Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Why are the British so anti Europe?

1…2122242627…58

Comments

  • #692
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    I agree the EU has been successful, but its also worthy to note that up to now much of the EU manufacturing has gone to the East, particularly China, due to high labour costs in the EU. Add to that now the significantly lower energy costs in the US, and that has to be a further worry.
    Much of it has. But much has also remained. Particularly in Germany. Also the SME sector in manufacturing is massive in Europe, particularly in Germany and Italy.


  • #693
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    I don’t portray the policy as a failure, but note the result on prices of energy, which is where the failure is. The policy is very good, for example, at getting citizens to use less energy.
    You're contradicting yourself. Your actual words at post 681 above url]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84699550&postcount=681[/url was "EU energy policy is not working". You intimated as much in post no. 648 where you stated:
    Does the EU energy policy work? Gas prices in the US are $3 compared to $12 in the EU. Everyone in the EU has seen their energy bills double or triple in recent years in the EU. In the US consumers have seen their energy bills falling at the same time. For industry, it means the EU is non competitive, and much industry and the great chemical and cement plants, (big employers) can no longer compete with such high energy inputs, and look to produce outside the EU. The result is more unemployemnt in the EU, shifting to new jobs outside the EU, and everyone in the EU paying vastly more for their energy than anyone else in the world.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84659755&postcount=648


  • #694
    twistyj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭twistyj


    You're not anti-Europe?

    You are in Ireland aren't you?


  • #695
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    I really don’t know what “sustainable” means, and also don’t think it’s very sustainable to lose jobs, lose wealth and have successive quarters of negative growth. To me the goal of “sustainable” is not worth that, and I’d rather have a successful EU growing and sustaining its jobs and wealth. If you think it’s glib to mention that, then I don’t think it’s very responsible to not mention it to avoid the possibility that someone may think it glib.
    Sustainability url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability[/url is a widely understood concept at the core of EU economic and environmental policy. The concept is also at the core of the single currency. It requires budget deficits to be managed in structural manner with revenue and expenditure planned over a longer timeframe in order to sustain economies through cyclical fluctuations.

    The basic idea of sustainability is that economic costs are fully internalised, rather than being long-fingered or ignored. That helps iron out boom-bust cycles and produce the kind of 'Goldilocks' economy Clinton and Volcker bequeathed to Bush and Greenspan. The latter, of course, immediately reverted to unsustainable policies, holding down interest rates, and front-loading spending and undertaking costly military exercises, ironically in the vain hope that they could control energy supplies and prices.


  • #696
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,302 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I think you'd find that many people who oppose "mass immigration" have exactly that fact in mind as a cause of anti-immigration sentiment. I don't think any of the governments in question have a problem with immigration, but I think that's rather the point.

    However, overall, I agree with you that anti-immigration sentiment will play a smaller role than might be expected from the current success of parties like UKIP, although if the proposed referendum happens at a time when the UK economy is still in recession, it's likely to feature to some extent.

    We had the rise of the BNP for the last local elections and they disappeared for the general election, I'd suspect a lot of that vote transferred to UKIP, some of it anti-immigration, some your standard protest vote. I think the size and more significantly, the strength of this vote gets over estimated by the media, opinion polls and by the parties that pick up votes from it.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #697
    thomas.frink
    Site Banned Posts: 64 ✭✭thomas.frink


    McDave wrote: »
    Moreover, the US is looking to avoidance of corporate tax abroad to undermine much of the incentive to move jobs abroad.

    A move which, if successful, will be yet another body blow to the Irish economy. My view is that it will have only limited success, but we’ll both have to wait and see. You seem to not want to discuss the impact of energy prices being 400% higher in the EU than the USA, which seems to me a more current, and important, issue for manufacturers.
    McDave wrote: »
    Britain seems to have pretty much given up on manufacturing, and over-concentrated on services, not least in finance. I think Britain is going to pay for putting too many eggs in that basket, particularly as speculation and avoidance is controlled more.

    No one is arguing that the British economy is rosy, anymore than anyone is arguing that the EU economy is rosy. However to claim the UK’s with its world leading motor industry, arms manufacturing, steel industry, chemical industry, farming, the City and many more manufacturing industries show Britain has given up on manufacturing, is an unusual view.

    If we take some time to divert and look at Ireland, most of Irelands manufacturing is either technology or pharma, and mainly USA based IT and pharma companies. If Obama succeeds in forcing US companies to pay tax in the US on worldwide earnings, that can’t be good for the Irish economy which is reliant on what is called “inward investment” which means relying on foreigners to go to Ireland to create jobs for Irish people. If the reason for all those companies evaporates due to Obama getting his way, what will happen to the Irish economy? We’d better all pray those laws never go through.

    However, we digress.
    McDave wrote: »
    You're contradicting yourself. Your actual words at post 681 above URL]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84699550&postcount=681[/URL was "EU energy policy is not working". You intimated as much in post no. 648 where you stated:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84659755&postcount=648[/QUOTE]

    I call it a clarification, you call it a contradiction, let’s call the whole thing off :-)

    I don’t think anyone can call an energy policy which results in gas prices 400% higher than a major competitor can be called a success.

    Just because that part is not a success doesn’t mean that the whole energy policy is 100% not successful. It’s quite possible to say the higher prices have meant citizens have learned top reduce their use of energy ( a success) and also note that the higher prices of energy have contributes to the downturn in manufacturing activity (not a success) .

    McDave wrote: »
    Sustainability URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability[/URL is a widely understood concept at the core of EU economic and environmental policy. The concept is also at the core of the single currency. It requires budget deficits to be managed in structural manner with revenue and expenditure planned over a longer timeframe in order to sustain economies through cyclical fluctuations.

    The basic idea of sustainability is that economic costs are fully internalised, rather than being long-fingered or ignored. That helps iron out boom-bust cycles and produce the kind of 'Goldilocks' economy Clinton and Volcker bequeathed to Bush and Greenspan. The latter, of course, immediately reverted to unsustainable policies, holding down interest rates, and front-loading spending and undertaking costly military exercises, ironically in the vain hope that they could control energy supplies and prices.

    The concept is widely understood, I agree. It was the practice, and not the concept, which led the Washington Post to call it “Europe has become the green-energy basket case”.

    The fact is that energy prices in the US (on which industry and households depend) are 25% lower than those in the EU. Why you think that is ironic seems curious.

    One of the differences noted in the UK, between the US president and the EU, is that the US president knows the government can’t control markets whereas the EU thinks the government can control markets. The example often cited is the Euro. And, as is further pointed out by many in the UK, the current problems across the EU have been exacerbated, precisely as was predicted, due to this hubris.

    You probably don’t want to agree with that, and may well have the view that governments can control markets over the long term, but history seems to be against that view.

    There is good and bad in both the UK, the US and the EU, and none is perfect. The difference is that many in the UK seem to prefer to be governed by an imperfect UK governmental system rather than by an imperfect EU system. That’s a perfectly valid view and one which, I predict, will hold increasing sway leading up to a referendum. You probably disagree and it remains to be seen which of our guesses is correct.

    The wider view, which must be worrying for the EU, is the increasing numbers in the Eurobarometer polls who share that view across the EU, and the shrinking numbers who support the EU.


  • #698
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    thomas.frink wrote:
    The wider view, which must be worrying for the EU, is the increasing numbers in the Eurobarometer polls who share that view across the EU, and the shrinking numbers who support the EU.

    If the current unpopularity of the EU didn't mirror the unpopularity of national governments, and/or doesn't go into reverse as we come out of the crisis, there's a serious long-term problem. As yet, it's not possible to tell the latter, but the former is the case - the EU's popularity has dropped in line with that of the rest of the 'establishment', so it's not a unique anti-EU thing.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #699
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    You seem to not want to discuss the impact of energy prices being 400% higher in the EU than the USA, which seems to me a more current, and important, issue for manufacturers.
    Well, for one thing, I don't think you've demonstrated that energy prices are four times higher in the EU. Oil is available at world market prices. Is nuclear really four times more expensive in Europe?

    I really doubt your claim. Particularly as European manufacturing is doing reasonably well.


  • #700
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    No one is arguing that the British economy is rosy, anymore than anyone is arguing that the EU economy is rosy. However to claim the UK’s with its world leading motor industry, arms manufacturing, steel industry, chemical industry, farming, the City and many more manufacturing industries show Britain has given up on manufacturing, is an unusual view.
    I never stated that Britain has no manufacturing industry. But it's manufacturing sector has been in decline, particularly in comparison to its advances in the services sector. This was a policy choice mainly by Thatcher, i.e. to move out of manufacturing and more into a post-industrial services society.

    I personally think it was a mistake to de-emphasise manufacturing. Germany, for instance, maintained its stake in manufacturing, but developed its services industries too, including its financial services. The particular benefit for the latter was that it was able to keep its feet relatively on the ground in building on tangible manufacturing and services industries. I think their approach is being borne out, not least in the maintenance of a substantial blue-collar sector.

    As to the industries themselves, Britain does not has a world leading motor industry. It's well down manufacturing rankings coming in behind Germany, France and Spain. It punches well below its former weight. It has substantial presences in some of the other sectors you mention. But it's industrial output is half of Germany's and pro rata on a par with France's and Spain's.


  • #701
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    If we take some time to divert and look at Ireland, most of Irelands manufacturing is either technology or pharma, and mainly USA based IT and pharma companies. If Obama succeeds in forcing US companies to pay tax in the US on worldwide earnings, that can’t be good for the Irish economy which is reliant on what is called “inward investment” which means relying on foreigners to go to Ireland to create jobs for Irish people. If the reason for all those companies evaporates due to Obama getting his way, what will happen to the Irish economy? We’d better all pray those laws never go through.
    That's a major problem for Ireland. Our meaningful manufacturing and IT sectors have been 'bought in'. The IDA has done the job it was briefed to do. However there have been long-standing criticisms of Ireland's inability to develop indigenous industries. In fairness, there's only so much policy-makers can do, and it's very difficult to overcome geographic peripherality, but in reality, we have become over-dependent on inward investment.

    Ireland is still very capable of lobbying for an industrial and services development policy with concessions specifically made for geographic disadvantage. But we won't ever get away again with our more egregious policies such as financial sector 'laundering'.

    As for the US, we'll see what Obama actually does in the end. But if 'social dumping' major industrialised countries and MNC financial doping is actually tackled, I think we're going to see some erosion of the advantages MNCs have establish over the decades through GATT and the WTO. The benefits for the US and the larger European countries will be more jobs for them and more revenue.


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    McDave wrote: »
    You're contradicting yourself. Your actual words at post 681 above URL]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84699550&postcount=681[/URL was "EU energy policy is not working". You intimated as much in post no. 648 where you stated:
    Does the EU energy policy work? Gas prices in the US are $3 compared to $12 in the EU. Everyone in the EU has seen their energy bills double or triple in recent years in the EU. In the US consumers have seen their energy bills falling at the same time. For industry, it means the EU is non competitive, and much industry and the great chemical and cement plants, (big employers) can no longer compete with such high energy inputs, and look to produce outside the EU. The result is more unemployemnt in the EU, shifting to new jobs outside the EU, and everyone in the EU paying vastly more for their energy than anyone else in the world.
    [URL=]"http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84659755&postcount=648[[/URL]

    I call it a clarification, you call it a contradiction, let’s call the whole thing off :-)

    I don’t think anyone can call an energy policy which results in gas prices 400% higher than a major competitor can be called a success.

    Just because that part is not a success doesn’t mean that the whole energy policy is 100% not successful. It’s quite possible to say the higher prices have meant citizens have learned top reduce their use of energy ( a success) and also note that the higher prices of energy have contributes to the downturn in manufacturing activity (not a success) .
    Any overall slowdowns in EU manufacturing are down to a number of factors including low consumer demand, restricted lending by banks and in some countries, like France, loss of productivity. Most energy prices cannot really be controlled. Indeed it would be fair to assume that with more competition for energy acquisition and constraints on fossil fuel sources, prices will continue to rise. EU countries are getting used to this reality in advance and forward-looking companies are computing this into their costs.

    That's one of the reasons for the low inflation target in the Maastricht criteria. Higher input costs, typically raw materials/commodities, have to be compensated for. These can't be controlled. But when they occur, other efficiencies have to be found. You can't just jack your prices up - that puts you at a potential disadvantage to your competitors. It makes good sense, therefore, to reduce the energy component of manufacturing, purely in its own terms.


  • #703
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    The concept is widely understood, I agree. It was the practice, and not the concept, which led the Washington Post to call it “Europe has become the green-energy basket case”.

    The fact is that energy prices in the US (on which industry and households depend) are 25% lower than those in the EU. Why you think that is ironic seems curious.
    TBH, I'm not unduly concerned by the WP's characterisation of Europe's 'green-energy' performance. Sounds like a good old-fashioned sneer to me.

    And once again, you have not demonstrated how US energy prices are actually 25% lower than in the EU. Please clarify.


  • #704
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    One of the differences noted in the UK, between the US president and the EU, is that the US president knows the government can’t control markets whereas the EU thinks the government can control markets. The example often cited is the Euro. And, as is further pointed out by many in the UK, the current problems across the EU have been exacerbated, precisely as was predicted, due to this hubris.
    Sources please?

    More generally, the reality is quite different. The US regularly intervenes in markets. It's anti-trust law is strong evidence of this.

    As for the Euro, it's not an attempt to control markets. If anything, it is an attempt to provide some level of predictability and stability for market actors, for instance by controlling inflation and reducing currency volatility. Many European market actors appreciate and support this.

    That there is a necessary transition between setting single currency goals and executing them is probably beyond the understanding of the hubristic UK 'pointer-outers' you rely on for support. On this point anyway.


  • #705
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    There is good and bad in both the UK, the US and the EU, and none is perfect. The difference is that many in the UK seem to prefer to be governed by an imperfect UK governmental system rather than by an imperfect EU system. That’s a perfectly valid view and one which, I predict, will hold increasing sway leading up to a referendum. You probably disagree and it remains to be seen which of our guesses is correct.

    The wider view, which must be worrying for the EU, is the increasing numbers in the Eurobarometer polls who share that view across the EU, and the shrinking numbers who support the EU.
    Of course, that's entirely the prerogative of the UK electorate. We'll see how that one pans out. My guess is that the electorate will in the end opt to stay within the EU. But I'm perfectly prepared to admit being wrong if the UK opts out.

    More generally, I doubt the EU itself is unduly worried by polls. Although support for, and trust in the EU is down significantly, there is still substantial support for the idea of the EU overall. Which, considering the times we are going through, must be heartening on some level. I'd predict support levels will swing upwards as the EU emerges from the worst of the international private and public borrowing crisis.


  • #706
    thomas.frink
    Site Banned Posts: 64 ✭✭thomas.frink


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If the current unpopularity of the EU didn't mirror the unpopularity of national governments, and/or doesn't go into reverse as we come out of the crisis, there's a serious long-term problem. As yet, it's not possible to tell the latter, but the former is the case - the EU's popularity has dropped in line with that of the rest of the 'establishment', so it's not a unique anti-EU thing.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    What if the EU doesn't come out of the crises? What if it follows the path Japan has been on and recession becomes a more or less permanent state for 10, 20 or 30 years? While we all hope that won't happen, hopes are not going to turn around the current predicament.

    The majority thought the Japanese recession was going to be short and just a normal part of a cycle, and among the lessons we should have learned is that policies have consequences.

    We have seen some of the (predicted) consequences of the introduction of the Euro, which has split the Eurozone, and plunged the EU into recession as the political aims of the Euro have serious economic ramifications.

    It's true disaffection with politics has grown, both domestically and at the macro level of the EU. However, there is not much comfort to be had from that, and it may well be that a new politics will emerge, where currently so many are scathing about the spin politics which is still in vogue with politicians.

    One of the notable issues in the UK is that there is a feeling that it's possible to punish national politicians by voting them out, but not possible to do so at am EU level. That's a perception which will need to be changed well before any referendum.

    Who knows what will happen, but to assume, as the Japanese did to their eternal regret, that this recession is cyclical and temporary, may be a mistake.


  • #707
    thomas.frink
    Site Banned Posts: 64 ✭✭thomas.frink


    McDave wrote: »
    Well, for one thing, I don't think you've demonstrated that energy prices are four times higher in the EU. Oil is available at world market prices. Is nuclear really four times more expensive in Europe?

    I really doubt your claim. Particularly as European manufacturing is doing reasonably well.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84691427&postcount=670


  • #708
    thomas.frink
    Site Banned Posts: 64 ✭✭thomas.frink


    McDave wrote: »
    Any overall slowdowns in EU manufacturing are down to a number of factors including low consumer demand, restricted lending by banks and in some countries, like France, loss of productivity. Most energy prices cannot really be controlled. Indeed it would be fair to assume that with more competition for energy acquisition and constraints on fossil fuel sources, prices will continue to rise. EU countries are getting used to this reality in advance and forward-looking companies are computing this into their costs.

    Of course there are many costs in business, although usually the labour costs and energy costs are significant, if not the major, costs.

    Unfortunately, the labour cost and energy costs in the EU are now out of kilter to the costs elsewhere, particularly in the US, to an extent that they make it increasingly unattractive to manufacture in the EU.

    And you are right that companies in the EU have to factor these increases into their costs (if they did not they would be bankrupt), whereas their competitors in the US have to factor decreases in energy prices into their costs. That is going to continue be a problem for the EU unless or until the EU can address its higher labour and energy costs, and has led to the increasing lack of competitiveness of the EU.
    McDave wrote: »
    It makes good sense, therefore, to reduce the energy component of manufacturing, purely in its own terms.

    Indeed it does, which is why manufacturers (like DeFarge mentioned earlier, and others), seek to manufacture outside the EU in areas where their energy input costs are lower.
    McDave wrote: »
    TBH, I'm not unduly concerned by the WP's characterisation of Europe's 'green-energy' performance. Sounds like a good old-fashioned sneer to me..

    I’d rather look at the facts rather than dismiss it as a sneer, but we have to decide those things for ourselves.
    McDave wrote: »
    And once again, you have not demonstrated how US energy prices are actually 25% lower than in the EU. Please clarify.


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=670
    McDave wrote: »

    That there is a necessary transition between setting single currency goals and executing them is probably beyond the understanding of the hubristic UK 'pointer-outers' you rely on for support. On this point anyway.

    It is those very people who will get to vote in any referendum in the UK, and whether or not they are prepared to wait in the transition you talk about, until the execution happens, remains to be seen.
    McDave wrote: »

    More generally, I doubt the EU itself is unduly worried by polls. .

    If that's true, then that's a sad confirmation on what many in the UK think, that the EU is non responsive, run by an elite who have little concern for the people of the UK or EU, and who wish to progress their own agenda despite the wishes of the people.

    I'm not sure I agree with your view that the EU is not concerned at the year on year increases in dissatisfaction, but certainly in the UK many would seem to agree with you.


  • #709
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    What if the EU doesn't come out of the crises? What if it follows the path Japan has been on and recession becomes a more or less permanent state for 10, 20 or 30 years? While we all hope that won't happen, hopes are not going to turn around the current predicament.

    And while that's possible, possibilities are only possibilities.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    The majority thought the Japanese recession was going to be short and just a normal part of a cycle, and among the lessons we should have learned is that policies have consequences.

    We have seen some of the (predicted) consequences of the introduction of the Euro, which has split the Eurozone, and plunged the EU into recession as the political aims of the Euro have serious economic ramifications.

    The euro attracts a lot of blame of this kind, yet it's highly unusual for the person casting the aspersions to be able to say exactly what they mean, or to demonstrate how it comes about.

    I think that here, you mean that the actions and policies of southern and northern governments within the EU diverged, with divergent results. But when was that not the case, and why is suddenly ascribed this time to the euro as opposed to government policies? The Greeks have over-borrowed and had to default repeatedly throughout their national history, Italy has been heavily in debt since forever, the northern countries have been well-managed and austere since well before the euro.

    Nor is all of the eurozone is in recession - something one would have thought was a prerequisite for ascribing recession to the euro as you're doing. Again, what seems to be counting is national policies, whether the country is in the eurozone or not.

    What the euro has shaped is the response to the crisis, and certain features of the crisis, but the claim that the euro is the cause of the crisis is a lazy one, presented without reference to the existence of identical problems well beyond the eurozone's borders.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    It's true disaffection with politics has grown, both domestically and at the macro level of the EU. However, there is not much comfort to be had from that, and it may well be that a new politics will emerge, where currently so many are scathing about the spin politics which is still in vogue with politicians.

    And has always been in vogue with politicians, is in vogue with politicians, and will always be in vogue with politicians - Beppe Grillo, Golden Dawn, and DDI are no less spinners than any other political groups. People are always scathing in a crisis, and politics usually has to clean up its act for a while afterwards, but it's rare for anything genuinely new to emerge - the response to the current crisis is strikingly similar to the response in the Thirties.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    One of the notable issues in the UK is that there is a feeling that it's possible to punish national politicians by voting them out, but not possible to do so at am EU level. That's a perception which will need to be changed well before any referendum.

    There's an extent to which it's genuinely just a perception, and an extent to which it's also true, so there's a limit to how much it can be changed. Voting out the UK's government votes out the UK's representation at the main decision-making level in the EU, which is the Council, and there's no problem voting out their MEPs, obviously. But the Commission, like any executive, isn't directly elected by the voters, and the UK cannot change the Council or Parliamentary representation of the other countries.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    Who knows what will happen, but to assume, as the Japanese did to their eternal regret, that this recession is cyclical and temporary, may be a mistake.

    And to assume that it's permanent is a little premature. Even the Japanese recession is hardly eternal, or indeed even consistent. Although a lot will depend on ingenuity over the next half century, for the whole world's economy, as we come up against various outcomes of the last century's relentless material growth.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #710
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,226 ✭✭✭Solair


    I would be fairly confident that the US won't make any significant changes to the laws on repatriation of profits for two reasons:

    1) the sheer power of lobbyists in the US system. It won't rally against corporate interests as they basically own Washington DC.

    2) the sheer scale of the multinationals is such that they could just decide that their US base becomes a division of their Luxembourg, Irish or Singapore HQ.
    In many cases, their sales outside the US are far bigger than their sales in the US. Most also have no manufacturing in the US or Europe. It's all done in China.

    Even with Apple, its not entirely American technology either.

    iPhone : US software, a British designed processor architecture (ARM) manufactured in South Korea by Samsung. South Korean memory chips made in China and a screen that's patented and manufactured by LG. the iPhone industrial design is led by a British designer too.
    The communications technologies its running on are largely developed by European R&D houses like Ericsson & Nokia with some US technology from Broadcom

    So, eh ... It's frankly increasingly difficult to argue where these products are actually sourcing their IP. They're truly multinational.

    As for the EU, it remains the worlds largest single consumer market (bigger than the USA and tens if times bigger than China, despite the hype).

    I still think the EU will muddle its way out of this mess.

    I would definitely rather see the UK on the inside of the EU shaping its future rather than standing outside looking in though.

    In many respects the UK's interests are closer to Ireland than say German interests and policy tends to be.


  • #711
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,871 ✭✭✭View


    Solair wrote: »
    In many respects the UK's interests are closer to Ireland than say German interests and policy tends to be.

    A common perception but one not based on the evidence of the voting record in the Council of Ministers (or even the EP).

    The UK's voting record is a lot closer to Germany's than it is to Ireland's - in fact, the UK is the single member state least likely to support "the Irish position" in the Council of Ministers. Ireland's "interests" tend to be constantly supported by France and Lithuania - I guess it is nice of France to follow our lead. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #712
    thomas.frink
    Site Banned Posts: 64 ✭✭thomas.frink


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The euro attracts a lot of blame of this kind, yet it's highly unusual for the person casting the aspersions to be able to say exactly what they mean, or to demonstrate how it comes about.

    I think that here, you mean that the actions and policies of southern and northern governments within the EU diverged, with divergent results. But when was that not the case, and why is suddenly ascribed this time to the euro as opposed to government policies? The Greeks have over-borrowed and had to default repeatedly throughout their national history, Italy has been heavily in debt since forever, the northern countries have been well-managed and austere since well before the euro.

    Nor is all of the eurozone is in recession - something one would have thought was a prerequisite for ascribing recession to the euro as you're doing. Again, what seems to be counting is national policies, whether the country is in the eurozone or not.

    What the euro has shaped is the response to the crisis, and certain features of the crisis, but the claim that the euro is the cause of the crisis is a lazy one, presented without reference to the existence of identical problems well beyond the eurozone's borders.

    I’d have to agree that it would be foolish to claim that the Euro caused foolish governments to spend like drunken sailors and try to court popularity with their citizens by bribing them with borrowed money.

    The Euro did two things which were to;

    • Made it easy for banks to lend to banks in other countries without the risks of currency fluctuations

    • Removed the necessary tool of interest rate rises to help individual governments choke off overheating economies.

    Consequently, while the Euro didn’t cause recession, or inflation or even hyper-inflation in, for example, the Spanish or Irish housing markets, its very existence made the situation many times worse by not allowing the Irish or Spanish governments to use interest rates in the way they had previously used them, coupled with currency devaluations, to choke off that inflation.

    The resulting recession was caused by the falsely over inflated economies collapsing and was not directly caused by the Euro in that sense, but was as a result of the Euro necessarily tying the hands of individual governments.

    All of which was well predicted before the launch of the Euro, and was one of the contributing factors why the UK decided to keep out of the Euro.
    Scofflaw wrote: »

    And has always been in vogue with politicians, is in vogue with politicians, and will always be in vogue with politicians - Beppe Grillo, Golden Dawn, and DDI are no less spinners than any other political groups. People are always scathing in a crisis, and politics usually has to clean up its act for a while afterwards, but it's rare for anything genuinely new to emerge - the response to the current crisis is strikingly similar to the response in the Thirties.

    Curiously, the younger demographics are quite spin savvy, and this is well understood in the world of marketing, and I would not be at all surprised if they did not possess similar savvy relating to the world of politics. Analysis now tends more and more to analyse the spin in what politicians say, rather than take at face value the content of what is said.

    I don’t share your confidence that spin will remain in the form in which we now know it, and in a post Blarite world once can see, for example, how distrusted are politicians of all hues.

    One of the things which voters say they like about, for example, UKIP, is that they have a very clear and consistent message, and many like them because they appear to be the anti-spin party.

    Who knows where that will all lead, and it will be interesting to be here is 20 years time to see what it looks like.
    Scofflaw wrote: »


    There's an extent to which it's genuinely just a perception, and an extent to which it's also true, so there's a limit to how much it can be changed. Voting out the UK's government votes out the UK's representation at the main decision-making level in the EU, which is the Council, and there's no problem voting out their MEPs, obviously. But the Commission, like any executive, isn't directly elected by the voters, and the UK cannot change the Council or Parliamentary representation of the other countries.

    That is spot on, and is, I think, part of the reason why so many in the UK are distrustful of the EU, and dislike being ruled by what they see as unelected governments, who they can’t vote in or out. It’s referred to in the UK as the democratic deficit and it seems to also be an issue across the EU according to the polls.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And to assume that it's permanent is a little premature. Even the Japanese recession is hardly eternal, or indeed even consistent. Although a lot will depend on ingenuity over the next half century, for the whole world's economy, as we come up against various outcomes of the last century's relentless material growth.

    I agree and make no assumptions either way. I mentioned Japan as an example of how things have changed, and it may not seem like an eternal recession to you, but to many Japanese nearly 30 years of recession is a lifetime.

    I agree about ingenuity, self reliance and innovation will be the way forward. My fear is that the US, and others, are just better at those things than we are here in the EU where we seem to prefer over regulation, and to impose higher costs on innovators in the forms of more red tape, higher labour costs, higher energy and input prices (have you ever looked at the rates Irish businesses have to pay? Phew!) And an ever increasingly intrusive and expensive government.


  • #713
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    View wrote: »
    A common perception but one not based on the evidence of the voting record in the Council of Ministers (or even the EP).

    The UK's voting record is a lot closer to Germany's than it is to Ireland's - in fact, the UK is the single member state least likely to support "the Irish position" in the Council of Ministers. Ireland's "interests" tend to be constantly supported by France and Lithuania - I guess it is nice of France to follow our lead. :)

    Well, it varies by policy area:

    Area|Votes|Ireland %|All %|Agree with the UK
    ALL|400|88.00%|88.62%|about as much as anyone else does
    Agriculture|33|76.00%|80.38%|less than most
    Justice/Home Affairs|22|100.00%|88.00%|more than most
    BUDGET|41|73.00%|72.81%|about as much as anyone else does
    Constitutional|5|60.00%|60.77%|about as much as anyone else does
    Economic/Monetary|47|96.00%|95.77%|slightly more than most
    Employment/Social|13|77.00%|84.88%|less than most
    ENV/HEALTH|46|87.00%|88.50%|slightly less than most
    Fisheries|15|93.00%|92.12%|slightly more than most
    INDUSTRY|27|100.00%|99.23%|slightly more than most
    INT MKT/CONSUMER|24|96.00%|93.65%|more than most
    TRADE|31|97.00%|96.85%|slightly more than most
    LEGAL|32|100.00%|97.88%|more than most
    REGIONAL|10|90.00%|91.15%|slightly less than most
    TRANSPORT/TOURISM|35|86.00%|91.38%|less than most

    That's the area of voting, the number of votes total in that area 2009-2013, the % agreement of the Irish vote with the UK vote, and the average % agreement of the UK vote with all other votes.

    So, for example, we agree with the UK on Constitutional matters only 60% of the time, but then that's because the UK only agrees with everyone else an average of 60.8% there.

    The country the UK agrees with best is perhaps Sweden:

    COUNTRY|Votes|Sweden|All
    ALL|403|90.00%|88.62%
    AGRI|33|88.00%|80.38%
    JHA|25|88.00%|88.00%
    BUDGET|41|78.00%|72.81%
    Constitutional|5|60.00%|60.77%
    ECFIN|47|96.00%|95.77%
    EMP/SOC|13|85.00%|84.88%
    ENV/HEALTH|46|89.00%|88.50%
    FISH|15|87.00%|92.12%
    INDUSTRY|27|100.00%|99.23%
    INT MKT|24|96.00%|93.65%
    TRADE|31|97.00%|96.85%
    LEGAL|32|97.00%|97.88%
    REGIONAL|10|90.00%|91.15%
    TRANSPORT/TOURISM|35|94.00%|91.38%

    And the least is Germany;

    Area|Votes| Germany|All
    ALL|403|85.00%|88.62%
    AGRI|33|76.00%|80.38%
    JHA|25|88.00%|88.00%
    BUDGET|41|71.00%|72.81%
    Constitutional|5|60.00%|60.77%
    ECFIN|47|94.00%|95.77%
    EMP/SOC|13|77.00%|84.88%
    ENV/HEALTH|46|85.00%|88.50%
    FISH|15|87.00%|92.12%
    INDUSTRY|27|96.00%|99.23%
    INT MKT|24|83.00%|93.65%
    TRADE|31|97.00%|96.85%
    LEGAL|32|91.00%|97.88%
    REGIONAL|10|80.00%|91.15%
    TRANSPORT/TOURISM|35|86.00%|91.38%

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #714
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    I’d have to agree that it would be foolish to claim that the Euro caused foolish governments to spend like drunken sailors and try to court popularity with their citizens by bribing them with borrowed money.

    The Euro did two things which were to;

    • Made it easy for banks to lend to banks in other countries without the risks of currency fluctuations

    • Removed the necessary tool of interest rate rises to help individual governments choke off overheating economies.

    Consequently, while the Euro didn’t cause recession, or inflation or even hyper-inflation in, for example, the Spanish or Irish housing markets, its very existence made the situation many times worse by not allowing the Irish or Spanish governments to use interest rates in the way they had previously used them, coupled with currency devaluations, to choke off that inflation.

    The resulting recession was caused by the falsely over inflated economies collapsing and was not directly caused by the Euro in that sense, but was as a result of the Euro necessarily tying the hands of individual governments.

    The funny thing is that since the crisis, euro area governments and central banks - our own included - have suddenly started to look at policy tools to replace the blunt instrument of interest rate control (which didn't save Iceland), and discovered - mirabile dictu! - that there are such policy instruments.

    Why did they not look into it before the crisis, one might ask - the answer appears to be that they didn't bother, because they didn't think there was a problem. So, again, the "interest rates" argument is, to me, a grossly over-simplistic one, and one that I would actually regard as falling for government spin - it absolves the governments concerned from their failure to find - to even look for - policy tools to replace interest rate control, and blames it on the euro by claiming their hands were tied.

    Their hands weren't tied, they were just sitting on them.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    All of which was well predicted before the launch of the Euro, and was one of the contributing factors why the UK decided to keep out of the Euro.

    Or one could equally well say that George Soros kept the UK out of the euro by knocking them out of the ERM, and there was never the political will to go back in. Blair would have taken them in, but Brown wouldn't because Blair would.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    Curiously, the younger demographics are quite spin savvy, and this is well understood in the world of marketing, and I would not be at all surprised if they did not possess similar savvy relating to the world of politics. Analysis now tends more and more to analyse the spin in what politicians say, rather than take at face value the content of what is said.

    I don’t share your confidence that spin will remain in the form in which we now know it, and in a post Blarite world once can see, for example, how distrusted are politicians of all hues.

    One of the things which voters say they like about, for example, UKIP, is that they have a very clear and consistent message, and many like them because they appear to be the anti-spin party.

    Who knows where that will all lead, and it will be interesting to be here is 20 years time to see what it looks like.

    The young always feel they can see through spin, but are in fact the most manipulated. UKIP is a splendid example, because there's actually very little to UKIP but spin - their policies are both incoherent and largely irrelevant to UKIP voters, and their attraction rests largely on the charisma of Nigel Farage and the impression of being "straight talkers".
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    That is spot on, and is, I think, part of the reason why so many in the UK are distrustful of the EU, and dislike being ruled by what they see as unelected governments, who they can’t vote in or out. It’s referred to in the UK as the democratic deficit and it seems to also be an issue across the EU according to the polls.

    Again, the 'democratic deficit' is real, but the common attribution of it to the Commission is again a lazy over-simplification - a case of "there's a democratic deficit, oh look the Commission isn't elected, it must be them".

    Governments are not elected by the people. Legislatures are elected by the people. Nobody votes on who should be Minister for any government department - they're all appointed. In the UK, matters are slightly better in this regard, in that individual politicians may stand or fall on their record as Ministers, but in Ireland that's very rare. In general, Irish politicians stand or fall on their record as constituency TDs. We've always had the spectacle of TDs who were complete idiots as Ministers - Mary Coughlan springs to mind - but whose lacklustre or even dire record as Ministers had absolutely no impact on their electability in their home constituency.

    The same is true in other countries, but people mistake the fact that an elected politician who is a Minister could be voted out on the basis of their record as Minister with the idea that the government is thereby directly accountable to the people, and that that's what makes our systems democratic. That's entirely wrong - our governments are democratically accountable to the elected legislature, which is why they can be unseated by a vote of parliament. And even that's a one-way gate, because no vote of parliament or the electorate can make a competent person a minister, or keep them in their ministry if their party boss decides they're out.

    This is exactly the same system as is used in the EU. The Commission, like any executive, is accountable to the parliament, and can be unseated by a vote of confidence. That the Commissioners are appointed is irrelevant to the democratic deficit, because members of the executive always are.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    I agree and make no assumptions either way. I mentioned Japan as an example of how things have changed, and it may not seem like an eternal recession to you, but to many Japanese nearly 30 years of recession is a lifetime.

    Well, 20 years, and not all of it recession.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    I agree about ingenuity, self reliance and innovation will be the way forward. My fear is that the US, and others, are just better at those things than we are here in the EU where we seem to prefer over regulation, and to impose higher costs on innovators in the forms of more red tape, higher labour costs, higher energy and input prices (have you ever looked at the rates Irish businesses have to pay? Phew!) And an ever increasingly intrusive and expensive government.

    The US is in fact stalwartly refusing to adapt to upcoming issues like climate change and resource shortages, and is certainly not leading the way!

    (I appreciate that there's a high probability that, like most eurosceptics, you're also a climate change sceptic, and I'm not going to get into that argument here.)

    I'm well aware of rates here - I have a rates bill on my desk at the moment - but that's largely the result of removing domestic rates as a funding mechanism for local government.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #715
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,226 ✭✭✭Solair


    View wrote: »
    A common perception but one not based on the evidence of the voting record in the Council of Ministers (or even the EP).

    The UK's voting record is a lot closer to Germany's than it is to Ireland's - in fact, the UK is the single member state least likely to support "the Irish position" in the Council of Ministers. Ireland's "interests" tend to be constantly supported by France and Lithuania - I guess it is nice of France to follow our lead. :)

    It depends on the issue:

    France is probably our number one supporter on areas like farming and agriculture.
    The UK tends to back us (not necessarily intentionally) against anyone attempting to get rid of our tax rates as they've similarly controversial deals for major City of London banks and tend to want to keep the EU's competencies limited.

    At times though, I get the impression the French would be more likely to back us up against the Germans when it comes to Merkel's austerity fetishes than any other EU nation other than maybe Spain, Portugal, Greece etc.

    The UK, certainly under the Tories anyway, is far more ideologically aligned to Mrs Merkel's swingeing cuts mode of thinking than we are. We're not exactly going that route out of choice.

    Economically though, we're still very much in step with the UK (and US) economic peaks and dips. The old anglosphere links are pretty strong.


  • #716
    thomas.frink
    Site Banned Posts: 64 ✭✭thomas.frink


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The funny thing is that since the crisis, euro area governments and central banks - our own included - have suddenly started to look at policy tools to replace the blunt instrument of interest rate control (which didn't save Iceland), and discovered - mirabile dictu! - that there are such policy instruments.

    Why did they not look into it before the crisis, one might ask - the answer appears to be that they didn't bother, because they didn't think there was a problem. So, again, the "interest rates" argument is, to me, a grossly over-simplistic one, and one that I would actually regard as falling for government spin - it absolves the governments concerned from their failure to find - to even look for - policy tools to replace interest rate control, and blames it on the euro by claiming their hands were tied.

    Their hands weren't tied, they were just sitting on them.

    The problem was well flagged before the introduction of the Euro, and was one of the reasons why the UK did not join the Euro.

    To suggest that “they” didn’t think there was a problem is hard for voters in the UK to believe, when the problem was flagged well in advance, and I am not sure whether assurances that a sudden looking at policy tools, after the event, is going to convince those who will be voting in a UK referendum.
    Scofflaw wrote: »

    Or one could equally well say that George Soros kept the UK out of the euro by knocking them out of the ERM, and there was never the political will to go back in. Blair would have taken them in, but Brown wouldn't because Blair would.


    George Soros could only do that because he knew that markets will always triumph over political manipulation. If you feel that was the reason why the UK did not join the Euro, then our memories differ. But its not important to the discussion here.
    Scofflaw wrote: »

    The young always feel they can see through spin, but are in fact the most manipulated. UKIP is a splendid example, because there's actually very little to UKIP but spin - their policies are both incoherent and largely irrelevant to UKIP voters, and their attraction rests largely on the charisma of Nigel Farage and the impression of being "straight talkers".

    Whatever impression you judge those in the UK to have, it is their own impressions which will guide how they vote in any referendum.

    You don’t even have to accept that UKIP has so worried the established political parties in the UK that the landscape has not so much changed, but has been bulldozed to look unrecognisable.

    That you judge the young to always believe they can see through spin seems quite patronising towards todays young voters. I don’t happen to share your complacency on the issue, as I know the world the 20-30’s demographic s have grown up in is a different world to the one which I grew up in, and suspect you also grew up in.

    They don’t watch tv. They don’t read newspapers. They view politics in a different way that we do, and they are more organised by social media that their older counterparts ever were through any other means.

    They are informed in a different way, and if you judge they fall for political spin more than other demographics, then I have to disagree as it is this cohesion via social media which allows them to organise without even trying. I spend quite a bit of time with 20-30 year olds, and to claim they fall for spin and are the most manipulated by the political process seems incredible and seems to be the reverse of the actuality. The really interesting thing will be to see how this translates in 10 or 20 years time.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Again, the 'democratic deficit' is real, but the common attribution of it to the Commission is again a lazy over-simplification - a case of "there's a democratic deficit, oh look the Commission isn't elected, it must be them".

    Governments are not elected by the people. Legislatures are elected by the people. Nobody votes on who should be Minister for any government department - they're all appointed. In the UK, matters are slightly better in this regard, in that individual politicians may stand or fall on their record as Ministers, but in Ireland that's very rare.

    Unfortunately those in the UK who will be voting in any referendum don’t seem to be swayed by your arguments. Even if you judge their views to be a lazy over-simplification, their views are sincerely held. It’s up to people like you to try to change their views and bring them around to your own viewpoints, but until that happens it is their views which will influence how they vote.

    They may even disagree with your view about governments and legislatures, and hold the view that the people they elect are there to govern. No doubt you will draw their attention to the difference between a government and a legislature, and they then can no doubt draw your attention to the meaning of parliamentary democracy.

    However, to do so seems to miss the point that they feel that they have only a token influence on the way the EU works for them, and also feel there is no parliamentary democracy at EU level, and my guess is no definitions of government, or legislature, are going to change their minds.
    Scofflaw wrote: »

    (I appreciate that there's a high probability that, like most eurosceptics, you're also a climate change sceptic, and I'm not going to get into that argument here.)
    You have time to make an accusation that
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    … you're also a climate change sceptic…
    While at the same time you avoid nearly all the points I made
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    .

    … over regulation …higher costs on innovators … more red tape… higher labour costs, higher energy …(higher) input prices … ever increasingly intrusive and expensive government.
    And choose instead to make personal remarks on what you (incorrectly) speculate might be my views on a topic which has no relevance to the subject. If, as you claim, you didn’t want to talk about the subject of climate change, why bring it up as a subject and talk about it.

    I forget who it was who said “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is personal or wounding because I think, well, if you attack one personally, it means you have not a single argument left.”.


  • #717
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    The problem was well flagged before the introduction of the Euro, and was one of the reasons why the UK did not join the Euro.

    To suggest that “they” didn’t think there was a problem is hard for voters in the UK to believe, when the problem was flagged well in advance, and I am not sure whether assurances that a sudden looking at policy tools, after the event, is going to convince those who will be voting in a UK referendum.

    As far as I know, the UK isn't holding a referendum on joining the euro, so I'm not sure why that last bit would be relevant.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    George Soros could only do that because he knew that markets will always triumph over political manipulation.

    Heh.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    If you feel that was the reason why the UK did not join the Euro, then our memories differ. But its not important to the discussion here.

    I didn't say it was why they didn't join in that sense - the point is that they were originally on track to join, and once knocked out of ERM, never had the political appetite to do it.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    Whatever impression you judge those in the UK to have, it is their own impressions which will guide how they vote in any referendum.

    Er, yes, that goes without saying.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    You don’t even have to accept that UKIP has so worried the established political parties in the UK that the landscape has not so much changed, but has been bulldozed to look unrecognisable.

    UKIP undeniably has the established parties worried, but "bulldozed" suggests a permanency that has yet to be established.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    That you judge the young to always believe they can see through spin seems quite patronising towards todays young voters. I don’t happen to share your complacency on the issue, as I know the world the 20-30’s demographic s have grown up in is a different world to the one which I grew up in, and suspect you also grew up in.

    They don’t watch tv. They don’t read newspapers. They view politics in a different way that we do, and they are more organised by social media that their older counterparts ever were through any other means.

    They are informed in a different way, and if you judge they fall for political spin more than other demographics, then I have to disagree as it is this cohesion via social media which allows them to organise without even trying. I spend quite a bit of time with 20-30 year olds, and to claim they fall for spin and are the most manipulated by the political process seems incredible and seems to be the reverse of the actuality. The really interesting thing will be to see how this translates in 10 or 20 years time.

    Shrug. The young are indeed "informed in a different way", one the established political parties are only slowly adapting to, but not everyone with a political agenda is an established political party. Social media carries spin just as any communication medium does - there's absolutely nothing intrinsic to social media or the net in general that somehow cleanses communication of spin, despite the tech utopianists.

    That the net offers the potential for discovering multiple viewpoints is true, but if you really take a good hard look at social media, you'll see that it does the opposite.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    Unfortunately those in the UK who will be voting in any referendum don’t seem to be swayed by your arguments. Even if you judge their views to be a lazy over-simplification, their views are sincerely held. It’s up to people like you to try to change their views and bring them around to your own viewpoints, but until that happens it is their views which will influence how they vote.

    They may even disagree with your view about governments and legislatures, and hold the view that the people they elect are there to govern. No doubt you will draw their attention to the difference between a government and a legislature, and they then can no doubt draw your attention to the meaning of parliamentary democracy.

    However, to do so seems to miss the point that they feel that they have only a token influence on the way the EU works for them, and also feel there is no parliamentary democracy at EU level, and my guess is no definitions of government, or legislature, are going to change their minds.

    So? This isn't a TV debate intended to influence UK voters.
    thomas.frink wrote: »
    You have time to make an accusation that
    While at the same time you avoid nearly all the points I made And choose instead to make personal remarks on what you (incorrectly) speculate might be my views on a topic which has no relevance to the subject. If, as you claim, you didn’t want to talk about the subject of climate change, why bring it up as a subject and talk about it.

    I forget who it was who said “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is personal or wounding because I think, well, if you attack one personally, it means you have not a single argument left.”.

    Er, because it's relevant to the comment about the US's failure to adapt to what's coming down the line. If you're a climate change sceptic - and I didn't say you were, only that it's possible, given your earlier comments - then you're not going to view that as an issue.

    Once again you're posting as if we're on a live UK TV debate in front of millions of UK voters, and I need to be shouted down and told "the people are right, the people are right" repeatedly, so the people know you're on their side, while I'm some kind of untrustworthy patronising elitist. You're not addressing my substantive points, although I addressed yours, instead you're just offering slogans and emotive rhetorical tricks.

    This isn't a UK TV debate, it's a small corner of the Irish internet dedicated to discussing politics. There is no point you ranting at me.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • #718
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84691427&postcount=670
    My request to you was clear and precise. I didn't ask you to rehash partial information.

    This graph deals with gas. Your [specious] claim concerns energy, which is a much broader category.

    You can either back up your [outlandish?] claim http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84699550&postcount=681[/url]] or you can't. 'Gas prices in the US are $3 compared to $12 in the EU' from your post at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84659755&postcount=648 doesn't stack up.

    On the evidence so far, you simply can't back up your claim that EU energy prices are four times higher than the US.


  • #719
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    I’d rather look at the facts rather than dismiss it as a sneer, but we have to decide those things for ourselves.
    If you're so exercised by facts, you can finally provide evidence for your claim that EU energy costs are four times those of the US.


  • #720
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    It is those very people who will get to vote in any referendum in the UK, and whether or not they are prepared to wait in the transition you talk about, until the execution happens, remains to be seen.
    UK voters don't have to wait for the single currency to finally come into balance over a transitional period. The UK is not in the single currency.

    The UK has to decide whether it wants to be in the EU. Entirely a different set of concerns that I think the British electorate can discern themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #721
    McDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭McDave


    thomas.frink wrote: »
    If that's true, then that's a sad confirmation on what many in the UK think, that the EU is non responsive, run by an elite who have little concern for the people of the UK or EU, and who wish to progress their own agenda despite the wishes of the people.

    I'm not sure I agree with your view that the EU is not concerned at the year on year increases in dissatisfaction, but certainly in the UK many would seem to agree with you.
    Whatever about what many in the UK think about the EU, I'd suspect many in the EU think the UK is run by an elite with little concern for the people of the EU. The UK electorate can choose to endorse that perspective if they like. Or they can also decide to keep their lot in with their EU partners. It will be an interesting referendum if or when it takes place.

    As to opinion polls, of course EU officials and politicians will be taking note. But like in domestic polls, they'll see data in the context of the financial and budget crises. If, even at this relatively low point, a bit under half of those polled still support the EU, I think the EU and the EZ's political and administrative actors will take comfort that polls can go up as well. As they surely will as the Eurozone crisis is slowly but steadily resolved.


Advertisement
Advertisement