Why are the British so anti Europe?

Cody Pomeray · 02-06-2013 04:32PM

McDave wrote: »

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.

Nail on the head!

Scarcity of concern for EU regulations and directives is pretty rampant across various Government departments in the UK, who are known to make decisions which are visibly at odds with the European regulations and directives.

As much as i disagree with his politics, an obvious example is their cock up of an EU citizen's (Geert Wilders') exclusion from the UK on extremely flimsy grounds. The UK authorities seem to demonstratea very special kind of intransigence in respect of EU law, let alone the principles and and outlook of the peoples of Europe. I genuinely wonder why they haven't left already, and why Europe is not slowly guiding them to the door.

McDave · 02-06-2013 06:29PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Nail on the head!

Scarcity of concern for EU regulations and directives is pretty rampant across various Government departments in the UK, who are known to make decisions which are visibly at odds with the European regulations and directives.

As much as i disagree with his politics, an obvious example is their cock up of an EU citizen's (Geert Wilders') exclusion from the UK on extremely flimsy grounds. The UK authorities seem to demonstratea very special kind of intransigence in respect of EU law, let alone the principles and and outlook of the peoples of Europe. I genuinely wonder why they haven't left already, and why Europe is not slowly guiding them to the door.

They don't give the impression of getting into the spirit. I think the French in particular never really trusted them after the UK tried to set up the EFTA alternative. And the Blair Iraq poodle escapade has basically written the UK out of a (rightful?) leading role alongside Germany and France for at least a generation.

Instead, as you point out, the trend is more towards an exit. One which will look increasingly petulant and isolationist the more the Eurozone gets its act together.

ewan whose army · 23-06-2013 09:22PM

Just putting my 5c in since I am a Brit Ex-Pat over here

The anti EU brigade in the UK is over exposed by the media, there are alot of people in the UK who are pro-EU, I am one of them, we don't get a voice, whenever there is anything positive coming from the EU (Like funding for a transport project) it never gets any coverage, even the guardian which is the most europhilic paper rarely gives them a good word. Too many people listen to the Daily Heil er Mail .

There are alot of conspiracy theories making the rounds, based on flaky rumours like the straight banana myth, complete crap. Or some psudeolegal woo like how the EU is unconstitutional as it "Undermines the power of HM's parliament" despite the fact that it was Her Maj who signed Lisbon into Law DUH

The EU is never given a fair voice, I remember the EU made a handbook/package thing for PSHE (Personal Social and Health Education) in secondary schools for the politics syllabus which fairly explained the history of the EU, what it does and doesn't do which should be included in any political discussion of the UK. This guide was seen as "Brainwashing Youth into accepting the EU" , this is how absurd it is, the Eurosceptic lobby is so bigoted they don't allow the other side to even try to have its say.

Heck if I had my way the UK would be in the Euro, the days of "Little Englander" died after the Battle Of Britain when we had to forge links to survive WWII. Parties like UKIP seem to think the UK still has its vile Empire might or something.

Just remember guys not all of us are little Englanders, being a Scot who has grown up in England I am so embarrassed by it all, the likes of Farage have a big mouth and can talk but nothing else. This has been demonstrated by the recent slump in UKIP support, they have got links to the likes of the EDL, DUP (Who like UKIP want to be in a UK that hasn't existed for 70 years) etc.

I wouldn't judge us this quickly, if there is a referendum the EU and the likes of me will be able to have our say, people will know what we get back (they don't, people believe the nonsense that it costs like £140 a day but that fails to account for returns on trade, bonds, investments) and what the EU actually does (people think the Council of Europe - Human Rights court is the EU they are unrelated bodies, I wish one of them would use a different flag or something)

Sorry rant over, its hard being a UK citizen who also identifies as a European

KyussBishop · 24-06-2013 04:39PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

Heck if I had my way the UK would be in the Euro, the days of "Little Englander" died after the Battle Of Britain when we had to forge links to survive WWII. Parties like UKIP seem to think the UK still has its vile Empire might or something.

I can understand the views in much of your post, but why would you want the UK to be in the Euro; that has proved a disaster?

Europe should have been left with its diverse currencies, since (as we can see now) the Euro is both just not suitable for the whole of Europe given economic differences, and it has locked us into a disastrous crisis.

The UK, with its own currency, is actually far more capable than any other European country, of ending its own economic crisis early; Martin Wolf (leading Financial Times editor) has done a lot of writing on this, specifically in the context of the UK.

Scofflaw · 24-06-2013 06:10PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I can understand the views in much of your post, but why would you want the UK to be in the Euro; that has proved a disaster?

Europe should have been left with its diverse currencies, since (as we can see now) the Euro is both just not suitable for the whole of Europe given economic differences, and it has locked us into a disastrous crisis.

The UK, with its own currency, is actually far more capable than any other European country, of ending its own economic crisis early; Martin Wolf (leading Financial Times editor) has done a lot of writing on this, specifically in the context of the UK.

The main problems with the euro are actually the lack of crisis mechanisms, rather than operating problems with the euro itself. Most of the options available to countries with national currencies are lazy short-term options like "print more money" or "raise interest rates". And most of the reason the euro gets blamed is because people lazily confuse the lack of those lazy options with the lack of any options.

The structural issues the euro introduced - one size fits all interest rates, for example - needed to be addressed intelligently, as did the unexpected side-effects such as the market willingness to treat all euro area sovereign debt the same. They weren't insoluble problems - in fact, most of them were well-flagged and necessary features - but none of them were addressed intelligently. Instead, politicians treated the expansionary outcomes as windfall gains, and squandered them on electoral popularity.

Much of the criticism of the euro takes the form of mumbling "yeah, they said it, they warned us" without addressing whether what was warned of was actually what came to pass, which it wasn't - or of claiming the eurozone's problems are somehow the particular fault of the euro, while resolutely ignoring the fact that not all eurozone countries have the problems in question, while a very large number of countries outside the eurozone do have them, sometimes extremely severely. When asked what the problem is supposed to be, you get a lot of repetition of "one size fits all = bad", which is tautological drivel. The euro countries are all supposed to have problems uniquely associated with the euro, but which are all different because "one size fits all = bad" so we know that the difference must be caused by the similarity itself, right?

The "eurozone crisis", insofar as there is actually a eurozone crisis, is the difficulty of agreeing a joint response in a shared currency with a powerful and independent central bank. It's not some unique set of problems caused originally by the currency itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave · 24-06-2013 06:28PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I can understand the views in much of your post, but why would you want the UK to be in the Euro; that has proved a disaster?

It's far too early to make a judgement on the success, and in particular failure of the Euro. The establishment of the single currency is a process which will require quite a few more steps to put in place the structure which was not possible to agree on during the negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty.

As for disasters, I think it's probably fairer to say that many of the countries which have suffered in recent years would have had it far worse had they not been in the Euro. They would have been able to borrow unlimited amounts of money regardless of the existence of the Euro, and their lack of discipline would have left them with no option other than to devalue, and consequently learn absolutely nothing from the affair.

No, the discipline required by the Eurozone is probably the only impetus certain countries can build up to deal with dysfunctional economic behaviours.

ewan whose army · 24-06-2013 06:32PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I can understand the views in much of your post, but why would you want the UK to be in the Euro; that has proved a disaster?

Europe should have been left with its diverse currencies, since (as we can see now) the Euro is both just not suitable for the whole of Europe given economic differences, and it has locked us into a disastrous crisis.

The UK, with its own currency, is actually far more capable than any other European country, of ending its own economic crisis early; Martin Wolf (leading Financial Times editor) has done a lot of writing on this, specifically in the context of the UK.

There were rumours of the UK joining if better protection mechanisms were implemented. Its one of the reason why Brown kept the UK out , alot of people had predicted the crisis 10 years ago.

I think the UK could have potentially in its own way stop the Euro doing what it did, we would have challenged Germany with how it is since London is a financial hub. There was a what if done by an economist in the guardian ill try and find it

McDave · 24-06-2013 06:33PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Europe should have been left with its diverse currencies, since (as we can see now) the Euro is both just not suitable for the whole of Europe given economic differences, and it has locked us into a disastrous crisis.

The Euro doesn't cover all of Europe. It encompasses mostly western European countries which have a track record of cooperation.

As for economic differences, they exist elsewhere too. Such as in the US, China, Russia, India, and even within countries like the UK and Italy. Those differences don't in themselves disprove the ability of those political entities to function, however unequally.

McDave · 24-06-2013 06:36PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The UK, with its own currency, is actually far more capable than any other European country, of ending its own economic crisis early; Martin Wolf (leading Financial Times editor) has done a lot of writing on this, specifically in the context of the UK.

After reading Martin Wolf on the Eurozone for the last few years, I wouldn't afford him any more respect than I would, say, Paul Krugman.

Wolf is pretty much a prisoner of Square Mile thinking, and the needs of the artificial community it serves.

For all the UK's so-called independence, its economy is still worryingly anaemic. And it's more exposed than most economies to the vagaries of unregulated financial activity. Still!

McDave · 24-06-2013 06:39PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

There were rumours of the UK joining if better protection mechanisms were implemented. Its one of the reason why Brown kept the UK out , alot of people had predicted the crisis 10 years ago.

I think the UK could have potentially in its own way stop the Euro doing what it did, we would have challenged Germany with how it is since London is a financial hub. There was a what if done by an economist in the guardian ill try and find it

That's an interesting perspective. I can't help feeling though that if Thatcher and Co hadn't been a bit more constructive, they might have contributed to the greater good of the Euro, without necessarily having to join. But I'm afraid she was dead set against any further integration, not just in Britain's terms, but for others who wanted to progress further themselves.

ewan whose army · 24-06-2013 06:41PM

McDave wrote: »

After reading Martin Wolf on the Eurozone for the last few years, I wouldn't afford him any more respect than I would, say, Paul Krugman.

Wolf is pretty much a prisoner of Square Mile thinking, and the needs of the artificial community it serves.

For all the UK's so-called independence, its economy is still worryingly anaemic. And it's more exposed than most economies to the vagaries of unregulated financial activity. Still!

The UK economy is a joke, mismanaged.

The EU gets the blame for it when it is really years of domestic mismanagement. Browns complete lack of control over the banks combined with Cameron/Osbourne complete failure to stimulate the economy.

ewan whose army · 24-06-2013 06:46PM

McDave wrote: »

That's an interesting perspective. I can't help feeling though that if Thatcher and Co hadn't been a bit more constructive, they might have contributed to the greater good of the Euro, without necessarily having to join. But I'm afraid she was dead set against any further integration, not just in Britain's terms, but for others who wanted to progress further themselves.

Don't get me a devious Leftie Northerner get started on Thatcher. She was against anything vaguely European.

Although she was the lesser of two evils ( this is hard to say from a Liberal Socialist), things would be a whole lot worse if Foot got in, with his ideas of a standard universal wage (Communism in other words) the UK would have collapsed in the 1980s. But yeah Thatcher screwed us up, the Tories used to be Pro-EU they brought us into the EEC at the time, sadly Thatcher changed all of that.

Blair was the most pro-EU leader of recent times, if Brown didn't hold him back we would probably be in the Euro.

Also I wish that the UK and Ireland would either integrate the common travel area into the Schengen or something. I don't get why we don't join the rest of the continent

Scofflaw · 24-06-2013 07:13PM

ewan whose army wrote:

Blair was the most pro-EU leader of recent times, if Brown didn't hold him back we would probably be in the Euro.

It's been said, and I think there's a fair amount of truth in it, that the UK initially didn't go into the euro because it was forced out of ERM, and then didn't go in because Blair wanted it - so Brown denied it to him.

As to the claim that the crisis was predicted 10 years ago - if you can find me a prediction that actually predicts anything other than "it'll all end badly and they'll be sorry", I'd be interested to see it. Well, unless it's "one size fits all = bad", because in that case I'd have to ask for someone showing how it was impossible to adapt to the one size fits all feature, rather than simply demonstrating that countries didn't bother to do it and claiming that somehow proves it to have been the case.

To be fair, there may have been someone saying "countries will get an unexpected windfall of prosperity and low sovereign debt rates, and peripheral countries will blow it on property bubbles and unsustainable public borrowing", but what I actually recall is the claim that the peripheral countries would be economically devastated on joining the euro.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave · 24-06-2013 07:51PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

Don't get me a devious Leftie Northerner get started on Thatcher. She was against anything vaguely European.

Although she was the lesser of two evils ( this is hard to say from a Liberal Socialist), things would be a whole lot worse if Foot got in, with his ideas of a standard universal wage (Communism in other words) the UK would have collapsed in the 1980s. But yeah Thatcher screwed us up, the Tories used to be Pro-EU they brought us into the EEC at the time, sadly Thatcher changed all of that.

Blair was the most pro-EU leader of recent times, if Brown didn't hold him back we would probably be in the Euro.

Also I wish that the UK and Ireland would either integrate the common travel area into the Schengen or something. I don't get why we don't join the rest of the continent

I'm not a knee-jerk anti-Thatcherite. For starters, she wasn't PM of my country, and the problems of Northern Ireland don't rule my particular world. And what Scargill and his type of mindset suffered at her hands was largely warranted.

But on the other hand, I didn't like her narrow vision and her impulse towards divisiveness. In the end, she was parochial. And her attitude to the EU was proof positive of that.

A more nuanced politician would have nurtured constructive alliances. However, she used the fall of the Iron Curtain for short-term gain, assuming that by pushing for rapid mass accessions, an EU of 25-plus would become unmanageable. As it proved to be in the shorter term.

However, once the short-term shock had been absorbed, wiser 'integrationist' heads on the continent turned the game around with the early commitment to the single currency and the IMO more significant introduction of the principle of the 'common policy' through Lisbon. Both developments demonstrated the core commitment of the vast majority of EU members to the concept of 'ever closer union', albeit on a more a la carte asymmetric basis.

It took a mere decade for other European countries to demonstrate the childish limitations of Thatcher's divide-and-conquer negativity. The stabilisation of the single currency will explicitly and finally demonstrate the failure of two generations of reactionary conservative UK political obstructionism. Ironically, UKIP's relative recent successes will prove to be the high watermark of doctrinaire Euroscepticism. And if it comes to a referendum on membership, I think the UK may well decide it's time to jettison the old ways and send a message to their politicians to get on with dealing with Europe. Which in turn may just kickstart a Renaissance of the European project.

But then again, maybe I completely have the wrong end of the stick!!! :pac:

ewan whose army · 24-06-2013 08:03PM

McDave wrote: »

I'm not a knee-jerk anti-Thatcherite. For starters, she wasn't PM of my country, and the problems of Northern Ireland don't rule my particular world. And what Scargill and his type of mindset suffered at her hands was largely warranted.

But on the other hand, I didn't like her narrow vision and her impulse towards divisiveness. In the end, she was parochial. And her attitude to the EU was proof positive of that.

A more nuanced politician would have nurtured constructive alliances. However, she used the fall of the Iron Curtain for short-term gain, assuming that by pushing for rapid mass accessions, an EU of 25-plus would become unmanageable. As it proved to be in the shorter term.

However, once the short-term shock had been absorbed, wiser 'integrationist' heads on the continent turned the game around with the early commitment to the single currency and the IMO more significant introduction of the principle of the 'common policy' through Lisbon. Both developments demonstrated the core commitment of the vast majority of EU members to the concept of 'ever closer union', albeit on a more a la carte asymmetric basis.

It took a mere decade for other European countries to demonstrate the childish limitations of Thatcher's divide-and-conquer negativity. The stabilisation of the single currency will explicitly and finally demonstrate the failure of two generations of reactionary conservative UK political obstructionism. Ironically, UKIP's relative recent successes will prove to be the high watermark of doctrinaire Euroscepticism. And if it comes to a referendum on membership, I think the UK may well decide it's time to jettison the old ways and send a message to their politicians to get on with dealing with Europe. Which in turn may just kickstart a Renaissance of the European project.

But then again, maybe I completely have the wrong end of the stick!!! :pac:

I hope you are right, the EU may bounce back soon and hopefully the UK could remain in. I think in the event in the referendum the UK may stay in, once people know what we get back from Europe.

McDave · 24-06-2013 08:21PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

I hope you are right, the EU may bounce back soon and hopefully the UK could remain in. I think in the event in the referendum the UK may stay in, once people know what we get back from Europe.

That's the key. The development of a narrative about what the UK gets out of the EU. Such as influence out of proportion to its size.

You mentioned Blair earlier. Regrettably his rowing behind Bush in Iraq set back the UK's cause by decades. And forced Germany and France into each other's arms at a time when Britain might just have been able to forge the beginnings of a tripartite relationship.

ewan whose army · 24-06-2013 08:45PM

McDave wrote: »

That's the key. The development of a narrative about what the UK gets out of the EU. Such as influence out of proportion to its size.

You mentioned Blair earlier. Regrettably his rowing behind Bush in Iraq set back the UK's cause by decades. And forced Germany and France into each other's arms at a time when Britain might just have been able to forge the beginnings of a tripartite relationship.

France is being set back by Hollande now though, and Merkel is trying to use the Turkey issue to win an election.

I also believe alot of the problem with the EU in the UK is down to the fact that there wasn't a referendum on Lisbon. I think if we had a referendum things would have been different. I do have some respect for the argument that alot of changes to the UK (And Europe) have been done with no real consultation with the people.

We are somewhat envious about the level of referendums you get! We had the first in years 2 years ago, but it was on a real non-issue and just turned into "Do you like the Lib Dems - Yes/No" I spoiled my ballot, I didn't get the whole point in it

McDave · 24-06-2013 09:09PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

France is being set back by Hollande now though, and Merkel is trying to use the Turkey issue to win an election.

I also believe alot of the problem with the EU in the UK is down to the fact that there wasn't a referendum on Lisbon. I think if we had a referendum things would have been different. I do have some respect for the argument that alot of changes to the UK (And Europe) have been done with no real consultation with the people.

We are somewhat envious about the level of referendums you get! We had the first in years 2 years ago, but it was on a real non-issue and just turned into "Do you like the Lib Dems - Yes/No" I spoiled my ballot, I didn't get the whole point in it

Hollande is remarkably weak. His demands for a German digout during the election campaign was as blatant a surrender of political primacy as a French leader could have made. I couldn't have imagined Mitterrand, or even Chirac ceding so much leadership to Germany. A UK with a different approach could have made considerable hay out of French diffidence and drift.

I think Irish people generally appreciate the referendum option. I would probably be in a minority myself in suggesting though that it might well have been possible to pass Lisbon without a referendum.

Although the process seems highly democratic, in another sense it encourages State authorities to contract out political decision-making without fully thinking through the options.

For instance, although we had a constitutional court judgment [Crotty] requiring referenda, neither our courts nor our parliament has fully considered since what sovereignty means. Without such a consideration, I don't think we have a strong sense of our political priorities or our meaning as a State. We rely on popular sentiment at a given point in time. At best this is "wisdom of the masses". But at worst it's merely an opportunity to give an unpopular government a kicking.

ewan whose army · 24-06-2013 09:17PM

McDave wrote: »

Hollande is remarkably weak. His demands for a German digout during the election campaign was as blatant a surrender of political primacy as a French leader could have made. I couldn't have imagined Mitterrand, or even Chirac ceding so much leadership to Germany. A UK with a different approach could have made considerable hay out of French diffidence and drift.

I think Irish people generally appreciate the referendum option. I would probably be in a minority myself in suggesting though that it might well have been possible to pass Lisbon without a referendum.

Although the process seems highly democratic, in another sense it encourages State authorities to contract out political decision-making without fully thinking through the options.

For instance, although we had a constitutional court judgment [Crotty] requiring referenda, neither our courts nor our parliament has fully considered since what sovereignty means. Without such a consideration, I don't think we have a strong sense of our political priorities or our meaning as a State. We rely on popular sentiment at a given point in time. At best this is "wisdom of the masses". But at worst it's merely an opportunity to give an unpopular government a kicking.

Oh year, Hollande shocked me, after all the celebrations etc. his honeymoon lasted for only days!!!!!!!!! I think he is one of the worst EU leaders at the moment. I feel so sorry for France, I was in Paris the other week and there were so many protest marches, security everywhere it was a shock.

I think Referdums should be used for constitutional changes, okay unlike Ireland the UK doesn't have one as such (we have a mess of unwritten ones) but Lisbon affected how decisions that affect the country are made, and that should have been a referendum.

Didn't you guys reject it at first, but the EU president (France?) came over and made you re-do it or something? (Not sure)

McDave · 24-06-2013 09:45PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

Oh year, Hollande shocked me, after all the celebrations etc. his honeymoon lasted for only days!!!!!!!!! I think he is one of the worst EU leaders at the moment. I feel so sorry for France, I was in Paris the other week and there were so many protest marches, security everywhere it was a shock.

I think Referdums should be used for constitutional changes, okay unlike Ireland the UK doesn't have one as such (we have a mess of unwritten ones) but Lisbon affected how decisions that affect the country are made, and that should have been a referendum.

Didn't you guys reject it at first, but the EU president (France?) came over and made you re-do it or something? (Not sure)

Our referenda on the EU give an authorisation for parliament to ratify a given amendment to the treaties where they introduce a new power at the expense of the state. So if a revision doesn't mandate a new competence, a referendum may not be necessary. But there's a bit of a grey area, and the state usually adopts a belt and braces attitude to each revision.

We did reject Lisbon first time round. But the government at the time was very unpopular and ran a poor campaign. Not to mention gathering storm clouds on the economy. Sarkozy opened his big mouth about a second referendum well out of turn [Sarkozy really had no class or sense of perspective]. But in all honesty, we ran the second referendum of our own accord. The Yes campaign was more aggressive and positive, and was heavily endorsed on a higher turnout.

ewan whose army · 24-06-2013 10:26PM

McDave wrote: »

Our referenda on the EU give an authorisation for parliament to ratify a given amendment to the treaties where they introduce a new power at the expense of the state. So if a revision doesn't mandate a new competence, a referendum may not be necessary. But there's a bit of a grey area, and the state usually adopts a belt and braces attitude to each revision.

We did reject Lisbon first time round. But the government at the time was very unpopular and ran a poor campaign. Not to mention gathering storm clouds on the economy. Sarkozy opened his big mouth about a second referendum well out of turn [Sarkozy really had no class or sense of perspective]. But in all honesty, we ran the second referendum of our own accord. The Yes campaign was more aggressive and positive, and was heavily endorsed on a higher turnout.

Oh okay! To be honest if we had them back in the UK it would probably be similar. Alot of the current skepticism is fueled by disdain at the current main parties in the UK, we have huge levels of apathy at the moment (in the Police Commissioner election on November we only have 15% turn out). UKIP and Farage make a lot of noise, blame the EU and get the spotlight. Not many people look at the facts and then decide the EU is some evil corporation robbing the country of its sovereignty.

This is why I am not against a referendum, the Yes crowd (if this happens and I am in the UK or able to pop-over I am going to volunteer for the In Campaign) will hopefully get a fair opportunity to show the EU in a fair light. The No campaign is just running off scapegoating and to be honest xenophobia (e.g People complain about the Poles, despite the fact that poles joined the RAF in the Battle of Britain and fought alongside my grandfather, plus my bf is a pole! ) .

Anyway getting off topic, I honestly think that in the case of a referendum back home, with all the campaigning (to be blunt the UK is a net contributor to the EU so they would want us to stay in) we would actually see a fair discussion, not all this Daily Mail fueled scapegoating that floods the news at the moment.

Europe needs to be united, ever since the European project started there has been mostly peace over here, countries that used to be enemies are moving on (look at Serbia (one of my favourite places) and Kosovo both want to join the EU and both will have to come to a proper agreement).

I am actually somewhat pleased to have European Union on my passport, I can if I want pack up and go and live in France, no questions asked if I wanted. I live in Ireland but I am a Brit citizen (ok there are agreements between Ireland and GB outside of the EU) and without the EU funding research I wouldn't have this job doing worthwhile research.

KyussBishop · 25-06-2013 06:18PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The main problems with the euro are actually the lack of crisis mechanisms, rather than operating problems with the euro itself. Most of the options available to countries with national currencies are lazy short-term options like "print more money" or "raise interest rates". And most of the reason the euro gets blamed is because people lazily confuse the lack of those lazy options with the lack of any options.

Placing money creation as lazy there, is a bit of caricature though, as there are very diverse options for how to utilize that, many of which are readily usable for resolving the crisis.

In using money creation for the pursuit of full employment in crisis, it's not a problem of inflation and devaluation, but of allocating money efficiently and usefully (to avoid inflation), and managing the trade exports/imports balance (to avoid/ameliorate devaluation).

Avoiding excessive inflation is mandatory/manageable, and where it comes to the trade balance, you are going to lose exports anyway because all countries are trying to export more than they import, to get out of the crisis; this isn't possible, so this means all countries choose (effectively) to shut down large sections of their economies and leave them idle in pursuit of this.

Think about it for a moment: The problem is countries letting their economic output drop, which means, as far as currency valuation, countries have to decimate their own economic output to keep the same valuation, or they have to just let it float.

If all countries engaged in use of money creation to boost economic output, there would be no devaluation anywhere (some fluctuations sure, but that would depend more on the makeup/structure of each economy).

On the other point though

I agree regarding the lack of a proper regulatory system for the Euro, but I don't see how this would have been any different with the UK involved (one of the most financially deregulated countries around).

Scofflaw wrote: »

The structural issues the euro introduced - one size fits all interest rates, for example - needed to be addressed intelligently, as did the unexpected side-effects such as the market willingness to treat all euro area sovereign debt the same. They weren't insoluble problems - in fact, most of them were well-flagged and necessary features - but none of them were addressed intelligently. Instead, politicians treated the expansionary outcomes as windfall gains, and squandered them on electoral popularity.

Much of the criticism of the euro takes the form of mumbling "yeah, they said it, they warned us" without addressing whether what was warned of was actually what came to pass, which it wasn't - or of claiming the eurozone's problems are somehow the particular fault of the euro, while resolutely ignoring the fact that not all eurozone countries have the problems in question, while a very large number of countries outside the eurozone do have them, sometimes extremely severely. When asked what the problem is supposed to be, you get a lot of repetition of "one size fits all = bad", which is tautological drivel. The euro countries are all supposed to have problems uniquely associated with the euro, but which are all different because "one size fits all = bad" so we know that the difference must be caused by the similarity itself, right?

The "eurozone crisis", insofar as there is actually a eurozone crisis, is the difficulty of agreeing a joint response in a shared currency with a powerful and independent central bank. It's not some unique set of problems caused originally by the currency itself.

The problem is simple enough: Countries lack of sovereign control over the currency they use, and thus the vast reduction in policy options available for dealing with the crisis, and a political system for managing the currency that is easily deadlocked.

You can't have the currency without the botched political system attached to it; they are one and the same (the currency, politics, and economics, are all inseparably intertwined), and a criticism of one is as good as a criticism of the other.

That's it really. It's undeniable that the Euro has locked European countries into a very bad set of policy decisions for dealing with the crisis, and that if it did not exist, countries would have far more option for dealing with the crisis.

KyussBishop · 25-06-2013 06:23PM

McDave wrote: »

It's far too early to make a judgement on the success, and in particular failure of the Euro. The establishment of the single currency is a process which will require quite a few more steps to put in place the structure which was not possible to agree on during the negotiation of the Maastricht Treaty.

As for disasters, I think it's probably fairer to say that many of the countries which have suffered in recent years would have had it far worse had they not been in the Euro. They would have been able to borrow unlimited amounts of money regardless of the existence of the Euro, and their lack of discipline would have left them with no option other than to devalue, and consequently learn absolutely nothing from the affair.

No, the discipline required by the Eurozone is probably the only impetus certain countries can build up to deal with dysfunctional economic behaviours.

It really isn't early at all; it is very clearly a huge failure, in how it is forcing economies to crater.

The very fact that it was half-implemented, and massively worsened this crisis, is itself a total failure; that is criminally negligent, and is leading to many deaths throughout Europe, as a result of the crisis and effects on public spending (among much else).

The punitive and unnecessary 'discipline' (which instills no lesson other than that mainstream economic theory is sociopathically false), quite literally kills people for no good reason.

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 06:23PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Placing money creation as lazy there, is a bit of caricature though, as there are very diverse options for how to utilize that, many of which are readily usable for resolving the crisis.

In using money creation for the pursuit of full employment in crisis, it's not a problem of inflation and devaluation, but of allocating money efficiently and usefully (to avoid inflation), and managing the trade exports/imports balance (to avoid/ameliorate devaluation).

Avoiding excessive inflation is mandatory/manageable, and where it comes to the trade balance, you are going to lose exports anyway because all countries are trying to export more than they import, to get out of the crisis; this isn't possible, so this means all countries choose (effectively) to shut down large sections of their economies and leave them idle in pursuit of this.

Think about it for a moment: The problem is countries letting their economic output drop, which means, as far as currency valuation, countries have to decimate their own economic output to keep the same valuation, or they have to just let it float.

If all countries engaged in use of money creation to boost economic output, there would be no devaluation anywhere (some fluctuations sure, but that would depend more on the makeup/structure of each economy).

On the other point though I agree regarding the lack of a proper regulatory system for the Euro, but I don't see how this would have been any different with the UK involved (one of the most financially deregulated countries around).

The problem is simple enough: Countries lack of sovereign control over the currency they use, and thus the vast reduction in policy options available for dealing with the crisis, and a political system for managing the currency that is easily deadlocked.

You can't have the currency without the botched political system attached to it; they are one and the same (the currency, politics, and economics, are all inseparably intertwined), and a criticism of one is as good as a criticism of the other.

That's it really. It's undeniable that the Euro has locked European countries into a very bad set of policy decisions for dealing with the crisis, and that if it did not exist, countries would have far more option for dealing with the crisis.

Sure, but all of that relates, again, to dealing with the crisis, not causing it. Whether the current set of policies are better than other options isn't a debate I'll get into here - or elsewhere all that much, to be honest - but that the shared currency reduces the monetary options for dealing with the crisis to those which can be agreed jointly is obviously true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KyussBishop · 25-06-2013 06:26PM

ewan whose army wrote: »

There were rumours of the UK joining if better protection mechanisms were implemented. Its one of the reason why Brown kept the UK out , alot of people had predicted the crisis 10 years ago.

I think the UK could have potentially in its own way stop the Euro doing what it did, we would have challenged Germany with how it is since London is a financial hub. There was a what if done by an economist in the guardian ill try and find it

I saw that article actually, yes; I guess there may have been some potential to it, but it's very much a 'what if'.

Either way, it still irrevocably restricts available recovery options for countries; it's been 5 years now and we're still no closer to seeing these necessary fixes for the Euro.

Scofflaw · 25-06-2013 06:33PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

I saw that article actually, yes; I guess there may have been some potential to it, but it's very much a 'what if'.

Either way, it still irrevocably restricts available recovery options for countries; it's been 5 years now and we're still no closer to seeing these necessary fixes for the Euro.

But there hasn't ever been a plan to "fix the euro" in some magic bullet way that improves recovery, because the euro isn't the problem there. Austerity is the plan, and it's a long one - all the magic bullet options have been rejected.

There is a confusion here between the currency itself, and the political process that a shared currency entails.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 25-06-2013 06:44PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The problem is simple enough: Countries lack of sovereign control over the currency they use, and thus the vast reduction in policy options available for dealing with the crisis, and a political system for managing the currency that is easily deadlocked.

That would explain of course why the UK with the full suite of "sovereign control" at its disposal has actually been one of the worst performing economies in the EU during the crisis with it consistently ranking in the bottom 5 (based on an economy's deficit and resulting clocking up of debt:GDP ratio).

A case of the old economic quip "never mind how it works in reality, how does it works in theory?", no doubt.

KyussBishop · 25-06-2013 06:48PM

McDave wrote: »

The Euro doesn't cover all of Europe. It encompasses mostly western European countries which have a track record of cooperation.

As for economic differences, they exist elsewhere too. Such as in the US, China, Russia, India, and even within countries like the UK and Italy. Those differences don't in themselves disprove the ability of those political entities to function, however unequally.

True, but for that we need a full federal EU, as a countries control over its own currency (and monetary policy) is arguably an essential issue of sovereignty.

Doing it piecemeal just (as the Euro shows) puts countries in an incredibly dangerous situation, where if there is an economic crisis, there may be a deadlock.

KyussBishop · 25-06-2013 06:55PM

McDave wrote: »

After reading Martin Wolf on the Eurozone for the last few years, I wouldn't afford him any more respect than I would, say, Paul Krugman.

Wolf is pretty much a prisoner of Square Mile thinking, and the needs of the artificial community it serves.

For all the UK's so-called independence, its economy is still worryingly anaemic. And it's more exposed than most economies to the vagaries of unregulated financial activity. Still!

Actually, I think his position in the Square Mile (London financial) community, makes his position all the more remarkable in how it diverges from their thinking; he recognizes issues such as the ability of banks to create money, and the macroeconomic implications of that (though I think stops short of advocating monetary reform), which separates him enormously from most mainstream economists.

KyussBishop · 25-06-2013 07:24PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, but all of that relates, again, to dealing with the crisis, not causing it. Whether the current set of policies are better than other options isn't a debate I'll get into here - or elsewhere all that much, to be honest - but that the shared currency reduces the monetary options for dealing with the crisis to those which can be agreed jointly is obviously true.

Both the political and regulatory system that's in place (the political half of the currency) is what helped contribute to it though, through its inadequacy; it's true that (in a superficial sense) each individual country is responsible for its own faults that caused the crisis, but the setup of the Euro negligently gave each country plenty of rope to hang themselves with (and mass deregulation was the prevailing trend pretty much everywhere in the world - it was a problem of bad economic theory, coerced/enforced by the US), then once the crisis hit and the noose tightened, it tied their hands behind their backs so they couldn't escape.

A centralized currency with the right regulations and a federal government isn't a bad idea at all, but what we had was criminally negligent, and was bound to worsen any big-enough crisis that came along; you don't do a centralized currency piecemeal, because the interim period between centralized currency and full-federal government, is a huge danger period if crisis hits.

Why are the British so anti Europe?

Comments