Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why are the British so anti Europe?
Comments
-
The currency, monetary policy and fiscal policy, are all inseparable; it's all politics, there is no real divide between economics and politics.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.
Austerity is not 'the plan' really, it's just the default state of what happens when you don't have any way to agree to a mutual plan; it's far too easy for powerful countries to deadlock the political process, so smaller countries get hammered by austerity.
The political system used with the currency, is an inseparably important part of the currency itself; you don't want a shared currency, where the political system enmeshed with it, leads to worsening crisis in a huge way like this.0 -
Ironically, the UK's policy decisions are guided by economic theory that is not in sync with reality, so it's current policies are precisely a case of theory besting reality.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.
It is very well documented, that economics as a field of study, and economics which dominates in politics (including most countries management of the crisis), is just flat out wrong in many fundamental ways (particularly where it comes to the monetary system).
The crisis in the UK and in Europe, is entirely political; the solutions for both are known, and the main arguments against them mainly draw down to political ones, which don't disagree with any of the underlying economic theory.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Ironically, the UK's policy decisions are guided by economic theory that is not in sync with reality, so it's current policies are precisely a case of theory besting reality.
It is very well documented, that economics as a field of study, and economics which dominates in politics (including most countries management of the crisis), is just flat out wrong in many fundamental ways (particularly where it comes to the monetary system).
The crisis in the UK and in Europe, is entirely political; the solutions for both are known, and the main arguments against them mainly draw down to political ones, which don't disagree with any of the underlying economic theory.
The problem with the UK is incompetence within the government, nothing to do with the EU0 -
The Euro's continued existence disproves your 'failure' charge comprehensively. Greece forced its own failure. Ireland under Ahern forced its own failure.KyussBishop wrote: »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.
The half implementation of the Euro was largely down to the EU being forced into compromises by UK obstructionism. There's never a perfect time for change. The EU had to strike while it could to bring an idea to fruition which had been around for at least 30 years.
As for economic discipline, you adhere to it or you don't. If people have died in places like Greece, it's down to the incompetence and corruption of their own governments. But of course, you're free to ignore corruption and its consequences if you really prefer.0 -
We're a *lot* closer. Not least in seeing countries demonstrate the extent to which they are prepared to reform their economic and political behaviour.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not a proven fact that you need a state-like entity to run a currency. The EZ could prove your unproven assumption wrong sooner than you think.KyussBishop wrote: »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.0 -
ewan whose army wrote: »The problem with the UK is incompetence within the government, nothing to do with the EU
Ironically, Sterling is never held as being responsible for that incompetence whereas the Euro - bits of metal and paper - is apparently gulity of everything from governmental economic incompetence to dogs fouling the local pavement.
The crisis has in fact highlighted the inter-dependence of the EU member states - not that the media seem to have noticed.0 -
The Euro's continued existence, has economies EU-wide locked in a death-spiral, where we are still taking damage societally, 5 years after the crisis, and probably still for another 5-10 years (if not more).The Euro's continued existence disproves your 'failure' charge comprehensively. Greece forced its own failure. Ireland under Ahern forced its own failure.
The half implementation of the Euro was largely down to the EU being forced into compromises by UK obstructionism. There's never a perfect time for change. The EU had to strike while it could to bring an idea to fruition which had been around for at least 30 years.
As for economic discipline, you adhere to it or you don't. If people have died in places like Greece, it's down to the incompetence and corruption of their own governments. But of course, you're free to ignore corruption and its consequences if you really prefer.
Just because something isn't dead yet, doesn't make it a success; success is a matter of seeking the best standards possible, not seeking standards that are "good enough" (even if just barely) to avoid the death of a currency.
Your comments on economic discipline, advocate collective punishment of all the Greek people, for the failures of its past governments, when that is totally unnecessary.0 -
The UK media at any rate!Ironically, Sterling is never held as being responsible for that incompetence whereas the Euro - bits of metal and paper - is apparently gulity of everything from governmental economic incompetence to dogs fouling the local pavement.
The crisis has in fact highlighted the inter-dependence of the EU member states - not that the media seem to have noticed.0 -
We could have been through this years ago, and kept full employment throughout; economically, it doesn't make sense to waste huge amounts of human labour, like mainstream economic theory tells us.We're a *lot* closer. Not least in seeing countries demonstrate the extent to which they are prepared to reform their economic and political behaviour.
I never said you need one, I said it's an issue of sovereignty.It's not a proven fact that you need a state-like entity to run a currency. The EZ could prove your unproven assumption wrong sooner than you think.0 -
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »Ironically, the UK's policy decisions are guided by economic theory that is not in sync with reality, so it's current policies are precisely a case of theory besting reality.
It is very well documented, that economics as a field of study, and economics which dominates in politics (including most countries management of the crisis), is just flat out wrong in many fundamental ways (particularly where it comes to the monetary system).
The crisis in the UK and in Europe, is entirely political; the solutions for both are known, and the main arguments against them mainly draw down to political ones, which don't disagree with any of the underlying economic theory.
Ah, now you seem to be blaming the policies being pursued - so it is not the currency that's to blame then, is it?
As, for your view on the policies themselves, you should note that none of the politicians seem to be in a rush to brace these "obvious" alternative policies - that's either an electoral death-wish on all their parts or they regard these alternatives as being fundamentally wrong.0 -
"Death spiral"! Give it a rest.KyussBishop wrote: »The Euro's continued existence, has economies EU-wide locked in a death-spiral, where we are still taking damage societally, 5 years after the crisis, and probably still for another 5-10 years (if not more).
Just because something isn't dead yet, doesn't make it a success; success is a matter of seeking the best standards possible, not seeking standards that are "good enough" (even if just barely) to avoid the death of a currency.
Your comments on economic discipline, advocate collective punishment of all the Greek people, for the failures of its past governments, when that is totally unnecessary.
As for Greece, it's not the job of the general Euro taxpayer to dig out Greek corruption. Greece signed up to the single currency. It's their responsibility to get their economy into shape. That's not "punishment". It's requiring sovereign people and states to live up to their promises.
If Greeks decide it's not worth the candle, they can exit. But watch closely. They won't. Why? Because deep down they probably judge sticking with the EZ programme is their best shot of developing a modern functioning state.0 -
Your point being precisely what?KyussBishop wrote: »I never said you need one, I said it's an issue of sovereignty.0 -
How, precisely? Using what "mainstream" theory?KyussBishop wrote: »We could have been through this years ago, and kept full employment throughout; economically, it doesn't make sense to waste huge amounts of human labour, like mainstream economic theory tells us.0 -
Monetary policy and fiscal policy and the chosen currency, are all pretty heavily intertwined, so there isn't really a distinction there; the chosen currency affects the range of policy options available, and the UK has policy options Euro countries don't.Ah, now you seem to be blaming the policies being pursued - so it is not the currency that's to blame then, is it?
As, for your view on the policies themselves, you should note that none of the politicians seem to be in a rush to brace these "obvious" alternative policies - that's either an electoral death-wish on all their parts or they regard these alternatives as being fundamentally wrong.
Your argument as to politicians not choosing alternative policies, is entirely political (does not relate to the economics at all); politicians choices here are not a surprise, since economics in academia and politics, is still dominated by fundamentally flawed theory.0 -
Care to specify which theory? And how?KyussBishop wrote: »Monetary policy and fiscal policy and the chosen currency, are all pretty heavily intertwined, so there isn't really a distinction there; the chosen currency affects the range of policy options available, and the UK has policy options Euro countries don't.
Your argument as to politicians not choosing alternative policies, is entirely political (does not relate to the economics at all); politicians choices here are not a surprise, since economics in academia and politics, is still dominated by fundamentally flawed theory.0 -
So you haven't got an argument against that statement so? Fair enough."Death spiral"! Give it a rest.
No taxpayers need to dig out Greece, that argument is assuming lots of specific policy options.As for Greece, it's not the job of the general Euro taxpayer to dig out Greek corruption. Greece signed up to the single currency. It's their responsibility to get their economy into shape. That's not "punishment". It's requiring sovereign people and states to live up to their promises.
If Greeks decide it's not worth the candle, they can exit. But watch closely. They won't. Why? Because deep down they probably judge sticking with the EZ programme is their best shot of developing a modern functioning state.
Again, your advocating totally unnecessary collective punishment on Greek people, for the failures of their past governments.
This is another example of why currencies without a federal government are a bad idea: Europe should be all in this together (federal government), not sociopathically destroying a nation, because it might disadvantage other regions (which creates a political imbalance, where more powerful nations can make the crisis fall harder on smaller countries).
The US doesn't burn states like that, that's just a bad way to run a currency. That's why you don't do half-measures; in a full sovereign currency with a federal government, that kind of moral argument would be unjustifiable, so it creates completely warped political/economic conditions.0 -
-
I'm not sure this is the right thread for it, but if a country has control over its own currency, a government can use money creation to fund a temporary employment program to soak up all idle workers, and can use that to boost economic output (thus ameliorating any inflation - other policy tools would be used to dampen areas of the economy that inflate too), which boost private industry back up (so private industry takes back all the workers eventually).How, precisely? Using what "mainstream" theory?
The currency exchange rate would be allowed to float, and its valuation would depend more on the health of other countries economies (there is no point decimating output in your own economy, in order to keep valuation the same, just because other countries are).
This is not mainstream theory; mainstream 'neoclassical' theory, which dominates politics at the moment, gets a lot of fundamental macroeconomics wrong, whereas this describes a policy which is based on a better understanding of the monetary system, than mainstream economics has.
Almost all the arguments against this, turn out to be political ones; asserting without backing, what government will do, not challenging the actual theory.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Your argument as to politicians not choosing alternative policies, is entirely political (does not relate to the economics at all); politicians choices here are not a surprise, since economics in academia and politics, is still dominated by fundamentally flawed theory.
So in other words no member state (of the EU) is going to follow your ideal "correct" economic policies and that applies irrespective of the currency that are using?
If so why does it matter?
You don't seriously believe that the electorate in Ireland is going to embrace un-orthodox radical economics, do you?0 -
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »The US doesn't burn states like that, that's just a bad way to run a currency.
In the US it is left to each state to fix its budgetary problems. It isn't a "US" issue at all if a US State messes up its budget. In fact 47 of them needed to raise taxes and cut services to balance their budgets. Does that sound familiar?0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »The currency, monetary policy and fiscal policy, are all inseparable; it's all politics, there is no real divide between economics and politics.
Austerity is not 'the plan' really, it's just the default state of what happens when you don't have any way to agree to a mutual plan; it's far too easy for powerful countries to deadlock the political process, so smaller countries get hammered by austerity.
The political system used with the currency, is an inseparably important part of the currency itself; you don't want a shared currency, where the political system enmeshed with it, leads to worsening crisis in a huge way like this.
Oh, come on, that's really nonsense. Austerity isn't a "default position", but an active policy of cutting spending and raising taxes. Left to themselves, budget deficits don't change.
Your reading of this is totally at odds with reality, which makes your proposed better alternatives rather suspect, I'm afraid.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It's a problem of bad economics and a currency that blocks reformed policies; the EU doesn't strictly need those policies either (it's just one option), as if it were properly federalized, it can use centralized debts at low interest (which is a very good intermediate step, even if not federalized, before initiating the reforms I speak of).So in other words no member state (of the EU) is going to follow your ideal "correct" economic policies and that applies irrespective of the currency that are using?
If so why does it matter?
You don't seriously believe that the electorate in Ireland is going to embrace un-orthodox radical economics, do you?
There's nothing radical about the economics I present, it simply describes the monetary system in a more accurate way (most of it deriving from endogenous money); very incredibly important stuff to get right for any macroeconomic theory, and almost all of them get it wrong.
There's nothing radical about wanting economic theory, to fit the reality of how economies (specifically the monetary system) works.0 -
The US has a centralized federal budget, so no, that is a completely different situation to Europe, where each 'state' has to fend for itself, while it has policy options locked out (due to loss of monetary sovereignty), that could resolve the crisis.In the US it is left to each state to fix its budgetary problems. It isn't a "US" issue at all if a US State messes up its budget. In fact 47 of them needed to raise taxes and cut services to balance their budgets. Does that sound familiar?0 -
You're presenting a false choice. Countries can't run deficits forever in the current system, because they get hammered by high interest rates (unless they are in a relatively favourable position economically), and the countries that are stuck with that kind of high-interest debt choice, can't exactly force the use of lower-interest centralized debt, or force monetary reform, within the central EU (because more powerful nations will overpower them, and its very easy for such a deadlock to happen with the current EU configuration).Oh, come on, that's really nonsense. Austerity isn't a "default position", but an active policy of cutting spending and raising taxes. Left to themselves, budget deficits don't change.
Your reading of this is totally at odds with reality, which makes your proposed better alternatives rather suspect, I'm afraid.
cordially,
Scofflaw
This leaves only austerity, to try and curb the increasing debt. Trying to present that as a policy-decision/choice, which is voluntarily engaged in, doesn't really ring true because of the political and economic restrictions countries are under (which are locked-in by the Euro, where they would otherwise not be); granted though, this is not all the Euro, it is in large part a problem of bad economic theory as well.
If you're not willing to debate the alternatives, that makes your criticisms of them unbacked; it's really just a repetition of "I'm unconvinced", which is fair enough, but you can't really be open to convincing if not willing to debate it (and my arguments on it here, are a lot more refined than previous threads where I was (and still am, to an extent) learning it in more depth while debating it).0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You're presenting a false choice. Countries can't run deficits forever in the current system, because they get hammered by high interest rates (unless they are in a relatively favourable position economically), and the countries that are stuck with that kind of high-interest debt choice, can't exactly force the use of lower-interest centralized debt, or force monetary reform, within the central EU (because more powerful nations will overpower them, and its very easy for such a deadlock to happen with the current EU configuration).
This leaves only austerity, to try and curb the increasing debt. Trying to present that as a policy-decision/choice, which is voluntarily engaged in, doesn't really ring true because of the political and economic restrictions countries are under (which are locked-in by the Euro, where they would otherwise not be); granted though, this is not all the Euro, it is in large part a problem of bad economic theory as well.
If you're not willing to debate the alternatives, that makes your criticisms of them unbacked; it's really just a repetition of "I'm unconvinced", which is fair enough, but you can't really be open to convincing if not willing to debate it (and my arguments on it here, are a lot more refined than previous threads where I was (and still am, to an extent) learning it in more depth while debating it).
That countries which might prefer something other than austerity have to undertake austerity because they cannot get joint agreement on an alternative to austerity does not make austerity a matter of default choice. Austerity is the only agreed joint policy, and the inability of some countries to change that does not make it anything other than the agreed joint policy.
My reluctance to debate alternatives at the moment stems from the fact that the debate has to be entirely theoretical, and economic theory and practice match less than in almost any other field.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
You present it as a mutual agreement, but most countries have no choice but to agree (one of the biggest motivators of agreeing to the austerity treaty, was fear of instability and/or rejected access to bailouts); it's a false choice because more powerful countries can block adoption of anything other than austerity.That countries which might prefer something other than austerity have to undertake austerity because they cannot get joint agreement on an alternative to austerity does not make austerity a matter of default choice. Austerity is the only agreed joint policy, and the inability of some countries to change that does not make it anything other than the agreed joint policy.
My reluctance to debate alternatives at the moment stems from the fact that the debate has to be entirely theoretical, and economic theory and practice match less than in almost any other field.
cordially,
Scofflaw
That's a situation where there was significant pressure to be pushed, and locked by legal requirements, into austerity; now there are no other choices, because it's just not politically possible to change things now.
There's no theory to the core parts of the monetary reform debate really: Endogenous money can be confirmed, just by looking at how the accounting works between central banks and banks (which immediately shows the falsehood of practically all mainstream economic theory, making it not just wrong, but dangerous to hang onto - as we are seeing).
Most of the rest stems from there; a large part of it is just accounting (i.e. mathematically true), and incorporating other descriptions of how the economy works, that better describe/fit reality/evidence than current mainstream theory.
All the arguments usually presented against it aren't even theoretical, just political; opponents usually do their best to avoid engaging in argument of actual economics on the subject.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You present it as a mutual agreement, but most countries have no choice but to agree (one of the biggest motivators of agreeing to the austerity treaty, was fear of instability and/or rejected access to bailouts); it's a false choice because more powerful countries can block adoption of anything other than austerity.
That's a situation where there was significant pressure to be pushed, and locked by legal requirements, into austerity; now there are no other choices, because it's just not politically possible to change things now.
I don't present it as mutual and unanimous agreement, only as the only agreed joint policy. It's irrelevant whether countries agree to it because they support it, or accept it because they know they need the money of those countries that support it - either way, it's the only agreed joint policy.KyussBishop wrote: »There's no theory to the core parts of the monetary reform debate really: Endogenous money can be confirmed, just by looking at how the accounting works between central banks and banks (which immediately shows the falsehood of practically all mainstream economic theory, making it not just wrong, but dangerous to hang onto - as we are seeing).
Most of the rest stems from there; a large part of it is just accounting (i.e. mathematically true), and incorporating other descriptions of how the economy works, that better describe/fit reality/evidence than current mainstream theory.
All the arguments usually presented against it aren't even theoretical, just political; opponents usually do their best to avoid engaging in argument of actual economics on the subject.
See, there's the sort of thing I mean - "incorporating other descriptions of how the economy works, that better describe/fit reality/evidence than current mainstream theory". Better fit according to whom? Why, proponents of the alternative, of course - which naturally makes sense, since anyone who can see that they fit better will necessarily become a proponent of the alternative.
It's a merry-go-round, and luckily I don't have to get on it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It is relevant when that is the only available choice due to the political circumstances (and economic - short of self-destruction), as that makes it a false choice; something they can't disagree with.I don't present it as mutual and unanimous agreement, only as the only agreed joint policy. It's irrelevant whether countries agree to it because they support it, or accept it because they know they need the money of those countries that support it - either way, it's the only agreed joint policy.
Anyway, going back to the original point which was lost a bit; my main position on the Euro itself being flawed, is that a currency is inseparably enmeshed with the politics of Europe (so whether it was a good idea or not, equally depends on the political setup), and that it was a very large mistake bound to failure, by not implementing it with a federal Europe that could exercise the monetary/fiscal policy options removed from member states, upon the creation of the Euro.
I view those as critical issues of monetary sovereignty (where if member states don't have that sovereignty, the EU as a whole should with a federal government, rather than the easily deadlocked system we have now), which are essential for being able to provide economic stability when big enough crisis hits.
According to anyone who has looked at how the actual accounting works; there are some good descriptions here, here (a bit covering a more specific aspect of it here), and some more prominent backers hereSee, there's the sort of thing I mean - "incorporating other descriptions of how the economy works, that better describe/fit reality/evidence than current mainstream theory". Better fit according to whom? Why, proponents of the alternative, of course - which naturally makes sense, since anyone who can see that they fit better will necessarily become a proponent of the alternative.
It's a merry-go-round, and luckily I don't have to get on it.
None of that is theory, it is fact, it is how things actually work with the monetary system at the moment (any theory which gets this wrong, is itself wrong in a fundamental way); much of it is a matter of mathematical/accounting principles (mixed in with some practical issues, such as not wanting the entire banking system to collapse by refusing to shore up reserves), nothing more.
You don't need to agree with it, but if you adopt views that are contrary to it, you get a fundamental part of macroeconomics wrong; the evidence showing that this is how it works, is all there on banks and central banks balance sheets and in their policies.
If you don't agree with it though, I'd heavily encourage reading up on endogenous money, even if not looking to debate it; it completely changes both economics and politics in an enormous way (which is not completely obvious even after initially understanding it - it has enormous wide-ranging knock on effects).0 -
Advertisement
-
You're the one raising the 'sovereignty' criterion. You need to express yourself a bit more accurately as to what that actually *means*, rather than throwing out half-baked received wisdoms.KyussBishop wrote: »You said:
"It's not a proven fact that you need a state-like entity to run a currency."
I said "I never said you need one, I said it's an issue of sovereignty", i.e. your interpretation of what I said was wrong.0 -
I don't see where the confusion is. A country that gives up control over its currency, loses an enormous amount of political and economic power over itself (and thus loses a huge portion of its sovereignty); that country no longer has all the options needed to safely work its way through an economic crisis (when a big enough one hits), but instead becomes subservient to the political power it handed over monetary sovereignty to.You're the one raising the 'sovereignty' criterion. You need to express yourself a bit more accurately as to what that actually *means*, rather than throwing out half-baked received wisdoms.0 -
Maybe you're overly confusing your own arguments and ascribing too much orthodoxy and received wisdom to a traditional conception of sovereignty.KyussBishop wrote: »I don't see where the confusion is. A country that gives up control over its currency, loses an enormous amount of political and economic power over itself (and thus loses a huge portion of its sovereignty); that country no longer has all the options needed to safely work its way through an economic crisis (when a big enough one hits), but instead becomes subservient to the political power it handed over monetary sovereignty to.
For instance you assume there needs to be full union to underpin the single currency. Although it's a widespread contention, I'm not at all sure the case for such an assertion has been demonstrated. It may be adequate to establish key elements such as banking union and a single regulator without proceeding to a political union/federal set-up, where member states would still have control over budgets, all be they within Maastricht criteria. That would be a hybrid arrangement falling far short of a single entity solution.
Were such an approach to succeed, then a whole new type and level of sovereignty would evolve directly related to the strength of the currency, giving participants in the EZ the kind of international autonomy they would not enjoy vis-a-vis international market players were they running their own currencies.
A simple example. The UK within the single currency could never again be played the way it was when Soros broke the Bank of England over the ERM.
Sovereignty isn't all about national autonomy any more. It exists on many levels, and can be won or lost there too. I think many in the EZ appreciate this. As indeed do some outside the single currency who are pegged to the Euro without being formally inside - like Denmark.0 -
There needs to either be an extremely well-oiled collaborative system that is not prone to deadlocks and which readily enacts pre-agreed (and effective) recovery policies during crisis, or there needs to be a single fully-sovereign government at the helm, which is not subject to such deadlocks; that simple really.
The strength of the currency (the determinant of which, is severe economic crisis) depends on this, because as we are seeing now, political deadlock threatens the very existence of the Euro.
There are no two way about it: When a country gives up control over its currency, it hands over a significant portion of its sovereignty too, and if that currency is not managed well, that may enormously impact on that countries politics, society and economy, in a way that compounds the loss of sovereignty over all these affected areas of the country.0 -
I'm afraid that's not a very realistic point of view. What control did Ireland have over its currencies during its existence as an independent state? Certainly none when linked to Sterling. And very little when it linked to the ERM.KyussBishop wrote: »There are no two way about it: When a country gives up control over its currency, it hands over a significant portion of its sovereignty too, and if that currency is not managed well, that may enormously impact on that countries politics, society and economy, in a way that compounds the loss of sovereignty over all these affected areas of the country.
No, Ireland took a very pragmatic view of its place in the financial world. It took a conscious decision to move out of the orbit of Sterling and into the orbit of the Euro. It's a judgement call.
As for the management of the Euro, it's doing fine as a currency. Some of its constituent countries are experiencing severe difficulties with their economies and finances. However, this is not the fault of the Euro. If anything, the Euro is exposing the inadequacies of the economic and political cultures of places like Greece and Italy.
Were countries like these not in the Euro, they would still be suffering economically and socially, possibly even moreso. Just look where Greece's so-called sovereignty left it even before the Euro. Always the tail-end Charlie, even back in the days of the EEC. Similarly, Italy has presided over a slow industrial decline and a loss of competitiveness that it was only able to hide through devaluations, each of which ratcheted the economy down another level, while it's national debt slowly got out of control.0 -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.htmlBritish public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows
Research shows public opinion often deviates from facts on key social issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration
A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King's College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.
Full details here http://www.rssenews.org.uk/2013/07/rss-commission-new-research-into-public-perceptions-of-statistics/
Not specific to Europe but indicative maybe.0 -
Advertisement
-
While we can all show our own bias by saying we suspect the "brits" still hanker after empire, or that the Guardian is despised in the UK", all we are doing is showing our own bias.
The fact is that the new eurobarometer poll shows, amongst the citizens in the EU, “distrust” of the EU has doubled in six years to a record high of 60 per cent.
To claim that the British are "so anti europe" is out of date.
Look where being "good" europeans has got Ireland. If only Ireland had been a little more sceptical, and not so desperate to be the good boy in the class, Ireland might well now be in a better position that that in which it finds itself. Of course, that supposed that Ireland might have chosen politicians which were reasonably competent, rather than those which they did.I suspect a lot of them are still living in the days when Kipling boasted that the sun never set on the Empire.*
*To which George Bernard Shaw replied that it was because God wouldn't trust the English in the dark.
(25) thanks from:
Artur Foden, cristoir, CucaFace, Daniel S, deccurley, DoesNotCompute, doopa, europa11, Green Diesel, jimmymal, johngalway, K-9, leonidas83, MadYaker, MrGeneric, newmug, Oregano_State, Paddysnapper, realies, Sound of Silence, Strummerville, Swarly45, the scrote, TiGeR KiNgS, walshb
It's so easy to look from the bankrupted Irish State to the "brits" and snigger, as tens of thousands of Irish are forced once again to emigrate (ironically many to Britain), tens of thousand Irish families are plunged into poverty, hunger and financial ruin, and the whole country is decimated. Snigger away, while Ireland enjoys decades more of recession and depression, but that sort of attitude is one reason why Ireland finds itself in the position it does.
It's such a shame that such attitudes persist in Ireland, and such attitudes are likely to add to Irelands continued decline.0 -
thomas.frink wrote: »While we can all show our own bias by saying we suspect the "brits" still hanker after empire, or that the Guardian is despised in the UK", all we are doing is showing our own bias.
The fact is that the new eurobarometer poll shows, amongst the citizens in the EU, “distrust” of the EU has doubled in six years to a record high of 60 per cent.
As has distrust of national governments and political parties.thomas.frink wrote: »To claim that the British are "so anti europe" is out of date.
Look where being "good" europeans has got Ireland. If only Ireland had been a little more sceptical, and not so desperate to be the good boy in the class, Ireland might well now be in a better position that that in which it finds itself. Of course, that supposed that Ireland might have chosen politicians which were reasonably competent, rather than those which they did.
Hmm. Where did being "good Europeans" get Ireland? It got us an extensive softening of the consequences of our own lunacy - it couldn't prevent the collapse of the construction sector and house prices, but compared to what we'd be feeling if we didn't have European money to cushion the blow, we've come out well ahead.thomas.frink wrote: »It's so easy to look from the bankrupted Irish State to the "brits" and snigger, as tens of thousands of Irish are forced once again to emigrate (ironically many to Britain), tens of thousand Irish families are plunged into poverty, hunger and financial ruin, and the whole country is decimated. Snigger away, while Ireland enjoys decades more of recession and depression, but that sort of attitude is one reason why Ireland finds itself in the position it does.
It's such a shame that such attitudes persist in Ireland, and such attitudes are likely to add to Irelands continued decline.
A continued decline is highly unlikely, even within the current timeframe. If we're on the up and out before the UK, will you change your mind? I rather doubt it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I would have to agree with engerland on this one. Europe is like a weed strangling our recovery .the quicker we get out of the euro and back to the Sterling the better.let merkel et all keep their toxic Utopia0
-
As has distrust of national governments and political parties.
Yes indeed, but this thread is about the British and the EU, and to claim they are "so anti europe", when they seem to be on the same side as the majority of the citizens in the EU, seems to suggest they are actually so in agreement with 60% of the citizens of the EU.Hmm. Where did being "good Europeans" get Ireland? It got us an extensive softening of the consequences of our own lunacy - it couldn't prevent the collapse of the construction sector and house prices, but compared to what we'd be feeling if we didn't have European money to cushion the blow, we've come out well ahead.
If your view is that saying yes to everything the EU has demanded has benefitted Ireland, then thats your view.
For example, you quote the rampant inflation in the construction sector being bad for Ireland, inflation which was caused by access to cash from other banks outside Ireland.
Well, that's largely because Ireland agreed to support the Irish banks which have the bad loans, and take their mammoth debts from the banks and give them to every Irish taxpayer. You may well believe Ireland did this with no pressure or demands from the EU and you may well even believe that it was the right thing to do. HOwever I suspect you'd be in a minority of 1 or 2 if thats what you do believe.
Sure you can pick some things you this were and are good for Ireland which came from the EU. But in the round, the debts Ireland has been saddled with as a result of this one example, are so large they really outweigh almost everything else.
A continued decline is highly unlikely, even within the current timeframe. If we're on the up and out before the UK, will you change your mind? I rather doubt it.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Your expressed doubts rather expose your own bias.
Is a continued decline likely? Who knows and we'll have to wait and see. "on the up and out" is not really measurable, but a country with the per capita debt Ireland now has, with few natural resources, little heavy industry, seems to be destined to a lengthy period stagnation rather than economic recovery of any noticeable kind.
What I'd like is both countries to recover, and my guess is that the UK, outside the dead weight of the Euro, is more likely to make a good recovery quicker. But I could be wrong.0 -
thomas.frink wrote: »Yes indeed, but this thread is about the British and the EU, and to claim they are "so anti europe", when they seem to be on the same side as the majority of the citizens in the EU, seems to suggest they are actually so in agreement with 60% of the citizens of the EU.
I take your point that currently the EU is well down in the popularity stakes, but that doesn't show that the rest of Europe is now as perpetually eurosceptical as the UK. We're currently in a crisis, which means "the establishment" has screwed up, the EU is part of the establishment, and like all the other parts of the establishment, it's down in the polls.thomas.frink wrote: »If your view is that saying yes to everything the EU has demanded has benefitted Ireland, then thats your view.
For example, you quote the rampant inflation in the construction sector being bad for Ireland, inflation which was caused by access to cash from other banks outside Ireland.
Er, yes - UK and US banks, primarily, during a global credit boom. The involvement of eurozone banks in the Irish economy was minimal - their involvement was with the IFSC, the money from which flows through Ireland without touching the sides. Even mainstream journalists are beginning to understand the difference.thomas.frink wrote: »Well, that's largely because Ireland agreed to support the Irish banks which have the bad loans, and take their mammoth debts from the banks and give them to every Irish taxpayer. You may well believe Ireland did this with no pressure or demands from the EU and you may well even believe that it was the right thing to do. HOwever I suspect you'd be in a minority of 1 or 2 if thats what you do believe.
Heh. No, I'm no longer in a minority, because the evidence is overwhelming that the Irish government supported the Irish banks for exactly the same reasons the UK government supported the UK banks, requiring no outside pressure. Yes, some people will continue seeing the complete absence of any evidence of EU involvement in our guarantee (disapproval and shock, even) as merely evidence of how well concealed that involvement was, but those people, God love us, will always be with us.thomas.frink wrote: »Sure you can pick some things you this were and are good for Ireland which came from the EU. But in the round, the debts Ireland has been saddled with as a result of this one example, are so large they really outweigh almost everything else.
And unfortunately were our own choice, which is why the EU is not quite as sympathetic about them as we might like. Again, while the "a big EU made us do it and ran away" story remains popular in some quarters and always will, it has been both debunked and shown to be part of a particular political agenda.thomas.frink wrote: »Your expressed doubts rather expose your own bias.
Is a continued decline likely? Who knows and we'll have to wait and see. "on the up and out" is not really measurable, but a country with the per capita debt Ireland now has, with few natural resources, little heavy industry, seems to be destined to a lengthy period stagnation rather than economic recovery of any noticeable kind.
What I'd like is both countries to recover, and my guess is that the UK, outside the dead weight of the Euro, is more likely to make a good recovery quicker. But I could be wrong.
My expressed doubts reflect the fact that the Irish economy is not currently in decline, but stable. As such, while we may have stagnation, or fitful growth, a "continued decline" seems very much less likely.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I take your point that currently the EU is well down in the popularity stakes, but that doesn't show that the rest of Europe is now as perpetually eurosceptical as the UK. We're currently in a crisis, which means "the establishment" has screwed up, the EU is part of the establishment, and like all the other parts of the establishment, it's down in the polls.
Wherever "we" are, to claim the UK is "so anti europe" seems at this point to actually be saying the UK seems to be "so in tune" with 60% of the attitudes of the EU citizens.
Heh. No, I'm no longer in a minority, because the evidence is overwhelming that the Irish government supported the Irish banks for exactly the same reasons the UK government supported the UK banks, requiring no outside pressure. Yes, some people will continue seeing the complete absence of any evidence of EU involvement in our guarantee (disapproval and shock, even) as merely evidence of how well concealed that involvement was, but those people, God love us, will always be with us.
So you seem to agree and say that it's your view the irish government was not pressured in any way by the EU, or the European Central bank, to take on the debts of the Irish banks. Ok, so that's clear at any rate. I don't know anyone who has studied the situation who agrees with you, and in any case ist nor really relevant, but your views are clear.
My expressed doubts reflect the fact that the Irish economy is not currently in decline, but stable. As such, while we may have stagnation, or fitful growth, a "continued decline" seems very much less likely.
Here is a little basic economics:
The Irish national debt now stands at just over €171 billion
The interest at 5% per annum on €171 billion is €8.55 billion per annum
With 4 million people in Ireland every man, woman and child has to find €2137.50 every year to pay the interest in the debts.
13.6% are unemployed
1.836 million are employed
That means for everyone employed, the first €4656 of their tax every year goes to paying the interest on the national debt. The national debt is still rising and that figure increases every day.
If your judgment is that with tens of thousands who have been forced to emigrate, tens of thousands of others in debt, poverty and hunger and fear, and a national debt the interest which accounts for the first €4656 of every workers tax is a stable economy, then some might conclude that's a rather unusual idea of what constitutes a stable economy.0 -
thomas.frink wrote: »Wherever "we" are, to claim the UK is "so anti europe" seems at this point to actually be saying the UK seems to be "so in tune" with 60% of the attitudes of the EU citizens.
Well, no, it doesn't. That's the equivalent of saying in 2011 that FF were currently unpopular with the electorate, who were therefore "in tune with" Fine Gael. That's certainly the kind of thing that's very tempting to believe if you were a FG supporter then, just as your repeated claim is tempting for a UK eurosceptic. Unfortunately, in both cases, it's also self-deceit.
The question "why is the UK so eurosceptic" isn't something that is rendered meaningless by the current wider unpopularity of the EU. The EU is least popular in a very predictable set of countries - those countries which have needed an EU bailout, and the UK. So, bottom 6 countries for trusting the EU:
Cyprus: 13% trust, 83% distrust
Spain: 17% trust, 75% distrust
Greece: 19% trust, 80% distrust
UK: 20% trust, 68% distrust
Portugal: 24% trus71% distrust
Ireland: 29% trust, 61% distrust
Now, the reasons why the EU is unpopular in the bailed out countries is hardly difficult to work out - but the UK is not a bailed out country.thomas.frink wrote: »So you seem to agree and say that it's your view the irish government was not pressured in any way by the EU, or the European Central bank, to take on the debts of the Irish banks. Ok, so that's clear at any rate. I don't know anyone who has studied the situation who agrees with you, and in any case ist nor really relevant, but your views are clear.
I'm sure you don't, but that's partly because I suspect your preferred sources tend to agree with you, and partly because you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding me.
We know that the Irish government came under pressure from the ECB to honour the remaining senior bonds in the Irish banks as a condition of the Irish bailout. We also know that the Irish government agreed with the ECB - and why not? Their policy up to then had been to honour not only the senior debts, but absolutely all debts. Indeed, one of the reasons for the bailout was that the Irish government's policy of honouring all bank debts had proven to be something that the state couldn't actually sustain. When the ECB stepped in, it required that the Irish government continue its policy in respect of the c. 5-10% of senior debts as yet unpaid by the Irish government, and abandon it in respect of the junior debt, which previously it had been unwilling to do.
So, yes, there was EU pressure with respect to Irish bank debt, but it was pressure that went the same way as Irish government policy for the previous two years, and accounted for a very small proportion of the bank debts the Irish government took on.
It's undeniably convenient for a good number of people (all of FF's supporters, for example) to pretend that the Irish bank debt is somehow entirely the result of EU pressure, but you won't find a reputable economist who would agree.thomas.frink wrote: »Here is a little basic economics:
The Irish national debt now stands at just over €171 billion
The interest at 5% per annum on €171 billion is €8.55 billion per annum
With 4 million people in Ireland every man, woman and child has to find €2137.50 every year to pay the interest in the debts.
13.6% are unemployed
1.836 million are employed
That means for everyone employed, the first €4656 of their tax every year goes to paying the interest on the national debt. The national debt is still rising and that figure increases every day.
If your judgment is that with tens of thousands who have been forced to emigrate, tens of thousands of others in debt, poverty and hunger and fear, and a national debt the interest which accounts for the first €4656 of every workers tax is a stable economy, then some might conclude that's a rather unusual idea of what constitutes a stable economy.
Here's some even more basic economics - not everybody even pays income tax, nor is income tax the sole source of government revenue. And some basic figures: the interest on general government debt currently stands at 10.8% (latest NTMA figures) of general government revenue. Its previous high-stand was at 25% of general government revenue in 1992, shortly before a period of the most rapid and real growth in Irish history.
Sure, if you're 30 or under, this may look like an incredible back hole, total crisis, omg we'll never get out of it - and if you're not, it doesn't. It looks like a time when some actual effort and clever thinking might be required, and we have done that before. Your 'projections' are based on classic straight line extrapolations into the future, which were nonsense when they were used by the Victorians to work out the planet would be 6 foot deep in horse crap by 2000, and are an equally useful guide to the future now.
Ireland will get out of the current mess, and will do it with European assistance, and will do it without fundamentally breaking anything - sadly, we'll also probably do it without any fundamental political reform, too. Whether the same can be said for the UK I don't know, because the UK measures its own success by different lights from Ireland, and its internal dynamics are very different too.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Link please. So at least *your* bias can be accounted for.thomas.frink wrote: »While we can all show our own bias by saying we suspect the "brits" still hanker after empire, or that the Guardian is despised in the UK", all we are doing is showing our own bias.
The fact is that the new eurobarometer poll shows, amongst the citizens in the EU, “distrust” of the EU has doubled in six years to a record high of 60 per cent.0 -
Even if your claim is true [no link provided], it's hardly surprising that in the midst of economic crisis, the citizens of problem states who are being sold a pup on the EU by their own useless leaders, are going to to harbour some resentment against the Euro bogey man.thomas.frink wrote: »The fact is that the new eurobarometer poll shows, amongst the citizens in the EU, “distrust” of the EU has doubled in six years to a record high of 60 per cent.
To claim that the British are "so anti europe" is out of date.
As for the English, Westminster politicians and the London press have been peddling such a negative line on the EU, negative opinion poll data on 'Europe' can hardly come as a surprise to anyone.
Personally, I'd be keeping an eye on Eurobarometer polls after the international private and public financial and economic crises abate. I think we may well find that continental EU countries become better disposed towards the EU, while England probably won't - although in the end, I don't think they'll actually vote to exit the EU.0 -
More like, look where domestic incompetence and corruption got Ireland. I think at this stage most Irish people would settle for being "good Irish people", and aspire at some later point to being good at being competitive with the more competent parts of Europe.thomas.frink wrote: »Look where being "good" europeans has got Ireland. If only Ireland had been a little more sceptical, and not so desperate to be the good boy in the class, Ireland might well now be in a better position that that in which it finds itself. Of course, that supposed that Ireland might have chosen politicians which were reasonably competent, rather than those which they did.
As for being good boys in class, I think we should safely leave that to the likes of poodles like Blair and Cameron who are so eager to impress their US, ahem, "peers".0 -
-
Snigger away yourself TF. But along the way you might unblock your nose and advance some facts.thomas.frink wrote: »It's so easy to look from the bankrupted Irish State to the "brits" and snigger, as tens of thousands of Irish are forced once again to emigrate (ironically many to Britain), tens of thousand Irish families are plunged into poverty, hunger and financial ruin, and the whole country is decimated. Snigger away, while Ireland enjoys decades more of recession and depression, but that sort of attitude is one reason why Ireland finds itself in the position it does.
It's such a shame that such attitudes persist in Ireland, and such attitudes are likely to add to Irelands continued decline.
Like for instance, how can you demonstrate that Ireland is "bankrupt". Large debt doesn't equate to bankruptcy. We're currently paying interest on substantial debts. As long as that continues to be the case, bankruptcy doesn't enter into it.
Of course the money spent on interest repayments would be better spent elsewhere. But that's another issue entirely, isn't it Thomas?0 -
Mostly outside the *Eurozone* actually: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/how-much-european-particularly-german-money-was-in-the-irish-economy-when-the-music-stopped-1.1339877thomas.frink wrote: »For example, you quote the rampant inflation in the construction sector being bad for Ireland, inflation which was caused by access to cash from other banks outside Ireland.
Whether Ireland had been inside the EZ or not, we would have been able access credit internationally. As was the case with other non-EZ countries which had asset bubbles. Including Iceland, and of course the UK.0 -
As I see it, the recovery timeline will be mostly influenced by the following sequence of events:When do you think that is going to happen?
- The result of the German elections in September [where I expect Merkel to be returned as Chancellor with a mandate to resolve the Eurozone crisis]
- Agreements on banking regulation and supervision
- Major EU investment programmes on infrastructure and energy
- Once the problem countries have demonstrated a capacity and willingness to put their economies on a sustainable basis, steps will be taken to deal with particularly egregious situations. In our case that will mean some kind of deal on banking debts/costs which will have an immediate and substantial impact on our overall national debt, bringing it down to a more manageable level.
I think these steps will slowly inject confidence back into the EU. And I'd suspect this will be reflected in more positive Eurobarometer figures in about 18 months' to two years' time.0 -
Its actually interesting that the USA, Australia and Japan have come out against Britain leaving the EU. Whether the UK heeds those warning is its own business but obviously allies outside the EU see the Britain in the EU as a very good thing and a net positive in its relations with them.
Recently there was a review of the powers the UK had given the EU. The financial times have a summary. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f722ac4-f37d-11e2-942f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2aFh59vaN
In one of their opinion pieces one the FT columnists said that as a whole the report shows the EU and the powers it has broadly benefits the UK. I realise the FT is UK participation in the EU but I find it interesting that given the problems the EU issue has posed the UK government the UK press didn't give it more attention. That would lead me to believe that the report doesn't lend itself to the argument of the UK leaving Britain. Even reading the summary by and large the plus points for the EU outweigh the negatives. Apparently this is the first of a series and there are more similar reports to come on the EU/UK relationship.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement