governments all over the world to head off this very problem, and used by Irish governments in the past, was not available to be used.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I

Yet while you can recognise a thread which runs through Ireland about "D'inglish" yet are completely blind to a thread which runs through Britian about "Europeans", despite it being well documented even in popular media:

I don't remember ever seeing anything like this with regards to "D'inglish" in the Irish media - do you? Yet somehow for you British attitudes are rationally sceptical and Irish ones are instead tainted by prejudice. Go figure.

I am not interested in entering some sort of competition to see which of us can come up with more and more examples. Of course there are elements in the UK who are more extreme than others, just as there are in Ireland. If you think the Sun Newspaper is representative of the British people as a whole, then thats a judgment you'll have to make up your own mind on.

For me, I am very glad that the UK did not enter the disaster which the Euro has become, as I earn part of my income in sterling. I judge that it's better to be sceptical and judge each issue on its merits, rather than being "pro-european" especially if that means that logic and sense must be cast asid, and the issue ben seen almost as an article or faith as it was in the case of joining the Euro, the results of which can be seen today.

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

If you really believe that it made no difference that Ireland were in the Euro, then we disagree. I don't understand the argument that the irish government in the past had very snesibly used interest rates to head off this problem, but if they had the punt this time they would not have used interest rates.

The point is they still had numerous fiscal means to "head off this problem" and didn't - indeed Ahern famously derided those prophets of doom who even suggested there was a problem to head off. As such, even had the government monetary tools to employ, it is clear it would not have done so, just as it did not with the fiscal ones.

I prefer to deal in facts and not in speculation, and the fact is that the tool used by governments all over the world to head off this very problem, and used by Irish governments in the past, was not available to be used.

But you are dealing in speculation - that they would have used this tool. The facts point to the Irish government having no interest at the time in doing so, thus your theory simply does not stand up to examination.

I am not interested in entering some sort of competition to see which of us can come up with more and more examples.

Fine then, no one need back up their opinions then for fear that it would become a 'competition'...

Of course there are elements in the UK who are more extreme than others, just as there are in Ireland.

Are they in the mainstream then? If so, let us know where? Which newspapaer or publication?

For me, I am very glad that the UK did not enter the disaster which the Euro has become, as I earn part of my income in sterling. I judge that it's better to be sceptical and judge each issue on its merits, rather than being "pro-european" especially if that means that logic and sense must be cast asid, and the issue ben seen almost as an article or faith as it was in the case of joining the Euro, the results of which can be seen today.

Yet ironically, that is precisely what you're doing but with the opposite conclusions.

steve9859

The Corinthian wrote: »

So why were they anti-Europe before Greece and the Euro?

Why does it bother you so much that the English are, in your view, 'anti Europe'? I don't see why the English not wanting to be part of the party should upset anyone in Ireland....

Scofflaw

BettyM wrote: »

If you really believe that it made no difference that Ireland were in the Euro, then we disagree. I don't understand the argument that the irish government in the past had very snesibly used interest rates to head off this problem, but if they had the punt this time they would not have used interest rates.

I prefer to deal in facts and not in speculation, and the fact is that the tool used by governments all over the world to head off this very problem, and used by Irish governments in the past, was not available to be used.

Out of interest, when exactly was it used this way in the past? Interest rates in 1982 were 16.25%, but that wasn't being done to head off a boom!

And a little historical point:

Year|Interest Rates|House Price Change
1997|6.90%|12.97%
1998|5.85%|16.25%
1999|5.60%|28.24%
2000|6.09%|19.13%
2001|6.09%|19.08%
2002|4.70%|3.02%
2003|4.20%|14.66%
2004|3.49%|12.83%
2005|3.65%|7.57%
2006|4.86%|12.35%
2007|5.46%|7.42%
2008|5.86%|-8.41%
2009|4.16%|-11.00%
2010|4.02%|-18.87%
2011|4.39%|-13.20%

The biggest rises were, in fact, pre-euro, when we had the ability to control interest rates.

BettyM wrote: »

I am not interested in entering some sort of competition to see which of us can come up with more and more examples. Of course there are elements in the UK who are more extreme than others, just as there are in Ireland. If you think the Sun Newspaper is representative of the British people as a whole, then thats a judgment you'll have to make up your own mind on.

For me, I am very glad that the UK did not enter the disaster which the Euro has become, as I earn part of my income in sterling. I judge that it's better to be sceptical and judge each issue on its merits, rather than being "pro-european" especially if that means that logic and sense must be cast asid, and the issue ben seen almost as an article or faith as it was in the case of joining the Euro, the results of which can be seen today.

It has become an article of faith in some quarters that the proble with the eurozone is the euro...well, all right, not all the eurozone obviously...or even a majority of it. And that countries that aren't in the euro are therefore - given the problem is obviously the euro - OK, except of course for the US, and the UK, and Iceland, and Australia, and Denmark, and so on.

To put it another way, there isn't - despite the popularity of the phrase - a "eurozone recession", or even "eurozone crisis" in the economic sense. There is a global recession, and a global crisis, and there is a specific eurozone response, mostly the fun of watching the eurozone countries try to put in place the coordinated and common response to the crisis that they should presumably have, and should have put in place at least a decade ago, given they have a common currency.

And control over interest rates, or the ability to run the printing presses, which seems to have saved neither the US nor the UK, nor indeed Iceland, from either banking failures or recession, is a very blunt tool. Macro-prudential regulation of the banking sector, and adapting fiscal policies positively to the existence of a common currency, rather than looking at it as a way to avoid responsibility, would have made much more difference than the ability to set interest rates, which would have had the effect of dampening business growth at the same time and to the same degree as it dampened mortgage growth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

steve9859 wrote: »

Why does it bother you so much that the English are, in your view, 'anti Europe'? I don't see why the English not wanting to be part of the party should upset anyone in Ireland....

Unless you hadn't noticed, the topic of the thread is "why are the British so anti Europe?"

Certainly the possibility of the UK leaving the EU should be of concern to Ireland though. While we are no longer as overwhelmingly economically tied to the UK as we once were, it does remain our single largest trading partner (although the Eurozone aggregately accounts for more) and the scenario where it would be out of the bloc would naturally cause Ireland complications.

It still also exerts political influence on us also; for example, the principle (perhaps only) reason we did not sign up to the Schengen Agreement was because the UK didn't and we wanted to retain a passport free border with NI.

So why the UK is so 'anti-Europe' is a perfectly reasonable topic of discussion, especially as some appear to be under the delusion that it is due to the recent economic crisis, when the reality is that this can clearly be demonstrated to have been present long before.

BettyM

The Corinthian wrote: »

The point is they still had numerous fiscal means to "head off this problem" and didn't - indeed Ahern famously derided those prophets of doom who even suggested there was a problem to head off. As such, even had the government monetary tools to employ, it is clear it would not have done so, just as it did not with the fiscal ones.

But you are dealing in speculation - that they would have used this tool. The facts point to the Irish government having no interest at the time in doing so, thus your theory simply does not stand up to examination.

Fine then, no one need back up their opinions then for fear that it would become a 'competition'...

Are they in the mainstream then? If so, let us know where? Which newspapaer or publication?

Yet ironically, that is precisely what you're doing but with the opposite conclusions.

I'm afraid I have to agree when I observe that political leadership in ireland has been lamentable, and in the past 20 years or so the politicians ceased to care and just became actors, playing out a role but having no ideas or policies other than the policy to get themselves reelected at the next election.

The key policy to stop over lending and over borrowing is control over the interest rate being charged. The fact is that Ireland gave up control over its own interest rates. That was less of a problem when Ireland was part of Sterling, because the two economies were inextricably linked. the correct interest rate for Germany or Norway is not the correct interest rate for Ireland, or Spain or Greece, hence we see the problems we do today.

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

The Euro has become the cancer which is destroying individual countries around Europe, and the solution seems to be to save the cancer and kill the patient. I am thankful the UK looked at the Euro and decided not to be part of it judging that the very mess we see now would result, and not wanting to be tied into a currency which was set on implosion.

K-9

BettyM wrote: »

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

We could a been Iceland!

timbyr

BettyM wrote: »

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

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

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

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

I'm afraid I have to agree when I observe that political leadership in ireland has been lamentable, and in the past 20 years or so the politicians ceased to care and just became actors, playing out a role but having no ideas or policies other than the policy to get themselves reelected at the next election.

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

The key policy to stop over lending and over borrowing is control over the interest rate being charged. The fact is that Ireland gave up control over its own interest rates.

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

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

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

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

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