is this european co-operation

bigstar

anyone think its speaks volumes that the eu countries, including our own, dont seem to be too interested in cooperating to weather the financial crisis and just worry about their own economies. each nation only looking to bail out its own banks

Scofflaw

bigstar wrote: »

anyone think its speaks volumes that the eu countries, including our own, dont seem to be too interested in cooperating to weather the financial crisis and just worry about their own economies. each nation only looking to bail out its own banks

Well, yes. It gives the lie, quite aside from anything else, to all the drivel about the EU being a superstate - and the idea that the member states are 'provinces' of the EU is exposed as the joke it always was. It's a salutary reminder that the EU is composed of 27 sovereign member states who are in it because it benefits them, and that their loving kindness towards the other members is not infinite.


cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

It definitely shows that when push comes to shove all the nice little EU philosophies are put on the back burner, imagine if they hadn't "approved" Ireland's bailout plan for the banks. The very notion that they could possible interfere re-iterates my belief that this project has gone far enough.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

It definitely shows that when push comes to shove all the nice little EU philosophies are put on the back burner, imagine if they hadn't "approved" Ireland's bailout plan for the banks. The very notion that they could possible interfere...

The EU has a say in these matters because we, as a nation, have agreed that this should be the case, as have the other 26 member states.

nhughes100

Well as Brian Lenihan said last Monday week when the Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse the EU was sadly lacking in support and action and we didn't have time to get agreement from 27 other countries. In my opinion it wouldn't have mattered an iota if what the government did was against any EU regulation, Ireland comes first, you can save your EU idealist fluffy heart of Europe rhetoric for the next referendum which will no doubt be sold to us as the saviour of the recession.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

Well as Brian Lenihan said last Monday week when the Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse the EU was sadly lacking in support and action and we didn't have time to get agreement from 27 other countries.

What would you have liked to see happen? Would you have rather the EU stepped in and said "Hang on there now Brian; we'll take it from here..." ?

nhughes100 wrote: »

In my opinion it wouldn't have mattered an iota if what the government did was against any EU regulation, Ireland comes first...

If every member state had that attitude, the common market wouldn't last very long, would it?

K-9

nhughes100 wrote: »

Well as Brian Lenihan said last Monday week when the Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse the EU was sadly lacking in support and action

Ah yeah, I suppose if they did step in, there would be cries of EU interference from some!

seamus

Yep, it's such typical Irish begrudgery to fight and fight and tell people to feck off and leave us alone to look after ourselves and then cry out when those same people don't come to our aid.

The EU could have done nothing right in this situation.

Scofflaw

seamus wrote: »

Ah yeah, I suppose if they did step in, there would be cries of EU interference from some!

Yep, it's such typical Irish begrudgery to fight and fight and tell people to feck off and leave us alone to look after ourselves and then cry out when those same people don't come to our aid.

The EU could have done nothing right in this situation.

In fact, if we look, we'll see that exactly such an opinion has already been expressed.

Damned if they do...

nhughes100 wrote:

The very notion that they could possible interfere re-iterates my belief that this project has gone far enough.

...and...

nhughes100 wrote:

Well as Brian Lenihan said last Monday week when the Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse the EU was sadly lacking in support and action

...damned if they don't.

amused,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

What would you have liked to see happen? Would you have rather the EU stepped in and said "Hang on there now Brian; we'll take it from here..." ?
If every member state had that attitude, the common market wouldn't last very long, would it?

No I don't see why he should have to go to the EU to sort out an internal problem. Every member state is exhibiting a me fein attitude during this crisis and the common market seems to be doing allright. Even your precious Lisbon treaty wouldn't have sorted out the red tape on this one.

I actually like what the government did on this one.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, if we look, we'll see that exactly such an opinion has already been expressed.

Damned if they do...



...and...



...damned if they don't.

amused,
Scofflaw

Not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand.

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

Not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand.

And our domestic banks are not an internal affair? The effect on the EU of their collapse is arguable less that the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, after all.

I get the impression that your idea of an affair that is not 'internal' can be defined by the fact that our caps can be seen out looking for help.

nhughes100

The Corinthian wrote: »

And our domestic banks are not an internal affair? The effect on the EU of their collapse is arguable less that the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, after all.

I get the impression that your idea of an affair that is not 'internal' can be defined by the fact that our caps can be seen out looking for help.

Eh What?

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

Eh What?

How is coordinating (and imposing) an economic strategy (and fund) on other EU countries to stop the collapse of domestic banks not involving oneself in the internal affairs of member states any more than trying to push a common treaty or even taxation system?

It appears that some are more than happy to cherry pick when sovereignty is an issue and when it is not, based upon whether we can profit from it. If so, then the rest of Europe is probably better off without us.

nhughes100

I was actually supporting Lenihans position of acting unilaterally. The eu didn't co-ordinate any strategy until after the Irish government propped up the banks, I think the notion that we would have to go to the EU to see if they agree and if it is legal is proposterous. We needed to act immediately so comparing this crisis to a referendum or tax harmonisation which has been going on for decades is not fair.

I don't think profiting from it was the governments idea here, I think saving the Irish banking system was their aim and from what I hear from people working in banks we were on the brink. I'm still somewhat confused as to whether you support the Irish government or the EU's position on the bail out?

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

I was actually supporting Lenihans position of acting unilaterally.

That's not what I was responding to though:

Not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand.

And this comment appears to be your criteria for the validity of any EU involvement rather than anything specific to the current crisis.

As Scofflaw pointed out, on one side you derided any EU interference, then criticized their lack of interference. When questioned on this you responded with your aforementioned criteria.

So you would need to define when something is an 'internal affair' and when it is not; should the EU have helped? In which case you need to explain how the domestic banking crisis is less a domestic affair than an EU referendum, for example.

Or if you feel that it is an 'internal affair', then you should really be happy that they did not attempt to impose anything and stop moaning about the lack of 'European co-operation'.

Otherwise you're cherry picking.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

...I think the notion that we would have to go to the EU to see if they agree and if it is legal is proposterous.

So if the British government decided to give £50 billion, no strings attached, to every non-Irish retail bank operating in the UK, while simultaneously imposing an "Irish tax" on all Irish banks, that'd be ok with you? Or would you want the EU to step in and prevent unfair competition?

nhughes100

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not what I was responding to though:

And this comment appears to be your criteria for the validity of any EU involvement rather than anything specific to the current crisis.

As Scofflaw pointed out, on one side you derided any EU interference, then criticized their lack of interference. When questioned on this you responded with your aforementioned criteria.

So you would need to define when something is an 'internal affair' and when it is not; should the EU have helped? In which case you need to explain how the domestic banking crisis is less a domestic affair than an EU referendum, for example.

Or if you feel that it is an 'internal affair', then you should really be happy that they did not attempt to impose anything and stop moaning about the lack of 'European co-operation'.

Otherwise you're cherry picking.

I am happy that they didn't impose anything, not only that they followed our lead eventually. I wasn't moaning about the lack of European co-operation I was moaning at the overall inability of the EU to make decisions quickly which really shows up what an ineffective organisation it really is. Not only that the EU ideal to which all good little Europeans aspire to is really only for the good times. Let them stick to debates about the size of sausages etc, leave the governing to the governments. It's not cherry picking, it's a double moan. I dont see why we should wait for the EU when our economy is on the brink of collapse and the fact that this highlights their inefficiences.

djpbarry wrote: »

So if the British government decided to give £50 billion, no strings attached, to every non-Irish retail bank operating in the UK, while simultaneously imposing an "Irish tax" on all Irish banks, that'd be ok with you? Or would you want the EU to step in and prevent unfair competition?

To what are you comparing this to? The Irish government nor any other government that I'm aware off that has propped up financial institutions has imposed a tax on "Foreign banks" You're trying to put words in my mouth, deal with real situations.

Fact of the matter is the EU is a lumbering old elephant of an organisation that is obsessed with red tape and as I've said it has run it's course in my opinion.

Scofflaw

nhughes100 wrote: »

Fact of the matter is the EU is a lumbering old elephant of an organisation that is obsessed with red tape and as I've said it has run it's course in my opinion.

And worth every penny it is too.

ambiguously,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, I'm surprised no-one has put the spotlight on what happens when you're not in the EU - the UK seizes your banks' assets under their terror laws, as they've done to Iceland (to the tune of €5bn and the vast disgust of the Icelanders). That's what you can do to countries that aren't part of the club, and exactly what would have happened to us if we had been outside the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

I wasn't moaning about the lack of European co-operation I was moaning at the overall inability of the EU to make decisions quickly which really shows up what an ineffective organisation it really is.

Except this is not what you actually said. Please explain how "not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand" relates to "the overall inability of the EU to make decisions quickly".

In short, you're backtracking.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

By the way, I'm surprised no-one has put the spotlight on what happens when you're not in the EU - the UK seizes your banks' assets under their terror laws, as they've done to Iceland (to the tune of €5bn and the vast disgust of the Icelanders). That's what you can do to countries that aren't part of the club, and exactly what would have happened to us if we had been outside the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I though UK were nuts doing this. What was Gordon Brown thinking of? It back to the fishing wars. Talk about bad relations the UK are getting now. It was even more insane for UK Councils and Public Organisations to have their money in another country outside their own, where they cannot regulate (have no say) the Finance. UK have shot themselves in the Foot badly.

It gives the impression for smaller countries within the EU and outside the EU, that bigger nations will bully you if you do not do what they want!!

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

I though UK were nuts doing this. What was Gordon Brown thinking of? It back to the fishing wars. Talk about bad relations the UK are getting now. It was even more insane for UK Councils and Public Organisations to have their money in another country outside their own, where they cannot regulate (have no say) the Finance. UK have shot themselves in the Foot badly.

It gives the impression for smaller countries within the EU and outside the EU, that bigger nations will bully you if you do not do what they want!!

I would say it was something more of a reminder of the value of being inside the EU, with a set at the same table as the UK, and on the same footing. The UK may have grumbled about our bank guarantee, and complained to the Commission, but I think their treatment of Iceland makes it quite clear how much further they might have gone if we weren't EU members ourselves. Now that's real bullying!

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

I wonder if we'll see any Sovi.. I mean Russian submarine bases being set up in Iceland. I'm sure any bail out would come with strings attached. That would be one in the eye for Brown.

Off topic I know, but still, the world is changing rapidly.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say it was something more of a reminder of the value of being inside the EU, with a set at the same table as the UK, and on the same footing. The UK may have grumbled about our bank guarantee, and complained to the Commission, but I think their treatment of Iceland makes it quite clear how much further they might have gone if we weren't EU members ourselves. Now that's real bullying!

cordially,
Scofflaw

I disagree with that reason for been within the EU for protection for these sort of reasons because if they do that to others outside the EU they can do it in other ways inside the EU using different rules. They could end up in getting us into more difficulty by having our hands tied instead using other countries to do it for them within the EU.

We were bloody luckily that other Mainland EU countries Banking system were in as much mess as ours, that took similar actions as ourselves.

Iceland was considering Joining the EU, looks like that over now, since they are now technically in an "Finance war" with Britain, just like the "Cod war" in 1975-1976.

It also look like the Lisbon Treaty or any Treaty will not get passed now in the short term future (5 years perhaps), since Britain has given more motives for the Euro-sceptics to tell the population in order prevent further integration or Expansion.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

I disagree with that reason for been within the EU for protection for these sort of reasons because if they do that to others outside the EU they can do it in other ways inside the EU using different rules. They could end up in getting us into more difficulty by having our hands tied instead using other countries to do it for them within the EU.

Not really. Not having to deal with Iceland on the Council makes a difference, I would say. Certainly the UK was pretty unhappy with our bank rescue plan, but all they did was grumble that maybe it was 'uncompetitive'. As to having our hands tied, that turned out not to be the case, because we got to go ahead on our own, plus then benefiting from the EU-wide efforts.

limklad wrote: »

We were bloody luckily that other Mainland EU countries Banking system were in as much mess as ours, that took similar actions as ourselves.

Undoubtedly - but Iceland was in a similar mess, and it didn't get the same treatment as us.

limklad wrote: »

Iceland was considering Joining the EU, looks like that over now, since they are now technically in an "Finance war" with Britain, just like the "Cod war" in 1975-1976.

Er, no, that's the wrong way round. Iceland has always been unable to join the EU because of various internal interests' resistance. It now looks a good deal more on the cards than before - specifically their unions are putting EU membership as a price for wage restraint.

limklad wrote: »

It also look like the Lisbon Treaty or any Treaty will not get passed now in the short term future (5 years perhaps), since Britain has given more motives for the Euro-sceptics to tell the population in order prevent further integration or Expansion.

Again, I'm not sure that's the case. The UK acted as it always would have done - but of the two small neighbours that pissed it off, it acted against the non-EU one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except this is not what you actually said. Please explain how "not quite, stay out of our internal affairs and stick to your brief and we'll get on grand" relates to "the overall inability of the EU to make decisions quickly".

In short, you're backtracking.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. People like you were telling us to vote for Lisbon as it would help make the EU such a super efficient organisation, are you trying to tell me that the EU can make decisions quickly?? And I don't mean anything to do with the financial crisis if that's what is confusing you. The less interferance the better,

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

People like you were telling us to vote for Lisbon as it would help make the EU such a super efficient organisation, are you trying to tell me that the EU can make decisions quickly?? And I don't mean anything to do with the financial crisis if that's what is confusing you. The less interferance the better,

So let's see now; your position is this:

1. You're annoyed because the EU can't make decisions quickly and efficiently
2. You're also annoyed because people urged a 'Yes' vote to Lisbon to improve the efficiency of the EU
3. You're annoyed because the EU makes too many decisions that "interfere" with Ireland

Have I got all that right? If I have, then I'm rather confused and I doubt I'm the only one.

nhughes100

Looks like I'm finally getting through to you Eurocrats.

Definitely yes on 1, on two yeah as if that nonsense was going to improve anything's efficiency and 3 yes definitely.

Now whats confusing about that? Or maybe we should setup a cross Europe committee to deal with it with each person having voting powers relative to their representation in the European parliament.

Now that I've answered your questions maybe you could tell us where you came up with your Irish tax on Irish banks in the Uk nonsense, more euro weenie what if what if, better not offend anyone, don't do anything just in case something happens.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

Definitely yes on 1, on two yeah as if that nonsense was going to improve anything's efficiency and 3 yes definitely.

Lisbon would make the EU more efficient; it's been covered in depth on this forum before and I don't have time now to rehash old posts, but feel free to illustrate how you feel it would do no such thing.

Could you also list some of these decisions the EU makes that adversely "interfere" with Ireland? Bear in mind that these decisions usually apply to all member states, usually to the benefit of the EU as a whole.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Now that I've answered your questions maybe you could tell us where you came up with your Irish tax on Irish banks in the Uk nonsense, more euro weenie what if what if, better not offend anyone, don't do anything just in case something happens.

I was making the point (as Scofflaw has repeatedly) that the British government can do nothing about our decision to underwrite our banks because we are in the EU; they can do whatever the hell they like to Iceland though.

limklad

nhughes100 wrote: »

better not offend anyone,

Too late!! The very mention of offending someone, will result that you will have offended them by mentioning it. :eek:

nhughes100

All going off Topic, no it's not an example of European co-operation more an example of EU ineptness. I've already made my views of Lisbon on this forum, interesting to see that since Iceland is outside the EU you couldn't care less what the Brits to the them.