Why are the British so anti Europe?

NAP123 · 11-01-2013 09:59AM

You might have noticed that I used the term "even the IMF" when I referred to the IMF.

This should have indicated my opinion of the IMF.

As for the rest of your post, if you think we know everything about the cause and cure for the banking crisis and that Nyberg and Regling were definitive inquiries, fair play to your innocence.

Nyberg is now one of the head lads at one of the ECB Quangoes. He was no more neutral than Trichet.

The Corinthian · 11-01-2013 11:06AM

NAP123 wrote: »

As for the rest of your post, if you think we know everything about the cause and cure for the banking crisis and that Nyberg and Regling were definitive inquiries, fair play to your innocence.

Despite taking a break from this thread for a few days, I see we're still essentially following the same pattern (although you've been more eloquent than your predecessors in expressing it).

But ultimately it still seems to boil down to unsubstantiated conspiracy claims, that if rebutted ultimately are met with an accusation that those rejecting them are somehow failing to pay attention to the 'man behind the curtain'.

Had you considered that sometimes life isn't quite as sinister in reality?

MrScootch wrote: »

Honestly, most brits are shockingly lacking in education beyond whatever two subject they did at A-Levels and pretty clueless about world affairs.

Returning to the topic, I don't think one can make an argument for this as a factor in British Eurosceptism. Certainly I would agree with you in so far as the British educational system is quite narrow compared to the other European systems. The Irish system is the polar opposite; emphasizing broader, but slightly shallower, knowledge, while most of the continental (German Gymnasium, Italian Liceo, etc) are somewhere in-between these two.

I've certainly noticed the difference on numerous occasions; where a British person will be able, for example, converse to even a higher degree than me in mathematics, but then if I cite Homer, they'll think I'm talking about the Simpsons. On one occasion, I remember discussing English literature with an English friend, who clearly was better versed than me on the subject, yet she also thought that Barcelona was the capital of Spain.

It's a different system, and whether it is better or worse than others, really depends on your definition of what constitutes an education; it's certainly not designed to produce potential polymaths, but is probably better designed to imbue a more vocational education designed for the modern workplace.

Nonetheless, because there are different specializations, it's difficult to argue that it is a significant factor in Eurosceptism; after all, there will be those who will have studied other nations to a greater degree than us, just as there will be those who will not have studied them at all.

Ask most of them why they don't like Europe and they'll say: "Because we is paying for Greece, innit?"

You'll get urban yokels in every country; the rate in London is no higher than it is in Dublin, Rome or Berlin, TBH.

NAP123 · 11-01-2013 11:52AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Despite taking a break from this thread for a few days, I see we're still essentially following the same pattern (although you've been more eloquent than your predecessors in expressing it).

But ultimately it still seems to boil down to unsubstantiated conspiracy claims, that if rebutted ultimately are met with an accusation that those rejecting them are somehow failing to pay attention to the 'man behind the curtain'.

Had you considered that sometimes life isn't quite as sinister in reality?

Returning to the topic, I don't think one can make an argument for this as a factor in British Eurosceptism. Certainly I would agree with you in so far as the British educational system is quite narrow compared to the other European systems. The Irish system is the polar opposite; emphasizing broader, but slightly shallower, knowledge, while most of the continental (German Gymnasium, Italian Liceo, etc) are somewhere in-between these two.

I've certainly noticed the difference on numerous occasions; where a British person will be able, for example, converse to even a higher degree than me in mathematics, but then if I cite Homer, they'll think I'm talking about the Simpsons. On one occasion, I remember discussing English literature with an English friend, who clearly was better versed than me on the subject, yet she also thought that Barcelona was the capital of Spain.

It's a different system, and whether it is better or worse than others, really depends on your definition of what constitutes an education; it's certainly not designed to produce potential polymaths, but is probably better designed to imbue a more vocational education designed for the modern workplace.

Nonetheless, because there are different specializations, it's difficult to argue that it is a significant factor in Eurosceptism; after all, there will be those who will have studied other nations to a greater degree than us, just as there will be those who will not have studied them at all.

You'll get urban yokels in every country; the rate in London is no higher than it is in Dublin, Rome or Berlin, TBH.

I have no interest in cospiracy theories, but I do have a desire to understand what exactly happened, who was involved and why?

When your business loses 40% of its income through no fault of your own and you see the sons and daughters of friends and families emigrating because they have no choice, you want to at least no why and who caused it.

And when you are being made suffer increased taxes from failed Govts and Civil Servants and increased charges from failed Bankers, you want to know if they caused the mess before you agree to pay.

Some people might like to just blindly accept that sh1t happens, I like to hold people to account for what happens, just to make sure they don,t do it again or worse still, profit from what happened.

View · 11-01-2013 12:18PM

NAP123 wrote: »

Calling the bluff of an institution that can print its own money to replace any losses,

This comment is nonsense. Accounting rules apply to Central Banks just as they do to any other company. The basic accounting statement of:

Assets = Liabilites + Shareholder Equity.

Bank notes issued by a central bank are liabilities for the central bank. If its liabilities increase, one of the other parts of the equation has to balance it. The bank can't just "magic" either of those parts to do so as there are other parties at the end of those categories who don't have to "play ball" with the ECB if they believe they are behaving stupidly.

Also, as the ECB has an explicit objective - stated in the EU Treaties - of maintaining price stability in the Eurozone, any decision they make can be challenged in the courts if it threatens to breech that objective.

And, yes, engaging in money printing - an inflationary action - to replace losses would threaten price stability. So, also would the loss of confidence in the Euro that would follow in the wake of the ECB and Ireland engaging in some sort of the economic equivalent of a juvenile "I'm bigger than you" contest (as loss of confidence in the actions of the ECB -> currency is sold by traders and losses value -> import prices from outside the EU (e.g. oil) increase in Euro terms -> inflation rises -> ECB gets to explain to the ECJ the reasons why it engaged in a juvenile row).

NAP123 · 11-01-2013 12:48PM

View wrote: »

This comment is nonsense. Accounting rules apply to Central Banks just as they do to any other company. The basic accounting statement of:

Assets = Liabilites + Shareholder Equity.

Bank notes issued by a central bank are liabilities for the central bank. If its liabilities increase, one of the other parts of the equation has to balance it. The bank can't just "magic" either of those parts to do so as there are other parties at the end of those categories who don't have to "play ball" with the ECB if they believe they are behaving stupidly.

Also, as the ECB has an explicit objective - stated in the EU Treaties - of maintaining price stability in the Eurozone, any decision they make can be challenged in the courts if it threatens to breech that objective.

And, yes, engaging in money printing - an inflationary action - to replace losses would threaten price stability. So, also would the loss of confidence in the Euro that would follow in the wake of the ECB and Ireland engaging in some sort of the economic equivalent of a juvenile "I'm bigger than you" contest (as loss of confidence in the actions of the ECB -> currency is sold by traders and losses value -> import prices from outside the EU (e.g. oil) increase in Euro terms -> inflation rises -> ECB gets to explain to the ECJ the reasons why it engaged in a juvenile row).

EU treaties are ambiguous documents at best and have been interpeted to mean what suits in the past.

Sure even the bailouts, according to some versions of the Lisbon Treaty were not lawful.

The setting up of the ESM needed the Fiscal Compact Treaty to enforce it because the Lisbon Treaty did,nt allow for it. This after we were told that there would be no more treaties and that Lisbon was the treaty to end all treaties, as it was actually a constitution under an assumed identity. The reason being an actual European constitution was roundly rejected by the people of Europe. But of course the European elite were not going to let a small thing like democracy stand in the way of their gravy train.

Considering that we were the only country that were allowed to have a referendum and we were basically on life support ( or so we were made feel ) from the EU/ECB, it was hardly a democratic decision, in the true meaning of democracy.

But then again when it comes to democracy in Europe most people here seem to think it does,nt really matter whether it applies or not. Most seem to think that the continental Europeans are brighter than us and above suspicion.

It makes me laugh to be honest.

The Corinthian · 11-01-2013 12:50PM

NAP123 wrote: »

I have no interest in cospiracy theories, but I do have a desire to understand what exactly happened, who was involved and why?

In fairness, given some of your most recent posts - including the one I quoted in my last post - that is certainly what it looks like.

When your business loses 40% of its income through no fault of your own and you see the sons and daughters of friends and families emigrating because they have no choice, you want to at least no why and who caused it.

Agreed. However, this is not the first time that we've had to tighten our belts because of debt or had to follow the tune of a foreign nation that we were beholden to or seen our businesses lose 40% of their income or the sons and daughters of friends and families (or even ourselves) emigrating.

Now I would concur that the rather extreme approach to austerity that Germany is demanding is flawed, but this is also politically motivated as German public opinion simply would not agree to the loans were it not 'demonstrated' that they would be 'short term'. Much of the indecision by the EU at present is also a clear demonstration of the fact that we are not a federation and that the different states are still very much sovereign - never ascribe to malice that which is better described through incompetence.

In short, it's an unholy mesh of compromises and imperfect solutions, but in truth being out of the EU would not exactly make things any better.

After all, you yourself fully accept that this mess was really down to our own government (i.e. ourselves, as we are ultimately responsible for the government we elect); the notion that being Eurozone, let alone the EU, has been clearly shown to have be nonsense. And what followed may have been handled better, but it certainly could also have been handled worse, let alone what the long term consequences of leaving the EU would be.

It sucks, I know, but there was never any magic solution, no matter what, given the mess we got ourselves in.

Some people might like to just blindly accept that sh1t happens, I like to hold people to account for what happens, just to make sure they don,t do it again or worse still, profit from what happened.

My experience of Irish politics is that will not happen - even where it comes to those who created that mess in the first place (the former government, the bankers and ourselves). In twenty-odd years of scandals since the underbelly of Irish corruption first came to light in the Goodman tribunal, we've barely sent anyone to prison - in fact, where it comes to some of the most blatant offenders, we've consistently re-elected them instead.

For all it's faults, turning around and pointing the finger at the EU for all this, is kind of rich.

View · 11-01-2013 01:18PM

NAP123 wrote: »

EU treaties are ambiguous documents at best and have been interpeted to mean what suits in the past.

Sure even the bailouts, according to some versions of the Lisbon Treaty were not lawful.

Nonsense, there aren't "versions of the Lisbon Treaty" for a start.

Secondly, an explicitly stated objective is not something ambiguous.

Third, markets do pay attention to court rulings - markets aren't just going to ignore rulings particularly ones that relate to the economic foundations of the Euro.

The rest of your post is your usual nonsense where you throw out unproven assertions which you are both unwilling and unable to back up.

This thread is just descending to Conspiracy Theory level at this stage since it largely appears to be based on your feelings which exist without respect to any evidence.

Scofflaw · 11-01-2013 02:16PM

NAP123 wrote: »

EU treaties are ambiguous documents at best and have been interpeted to mean what suits in the past.

Unless a legal text specifically and explicitly covers all the features of a given situation, to see whether it allows or precludes a situation always requires interpretation, which is what you're referring to - but such interpretation can only be valid within the limits of what is legally tenable, hence:

Sure even the bailouts, according to some versions of the Lisbon Treaty were not lawful.

Well, no, because they were challenged in the courts, and found to be lawful. Again, both parties interpreted the text the way that suited them - the proponents of the bailouts said that the treaty text allowed the bailouts, the opponents said it did not. Both of those are interpretations to suit what the people in question wanted, but it's clear that you regard one of them as simply what the text says, and the other as "interpreted to what suits".

Also, as per View's comment, there is only one version of the Lisbon Treaty.

The setting up of the ESM needed the Fiscal Compact Treaty to enforce it because the Lisbon Treaty did,nt allow for it.

Er, no, it didn't - that was tested in court.

This after we were told that there would be no more treaties and that Lisbon was the treaty to end all treaties,

Sorry, who told you that?

as it was actually a constitution under an assumed identity. The reason being an actual European constitution was roundly rejected by the people of Europe. But of course the European elite were not going to let a small thing like democracy stand in the way of their gravy train.

Except, of course, that that's exactly what they did - the Constitution went back into negotiations, changes were made that addressed the issues some countries had had with it, and it was handed over again to the due democratic processes of the Member States, which passed it. Again, you see only the rejection as valid, but that's not democratic at all.

Considering that we were the only country that were allowed to have a referendum and we were basically on life support ( or so we were made feel ) from the EU/ECB, it was hardly a democratic decision, in the true meaning of democracy.

There's a handy CYA for when the first argument is shown to be false, but this one is false too. There is no "allowed to have a referendum" - our laws mandate a referendum, other Member States' laws don't. It's the Member States that decide, according to their own democratically decided laws - they're not simply inferior copies of us

But then again when it comes to democracy in Europe most people here seem to think it does,nt really matter whether it applies or not. Most seem to think that the continental Europeans are brighter than us and above suspicion.

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KyussBishop · 11-01-2013 07:17PM

View wrote: »

And, yes, engaging in money printing - an inflationary action - to replace losses would threaten price stability. So, also would the loss of confidence in the Euro that would follow in the wake of the ECB and Ireland engaging in some sort of the economic equivalent of a juvenile "I'm bigger than you" contest (as loss of confidence in the actions of the ECB -> currency is sold by traders and losses value -> import prices from outside the EU (e.g. oil) increase in Euro terms -> inflation rises -> ECB gets to explain to the ECJ the reasons why it engaged in a juvenile row).

A vitally important point though, is that money printing is not always an inflationary action, like it used to be in gold standard times; the idea that money creation/printing is and always is inflationary, is actually (in my view) the most successful bit of conservative propaganda that exists in economics/politics today (to the point that people accept it as an unquestioned, inherent truth), due to how greatly it has succeeded in restricting necessary government action, and thus how many people it has affected (it also causes all political discourse itself to have an inherent conservative bent).

In short: When there is excess labour and industrial capacity in an economy, providing funds to combine the two, does not have to be inflationary; money creation threatens to be considerably inflationary though, once full employment and economic productivity is reached (which we are far from now).

NAP123 · 12-01-2013 12:03AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unless a legal text specifically and explicitly covers all the features of a given situation, to see whether it allows or precludes a situation always requires interpretation, which is what you're referring to - but such interpretation can only be valid within the limits of what is legally tenable, hence:

Well, no, because they were challenged in the courts, and found to be lawful. Again, both parties interpreted the text the way that suited them - the proponents of the bailouts said that the treaty text allowed the bailouts, the opponents said it did not. Both of those are interpretations to suit what the people in question wanted, but it's clear that you regard one of them as simply what the text says, and the other as "interpreted to what suits".

Also, as per View's comment, there is only one version of the Lisbon Treaty.

Er, no, it didn't - that was tested in court.

Sorry, who told you that?

Except, of course, that that's exactly what they did - the Constitution went back into negotiations, changes were made that addressed the issues some countries had had with it, and it was handed over again to the due democratic processes of the Member States, which passed it. Again, you see only the rejection as valid, but that's not democratic at all.

There's a handy CYA for when the first argument is shown to be false, but this one is false too. There is no "allowed to have a referendum" - our laws mandate a referendum, other Member States' laws don't. It's the Member States that decide, according to their own democratically decided laws - they're not simply inferior copies of us

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What it means is what you conveniently ignore.

The EU constitution was rejected because a constititutional change in most EU countries requires a referendum, a Treaty does not.

The Politicians decided the EU needed a constitution, the people told them to F Off and the politicians decided that the people should and could be by passed, hence the Lisbon Treaty.

Now you can accept that or not, personally I don,t care.

By the way the Lisbon Treaty was called the Treaty to end all Treaties by Sarkozy.

Can you answer me this, why, when we rejected Nice and Lisbon did we have to vote again?

Why was the democratic decision not accepted?

And before you answer, tell me why referendums on Europe are the only referendum not accepted by our Govts and requests to rerun other referendum are refused based on the democratic will of the people argument.

By the way, the made up, people thought we were going to accept abortion and conscription argument, does,nt fly anymore, because of the current climate.

The Irish people do not want to be governed by Brussels. Fact.

mattser · 12-01-2013 12:29AM

I didn't think this thread would go such a distance, but the contributions have been excellent. Fair dues to all involved. Great reading.

Scofflaw · 12-01-2013 03:35AM

NAP123 wrote: »

What it means is what you conveniently ignore.

The EU constitution was rejected because a constititutional change in most EU countries requires a referendum, a Treaty does not.

The Politicians decided the EU needed a constitution, the people told them to F Off and the politicians decided that the people should and could be by passed, hence the Lisbon Treaty.

Now you can accept that or not, personally I don,t care.

Wrong again, I'm afraid. The decision to hold referendums on the Constitution was a political one, not a legal one. Of all the EU countries, only Ireland and Denmark have legal requirements for referendums under specified circumstances. The legal format of the Constitution would have made no difference - aside from anything else, the "Constitution" was actually a treaty. The majority of countries didn't hold a referendum despite the political push to do so, because they have no mechanism for referendums in these matters and/or have some constitutional bar against them (Italy, for example, has a specific constitutional bar on referendums on treaties).

The only reason for the referendums was, hilariously, a political decision to show the joyous support for the EU project around Europe. And, to be fair, it was accepted in 18 countries, twice by referendum (Luxembourg and Spain), before the French and the Dutch rejected it - and looked at another way, 26.9m people voted for it, while 22.7m people voted against it.

Having said that, in one sense you're correct. The experiment with popular endorsement was not repeated. In virtually every other sense, though, you're incorrect - the referendums on the Constitution were not required, and Lisbon wasn't recast as a method for "getting round" popular votes. Nothing the EU does can avoid popular votes where countries decide to hold them, or where there is a legal requirement to hold them - the only way legally required referendums can be avoided is by not doing those things that trigger them, which is usually diminishment of purely national sovereignty.

NAP123 wrote: »

By the way the Lisbon Treaty was called the Treaty to end all Treaties by Sarkozy.

All I can find is No people calling it that, so I'd be interested to see a link for that.

NAP123 wrote: »

Can you answer me this, why, when we rejected Nice and Lisbon did we have to vote again?

Why was the democratic decision not accepted?

It was. Lisbon wasn't ratified until the people changed their mind. As to why the referendum was re-run, the answer is because the government wanted to do so, and there's no legal impediment to doing so.

NAP123 wrote: »

And before you answer, tell me why referendums on Europe are the only referendum not accepted by our Govts and requests to rerun other referendum are refused based on the democratic will of the people argument.

Abortion and divorce have been re-run as well - and I wouldn't be too sure we've seen the last of the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum either.

NAP123 wrote: »

By the way, the made up, people thought we were going to accept abortion and conscription argument, does,nt fly anymore, because of the current climate.

...what?

NAP123 wrote: »

The Irish people do not want to be governed by Brussels. Fact.

Nice false dichotomy. The Irish people seem happy enough to hand certain aspects of governance over to joint decision-making at the European level - they've voted for it in multiple referendums. Fact - but not one you can accept.

cordially,
Scofflaw

NAP123 · 15-01-2013 02:12AM

Most countries in Europe require a referendum to change their constitution.

A european constitution would have required most countries to have a referendum. Those that did, rejected it. i.e, the people of europe rejected it. Fact.

The elites have by passed the people. Fact.

Whether the people really care or not, is up for debate.

As of yet, they don,t seem to, but I would,nt depend on it.

Scofflaw · 15-01-2013 03:00AM

NAP123 wrote: »

Most countries in Europe require a referendum to change their constitution.

A european constitution would have required most countries to have a referendum. Those that did, rejected it. i.e, the people of europe rejected it. Fact.

No, not fact, completely wrong. I suggest you look up, for example, the 16 countries which passed the Constitution without a referendum, which should highlight to you that it's not a fact. And three out of the five referendums held were consultative, not binding.

NAP123 wrote: »

The elites have by passed the people. Fact.

Whether the people really care or not, is up for debate.

As of yet, they don,t seem to, but I would,nt depend on it.

Other countries are not Ireland. Fact - and actually a real fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian · 15-01-2013 01:01PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

A vitally important point though, is that money printing is not always an inflationary action, like it used to be in gold standard times; the idea that money creation/printing is and always is inflationary, is actually (in my view) the most successful bit of conservative propaganda that exists in economics/politics today (to the point that people accept it as an unquestioned, inherent truth), due to how greatly it has succeeded in restricting necessary government action, and thus how many people it has affected (it also causes all political discourse itself to have an inherent conservative bent).

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Inflation is essentially caused by pressures on prices because of changes in aggregate demand and/or supply, and this can happen in a number of ways, and changes in the money supply are only one.

Certainly you can turn the printing presses on and suffer no inflation; all you have to do is sit on the money, don't let it circulate, and as a result it won't affect either aggregate demand or supply, however that's typically not why anyone prints money in the first place.

If, on the other hand you do increase the money supply, then you do run the risk of inflation. This can be a positive thing, in that the negative aspects of inflation will be more than compensated by the economic stimulus to supply (and thus employment), but it can also result in stagnation or, in extreme cases, hyperinflation, as this extra money gets swallowed up by a "price/wage spiral", without creating any further benefit.

Additionally, there's the question of trade, and if you increase the money supply, you're inevitably going to dilute the value of your currency against currencies you trade with (although being able to back up your currency through assets can offset this). If you're reliant on foreign trade, this will mean that the price of foreign inputs will increase - from a protectionist point of view this might appear attractive, were it not that no country is fully self sufficient and some inputs have to be imported. Either way, be it more expensive foreign goods and services or more expensive domestic ones, it still increases prices, and with those prices, wages.

Foreign debt is another factor too, as that debt may not be in our own currency. For example, imagine Ireland left the Euro, reverted to a punt nua, and then devalued it by 50% so as to stimulate the economy. All well and good, except our foreign debt (in Euros) would double, demanding further fiscal measures to keep up with payments.

Quantitative Easing is a recent invention which seeks to better control how the money supply changes and thus how this affects aggregate demand and/or supply. It has seen some positive results, but at the same time, it has disadvantages too, especially where it comes to debt (does not monetize debt, like traditional 'printing money', and in reality increases it, albeit to itself).

In relation to Ireland, would monetary control ease or have eased the present economic crisis? Prior to the crisis hitting in 2008, the answer is almost certainly no, simply because we wouldn't have used it, just as we didn't bother using fiscal tools to defuse the property bubble (we actually employed fiscal tools to fuel it further).

Would it help now; superficially yes, but on balance no. Yes, in that it could be employed to engender economic activity, as it has been in the US or UK, but no in that the horse had already bolted and leaving the Eurozone would have caused us significantly more harm than good (for reasons, some of which I've touched on above).

Would it have been better had we never been in the Euro, in the first place? Maybe, but probably not. The Euro and the European Exchange Rate Mechanism was a large part of why we had a boom economy in the first place (it ranks in the top three reasons why we got FDI in the first place). As such, we would not have had the Celtic Tiger and our economy would have grown at a more sluggish rate, yet we would still have to contend with a Worldwide recession and our banking sector would have taken a huge hit anyway (just as it did in all the other non-Eurozone nations). Overall, we'd probably be worse off than we are now.

It is important to point out, to the above, that the proponents of 'going it alone' have a rather unrealistic and romantic view of economics. The reality is no one really goes it alone; we live in a globalization World, where economic and political factors that we have no influence in effectively dictate our own economy. Going it alone doesn't change this and probably makes a small nation even more vulnerable to it.

Finally, would we have been better off had we remained out of the EU? Not a hope. Despite some of the fantasies peddled that we could have been (or could still be) like Switzerland or Norway, we're not like them. Given our relative lack of natural resources, industry and economic history, we'd probably be more like Albania.

Actually, if you compare economies in 1970, just prior to our accession to the EEC, GDP pro capita in Albania was 74% of Ireland's, which is closer to us that we were to Germany (54%), UK (65%), Italy (71%) or France (50%), let alone Switzerland (39%) or Norway (43%), that we're told we could magically become like.

KyussBishop · 16-01-2013 06:55AM

Many of your criticisms rest on the assumption that increasing the money supply (including spending it, not just lying around) automatically leads to devaluation i.e. inflation; this is the Quantity Theory of Money, which does not hold up to empirical scrutiny and is regarded as debunked; am actually debating that at length on another forum at the moment, and this is a good document on it:
http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/ew/academic/intecon/Degrauwe/PDG-papers/Recently_published_articles/DeGrauwe_Polan_SJE_2005.pdf

The ideal solution to the crisis, is the EU engaging in money creation to fund relatively non-inflationary spending, to re-employ surplus labour, and put people to work in industry with a lot of excess potential productive capacity (so long as industry can scale up supply to meet demand, it does not have to be inflationary); we can even use this to fight inflation, by putting people to work on power infrastructure which removes our dependency on fossil fuels, where increased prices and later on (in the upcoming energy crisis) inadequately increasing supply, will cause growing inflation unless alternatives are sought.

If we are forced out of the Euro though, and then engage in such a policy, it will still be beneficial but not nearly as much as it could be within the Euro, because in the Euro the EU can fund the programs without adding it to national debt, whereas with the Punt we would be sending Punts outside the country to import necessary resources for the re-employment program, which can (gradually) negatively impact our monetary sovereignty and the value of our currency, if we run net-imports too long (especially seeing as we will also be paying back the national debt, sending out even more Punts).

If we ever end up in a situation where our national debt is denominated in a foreign currency, then we are utterly and totally screwed as a country; no government would accept imposing that on the country, unless they were deliberately aiming to destroy our economy. Many past instances of hyperinflation, have been caused precisely due to debt being denominated in a foreign currency.

getz · 16-01-2013 08:41AM

so no one is any nearer to finding the answer to the question of why the british are so anti europe ?. why not ask the british boardies like me,none of us are against a EU trading block,but we are very much against foreign interference in the democratic running of our country,i dont want to be made to put the likes of a EU flag on my car numberplate just because some unelected nobody thinks it a good idea,[i dont even put a UK one on] we dont want to be a part of any franco/german empire,and jumping or rolling over on our backs when a german chancellor coughs,as the euro nations are doing now,if the UK makes mistakes it will be our mistakes,

The Corinthian · 16-01-2013 09:13AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Many of your criticisms rest on the assumption that increasing the money supply (including spending it, not just lying around) automatically leads to devaluation i.e. inflation; this is the Quantity Theory of Money, which does not hold up to empirical scrutiny and is regarded as debunked; am actually debating that at length on another forum at the moment, and this is a good document on it:
http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/ew/academic/intecon/Degrauwe/PDG-papers/Recently_published_articles/DeGrauwe_Polan_SJE_2005.pdf

I never made any such assumption - all I said is that increasing the money supply "you do run the risk of inflation". Nothing automatic. Additionally, I pointed out (even with my initial definition of inflation as a product of "pressures on prices because of changes in aggregate demand and/or supply") that it can occur through different scenarios, openly embracing the Keynesian viewpoint.

The ideal solution to the crisis, is the EU engaging in...

No argument there. Regardless of whether it is European level QE (which in fairness it has done to a degree), or some other approach, the EU has been appalling in it's approach to dealing with the crisis.

getz wrote: »

so no one is any nearer to finding the answer to the question of why the british are so anti europe ?. why not ask the british boardies like me,none of us are against a EU trading block,but we are very much against foreign interference in the democratic running of our country,i dont want to be made to put the likes of a EU flag on my car numberplate just because some unelected nobody thinks it a good idea,[i dont even put a UK one on] we dont want to be a part of any franco/german empire,and jumping or rolling over on our backs when a german chancellor coughs,as the euro nations are doing now,if the UK makes mistakes it will be our mistakes,

We arrived at the conclusion, some time back, that the British (principally the English) are significantly more xenophobic than most Europeans (including the Irish), due to historical and cultural reasons.

We would have been able to arrive at this conclusion a lot faster, had 'British Boardies' like you not insisted on wasting time throwing pseudo-Economic arguments into the mix, before eventually admitting it's because you don't like the Germans and French.

getz · 16-01-2013 09:29AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never made any such assumption - all I said is that increasing the money supply "you do run the risk of inflation". Nothing automatic. Additionally, I pointed out (even with my initial definition of inflation as a product of "pressures on prices because of changes in aggregate demand and/or supply") that it can occur through different scenarios, openly embracing the Keynesian viewpoint.

No argument there. Regardless of whether it is European level QE (which in fairness it has done to a degree), or some other approach, the EU has been appalling in it's approach to dealing with the crisis.

We arrived at the conclusion, some time back, that the British (principally the English) are significantly more xenophobic than most Europeans (including the Irish), due to historical and cultural reasons.

We would have been able to arrive at this conclusion a lot faster, had 'British Boardies' like you not insisted on wasting time throwing pseudo-Economic arguments into the mix, before eventually admitting it's because you don't like the Germans and French.

so why are you so upset that people in the UK may vote out ?

KyussBishop · 16-01-2013 09:53AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never made any such assumption - all I said is that increasing the money supply "you do run the risk of inflation". Nothing automatic. Additionally, I pointed out (even with my initial definition of inflation as a product of "pressures on prices because of changes in aggregate demand and/or supply") that it can occur through different scenarios, openly embracing the Keynesian viewpoint.

Ah sorry, my mistake; I didn't read that clearly enough. Ya, considering that inflation takes time to be reflected after spending, it'd warrant a cautious scaling up of investment over a couple of years to gauge the effects.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No argument there. Regardless of whether it is European level QE (which in fairness it has done to a degree), or some other approach, the EU has been appalling in it's approach to dealing with the crisis.

Indeed, agree there; hopefully there will be a solution at the EU level, but with the quality of discourse going on in the EU, it doesn't seem that hopeful in the short/medium-term.

The Corinthian · 16-01-2013 10:01AM

getz wrote: »

so why are you so upset that people in the UK may vote out ?

I'm not. Were it to happen life would go on after a period of adjustment.

For Ireland it would present both an opportunity and a challenge. On one side, the question of our special relationship with Northern Ireland would present problems for us, as would the level of direct trade between the UK and Ireland. We would undoubtedly have to negotiate special concessions from the EU for this.

On the other side, we'd get a large influx of companies abandoning the UK, looking for another English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon style economy that is in the EU. Malta will have a windfall.

I take it you accept the xenophobia conclusion, seeing as you've not attempted to dispute it?

McDave · 16-01-2013 06:12PM

getz wrote: »

so no one is any nearer to finding the answer to the question of why the british are so anti europe ?. why not ask the british boardies like me,none of us are against a EU trading block,but we are very much against foreign interference in the democratic running of our country,i dont want to be made to put the likes of a EU flag on my car numberplate just because some unelected nobody thinks it a good idea,[i dont even put a UK one on] we dont want to be a part of any franco/german empire,and jumping or rolling over on our backs when a german chancellor coughs,as the euro nations are doing now,if the UK makes mistakes it will be our mistakes,

Foreign interference? It's a legal arrangement whereby consenting parties agree to common policies. The UK is in the single market. It has opted out of policies that don't suit it. It's current level of international involvement is significantly circumscribed. It doesn't have to participate in the Euro. Regardless or the UK's status inside or outside the Euro, the EZ will develop further rules and policies to make the currency work.

I see your characterisation of a 'franco/german empire' 'jumping over your backs when a german chancellor coughs' as nothing more than evidence of a massive inferiority complex. The UK is big enough to set much of the tone of the EU through positive engagement. It is to the forefront in setting rules and standards, many of which already inform international rules and standards.

The UK at some point will have to develop rules and policies on the environment, finance and countless other areas of human endeavour. Philosophically it will matter little whether it does it inside our outside an arrangement like the EU. As a laggard or a trend-setter. These rules will evolve throughout the developed world. But it is most likely that the EU will have the greatest influence on how these rules and policies pan out. Frankly, I see your railing against rules as they may develop in the context of the EU as more than a little defensive.

As for British people in general, I doubt you speak for all them, as you infer. Certainly your anti-EU views enjoy widespread support. But I suspect that once the British have a debate on the EU and if they hold a referendum, there will be a positive outcome - i.e. a Yes to the EU. Why? Because once the moaning minnies and narky Nigels have had their say people will look for the positives, and they won't find them in UKIP and the more extreme 'Torysceptics'. Constructive thought will win out and I think the British will ultimately come to the conclusion that they can have a positive influence on the EU and they're better off inside the tent than outside slagging of 'Ze Frogs' and 'Ze Krauts'.

SiegfriedsMum · 20-01-2013 09:25AM

Lots of people right across the continent of Europe are not happy with the direction or practices of the EU, and to imply that its only in the UK that that is the case is simply incorrect. It's just in the UK we don't think it rude to have robust debates and to examine issues, and it sometimes seems as if in some other countries it's considered rude to look too closely at the institutions or mechanisms of the EU.

The same coalition of interests and individuals who told the UK that they faced economic disaster unless they joined the euro are now conjuring up all manner of similar forecasts of woe unless they bind themselves to be ruled forever by a government they can neither elect nor dismiss.

The Corinthian · 20-01-2013 09:56AM

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Lots of people right across the continent of Europe are not happy with the direction or practices of the EU, and to imply that its only in the UK that that is the case is simply incorrect.

No one has implied this. However, neither can you deny that the UK has historically, and currently, been the most eurosceptic member state of the EU. This thread is to ask why.

It's just in the UK we don't think it rude to have robust debates and to examine issues, and it sometimes seems as if in some other countries it's considered rude to look too closely at the institutions or mechanisms of the EU.

I think you're confusing 'robust debate' with the kind of buffoonery that Nigel Farage has become famous for. Indeed, your own example earlier in this thread, wasn't exactly 'robust' either given you, for example, took to changing goal-posts to suit your argument.

The same coalition of interests and individuals who told the UK that they faced economic disaster unless they joined the euro are now conjuring up all manner of similar forecasts of woe unless they bind themselves to be ruled forever by a government they can neither elect nor dismiss.

Yet, those who are claiming that the UK (or Ireland) could become another Switzerland upon leaving the EU have repeatedly had their arguments rebutted, after which they abandon their argument and switch to new mud to fling.

Even your latest claim that people will "bind themselves to be ruled forever by a government they can neither elect nor dismiss" is another example of this nonsense. How would you envisage this occurring, or is it just more nonsense that sounds good?

Fratton Fred · 21-01-2013 12:47PM

Is Britain more eurosceptic than Denmark and Sweden, or is it that Denmark and Sweden don't have a news channel showing daily news in Ireland so their eurosceptism is below the Irish radar?

oscarBravo · 21-01-2013 03:44PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is Britain more eurosceptic than Denmark and Sweden, or is it that Denmark and Sweden don't have a news channel showing daily news in Ireland so their eurosceptism is below the Irish radar?

As a regular visitor to Denmark, it's not in the ha'penny place when it comes to euroskepticism. Danes have a very strong sense of national identity - a house without a 10m flagpole in the garden flying a large Dannebrog is the exception rather than the rule - and they're more wary of dilution of sovereignty than many of their fellow member states.

The difference from the UK is that they have a rational political discourse about the EU. They're open about the fact that they have opt-outs from aspects of the EU treaties because of nationalistic reasons; they have reasoned arguments internally about the pros and cons of retaining or reversing those opt-outs. They tend not to demonise the EU as an institution or run silly tabloid stories about the shapes of bananas.

That's my experience at least. I don't agree with some of their attitudes to the EU, but it's refreshing to be able to have a rational conversation about them, which tends not to be the case when talking to my English friends.

SiegfriedsMum · 22-01-2013 01:09PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one has implied this. However, neither can you deny that the UK has historically, and currently, been the most eurosceptic member state of the EU. This thread is to ask why.

Perhaps thats the difference. To be to be sceptical is something good, because a sceptic requires proof before believing something. If one is not a sceptic one must be a credulous person ( which means you will believe something without proof) or a cynic (which means you not believe something even when presented with proof).

For some reason, those who dislike others who question the EU hurl the term "sceptic" at others as if its a badge of shame.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing 'robust debate' with the kind of buffoonery that Nigel Farage has become famous for. Indeed, your own example earlier in this thread, wasn't exactly 'robust' either given you, for example, took to changing goal-posts to suit your argument.

If your contention is that there is only two kinds of debate in the UK, either to agree with the EU or what you refer to as the "buffoonery" that Nigel Farage has become famous for, that really does show that you have little understanding of the UK.

I think many politicians are buffoons of sorts, but to just call them such names doesn't increase my understanding of those they represent.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet, those who are claiming that the UK (or Ireland) could become another Switzerland upon leaving the EU have repeatedly had their arguments rebutted, after which they abandon their argument and switch to new mud to fling.

I really have no knowledge of those to who you refer, and why their arguments, or their switching of their arguments, is relevant seems uncertain. I have no doubt that countries can be successful inside the EU, and also successful outside the EU.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even your latest claim that people will "bind themselves to be ruled forever by a government they can neither elect nor dismiss" is another example of this nonsense. How would you envisage this occurring, or is it just more nonsense that sounds good?

It has to be noted that you may well feel that others arguments are nonsense, just as they may well think yours are also. However, I can't see just telling those with whom you disagree that their arguments are nonsense is likely to persuade them that their arguments are flawed. I am not even sure why you want to become involved in a discussion about the views of the UK if your think their arguments are "flawed" and "nonsense".

The Corinthian · 22-01-2013 02:04PM

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Perhaps thats the difference. To be to be sceptical is something good, because a sceptic requires proof before believing something. If one is not a sceptic one must be a credulous person ( which means you will believe something without proof) or a cynic (which means you not believe something even when presented with proof).

Were Eurosceptics actual sceptics, I'd agree. They're not though.

All you need do is point at a few of the claims made here, such as leaving the EU would allow Ireland or the UK to become like Switzerland, without any evidence to support this, let alone proof, to realize that the term sceptic is purely nominal.

I think many politicians are buffoons of sorts, but to just call them such names doesn't increase my understanding of those they represent.

I can happily call them buffoons on the basis of their words and deeds, and Farage is objectively a buffoon for this reason. If those that he represents don't like such descriptions, I suggest they go and find an alternative to represent them.

I really have no knowledge of those to who you refer, and why their arguments, or their switching of their arguments, is relevant seems uncertain.

If you have no knowledge of these people, then fair enough. You need only go through this thread to find examples of their tactics, if you're curious.

It has to be noted that you may well feel that others arguments are nonsense, just as they may well think yours are also.

I only bother to say it's nonsense when we're revisiting a claim that has previously been refuted successfully, which they then abandoned and then later on in the discussion (or on another thread) return to, as if no refutation had been made.

Otherwise most of these discussions would be a lot more repetitive than they already are.

However, I can't see just telling those with whom you disagree that their arguments are nonsense is likely to persuade them that their arguments are flawed. I am not even sure why you want to become involved in a discussion about the views of the UK if your think their arguments are "flawed" and "nonsense".

It's not for their benefit; I have no more chance of shifting their opinion a millimetre away from Euroscepticism, than I have convincing an Evangelical Christian to question the validity of the Bible.

But they're not the only one's reading these threads. There are hundreds of others who over the course of this thread's existence will browse through and will be neither particularly pro or against Europe. What they'll find is one side here constantly using soapbox tactics and being repeatedly, endlessly, rebutted by the other side who will employ actual facts and argument.

They are the ones that are likely to be persuaded.

Scofflaw · 22-01-2013 04:08PM

The Corinthian wrote:

Were Eurosceptics actual sceptics, I'd agree. They're not though.

In general, they're more like "climate change sceptics" - and, interestingly, the two often go together.

cordially,
Scofflaw

who the fug · 22-01-2013 04:13PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

In general, they're more like "climate change sceptics" - and, interestingly, the two often go together.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And the converse is equally true :cool:

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments