Why are the British so anti Europe?

Scofflaw

gallag wrote: »

So if all of the countries agree it means nothing if the euro parliament dosent like it? This is what scares people and makes them skeptical.

As oB says, it rather more exposes the fact that their soi-disant attachment to "democracy" really is just nationalism, because the point of the European Parliament is to be a directly elected European-level check on the actions Member State governments take through the EU, there being often no meaningful domestic check on them.

That the EU Parliament can vote down the budget agreed by the Member States is democracy - after all, you can't vote it down through the Oireachtas. Indeed, you can't even vote down just the Irish government's stance on the EU budget, and would have a very hard time even finding out how it had voted or negotiated, never mind beating the Whip system to change it.

Unfortunately, of course, eurosceptics generally treat the Parliament with contempt, because they usually cannot conceive of democracy except at the national level. But if the governments of Europe are going to cooperate at the European level - and it seems they are going to, one way or another - then it becomes necessary to have a European layer of democratic accountability. Hence the European Parliament.

Unless of course one believes that what one's own national government does is always for the best in the best of all possible democracies?

cordially,
Scofflaw

NAP123

View wrote: »

Well, I asked you to prove it couldn't do so but since you can't I would refer you to the TFEU Articles 128.1 & 128.2 which deals with notes & coins respectively plus Article 16 of the ECB statute (dealing with notes).

In TFEU 128.1, we have:



In other words, the ECB has an explicit right to issue money (notes) if it so chooses and the sole right to authorize the national central banks to do so. It also must authorise the issuance of coins by the NCBs under article 128.2 (but is neither explicitly authorized or prohibited from doing so directly itself).

In fact, an ECB report from back in 2004 indicated that the ECB had exercised its right to issue notes and these ECB directly issued notes accounted for circa 8% of the total notes in circulation at the time. That figured could obviously have changed wildly in either direction since then.

PS Please don't get into a pedantic argument about the difference between "issuing notes" and "printing notes" as half the central banks in the world need (legally separate) mints that do the printing or coining for them. There is even a UK private company - De La Rue printers - which handles the physical printing of bank notes for central banks, so they don't even have to do that much if they don't want!

Jesus Christ. You are just quoting the articles that give the ECB the right to print the currency to facilitate the existing money supply, not replace the money supply.

The ECB cannot print money to replace monetary losses. Neither within banks or countries.

All monies it has printed to this date has had a collteral or interest rate applied.

In the case of banks it has taken on securities and in the case of countries it has applied an interest rate and terms and conditions.

Please show me a case where the ECB has actually printed money or an article in an EU treaty whereby it is actually allowed to print money to replace the losses of a state or bank.

Scofflaw

NAP123 wrote: »

Jesus Christ. You are just quoting the articles that give the ECB the right to print the currency to facilitate the existing money supply, not replace the money supply.

The ECB cannot print money to replace monetary losses. Neither within banks or countries.

All monies it has printed to this date has had a collteral or interest rate applied.

In the case of banks it has taken on securities and in the case of countries it has applied an interest rate and terms and conditions.

Please show me a case where the ECB has actually printed money or an article in an EU treaty whereby it is actually allowed to print money to replace the losses of a state or bank.

First, printing money to replace the losses of a state or bank is a completely separate issue from "printing" money in general.

Second, the ECB buying securities is money printing. The ECB doesn't go down into its vaults to see if it has enough readies to buy government bonds - it just creates the money to do it. That injects money into the eurozone. When the bond matures, the ECB can decide whether to keep the money the government spends repaying it in circulation, or destroy it. The same goes for loans - the ECB simply creates the money it's lending, and has the choice of destroying it or not on payback. That's what made the three-year loans so unusual - that's a surprisingly long window in which the ECB cannot reverse its choice to create the money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

Scofflaw wrote: »

First, printing money to replace the losses of a state or bank is a completely separate issue from "printing" money in general.

Second, the ECB buying securities is money printing. The ECB doesn't go down into its vaults to see if it has enough readies to buy government bonds - it just creates the money to do it. That injects money into the eurozone. When the bond matures, the ECB can decide whether to keep the money the government spends repaying it in circulation, or destroy it. The same goes for loans - the ECB simply creates the money it's lending, and has the choice of destroying it or not on payback. That's what made the three-year loans so unusual - that's a surprisingly long window in which the ECB cannot reverse its choice to create the money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And as we can see, the ECBs LTROs are already being repaid to the ECB. And ahead of schedule.

NAP123

McDave wrote: »

And as we can see, the ECBs LTROs are already being repaid to the ECB. And ahead of schedule.

Yipee.

They give us pretend money. We bailout real losers. They force us to use real money to bailout the real losers and they use our real money to cover up their falsehoods.

Illegal, unless you are a central bank.

McDave

NAP123 wrote: »

Yipee.

They give us pretend money. We bailout real losers. They force us to use real money to bailout the real losers and they use our real money to cover up their falsehoods.

Illegal, unless you are a central bank.

You're missing the point completely. Same amount of money in the system before and after the LTROs. Temporary situation averted. Mission accomplished.

Amberman

McDave wrote: »

You're missing the point completely. Same amount of money in the system before and after the LTROs. Temporary situation averted. Mission accomplished.

I think you're missing part of the puzzle there too cowboy.

If someone tells the ECB that asset x is worth a billion, they seem to be just taking their word for it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-07/more-central-bank-gimmicks-exposed-european-collateral-shortage-deteriorates

This isn't a problem...yet.

McDave

Amberman wrote: »

I think you're missing part of the puzzle there too cowboy.

If someone tells the ECB that asset x is worth a billion, they seem to be just taking their word for it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-07/more-central-bank-gimmicks-exposed-european-collateral-shortage-deteriorates

This isn't a problem...yet.

But that question becomes entirely academic when the LTROs are repaid, as they are being. And there's not actually that long to go on them anyway.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

I think you're missing part of the puzzle there too cowboy.

If someone tells the ECB that asset x is worth a billion, they seem to be just taking their word for it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-07/more-central-bank-gimmicks-exposed-european-collateral-shortage-deteriorates

This isn't a problem...yet.

And if zerohedge says they're not, some people take their word on that...

amused,
Scofflaw

giall

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, of course, eurosceptics generally treat the Parliament with contempt, because they usually cannot conceive of democracy except at the national level.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A caricature and a disingenuous implication that only one form of democracy is possible. One vote per country is democratic (EU as was). Voting power based on national population is also democratic, but any Irish person who favours the second ignores history.

Internationalism is fine as long as everybody plays by the rules. What's your bet?

View

giall wrote: »

A caricature and a disingenuous implication that only one form of democracy is possible. One vote per country is democratic (EU as was).

One vote per country isn't democratic in any form shape or size. It is arguably anti-democratic since it completely ignores the (size of the) population in its decision making (i.e. voting).

Also, the EU (and the European Communities) have never used such a system. The only EU institution to come close is the European Council (of heads of government) which operates on a consensus basis where all countries must vote the same way to adopt a position.

giall wrote: »

Voting power based on national population is also democratic, but any Irish person who favours the second ignores history.

The various EU institutions - very broadly speaking - use differing variations of regressive proportionality whereby smaller member states have considerable higher votes per head of population than larger member states.

The data from sites such as votewatch.eu clearly show that Ireland (as a state) in the Council of Ministers and the MEPs representing the differing constituencies (and interests) here seem perfectly capable in agreeing positions they believe are favourable to support.

giall wrote: »

Internationalism is fine as long as everybody plays by the rules. What's your bet?

There is a reason for the ECJ and the enormous amount of negotiation that goes into writing the EU treaties. It is to ensure the rules are agreed to and played to by everyone. That is as good as it gets in real life.

Scofflaw

giall wrote: »

A caricature and a disingenuous implication that only one form of democracy is possible. One vote per country is democratic (EU as was). Voting power based on national population is also democratic, but any Irish person who favours the second ignores history.

Internationalism is fine as long as everybody plays by the rules. What's your bet?

One country, one vote is not democracy. It is intergovernmentalism, and has nothing to do with democracy as such.

Democracy is voting by the people, not by governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CptMackey

Scofflaw wrote: »

One country, one vote is not democracy. It is intergovernmentalism, and has nothing to do with democracy as such.

Democracy is voting by the people, not by governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is what we have here true democracy tho? We vote in a government based on promises x. They get in and they carry out y. We then wait 5 years or so before we can change them.

Similar problem in Europe. We vote in meps and don't hear much until they come home for reelection.

Suppose my point is that what we have at a national level is very similar to intergovernmentalism at European level.
We vote them in and they do what ever they want without reproach

Scofflaw

CptMackey wrote: »

Is what we have here true democracy tho? We vote in a government based on promises x. They get in and they carry out y. We then wait 5 years or so before we can change them.

Similar problem in Europe. We vote in meps and don't hear much until they come home for reelection.

Well, that one has always been part of democracy, since the Agora in Athens. It has a built-in correction device, which is not voting for those people again, but it requires that voters actually use it.

CptMackey wrote: »

Suppose my point is that what we have at a national level is very similar to intergovernmentalism at European level.
We vote them in and they do what ever they want without reproach

Hardly without reproach - but we do have a problem with controlling our government when it's voting in Europe. Actually, in our case, we have a problem controlling our government full stop, but most people don't even understand the problem, or even that there is one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

giall

Scofflaw wrote: »

One country, one vote is not democracy. It is intergovernmentalism, and has nothing to do with democracy as such.

Democracy is voting by the people, not by governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your definition of democracy is intentionally narrow. My point is it comes in many forms, and one person one vote in a European context is only one way it can be structured. It happens to be a disastrous way for a small country like ours.

The history of multinational federations is uniformly one of failure, usually dramatic failure. Population-based democracy won't avoid that fate.

Frankly, I'm amazed that given the state of the continent at this time anyone can imagine that EMU hasn't been the biggest error in Irish political history since the Act of Union.

And folks can still keep a straight face and accuse the British of having made a mistake by not joining the single currency?

There's really no hope for us at all.

The Corinthian

giall wrote: »

The history of multinational federations is uniformly one of failure, usually dramatic failure.

Be kind enough to let the Swiss know this. Or the British. Neither seems to have been informed that their multinational unions should be failures.

There's really no hope for us at all.

Not when some are so ill educated - and I don't mean Scofflaw.

Scofflaw

giall wrote: »

Your definition of democracy is intentionally narrow. My point is it comes in many forms, and one person one vote in a European context is only one way it can be structured. It happens to be a disastrous way for a small country like ours.

Well, "narrow" in the sense of being limited only to the actual definition of the word, perhaps. And it turns out I can in fact refute your claim there, while perhaps helping answer the OP:



amused,
Scofflaw

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

Be kind enough to let the Swiss know this. Or the British. Neither seems to have been informed that their multinational unions should be failures.

Not when some are so ill educated - and I don't mean Scofflaw.

hands up those who do not like the way the EU is run,it seems we are all stupid,

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

hands up those who do not like the way the EU is run,it seems we are all stupid,

Giall claimed that "history of multinational federations is uniformly one of failure, usually dramatic failure". Yet you don't have to really go very far to see where this has not been uniformly the case, such as Switzerland and even Britain - indeed, most 'monoethnic' nations that were formed as a process of unification were originally multinational and are alive and well today.

So giall's claim was not only demonstrably false, but laughably so, because it was a product of ignorance of other counties and history with which to be able to make such a comparison with any ensemble of authority.

However, that's not to say that makes him stupid - I never said that. It makes him ignorant and ill educated on the topic, otherwise he'd know that such a claim was nonsense. Neither does not liking the way the EU is run make anyone stupid - you're the only one who's decided that this is what was said.

To be stupid takes a lot more than ill education - not being able to tell between ignorance and stupidity, might do the trick though...

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

Giall claimed that "history of multinational federations is uniformly one of failure, usually dramatic failure". Yet you don't have to really go very far to see where this has not been uniformly the case, such as Switzerland and even Britain - indeed, most 'monoethnic' nations that were formed as a process of unification were originally multinational and are alive and well today.

So giall's claim was not only demonstrably false, but laughably so, because it was a product of ignorance of other counties and history with which to be able to make such a comparison with any ensemble of authority.

Overall, multi-ethnic federations and empires have a historically respectable pedigree, lasting for centuries in many cases.

The idea that they must necessarily fall apart is actually a reflection, not of the difficulties of those states, but of the difficulties nation-states have with multi-ethnicity within their borders. While federations or multi-ethnic empires may have a dominant ethnicity within them, nation-states must do - but while federations etc can work around this by allowing a good deal of regional autonomy and variation, nation-states are founded on the principle of homogeneity, and therefore cannot allow such latitude.

The obvious outcome of this is repressive behaviour on the part of the nation-state centre, and corresponding rebellious behaviour on the part of the smaller ethnic groups. However, the imposed uniformity is a sufficient competitive advantage in mass warfare that nation-states eclipsed multi-ethnic ones through the eighteenth to twentieth centuries.

For those whose thinking is framed almost entirely by the nation-state ethos, the EU is mentally framed as a nation-state, and thereby acquires the undesirable characteristics that such a European nation-state would have - over-dominant centre, centrally imposed uniformity, cultural repression of small groups, potentially explosive ethnic tensions - and which would indeed make such a construct unwieldy and likely to fall apart at any moment.

That the EU is not in fact a European nation-state, nor even yet a federation, doesn't seem to register, and possibly can't, if someone has in their head only the nation-state as a model for polities.

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, that's not to say that makes him stupid - I never said that. It makes him ignorant and ill educated on the topic, otherwise he'd know that such a claim was nonsense. Neither does not liking the way the EU is run make anyone stupid - you're the only one who's decided that this is what was said.

To be stupid takes a lot more than ill education - not being able to tell between ignorance and stupidity, might do the trick though...

There are intelligent reasons for disliking the way the EU is run, and there are stupid reasons for disliking the way the EU is run. Unfortunately, the former are rarely presented, while the latter are constantly presented, often by people who think they're intelligent reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

From this

Tebbs wrote: »

I can happily disagree with someone, and their reasons for voting, and often do. However, I hope I never reach the stage of lofty smug satisfaction where I tell others their reasons are stupid, and I am the self appointed arbitrator of what is intelligent and what is stupid when it comes to others voting in a democratic ballot or holding of opinions.

To this

Let’s hope your technical correctness is a comfort to you. Those who live in the real world and are students of history, know that to be technically correct is more often than not to avoid seeing the bigger picture.

To this

While you are here clapping yourself on the back for being technically correct, out in the real world it looks as if the people are mobilising across Europe, fed up with what they see as the smug self satisfied way in which they have been ignored.

And this

it looks as if you spend the majority of your time here arguing with strangers in cyberspace, rather that getting out and discussing with real people, bearing in mind you have contributed around 3 000 posts here per year, which amounts to around 10 a day, for the last seven years.

And this

Internet addiction is now a recognised condition

Fancy being able to evolve to "lofty smug satisfaction" in one post.

Must be the Farage Effect!

Duggys Housemate

Scofflaw wrote: »

One country, one vote is not democracy. It is intergovernmentalism, and has nothing to do with democracy as such.

Democracy is voting by the people, not by governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Better to have a republic not a democracy.

Solair

I often wonder if they had just called the currency the "European Pound" € would the British have taken more of an interest

The Corinthian

Solair wrote: »

I often wonder if they had just called the currency the "European Pound" € would the British have taken more of an interest

If I remember correctly, that was the original idea; that it could be used as a suffix to the existing currency name.

defeffle

[MOD]Please do not cut and paste full articles without any source attribution or other suggestion that they're someone else's work.[/MOD]

thomas.frink

It seems the argument has moved on from why Britain is so anti EU, to why others have such an apparently irrational preference to cling on to what looks like an out of date, largely non-working and disastrous EU.

The debate in the UK has moved on from the rhetoric about “better in than out” and “we’d lose more by being out than in”. Facts are so much better than rhetoric and the facts seem to show that the UK would be better off outside the current EU, and saving the UK over £5billion per annum in fees, as a start. As the EU exports more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU, there is no reason to suppose the EU will want to cut off its nose to spite its face and impose tariffs, (even if that were possible as most trade agreements are now made through the offices of the WTO). Those Germans will not want to stop selling Mercedes, BMW’s and Volkswagens to the UK.

What will happen Ireland when the UK votes to leave the EU (as I believe it will) is a question not yet answered.

While I love Europe and the countries of Europe, I see now the EU as an organisation which is detrimental to the Europe I love; wasteful, not accountable (think of all those budgets where our money is not accounted for and can’t be signed off) and unwieldy.

Worse still it is arrogant, and when the UK, and others, warned that the creation of the Euro would lead to disaster, the arrogance of the EU in putting its political desires above common sense has largely led to the current situation. The story is the modern day equivalent of the tower of Babel.

What is obvious is that the EU has no ability to reform itself, no ability to account for its reckless handling of our money, and seems to have no ability to do other than follow events it has started, unable to control them and unable, even, to accept any responsibility.

The best thing that can happen to the EU is for other countries, like the UK, to leave, and to start a new organisation which is accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe, and for the current day EU to implode into itself, as the damage it has inflicted across the continent is heart wrenching, and the lack of accountability disgusting.

The Corinthian

thomas.frink wrote: »

It seems the argument has moved on from why Britain is so anti EU, to why others have such an apparently irrational preference to cling on to what looks like an out of date, largely non-working and disastrous EU.

It hasn't. The discussion has moved more onto legitimate flaws and problems with the EU, rather than the emotive diatribe that was being presented earlier. The only person who's gone so far as to interpret this to mean that the EU is an "out of date, largely non-working and disastrous" institution is you.

The debate in the UK has moved on from the rhetoric about “better in than out” and “we’d lose more by being out than in”.

Isn't that much the same debate?

As the EU exports more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU, there is no reason to suppose the EU will want to cut off its nose to spite its face and impose tariffs, (even if that were possible as most trade agreements are now made through the offices of the WTO).

I'd be more concerned that the UK imports more than they export from everyone, if I were them.

Facts are so much better than rhetoric and the facts seem to show that the UK would be better off outside the current EU, and saving the UK over £5billion per annum in fees, as a start.

£3.8bn - you're forgetting the rebate. The UK would most likely still be contributing financially to the EU, albeit at a much smaller scale, just as Norway presently does.

What will happen Ireland when the UK votes to leave the EU (as I believe it will) is a question not yet answered.

Probably nothing, presuming that the UK is able to retain the same trade agreements under a separate arrangement. Otherwise, you may see some businesses move to Ireland rather than go to or stay in the UK.

Worse still it is arrogant, and when the UK, and others, warned that the creation of the Euro would lead to disaster, the arrogance of the EU in putting its political desires above common sense has largely led to the current situation. The story is the modern day equivalent of the tower of Babel.

The story isn't over yet, so it's a bit early to write an obituary.

What is obvious is that the EU has no ability to reform itself, no ability to account for its reckless handling of our money, and seems to have no ability to do other than follow events it has started, unable to control them and unable, even, to accept any responsibility.

Ironically, one of the reasons for this lack of reform, that's been cited, is that the EU does not have the power to do so. National governments refuse to cede this, just as many of the criticisms of the Euro involve fiscal control that national governments held onto.

Perhaps shedding the more nationalistic states that have been blocking such reform may be just what the EU needs.

The best thing that can happen to the EU is for other countries, like the UK, to leave, and to start a new organisation which is accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe, and for the current day EU to implode into itself, as the damage it has inflicted across the continent is heart wrenching, and the lack of accountability disgusting.

How would it be "accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe"? Directly; bypassing the national governments? Or will those governments seek to retain sovereignty? If the latter, we'll just end up back where we are now.

thomas.frink

The Corinthian wrote: »

It hasn't. The discussion has moved more onto legitimate flaws and problems with the EU, rather than the emotive diatribe that was being presented earlier. The only person who's gone so far as to interpret this to mean that the EU is an "out of date, largely non-working and disastrous" institution is you.

Isn't that much the same debate?

I'd be more concerned that the UK imports more than they export from everyone, if I were them.

£3.8bn - you're forgetting the rebate. The UK would most likely still be contributing financially to the EU, albeit at a much smaller scale, just as Norway presently does.

Probably nothing, presuming that the UK is able to retain the same trade agreements under a separate arrangement. Otherwise, you may see some businesses move to Ireland rather than go to or stay in the UK.

The story isn't over yet, so it's a bit early to write an obituary.

Ironically, one of the reasons for this lack of reform, that's been cited, is that the EU does not have the power to do so. National governments refuse to cede this, just as many of the criticisms of the Euro involve fiscal control that national governments held onto.

Perhaps shedding the more nationalistic states that have been blocking such reform may be just what the EU needs.

How would it be "accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe"? Directly; bypassing the national governments? Or will those governments seek to retain sovereignty? If the latter, we'll just end up back where we are now.

I agree with your assessment that the story is not over. Certainly, it's not over, and if your view is that the problems which have caused the EURO to all but destroy large parts of Europe have been fixed, then we disagree.

If your view is the UK exports more to the EU, than they import from the EU. then that's your view also. But is seems to disagree with the facts.

A few years ago, people like you were making the same dire pronouncements as to what would happen to the UK if it didn't join the EURO, and your arguments today have the same hollow ring about them.

The world has moved on and the assumption you make, that its better to be part of the monolithic EU no matter what, has been shown up for the bad argument that it always was. So we differ, and you seem to think that the EU is a positive influence and the EURO has been a great success. Or maybe you don't.

Either way, we'll just have to differ. The Old USSR used to pretend all its subjects were happy and smiling and that everything was fine with their system. To not recognise that there are large numbers of people who not only feel disenfranchised, but whose lives, and whose family's lives, have been ruined by the creation of the Euro is to ignore the reality.

The UK is right to be having a debate, and there is a high liklihood that the result will be the UK leaving the EU, which will be left to sink under the weight of it self imposed millstone, the Euro.

The Corinthian

thomas.frink wrote: »

I agree with your assessment that the story is not over. Certainly, it's not over, and if your view is that the problems which have caused the EURO to all but destroy large parts of Europe have been fixed, then we disagree.

Did I say that somewhere, or are you introducing a strawman here?

If your view is the UK exports more to the EU, than they import from the EU. then that's your view also. But is seems to disagree with the facts.

Again, I didn't say that. I was simply noting that the UK balance of trade pretty much sucks overall, and I'd be more concerned about that than find solace in the fact that the EU may have more to 'lose'.

A few years ago, people like you were making the same dire pronouncements as to what would happen to the UK if it didn't join the EURO, and your arguments today have the same hollow ring about them.

Oh, another strawman - now you're attributing arguments to me, given my 'people like me', who may or not have ever existed. Please put more words in my mouth!

Actually, having read the rest of your post, you do exactly that and ignore any point I made, before devolving into a pretty standard eurosceptic diatribe; which is a pity, as your first post showed promise.

gallag

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did I say that somewhere, or are you introducing a strawman here?

Again, I didn't say that. I was simply noting that the UK balance of trade pretty much sucks overall, and I'd be more concerned about that than find solace in the fact that the EU may have more to 'lose'.

Oh, another strawman - now you're attributing arguments to me, given my 'people like me', who may or not have ever existed. Please put more words in my mouth!

Actually, having read the rest of your post, you do exactly that and ignore any point I made, before devolving into a pretty standard eurosceptic diatribe; which is a pity, as your first post showed promise.

So arrogant, why do you talk to anyone that questions the EU like this, can you not debate the points without trying to make the poster look small?

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

So arrogant, why do you talk to anyone that questions the EU like this, can you not debate the points without trying to make the poster look small?

I did debate most of the points he made in his first post, and he responded with a rebuttal which was full of points I never made, ignored the one's I did make and ended up in little more than a diatribe.

Or can you see where I actually made any of the points he claims, in his second post, I made? Or where did he address the points I actually made?

thomas.frink

thomas.frink wrote: »

… if your view is that the problems which have caused the EURO to all but destroy large parts of Europe have been fixed, then we disagree.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Did I say that somewhere, or are you introducing a strawman here?

thomas.frink wrote: »

If your view is the UK exports more to the EU, than they import from the EU.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, I didn't say that. I was simply noting that the UK balance of trade pretty much sucks overall, and I'd be more concerned about that than find solace in the fact that the EU may have more to 'lose'.

I never said you said either, as indicated by saying “If your view” on both occasions.

thomas.frink wrote: »

A few years ago, people like you were making the same dire pronouncements as to what would happen to the UK if it didn't join the EURO, and your arguments today have the same hollow ring about them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, another strawman - now you're attributing arguments to me, given my 'people like me', who may or not have ever existed. Please put more words in my mouth!

.

It is a fact that we saw the same arguments peddled by those who wanted the UK to join the Euro, and the reason I said people like you because they, most likely, actually convinced themselves that they were right. History has proved otherwise and I assume, from your posts, you are also convinced, here, that you are similarly right that the EU is a force for good and we should all join hands and frolic across the merry uplands to the happy pastures of a federal EU superstate.

If that’s what you believe, then I disagree. The EU has shown, and continues to show that, as an institution. it puts politics before the economy, shows little concern for the people of Europe ( and in quite a callous and disgraceful way), and continues to demonstrate that it is wholly inept.

Furthermore, we don’t have in the EU a system with any checks and balances in any real sense, and the system which has evolved is one where the political elites are not held accountable, and seem to believe in their arrogance they know best and they ordinary people are to be ignored wherever their wishes conflict with the elites.

Compare that to, for example, the system in the USA and see why the EU is rotten to the core as a faux democratic institution.

That’s not to say that some countries have also pretty rotten faux democracies (I include Ireland) where the only choice is between parties which are basically offering the same policies in different wrapping. The solution to that is not to create a superstate such as the EU which is rotten, but to make national governments once more representative of their electors, rather than representing their government’s policy to the electors.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, having read the rest of your post, you do exactly that and ignore any point I made, before devolving into a pretty standard eurosceptic diatribe; which is a pity, as your first post showed promise.

I didn’t write my post to get your approval, or to receive the equivalent of a “gold star”, so that you tell me that my post “showed promise” is unnecessary. If you want to respond to arguments by merely name calling and calling them “eurosceptic diatribe”, then I leave it to others to decide on the strength of your position.

The Corinthian

thomas.frink wrote: »

I never said you said either, as indicated by saying “If your view” on both occasions.

You mean you were implying and on that basis rebutted an argument I never gave, ignoring any argument I did give. Is there a reason you chose to argue with me on points I never made, rather than those I did make?

It is a fact that we saw the same arguments peddled by those who wanted the UK to join the Euro, and the reason I said people like you because they, most likely, actually convinced themselves that they were right.

Which arguments are these, given you failed to actually address any?

History has proved otherwise and I assume, from your posts, you are also convinced, here, that you are similarly right that the EU is a force for good and we should all join hands and frolic across the merry uplands to the happy pastures of a federal EU superstate.

You assume incorrectly. The EU is both good and bad, competent and flawed, positive and negative. However on balance I view it as good - that is, that when the pros and cons are examined we're better off with than without the EU in the long run. Given this I also feel that it desperately needs reform, as while I don't believe it will collapse or be superseded by a new and improved 'greater EFTA', it could unfortunately continue limping along, with the only thing going for it is that it is somewhat better than the alternative.

Furthermore, we don’t have in the EU a system with any checks and balances in any real sense, and the system which has evolved is one where the political elites are not held accountable, and seem to believe in their arrogance they know best and they ordinary people are to be ignored wherever their wishes conflict with the elites.

Yet that elite is a direct product of the fact that power still resides in the national governments and not directly with the people. Would you not feel that strengthening the European democratic institutions, taking power out of the hands of national governments, would make the EU more accountable democratically?

I ask this because this is normally where the xenophobic nature of most eurosceptics tends to reveal itself. Not assuming you're in this category, but if you are your response or lack thereof will betray it.

I didn’t write my post to get your approval, or to receive the equivalent of a “gold star”, so that you tell me that my post “showed promise” is unnecessary. If you want to respond to arguments by merely name calling and calling them “eurosceptic diatribe”, then I leave it to others to decide on the strength of your position.

Now, even you would have to concede that the latter half of your last post was little more than soapboxing, and this was disappointing because your first one appeared that you came from a more balanced position.

And please do not accuse me of 'name calling' after your various 'assumptions' and 'implications' directed at me. Hypocritical, to say the least.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

It seems the argument has moved on from why Britain is so anti EU, to why others have such an apparently irrational preference to cling on to what looks like an out of date, largely non-working and disastrous EU.

The debate in the UK has moved on from the rhetoric about “better in than out” and “we’d lose more by being out than in”. Facts are so much better than rhetoric and the facts seem to show that the UK would be better off outside the current EU, and saving the UK over £5billion per annum in fees, as a start. As the EU exports more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU, there is no reason to suppose the EU will want to cut off its nose to spite its face and impose tariffs, (even if that were possible as most trade agreements are now made through the offices of the WTO). Those Germans will not want to stop selling Mercedes, BMW’s and Volkswagens to the UK.

What will happen Ireland when the UK votes to leave the EU (as I believe it will) is a question not yet answered.

While I love Europe and the countries of Europe, I see now the EU as an organisation which is detrimental to the Europe I love; wasteful, not accountable (think of all those budgets where our money is not accounted for and can’t be signed off) and unwieldy.

Worse still it is arrogant, and when the UK, and others, warned that the creation of the Euro would lead to disaster, the arrogance of the EU in putting its political desires above common sense has largely led to the current situation. The story is the modern day equivalent of the tower of Babel.

What is obvious is that the EU has no ability to reform itself, no ability to account for its reckless handling of our money, and seems to have no ability to do other than follow events it has started, unable to control them and unable, even, to accept any responsibility.

The best thing that can happen to the EU is for other countries, like the UK, to leave, and to start a new organisation which is accountable, controllable, and answerable to the people of Europe, and for the current day EU to implode into itself, as the damage it has inflicted across the continent is heart wrenching, and the lack of accountability disgusting.

I don't really buy the 'love-Europe-hate-the-EU' line. I've heard it before from Ganley & Libertas.

This idea that one can set an impossible ideal and then condemn the incumbent vision for not being perfect strikes me as 'Stealth Euroscepticism'.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

Either way, we'll just have to differ. The Old USSR used to pretend all its subjects were happy and smiling and that everything was fine with their system. To not recognise that there are large numbers of people who not only feel disenfranchised, but whose lives, and whose family's lives, have been ruined by the creation of the Euro is to ignore the reality.

The UK is right to be having a debate, and there is a high liklihood that the result will be the UK leaving the EU, which will be left to sink under the weight of it self imposed millstone, the Euro.

And the old 'EUSSR' canard.

Countries like Greece ruined themselves alone.

thomas.frink

McDave wrote: »

I don't really buy the 'love-Europe-hate-the-EU' line. I've heard it before from Ganley & Libertas.

This idea that one can set an impossible ideal and then condemn the incumbent vision for not being perfect strikes me as 'Stealth Euroscepticism'.

In fairness, no one is asking you to buy anything, and if you think it impossible to love, for example, Greece and Spain and Norway and France but to dislike the EU, then that’s your view. I disagree, and find that concept childishly simple.

Where we do seem to agree is that the EU is far from perfect, although where we probably disagree is how far from your idea of perfection it actually is.

McDave wrote: »

And the old 'EUSSR' canard.

Countries like Greece ruined themselves alone.

In fairness, saying “the old EUSSR canard” isn’t an argument.

It would be an interesting argument to make that the Euro has had no hand or part in the current predicament of Greece and I look forward to you making that argument.

The Corinthian

thomas.frink wrote: »

In fairness, no one is asking you to buy anything, and if you think it impossible to love, for example, Greece and Spain and Norway and France but to dislike the EU, then that’s your view. I disagree, and find that concept childishly simple.

I think you've either misunderstood or avoided the point he made. Of course it is possible to 'love' "Greece and Spain and Norway and France but to dislike the EU", nonetheless he (and increasingly I) simply don't believe you fall into this category.

It's an rhetorical tactic that is not uncommon amongst the most xenophobic of eurosceptics, that allows them to come across as moderate and reasoned, while allowing them to push their agenda, but it can only work as long as that 'love' for foreigners is not examined. If it is, evasion follows as otherwise it would quickly become apparent that this 'love' is of the same ilk as the doctrine of 'separate but equal' one of pre-civil rights America; the eurosceptic 'loves' them - so long as they stay where they are and interaction is kept to a minimum.

In this regard, given you've ignored my direct question to you, in my previous post, regarding EU democratic accountability, which would likely force you to give a position on how you really feel about your fellow Europeans; which I predicted you might avoid answering.

Might your next move be to argue that you've chosen not to engage me because I've offended you or will you actually address it?

It would be an interesting argument to make that the Euro has had no hand or part in the current predicament of Greece and I look forward to you making that argument.

Of course it had a hand in their current predicament. Then again, the international credit crisis had an even bigger hand, as did their phenomenally irresponsible fiscal policies that are the single biggest cause for it.

Claiming that the Euro was a factor is fair enough. Ignoring all other factors and implying that it was the sole or even principle one is disingenuous and yet another common rhetorical eurosceptic tactic.

thomas.frink

The FT has an interesting article on the UK’s possible exit from the EU and concluded that, on balance, the UK would be better off economically as a result of leaving the EU.

Interestingly, they also conclude that the UK should not join the EEA, and also concluded that Germany or the Netherlands would almost certainly not oppose a free trade agreement with the UK and can probably persuade others to accept a liberal post-membership agreement with the UK.

The financial transactions tax and banking union are two early examples of integration that will occur without Britain’s participation, and both pieces of legislation will make the EU less competitive in global terms.

As the EU changes and pushes for further integration, it is more and more likely the UK will vote to leave the EU, which in itself poses an interesting question for Ireland as to what Ireland's response is going to be.

It remains to be seen what will be the consensus of companies in the IFSC if they are to be subjected to a financial services tax, and whether Irish based individuals and institutions will choose to transact their business in London or elsewhere to avoid any extra taxes.

The article ends “. There may be reasons why the UK may wish to remain a member of the EU. But whatever they are, they are not economic.”

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

In this regard, given you've ignored my direct question to you, in my previous post, regarding EU democratic accountability, which would likely force you to give a position on how you really feel about your fellow Europeans; which I predicted you might avoid answering.

Might your next move be to argue that you've chosen not to engage me because I've offended you or will you actually address it?

Subsequent to where I posted this, thomas.frink has PM'ed me to let me know that he's "really not interested in your apparent obsession with name calling and personality" - which is ironic given that he's the one who began doing so with his earlier accusation regarding "people like you" and I have afforded him every opportunity to defend himself from these suspicions (which I have not, up to this point, actually presumed to be true).

Conclusion; thomas.frink is most likely avoiding any serious engagement on his views, in particular any which may expose his opinion of 'foreigners' in general. Thus, based on this, he's probably a eurosceptic shill, who's beliefs stem from petty nationalism and xenophobia, but who's experienced enough that he won't convince many if that is the face he shows, thus makes it more palatable for consumption.

thomas.frink wrote: »

The FT has an interesting article...

You're not the first to join this debate for the purpose of soapboxing, you know. Unless you're a re-reg of the first to join this debate for the purpose of soapboxing.

Rascasse

thomas.frink wrote: »

The FT has an interesting article on the UK’s possible exit from the EU and concluded that, on balance, the UK would be better off economically as a result of leaving the EU.

Interestingly, they also conclude that the UK should not join the EEA, and also concluded that Germany or the Netherlands would almost certainly not oppose a free trade agreement with the UK and can probably persuade others to accept a liberal post-membership agreement with the UK.

All you tend to hear on here is 'trade to the EU from the UK is X', 'biggest trading partner is..', 'if they leave they'll still have to abide with the rules but have no say' and before long you'll be called a xenophobe.

As the FT probably points out (haven't read it), the most obvious option for the UK, in the event of an 'out' vote, is to remove itself completely from the EU and negotiate a UK-EU free trade agreement. The UK could then create FTA's with whomever it so wants, free from the protectionist interests that has scuppered a US-EU FTA so many times over the years. With the increased trade with emerging economies it could well address the trade balance that The Corinthian mentions.

The world does not revolve around the EU. Many developed countries around the world prosper without the scale of integration with their neighbours that the EU requires. It should be possible to debate the EU, UKIP, immigration, etc, without those on the other side of the debate resorting to lazy stereotypes like 'xenophobes'.

The Corinthian

Rascasse wrote: »

The world does not revolve around the EU. Many developed countries around the world prosper without the scale of integration with their neighbours that the EU requires. It should be possible to debate the EU, UKIP, immigration, etc, without those on the other side of the debate resorting to lazy stereotypes like 'xenophobes'.

I understand that you might consider it a lazy stereotype, but genuinely 99.9% of the time that's what it boils down to. And neither did I make that suggestion to begin with; I instead tested for it - asked one or two questions to see if this might be the case, because experience has taught me that the self-aware xenophobe will avoid answering as they'll be found out - that their core motivations have nothing to do with whatever (pseudo-)economic arguments they're selling from their soapbox.

And when you come across such a poster there's no point engaging, because they're never going to do so honestly. They'll just deflect, resort to straw men or regurgitate the same again arguments a few pages after they've been debunked. They follow a basic strategy of disinformation, seeking to throw enough mud and hopefully some will stick, potentially swaying those reading but not directly involved in the discussion.

I wish that it were otherwise, but that's what it amounts to the vast majority of the time, in my experience. Read through this, and other threads like it, if you don't believe me.

thomas.frink

Rascasse wrote: »

All you tend to hear on here is 'trade to the EU from the UK is X', 'biggest trading partner is..', 'if they leave they'll still have to abide with the rules but have no say' and before long you'll be called a xenophobe.

The article is worth reading and if you have a copy of the FT I’d advise you to have a look. I believe the UK will leave the EU and in that event the terms of its departure have to be worked out. The UK will be leaving for a number of reasons, and not just trade (important thought trade is), and for anyone to claim they know the terms of any future trading arrangements is simply not true. In fact, the smart move will be not to join the EEA and for the UK to negotiate its own trading agreements with the EU.

Rascasse wrote: »

As the FT probably points out (haven't read it), the most obvious option for the UK, in the event of an 'out' vote, is to remove itself completely from the EU and negotiate a UK-EU free trade agreement. The UK could then create Fat’s with whomever it so wants, free from the protectionist interests that has scuppered a US-EU FTA so many times over the years. With the increased trade with emerging economies it could well address the trade balance that The Corinthian mentions.

Leaving the EU will not solve the UK’s problems, and no one should believe that it will, even if it will free the hand of the UK in some areas. However, staying in the EU which is becoming more integrationist, and where the Euro is going to need billions upon billions to try to support what is, in effect, a failing currency, throwing good billions after bad, simply isn’t attractive.

Rascasse wrote: »

The world does not revolve around the EU. Many developed countries around the world prosper without the scale of integration with their neighbours that the EU requires. It should be possible to debate the EU, UKIP, immigration, etc, without those on the other side of the debate resorting to lazy stereotypes like 'xenophobes'.

There will always be those who feel a sense of security in numbers, and who will favour large multi-national governments. That certainly is a fairly widespread view in Ireland, although as a view it’s losing ground around Europe for many reasons. The UK seems to be ahead of the rest of the European countries with their thinking, and historically have a tradition of questioning the EU rather than accepting without question.

No one knows what the future will hold, but my guess is that the UK will leave the EU and is likely to prosper more than if it stays in the EU, particularly with its strong links to the USA and its Commonwealth countries. Others may guess differently. This can cause specific problems for Ireland unless the Irish government acts swiftly to do a trade deal with the UK in the event of the UK leaving the EU.

The Corinthian

thomas.frink wrote: »

The article is worth reading and if you have a copy of the FT I’d advise you to have a look. I believe the UK will leave the EU and in that event the terms of its departure have to be worked out. The UK will be leaving for a number of reasons, and not just trade (important thought trade is), and for anyone to claim they know the terms of any future trading arrangements is simply not true. In fact, the smart move will be not to join the EEA and for the UK to negotiate its own trading agreements with the EU.

No one knows what the terms of any future relationship will be were the UK to leave the EU. Indeed, no one knows if the UK will even leave - if Labour were to be re-elected in the meantime, that would likely knock the whole thing on its head.

However, were it to leave, it would likely have some form of custom arrangement with the EU. Perhaps even some newly invented associate membership. Nonetheless, there would be strings attached, just as there are with EU trade with Switzerland or Norway and believing otherwise is fantasy. So, from a question of economics, it comes down to whether on balance the UK will be better off; which it may in the long term, but I'd be less optimistic than you.

As for the other 'reasons' for the UK leaving, we can only speculate as you don't seem too eager to discuss what these are likely to be.

Leaving the EU will not solve the UK’s problems, and no one should believe that it will, even if it will free the hand of the UK in some areas. However, staying in the EU which is becoming more integrationist, and where the Euro is going to need billions upon billions to try to support what is, in effect, a failing currency, throwing good billions after bad, simply isn’t attractive.

Speculative, so please don't continue claiming that it is inevitable. I thought we'd established this already?

The UK seems to be ahead of the rest of the European countries with their thinking, and historically have a tradition of questioning the EU rather than accepting without question.

Ahead? More wishful thinking methinks.

Truth of the matter is that the UK probably should never have joined the ECC in the first place for historical and cultural reasons. The only reason she did was that her attempt to set up a rival European trading bloc, EFTA, failed and she didn't want to be left out of the single biggest market on her doorstep.

However, the EEC was never simply a trading bloc and this was made clear from the treaty of Rome - although it was made less clear to the British public by their own government. And the 'larger' aims were never something that the UK wanted to be part of - even Churchill famously supported the aim of European unity, as long as the UK wasn't part of it.

The reasons for this are both historical and cultural, but ultimately the UK doesn't really see itself as European and likely never will. Ireland has always been more open about this, partially because it has a more positive history with continental Europe and also because the alternative would be to fall back in the political and economic sphere of the UK, which we absolutely do not want.

So overall, I'm split on the overall effect of the UK leaving the EU. Short term there would be problems. Longer term also, the EU would not only be losing a relatively major economy from her membership, but also a voice for less-protectionist and more reform-minded macroeconomic policy.

On the other hand, the EU would also be divesting itself of a major monkey on its back. A country who couldn't achieve what it wanted with EFTA, so it joined the EEC and tried to turn that into EFTA.

This can cause specific problems for Ireland unless the Irish government acts swiftly to do a trade deal with the UK in the event of the UK leaving the EU.

Benefits rather than problems according to your earlier claims about UK balance of trade with the EU. After all, the UK accounts for 15.4% of Irish exports and 32.1% of imports - thus, again by your own earlier logic, the UK has more to lose than Ireland does.

Meanwhile, excluding the UK, the EU accounts for 42.5% of exports and 28.6% of imports, which far outstrips the UK. Note also that Ireland would likely benefit from a decrease in EU-UK trade.

I've no doubt that Ireland would make provisions to maintain trade with the UK, but if faced with a choice between the UK and EU, it's a no-brainer; trade with the EU would be far more important due to the export value alone and returning to the days of being overly dependant on the UK economically is something that economically would be idiotic, especially if one considers that this relationship was less than cordial upon occasion.

dlouth15

I lived in Britain for about 10 years and never felt that the British were particularly anti-EU; it never much came up as a topic of conversation. What I would say is that the British are a practical people, not easily given over to ideology. Conservative with a small "c" you might say even though that has some ideological connotations in itself.

Therefore they are interested in what works, and at a superficial level at least, even the most pro-EU must admit that things seem a bit messed up in the EU (particularly the Eurozone) at present. Perhaps things will get sorted out in time. I doubt it but who knows? But you can't expect British to support a project that doesn't appear to work.

Scofflaw

Just to remind posters that the point of a discussion forum is discussion. It is not simply a place to post one's views without bothering to engage - that is what blogs are for.

We have an ongoing issue in this particular forum with - specifically - anti-EU posters treating it as a place to dump anti-EU rants (as far as I know we've never had any pro-EU rants). And we appreciate that without the anti-EU posters, the place is extremely quiet, although we are endeavouring to address that by culling more EU news.

But the fact that anti-EU rants do generate a few extra posts is not sufficient to excuse the nature of that 'contribution' on a discussion forum, because it does not contribute to discussion. Most of the authors of these rants are repeating borrowed wisdom they consider unchallengeable, and are neither willing nor able to defend the positions they espouse.

I've just deleted a (well-written) post by the poster thomas.frink, not because there's anything objectionable in the post's content or tone, but because it was a diatribe delivered without any apparent reference to, or recognition of, the discussion the poster had already had. If we want to put ourselves in the position of mere consumers of, and commenters on, such diatribes, we already have the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, and a host of other outlets which carry such material. This forum is for discussion, not journalistic soapboxing or blogging.

moderately,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

dlouth15 wrote: »

But you can't expect British to support a project that doesn't appear to work.

Flawed, in serious need of reform, in crisis - certainly. But "doesn't appear to work"?

To begin with one needs to question the assertion that it "doesn't appear to work". The EU is presently undergoing a major period of recession and economic hardship, with unemployment in the bloc at just over 12%.

Yet, so's the rest of the World; the UK's unemployment is at 7.8%, US at 7.5%, and while lower than the overall EU figure it's still higher than some EU states; such as Germany (5.4%) or Austria (7.3%) - both not only EU members, but also Eurozone members.

So there appears to be a fair bit of presumption and doom-saying where it comes to the EU and frankly much if it does not appear to be merited.

Then there's been numerous threads on the subject of the Irish political system too of late, in that it is also seen as flawed, in serious need of reform, and in crisis; yet no one (sane) has seriously suggested that the way to deal with this by abandoning democracy. So why does it make sense to suggest this of the EU?

There appears to be a rather simplistic approach to the EU in some arguments, which appears to argue that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the answer to dealing with actual problems, which also appear to be regularly exaggerated.

Leaving the EU should ultimately come down to whether the British or anyone else will be better off in the long run on balance. Honestly, hyperbole aside, I'm not seeing many arguments that support this view.

thomas.frink

The Corinthian wrote: »

Flawed, in serious need of reform, in crisis - certainly. But "doesn't appear to work"?

.

I guess the issue is that there is neither a means to reform the EU or, it seems, a willingness to make the necessary reforms. Thats a problem.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with one needs to question the assertion that it "doesn't appear to work". The EU is presently undergoing a major period of recession and economic hardship, with unemployment in the bloc at just over 12%.

Yet, so's the rest of the World; the UK's unemployment is at 7.8%, US at 7.5%, and while lower than the overall EU figure it's still higher than some EU states; such as Germany (5.4%) or Austria (7.3%) - both not only EU members, but also Eurozone members.

Youth unemployment in Greece is 65% and in Spain 50%. We can all decide for ourselves if that means Greece or Spain is working or not. We have to remember some of the 12% you mention is caused by the very policies espoused and enacted in Europe. Certainly labour policy in Europe is not working.


We can ask in ourselves if the carbon emissions trading scheme is working. It's certainly not working for the consumers of the EU who UBS tell us have been forced to pay $287 billion with “almost zero impact”.


Then we can decide if the Euro “works” and has turned out to have made the US dollar obsolete, as some predicted, as the worlds reserve currency. Or we can then decide if the Euro “works” as it lurches from crises to crises. There used to be strident voices in the UK and Norway calling for them to join the Euro, but curiously those voices are no longer heard, and would be laughed out of any discussion nowadays as the Euro continues to wreak it's terrible havoc on the economies of the Euro zone, and further afield too. For shame.


In a time of depression, what is needed is a deregulatory growth agenda. There are millions out of work and many are struggling to buy food for their families. The EU's solution is the FTT (financial transaction tax), which is estimated to cost europeans a further $220 billion.


Will that work? It will certainly work to create more unemployment, more poverty and will make the current bad situation worse for europeans. It simply beggars belief and is heartbreaking that this is the EU. For shame.


Does the EU energy policy work? Gas prices in the US are $3 compared to $12 in the EU. Everyone in the EU has seen their energy bills double or triple in recent years in the EU. In the US consumers have seen their energy bills falling at the same time. For industry, it means the EU is non competitive, and much industry and the great chemical and cement plants, (big employers) can no longer compete with such high energy inputs, and look to produce outside the EU. The result is more unemployemnt in the EU, shifting to new jobs outside the EU, and everyone in the EU paying vastly more for their energy than anyone else in the world.


The Washington Post said recently “Europe has become the green-energy basket case. Instead of a model for the world to emulate, Europe has become a model of what not to do.”

The Corinthian wrote: »

There appears to be a rather simplistic approach to the EU in some arguments, which appears to argue that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the answer to dealing with actual problems, which also appear to be regularly exaggerated.

Leaving the EU should ultimately come down to whether the British or anyone else will be better off in the long run on balance. Honestly, hyperbole aside, I'm not seeing many arguments that support this view.

I have given facts not exaggerations.


The criteria for the UK's voters to leave the EU is a matter for them. You may well not see many arguments to support the view that the UK will leave the EU. I would argue that the mystery is why anyone wants to remain in the EU, and not why some want to leave it.

dlouth15

Corinthian,

For "doesn't appear to work" read "flawed", "in crisis" etc. as you put it. I didn't mean here total collapse.

What I was suggesting in my previous post was that the British, in contrast to other nations, take a somewhat different view of grand projects such as the European Project. The French sometimes, in self-parody, sometimes jokingly say "that's all very well in practice, but what about in theory?" The reason it works as a joke is that there's some truth to it. I feel that in Britain the opposite is true to a certain extent. They want to see things working (and indeed working well) before they subscribe to them.

Now I'm not saying that this is a wholly good characteristic but merely that it seems to be a characteristic of the British mindset.

By way of analogy, consider the Soviet Union (please note that here I'm not trying to equate the EU with the now-defunct USSR; I'm merely trying to illustrate a point about the different approaches people take towards ideology).

During the time of the Soviet Union, defenders would say that there was a need for certain reforms and that Soviet society was still a long way from the society envisaged by Marx. These people would argue that more Marxism was the answer to problems in society.

Most people however simply looked at how people lived within the Soviet Union and decided it was not for them. The Soviet Union had been given long enough and had not delivered the sort of living standard that had been promised.

The point here is not that Soviet style socialism was ultimately doomed to failure but rather that theoretical arguments will only take you so far for so long. You then need to demonstrate them in practice.

Once again, the point is not to equate the EU with the USSR but rather to illustrate different ways of viewing a situation.

Now moving back to Britain and the EU. I would view the British in the second camp, the one that looks at results. There are those who argue that the answers to the problems in Europe is "more Europe". I know I'm generalising a bit here but my feeling is that the British may take the view that there's already been plenty "Europe" without sufficient demonstrable results.

Now the British may prove to be wrong ultimately (I think you were trying to argue this in your post) but that is not the issue in this thread. The issue we're exploring is the reason for a perceived anti-EU sentiment in Britain.

whatstherush

thomas.frink wrote: »

Gas prices in the US are $3 compared to $12 in the EU.

I have given facts not exaggerations.

US gallon of petrol is $3.520. There are 3.8L to a US Gallon. Average EU petrol price is €1.489
1 euro is worth €1.28
So we €1.489 x 1.28 x 3.8 = $7.20

You have nearly a 50% over exaggeration in bolded "fact" above before you even factor in what individual EU countries decide what level of tax to place on petrol all by themselves. So I'll take the rest of your facts with a large pinch of salt.

The Corinthian

thomas.frink wrote: »

I guess the issue is that there is neither a means to reform the EU or, it seems, a willingness to make the necessary reforms. Thats a problem.

No, you presume that there is neither a means or a willingness to make the necessary reforms to the EU; which is an easy mistake to make if you ignore the subject of reform and run straight to doomsday scenarios.

Earlier in our exchange, for example, you cited the democratic deficit in the EU, to which I suggested that one solution would be to make it democratic - remove the layer of nationally appointed bureaucrats and make EU executive control directly accountable to the electorate. I would remind you that you chose to ignore this.

With regard to the Euro, adopting EU-level fiscal controls, such as those already in place by similar currencies, such as the USD or CHF, is another potential reform.

And that is just briefly off the top of my head; it it seems fairly clear that the potential means of reform do exist.

Willingness may be another factor, and in this regard you may be right, which is why I previously suggested that a UK exit may have a silver lining, given that such reforms often involve in further transfer of power to the EU and typically the UK is the single biggest, and often only, objector.

So the means and will are by no means not there.

Youth unemployment in Greece is 65% and in Spain 50%. We can all decide for ourselves if that means Greece or Spain is working or not. We have to remember some of the 12% you mention is caused by the very policies espoused and enacted in Europe. Certainly labour policy in Europe is not working.

Except that's not actually European labour policy; it's Spanish or Greek labour policy. For it to be European labour policy, then it would be failing across the board compared to non-EU states and as countries like Germany and Austria show, it's not.

Then we can decide if the Euro “works” and has turned out to have made the US dollar obsolete, as some predicted, as the worlds reserve currency. Or we can then decide if the Euro “works” as it lurches from crises to crises. There used to be strident voices in the UK and Norway calling for them to join the Euro, but curiously those voices are no longer heard, and would be laughed out of any discussion nowadays as the Euro continues to wreak it's terrible havoc on the economies of the Euro zone, and further afield too. For shame.

No one predicted that the Euro would have made the US dollar obsolete - at least no one credible. At best, there have been past predictions that it might overtake the US dollar as the World's reserve currency.

It's not, but it is the second largest. And the second largest traded currency. Hardly something to be dismissed so easily. Neither do most economists rate highly the danger of it's collapse any more; that's something that was feared two years ago, but has since abated.

And lest we forget, the GBP hasn't exactly fared well either since 2008. Does that mean it's going to collapse?

So, please do stop coming out with this FUD, as if it's some sort of inevitability. It's not.

In a time of depression, what is needed is a deregulatory growth agenda. There are millions out of work and many are struggling to buy food for their families. The EU's solution is the FTT (financial transaction tax), which is estimated to cost europeans a further $220 billion.

Last time I checked, it was financial services companies that would be paying, not your average family "struggling to buy food". Nice touch though.

Personally, I don't agree with the FTT. However, unless we were all in hibernation back in 2008, deregulation turned out not to be a good idea either.

But then again, all this is down to specific policies. There are plenty of policies on a national level we disagree with, but that doesn't mean we then choose to abandon democracy.

I have given facts not exaggerations.

Certainly up until your last post, you gave precious few facts and instead supplied opinion.

The criteria for the UK's voters to leave the UK is a matter for them. You may well not see many arguments to support the view that the UK will leave the EU. I would argue that the mystery is why anyone wants to remain in the EU, and not why some want to leave it.

Well, you show me your reasons and I'll show you mine. Problem is that the eurosceptic economic ones don't add up and you're unlikely to reveal those that are hidden behind them.

dlouth15 wrote: »

For "doesn't appear to work" read "flawed", "in crisis" etc. as you put it. I didn't mean here total collapse.

Apologies. I misread you.

Now the British may prove to be wrong ultimately (I think you were trying to argue this in your post) but that is not the issue in this thread. The issue we're exploring is the reason for a perceived anti-EU sentiment in Britain.

The thread moved on from that particular topic a good while back.

I proffered early on (over a year ago) that the reason was both historical-cultural and political-strategic.

The thread has, for a while now, been largely quiet. Periodically we see some eurosceptic poster register a new account and attempt to treat the thread as some sort of blog, but beyond that particular blood sport, we kind of gave up on the original topic.