Why are the British so anti Europe?

Scofflaw · 09-01-2013 05:39PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Using the current crisis to browbeat countries into giving up further sovereignty is a recipe for disaster and especially when the crisis is being described wrongly as a Sovereign debt crisis, instead of the Private and Central Banking crisis that it actually is.

The ECB has already used soverign nations to launder money to needy Privately owned EU banks, while leaving ordinary citizens of Europe to pick up the cost.

Monetary policy is key to solving the crisis caused by Banks and regulators and that leaves the key decision making power in Europe with an unelected body.

A body who were at the heart of the causation of the crisis have now been handed the almost free role in solving it.

The lack of objectivity this will allow, will obviously lead to a concentration on the cover up, rather than a solution.

Right at the minute, we have a puppet Govt, run by a Union in name only ( really just a bunch of self interests ) and with the key decision making powers in the hands of those responsible for the crisis in the first place.

Not really a recipe for success.

OK, to come to those conclusions one needs to ignore the fact that the Member States run the EU, and not the other way round. They are the ones deciding that further integration is the solution - the exact degree varies, but with the exception of the UK, they pretty much all feel that way. So there is no EU "using the crisis to browbeat countries into giving up further sovereignty" - on the contrary, the EU has been largely sidelined during the crisis, apart from the ECB.

And the ECB is not the problem with the euro - its role as a stumbling block has arisen by virtue of its unwillingness to go beyond its remit and authority in ways that might be helpful in solving the crisis. Again, that remit is that given it by the agreement of the Member States. Nor has the ECB "laundered money to needy privately owned banks" - the ECB is not the source of any of the various bailout loans given to EU states that need them. Those loans are raised by other Member States, and, again, the idea that money from one Member State should be simply given to another, which you seem to be advocating, is a federal one well beyond the level of union the Member States wish the EU to be at.

Given your claim that "a body who were at the heart of the causation of the crisis have now been handed the almost free role in solving it" rests on these foundations of misinterpretation, it doesn't seem worth addressing separately. The EU has had a variety of failures in its supervisory roles, but by and large these failures have been agreed by the Member States to be deficiencies in the way they chose to allow the EU supervise them, generally by limiting the powers of the EU and making them reliant on national regulators, which is why further integration is the preferred solution to those issues. The powers that the EU is being given in respect of these supervisory roles are, however, once again being watered down to the point where they will be unlikely to prevent further crises - but that is, once again, the choice of the Member States.

regards,
Scofflaw

NAP123 · 09-01-2013 06:54PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Do explain how the EU is responsible for the mess that Ireland is in.

Around 2002 in Lisbon the EU decided to relax Financial Regulations in correspondence to what was happening in the U.S.

Added to the balls up made of monetary Union, this was in large part responsible for the Financial and Banking crisis that occurred in 2008.

In 2010 the already doomed and wholly useless FF Govt were forced by the ECB to extend the ridiculous and in my opinion unlawful bank guarantee, causing our sovereign bond rates to rocket and forcing us to seek loans from a troika who themselves have admitted have subjected us to over the top terms of austerity.

In fact, considering the interest rates first applied to the reparations terms, one could seriously argue that the intention of " our partners " in the EU, was to punish us rather than help us.

And before I get the serial nonsense spouted about our deficit without the banking debt, I refer to ones abilities to deal with a deficit without having access to monetary independence.

Being trapped inside the euro and being under the control of the ECB and at the same time being forced to dance to the tune of the German Bundestag, does not help, when having to deal with our deficit.

View · 09-01-2013 07:33PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

on the other, you're talking like a full-blooded federalist.

He isn't talking like a federalist as the individual states/cantons/lands in a federation usually hold their elections on differing days just like the member states of the EU do.

Rather his vision seems to be some sort of over-centralized vision of how a "Perfect Union" should operate - it is almost like an Imperialistic view of how the EU "should" operate. A straw man created to be knocked down in other words.

Personally, I suspect the member states will muddle on quite happily with an imperfect Union for some time to come - we have never needed a "Perfect Ireland", why should we need a "Perfect Union"?

NAP123 · 09-01-2013 10:54PM

View wrote: »

He isn't talking like a federalist as the individual states/cantons/lands in a federation usually hold their elections on differing days just like the member states of the EU do.

Rather his vision seems to be some sort of over-centralized vision of how a "Perfect Union" should operate - it is almost like an Imperialistic view of how the EU "should" operate. A straw man created to be knocked down in other words.

Personally, I suspect the member states will muddle on quite happily with an imperfect Union for some time to come - we have never needed a "Perfect Ireland", why should we need a "Perfect Union"?

Of course you would prefer that we change our Govt in February 2011, but have to wait for Elections in Germany in September 2013 before we can expect a solution to our woes.

You europhiles are quite amazing really.

McDave · 10-01-2013 11:49AM

It seems the US wants Britain to tone down the anti-EU thing and keep their hand in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/09/us-warns-uk-european-union

I guess we can expect Cameron will probably allow the anti-EU camp to peak before getting his own campaign going. Dangerous game really. But when British voters become overfamiliar with the likes of Farage and their negative populism, their appeal will start to wane. The settling if the EZ crisis will also put the EU in a better light. So it'll all be about timing in the end.

McDave · 10-01-2013 11:56AM

NAP123 wrote: »

And before I get the serial nonsense spouted about our deficit without the banking debt, I refer to ones abilities to deal with a deficit without having access to monetary independence.

Being trapped inside the euro and being under the control of the ECB and at the same time being forced to dance to the tune of the German Bundestag, does not help, when having to deal with our deficit.

The best way to deal with debt is actually not to run it up in the first place, something we spectacularly messed up during our exercise of our national sovereignty. When we had our hand on the regulatory levers we did nothing. And we used out tax policy to overstimulate the wrong parts of our economy.

Being in the Euro had little to do with it. There are countries currently in the Euro which didn't experience our problems. Nope, it was down to us, and we mishandled our own levers of power.

View · 10-01-2013 12:06PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Of course you would prefer that we change our Govt in February 2011, but have to wait for Elections in Germany in September 2013 before we can expect a solution to our woes.

You europhiles are quite amazing really.

Well, while it is certainly true that the SPD have advocated a slightly different approach to the CDU, the results of the election there are unlikely to result in a significant impact on the Oireachtas' decisions.

Angela Merkel doesn't spend her time at European Council meetings insisting that Enda Kenny continues to spend circa €1.4 billion of newly-borrowed money a month on hospitals, schools & social welfare in Mayo and our other counties while he futilely demands to be allowed to close them down and/or halt such spending.

You do realise that, don't you?

NAP123 · 10-01-2013 12:54PM

McDave wrote: »

The best way to deal with debt is actually not to run it up in the first place, something we spectacularly messed up during our exercise of our national sovereignty. When we had our hand on the regulatory levers we did nothing. And we used out tax policy to overstimulate the wrong parts of our economy.

Being in the Euro had little to do with it. There are countries currently in the Euro which didn't experience our problems. Nope, it was down to us, and we mishandled our own levers of power.

Every country in Europe has a massive banking problem. Our gangster Govt were just foolish enough to guarantee private bank debt.

The ECB have succeeded in laundering money to French, Dutch, German and Austrian Banks, thus far, but it still only hides the fact that most of them are actually insolvent without major cash injections from the ECB and the FED.

Unlike you I believe that Ireland is capable of running its own affairs and I am in no rush to be led by a grouping of states with no actual care, never mind gra for Ireland and its citizens.

NAP123 · 10-01-2013 12:57PM

View wrote: »

Well, while it is certainly true that the SPD have advocated a slightly different approach to the CDU, the results of the election there are unlikely to result in a significant impact on the Oireachtas' decisions.

Angela Merkel doesn't spend her time at European Council meetings insisting that Enda Kenny continues to spend circa €1.4 billion of newly-borrowed money a month on hospitals, schools & social welfare in Mayo and our other counties while he futilely demands to be allowed to close them down and/or halt such spending.

You do realise that, don't you?

So you think we should be closing down hospitals and schools and cutting social welfare, instead of refusing to pump 67 billion into an insolvent banking system?

View · 10-01-2013 01:43PM

NAP123 wrote: »

So you think we should be closing down hospitals and schools and cutting social welfare, instead of refusing to pump 67 billion into an insolvent banking system?

The Oireachtas has already pumped the money into the banking system. It is a done deed however much you may like or not.

The reason we are NOT "closing down hospitals and schools and cutting social welfare" is because we have chosen and are continuing to choose to borrow massive quantities of money instead (or to raise taxes to cover the state's income-expenditure gap), not because we are being forced to do so.

"Running your own affairs" whether as a state of some future European Federation or as an isolationist "We won't ever be a member of the EU" state involves dealing with precisely such problems - not pretending someone is forcing you to overspend your budget more than 5 years after the problem started to first seriously emerge.

oscarBravo · 10-01-2013 02:16PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Our gangster Govt were... foolish enough to guarantee private bank debt.

[...]

Unlike you I believe that Ireland is capable of running its own affairs...

Uh huh.

NAP123 · 10-01-2013 02:35PM

View wrote: »

The Oireachtas has already pumped the money into the banking system. It is a done deed however much you may like or not.

The reason we are NOT "closing down hospitals and schools and cutting social welfare" is because we have chosen and are continuing to choose to borrow massive quantities of money instead (or to raise taxes to cover the state's income-expenditure gap), not because we are being forced to do so.

"Running your own affairs" whether as a state of some future European Federation or as an isolationist "We won't ever be a member of the EU" state involves dealing with precisely such problems - not pretending someone is forcing you to overspend your budget more than 5 years after the problem started to first seriously emerge.

As I have already stated, the EU/ECB railroaded Ireland into extending the bank guarantee in Sept 2010, forcing sovereign bondholders to abandon Ireland as a safe place to invest and thus forcing us into a bailout on very harsh and severe terms and with painful conditions attached.

This was not the action of a fellow member of a Union but of a vengeful, spiteful, bully.

This might sit well with you, but it does not with me.

McDave · 10-01-2013 06:22PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Unlike you I believe that Ireland is capable of running its own affairs and I am in no rush to be led by a grouping of states with no actual care, never mind gra for Ireland and its citizens.

It's quite naive to suggest any country should particularly care for another or its citizens. Every country is out for its own benefit. It's taken as a given that we can, and should, look after our own affairs.

The EU treaties set contractual limitations for sovereign states to cooperate within. After that it's up to us to do our own thing. I suppose in principle we are capable of running our affairs, and hopefully after we pull through the debacle FF got us into we can make it a reality. But all the evidence to date suggests we're not up to dealing with the government and governance at sufficiently competent levels left to our own devices. And that we're still on a major learning curve.

McDave · 10-01-2013 06:26PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Every country in Europe has a massive banking problem. Our gangster Govt were just foolish enough to guarantee private bank debt.

No country anywhere is without problems of some kind. And for sure many countries have variations on public and private debt. But I think we're in a small enough club when it comes to our own banking and finance problems. Which as you point out were gratuitously worsened by uninformed tinkering.

MrScootch · 10-01-2013 06:35PM

Because they're thick.

Honestly, most brits are shockingly lacking in education beyond whatever two subject they did at A-Levels and pretty clueless about world affairs.
Ask most of them why they don't like Europe and they'll say: "Because we is paying for Greece, innit?"

MrScootch · 10-01-2013 07:04PM

When I say 'thick' I don't literally mean lacking in intelligence, I just mean uneducated and broadly unaware of what's happening beyond Britain's borders.

It's just my personal experience having lived there for years.

I got asked the weirdest most ignorant questions about Northern Ireland when I lived there, and that's part of the UK (politics aside). Knowledgable about the EU? No chance.

getz · 10-01-2013 07:15PM

MrScootch wrote: »

When I say 'thick' I don't literally mean lacking in intelligence.

Otherwise it's just my personal experience having lived there for years.

it must have been .a privilege for those who had the joy of meeting you.somewhere in the UK there will be a plack on a wall ,saying mrscootch lived here

View · 10-01-2013 07:54PM

NAP123 wrote: »

As I have already stated, the EU/ECB railroaded Ireland into extending the bank guarantee in Sept 2010,

You stating something and it being true are in this case two different things.

We chose to extend the bank guarantee because we didn't want to face the alternative.

You can let us show us the evidence for how many EU/ECB officials were present in the Oireachtas chambers when the votes on it were taken, if you want to dispute it.

NAP123 wrote: »

forcing sovereign bondholders to abandon Ireland as a safe place to invest and thus forcing us into a bailout on very harsh and severe terms and with painful conditions attached..

So the EU/ECB were holding guns to the heads of all those bond traders as well, were they? God they were busy.

No doubt they forced those bond traders to try and charge us twice the interest rates that the IMF and EU loan facilities offer us loans at, right?

You do understand the IMF were called in, don't you? They are the financial equivalent of an Examiner (as you can't actually appoint a Receiver for a country) - the IMF don't come in unless they think you haven't a clue what you are doing.

NAP123 wrote: »

This was not the action of a fellow member of a Union but of a vengeful, spiteful, bully.

This might sit well with you, but it does not with me.

No, this is just your delusional fantasy - another straw man created so you can rage at it, while claiming you preferred the EEC - an organisation set up with the explicit purpose of creating "an ever closer union" which is exactly what the member states were pursuing when they subsequently created the EU.

View · 10-01-2013 07:58PM

MrScootch wrote: »

Because they're thick.

I am sure the distribution of "thickness" (or "brilliance") in the UK population is pretty much the same as for any other country.

Scofflaw · 10-01-2013 08:09PM

NAP123 wrote: »

As I have already stated, the EU/ECB railroaded Ireland into extending the bank guarantee in Sept 2010, forcing sovereign bondholders to abandon Ireland as a safe place to invest and thus forcing us into a bailout on very harsh and severe terms and with painful conditions attached.

This was not the action of a fellow member of a Union but of a vengeful, spiteful, bully.

This might sit well with you, but it does not with me.

No bank guarantee was extended in September 2010, and thw original CIFS guarantee was never extended.

Does it genuinely not bother you at all that your facts are completely made up?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

NAP123 · 10-01-2013 09:03PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

No bank guarantee was extended in September 2010, and thw original CIFS guarantee was never extended.

Does it genuinely not bother you at all that your facts are completely made up?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

The guarantee to the bondholders in the Banks ran out in Sept 2010 and was replaced by a guarantee to the 6 Irish Banks.

This new guarantee was forced upon the insipid FF Govt by the ECB. The only means open to the ECB to force a sovereign Govt within the eu to enforce such a guarantee is to threaten that particular sovereign Govt. The threat used was to withdraw the funding to the 6 banks, issued to replace the fleeing deposits in the Irish banking system.

Calling the bluff of an institution that can print its own money to replace any losses, while you have no such methods open to you without leaving the euro, did not seem like a good idea at the time.

It might in the future, however.

Try playing silly beggars with someone else.

djpbarry · 10-01-2013 09:33PM

MrScootch wrote: »

Knowledgable about the EU? No chance.

Whereas the average Irish person is a veritable expert on all matters EU-related?

MrScootch · 10-01-2013 10:08PM

djpbarry wrote: »

Whereas the average Irish person is a veritable expert on all matters EU-related?

Maybe not expert but certainly more aware.
All I'm saying is that as a general impression I found the British notably insular.

I think the root of this insularism is that they have very little cultural identity as being 'European'. I think we see ourselves as Irish and European, they see themselves as English and British and that the EU is 'them' not 'us'.

Scofflaw · 10-01-2013 10:40PM

NAP123 wrote: »

The guarantee to the bondholders in the Banks ran out in Sept 2010 and was replaced by a guarantee to the 6 Irish Banks.

No, that's factually wrong. The CIFS (original guarantee) was supplemented in 2009 by the ELG, which has been renewed every six months since. The two guarantees are quite different - the CIFS guaranteed all existing and acquired debt for a specific period, the ELG guarantees specific newly issued debt until maturity. The government had to apply to the EU to get it vetted by the anti-competition people in the Commission.

NAP123 wrote: »

This new guarantee was forced upon the insipid FF Govt by the ECB. The only means open to the ECB to force a sovereign Govt within the eu to enforce such a guarantee is to threaten that particular sovereign Govt. The threat used was to withdraw the funding to the 6 banks, issued to replace the fleeing deposits in the Irish banking system.

Calling the bluff of an institution that can print its own money to replace any losses, while you have no such methods open to you without leaving the euro, did not seem like a good idea at the time.

It might in the future, however.

Eh, the Irish government created the second guarantee for the same reason it created the first - to stabilise the Irish banking system. That it did it off its own bat, much to the dismay of the EU, is a matter of record.

NAP123 wrote: »

Try playing silly beggars with someone else.

Given your reliance on made-up facts, that's a very tempting straight line, but it seems unkind to use it.

amused,
Scofflaw

NAP123 · 10-01-2013 11:44PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's factually wrong. The CIFS (original guarantee) was supplemented in 2009 by the ELG, which has been renewed every six months since. The two guarantees are quite different - the CIFS guaranteed all existing and acquired debt for a specific period, the ELG guarantees specific newly issued debt until maturity. The government had to apply to the EU to get it vetted by the anti-competition people in the Commission.

Eh, the Irish government created the second guarantee for the same reason it created the first - to stabilise the Irish banking system. That it did it off its own bat, much to the dismay of the EU, is a matter of record.

Given your reliance on made-up facts, that's a very tempting straight line, but it seems unkind to use it.

amused,
Scofflaw

I think you might be guilty of believing the guilty when you came up with your "facts"

The FF Govt issued the first bank guarantee on information given by the banks themselves. The Banks said that they had a liquidity problem. We know that they were actually insolvent at the time. Whether the Govt and the Dept of Finance were aware that they were insolvent or not is an unknown as we have never had an inquiry into the events leading up to and on the night of Sept 29th 2008.

From the information that has leaked out since, we know that Anglo had put together what looks like a fraudulent share purchase by a chosen group of preferred investors ( maple 10 ), we know that the PTSB were hiding loans on behalf of Anglo and loaning money overnight to prop up Anglos balance sheet.

We are not aware, if the regulator and the Central Bank were aware of this or complicit in this.

We are not aware if the Dept of Finance and the then MoF ( Brian Cowen ) was aware or complicit, but we do know that he had met Sean Fitzpatrick around the time of the Maple 10 deal.

Until we know the full facts of what happened before and after, we actually know nothing.

We also do not know how much the ECB were aware of what was going on in Anglo and how much they were involved in the original guarantee or the further guarantee in 2010, but we do have circumstantial evidence that they were involved.

You seem to believe what you have been told, I on the other hand, believe that there is far more to this fiasco than meets the eye.

Whether we ever get to the bottom of it or not, I do not know. I doubt if the actual details of what went on will ever be discovered, although since all of the correspondence would have been on an official level and of the utmost importance, records would have been required to have been meticulously kept, but I doubt they were or if they were, they have not been lost or mislaid.

One thing I am absolutely positive about, is that, Ireland should never put its trust in the EU/ECB as it exists again.

Even the IMF have their doubts about the motives of the EU/ECB.

oscarBravo · 10-01-2013 11:53PM

NAP123 wrote: »

You seem to believe what you have been told, I on the other hand, believe that there is far more to this fiasco than meets the eye.

So your evidence for all the firm assertions you have been stating as facts thus far is... you have a hunch something fishy is going on.

You really should have said so at the start, it would have saved a lot of time.

NAP123 · 10-01-2013 11:58PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your evidence for all the firm assertions you have been stating as facts thus far is... you have a hunch something fishy is going on.

You really should have said so at the start, it would have saved a lot of time.

Do you know something the rest of us do not?

Have you conducted a bank inquiry without our knowledge?

Please, most wise sage do enlighten us.

oscarBravo · 11-01-2013 12:01AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Do you know something the rest of us do not?

Have you conducted a bank inquiry without our knowledge?

Please, most wise sage do enlighten us.

I think you're doing a fine job of making **** up all by yourself.

Unless, of course, you're planning to adduce some actual evidence for some of the bald assertions you've made in this thread...?

NAP123 · 11-01-2013 12:06AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think you're doing a fine job of making **** up all by yourself.

Unless, of course, you're planning to adduce some actual evidence for some of the bald assertions you've made in this thread...?

Go on, give me one assertion I made as fact, that is not true.

Scofflaw · 11-01-2013 04:03AM

NAP123 wrote: »

I think you might be guilty of believing the guilty when you came up with your "facts"

Er, no, because what you've asserted as facts and I've pointed out as incorrect are actually just simple provable errors.

NAP123 wrote: »

The FF Govt issued the first bank guarantee on information given by the banks themselves. The Banks said that they had a liquidity problem. We know that they were actually insolvent at the time. Whether the Govt and the Dept of Finance were aware that they were insolvent or not is an unknown as we have never had an inquiry into the events leading up to and on the night of Sept 29th 2008.

OK, although in fact there has been an inquiry by an Oireachtas Committee.

NAP123 wrote: »

From the information that has leaked out since, we know that Anglo had put together what looks like a fraudulent share purchase by a chosen group of preferred investors ( maple 10 ), we know that the PTSB were hiding loans on behalf of Anglo and loaning money overnight to prop up Anglos balance sheet.

We are not aware, if the regulator and the Central Bank were aware of this or complicit in this.

We are not aware if the Dept of Finance and the then MoF ( Brian Cowen ) was aware or complicit, but we do know that he had met Sean Fitzpatrick around the time of the Maple 10 deal.

Until we know the full facts of what happened before and after, we actually know nothing.

Well, except what we know, obviously - and we do know quite a bit.

NAP123 wrote: »

We also do not know how much the ECB were aware of what was going on in Anglo and how much they were involved in the original guarantee or the further guarantee in 2010, but we do have circumstantial evidence that they were involved.

We have good evidence, which came out almost immediately, of the ECB's involvement in the bailout. We likewise have good evidence that the 2008 guarantee was sprung on them as an unpleasant surprise, while on the other hand we have absolutely nothing pointing to a role for them in the guarantee. I'm not sure why they should have been "aware of Anglo".

You continue to refer to a "further guarantee" in September 2010, which doesn't exist.

NAP123 wrote: »

You seem to believe what you have been told, I on the other hand, believe that there is far more to this fiasco than meets the eye.

To be honest, what you've said so far suggests that you believe what you want to believe, whatever the evidence. You're making at least one basic factual error that you couldn't make if you'd got somewhere nearer the bottom of this than I have, which you clearly believe to be the case.

NAP123 wrote: »

Whether we ever get to the bottom of it or not, I do not know. I doubt if the actual details of what went on will ever be discovered, although since all of the correspondence would have been on an official level and of the utmost importance, records would have been required to have been meticulously kept, but I doubt they were or if they were, they have not been lost or mislaid.

"Meticulously kept"...actually I doubt it. The decisions will have been recorded, but most of the interesting information will have been in the verbal discussions, and it's not standard practice to make verbatim records. And as far as I can see you haven't really looked for the bottom of even what's available.

NAP123 wrote: »

One thing I am absolutely positive about, is that, Ireland should never put its trust in the EU/ECB as it exists again.

Even the IMF have their doubts about the motives of the EU/ECB.

Unsurprisingly, since their motives aren't the same as those of the IMF. I'm a little surprised the way people happily swallow the idea that the IMF is "on our side", though. They have a specific set of interests, the ECB have another - the IMF's interests would be better served by a short-term quick fix that gets a first world country off their books, leaving any further instability or resulting long-term issues to be soaked up by the European institutions, while the ECB's primary interest is the long-term stability of the eurozone. Those who would also prefer a quick fix generally see the IMF as the "good guys", but that's a rather one-dimensional view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments