Why are the British so anti Europe?

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

McDave wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself. Your actual words at post 681 above URL]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84699550&postcount=681[/URL was "EU energy policy is not working". You intimated as much in post no. 648 where you stated:

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.

[URL=]"http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84659755&postcount=648[[/URL]

I call it a clarification, you call it a contradiction, let’s call the whole thing off :-)

I don’t think anyone can call an energy policy which results in gas prices 400% higher than a major competitor can be called a success.

Just because that part is not a success doesn’t mean that the whole energy policy is 100% not successful. It’s quite possible to say the higher prices have meant citizens have learned top reduce their use of energy ( a success) and also note that the higher prices of energy have contributes to the downturn in manufacturing activity (not a success) .

Any overall slowdowns in EU manufacturing are down to a number of factors including low consumer demand, restricted lending by banks and in some countries, like France, loss of productivity. Most energy prices cannot really be controlled. Indeed it would be fair to assume that with more competition for energy acquisition and constraints on fossil fuel sources, prices will continue to rise. EU countries are getting used to this reality in advance and forward-looking companies are computing this into their costs.

That's one of the reasons for the low inflation target in the Maastricht criteria. Higher input costs, typically raw materials/commodities, have to be compensated for. These can't be controlled. But when they occur, other efficiencies have to be found. You can't just jack your prices up - that puts you at a potential disadvantage to your competitors. It makes good sense, therefore, to reduce the energy component of manufacturing, purely in its own terms.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

The concept is widely understood, I agree. It was the practice, and not the concept, which led the Washington Post to call it “Europe has become the green-energy basket case”.

The fact is that energy prices in the US (on which industry and households depend) are 25% lower than those in the EU. Why you think that is ironic seems curious.

TBH, I'm not unduly concerned by the WP's characterisation of Europe's 'green-energy' performance. Sounds like a good old-fashioned sneer to me.

And once again, you have not demonstrated how US energy prices are actually 25% lower than in the EU. Please clarify.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

One of the differences noted in the UK, between the US president and the EU, is that the US president knows the government can’t control markets whereas the EU thinks the government can control markets. The example often cited is the Euro. And, as is further pointed out by many in the UK, the current problems across the EU have been exacerbated, precisely as was predicted, due to this hubris.

Sources please?

More generally, the reality is quite different. The US regularly intervenes in markets. It's anti-trust law is strong evidence of this.

As for the Euro, it's not an attempt to control markets. If anything, it is an attempt to provide some level of predictability and stability for market actors, for instance by controlling inflation and reducing currency volatility. Many European market actors appreciate and support this.

That there is a necessary transition between setting single currency goals and executing them is probably beyond the understanding of the hubristic UK 'pointer-outers' you rely on for support. On this point anyway.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

There is good and bad in both the UK, the US and the EU, and none is perfect. The difference is that many in the UK seem to prefer to be governed by an imperfect UK governmental system rather than by an imperfect EU system. That’s a perfectly valid view and one which, I predict, will hold increasing sway leading up to a referendum. You probably disagree and it remains to be seen which of our guesses is correct.

The wider view, which must be worrying for the EU, is the increasing numbers in the Eurobarometer polls who share that view across the EU, and the shrinking numbers who support the EU.

Of course, that's entirely the prerogative of the UK electorate. We'll see how that one pans out. My guess is that the electorate will in the end opt to stay within the EU. But I'm perfectly prepared to admit being wrong if the UK opts out.

More generally, I doubt the EU itself is unduly worried by polls. Although support for, and trust in the EU is down significantly, there is still substantial support for the idea of the EU overall. Which, considering the times we are going through, must be heartening on some level. I'd predict support levels will swing upwards as the EU emerges from the worst of the international private and public borrowing crisis.

thomas.frink

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the current unpopularity of the EU didn't mirror the unpopularity of national governments, and/or doesn't go into reverse as we come out of the crisis, there's a serious long-term problem. As yet, it's not possible to tell the latter, but the former is the case - the EU's popularity has dropped in line with that of the rest of the 'establishment', so it's not a unique anti-EU thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What if the EU doesn't come out of the crises? What if it follows the path Japan has been on and recession becomes a more or less permanent state for 10, 20 or 30 years? While we all hope that won't happen, hopes are not going to turn around the current predicament.

The majority thought the Japanese recession was going to be short and just a normal part of a cycle, and among the lessons we should have learned is that policies have consequences.

We have seen some of the (predicted) consequences of the introduction of the Euro, which has split the Eurozone, and plunged the EU into recession as the political aims of the Euro have serious economic ramifications.

It's true disaffection with politics has grown, both domestically and at the macro level of the EU. However, there is not much comfort to be had from that, and it may well be that a new politics will emerge, where currently so many are scathing about the spin politics which is still in vogue with politicians.

One of the notable issues in the UK is that there is a feeling that it's possible to punish national politicians by voting them out, but not possible to do so at am EU level. That's a perception which will need to be changed well before any referendum.

Who knows what will happen, but to assume, as the Japanese did to their eternal regret, that this recession is cyclical and temporary, may be a mistake.

thomas.frink

McDave wrote: »

Well, for one thing, I don't think you've demonstrated that energy prices are four times higher in the EU. Oil is available at world market prices. Is nuclear really four times more expensive in Europe?

I really doubt your claim. Particularly as European manufacturing is doing reasonably well.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84691427&postcount=670

thomas.frink

McDave wrote: »

Any overall slowdowns in EU manufacturing are down to a number of factors including low consumer demand, restricted lending by banks and in some countries, like France, loss of productivity. Most energy prices cannot really be controlled. Indeed it would be fair to assume that with more competition for energy acquisition and constraints on fossil fuel sources, prices will continue to rise. EU countries are getting used to this reality in advance and forward-looking companies are computing this into their costs.

Of course there are many costs in business, although usually the labour costs and energy costs are significant, if not the major, costs.

Unfortunately, the labour cost and energy costs in the EU are now out of kilter to the costs elsewhere, particularly in the US, to an extent that they make it increasingly unattractive to manufacture in the EU.

And you are right that companies in the EU have to factor these increases into their costs (if they did not they would be bankrupt), whereas their competitors in the US have to factor decreases in energy prices into their costs. That is going to continue be a problem for the EU unless or until the EU can address its higher labour and energy costs, and has led to the increasing lack of competitiveness of the EU.

McDave wrote: »

It makes good sense, therefore, to reduce the energy component of manufacturing, purely in its own terms.

Indeed it does, which is why manufacturers (like DeFarge mentioned earlier, and others), seek to manufacture outside the EU in areas where their energy input costs are lower.

McDave wrote: »

TBH, I'm not unduly concerned by the WP's characterisation of Europe's 'green-energy' performance. Sounds like a good old-fashioned sneer to me..

I’d rather look at the facts rather than dismiss it as a sneer, but we have to decide those things for ourselves.

McDave wrote: »

And once again, you have not demonstrated how US energy prices are actually 25% lower than in the EU. Please clarify.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=670

McDave wrote: »

That there is a necessary transition between setting single currency goals and executing them is probably beyond the understanding of the hubristic UK 'pointer-outers' you rely on for support. On this point anyway.

It is those very people who will get to vote in any referendum in the UK, and whether or not they are prepared to wait in the transition you talk about, until the execution happens, remains to be seen.

McDave wrote: »

More generally, I doubt the EU itself is unduly worried by polls. .

If that's true, then that's a sad confirmation on what many in the UK think, that the EU is non responsive, run by an elite who have little concern for the people of the UK or EU, and who wish to progress their own agenda despite the wishes of the people.

I'm not sure I agree with your view that the EU is not concerned at the year on year increases in dissatisfaction, but certainly in the UK many would seem to agree with you.

Scofflaw

thomas.frink wrote: »

What if the EU doesn't come out of the crises? What if it follows the path Japan has been on and recession becomes a more or less permanent state for 10, 20 or 30 years? While we all hope that won't happen, hopes are not going to turn around the current predicament.

And while that's possible, possibilities are only possibilities.

thomas.frink wrote: »

The majority thought the Japanese recession was going to be short and just a normal part of a cycle, and among the lessons we should have learned is that policies have consequences.

We have seen some of the (predicted) consequences of the introduction of the Euro, which has split the Eurozone, and plunged the EU into recession as the political aims of the Euro have serious economic ramifications.

The euro attracts a lot of blame of this kind, yet it's highly unusual for the person casting the aspersions to be able to say exactly what they mean, or to demonstrate how it comes about.

I think that here, you mean that the actions and policies of southern and northern governments within the EU diverged, with divergent results. But when was that not the case, and why is suddenly ascribed this time to the euro as opposed to government policies? The Greeks have over-borrowed and had to default repeatedly throughout their national history, Italy has been heavily in debt since forever, the northern countries have been well-managed and austere since well before the euro.

Nor is all of the eurozone is in recession - something one would have thought was a prerequisite for ascribing recession to the euro as you're doing. Again, what seems to be counting is national policies, whether the country is in the eurozone or not.

What the euro has shaped is the response to the crisis, and certain features of the crisis, but the claim that the euro is the cause of the crisis is a lazy one, presented without reference to the existence of identical problems well beyond the eurozone's borders.

thomas.frink wrote: »

It's true disaffection with politics has grown, both domestically and at the macro level of the EU. However, there is not much comfort to be had from that, and it may well be that a new politics will emerge, where currently so many are scathing about the spin politics which is still in vogue with politicians.

And has always been in vogue with politicians, is in vogue with politicians, and will always be in vogue with politicians - Beppe Grillo, Golden Dawn, and DDI are no less spinners than any other political groups. People are always scathing in a crisis, and politics usually has to clean up its act for a while afterwards, but it's rare for anything genuinely new to emerge - the response to the current crisis is strikingly similar to the response in the Thirties.

thomas.frink wrote: »

One of the notable issues in the UK is that there is a feeling that it's possible to punish national politicians by voting them out, but not possible to do so at am EU level. That's a perception which will need to be changed well before any referendum.

There's an extent to which it's genuinely just a perception, and an extent to which it's also true, so there's a limit to how much it can be changed. Voting out the UK's government votes out the UK's representation at the main decision-making level in the EU, which is the Council, and there's no problem voting out their MEPs, obviously. But the Commission, like any executive, isn't directly elected by the voters, and the UK cannot change the Council or Parliamentary representation of the other countries.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Who knows what will happen, but to assume, as the Japanese did to their eternal regret, that this recession is cyclical and temporary, may be a mistake.

And to assume that it's permanent is a little premature. Even the Japanese recession is hardly eternal, or indeed even consistent. Although a lot will depend on ingenuity over the next half century, for the whole world's economy, as we come up against various outcomes of the last century's relentless material growth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Solair

I would be fairly confident that the US won't make any significant changes to the laws on repatriation of profits for two reasons:

1) the sheer power of lobbyists in the US system. It won't rally against corporate interests as they basically own Washington DC.

2) the sheer scale of the multinationals is such that they could just decide that their US base becomes a division of their Luxembourg, Irish or Singapore HQ.
In many cases, their sales outside the US are far bigger than their sales in the US. Most also have no manufacturing in the US or Europe. It's all done in China.

Even with Apple, its not entirely American technology either.

iPhone : US software, a British designed processor architecture (ARM) manufactured in South Korea by Samsung. South Korean memory chips made in China and a screen that's patented and manufactured by LG. the iPhone industrial design is led by a British designer too.
The communications technologies its running on are largely developed by European R&D houses like Ericsson & Nokia with some US technology from Broadcom

So, eh ... It's frankly increasingly difficult to argue where these products are actually sourcing their IP. They're truly multinational.

As for the EU, it remains the worlds largest single consumer market (bigger than the USA and tens if times bigger than China, despite the hype).

I still think the EU will muddle its way out of this mess.

I would definitely rather see the UK on the inside of the EU shaping its future rather than standing outside looking in though.

In many respects the UK's interests are closer to Ireland than say German interests and policy tends to be.

View

Solair wrote: »

In many respects the UK's interests are closer to Ireland than say German interests and policy tends to be.

A common perception but one not based on the evidence of the voting record in the Council of Ministers (or even the EP).

The UK's voting record is a lot closer to Germany's than it is to Ireland's - in fact, the UK is the single member state least likely to support "the Irish position" in the Council of Ministers. Ireland's "interests" tend to be constantly supported by France and Lithuania - I guess it is nice of France to follow our lead.

thomas.frink

Scofflaw wrote: »

The euro attracts a lot of blame of this kind, yet it's highly unusual for the person casting the aspersions to be able to say exactly what they mean, or to demonstrate how it comes about.

I think that here, you mean that the actions and policies of southern and northern governments within the EU diverged, with divergent results. But when was that not the case, and why is suddenly ascribed this time to the euro as opposed to government policies? The Greeks have over-borrowed and had to default repeatedly throughout their national history, Italy has been heavily in debt since forever, the northern countries have been well-managed and austere since well before the euro.

Nor is all of the eurozone is in recession - something one would have thought was a prerequisite for ascribing recession to the euro as you're doing. Again, what seems to be counting is national policies, whether the country is in the eurozone or not.

What the euro has shaped is the response to the crisis, and certain features of the crisis, but the claim that the euro is the cause of the crisis is a lazy one, presented without reference to the existence of identical problems well beyond the eurozone's borders.

I’d have to agree that it would be foolish to claim that the Euro caused foolish governments to spend like drunken sailors and try to court popularity with their citizens by bribing them with borrowed money.

The Euro did two things which were to;

• Made it easy for banks to lend to banks in other countries without the risks of currency fluctuations

• Removed the necessary tool of interest rate rises to help individual governments choke off overheating economies.

Consequently, while the Euro didn’t cause recession, or inflation or even hyper-inflation in, for example, the Spanish or Irish housing markets, its very existence made the situation many times worse by not allowing the Irish or Spanish governments to use interest rates in the way they had previously used them, coupled with currency devaluations, to choke off that inflation.

The resulting recession was caused by the falsely over inflated economies collapsing and was not directly caused by the Euro in that sense, but was as a result of the Euro necessarily tying the hands of individual governments.

All of which was well predicted before the launch of the Euro, and was one of the contributing factors why the UK decided to keep out of the Euro.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And has always been in vogue with politicians, is in vogue with politicians, and will always be in vogue with politicians - Beppe Grillo, Golden Dawn, and DDI are no less spinners than any other political groups. People are always scathing in a crisis, and politics usually has to clean up its act for a while afterwards, but it's rare for anything genuinely new to emerge - the response to the current crisis is strikingly similar to the response in the Thirties.

Curiously, the younger demographics are quite spin savvy, and this is well understood in the world of marketing, and I would not be at all surprised if they did not possess similar savvy relating to the world of politics. Analysis now tends more and more to analyse the spin in what politicians say, rather than take at face value the content of what is said.

I don’t share your confidence that spin will remain in the form in which we now know it, and in a post Blarite world once can see, for example, how distrusted are politicians of all hues.

One of the things which voters say they like about, for example, UKIP, is that they have a very clear and consistent message, and many like them because they appear to be the anti-spin party.

Who knows where that will all lead, and it will be interesting to be here is 20 years time to see what it looks like.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's an extent to which it's genuinely just a perception, and an extent to which it's also true, so there's a limit to how much it can be changed. Voting out the UK's government votes out the UK's representation at the main decision-making level in the EU, which is the Council, and there's no problem voting out their MEPs, obviously. But the Commission, like any executive, isn't directly elected by the voters, and the UK cannot change the Council or Parliamentary representation of the other countries.

That is spot on, and is, I think, part of the reason why so many in the UK are distrustful of the EU, and dislike being ruled by what they see as unelected governments, who they can’t vote in or out. It’s referred to in the UK as the democratic deficit and it seems to also be an issue across the EU according to the polls.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And to assume that it's permanent is a little premature. Even the Japanese recession is hardly eternal, or indeed even consistent. Although a lot will depend on ingenuity over the next half century, for the whole world's economy, as we come up against various outcomes of the last century's relentless material growth.

I agree and make no assumptions either way. I mentioned Japan as an example of how things have changed, and it may not seem like an eternal recession to you, but to many Japanese nearly 30 years of recession is a lifetime.

I agree about ingenuity, self reliance and innovation will be the way forward. My fear is that the US, and others, are just better at those things than we are here in the EU where we seem to prefer over regulation, and to impose higher costs on innovators in the forms of more red tape, higher labour costs, higher energy and input prices (have you ever looked at the rates Irish businesses have to pay? Phew!) And an ever increasingly intrusive and expensive government.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

A common perception but one not based on the evidence of the voting record in the Council of Ministers (or even the EP).

The UK's voting record is a lot closer to Germany's than it is to Ireland's - in fact, the UK is the single member state least likely to support "the Irish position" in the Council of Ministers. Ireland's "interests" tend to be constantly supported by France and Lithuania - I guess it is nice of France to follow our lead.

Well, it varies by policy area:

Area|Votes|Ireland %|All %|Agree with the UK
ALL|400|88.00%|88.62%|about as much as anyone else does
Agriculture|33|76.00%|80.38%|less than most
Justice/Home Affairs|22|100.00%|88.00%|more than most
BUDGET|41|73.00%|72.81%|about as much as anyone else does
Constitutional|5|60.00%|60.77%|about as much as anyone else does
Economic/Monetary|47|96.00%|95.77%|slightly more than most
Employment/Social|13|77.00%|84.88%|less than most
ENV/HEALTH|46|87.00%|88.50%|slightly less than most
Fisheries|15|93.00%|92.12%|slightly more than most
INDUSTRY|27|100.00%|99.23%|slightly more than most
INT MKT/CONSUMER|24|96.00%|93.65%|more than most
TRADE|31|97.00%|96.85%|slightly more than most
LEGAL|32|100.00%|97.88%|more than most
REGIONAL|10|90.00%|91.15%|slightly less than most
TRANSPORT/TOURISM|35|86.00%|91.38%|less than most

That's the area of voting, the number of votes total in that area 2009-2013, the % agreement of the Irish vote with the UK vote, and the average % agreement of the UK vote with all other votes.

So, for example, we agree with the UK on Constitutional matters only 60% of the time, but then that's because the UK only agrees with everyone else an average of 60.8% there.

The country the UK agrees with best is perhaps Sweden:

COUNTRY|Votes|Sweden|All
ALL|403|90.00%|88.62%
AGRI|33|88.00%|80.38%
JHA|25|88.00%|88.00%
BUDGET|41|78.00%|72.81%
Constitutional|5|60.00%|60.77%
ECFIN|47|96.00%|95.77%
EMP/SOC|13|85.00%|84.88%
ENV/HEALTH|46|89.00%|88.50%
FISH|15|87.00%|92.12%
INDUSTRY|27|100.00%|99.23%
INT MKT|24|96.00%|93.65%
TRADE|31|97.00%|96.85%
LEGAL|32|97.00%|97.88%
REGIONAL|10|90.00%|91.15%
TRANSPORT/TOURISM|35|94.00%|91.38%

And the least is Germany;

Area|Votes| Germany|All
ALL|403|85.00%|88.62%
AGRI|33|76.00%|80.38%
JHA|25|88.00%|88.00%
BUDGET|41|71.00%|72.81%
Constitutional|5|60.00%|60.77%
ECFIN|47|94.00%|95.77%
EMP/SOC|13|77.00%|84.88%
ENV/HEALTH|46|85.00%|88.50%
FISH|15|87.00%|92.12%
INDUSTRY|27|96.00%|99.23%
INT MKT|24|83.00%|93.65%
TRADE|31|97.00%|96.85%
LEGAL|32|91.00%|97.88%
REGIONAL|10|80.00%|91.15%
TRANSPORT/TOURISM|35|86.00%|91.38%

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

thomas.frink wrote: »

I’d have to agree that it would be foolish to claim that the Euro caused foolish governments to spend like drunken sailors and try to court popularity with their citizens by bribing them with borrowed money.

The Euro did two things which were to;

• Made it easy for banks to lend to banks in other countries without the risks of currency fluctuations

• Removed the necessary tool of interest rate rises to help individual governments choke off overheating economies.

Consequently, while the Euro didn’t cause recession, or inflation or even hyper-inflation in, for example, the Spanish or Irish housing markets, its very existence made the situation many times worse by not allowing the Irish or Spanish governments to use interest rates in the way they had previously used them, coupled with currency devaluations, to choke off that inflation.

The resulting recession was caused by the falsely over inflated economies collapsing and was not directly caused by the Euro in that sense, but was as a result of the Euro necessarily tying the hands of individual governments.

The funny thing is that since the crisis, euro area governments and central banks - our own included - have suddenly started to look at policy tools to replace the blunt instrument of interest rate control (which didn't save Iceland), and discovered - mirabile dictu! - that there are such policy instruments.

Why did they not look into it before the crisis, one might ask - the answer appears to be that they didn't bother, because they didn't think there was a problem. So, again, the "interest rates" argument is, to me, a grossly over-simplistic one, and one that I would actually regard as falling for government spin - it absolves the governments concerned from their failure to find - to even look for - policy tools to replace interest rate control, and blames it on the euro by claiming their hands were tied.

Their hands weren't tied, they were just sitting on them.

thomas.frink wrote: »

All of which was well predicted before the launch of the Euro, and was one of the contributing factors why the UK decided to keep out of the Euro.

Or one could equally well say that George Soros kept the UK out of the euro by knocking them out of the ERM, and there was never the political will to go back in. Blair would have taken them in, but Brown wouldn't because Blair would.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Curiously, the younger demographics are quite spin savvy, and this is well understood in the world of marketing, and I would not be at all surprised if they did not possess similar savvy relating to the world of politics. Analysis now tends more and more to analyse the spin in what politicians say, rather than take at face value the content of what is said.

I don’t share your confidence that spin will remain in the form in which we now know it, and in a post Blarite world once can see, for example, how distrusted are politicians of all hues.

One of the things which voters say they like about, for example, UKIP, is that they have a very clear and consistent message, and many like them because they appear to be the anti-spin party.

Who knows where that will all lead, and it will be interesting to be here is 20 years time to see what it looks like.

The young always feel they can see through spin, but are in fact the most manipulated. UKIP is a splendid example, because there's actually very little to UKIP but spin - their policies are both incoherent and largely irrelevant to UKIP voters, and their attraction rests largely on the charisma of Nigel Farage and the impression of being "straight talkers".

thomas.frink wrote: »

That is spot on, and is, I think, part of the reason why so many in the UK are distrustful of the EU, and dislike being ruled by what they see as unelected governments, who they can’t vote in or out. It’s referred to in the UK as the democratic deficit and it seems to also be an issue across the EU according to the polls.

Again, the 'democratic deficit' is real, but the common attribution of it to the Commission is again a lazy over-simplification - a case of "there's a democratic deficit, oh look the Commission isn't elected, it must be them".

Governments are not elected by the people. Legislatures are elected by the people. Nobody votes on who should be Minister for any government department - they're all appointed. In the UK, matters are slightly better in this regard, in that individual politicians may stand or fall on their record as Ministers, but in Ireland that's very rare. In general, Irish politicians stand or fall on their record as constituency TDs. We've always had the spectacle of TDs who were complete idiots as Ministers - Mary Coughlan springs to mind - but whose lacklustre or even dire record as Ministers had absolutely no impact on their electability in their home constituency.

The same is true in other countries, but people mistake the fact that an elected politician who is a Minister could be voted out on the basis of their record as Minister with the idea that the government is thereby directly accountable to the people, and that that's what makes our systems democratic. That's entirely wrong - our governments are democratically accountable to the elected legislature, which is why they can be unseated by a vote of parliament. And even that's a one-way gate, because no vote of parliament or the electorate can make a competent person a minister, or keep them in their ministry if their party boss decides they're out.

This is exactly the same system as is used in the EU. The Commission, like any executive, is accountable to the parliament, and can be unseated by a vote of confidence. That the Commissioners are appointed is irrelevant to the democratic deficit, because members of the executive always are.

thomas.frink wrote: »

I agree and make no assumptions either way. I mentioned Japan as an example of how things have changed, and it may not seem like an eternal recession to you, but to many Japanese nearly 30 years of recession is a lifetime.

Well, 20 years, and not all of it recession.

thomas.frink wrote: »

I agree about ingenuity, self reliance and innovation will be the way forward. My fear is that the US, and others, are just better at those things than we are here in the EU where we seem to prefer over regulation, and to impose higher costs on innovators in the forms of more red tape, higher labour costs, higher energy and input prices (have you ever looked at the rates Irish businesses have to pay? Phew!) And an ever increasingly intrusive and expensive government.

The US is in fact stalwartly refusing to adapt to upcoming issues like climate change and resource shortages, and is certainly not leading the way!

(I appreciate that there's a high probability that, like most eurosceptics, you're also a climate change sceptic, and I'm not going to get into that argument here.)

I'm well aware of rates here - I have a rates bill on my desk at the moment - but that's largely the result of removing domestic rates as a funding mechanism for local government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Solair

View wrote: »

A common perception but one not based on the evidence of the voting record in the Council of Ministers (or even the EP).

The UK's voting record is a lot closer to Germany's than it is to Ireland's - in fact, the UK is the single member state least likely to support "the Irish position" in the Council of Ministers. Ireland's "interests" tend to be constantly supported by France and Lithuania - I guess it is nice of France to follow our lead.

It depends on the issue:

France is probably our number one supporter on areas like farming and agriculture.
The UK tends to back us (not necessarily intentionally) against anyone attempting to get rid of our tax rates as they've similarly controversial deals for major City of London banks and tend to want to keep the EU's competencies limited.

At times though, I get the impression the French would be more likely to back us up against the Germans when it comes to Merkel's austerity fetishes than any other EU nation other than maybe Spain, Portugal, Greece etc.

The UK, certainly under the Tories anyway, is far more ideologically aligned to Mrs Merkel's swingeing cuts mode of thinking than we are. We're not exactly going that route out of choice.

Economically though, we're still very much in step with the UK (and US) economic peaks and dips. The old anglosphere links are pretty strong.

thomas.frink

Scofflaw wrote: »

The funny thing is that since the crisis, euro area governments and central banks - our own included - have suddenly started to look at policy tools to replace the blunt instrument of interest rate control (which didn't save Iceland), and discovered - mirabile dictu! - that there are such policy instruments.

Why did they not look into it before the crisis, one might ask - the answer appears to be that they didn't bother, because they didn't think there was a problem. So, again, the "interest rates" argument is, to me, a grossly over-simplistic one, and one that I would actually regard as falling for government spin - it absolves the governments concerned from their failure to find - to even look for - policy tools to replace interest rate control, and blames it on the euro by claiming their hands were tied.

Their hands weren't tied, they were just sitting on them.

The problem was well flagged before the introduction of the Euro, and was one of the reasons why the UK did not join the Euro.

To suggest that “they” didn’t think there was a problem is hard for voters in the UK to believe, when the problem was flagged well in advance, and I am not sure whether assurances that a sudden looking at policy tools, after the event, is going to convince those who will be voting in a UK referendum.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or one could equally well say that George Soros kept the UK out of the euro by knocking them out of the ERM, and there was never the political will to go back in. Blair would have taken them in, but Brown wouldn't because Blair would.

George Soros could only do that because he knew that markets will always triumph over political manipulation. If you feel that was the reason why the UK did not join the Euro, then our memories differ. But its not important to the discussion here.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The young always feel they can see through spin, but are in fact the most manipulated. UKIP is a splendid example, because there's actually very little to UKIP but spin - their policies are both incoherent and largely irrelevant to UKIP voters, and their attraction rests largely on the charisma of Nigel Farage and the impression of being "straight talkers".

Whatever impression you judge those in the UK to have, it is their own impressions which will guide how they vote in any referendum.

You don’t even have to accept that UKIP has so worried the established political parties in the UK that the landscape has not so much changed, but has been bulldozed to look unrecognisable.

That you judge the young to always believe they can see through spin seems quite patronising towards todays young voters. I don’t happen to share your complacency on the issue, as I know the world the 20-30’s demographic s have grown up in is a different world to the one which I grew up in, and suspect you also grew up in.

They don’t watch tv. They don’t read newspapers. They view politics in a different way that we do, and they are more organised by social media that their older counterparts ever were through any other means.

They are informed in a different way, and if you judge they fall for political spin more than other demographics, then I have to disagree as it is this cohesion via social media which allows them to organise without even trying. I spend quite a bit of time with 20-30 year olds, and to claim they fall for spin and are the most manipulated by the political process seems incredible and seems to be the reverse of the actuality. The really interesting thing will be to see how this translates in 10 or 20 years time.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, the 'democratic deficit' is real, but the common attribution of it to the Commission is again a lazy over-simplification - a case of "there's a democratic deficit, oh look the Commission isn't elected, it must be them".

Governments are not elected by the people. Legislatures are elected by the people. Nobody votes on who should be Minister for any government department - they're all appointed. In the UK, matters are slightly better in this regard, in that individual politicians may stand or fall on their record as Ministers, but in Ireland that's very rare.

Unfortunately those in the UK who will be voting in any referendum don’t seem to be swayed by your arguments. Even if you judge their views to be a lazy over-simplification, their views are sincerely held. It’s up to people like you to try to change their views and bring them around to your own viewpoints, but until that happens it is their views which will influence how they vote.

They may even disagree with your view about governments and legislatures, and hold the view that the people they elect are there to govern. No doubt you will draw their attention to the difference between a government and a legislature, and they then can no doubt draw your attention to the meaning of parliamentary democracy.

However, to do so seems to miss the point that they feel that they have only a token influence on the way the EU works for them, and also feel there is no parliamentary democracy at EU level, and my guess is no definitions of government, or legislature, are going to change their minds.

Scofflaw wrote: »

(I appreciate that there's a high probability that, like most eurosceptics, you're also a climate change sceptic, and I'm not going to get into that argument here.)

You have time to make an accusation that

Scofflaw wrote: »

… you're also a climate change sceptic…

While at the same time you avoid nearly all the points I made

thomas.frink wrote: »

.

… over regulation …higher costs on innovators … more red tape… higher labour costs, higher energy …(higher) input prices … ever increasingly intrusive and expensive government.

And choose instead to make personal remarks on what you (incorrectly) speculate might be my views on a topic which has no relevance to the subject. If, as you claim, you didn’t want to talk about the subject of climate change, why bring it up as a subject and talk about it.

I forget who it was who said “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is personal or wounding because I think, well, if you attack one personally, it means you have not a single argument left.”.

Scofflaw

thomas.frink wrote: »

The problem was well flagged before the introduction of the Euro, and was one of the reasons why the UK did not join the Euro.

To suggest that “they” didn’t think there was a problem is hard for voters in the UK to believe, when the problem was flagged well in advance, and I am not sure whether assurances that a sudden looking at policy tools, after the event, is going to convince those who will be voting in a UK referendum.

As far as I know, the UK isn't holding a referendum on joining the euro, so I'm not sure why that last bit would be relevant.

thomas.frink wrote: »

George Soros could only do that because he knew that markets will always triumph over political manipulation.

Heh.

thomas.frink wrote: »

If you feel that was the reason why the UK did not join the Euro, then our memories differ. But its not important to the discussion here.

I didn't say it was why they didn't join in that sense - the point is that they were originally on track to join, and once knocked out of ERM, never had the political appetite to do it.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Whatever impression you judge those in the UK to have, it is their own impressions which will guide how they vote in any referendum.

Er, yes, that goes without saying.

thomas.frink wrote: »

You don’t even have to accept that UKIP has so worried the established political parties in the UK that the landscape has not so much changed, but has been bulldozed to look unrecognisable.

UKIP undeniably has the established parties worried, but "bulldozed" suggests a permanency that has yet to be established.

thomas.frink wrote: »

That you judge the young to always believe they can see through spin seems quite patronising towards todays young voters. I don’t happen to share your complacency on the issue, as I know the world the 20-30’s demographic s have grown up in is a different world to the one which I grew up in, and suspect you also grew up in.

They don’t watch tv. They don’t read newspapers. They view politics in a different way that we do, and they are more organised by social media that their older counterparts ever were through any other means.

They are informed in a different way, and if you judge they fall for political spin more than other demographics, then I have to disagree as it is this cohesion via social media which allows them to organise without even trying. I spend quite a bit of time with 20-30 year olds, and to claim they fall for spin and are the most manipulated by the political process seems incredible and seems to be the reverse of the actuality. The really interesting thing will be to see how this translates in 10 or 20 years time.

Shrug. The young are indeed "informed in a different way", one the established political parties are only slowly adapting to, but not everyone with a political agenda is an established political party. Social media carries spin just as any communication medium does - there's absolutely nothing intrinsic to social media or the net in general that somehow cleanses communication of spin, despite the tech utopianists.

That the net offers the potential for discovering multiple viewpoints is true, but if you really take a good hard look at social media, you'll see that it does the opposite.

thomas.frink wrote: »

Unfortunately those in the UK who will be voting in any referendum don’t seem to be swayed by your arguments. Even if you judge their views to be a lazy over-simplification, their views are sincerely held. It’s up to people like you to try to change their views and bring them around to your own viewpoints, but until that happens it is their views which will influence how they vote.

They may even disagree with your view about governments and legislatures, and hold the view that the people they elect are there to govern. No doubt you will draw their attention to the difference between a government and a legislature, and they then can no doubt draw your attention to the meaning of parliamentary democracy.

However, to do so seems to miss the point that they feel that they have only a token influence on the way the EU works for them, and also feel there is no parliamentary democracy at EU level, and my guess is no definitions of government, or legislature, are going to change their minds.

So? This isn't a TV debate intended to influence UK voters.

thomas.frink wrote: »

You have time to make an accusation that
While at the same time you avoid nearly all the points I made And choose instead to make personal remarks on what you (incorrectly) speculate might be my views on a topic which has no relevance to the subject. If, as you claim, you didn’t want to talk about the subject of climate change, why bring it up as a subject and talk about it.

I forget who it was who said “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is personal or wounding because I think, well, if you attack one personally, it means you have not a single argument left.”.

Er, because it's relevant to the comment about the US's failure to adapt to what's coming down the line. If you're a climate change sceptic - and I didn't say you were, only that it's possible, given your earlier comments - then you're not going to view that as an issue.

Once again you're posting as if we're on a live UK TV debate in front of millions of UK voters, and I need to be shouted down and told "the people are right, the people are right" repeatedly, so the people know you're on their side, while I'm some kind of untrustworthy patronising elitist. You're not addressing my substantive points, although I addressed yours, instead you're just offering slogans and emotive rhetorical tricks.

This isn't a UK TV debate, it's a small corner of the Irish internet dedicated to discussing politics. There is no point you ranting at me.

regards,
Scofflaw

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84691427&postcount=670

My request to you was clear and precise. I didn't ask you to rehash partial information.

This graph deals with gas. Your [specious] claim concerns energy, which is a much broader category.

You can either back up your [outlandish?] claim http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84699550&postcount=681[/url]] or you can't. 'Gas prices in the US are $3 compared to $12 in the EU' from your post at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84659755&postcount=648 doesn't stack up.

On the evidence so far, you simply can't back up your claim that EU energy prices are four times higher than the US.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

I’d rather look at the facts rather than dismiss it as a sneer, but we have to decide those things for ourselves.

If you're so exercised by facts, you can finally provide evidence for your claim that EU energy costs are four times those of the US.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

It is those very people who will get to vote in any referendum in the UK, and whether or not they are prepared to wait in the transition you talk about, until the execution happens, remains to be seen.

UK voters don't have to wait for the single currency to finally come into balance over a transitional period. The UK is not in the single currency.

The UK has to decide whether it wants to be in the EU. Entirely a different set of concerns that I think the British electorate can discern themselves.

McDave

thomas.frink wrote: »

If that's true, then that's a sad confirmation on what many in the UK think, that the EU is non responsive, run by an elite who have little concern for the people of the UK or EU, and who wish to progress their own agenda despite the wishes of the people.

I'm not sure I agree with your view that the EU is not concerned at the year on year increases in dissatisfaction, but certainly in the UK many would seem to agree with you.

Whatever about what many in the UK think about the EU, I'd suspect many in the EU think the UK is run by an elite with little concern for the people of the EU. The UK electorate can choose to endorse that perspective if they like. Or they can also decide to keep their lot in with their EU partners. It will be an interesting referendum if or when it takes place.

As to opinion polls, of course EU officials and politicians will be taking note. But like in domestic polls, they'll see data in the context of the financial and budget crises. If, even at this relatively low point, a bit under half of those polled still support the EU, I think the EU and the EZ's political and administrative actors will take comfort that polls can go up as well. As they surely will as the Eurozone crisis is slowly but steadily resolved.

Cody Pomeray

McDave wrote: »

Whatever about what many in the UK think about the EU, I'd suspect many in the EU think the UK is run by an elite with little concern for the people of the EU.

Nail on the head!

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

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

McDave

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Nail on the head!

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

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

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

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

ewan whose army

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KyussBishop

ewan whose army wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Scofflaw

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

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

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

ewan whose army

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

McDave

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

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

McDave

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

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

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

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

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

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

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

ewan whose army

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

The UK economy is a joke, mismanaged.

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

ewan whose army

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Scofflaw

ewan whose army wrote:

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

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

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

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ewan whose army

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

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

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

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

ewan whose army

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ewan whose army

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McDave

ewan whose army wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

ewan whose army

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KyussBishop

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

KyussBishop

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scofflaw

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

KyussBishop

ewan whose army wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Scofflaw

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

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

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

KyussBishop wrote: »

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

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

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

KyussBishop

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

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

KyussBishop

McDave wrote: »

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

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

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

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

KyussBishop

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

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

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