Why are the British so anti Europe?

dlouth15 wrote: »

Wasn't the decision to peg the Franc to the Euro an economic one made by the Swiss? Too much money was entering Switzerland during the Eurozone crisis causing the Franc to appreciate thereby undermining local industry.

The primary reason is because we are dependent on the export market with the EU and our industry needs the stability of a fixed rate. The cash inflow could have been discouraged by imposing negative interest rates, but that did not give the stability required.

Jim2007 wrote: »

The primary reason is because we are dependent on the export market with the EU and our industry needs the stability of a fixed rate. The cash inflow could have been discouraged by imposing negative interest rates, but that did not give the stability required.

My point was that it wasn't like the other items in your post such as free movement of people, contribution to structural funds and so on, which were part of an agreement the Swiss made with the EU. The Swiss can drop the peg with the Euro as an when they wish without violating any agreement.

roboshatner

It is interesting this thread is open since 2011 and the member that created it

His account is now closed.

Honestly since we joined the EU.

This country has become.......

Nodin

roboshatner wrote: »

It is interesting this thread is open since 2011 and the member that created it

His account is now closed.

Honestly since we joined the EU.

This country has become.......

My crystal ball being broken, you might be as good as to make your meaning a bit clearer.

meglome

Jim2007 wrote: »

Just another example of how little the Brits know about the decisions they are taking:

The fact is that we Swiss have to comply with more or less all rules of the EU including the free movement of people and contribute to the structural fund in order to gain access to the market. In addition to which we've had to peg the Franc to the Euro!

These people really are going to sleep walk into the decision at the rate they are going.

Hannan is a dangerous guy. Like Ganley here he comes across as reasonable and intelligent (on the surface at least). But he clearly has an agenda and that is to take the UK out of the EU whether that is a good idea in reality or not.

I find the debate about the EU on British television almost unwatchable. They just keep trotting out lines like "repatriation of powers" without any real discussion of what that means exactly or why it would help. Well other than let's get rid of the immigrants as if that will magically fix their issues. I just can't understand why no ones calls them out on this stuff.

Nodin

meglome wrote: »

Hannan is a dangerous guy. Like Ganley here he comes across as reasonable and intelligent (on the surface at least). But he clearly has an agenda and that is to take the UK out of the EU whether that is a good idea in reality or not.

I find the debate about the EU on British television almost unwatchable. They just keep trotting out lines like "repatriation of powers" without any real discussion of what that means exactly or why it would help. Well other than let's get rid of the immigrants as if that will magically fix their issues. I just can't understand why no ones calls them out on this stuff.

There also seems to be liberal, deliberate use of the term "reform" when what's meant is "renegotiation" which is a bit much.

dlouth15 wrote: »

My point was that it wasn't like the other items in your post such as free movement of people, contribution to structural funds and so on, which were part of an agreement the Swiss made with the EU. The Swiss can drop the peg with the Euro as an when they wish without violating any agreement.

Yes, but my point is that because the EU is such a big market we can afford to drop the peg. The last SNB report I've heard has us owning Euro bonds equal to the deficits of the seven largest economies in Euroland, which is an incredible situation for a country our size! We are completely locked in at this stage and for sure not the model the UK is expecting!

Jim2007 wrote: »

Yes, but my point is that because the EU is such a big market we can afford to drop the peg. The last SNB report I've heard has us owning Euro bonds equal to the deficits of the seven largest economies in Euroland, which is an incredible situation for a country our size! We are completely locked in at this stage and for sure not the model the UK is expecting!

Regardless, it was a unilateral economic decision and not one based on agreements with the EU. Personally I don't see the pound being pegged to the Euro for economic reasons but of course they are free to do so if they wish.

djpbarry

roboshatner wrote: »

Honestly since we joined the EU.

This country has become.......

…far more prosperous?

djpbarry

meglome wrote: »

I find the debate about the EU on British television almost unwatchable. They just keep trotting out lines like "repatriation of powers" without any real discussion of what that means exactly or why it would help. Well other than let's get rid of the immigrants as if that will magically fix their issues. I just can't understand why no ones calls them out on this stuff.

The entire argument for leaving the EU essentially boils down to patriotism and xenophobia. The UK shouldn’t need the EU because Britain’s the best in the bloody world, damnit. And because British workers are the best in the bloody world, we don’t need immigrants coming over here and out-competing them for British jobs, thank you very much. We can’t have foreigners doing things better than the natives, because the natives are brilliant, because they’re British. Johnny Foreigner’s not British, so he’s obviously doing an inferior job to Joe British and the only reason Johnny’s got Joe’s job is because Johnny can afford to live on 16 pence a week. Johnny doesn’t need money for pints of bitter and pasties and the football like Joe does, because Joe does brilliant British things, while Johnny lives under a stairs or something with 17 of his countrymen and they all speak foreign.

We need to protect Britain from the foreigners to keep it bloody brilliant.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Regardless, it was a unilateral economic decision and not one based on agreements with the EU.

I made a unilateral personal decision not to jump in front of a train this morning, so I wouldn't get too carried away with freedom of choice.

50% of Switzerland trade is with the EU. When I came here first the Euro was worth about 1.60 CHF and before the SNB made the extraordinary decision to make their 'unilateral economic decision' to draw a line in the sand at a 1.20 rate, the two currencies had reached parity - and the Euro was still falling.

Now consider you're a Swiss exporter and when you export your goods they have a unit cost of 10.- Euro before the crisis. How do you reckon that their business is going to do when their unit price becomes 16.- Euro? Or what do you think is going to happen to the balance of trade if the price of EU imports drops by almost 40%?

So to somehow cite the SNB's decision to peg the Franc to the Euro as some type of free and sovereign decision is complete delusion, the type regularly trotted out by the banjo-playing supporters of the SVP. It was a Hob son's choice - in reality no choice at all, unless you think an economic meltdown is a viable choice.

Reality is that the EU is the Biggest Swinging Dick on the planet economically. And it's on Switzerland's doorstep. And the UK's. So the Swiss, and the UK were it to leave, can have all the nominal freedom to make all the 'unilateral economic decisions' they like and on the first of August here we'll all be out celebrating that Swiss freedom at a BBQ, but economic realities will ultimately make those decisions, not the Swiss.

In the end, all Switzerland did was make a 'unilateral economic decision' not to jump in front of a train.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Regardless, it was a unilateral economic decision and not one based on agreements with the EU.

We did not have a choice, it was either that or see our industry being wiped out.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Personally I don't see the pound being pegged to the Euro for economic reasons but of course they are free to do so if they wish.

The BOE does not have the kind of resources necessary to pull it off for a start... Only reason the SNB can do it is because of the massive gold reserves the country has.

comongethappy

As predicted, Cameron was a hero in the British parliament yesterday, cooing like a pidgeon.

Pretending he won some sort of victory as the UK sleepwalks to exit.

Jim2007 wrote: »

We did not have a choice, it was either that or see our industry being wiped out.

The BOE does not have the kind of resources necessary to pull it off for a start... Only reason the SNB can do it is because of the massive gold reserves the country has.

May well be true, however in your initial post to which was responding you said: "The fact is that we Swiss have to comply with more or less all rules of the EU including the free movement of people and contribute to the structural fund in order to gain access to the market. In addition to which we've had to peg the Franc to the Euro!

These people really are going to sleep walk into the decision at the rate they are going."

Can you see how someone reading this might get the impression that pegging the franc to the euro was one of the things Switzerland had to do in order to as part of its various agreements with the EU?

The actual reason the Swiss pegged its currency to the Euro was an economic one. We both agree on this but I felt it necessary to point out that this was a decision taken by the Swiss that was not the result of any agreement with the EU.

Now should the UK leave the EU, they too will have to abide by specific agreements with between the UK and the EU just like the Swiss currently do. But whether or not to peg the pound to the Euro will still be an economic one taken by the UK just like it is an economic one for the Swiss.

Like I said, my own opinion is that this is not a decision they are likely to take. You say that they don't have the cash reserves to do so. May be true, but in addition the eurozone crisis did not affect the UK in the same way as it did the Swiss. There was a massive influx of cash to Switzerland during the crisis that did not occur in the UK. There was no substantial appreciation of the pound unlike the Swiss franc which would damage local industry. So the economics of the relationship between the UK and the EU are not the same as the economics of the relationship between Switzerland and the UK.

But the main point is that if the UK did peg its currency to the euro it would not be because they are obliged to under the terms of any agreement.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I made a unilateral personal decision not to jump in front of a train this morning, so I wouldn't get too carried away with freedom of choice.

50% of Switzerland trade is with the EU. When I came here first the Euro was worth about 1.60 CHF and before the SNB made the extraordinary decision to make their 'unilateral economic decision' to draw a line in the sand at a 1.20 rate, the two currencies had reached parity - and the Euro was still falling.

Now consider you're a Swiss exporter and when you export your goods they have a unit cost of 10.- Euro before the crisis. How do you reckon that their business is going to do when their unit price becomes 16.- Euro? Or what do you think is going to happen to the balance of trade if the price of EU imports drops by almost 40%?

So to somehow cite the SNB's decision to peg the Franc to the Euro as some type of free and sovereign decision is complete delusion, the type regularly trotted out by the banjo-playing supporters of the SVP. It was a Hob son's choice - in reality no choice at all, unless you think an economic meltdown is a viable choice.

Reality is that the EU is the Biggest Swinging Dick on the planet economically. And it's on Switzerland's doorstep. And the UK's. So the Swiss, and the UK were it to leave, can have all the nominal freedom to make all the 'unilateral economic decisions' they like and on the first of August here we'll all be out celebrating that Swiss freedom at a BBQ, but economic realities will ultimately make those decisions, not the Swiss.

In the end, all Switzerland did was make a 'unilateral economic decision' not to jump in front of a train.

I'm not disputing the wisdom of Switzerland's decision to peg the Franc to the Euro. They've presumably weighed up the advantages and disadvantages of that move and made their decision. I think probably the right decision given the circumstances.

I still don't see the UK making a similar decision.

But remember the the point is that the Swiss decision wasn't part of their agreement with the EU.

The UK is currently trading with the rest of the EU as a member of the EU. The are not pegging the pound with the euro currently. I don't see them doing so even if they stay in the EU let alone if they leave and continue a trading relationship.

dlouth15 wrote: »

I'm not disputing the wisdom of Switzerland's decision to peg the Franc to the Euro. They've presumably weighed up the advantages and disadvantages of that move and made their decision. I think probably the right decision given the circumstances.

Unless you consider economic catastrophe a valid option, then it was the only decision available.

Where you appear to be coming from is the curious viewpoint that the illusion of choice somehow has value. Where this is a problem is when it is used as a reason for leaving, or not joining, the EU - if a country is better off in on balance than out, yet this illusion of independence can decide the argument for the latter, then somethings terribly wrong.

This is often the problem with the logic of nationalism - after all, is the nation there for the good of its citizens, or the citizens there for the good of the nation?

The UK is currently trading with the rest of the EU as a member of the EU. The are not pegging the pound with the euro currently. I don't see them doing so even if they stay in the EU let alone if they leave and continue a trading relationship.

Not the point. The Franc being pegged to the Euro was just an example. The point is that economic and political realities is that all it will have is the illusion of choice - nominal sovereignty - and being disenfranchised, it'll end up paying for that vanity.

Nodin

comongethappy wrote: »

As predicted, Cameron was a hero in the British parliament yesterday, cooing like a pidgeon.

Pretending he won some sort of victory as the UK sleepwalks to exit.

It's all rather surreal. I presumed he was just playing to the gallery when he started this nuttery, but it was far from a one off.

View

comongethappy wrote: »

As predicted, Cameron was a hero in the British parliament yesterday, cooing like a pidgeon.

Pretending he won some sort of victory as the UK sleepwalks to exit.

Blair said something similiar once, namely:

Diplomatic disaster at an EU summit, meant a hero's welcome in Westminster, whereas, a diplomatic coup for Britain meant the sort of welcome you'd get from the mob while being led out for execution.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unless you consider economic catastrophe a valid option, then it was the only decision available.

[...]

Not the point. The Franc being pegged to the Euro was just an example. The point is that economic and political realities is that all it will have is the illusion of choice - nominal sovereignty - and being disenfranchised, it'll end up paying for that vanity.

If you go back to the point as it was originally made by Jim2007:

The fact is that we Swiss have to comply with more or less all rules of the EU including the free movement of people and contribute to the structural fund in order to gain access to the market. In addition to which we've had to peg the Franc to the Euro!

These people really are going to sleep walk into the decision at the rate they are going.

I think you will agree that the point about the franc/euro peg is sort of run in immediately after the mention of the treaty obligations of movement of people, contribution to structural funds, compliance with various EU regulations and so on. The casual reader might assume from this that the franc/euro peg was also part of some agreement where as it was in fact an economic decision.

I think it is reasonable for someone to come on this thread to clarify that the peg was an economic decision whereas the other items were a matter of treaty obligations.

Now on to your oncoming train analogy. Whilst I think this is a gross oversimplification there is some validity to it in the case of the Swiss. There was rapid appreciation of the franc against the euro and this was damaging local industry.

The problem comes when one tries to suggest that because the Swiss made a particular decision, that the UK must also make the same decision. Now I'm no more an economics expert than you are, but I think you will find that if you were to discuss with economists whether or not the UK or another country in a similar situation should peg with the euro, you would find that there are many factors to take into consideration. There are positives and negatives associated with either choice. It is by no means a given that they should do what the Swiss did.

And this was the implication of Jim2007's post. Look, he is saying. To paraphrase: we're not in the EU but we have had to comply with these EU regulations, allow free movement of people, peg with the Euro etc. Do the Brits realize that they are likely to have to do the same? (read the quote again if you wish).

My answer is that if the UK want to leave the EU then yes, like the Swiss, their trading relationship will also be subject to various negotiations (though not necessarily identical to the Swiss).

But the pegging the currency to the Euro is an entirely different matter and subject to a large range of economic and political considerations both positive and negative. Moreover, many of them are considerations which apply now and not merely after they leave the EU proper, should they decide to do that.

I've ignored some bits of your post that I don't regard as relevant.

oscarBravo

dlouth15 wrote: »

The problem comes when one tries to suggest that because the Swiss made a particular decision, that the UK must also make the same decision.

Nobody suggested that.

[...] It is by no means a given that they should do what the Swiss did.

And this was the implication of Jim2007's post.

I didn't read that implication into it. It seems you're alone in reading that implication into it, almost to the point of making it a straw man argument.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody suggested that.

I didn't read that implication into it. It seems you're alone in reading that implication into it, almost to the point of making it a straw man argument.

I've already said why I think it is the intended implication of Jim2007's post which I will repeat again:

Jum2007 wrote:

The fact is that we Swiss have to comply with more or less all rules of the EU including the free movement of people and contribute to the structural fund in order to gain access to the market. In addition to which we've had to peg the Franc to the Euro!

These people really are going to sleep walk into the decision at the rate they are going.

Why is the currency peg mentioned at all in this post if it not felt to be relevant by the poster in question?

In fact my purpose in responding to the post in the first place is to point out just that - that the Swiss peg to the euro is in fact not particularly relevant to the discussion about the UK and the EU.

dlouth15 wrote: »

I think you will agree that the point about the franc/euro peg is sort of run in immediately after the mention of the treaty obligations of movement of people, contribution to structural funds, compliance with various EU regulations and so on. The casual reader might assume from this that the franc/euro peg was also part of some agreement where as it was in fact an economic decision.

The illiterate reader might, but "in addition to which" is pretty clear. Pedantry is one thing, but you're kind of grasping at straws here.

I think it is reasonable for someone to come on this thread to clarify that the peg was an economic decision whereas the other items were a matter of treaty obligations.

Not if by doing so you imply some sort of victory of sovereignty for Switzerland, which you've been doing. However it does raise the point of whether it even makes sense to claim that Switzerland's ability to 'decide' was in any way a positive thing. In reality no, because there never was a choice in the first place.

The problem comes when one tries to suggest that because the Swiss made a particular decision, that the UK must also make the same decision.

Straw man. I've never said they will.

Now I'm no more an economics expert than you are, but I think you will find that if you were to discuss with economists whether or not the UK or another country in a similar situation should peg with the euro, you would find that there are many factors to take into consideration.

Not so sure about that; I have a degree in economic science, do you?

As to the rest of your argument - you're still pursuing your straw man.

My answer is that if the UK want to leave the EU then yes, like the Swiss, their trading relationship will also be subject to various negotiations (though not necessarily identical to the Swiss).

Completely agree.

I've ignored some bits of your post that I don't regard as relevant.

Likewise.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The illiterate reader might, but "in addition to which" is pretty clear. Pedantry is one thing, but you're kind of grasping at straws here.

Well I don't think so. Why do you think it was mentioned at all by the poster if it was not intended to be relevant to the UK's decision?

Not if by doing so you imply some sort of victory of sovereignty for Switzerland, which you've been doing. However it does raise the point of whether it even makes sense to claim that Switzerland's ability to 'decide' was in any way a positive thing. In reality no, because there never was a choice in the first place.

Nope. Wrong interpretation. In fact I already said before you got involved that the Swiss had to take some form of action due to rapid appreciation of the Franc against the euro. The only question then is whether or not this is particularly relevant to the UK's decision. If not why did the poster bring it up?

Straw man. I've never said they will.

I didn't say you personally said that the Swiss decision was something the UK would be likely to make, but you have chosen to intervene in a discussion (as is your right) where I was trying to argue against the position that the Swiss peg was relevant in this context.

Not so sure about that; I have a degree in economic science, do you?

Like I said, I'm no more an expert than you are. If you have a degree, you will agree with me that in general the decision whether or not to peg a currency with that of a larger currency bloc is a complex one with many pros and cons.

As to the rest of your argument - you're still pursuing your straw man.

But remember you have chosen to intervene in a discussion where I was disputing the relevancy of the Swiss currency peg to the UK's decision whether or not to leave the EU. Very little of what you have posted so far is pertinent to that. Some of it where you go into detail about the Swiss decision is simply expanding on what I had already said.

Completely agree.

The bit you agree with here is the original point I was trying to make to Jum2007: If the UK want to leave the EU then yes, like the Swiss, their trading relationship will also be subject to various negotiations (though not necessarily identical to the Swiss), but the Swiss peg to the euro is not relevant.

It doesn't matter that you personally did dispute that earlier. If you intervene in a discussion where I am trying to make that point then I am going to have to assume that either you disagree with the point our you are trying to derail the discussion.

dlouth15 wrote: »

Well I don't think so. Why do you think it was mentioned at all by the poster if it was not intended to be relevant to the UK's decision?

Because it is an example of how nominal independence to make decisions is in reality tempered by the reality of how important an economic bloc the EU is. I thought that was obvious.

Nope. Wrong interpretation. In fact I already said before you got involved that the Swiss had to take some form of action due to rapid appreciation of the Franc against the euro. The only question then is whether or not this is particularly relevant to the UK's decision. If not why did the poster bring it up?

Which is a straw man. The Franc being pegged against the Euro is only an example of how a nation on the outside will effectively have little choice than to play by the EU's rules, without the benefit of being a member. You seem to think that this is the only possible way this would happen - it's not.

I didn't say you personally said that the Swiss decision was something the UK would be likely to make

Actually no one has. Try again with fewer straw men please.

Like I said, I'm no more an expert than you are.

You avoided my question, which I'll take to mean you have no formal qualification in economics, while I do. So you are less expert, I'm afraid.

The bit you agree with here is the original point I was trying to make to Jum2007: If the UK want to leave the EU then yes, like the Swiss, their trading relationship will also be subject to various negotiations (though not necessarily identical to the Swiss), but the Swiss peg to the euro is not relevant.

You clearly didn't understand the point, it seems.

Let me make it simple for you; big economic power, smaller economic power. Who has the advantage where it comes to calling the shots?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because it is an example of how nominal independence to make decisions is in reality tempered by the reality of how important an economic bloc the EU is. I thought that was obvious.

Whilst I don't agree with your interpretation of the post, I agree that economic decisions are tempered by economic events in other countries and blocs of countries. If the US dollar were to devalue, this would have implications for Canada and other countries that trade and compete with the US.

But the Swiss peg is not a good example. It is too specific to the particularities of the Swiss economy and banking system. I see it as quite unlikely that the UK will have to do something similar in the foreseeable future.

Which is a straw man. The Franc being pegged against the Euro is only an example of how a nation on the outside will effectively have little choice than to play by the EU's rules, without the benefit of being a member. You seem to think that this is the only possible way this would happen - it's not.

No I agree with the original poster Jim2007 that all the other items in his post are relevant and that EU rules can indeed be imposed upon non-EU countries wishing to trade freely with the EU. This is true of other non-EU countries that freely trade with the EU. But the Swiss peg to the euro has nothing to do with EU rules and is due to very specific conditions within the EU at the time and the nature of the Swiss economy.

Actually no one has. Try again with fewer straw men please.

Well I disagree. The context of the post suggests that the intended implication was that the Swiss peg was relevant to the UK in the same way as the other items mentioned like free movement of people and so on.

You avoided my question, which I'll take to mean you have no formal qualification in economics, while I do. So you are less expert, I'm afraid.

But I did not say I was more expert. Read what I actually said. In any case you have not actually said anything of an economic nature that contradicts anything I've said.

You clearly didn't understand the point, it seems.

Let me make it simple for you; big economic power, smaller economic power. Who has the advantage where it comes to calling the shots?

The problem is that you don't actually have a point to make here, do you? Everyone knows that economic decisions are affected by economic events in other countries. Do you believe this is a particularly profound insight? You seem merely intent to make discussion tiresome for others without providing any real pertinent information.

If the original poster had said that the Swiss though not members of the EU has to abide by agreed rules and are still affected economically by events in the EU, I would not take issue. It would simply be an obvious point such as the ones you are making. Everyone already knows these things.

gallag

Did Cameron have a point? With the recent polling trends is it not a bad idea to put a fully fledged federalist at the helm? Every discussion about this focuses on the British aspects but instead consider is the EU sleepwalking into a British exit? And everyone has focused on the economic impact on the UK, What about the impact on the EU, are the EU holding all the cards on this? Could the EU survive a British exit? The big players then (France and Germany) would see there contributions increase and with the anti EU felling already growing in France could France exit also?
Just what would a post British EU look like?

[Deleted User]

Would that not be the tail wagging the dog though?
Not appointing the choice of the European Paliament to appease the fringe.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

Did Cameron have a point? With the recent polling trends is it not a bad idea to put a fully fledged federalist at the helm?

Well, we’ll see – Juncker still has to be endorsed by the parliament.