is this european co-operation

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Does this mean should we start an unofficial war with Britain then? What should we call it. "Banking war" since they are firing shots at us because we wanted to save our "poor decision making banks" to save our crippling economy.

It still should not be a reason for joining the EU, especially if it feels it going to be threaten by staying outside.
Other EU countries should act on Britain and rap their "knuckles" because of it.

sink

limklad wrote: »

Other EU countries should act on Britain and rap their "knuckles" because of it.

Could that not be construed as other countries infringing upon Britain's sovereignty? Where do you draw the line? (Actual Question)

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Does this mean should we start an unofficial war with Britain then? What should we call it. "Banking war" since they are firing shots at us because we wanted to save our "poor decision making banks" to save our crippling economy.

It was more that our actions annoyed the UK, since it almost immediately started sucking funds out of their banks and into ours (the Irish banks have branches throughout the UK), but we were able to take them without really much reference to how the UK would take it, because we would be highly unlikely to suffer any repercussions.

The reason we - unlike Iceland - get to act with this sort of impunity is because we're in the EU. If the UK bullies us, the other small countries in the EU take note. Of course, they also take note of the UK bullying Iceland, but Iceland isn't in the EU.

limklad wrote: »

It still should not be a reason for joining the EU, especially if it feels it going to be threaten by staying outside.

It's not the reason that Iceland was considering joining the EU. That was more the run on their currency (down from 95 to the euro at the start of the year to 305 to the euro recently) courtesy of currency speculators - something that wouldn't have happened had they been in the euro - and the comfort of having the ECB as a final resort rather than themselves, because it turned out they couldn't afford to prop up their own banks.

limklad wrote: »

Other EU countries should act on Britain and rap their "knuckles" because of it.

Hmm. The UK was within its legal rights, and acting well within its sovereignty - I don't think there's a basis, other than moral, for the other EU countries to do anything. There is certainly no basis for the EU to do so, since EEA members like Iceland don't get the same deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

...interesting to see that since Iceland is outside the EU you couldn't care less what the Brits to the them.

I don't believe anyone said anything of the sort.

limklad wrote: »

Other EU countries should act on Britain and rap their "knuckles" because of it.

You think the EU should tell Britain what they should and shouldn't be doing?

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

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

Leaving aside #2, the other two points essentially contradict each other; on one side you complain that the EU cannot make decisions and then complain when they do as they would 'interfere' with a nation's domestic policy.

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.

This is the paradox of the Eurosceptic position though, and very much related to your previous contradiction - transferring voting powers to the European parliament would certainly make the EU democratic, but it would also bypass the national governments, an people like you would then whinge about national sovereignty and how we're just going to get bullied by the larger populations in other EU states.

I've already pointed out your contradiction, btw, you might address it this time though.

dante18

The Corinthian wrote:

This is the paradox of the Eurosceptic position though

There is no paradox in the eurosceptic position. The eurosceptic position is that the EU should have the minimum amount of power to interfere in the internal affairs of its sovereign member states.

When eurosceptics say that the EU is undemocratic, it's not because they believe it would be more acceptable if it was more democratic. They're just using it as one reason why it would be unwise for us to continue to transfer more of our national sovereignty to institutions that are by their nature undemocratic.

It would be like a socialist saying that he is opposed to fascism and the fascists didn't really make the trains run on time. It doesn't mean that he would be any more likely to support the fascists if they had made the trains run on time. It's the same with the eurosceptic position.

I myself have no problem with the fact that the EU is undemocratic as I don't see it as having any legitimate claim to sovereignty over my country. I would be opposed to any further 'integration' into the EU regardless of how democratic it becomes. I'm more concerned about how democratic our own national political institutions are.

nhughes100

It would appear you are confusing democracy with efficiency. You also seem confused with what is a contradiction. As I've already stated in a previous post these view points are not mutually exclusive

"You're annoyed because the EU can't make decisions quickly and efficiently "

"You're annoyed because the EU makes too many decisions that "interfere" with Ireland "

Kindly explain how making decisions quickly and efficiently co-relate to making decisions that interfere in internal affairs. I think you assume incorrectly that when the EU pokes it's nose into sovereign matters that it does so in an efficient manner.

I never said once that more powers should be transferred to the EU to make it more efficient, we were all told that the Nice treaty would sort out loads of EU inefficiences only to be told that Lisbon would really sort them out.

Now that surely addresses your allegations even though I've already answered your questions several times, but typical Euro weenie - talk and talk and talk and nitpick and split hairs and talk some more. Maybe I should start giving yes and no answers, although I'm sure eurocrats can split them too.

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

Maybe you'd like to phone a friend?

The Corinthian

dante18 wrote: »

There is no paradox in the eurosceptic position. The eurosceptic position is that the EU should have the minimum amount of power to interfere in the internal affairs of its sovereign member states.

When eurosceptics say that the EU is undemocratic, it's not because they believe it would be more acceptable if it was more democratic. They're just using it as one reason why it would be unwise for us to continue to transfer more of our national sovereignty to institutions that are by their nature undemocratic.

I agree with you in so far that complaining that the EU as being undemocratic is a red herring. The reality is that Eurosceptism ultimately boils down to little more than 'little islander' xenophobia and the sovereignty issue has only limited sellability to the wider public, and so - as we saw in the referendum - other, more socially palitable, arguments are trotted out.

nhughes100 wrote: »

It would appear you are confusing democracy with efficiency. You also seem confused with what is a contradiction.

And you appear to be attempting to redefine these issues so as to backtrack on your contradictions.

Kindly explain how making decisions quickly and efficiently co-relate to making decisions that interfere in internal affairs.

Kindly explain how a common policy would not interfere in internal affairs? Would a joint statement that does not actually apply any common policy be fine for you? Or would that simply be another example of inefficiency and lack of cooperation? Or were the EU to impose a common policy to be followed by all the member states would you whinge about their interference in our domestic affairs?

This is the contradiction that you do not seem to be able to grasp. You want the EU to be proactive, but not actually do anything - leaving us in a situation whereby they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Now that surely addresses your allegations even though I've already answered your questions several times, but typical Euro weenie - talk and talk and talk and nitpick and split hairs and talk some more. Maybe I should start giving yes and no answers, although I'm sure eurocrats can split them too.

It would address them had you not come out with nonsense.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

Maybe you'd like to phone a friend?

Ah yes, I see what you've done; you've taken a statement of fact and deliberately misinterpreted it as opinion. Well done.

nhughes100

The Corinthian wrote: »

I

And you appear to be attempting to redefine these issues so as to backtrack on your contradictions.

Kindly explain how a common policy would not interfere in internal affairs? Would a joint statement that does not actually apply any common policy be fine for you? Or would that simply be another example of inefficiency and lack of cooperation? Or were the EU to impose a common policy to be followed by all the member states would you whinge about their interference in our domestic affairs?

This is the contradiction that you do not seem to be able to grasp. You want the EU to be proactive, but not actually do anything - leaving us in a situation whereby they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It would address them had you not come out with nonsense.

Since you haven't the courtesy to answer any of my queries, I won't answer yours until you do so.

I'd love for you to point out where I said I wanted the EU to be more proactive.

Let me spell it out for you, I don't want the EU at all, I want a return to a European trading community, no parliament, no beurocracies, no interferance, no euro, no direct control over interest rates.

Your accusation at xenophobia is offensive but typical of Euro weenies playing the race card instead of engaging in an adult debate.

getz

am i correct in saying in saying that the republic .dosent allow other EU countrys to open banks[except the ulster bank] in the republic when i was in gorey last year i went to the halifax branch to draw out money from my account and was told that untill they get the ok from the irish goverment they couldent open as a bank?- this must be in breach of EU regulations--a bit slow as a lot of money from the EU has gone to the farming industry--i am only having a go because you are to quick to be anti/brit again

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

Since you haven't the courtesy to answer any of my queries, I won't answer yours until you do so.

There's a surprise :rolleyes:

I'd love for you to point out where I said I wanted the EU to be more proactive.

If you're complaining about the inefficency of the EU to act on the present crisis, what would you suggest if that they are not more proactive? Perhaps be more efficient at doing nothing? Do you still not see how you're not making sense?

Let me spell it out for you, I don't want the EU at all, I want a return to a European trading community, no parliament, no beurocracies, no interferance, no euro, no direct control over interest rates.

I know this is what you want, which underlines my point on the use of arguments such as the undemocratic nature of the EU being simply used as red herrings by Eurosceptics such as yourself.

Your accusation at xenophobia is offensive but typical of Euro weenies playing the race card instead of engaging in an adult debate.

Were other Europeans different races you might be right, but that is not the case. That level of racial subdivision has not been taken seriously since the 1940's. What I was referring to was a far more petty form of tribalism - the 'little islander' mentality. In essence it's provincialism given the shrinking nature of the modern World.

If you are really interested in understanding what race or nation states are, I suggest you read up on the history of both; in particular how migration over even the last few centuries has shaped the former and how the latter were in effect invented in most cases.

Finally, I also find it amusing how someone who would use terms such as 'Euro weenies' can have the balls to lament the lack of adult debate. Pathetic.

Hitman Actual

nhughes100 wrote: »

Let me spell it out for you, I don't want the EU at all, I want a return to a European trading community, no parliament, no beurocracies, no interferance, no euro, no direct control over interest rates.

I understand that this is the common stance among euro-sceptics, but even so, do you not see the benefits of being part of a common currency? Especially in the common market trading community that you desire?

BTW (and completely off-topic), your understanding of the term "euro-weenie" is flawed. It's usually a derogatory term used by Americans for the fact that Europe is not as strong and decisive as it should be, so someone who's pro-European-integration isn't really a "euro-weenie"; rather, the term is more fitting for a euro-sceptic.

bigstar

can the two boys hughes and corinthians please grow up, its worse than watching the dail. my OP was about the reaction from EU members to the banking crisis. each country backed their own, without much concern for other, but i agree the EU was slow to react, which questions its validity as a anything more than a trade organisation. im not eurosceptic, but i think its healthy to debate the role of the EU, especially because, as i see it, the EU's main aim at the moment is to consolidate itself as major power in global politics. and i think it would be detrimental to society to allow the EU to become less accountable to its citizen than it already is. anyway thats going off topic as is nearly everything in this thread.

nhughes100

There's a surprise :rolleyes:

Well what's good for the goose etc etc.

If you're complaining about the inefficency of the EU to act on the present crisis, what would you suggest if that they are not more proactive? Perhaps be more efficient at doing nothing? Do you still not see how you're not making sense?

For the last time, my reference to EU inefficiency was no exclusively aimed at the current crisis.

I know this is what you want, which underlines my point on the use of arguments such as the undemocratic nature of the EU being simply used as red herrings by Eurosceptics such as yourself.

Were other Europeans different races you might be right, but that is not the case. That level of racial subdivision has not been taken seriously since the 1940's. What I was referring to was a far more petty form of tribalism - the 'little islander' mentality. In essence it's provincialism given the shrinking nature of the modern World.

The eternal arguement of the Euro Sceptic, sure what have you got to fear, the EU has only been good for Ireland. Anyone who disagrees is a small minded neanderthal member of Sinn Fein.

If you are really interested in understanding what race or nation states are, I suggest you read up on the history of both; in particular how migration over even the last few centuries has shaped the former and how the latter were in effect invented in most cases.

I am well versed in history, not just the parts that suit my argument either. Again more assumptions and condescending Euro crat attitude.

Finally, I also find it amusing how someone who would use terms such as 'Euro weenies' can have the balls to lament the lack of adult debate. Pathetic.

I don't believe I was the one calling you a racist/xenophobe. I think Euro weenie describes the EU perfectly.

To answer another persons comment, no I don't think the EURO is a good idea, it's cost lots of Irish jobs thanks to the high cost of our exports, it means we are tied to interest rates that we have no control over, it's convenience for Eurozone holidays is entirely over rated.

To the OP apologies, I actually answered the Topic question but I won't be called a xenophobe just for having anti EU opinion. It's like calling people who won't vote for Obama racist. Maybe some of them are but maybe some of them want to vote for McCain.

Scofflaw

dante18 wrote: »

There is no paradox in the eurosceptic position. The eurosceptic position is that the EU should have the minimum amount of power to interfere in the internal affairs of its sovereign member states.

Most of the power the EU has to do so, though, flows from the common market. The oft-decried 'political' competences of the EU are over external affairs.

Given that most eurosceptics claim to support the 'common market', you can hardly complain about interference in 'internal affairs'.

dante18 wrote: »

When eurosceptics say that the EU is undemocratic, it's not because they believe it would be more acceptable if it was more democratic. They're just using it as one reason why it would be unwise for us to continue to transfer more of our national sovereignty to institutions that are by their nature undemocratic.

It would be like a socialist saying that he is opposed to fascism and the fascists didn't really make the trains run on time. It doesn't mean that he would be any more likely to support the fascists if they had made the trains run on time. It's the same with the eurosceptic position.

Refreshingly honest!

dante18 wrote: »

I myself have no problem with the fact that the EU is undemocratic as I don't see it as having any legitimate claim to sovereignty over my country.

Well, see above. I'd be interested in what your definition of sovereignty is.

dante18 wrote: »

I would be opposed to any further 'integration' into the EU regardless of how democratic it becomes. I'm more concerned about how democratic our own national political institutions are.

I've said it before, but to my mind much of the 'democratic deficit' we identify with the EU is actually a national democratic deficit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

bigstar wrote:

my OP was about the reaction from EU members to the banking crisis. each country backed their own, without much concern for other, but i agree the EU was slow to react, which questions its validity as a anything more than a trade organisation. im not eurosceptic, but i think its healthy to debate the role of the EU, especially because, as i see it, the EU's main aim at the moment is to consolidate itself as major power in global politics. and i think it would be detrimental to society to allow the EU to become less accountable to its citizen than it already is. anyway thats going off topic as is nearly everything in this thread.

Unfortunately the EU is caught in the sovereignty-democracy quandary on this one. Make it more democratically accountable and you bypass the national governments or must prepare that you may get outvoted, thus ceding sovereignty. Protect that sovereignty and in effect you are maintaining a power of veto which is ultimately anti-democratic (or if we were to have a referendum and Carlow could veto the national majority, would you consider that democratic?).

I've come to the conclusion that the EU will likely muddle its way along and any real political unification will take decades if not centuries of disagreement and procrastination. On the plus side, it worked for the Swiss.

nhughes100 wrote: »

For the last time, my reference to EU inefficiency was no exclusively aimed at the current crisis.

Whether for the current or any other crisis my point is equally valid.

I don't believe I was the one calling you a racist/xenophobe. I think Euro weenie describes the EU perfectly.

Then if you are going to indulge in name calling I suggest you don't complain about the lack of adult debate.

To the OP apologies, I actually answered the Topic question but I won't be called a xenophobe just for having anti EU opinion. It's like calling people who won't vote for Obama racist. Maybe some of them are but maybe some of them want to vote for McCain.

What defines the voter as racist or not is down to why they prefer McCain to Obama. While it is wrong to assume that it is down to racism, it is just as wrong to assume that it is not.

With regard to Eurosceptism, however, I can firmly say that it almost always seems to boil down to xenophobia. I've lost count of how many discussions I've had where a Eurosceptic will eventually concede that the real reason they're anti-EU is because they "have nothing in common with the Europeans" or "they're not like us". This is not an isolated occurrence but, in my experience, the overwhelming reason behind Eurosceptism and this, my friend, is called xenophobia.

Of course you might be that rare breed of Eurosceptic that opposes the EU on a purely economic or democratic basis, but given your responses and apparent contradictions, I somewhat doubt it.

nhughes100

Rest assured I won't be conceding any Xenophobic tendencies. You'll find that the 400 million odd Europeans are still there even if the EU wasn't. You confuse my opposition of an organisation with being a racist. I'd ask you to point out where in my posts you derived that, but that would be like a turkey asking for Christmas. Don't read between the lines as I don't write between them.

The Corinthian

nhughes100 wrote: »

You confuse my opposition of an organisation with being a racist.

You're still confusing xenophobia with racism. The two are not interchangeable.

Or do you consider other Europeans to be of a different race then?

I'd ask you to point out where in my posts you derived that, but that would be like a turkey asking for Christmas. Don't read between the lines as I don't write between them.

Already told you. Your arguments have been contradictory and in areas you have little genuine interest in. So we don't actually know the real motivation for your Eurosceptism. And experience has taught me that if I were to press you hard enough and you were forced to genuinely explain why you oppose the EU, it would come down to good, old-fashioned, little-islander, a-nation-once-again, xenophobia.

limklad

sink wrote: »

Could that not be construed as other countries infringing upon Britain's sovereignty? Where do you draw the line? (Actual Question)

EU is a project made from Peace and good relations. We all know we really see people true intentions when things go wrong. We are beginning to see who truly live up to their ideals. Britain clearly does not.

As far as I know Iceland has never declared war on anyone and now Britain have just handed Iceland to the Russians on a silver plate! Iceland now thanks to Britain who have no choice but to accept financial help from the Russians. They cannot go the EU for help because Britain will veto any assistance. The US is in criticises with their downward spiralling economy.

If you remember Iceland was neutral in the last World War just like Ireland, and Britain invaded the Island, violating Icelandic neutrality. Then they handed the Island over to the US. They (Iceland) then Joined NATO. So not only had Britain had a "Cod War" now Britain has enacted Terrorist Laws on Icelandic banks, effecting declaring another cold war, this time on their "NATO Allies", who were trying to resolve the problems of their banks!!

So well done to Britain (for their idiocy), and failing to protect their "NATO Ally" and handing them over to the Russians, who will welcome them with smiles. :rolleyes:

To your Point Scofflaw:
Britain has no problem in defying other nation’s sovereignty!! Iceland is their Latest casualty. Other EU states can tell Britain in the next EU council of their displeasure of Britain for effectively attacking a “free democracy nation” and "NATO Ally". The Icelandic Government were not given time to resolved the issue. Britain took the first Shot and treated their Ally as a terrorist.

The UK Treasury has acted to freeze Iceland's Landsbanki's which is estimated to have £7bn of UK assets. The order was made under section 4 of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, a piece of legislation which was hurriedly passed by the British parliament in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Iceland's Premier (Prime Minister) Geir Haarde nor it banks chiefs are no "Nordic Osama bin Laden". They never got time to attempt to resolve these crises. They (Iceland nor it citizens) are not on any of the US terrorist list.

Britain did sign up to the same deal we (Ireland) did and They passed and approve of every EU Treaty! They effectively sign up to the European Union Ideals as we did.
The EU as far as I remember always promoted Peace and a Good relation with its neighbours and now Britain has threatened that!

The Corinthian

limklad wrote: »

EU is a project made from Peace and good relations. We all know we really see people true intentions when things go wrong. We are beginning to see who truly live up to their ideals. Britain clearly does not.

Britain's relationship with the EU has never been terribly comfortable. Luigi Barzini wrote a pretty good description of their early association with what was to become the EU and essentially described their initial involvement when the EEC was formed as conservitive and distrustful (they sent diplomats to the initial negotiations, but under instructions not to sign up to anything). When the train departed and they suddenly realized that they'd been left behind, they set up EFTA in 1960 as an alternative and then later courted membership of the EU (a move that was blocked by France), eventually joining successfully, at the same time as Ireland, in 1973 - but not being a founding member they lost much of the influence they could have had, had they joined from the start.

Britain, more so than any other European nation, does not see itself as European. Partially due to the ascendency of Anglo-Saxon culture in the twentieth century (mainly due to the USA), their victory in World War II and the memory of empire, the idea of swallowing their pride and becoming less than the centre of their own universe is a little too much for them and so their relationship to the EU has always been lukewarm and full of conflicting interests. Their alignment to the US after Suez was another issue that conflicted with the rest of Europe, who by contrast viewed American influence with a certain degree of suspicion.

Britain has long seen as one of the 'bad Europeans' in the EU, largely because they have sought to turn the EU into EFTA (which they left because it essentially failed to really take off). It's generally accepted that this has damaged their influence over the years and meant that they have, in refusing to be at the centre of Europe, failed to be anything other than a fifth wheel in it, who still try to imagine that it is nothing more than a trading bloc.

molloyjh

The idea that the EU could decide quickly regarding the current crisis ignores the reality of the set-up of the organisation. For the EU to decide on anything they must get consensus among the member states, which is always going to take longer than the individual member states. It also needs to take into account any measures undertaken by the member states in reaction to the crisis aswell. Additionally I'd prefer the right solution to a quick decision any day!

As for the EU "interference" or lack of support or whatever that issue is there are again a few elements that prevent the EU from acting any other way. For a start if we in Ireland had implemented a bail out for Irish banks only it would have (as was evidenced when the measure was announced) led to customers elsewhere in the EU moving their money into Irish banks. If it had been another country doing that and money was then leaving Ireland for those shores (like the UK) we would have been up in arms. So this "interference" regarding unfair competition is totally fair.

Regarding this apparent lack of support, I'm not sure what exactly people want the EU to do. The EU is only a club of countries, all of whom are suffering the same crisis at the moment, therefore there's a very limited amount of support that the EU can actually give. But then it isn't there to solve all of our problems for us, its there to try and ensure that we are in as strong a position as we can be to face the challenges that come up.

Try and imagine what this country would be like right now without the EU. Our membership in the EU would not have a had an affect on the current global economic crisis so it would have happened anyway. We wouldn't have the foreign investment here that has propped up our economy over the years because we wouldn't have free access to the EU markets. This would mean lower employment levels and reduced tax revenue, along with increased social welfare demands. It would mean no EU funding for various infrastructural developments over the years. Chances are we wouldn't be too much better off than we were in the 80s as what else do we have that could possibly have made up the shortfall? Throw in a huge global recession into that mix and it would probably have brought this country to its knees. I wouldn't like to think what would have happened to the Punt and how long it would take for that to recover, which would obviously only compund matters.

Look at where we are now though. We are certainly facing tough times alright, but failing some cataclysmic event we'll get over it and keep going. We'll do so because economically we were in a pretty strong position coming into this crisis and we're not on our own. Our membership of the EU in itself has ensured that this crisis causes us nothing more than a couple of years of relatively minor difficulty rather than the kind of collapse we're seeing in Iceland. And to ignore that and focus on the lack of specific EU action ignores the reason behind joining the EU in the first place. We're not part of this "club" so that it can solve all our problems for us, we're part of it to allow us better able to deal with the hard times and make the most out of the good. I don't think anyone can say that we haven't been able to do both as a result of membership.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

For a start if we in Ireland had implemented a bail out for Irish banks only it would have (as was evidenced when the measure was announced) led to customers elsewhere in the EU moving their money into Irish banks. If it had been another country doing that and money was then leaving Ireland for those shores (like the UK) we would have been up in arms. So this "interference" regarding unfair competition is totally fair.

I don't seem to recall too much uproar when the British Government nationalised Northern Rock - in sharp contrast to the British reaction to Irish Gov. actions protecting our banks!

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

I don't seem to recall too much uproar when the British Government nationalised Northern Rock - in sharp contrast to the British reaction to Irish Gov. actions protecting our banks!

Sorry that was a badly phrased point. I should have pointed out that the issue is around banks trading in other countries. Take AIB for example, who have branches all over the UK. If they were guaranteed then a lot of people in the UK would end up moving their money to AIBGB therefore only adding to the English financial woes. The only thing the British were concerned about was purely that fact, that it would take money out o the English financial institutions in large and significant numbers/amounts. This, plus the fact that the bail out initially was not going to protect foreign banks here (meaning a move away from forein banks) would lead to a very uneven playing field competitively.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry that was a badly phrased point. I should have pointed out that the issue is around banks trading in other countries. Take AIB for example, who have branches all over the UK. If they were guaranteed then a lot of people in the UK would end up moving their money to AIBGB therefore only adding to the English financial woes. The only thing the British were concerned about was purely that fact, that it would take money out o the English financial institutions in large and significant numbers/amounts. This, plus the fact that the bail out initially was not going to protect foreign banks here (meaning a move away from forein banks) would lead to a very uneven playing field competitively.

One of the things that was noticed here was people moving their money into Post Office accounts. However, the bank that provides banking services for the Royal Mail in the UK is actually Bank of Ireland. So in addition to the movement of money directly to the Irish banks' UK high street branches, the flow to the UK post office was also captured by Irish banks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

One of the things that was noticed here was people moving their money into Post Office accounts. However, the bank that provides banking services for the Royal Mail in the UK is actually Bank of Ireland. So in addition to the movement of money directly to the Irish banks' UK high street branches, the flow to the UK post office was also captured by Irish banks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

One wonders what would have happened without the EU?

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry that was a badly phrased point. I should have pointed out that the issue is around banks trading in other countries. Take AIB for example, who have branches all over the UK. If they were guaranteed then a lot of people in the UK would end up moving their money to AIBGB therefore only adding to the English financial woes. The only thing the British were concerned about was purely that fact, that it would take money out o the English financial institutions in large and significant numbers/amounts. This, plus the fact that the bail out initially was not going to protect foreign banks here (meaning a move away from forein banks) would lead to a very uneven playing field competitively.

Northern Rock operate in Ireland as well. I suppose the Irish banks should thank Gordon for the great advertising campaign though

Nationalising Northern Rock was anti-competitive - not a word from the EU about that. When Ireland went to protect its own banks, we ended up having to do the same for non-Irish ones as well because it was anti-competitive. I suppose that was for being bold and voting down the Lisbon Treaty

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

One wonders what would have happened without the EU?

We wouldn't have had to guarantee non-Irish banks?

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Northern Rock operate in Ireland as well. I suppose the Irish banks should thank Gordon for the great advertising campaign though

Nationalising Northern Rock was anti-competitive - not a word from the EU about that. When Ireland went to protect its own banks, we ended up having to do the same for non-Irish ones as well because it was anti-competitive. I suppose that was for being bold and voting down the Lisbon Treaty

I would imagine the major difference there is that NR was an isolated incident whereas we are backing ALL of our banks. Additionally, unless I'm hugely mistaken (which has happened before :pac:), NR do not have "high-street" branches here, and certainly were not advertising (like Irish Nationwide did) the bail out as a reason to transfer your business! The fact that the NR incident happened outside of the recession troubles when other banks were still just as secure as a nationalised NR also meant that it was far less significant a move by the UK Government.

And yes, if we weren't part of the EU we could have just bailed out domestic banks, but then if we weren't part of the EU would we have been able to afford to (see my initial post)?