Why are the British so anti Europe?

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

And is the claim supposed to apply, for example, to something like computer software written in the UK and localised here (last time I looked we did a bit of this)? How is that different from any other process of importing 'raw materials' and exporting a product that has been changed in some way? And while I know that there are UK banks in the IFSC, as far as I know the input from the UK to Ireland there is considered as FDI, not imports.

The main difference is that raw materials - metals and the like - are a commodity product. Software, on the other hand is not.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

The main difference is that raw materials - metals and the like - are a commodity product. Software, on the other hand is not.

It's not a raw material in the classic sense, but then a lot of commodities aren't. One of our largest areas of import and export are quite complex organic chemicals which will be part other pharmaceutical products - they're finished products of manufacturing in one sense, but raw materials in another.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not a raw material in the classic sense, but then a lot of commodities aren't. One of our largest areas of import and export are quite complex organic chemicals which will be part other pharmaceutical products - they're finished products of manufacturing in one sense, but raw materials in another.

Yeah there's no distinct dividing line between on the one hand raw materials like minerals, metals, oil etc. and on the other products like software, patented drugs and so on. They exist on a sort of spectrum going from "raw" at one end to "finished" at the other.

Nevertheless the sorts of activities we're talking about would be expected to occur more towards the "finished" end.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

Yeah there's no distinct dividing line between on the one hand raw materials like minerals, metals, oil etc. and on the other products like software, patented drugs and so on. They exist on a sort of spectrum going from "raw" at one end to "finished" at the other.

Nevertheless the sorts of activities we're talking about would be expected to occur more towards the "finished" end.

So how is "Ireland is a transhipment point" be a meaningful claim at all? Every country is a "transhipment point" in that sense, taking in partially finished goods and working on them further.

Plus, I'm not sure that that was what was meant. The claim was:

Phoenix One UK wrote:

I too was once an exporter (software) while resident in Australia. I would send products to China via India. But that is not how the statistics would show it. To simplify, when comparing the population of Britain against Ireland, I trust you do not consider ireland to be Britain's largest export market? It was just a shipping point for many exports.

Now, unless Ireland is literally a passive shipping point, where nothing happens to the goods bar rerouting - and I don't see how that's supposed to be the case - then what is actually being referred to is products being exported to Ireland and processed there. I'm not sure how (or why) you would re-export services, except, again, by adding something to them.

So what seems to be the claim is that Ireland's imports from the UK don't rest primarily on Irish domestic consumption of those imports. And that's an almost completely fatuous claim, because, basically, if true, so what? Irish based companies are buying in from the UK, and selling out of Ireland. The second part of that is totally and utterly irrelevant to the UK's import/export situation.

Unless, of course, one is saying that the UK could do that itself - do whatever it is that's currently done in Ireland in the UK instead, in the event of a UK exit from the EU. And of course that's true - but it's true right now as well. And if it could be done right now, but isn't, then there's evidently an advantage in exporting to Ireland rather than directly to the end markets.

So an argument which is supposedly a counter to the point that Ireland is one of the UK's biggest export markets isn't a counter at all. It's basically just empty noise even if it had been backed up with facts, which I can't help but note it hasn't been - it's been "supported" by nothing more than an anecdote and some hand-waving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet

Scofflaw

Well, it's pretty, but potentially misleading, since the size of the circles relates to one year's change in the value of exports rather than the value of exports. That makes India, Australia and Russia look big, whereas all three together are worth less than Ireland.

I think, too, that we've been over this before - you cannot simply draw straight line projections into the future, particularly from short run data.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, it's pretty, but somewhat deceptive, since the size of the circles relates to one year's change rather than the value of exports.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The value of the sales are the figures with the "£" in front of them.

Scofflaw

georgesstreet wrote: »

The value of the sales are the figures with the "£" in front of them.

Yes, I know. And the size of the circles relates to the figures inside the circles.

The picture does not leave out the actual value of exports, but it uses the most impactful visual cue for % change in value. It's an agenda-serving graphic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

georgesstreet

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I know. And the size of the circles relates to the figures inside the circles.

The picture does not leave out the actual value of exports, but it uses the most impactful visual cue for % change in value. It's an agenda-serving graphic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eh, ok. Then disregard it if you choose to. Another poster claimed that the majority of the UK's exports are to Ireland, and the picture shows that to be not the case. I posted it to show the value of exports to Ireland via a vis other countries, and for no other reason.

The Corinthian

georgesstreet wrote: »

Eh, ok. Then disregard it if you choose to. Another poster claimed that the majority of the UK's exports are to Ireland, and the picture shows that to be not the case.

You probably should have made that clearer then by quoting them before posting the graphic in response.

I posted it to show the value of exports to Ireland via a vis other countries, and for no other reason.

So other than demonstrating that majority of the UK's exports are not to Ireland, you've managed to demonstrate that the vast majority of British exports are to the EU and that over a one year period, exports to various countries increased, or decreased, without showing if this is part of a trend or not.

georgesstreet

The Corinthian wrote: »

So other than demonstrating that majority of the UK's exports are not to Ireland, you've managed to demonstrate that the vast majority of British exports are to the EU and that over a one year period, exports to various countries increased, or decreased, without showing if this is part of a trend or not.

The chart says whatever it says, and I am not demonstrating anything. I posted it to show that its not true that the majority of UK exports are to Ireland, and have no clue about trends, alas.

dlouth15

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now, unless Ireland is literally a passive shipping point, where nothing happens to the goods bar rerouting - and I don't see how that's supposed to be the case - then what is actually being referred to is products being exported to Ireland and processed there. I'm not sure how (or why) you would re-export services, except, again, by adding something to them.

Well it is a question of degree. Something could have a relatively trivial operation done on it prior to re-export. The trade figures, taken naively would not reflect this yet it would be close to being a passively shipped. The product or service would appear in the figures as being exported to Ireland, for example, to all intents and purposes it is merely a transit point.

The Corinthian

georgesstreet wrote: »

The chart says whatever it says, and I am not demonstrating anything. I posted it to show that its not true that the majority of UK exports are to Ireland, and have no clue about trends, alas.

Isn't 'showing' something kinda, sorta 'demonstrating' something? At least from my understanding of the English language.

Still, if that was your purpose, you really should have said so; as Scofflaw pointed out, the graphic can easily be misleading, especially when dumped, without explanation, into the middle of a discussion such as this.

georgesstreet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Still, if that was your purpose, you really should have said so; as Scofflaw pointed out, the graphic can easily be misleading, especially when dumped, without explanation, into the middle of a discussion such as this.

I really am at a loss as to why you want to continue with this. I have explained why I posted the chart, and the context in which it was posted it, and have nothing more useful to add.

georgesstreet

I wrote a post here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87963382&postcount=313 which suggests the British are, in fact, no different from many other countries across the EU.

France's National Front call for a return to the franc and economic self-rule, and a Polling Vox survey found that 42pc of French voters are willing to consider backing the National front. French support for the EU Project has dropped from 60pc to 41pc since mid-2012, according to the Pew Foundation.

The Dutch Freedom Party is leading the polls with calls to "control our borders, our economy, our currency".

Italy's Five Star Movement is still running at 24pc in the polls, and calling for a referendum on the euro. There are parties in other countries too, espousing similar views.

This thread was started over two years ago, and in that time events have moved on to suggest that the British are no different to many other countries in their political stance concerning the EU.

SpaceTime

I think a huge part of the problem is that the EU institutions tend to talk to themselves in the Brussels Bubble.

They come across as remote, complicated, unaccountable and overly academic.

I think their extremely poor communications strategies have actually totally undermined the EU.

They also don't appear to listen and take on board national issues enough.

The EU could do with actually engaging with the British public fully.

Lemming

georgesstreet wrote: »

I wrote a post here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87963382&postcount=313 which suggests the British are, in fact, no different from many other countries across the EU.

France's National Front call for a return to the franc and economic self-rule, and a Polling Vox survey found that 42pc of French voters are willing to consider backing the National front. French support for the EU Project has dropped from 60pc to 41pc since mid-2012, according to the Pew Foundation.

The Dutch Freedom Party is leading the polls with calls to "control our borders, our economy, our currency".

Italy's Five Star Movement is still running at 24pc in the polls, and calling for a referendum on the euro. There are parties in other countries too, espousing similar views.

This thread was started over two years ago, and in that time events have moved on to suggest that the British are no different to many other countries in their political stance concerning the EU.

Have you got links to all of these poll results including the questions asked? How questions are phrased can very easily manipulate a poll; always take them with a pinch of salt, and several pinches of salt if lack of method is presented.

First Up

georgesstreet wrote: »

I wrote a post here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87963382&postcount=313 which suggests the British are, in fact, no different from many other countries across the EU.

France's National Front call for a return to the franc and economic self-rule, and a Polling Vox survey found that 42pc of French voters are willing to consider backing the National front. French support for the EU Project has dropped from 60pc to 41pc since mid-2012, according to the Pew Foundation.

The Dutch Freedom Party is leading the polls with calls to "control our borders, our economy, our currency".

Italy's Five Star Movement is still running at 24pc in the polls, and calling for a referendum on the euro. There are parties in other countries too, espousing similar views.

This thread was started over two years ago, and in that time events have moved on to suggest that the British are no different to many other countries in their political stance concerning the EU.

You will find pockets of anti EU sentiment in all member states. What matters is the scale and the credibility (and electability) of the political parties that advocate leaving. Single issue parties like UKIP and their equivalent have yet to make an impact where it matters.
Research shows that opposition in the UK is rooted in concerns over immigration and it's a big issue in some other countries too. The populist agenda is easy to exploit but much harder to translate into parliamentary majorities.

georgesstreet

Lemming wrote: »

Have you got links to all of these poll results including the questions asked? How questions are phrased can very easily manipulate a poll; always take them with a pinch of salt, and several pinches of salt if lack of method is presented.

If you read any foreign press then you’ll see many links to polls. And if you don’t read the press you might try googling, for example, “Dutch Freedom Party Poll” and you’ll get this https://www.google.es/?gws_rd=cr&ei=rr6pUoZqxv_IA9XngagO#q=dutch+freedom+party+poll.

Your post seems to indicate you may not want to believe there may be growing scepticism across Europe, rather than coming up with any evidence that it’s the British who are so anti Europe, as the title of the thread asks. .

First Up wrote: »

You will find pockets of anti EU sentiment in all member states. What matters is the scale and the credibility (and electability) of the political parties that advocate leaving. Single issue parties like UKIP and their equivalent have yet to make an impact where it matters.
Research shows that opposition in the UK is rooted in concerns over immigration and it's a big issue in some other countries too. The populist agenda is easy to exploit but much harder to translate into parliamentary majorities.

Support for the Euro is at 28% in Holland, so I am not sure if you consider the 28% who support the EU to be a pocket of support, of the rest of the population (72%) who don’t support the EU a “pocket”. I have no idea.

Either way UKIP with support between 15-19% suggests that the UK is less anti Europe than, for example, the Dutch, and as the title of this thread is “why are the British so anti Europe” seems to now be quaintly old fashioned, as it almost looks as if events have overtaken the premise that the Brits are more pro Europe than other, such as the Dutch.

Research in the UK really can’t trump polls or elections. Asking people who they might vote for has been shown to be remarkably accurate for many decades now, whereas asking people questions for “research” is much less reliable, as the yes minister clip shows.

First Up

georgesstreet wrote: »

If you read any foreign press then you’ll see many links to polls. And if you don’t read the press you might try googling, for example, “Dutch Freedom Party Poll” and you’ll get this https://www.google.es/?gws_rd=cr&ei=rr6pUoZqxv_IA9XngagO#q=dutch+freedom+party+poll.

Your post seems to indicate you may not want to believe there may be growing scepticism across Europe, rather than coming up with any evidence that it’s the British who are so anti Europe, as the title of the thread asks. .



Support for the Euro is at 28% in Holland, so I am not sure if you consider the 28% who support the EU to be a pocket of support, of the rest of the population (72%) who don’t support the EU a “pocket”. I have no idea.

Either way UKIP with support between 15-19% suggests that the UK is less anti Europe than, for example, the Dutch, and as the title of this thread is “why are the British so anti Europe” seems to now be quaintly old fashioned, as it almost looks as if events have the Brits are more pro Europe than other, such as the Dutch.

Research in the UK really can’t trump polls or elections. Asking people who they might vote for has been shown to be remarkably accurate for many decades now, whereas asking people questions for “research” is much less reliable, as the yes minister clip shows.

Are you talking about Dutch support for the Euro or for EU membership? Or are you confusing the two?

The UK research includes polls as well as in depth qualitative research, focus groups and the like. There is a lot more to assessing voter intentions that asking black and white questions, or asking which party you will vote for (you vote for candidates)

"Support" for UKIP in a straw poll is one thing; voting for their candidates is something else. They will probably do well in the European Parliament elections but we'll see when it comes down to a real thing.

Lemming

georgesstreet wrote: »

Your post seems to indicate you may not want to believe there may be growing scepticism across Europe, rather than coming up with any evidence that it’s the British who are so anti Europe, as the title of the thread asks. .

No, my post would seem to point out that polls can be very, very easily led by how questions are phrased; so unless the polls also provide their method they are worth about as much as a pinch of salt in the reliability stakes.

89.7% of all people know that.
*cough*

georgesstreet

Lemming wrote: »

No, my post would seem to point out that polls can be very, very easily led by how questions are phrased; so unless the polls also provide their method they are worth about as much as a pinch of salt in the reliability stakes.

89.7% of all people know that.
*cough*

If you want to disregard the French Poll for support for the EU and for the National front. the actual results of the Dutch election etc etc, then thats your choice. If you really believe that polls of party support usually get it wrong, you really seem to have not studied any of the evidence of polling over the last 20 years or so. But if you want to believe, against all the evidence, that polling companies consistently get it completely wrong when polling party voting intentions, thats your decision. But it also seems to show your bias.

georgesstreet

First Up wrote: »

Are you talking about Dutch support for the Euro or for EU membership? Or are you confusing the two?

The UK research includes polls as well as in depth qualitative research, focus groups and the like. There is a lot more to assessing voter intentions that asking black and white questions, or asking which party you will vote for (you vote for candidates)

"Support" for UKIP in a straw poll is one thing; voting for their candidates is something else. They will probably do well in the European Parliament elections but we'll see when it comes down to a real thing.

Apologies, my mistake. The Dutch support at 28% is for the EU, according to the Irish times article. Did you read it in the link I gave?

Again, you seem to think that pollsters get it wrong often when polling for party support. The evidence of polling before an election and the election results seem to contradict that view.

Qualitative Research is not the same as polling. Are you confusing the two?

First Up

georgesstreet wrote: »

Apologies, my mistake. The Dutch support at 28% is for the EU, according to the Irish times article. Did you read it in the link I gave?

Again, you seem to think that pollsters get it wrong often when polling for party support. The evidence of polling before an election and the election results seem to contradict that view.

Qualitative Research is not the same as polling. Are you confusing the two?

As I thought - confused. Read the article again.

Yes pollsters tend to be pretty accurate - when they are polling before an election. The next Dutch election is on or before March 2017.

And maybe read my post again - the bit where I said "The UK research includes polls as well as in depth qualitative research, focus groups and the like.

First Up

Lemming wrote: »

No, my post would seem to point out that polls can be very, very easily led by how questions are phrased; so unless the polls also provide their method they are worth about as much as a pinch of salt in the reliability stakes.

89.7% of all people know that.
*cough*

Not just that; Europe (as much of the world) has been in recession. In such times people like to express dissatisfaction with the establishment and the status quo. It is common to see a rise in populist politics that try to exploit discontent and turn it to political advantage. The EU is an easy target - people can sound off about it (as in here) with no consequence.

Personally, I wouldn't want to base an argument on Dutch politics, and especially opinion polls.

Dutch politics are pretty complex; there's 11 parties in the 150 seat parliament (a party that represents animals has 2 seats.) The largest party has 41. This makes coalitions inevitable and all the horse trading that goes with them. Governments fall regularly when one or more coalition partners drop out.

The Freedom Party runs on an anti Islam, anti immigration and anti Euro (not anti EU) platform. They won 9 seat in 2006, rising to 24 seats in 2010 (15% of the votes.) During further political turmoil later that year, polls projected them to win 35 seats if another election was held. They tried to form a government after the 2010 election but nobody would do business with them.

When the next election happened (in 2012), they dropped from 24 seats to 15. The poll (six months ago) that our contributor likes so much, projects them to get back to 29. The next election is 2-3 years away. Even if they win 29 seats (and I'll bet they won't), nobody will do business with them then either.

So for the anti-whatever sentiments of the Freedom Party to do anything more than grab a few headlines (and inspire a few mob lynchings), they would need to win an overall majority in the Dutch parliament, because that is the only way they could implement their policies.

Lemming

georgesstreet wrote: »

If you want to disregard the French Poll for support for the EU and for the National front. the actual results of the Dutch election etc etc, then thats your choice. If you really believe that polls of party support usually get it wrong, you really seem to have not studied any of the evidence of polling over the last 20 years or so. But if you want to believe, against all the evidence, that polling companies consistently get it completely wrong when polling party voting intentions, thats your decision. But it also seems to show your bias.

No; it shows your bias. Nothing more.

As I have said - again - polls are extremely easy to manipulate and lead by choice of question. Any poll that does not show its method is at best to be taken lightly and at worst downright dishonest. At what point in any of the above have I said that I dismiss said polls out of hand? The answer would be that you cannot find anywhere that I have indicated such. Maybe the polls are hyper-accurate, but as first up has elaborated about Dutch politics, probably not so hyper-accurate, and less reliable on reflection.

So, what am I saying to you exactly georgestreet? "hold your horses with them there poll citations".

The Corinthian

Lemming wrote: »

As I have said - again - polls are extremely easy to manipulate and lead by choice of question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

JacquesDeLad

I think Britain fears Europe for the same reason they fear Scottish Independence. The dissolution of power from the Southern English Counties.

Nuclear reactors don't get built in Berkshire and the Nuclear submarine deterent isn't based in the Thames estuary.

Capital Gains Tax!

EU control over information sharing with foreign goverments.

SpaceTime

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

I think Britain fears Europe for the same reason they fear Scottish Independence. The dissolution of power from the Southern English Counties.

Nuclear reactors don't get built in Berkshire and the Nuclear submarine deterent isn't based in the Thames estuary.

Yeah they do! There were protests in Berkshire about some mysterious nuclear facility a few years ago but it was installed anyway.

Sizewell is in Suffolk, Bradwell is in Derbyshire both in proximity to the home counties and Dungeness is in Kent, one of the home counties!

So, it's a little inaccurate to say they put everything 'up north' or in Wales and Scotland.

The only put most unpleasant things 'up north'

JacquesDeLad

SpaceTime wrote: »

Yeah they do! There were protests in Berkshire about some mysterious nuclear facility a few years ago but it was installed anyway.

Sizewell is in Suffolk, Bradwell is in Derbyshire both in proximity to the home counties and Dungeness is in Kent, one of the home counties!

So, it's a little inaccurate to say they put everything 'up north' or in Wales and Scotland.

I meant Home Counties, excuse my geography. I actually only mean those who benefit at the expense of others. (A bit like Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown or Howth)

SpaceTime

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

I meant Home Counties, excuse my geography. I actually only mean those who benefit at the expense of others. (A bit like Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown or Howth)

Eh, I'm still not really getting your point...Some of those facilities are *in* the home counties.

Neither Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown nor Howth benefit at the expense of others either.
One's a small recently-created county in Dublin that happens to contain a few pricy areas, the other's a rather expensive coastal location in North Dublin and former / current fishing village.

I accept your point on the concentration of power in the greater London area and over-concentration of everything in London.
England suffers from very big imbalances in regional development due to that mentality.

The UK's devolution of power doesn't really make a lot of sense as it only applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland and to a more limited extent Wales while completely ignoring any need for devolution in the English regions which have huge populations e.g. Yorkshire has over 5million people! "Northern England" has 14.5 million. They're BIG, BIG regions with no devolution of power / regional governments.

JacquesDeLad

SpaceTime wrote: »

Neither Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown nor Howth benefit at the expense of others either.

Is there a hub supply of any service in either of them?

-ed. This matters not a bit. The point remains that a small affluent area of English Britain benefits to the cost of those who sacrifice their health and environment to make ends meet.

SpaceTime

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

Is there a hub supply of any service in either of them?

"Hub supply?"

JacquesDeLad

SpaceTime wrote: »

"Hub supply?"

Or vice versa

JacquesDeLad

Google "Hub Supply" I'm feeling lucky.

SpaceTime

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

Is there a hub supply of any service in either of them?

-ed. This matters not a bit. The point remains that a small affluent area of English Britain benefits to the cost of those who sacrifice their health and environment to make ends meet.

Actually, London's probably got some of the worst levels of environmental pollution of any part of England due to consistently low air quality because of high density and traffic. Historically, it had really horrendous environmental problems with smog from coal smoke, raw sewage in the Themes estuary being an issue until relatively modern times etc etc.
The air quality in the tube network's also very bad as it's not really ventilated other than by passing trains!
While it has some of the highest average incomes, it also has some of the poorest quality accommodation in the UK due to very high demand and low standards and it has relatively poor wealth distribution.

You're painting a quite over-simplistic picture to be perfectly honest.

JacquesDeLad

I paint nothing. South East England is terrified it's control of financial and economic policy is under threat.

Thatcherism is dead.

marmurr1916

georgesstreet wrote: »

The total value of all UK exports to 9 out of the other EU countries according to that graph was £116.9 billion, compared to £72.6 billion to the 11 non-EU countries shown.

According to the UK's Office for National Statistics, 50% of its exports in services go to the rest of the EU:

Europe now accounts for 50% of the total value of UK exports of services and 51% of the total value of UK imports of services.

The value of these service exports nearly doubled between 2005 and 2011:

UK exports of services to Europe have increased at a steady rate with the 2011 value of £48.9 billion being almost double the 2005 value of £26.7 billion. In comparison, UK imports of services from Europe have experienced more laboured growth in recent years, with growth remaining relatively static.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/itis/international-trade-in-services/2011/sty-international-trade-in-services.html

JacquesDeLad

marmurr1916 wrote: »

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/itis/international-trade-in-services/2011/sty-international-trade-in-services.html

Exports of goods are only a fraction of the UK economy.

It the Financial Services where they make most in tax revenue, and so does Ireland. That's why we're all very quiet about the tax situation.

Next time a Brit calls Ireland a tax haven I suggest the Central Bank goes Ed Snowden on their off shore transactions.

Boroso

Its interesting that the UK is on target to continue to grow its economy and become the 4th largest economy in the world, while the economy of France seems destined to shrink and fall down the rankings.

Why anyone wants to see the UK, or any country, in black and white terms seems a mystery. My guess is the the forthcoming Euro elections will dispel the myth that the UK is out of step with the rest of Europe. Curiously, while most countries now have large and active anti EU parties, Ireland seems to be more out of step with the rest of the EU, being one of the few countries left with no political discourse or meaningful position other than to be flag wavers for anything suggested by the EU.

The Corinthian

Boroso wrote: »

Its interesting that the UK is on target to continue to grow its economy and become the 4th largest economy in the world, while the economy of France seems destined to shrink and fall down the rankings.

LOL. Psychedelic rather than interesting, I would have thought. Where did you get this 'on target' fantasy prediction, out of interest?

McDave

Boroso wrote: »

Its interesting that the UK is on target to continue to grow its economy and become the 4th largest economy in the world, while the economy of France seems destined to shrink and fall down the rankings.

Why anyone wants to see the UK, or any country, in black and white terms seems a mystery. My guess is the the forthcoming Euro elections will dispel the myth that the UK is out of step with the rest of Europe. Curiously, while most countries now have large and active anti EU parties, Ireland seems to be more out of step with the rest of the EU, being one of the few countries left with no political discourse or meaningful position other than to be flag wavers for anything suggested by the EU.

Well, it seems you're quite prepared to see France and Ireland in black and white terms.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black? Or white?

Boroso

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Psychedelic rather than interesting, I would have thought. Where did you get this 'on target' fantasy prediction, out of interest?

You may well consider the Centre for Economic and Business Research to be psychedelic fantasists. Others may disagree. However, the tone of your reply is both rude and discourteous, both of which are unnecessary in any grown up discussion.





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

McDave wrote: »

Well, it seems you're quite prepared to see France and Ireland in black and white terms.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black? Or white?

You seem to confuse a report by the Centre for Economic and Business Research with your guess about whether my views on France or Ireland may be black and/or white. If the full extent of your argument on the topic is to make wild (and incorrect) guesses about the individuals you are discussuing with, then thats interesting information about your discussion style.

SpaceTime

I wouldn't pin France's current economic stagnation on the EU.

France is quite capable of stagnating and shrinking its own economy without any help from the EU.

The knee jerk reaction in Paris is pile on the taxes and increase the bureaucratic burden.

If anything, EU policies have kept France a little more competitive.

France is not the EU nor are French economic policies that close to the EU. The French would generally see the EU as far too economically liberal and 'Anglo-American' in terms of its economic outlook.

They're also not big fans of Merkel and her fiscal rectitude. That's never how France operated and it's not going to wash with French voters in the medium term either.

If anything, the French are euro sceptic for many reasons that are totally the opposite to the UK...
For example they're not keen on CAP reforms and would have liked to increase the spending.
They're not as keen on liberalising markets or privatising state assets.
They'd also probably go for a big spend your way out of a recession plans.
Historically, when France slumps it slashes cash into a few Grand Projets like the TGV, the complete rebuild off France Telecom in the 70s 80s etc etc... The vast energy programmes, state aid to 'national champion' companies etc etc etc
Merkel will not allow that kind of approach and that's where the BIG Euro political clash will happen when France suddenly backs the non austerity line.

It's amazing that I've seen French people being quite strongly defensive of the Irish situation and appalled on our behalf at the austerity measures that only caused a whimper here. I was quite taken aback by the level of solidarity and warmth towards us from a lot of French ppl I was talking to.

There are some huge difference in economic philosophy between major EU countries.

If anything current EU policy is actually very close to a UK agenda. Much more so than a French one

Boroso

SpaceTime wrote: »

I wouldn't pin France's current economic stagnation on the EU.

Of course, Frances predicted slide economically is due to a number of factors, and not just to one factor. A Government following the wrong policies, instinctively interventionist, seemingly unable to control labour or pension costs is one thing, and seemingly unable to plan wisely for the economy.

Historically devaluation of the Franc has been the most useful tool to ease the pressures caused by interventionist French governments, but now they are forced into the straightjacket of the “one-size-fits-all” Euro, this is not an option open to them. The cracks are beginning to show, and the consequences for France is to see it’s economy become less and less competitive, more sluggish, and the consequent political pressure between France and Germany grow. None of which is good for the EU or the Euro.

France is competing with China, India and now with increasingly with the USA which is returning to a much higher level of efficiency and competitiveness. The Euro is part responsible for France (and Germany) becoming less and less able to compete on the world stage, due to the fact that it, combined with the comparatively very high EU’s labour and energy costs, seems to ensure those countries in the EU and the Euro are at an increasing economic disadvantage to competitors outside the EU.

SpaceTime

Ultimately, I think you'll see the Euro devalue.
Its not the DM and shouldn't be behaving like the only economy in the EZ is Germany and to hell with everyone else.

EZ policy has to reflect the French, Spanish and Italian economies too.

Ireland is very similar to the UK economically and is used to steadily high inflation. I think that's probably why many of us had notions that you should borrow a huge mortgage you barely afford.
In the past, that's exactly what our parents and grandparents did. Then the high inflation magicked it all away to a tiny and highly affordable loan!

In low inflation EZ economics, it just wont shrink

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

Of course, Frances predicted slide economically is due to a number of factors, and not just to one factor. A Government following the wrong policies, instinctively interventionist, seemingly unable to control labour or pension costs is one thing, and seemingly unable to plan wisely for the economy.

Historically devaluation of the Franc has been the most useful tool to ease the pressures caused by interventionist French governments, but now they are forced into the straightjacket of the “one-size-fits-all” Euro, this is not an option open to them. The cracks are beginning to show, and the consequences for France is to see it’s economy become less and less competitive, more sluggish, and the consequent political pressure between France and Germany grow. None of which is good for the EU or the Euro.

France is competing with China, India and now with increasingly with the USA which is returning to a much higher level of efficiency and competitiveness. The Euro is part responsible for France (and Germany) becoming less and less able to compete on the world stage, due to the fact that it, combined with the comparatively very high EU’s labour and energy costs, seems to ensure those countries in the EU and the Euro are at an increasing economic disadvantage to competitors outside the EU.

Facts should precede analysis, rather than be created to fit it - the new franc was only devalued once.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boroso

Scofflaw wrote: »

Facts should precede analysis, rather than be created to fit it - the new franc was only devalued once.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I assume the definition of "devaluation" is where your rather semantic looking point falls down, coupled with the cunning introduction of the word "new" . It should be noted I never mentioned theh nouveau franc, and was talking about the franc over a longer period. However, the nouveau franc was devalued almost continuously, (and not as you claim just once), ending up in 1999 at less than one eight of what its value had been in 1960.

The outbreak of WW1 caused France to leave the gold standard of the LMU. The war severely undermined the franc's strength: war expenditure, inflation and postwar reconstruction, financed partly by printing ever more money, reduced the franc's purchasing power by 70% between 1915 and 1920 and by a further 43% between 1922 and 1926. After a brief return to the gold standard between 1928 and 1936, the currency was allowed to resume its slide, until in 1959 it was worth less than 2.5% of its 1934 value.

After World War II, France devalued its currency within the Bretton Woods system on several occasions. Beginning in 1945 at a rate of 480 francs to the British pound (119.1 to the U.S. dollar), by 1949 the rate was 980 to the pound (350 to the dollar). This was reduced further in 1957 and 1958, reaching 1382.3 to the pound (493.7 to the dollar, equivalent to 1 franc = 1.8 mg pure gold).

In January 1960 the French franc was revalued, with 100 existing francs making one nouveau franc. The abbreviation "NF" was used on the 1958 design banknotes until 1963. Old one- and two-franc pieces continued to circulate as centimes (no new centimes were minted for the first two years). Inflation continued to erode the franc's value, but much more slowly than that of some other countries. The one-centime coin never circulated widely. Only one further major devaluation occurred (in August 1969) before the Bretton Woods system was replaced by free-floating exchange rates. When the euro replaced the franc on 1 January 1999, the franc was worth less than an eighth of its original 1960 value.

If you consider all that to be one devaluation, then I'll give you that as it's not worth arguing about, and seems to, in any case, focus on the trival and unimportant. The franc, and the nouveau franc, value was eroded devaluation, inflation and by 30 years of floating exchange rates which resulted in massive devaluation over the 30 years.

oscarBravo

Boroso wrote: »

Historically devaluation of the Franc has been the most useful tool to ease the pressures caused by interventionist French governments, but now they are forced into the straightjacket of the “one-size-fits-all” Euro, this is not an option open to them.

Boroso wrote: »

The franc, and the nouveau franc, value was eroded by inflation which is "devaluation", this happened almost continuously.

So inflation has ceased with the introduction of the Euro?

Scofflaw

Boroso wrote: »

I assume the definition of "devaluation" is where your rather semantic looking point falls down, coupled with the cunning introduction of the word "new" . It should be noted I never mentioned theh nouveau franc, and was talking about the franc over a longer period. However, the nouveau franc was devalued almost continuously by inflation, ending up in 1999 at less than one eight of what its value had been in 1960.

The outbreak of WW1 caused France to leave the gold standard of the LMU. The war severely undermined the franc's strength: war expenditure, inflation and postwar reconstruction, financed partly by printing ever more money, reduced the franc's purchasing power by 70% between 1915 and 1920 and by a further 43% between 1922 and 1926. After a brief return to the gold standard between 1928 and 1936, the currency was allowed to resume its slide, until in 1959 it was worth less than 2.5% of its 1934 value.

After World War II, France devalued its currency within the Bretton Woods system on several occasions. Beginning in 1945 at a rate of 480 francs to the British pound (119.1 to the U.S. dollar), by 1949 the rate was 980 to the pound (350 to the dollar). This was reduced further in 1957 and 1958, reaching 1382.3 to the pound (493.7 to the dollar, equivalent to 1 franc = 1.8 mg pure gold).

In January 1960 the French franc was revalued, with 100 existing francs making one nouveau franc. The abbreviation "NF" was used on the 1958 design banknotes until 1963. Old one- and two-franc pieces continued to circulate as centimes (no new centimes were minted for the first two years). Inflation continued to erode the franc's value, but much more slowly than that of some other countries. The one-centime coin never circulated widely. Only one further major devaluation occurred (in August 1969) before the Bretton Woods system was replaced by free-floating exchange rates. When the euro replaced the franc on 1 January 1999, the franc was worth less than an eighth of its original 1960 value.

If you consider all that to be one devaluation, then I'll give you that as it's not worth arguing about, and seems to, in any case, focus on the trival and unimportant. The franc, and the nouveau franc, value was eroded by inflation which is "devaluation", this happened almost continuously.

You suggested devaluation as a 'tool', in order to say that it's not available any more:

Historically devaluation of the Franc has been the most useful tool to ease the pressures caused by interventionist French governments, but now they are forced into the straightjacket of the “one-size-fits-all” Euro, this is not an option open to them.

Devaluation through inflation isn't a 'tool', but an outcome, so I'm afraid it's you who is playing semantic dodgeball. Unless you're suggesting that France deliberately created high inflation, which you're welcome to do, since I can always do with a laugh. As for the relevance of the old franc, and the exigencies of the immediate post-war period in France, I'm reasonably sure you're not suggesting that this was also some kind of clever plan on the part of the French government.

In order to grasp a stick with which to beat the euro, you're reduced to claiming as policy tools things that weren't policy tools, but were universally regarded at the time as the outcome of poor policy. Inflation has been erected into a policy goal, which it never was, because it is now convenient to do so, and because it is so long since we had serious inflation that people can ignore its downsides - but the ECB's inflation goal isn't there just to make life difficult for debtors.

And even the good side of inflation is being represented without any reference to the inevitable adjustments it causes - the new proponents of inflation say "look how it erodes the capital of debt", but seem to be happy to ignore the fact that lenders invariably factor inflation into interest - the happy-clappy inflationistas are ignoring the main real cost of servicing debt, which is not, and never has been, capital repayment.

cordially,
Scofflaw