Why are the British so anti Europe?

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I hope you are right that the authorities are playing a sophisticated game, although the evidence for that is pretty thin.

The structural flaws in the Euro have not been addressed, and until they are resolved the problems will continue. Simply pretending the Euro has fared well to date ( tell that to the Greeks and the Spanish etc etc) seems to not face up to the evidence. Its obvious you are not a pessimist and are something of an optimist. I hope I am more of a realist.

GIPS countries are obviously experiencing difficulties. But the Euro as an entity is proving to be remarkably resilient.

Having seen the Irish economic cycle go round in circles over the years, with our seeming inability to learn being the only constant domestically, I'm probably closer to being a realist.

The political strength behind the Euro is a reality that is slowly dawning on more and more and more people. I'm optimistic that there will be a medium term positive outcome for the single currency.

If I were to be pessimistic about any particular economic model in the West, it would be for the short-term, unsustainable Anglo-Saxon approach. Once the Euro has established itself on the world economic stage, I' afraid the dollar and, particularly, sterling are at risk of a slow decline.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Governments around the world have been dealing with financial problems for hundreds of years, and to suggest that they don’t know at this stage how to pull the various levers, or that there are new levers which have never before been discovered and which we are just waiting for various central banks to find, seems far fetched. To suggest that it’s only now that central banks & governments around the world are starting to apply what you call “creative thought” to the problems of financial stabilisation is ludicrous, as they have been doing that for hundreds of years, and have not just started to do it now.

I wish you well with your thoughts that the government can control how much banks lend to individuals, to business men and to businesses and to others. I’ll bet you it wont work and will also bet you the banks will find ways around it, and in any case governments are pretty rotten at trying to run things as we see every day around the world.

I'm not really stepping into the wider discussion, just picking at this bit: Economics as a field is in a pretty bad state, and with a lot of the deregulatory policies/ideology that have been (and worryingly still are) pushed, this has removed a lot of the policies needed to control such bubbles from the 'rulebook' as such.

That said, you're right that most of the policies needed are well known, they just have to actually be relearned and applied; controlling how much banks lend to people/business is just a matter of proper regulation, and enforcing that regulation (with very stiff fines for breaching the regulations, whereas now we only have 'cost of doing business' fines, and only then rarely).

There's not really any way around properly enforced regulations, but they need to actually be enforced; these give all the benefits of tightly controlling private debt and bubbles, without the collateral damage of high interest rates.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I'm not really stepping into the wider discussion, just picking at this bit: Economics as a field is in a pretty bad state, and with a lot of the deregulatory policies/ideology that have been (and worryingly still are) pushed, this has removed a lot of the policies needed to control such bubbles from the 'rulebook' as such.

That said, you're right that most of the policies needed are well known, they just have to actually be relearned and applied; controlling how much banks lend to people/business is just a matter of proper regulation, and enforcing that regulation (with very stiff fines for breaching the regulations, whereas now we only have 'cost of doing business' fines, and only then rarely).

There's not really any way around properly enforced regulations, but they need to actually be enforced; these give all the benefits of tightly controlling private debt and bubbles, without the collateral damage of high interest rates.

Hers is a question; had Ireland had the option of putting up interest rates in the period 2004-2008, is it your view that would have caused collateral damage to the economy which would make irelands present predicament worse?

The point of an interest rate policy is to prevent collateral damage, and has been used with varying degrees of success over the years and decades.

The point here is that the very structure of the Euro prevents any government from having an interest rate policy, which is why it is a structural flaw in the Euro which has no obvious solution.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I think this is the difference, which seems to be we started talking about structural issues with the Euro, and that’s what I am still talking about.

You seem to want to keep taking the conversation away from that to the particular circumstances and actions or inactions of the irish Government, or to speculate about whether the Irish government might or might not have used the tool of higher interest rates if they has that particular tool available to them, which they didn’t.

I never claimed they did. Again, you seem to prefer to talk about Ireland rather than about the structural issues with the Euro.

You suggested that the Irish government did not, and does not, need interest rates as a tool to help maintain stability in the irish economy, because it would be able to regulate the banks to stop them lending.

I pointed out that, if that happened, the banks are very clever at getting around such attempts by governments.

No matter how many times you state it, it’s of little interest to me what the irish government did or didn’t do.

I am talking about the structural issues with the Euro, not about the failures or successes of the irish government.

I’m really not sure what the point is of one article talking about Brian Lenihan to try to show that the Euro is not under threat dues to its inherent faults. Here is one from the Economist which is rather more recent which discusses the problems facing the Euro. You’ll probably disagree with it, but it should demonstrate that not everyone has your faith in the Euro, and there is a considerable body of opinion which thinks its structural flaws are irresolvable, and will hasten it end.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562206

Rabobank.

You’ll probably now redefine “our banks” to only those with the name “Ireland” or “Irish” in their name J

I said it was a principle but you are, of course, correct that, for example, bank of America were given emergency funding by the USA. You’ll note the USA didn’t take Bank of America’s debts and tell the people of Ohio, or Nebraska that they had to take those debts on and repay them. Bank of America has to repay the loans, which it is doing.

That’s where we differ. You have faith that the Euro will continue, whereas I can see there are structural flaws in the Euro which mean there will be trouble ahead.

Governments around the world have been dealing with financial problems for hundreds of years, and to suggest that they don’t know at this stage how to pull the various levers, or that there are new levers which have never before been discovered and which we are just waiting for various central banks to find, seems far fetched. To suggest that it’s only now that central banks & governments around the world are starting to apply what you call “creative thought” to the problems of financial stabilisation is ludicrous, as they have been doing that for hundreds of years, and have not just started to do it now.

I wish you well with your thoughts that the government can control how much banks lend to individuals, to business men and to businesses and to others. I’ll bet you it wont work and will also bet you the banks will find ways around it, and in any case governments are pretty rotten at trying to run things as we see every day around the world.

It is a fact that a structural flaw of the Euro is that individual governments are denied the ability to control interest rates for their individual countries.

The right rate for Berlin is not the right rate for Madrid or Athens.

Again you have “faith” that after hundreds of years of governments, economists, central banks and other around the world examining the issue, that sometime soon someone is going to find some new and exciting alternative tools which have not yet been thought of.

Until one of those people in which you have “faith” finds the new tools which you are holding out for, this structural flaw in the Euro remains.

I am impressed by your belief and faith that some new tools will be found, but after so many hundreds of years looking, what leads you to think they might be found in time to save the Euro?

To be honest, I think we can mostly boil this down, rather than continuing with long posts, because the discussion definitely has a focal point.

You continue to repeat that the single interest rate is a "structural flaw", and think I'm trying to change the subject when I talk about the actions and policies of individual states. I'm not changing the subject, I'm addressing your point - you see the single interest rate as a "structural flaw" because you believe there are no alternatives to individual national interest rates as a method to control the economic temperature of a country.

I am asserting, on the contrary, that there are such tools. Hundreds of years have not been spent looking for them, by any stretch - on the contrary, as far as I can see, nobody bothered looking for them at all because they had interest rates to hand as a tool (for about 150 years, not "hundreds of years"). That they exist, however, is not a matter of faith or speculation, but of statements by central banks saying they exist, and should in future be used. They may not work perfectly, but then neither do interest rates (the UK manages to have had regular property bubbles despite their use), and a prejudice in favour of one rather than the other is more likely inertia than a rational response.

Given that alternative tools are available for controlling what was previously controlled by interest rates, the euro is no longer a "structural flaw" but a "structural feature".

Since your belief that the euro is going to founder is based on your view that the single interest rate is an irremediable structural flaw, I won't address that separately, since if you're wrong in your assumptions - and I think you are - then your conclusion doesn't follow.

There's a couple of specific points I'll address separately.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave wrote: »

Having seen the Irish economic cycle go round in circles over the years, with our seeming inability to learn being the only constant domestically, I'm probably closer to being a realist.

By definition, am economic cycle is something which goes round and round, and thats not unique to ireland. Every country has an economic cycle. Every economy has a bit of an inability to learn insofar as it forgets the lessons learned in earlier times.

McDave wrote: »

If I were to be pessimistic about any particular economic model in the West, it would be for the short-term, unsustainable Anglo-Saxon approach. Once the Euro has established itself on the world economic stage, I' afraid the dollar and, particularly, sterling are at risk of a slow decline.

Its an ususual opinion that the USA, which is on target to become a net oil and gas exporter, and who is creating more jobs at the moment than almost any other economy, employing more scientists than anywhere else in research, leading the world in IT and Medicine, and you judge the dollar will decline in relation to the Euro, which has huge unemployment and negative growth?

If I were a betting man, I'd offer you a wager that you will be proved wrong.

If you read many economists, you'll see many think the Euro is heading for the rocks. Of course, we all hope they are wrong, but hopes are really not enough.

SiegfriedsMum wrote:

I’m really not sure what the point is of one article talking about Brian Lenihan to try to show that the Euro is not under threat dues to its inherent faults. Here is one from the Economist which is rather more recent which discusses the problems facing the Euro. You’ll probably disagree with it, but it should demonstrate that not everyone has your faith in the Euro, and there is a considerable body of opinion which thinks its structural flaws are irresolvable, and will hasten it end.

Actually, I quoted the article in question in response to your claim that saving the Irish banks was about "saving the euro" - the quotes from Lenihan at the time make it clear it wasn't. You don't actually address that point, but move the goalposts somewhere else.

SiegfriedsMum wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I have no idea what bank you think you're talking about, though - the covered banks constituted 78% of the domestic banking sector, and it's rather hard to use a smaller bank to bail out a bigger one.

Rabobank.

You’ll probably now redefine “our banks” to only those with the name “Ireland” or “Irish” in their name J

No, I'm entirely aware of Rabobank, but it's far too small to have bought out Anglo or AIB or BOI, let alone all of them - the same goes for Danske, or KBC. Rabobank has a balance sheet of about €20bn in Ireland - it would have had difficulty swallowing even one of the small bailed out institutions. And that assumes something which is related to your point about "being Irish" - I doubt the government would have preferred to see even one of the smaller institutions be bought out by a "foreign" bank - again, other countries have ensured "their" failing banks were bought out by "their" non-failing banks. Weird, but I assume somewhere it makes sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Hers is a question; had Ireland had the option of putting up interest rates in the period 2004-2008, is it your view that would have caused collateral damage to the economy which would make irelands present predicament worse?

The point of an interest rate policy is to prevent collateral damage, and has been used with varying degrees of success over the years and decades.

The point here is that the very structure of the Euro prevents any government from having an interest rate policy, which is why it is a structural flaw in the Euro which has no obvious solution.

I didn't say interest rate adjustments aren't useful (indeed, the removal of their use, without the addition of adequate regulation to replace them, I may view as a damaging policy the EU is collectively responsible for), just that there are other policies for clamping down on economic bubbles, which allow targeting of specific areas of the economy, whereas the interest rate targets many areas at once (including areas you don't want to put a damper on, such as business loans).

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

By definition, am economic cycle is something which goes round and round, and thats not unique to ireland. Every country has an economic cycle. Every economy has a bit of an inability to learn insofar as it forgets the lessons learned in earlier times.

Well, one of the whole points of the EZ model is to smooth out the cycles and avoid booms and busts. Which are by no means necessary or inevitable. Even Bill Clinton got this point with his and Paul Volcker's 'Goldilocks' economy. Before Clinton lost the plot by abolishing Glass-Steagall.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Its an ususual opinion that the USA, which is on target to become a net oil and gas exporter, and who is creating more jobs at the moment than almost any other economy, employing more scientists than anywhere else in research, leading the world in IT and Medicine, and you judge the dollar will decline in relation to the Euro, which has huge unemployment and negative growth?

With the exception of a period after its launch, the Euro has been trading above its original launch rate against the dollar. So there is evidence that this process is already in train.

By resorting to QE the Fed is attempting to inflate its way out of debt. It won't work. The US will continue to over rely on fossil fuels, something which will cause parts of its economy, and indeed regions, to deteriorate over time.

The US still has a big and vibrant economy. I'd like to see it doing well. But it has had it's golden era, and it future prosperity will depend heavily on productivity and efficiency. And to going back to basics. For instance in industrial manufacturing.

I note you did not refer to the UK in your response.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If you read many economists, you'll see many think the Euro is heading for the rocks. Of course, we all hope they are wrong, but hopes are really not enough.

There are many economists I wouldn't read to save my life anymore who have spectacularly misread the Euro. People like Krugman, McWilliams, Gurdgiev and many, many other who've been dooming heavily on the EZ over the last four years.

KyussBishop wrote: »

I didn't say interest rate adjustments aren't useful (indeed, the removal of their use, without the addition of adequate regulation to replace them, I may view as a damaging policy the EU is collectively responsible for), just that there are other policies for clamping down on economic bubbles, which allow targeting of specific areas of the economy, whereas the interest rate targets many areas at once (including areas you don't want to put a damper on, such as business loans).

A minor point, there, which I think I've made before - the EU, in the sense of the institutional EU, wasn't tasked with producing additional and adequate regulation to replace the lost control over interest rates. That was a power, and responsibility, retained by the Member States.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Even though I still dispute the extent of EU's regulatory role, the failure to actually put in place adequate regulatory measures at an EU level, to replace interest rate adjustments, is still a choice all member states are collectively responsible for; i.e. all member states are collectively responsible for negotiating inadequate EU policies, and for putting a dangerously incomplete system in place, without mandating the policies/regulations needed to provide a safe system (this goes for all problems the current EU configuration is causing).

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even though I still dispute the extent of EU's regulatory role, the failure to actually put in place adequate regulatory measures at an EU level, to replace interest rate adjustments, is still a choice all member states are collectively responsible for; i.e. all member states are collectively responsible for negotiating inadequate EU policies, and for putting a dangerously incomplete system in place, without mandating the policies/regulations needed to provide a safe system (this goes for all problems the current EU configuration is causing).

That does largely go without saying, but in addition, as far as I recall, the most we were able to come up with for the various EU bodies involved in financial 'supervision' was some rather weak overview competences and a communications and advisory function, so it's not really a matter of opinion the extent to which the EU institutions had regulatory responsibility.

That they should have been given such regulatory functions and weren't, on the other hand, I agree was a definite structural flaw of the euro system. Insufficient integrated monitoring, localised regulation, and no crisis plan - it's not really a very impressive list.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

That does largely go without saying, but in addition, as far as I recall, the most we were able to come up with for the various EU bodies involved in financial 'supervision' was some rather weak overview competences and a communications and advisory function, so it's not really a matter of opinion the extent to which the EU institutions had regulatory responsibility.

That they should have been given such regulatory functions and weren't, on the other hand, was a definite structural flaw of the euro system. Insufficient integrated monitoring, localised regulation, and no crisis plan - it's not really a very impressive list.

cordially,
Scofflaw

True enough

Though I'm still kind of reserving judgment on the extent of regulatory power (largely agree there though), and in particular, responsibility, as I'd like to give that a closer look eventually (since as weak as the EU's regulatory power was, some of its powers look like they could possibly have been leveraged).

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, I quoted the article in question in response to your claim that saving the Irish banks was about "saving the euro" - the quotes from Lenihan at the time make it clear it wasn't. You don't actually address that point, but move the goalposts somewhere else.

If you want me to agree that in one speech Brian Lenihan said this or that, then I have no problem with that.

What seems important to you is that some people didn't think the Euro was in difficulties five or so years ago. And if thats what you want to concentrate on, that's fine.

We started off this discussion about structural flaws in the Euro. Your focus over the last few posts has been on Ireland, speculating what the Irish Government may or may not have done had they the fiscal lever of interest rates, which they did not have. and now wanting to parse a report of what the Irish Finance Minister said over five years ago.

I am not really concerned about the Irish Participation in the Euro, but in the Euro itself. You asked me to name three structural flaws in the Euro, so I did.

If it's your view that the Euro is a strong and stable currency which has no structural flaws, then lets disagree and move on.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, I'm entirely aware of Rabobank, but it's far too small to have bought out Anglo or AIB or BOI, let alone all of them - the same goes for Danske, or KBC. Rabobank has a balance sheet of about €20bn in Ireland - it would have had difficulty swallowing even one of the small bailed out institutions. And that assumes something which is related to your point about "being Irish" - I doubt the government would have preferred to see even one of the smaller institutions be bought out by a "foreign" bank - again, other countries have ensured "their" failing banks were bought out by "their" non-failing banks. Weird, but I assume somewhere it makes sense.

You asked "which of our banks didn't fail" and I named one.

For some reason, you now want to discuss whether or not it might have been able to have bought one of the other banks which was bailed out, and further speculate about your doubts over what the Irish Government may or may not have wanted.

The irony is then you accuse me of "moving the goalposts"

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If you want me to agree that in one speech Brian Lenihan said this or that, then I have no problem with that.

What seems important to you is that some people didn't think the Euro was in difficulties five or so years ago. And if thats what you want to concentrate on, that's fine.

No, that's not the point of the quote, or even remotely close to it. I'll repeat what I said already:

Actually, I quoted the article in question in response to your claim that saving the Irish banks was about "saving the euro" - the quotes from Lenihan at the time make it clear it wasn't. You don't actually address that point, but move the goalposts somewhere else.

You appear now to have taken the goalposts off the pitch entirely.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

We started off this discussion about structural flaws in the Euro. Your focus over the last few posts has been on Ireland, speculating what the Irish Government may or may not have done had they the fiscal lever of interest rates, which they did not have. and now wanting to parse a report of what the Irish Finance Minister said over five years ago.

I am not really concerned about the Irish Participation in the Euro, but in the Euro itself. You asked me to name three structural flaws in the Euro, so I did.

If it's your view that the Euro is a strong and stable currency which has no structural flaws, then lets disagree and move on.

Sigh. You named three problems, and we're discussing one of them, the question of whether the single interest rate is a "structural flaw" or not.

My contention is that it's a structural feature, not a flaw. It becomes a flaw only if countries don't react to it properly. My contention is that they did not react to it properly, using the case of Ireland as the specific example.

Your contention is that they cannot react to it properly, because they can't control their own interest rates. My contention is that controlling their own interest rates is unnecessary, because other tools are available. Your response is to repeat your original claim, and so we go round in a circle.

You cannot see anything but interest rates as a control for certain economic issues, but you haven't actually been able to refute the Central Bank's view that they have other tools at their disposal - you've simply dismissed it out of hand on the basis that they couldn't possibly have thought of something they didn't already think of in "hundreds of years". They, on the other hand, obviously think they have. Of the two of you, they are rather more likely to be right, particularly given the nature of your argument, which, taken as correct, would mean that we can't really have had any technical progress in any existing field over the last couple of centuries.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

You asked "which of our banks didn't fail" and I named one.

For some reason, you now want to discuss whether or not it might have been able to have bought one of the other banks which was bailed out, and further speculate about your doubts over what the Irish Government may or may not have wanted.

The irony is then you accuse me of "moving the goalposts"

Yes, indeed I do, because I didn't just ask you to name a bank that didn't fail in order for you simply to give me the name of a bank. I asked you to name a bank that didn't fail in the context of our doing what they did in the US and UK, and using non-failed banks to buy out failed banks. In that context - and I have no other reason for asking the question - the size of Rabobank is important, because Rabo couldn't have taken over any of the failed "Irish" banks.

I don't know whether you cannot actually take evidence on board, or are moving the goalposts rather more consciously. Either way, you're evidently not open to any contradiction on the question of the single interest rate being a "structural flaw", and to a very large extent apparently resistant to even discussing it unless I concede in advance that you're correct. However, as I said already, the euro does not appear to be going away, and Ireland doesn't appear to be leaving it, so I guess we'll have to hope I'm right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As has already been pointed out we disagree whether the inability to use interest rates as a tool is a structural flaw.

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, as I said already, the euro does not appear to be going away, and Ireland doesn't appear to be leaving it, so I guess we'll have to hope I'm right.

For me, hopes are not enough.

Lets disagree and move on.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

As has already been pointed out we disagree whether the inability to use interest rates as a tool is a structural flaw.

You are starting from a flawed premise as:
A) the ECB does use interest rates as a tool on a regular basis as part of its efforts to ensure low inflation, and,

there is no currency anywhere in the world where its political "sub-compoments" (for want of a better phrase) get to set differing individual interest rates. A common currency means a common interest rate - you do not find cantons Schwyz or Uri setting their own interest rates never mind Nebraska or Oregon doing so.

That said since you have shown great determination in discarding all evidence from outside the Eurozone that doesn't fit your view, no doubt you'll discount that latter point as well.

NAP123

View wrote: »

You are starting from a flawed premise as:
A) the ECB does use interest rates as a tool on a regular basis as part of its efforts to ensure low inflation, and,
there is no currency anywhere in the world where its political "sub-compoments" (for want of a better phrase) get to set differing individual interest rates. A common currency means a common interest rate - you do not find cantons Schwyz or Uri setting their own interest rates never mind Nebraska or Oregon doing so.

That said since you have shown great determination in discarding all evidence from outside the Eurozone that doesn't fit your view, no doubt you'll discount that latter point as well.

Give me an example of a Central Bank in a currency Union that is not allowed print money.

The ECB is not a Central Bank fit for the equality and fairness of a currency union.

NAP123 wrote: »

Give me an example of a Central Bank in a currency Union that is not allowed print money.

Well, since the ECB does "print money" - or to be more precise, has the local central banks of the ESCB print money at the ECB's instruction - the relevance of your point is what exactly?

NAP123 wrote: »

The ECB is not a Central Bank fit for the equality and fairness of a currency union.

Ahh, the old "I think it is wrong, therefore it is wrong" argument...

NAP123

View wrote: »

Well, since the ECB does "print money" - or to be more precise, has the local central banks of the ESCB print money at the ECB's instruction - the relevance of your point is what exactly?

Ahh, the old "I think it is wrong, therefore it is wrong" argument...

The ECB is not allowed print money.

The money it has given to Banks and countries comes with terms and conditions.

In the case of Banks money is given inreturn for collateral and in the case of countries an interest rate and a Memorandum of Understanding.

It might actually craeate the money artificially but it only loans it out.

That is not the case with other Central Banks.

In fact if you look closely at the Trichet regime, they borrowed printed money from the U.S Fed and did not actually print it itself.

Thinking you are right, does not mean that you are, in fact in your case, thinking at all, might be harmful to your health.

PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF CENTRAL BANKS
AND OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

NAP123 wrote: »

The ECB is not allowed print money.

Really?

Quote the article(s) in the EU Treaties where it says that...

NAP123 wrote: »

The money it has given to Banks and countries comes with terms and conditions.

In the case of Banks money is given inreturn for collateral and in the case of countries an interest rate and a Memorandum of Understanding.

It might actually craeate the money artificially but it only loans it out.

That is not the case with other Central Banks.

So, you are saying that the Bundesbank - probably the most conservative central bankers in the world - decided to gamble the entire German economy on a whole new type of never-tried-before central banking rather than stick with their tried-and-tested-but-boring old-fashioned central banking?

I am not sure why you'd believe why our (Irish) central bankers would be so stupid much less those of every other member state who has either introduced the Euro or is legally committed to doing so.

Central Bankers like boring in case you didn't notice...

NAP123

View wrote: »

Really?

Quote the article(s) in the EU Treaties where it says that...

So, you are saying that the Bundesbank - probably the most conservative central bankers in the world - decided to gamble the entire German economy on a whole new type of never-tried-before central banking rather than stick with their tried-and-tested-but-boring old-fashioned central banking?

I am not sure why you'd believe why our (Irish) central bankers would be so stupid much less those of every other member state who has either introduced the Euro or is legally committed to doing so.

Central Bankers like boring in case you didn't notice...

I repeat, the ECB is constitutionally barred from printing money.

Check its constitution.

Noonan has repeated this at least a dozen times in the last 24 hours.

timbyr

NAP123 wrote: »

I repeat, the ECB is constitutionally barred from printing money.

Check its constitution.

Noonan has repeated this at least a dozen times in the last 24 hours.

Article 16
Banknotes
In accordance with Article 106(1) of this Treaty, the Governing Council shall have the exclusive right to authorize the issue of
banknotes within the Community. The ECB and the national central banks may issue such notes. The banknotes issued by the
ECB and the national central banks shall be the only such notes to have the status of legal tender within the Community.
The ECB shall respect as far as possible existing practices regarding the issue and design of banknotes.

Although I guess you are referring to alternative forms of money creation, but that's covered in the document as well in Chapter IV.

NAP123 wrote: »

I repeat, the ECB is constitutionally barred from printing money.

Check its constitution.

Noonan has repeated this at least a dozen times in the last 24 hours.

Noonan is referring to "monetary financing" of states - that is, printing money for some Member State or other specifically to spend as it likes. The ECB being in control of the euro money supply rather obviously requires it to be able to print money when necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

NAP123 wrote: »

I repeat, the ECB is constitutionally barred from printing money.

Check its constitution.

Noonan has repeated this at least a dozen times in the last 24 hours.

Well, I asked you to prove it couldn't do so but since you can't I would refer you to the TFEU Articles 128.1 & 128.2 which deals with notes & coins respectively plus Article 16 of the ECB statute (dealing with notes).

In TFEU 128.1, we have:

The European Central Bank shall have the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes within the Union. The European Central Bank and the national central banks may issue such notes.

In other words, the ECB has an explicit right to issue money (notes) if it so chooses and the sole right to authorize the national central banks to do so. It also must authorise the issuance of coins by the NCBs under article 128.2 (but is neither explicitly authorized or prohibited from doing so directly itself).

In fact, an ECB report from back in 2004 indicated that the ECB had exercised its right to issue notes and these ECB directly issued notes accounted for circa 8% of the total notes in circulation at the time. That figured could obviously have changed wildly in either direction since then.

PS Please don't get into a pedantic argument about the difference between "issuing notes" and "printing notes" as half the central banks in the world need (legally separate) mints that do the printing or coining for them. There is even a UK private company - De La Rue printers - which handles the physical printing of bank notes for central banks, so they don't even have to do that much if they don't want!

gallag

What do you guys think about DC keeping to his promise of keeping the rebate while also cutting the EU budget? Not many thought it likely.