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
-
It would probably depend on who you ask. The Iceland finance minister gave an interview a while ago saying he's of the opinion that Ireland's prospects are probably better than Iceland's.
edit: or maybe he was in the opposition.0 -
sock puppet wrote: »It would probably depend on who you ask. The Iceland finance minister gave an interview a while ago saying he's of the opinion that Ireland's prospects are probably better than Iceland's.
edit: or maybe he was in the opposition.
Unfortunately, the complex realities of the Icelandic crisis have been boiled down to a simple moral fable, where Iceland has done well by doing right.
Gurdgiev's comparison suggests that there's hardly any clear blue water between the two recoveries, although he does his best to find for Iceland at the end.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Unfortunately, the complex realities of the Icelandic crisis have been boiled down to a simple moral fable, where Iceland has done well by doing right.
Gurdgiev's comparison suggests that there's hardly any clear blue water between the two recoveries, although he does his best to find for Iceland at the end.
cordially,
Scofflaw
So, just to make it clear....you are for bailing out banks and providing welfare to the rich in place of jailing people that break the law and not paying the debts of someone else?0 -
So, just to make it clear....you are for bailing out banks and providing welfare to the rich in place of jailing people that break the law and not paying the debts of someone else?
You know, I'm not sure even the grammar works in that attempt to put words in my mouth. The funny thing is that despite addressing absolutely nothing I actually said in my post, it does perfectly make the point I was making.
Fair warning - you need to engage with what people actually say, and not try playground tactics like these. They'll be given short shrift.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Why are the British anti-Europe? Because a united Europe impkies that empire is passe and that overseas links are played down.0
-
You know, I'm not sure even the grammar works in that attempt to put words in my mouth. The funny thing is that despite addressing absolutely nothing I actually said in my post, it does perfectly make the point I was making.
Fair warning - you need to engage with what people actually say, and not try playground tactics like these. They'll be given short shrift.
regards,
Scofflaw
I'm sorry but that's what I got from what you said.
At the very least you seem to be saying maybe Ireland was right to bail out the bankers and not put them in jail as opposed to what Iceland did which was the opposite.
Fair warning? Have I had too much to drink?
I think I'll just leave rather than be threatened by a bouncer.0 -
I'm sorry but that's what I got from what you said.
At the very least you seem to be saying maybe Ireland was right to bail out the bankers and not put them in jail as opposed to what Iceland did which was the opposite.
Fair warning? Have I had too much to drink?
I think I'll just leave rather than be threatened by a bouncer.
Up to you, but, yes, what you took from what I said wasn't something I said at all. What I said was that Iceland's rather complex story had been reduced to a simplistic morality fable - "Iceland good, Ireland bad".
What you did was, in effect, to confirm that, by assuming that someone criticising the simplistic story was therefore a supporter of everything bad about Ireland's actions in the crisis. To put it another way, you took it that if I didn't say "Iceland good, Ireland bad" then I was obviously saying "Iceland bad, Ireland good". What kind of one-dimensional thinking is that, and of what value or interest is it to man or beast?
To a very large extent, Iceland did what it did because it had no other choice. Our banks were 3.5 times our GDP, but Iceland's were 10 times theirs. They had no chance to rescue their banks - but if they believed they could have done so, they would have done so. And doing so didn't avoid costs, either:“Is there an Icelandic model for dealing with failing banks? My conclusion is mostly no,” says Már Gudmundsson, the governor of Sedlabanki, the central bank. “There is a lot of misunderstanding about Iceland.”
The confusion comes because in the autumn of 2008 Iceland’s three largest banks – Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir, which together had assets 10 times the size of the country’s economy – were allowed to fail. Rather than bailing them out and protecting bondholders, as did countries such as Ireland, Iceland forced losses on to the bank’s creditors.
In the popular imagination – particularly in Ireland, Portugal and Spain – that means that the government avoided the bill for the financial implosion. But that is not true.
Iceland, in fact, spent more as a percentage of GDP than any other country apart from Ireland in rescuing its banks, according to the OECD.
More recently, two Icelandic experts have estimated that the crisis cost Icelandic taxpayers 20-25 per cent of GDP, principally because of a big loss in the value of collateral that the three collapsed banks had pledged to the central bank when the authorities were trying to do all they could to save them.
Mr Gudmundsson underlines that the domestic banking and payment system continued without interruption. The three banks “were more off-border than cross-border”, he points out, meaning that the economic consequences of the collapse of 90 per cent of the financial system were far less dramatic than they might otherwise have been.
“It is a myth that Iceland allowed banks to fail completely and that other countries could do the same without feeling consequences,” Mr Gudmundsson adds.
The issue of foreign creditors has not gone away either. Most of their claims are now owned by hedge funds, banks or restructuring specialists, opening them up to attack from the centre-right opposition who are threatening to pay them back very little.
Another big debating point in the country is the merit or otherwise of having its own currency. Unlike eurozone countries, Iceland took much of its pain through the exchange rate rather than unemployment rate – the krona fell by more than 50 per cent against the euro.
But by boosting the cost of imported goods and thus consumer prices, the sinking currency has been a double-edged sword, as most Icelandic loans are linked to inflation.
The boost to exports from the falling currency has not been as great as many predicted, Mr Gudmundsson says. “The level [of the krona] does give stimulus to exports, that is absolutely true. But export growth has been lower than you would expect given the depreciation. Even if you depreciate the exchange rate you can't create more fish.”
That has led to a big political debate about adopting another currency, with the euro as a favourite – but some even proposing the Canadian dollar.
“If we would have another currency we would have more stability,” says Katrín Júlíusdóttir, finance minister.
A related myth for some Icelanders is that capital controls – restrictions on the flow of currency in and out of the country – have been proven to be a success on the island. Mr Gudmundsson calls them “in some sense” Iceland’s version of quantitative easing in terms of putting a floor under asset prices.
But, like QE, many wonder if it is easier to establish capital controls than dismantle them. Says Vilhjálmur Egilsson, head of the Confederation of Icelandic Employers: “They were a big mistake. There is no exit strategy.”
There may be doubts about whether Iceland and its crisis policies can serve as a model for others. But, for Ms Júlíusdóttir and many other Icelanders, there is little doubt that it was the right course to save the tiny island of 320,000 people.
She says: “It was the right way to do it for Iceland. A lot of people lost a lot of money because of the failed banks. It is quite a sad story. Hopefully we can learn from it. A lot of mistakes were made here in Iceland.”
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bfdff83a-7a60-11e2-9cc2-00144feabdc0.html
As a response, even a forced response, it has worked out as it has worked out. It's not a success story, it's not a disaster movie either. It had different costs, some of which have been reputational, and which the Irish government regard as unacceptable for a country which acts as an offshore banking hub, as Ireland does. And not a lot of bankers or politicians have actually gone to prison or even on trial, although more than in Ireland.
In answer to the words you put in my mouth - I don't like what either Iceland or Ireland did. Both were incredibly short-sighted and greedy to get themselves into the positions they were in, and if I could force Ireland to learn one lesson from the whole sorry spectacle, it wouldn't be that we should do what Iceland did, but that we should avoid getting ourselves into such a position in the first place, by adequately regulating our banks. And if that means an end to a key plank of Irish state policy for over twenty years - providing a lightly regulated offshore haven for banks to do dodgy business - then I'm happy with that too.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Er, yes, but does that mean they'll repeat the same trick of doubling their support?
I agree, and would never claim otherwise, and why you introduce the point seems uncertain. The point I made was their support now, is at 26%, whereas at the same point at the last electoral cycle it was at 7%.
To be honest, I'm not sure you understand what you're claiming. You are dismissing polls of voting intention in the 2014 euro elections - the ones we're talking about - by referring to polls of "levels of trust in the EU".
I have little interest in predicting the results of any single election. Indeed, I have little interest in the upcoming elections. My interest is in the medium and long term trends, and has little to do with any one election.
That would require you to be able to accurately project the results of those Eurobarometer trust figures onto party voting intentions, something which would be a very large breakthrough in voting prediction if you had actually done it. Unfortunately, you haven't actually done it.
My interest is in the medium and long term trends, and I have little interest in how that affects any individual or party, or any individual election.
Essentially, you prefer your own personal and rather 'psychic' projections from the trust polls to polls of voter intention, because they give you a falsely large impression of the current support for eurosceptical parties.
You asked what polls I had seen, and I responded with some evidence. I have made no personal projections. I have given some evidence of the trend, and if you think that’s a falsely large impression, than that’s your conclusion based on the evidence.
The Telegraph article you quoted explains it as a result of the current crisis, so I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming otherwise, other than that the idea appeals to you.
I am more interested in the facts than the opinion of any individual or news organisation.
For example, in 1991 71 per cent across the EU saying they supported their country's membership. Less than one in three EU citizens expressed trust in the EU in 2013.
Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive. 57% said they supported their country's membership in 1991.
You may well decide to agree with the Telegraoph and put that solely down to recent events, or not. For example, I’d suggest there is strong evidence to suggest Cyrpus 13% support for the EU is due to recent and local events. However, to assume because the people of Cyprus have a concrete recent reason to dislike the EU does not necessarily mean that their level of support is temporary and will automatically revert to previous levels.
The drop in trust for the EU rather visibly follows the crisis, and is matched by a drop in trust for national parliaments and governments. Such falls in trust are extremely well known to be associated with recessions and crises, and the attempt to claim it as some kind of long-term slow-growing rejection of the EU is sorely strained.
It’s great you say it’s extremely well known why the level of trust in the EU has declined since 1991, which seems to indicate you agree the level of trust has declined. Even if I did claim that it was some sort of slow-growing rejection of the EU, that doesn’t mean I would be right, or that’s true, and we have to look at the facts and decide for ourselves. There is no right or wrong when it comes to opinion.
I appreciate you want things to work out well for your preferred side in the elections, and I would imagine you will have reason to be pleased come the day, but I think you're currently making the kind of projections that partisan supporters always make - and such back of a fag packet calculations of sweeping victories rarely come true.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Your appreciation is misplaced as I have little interest in the elections, and I don’t know why you imagine I have any interest in a single election. I have made no projections apart from looking at the polls. They are the projections of the pollsters, and are not, as you claim, my projections.
I don’t even know when the day is, and very much doubt any pleasure I derive will come from an election result, so why you imagine otherwise is a matter for yourself.
0 -
I agree, and would never claim otherwise, and why you introduce the point seems uncertain. The point I made was their support now, is at 26%, whereas at the same point at the last electoral cycle it was at 7%.
True, but their actual vote on the day was 16%. Unless they do repeat the trick of more than doubling their vote, that's the more relevant figure - if we're talking about elections, that is.
I have little interest in predicting the results of any single election. Indeed, I have little interest in the upcoming elections. My interest is in the medium and long term trends, and has little to do with any one election.
My interest is in the medium and long term trends, and I have little interest in how that affects any individual or party, or any individual election.
You asked what polls I had seen, and I responded with some evidence. I have made no personal projections. I have given some evidence of the trend, and if you think that’s a falsely large impression, than that’s your conclusion based on the evidence.
I am more interested in the facts than the opinion of any individual or news organisation.
For example, in 1991 71 per cent across the EU saying they supported their country's membership. Less than one in three EU citizens expressed trust in the EU in 2013.
Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive. 57% said they supported their country's membership in 1991.
You may well decide to agree with the Telegraoph and put that solely down to recent events, or not. For example, I’d suggest there is strong evidence to suggest Cyrpus 13% support for the EU is due to recent and local events. However, to assume because the people of Cyprus have a concrete recent reason to dislike the EU does not necessarily mean that their level of support is temporary and will automatically revert to previous levels.
It’s great you say it’s extremely well known why the level of trust in the EU has declined since 1991, which seems to indicate you agree the level of trust has declined. Even if I did claim that it was some sort of slow-growing rejection of the EU, that doesn’t mean I would be right, or that’s true, and we have to look at the facts and decide for ourselves. There is no right or wrong when it comes to opinion.
Your appreciation is misplaced as I have little interest in the elections, and I don’t know why you imagine I have any interest in a single election. I have made no projections apart from looking at the polls. They are the projections of the pollsters, and are not, as you claim, my projections.
I don’t even know when the day is, and very much doubt any pleasure I derive will come from an election result, so why you imagine otherwise is a matter for yourself.
Well, I'll take you at your word on that, but the impression remains strong that you were using the results of polls to make general predictions about the elections, and that the polls you were using to do so were in fact not even polls of voting intentions.
As to the general trend, the art of picking the highest point in a time series and drawing a line through it and the current situation in order to show a continuous declining trend is a well-established piece of statistical abuse. It produces no trend that requires debate, because it's purely an artefact.
Having said that, it would take Panglossian efforts to claim that there is not a problem with the EU/citizen relationship - there is of course a problem. How one interprets the current negativity is open to debate. The option is there of interpreting it as a trend that predates and is only partly explained by current events, and of claiming it as a meaningful and motivated rejection of the EU in particular rather than as part of a general loss of trust in the political establishment - but if you are going to claim that, you need to do rather better than two hand-picked data points and ignoring the identical results for trust in national institutions of governance.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
True, but their actual vote on the day was 16%. Unless they do repeat the trick of more than doubling their vote, that's the more relevant figure - if we're talking about elections, that is.
You may be right, you may be wrong. I have little interest in one election, as I have said, and have little interest guessing what the results might be.
I am stating a fact that at this stage in the previous election cycle UKIP were on 7%, and at this stage in this electoral cycle, UKIP are on 26%.
Of course, at different stages they have been on different percentages, and I can’t imagine anyone would disagree with that statement.
Well, I'll take you at your word on that, but the impression remains strong that you were using the results of polls to make general predictions about the elections, and that the polls you were using to do so were in fact not even polls of voting intentions.
I don’t ask you to take me at my word, neither do I ask you to reply to your impressions of what you think I said, and it’s up to you to take me at my word, or not, just as it’s up to you to take anyone at their word, or not. I don’t request it, nor do I require it.
As to the general trend, the art of picking the highest point in a time series and drawing a line through it and the current situation in order to show a continuous declining trend is a well-established piece of statistical abuse. It produces no trend that requires debate, because it's purely an artefact.
The fact is that in 1991, 71% of the EU citizens said they supported their country's membership. Less than one in three EU citizens expressed trust in the EU in 2013.
Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive. 57% said they supported their country's membership in 1991.
Facts are facts and there is no “art” involved, nor is their “statistical abuse” involved.
Having said that, it would take Panglossian efforts to claim that there is not a problem with the EU/citizen relationship - there is of course a problem. How one interprets the current negativity is open to debate. The option is there of interpreting it as a trend that predates and is only partly explained by current events, and of claiming it as a meaningful and motivated rejection of the EU in particular rather than as part of a general loss of trust in the political establishment - but if you are going to claim that, you need to do rather better than two hand-picked data points and ignoring the identical results for trust in national institutions of governance.
cordially,
Scofflaw
We could all play the game of guessing why things are as they are, and am reasonably sure some of us have favourite guesses and explanations as to how much emphasis we should put on this event versus that circumstance and so on. Guessing has never seemed to be particularly constructive or illuminating.
I don’t see there to be a particular problem, which you claim, with the EU/citizen relationship, and even if there was I don’t see how you propose to rectify it. You seem to have a need to explain the why and the how and how much is recent, and if its recent is it real or will it be temporary, or is it just a pox on all your houses both at national level and at EU level, or is it a more general level of trust etc etc.
I have no explanation to offer, and don’t intend to make guesses on these, or on any other points. Just as I see no point in guessing election results, I see no point in guessing why the electorate make the choices they make, for example as reported in the Eurobarometer polls, or elsewhere.0 -
You may be right, you may be wrong. I have little interest in one election, as I have said, and have little interest guessing what the results might be.
I am stating a fact that at this stage in the previous election cycle UKIP were on 7%, and at this stage in this electoral cycle, UKIP are on 26%.
Of course, at different stages they have been on different percentages, and I can’t imagine anyone would disagree with that statement.
I don’t ask you to take me at my word, neither do I ask you to reply to your impressions of what you think I said, and it’s up to you to take me at my word, or not, just as it’s up to you to take anyone at their word, or not. I don’t request it, nor do I require it.
The fact is that in 1991, 71% of the EU citizens said they supported their country's membership. Less than one in three EU citizens expressed trust in the EU in 2013.
Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive. 57% said they supported their country's membership in 1991.
Facts are facts and there is no “art” involved, nor is their “statistical abuse” involved.
We could all play the game of guessing why things are as they are, and am reasonably sure some of us have favourite guesses and explanations as to how much emphasis we should put on this event versus that circumstance and so on. Guessing has never seemed to be particularly constructive or illuminating.
I don’t see there to be a particular problem, which you claim, with the EU/citizen relationship, and even if there was I don’t see how you propose to rectify it. You seem to have a need to explain the why and the how and how much is recent, and if its recent is it real or will it be temporary, or is it just a pox on all your houses both at national level and at EU level, or is it a more general level of trust etc etc.
I have no explanation to offer, and don’t intend to make guesses on these, or on any other points. Just as I see no point in guessing election results, I see no point in guessing why the electorate make the choices they make, for example as reported in the Eurobarometer polls, or elsewhere.
I'm afraid it's simply not true that you're only reciting facts. You are very clearly drawing conclusions from them too, and your methods of doing so are statistical abuse, just as we're now on to the semantic abuse of you claiming to be "only observing facts" in order to avoid defending your preferred inferences from the data.
If you're going to make claims, either stand over them or retract them. Don't try to make them while pretending not to, because it's easy to see through, and common enough.
That's your second warning. I've also had a request that you not use coloured fonts, because some people cannot read your posts at all!
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
The fact is that in 1991, 71% of the EU citizens said they supported their country's membership. Less than one in three EU citizens expressed trust in the EU in 2013.
Last year, just one in three people in the UK viewed EU membership as positive. 57% said they supported their country's membership in 1991.
Perhaps it was to be expected that interest in the EEC was going to wax and wane, but from 71% support in 1991 to 66% now expressing trust in the EU is interesting.
Does anyone know what sort of turnout is normal for EU elections?0 -
Perhaps it was to be expected that interest in the EEC was going to wax and wane, but from 71% support in 1991 to 66% now expressing trust in the EU is interesting.
They're actually two different questions, though. If people are interested in going beyond two data points, they might consider reading a solid treatment of the subject: Crisis and trust in national and European Union institutions : panel evidence for the EU, 1999 to 2012
Unfortunately, the conclusion of the paper is not that there is some kind of principled rejection of the EU, but a crisis effect based on levels of unemployment, personal and sovereign debt, and inflation.
Unsurprisingly, the decline in the all-EU average level of trust in the EU was driven first and foremost by sharp declines in the periphery countries that were strongly experiencing the effects of the crisis. At this stage, trust is recovering in some of the periphery (Ireland up to 34% in the Autumn 2013 Eurobarometer from 29% in the Spring, Cyprus up 4% to 17%, Spain up 4% to 21%, Portugal up 1% to 25%, Greece up 2% to 21%), whereas at the time of the study it was still falling (Cyprus falling 18% to 13%, Spain falling 3% to 17%, Portugal down 10% to 24%) - on the other hand, as the effects of the crisis are felt in the larger economies such as France and Italy, trust is now falling there (France down 6% to 28%).
All of that suggests that the loss of trust is a crisis-driven response, as does the fact that the falls in confidence in the EU is paralleled almost exactly by falls in trust for the national parliaments, governments, and political parties.
That doesn't mean the lost confidence will necessarily rebound, but it does mean that claims of some kind of principled and thought out eurosceptical groundswell across the EU are wide of the mark. Even in the UK, the success of UKIP isn't driven by an increase in euroscepticism (how much more could it have increased?), but by the failure of the Tories to hang on to a segment of their traditional support base.Does anyone know what sort of turnout is normal for EU elections?
It varies by country - the new accession countries have very low turnouts, and they brought the average turnout across the EU down quite sharply after 2004.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I don't lnow if anyone else saw the article in the FT which outlined the view of the IEA, the worlds leading energy forecaster, that high energy prices in the EU were likely to remain for the next 20 years, and that Europe will lose a third of its global market share of energy-intensive exports.
"
Europe To Lose A Third Of Its Global Market Share Of Manufacturing Exports, IEA Warns- Date: 30/01/14
- Pilita Clark, Financial Times
In findings likely to inflame claims EU climate change policies are damaging the bloc’s manufacturers, the International Energy Agency said Europe will lose a third of its global market share of energy-intensive exports over the next two decades because energy prices will stay stubbornly higher than those in the US.
A number of EU countries have embraced green energy subsidies, shunned nuclear power and resisted the shale exploration that has fuelled a manufacturing renaissance in the US, prompting growing anger among industry leaders who say this has been a recipe for competitive ruin.
Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, said environmental policies alone had not pushed up energy costs but the price gap between the EU and the US was going to last much longer than some expected.
“This is a new thing and it’s structural. It’s not a one-off,” he told the Financial Times."0 -
I don't lnow if anyone else saw the article in the FT which outlined the view of the IEA, the worlds leading energy forecaster, that high energy prices in the EU were likely to remain for the next 20 years, and that Europe will lose a third of its global market share of energy-intensive exports.
"
Europe To Lose A Third Of Its Global Market Share Of Manufacturing Exports, IEA Warns- Date: 30/01/14
- Pilita Clark, Financial Times
In findings likely to inflame claims EU climate change policies are damaging the bloc’s manufacturers, the International Energy Agency said Europe will lose a third of its global market share of energy-intensive exports over the next two decades because energy prices will stay stubbornly higher than those in the US.
A number of EU countries have embraced green energy subsidies, shunned nuclear power and resisted the shale exploration that has fuelled a manufacturing renaissance in the US, prompting growing anger among industry leaders who say this has been a recipe for competitive ruin.
Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, said environmental policies alone had not pushed up energy costs but the price gap between the EU and the US was going to last much longer than some expected.
“This is a new thing and it’s structural. It’s not a one-off,” he told the Financial Times."
And the British are anti-Europe because of this? Or is this just a sort of "hey look a thing I think is bad about the way the EU does things"?
Plus, seriously, climate change. Also, facts:Prices in the first next-day power auction held by network operators and energy exchanges across countries that account for 75 percent of Europe’s electricity supply ranged from 35.98 euros ($48.58) a megawatt-hour in Germany to the equivalent of 53.88 euros in the U.K.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/europe-links-15-power-markets-in-biggest-shakeup-in-two-decades.html
All of which makes this look like something picked off the eurosceptic argument shelf with no real relation to where it's being put.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
?So, from this are you saying that countries like Finland and Sweden will have more similar economic growth with the likes of Greece, Cyprus, Portugal and Spain than they would with Norway.
Is it a case of the Nordic economies doing well despite the EU?
If Scotland were independent they'd also be better off outside the EU?
If Denmark gains access to large oil reserves in the Arctic through Greenland should they leave?
Maybe you should concentrate more on what you mean to say yourself, rather than wildly extrapolating from misinterpretations of what I didn't say.0 -
Critics of the EU regularly point to how well countries like Norway and Switzerland do outside the EU. Norway has had the luxury of oil revenues to rely on. Without those revenues, I doubt they would be as materially well off.Rubbish explanation, no content...on its own terms, very particular kind of country? What's that? :rolleyes:
Mate, its a mountainous country that was not worth the trouble invading in the past which has led it to be neutral in wars that involved others around them.....hmmm, Ireland 1945?
I would say Switzerland has more in common with Luxembourg than Ireland does.
We could try to model ourselves on the Swiss economy if we wanted as a long term objective.
Switzerland is indeed a very particular case with a long-standing history of political and military independence, and of commercial and financial success. They've been able to advance their indigenous industries particularly well, and have also been able to establish a financial sector based on their own skills and (importantly) on the lack of international rules and the (until recently) complicity of other national authorities.
Whether one admires their initiative and enlightened self-interest, or disagrees with their methods, the fact remains that Switzerland has spent centuries cementing its identities, building up its economic position and developing its human resources. These conditions cannot be easily replicated, let alone reproduced even in the mid-term.
Accordingly, it's difficult to see how we could model ourselves on Switzerland, even in the long term, particularly as some of the advantages it has enjoyed are slowly being eroded.0 -
You say it was the 'right thing'. Maybe Icelanders feel that way. I doubt that would have played with voters and unions here.It would be interesting to see how we would have managed if we did the right thing as Iceland did?
Are you questioning them not paying a banks debt or that they put some of the bankers in prison?
I believe Ireland is paying a higher price than Iceland.
As to the price, we certainly are paying a high price. I would hope we will get some more relief on that price in good time. The alternatives? Default? Having incurred private and public liabilities and failed to regulate?
We may have avoided bank debts, but probably at the cost of not being able to borrow anything in the period of crisis, and in effect not having learned anything as citizens and government other than that welching is an option when you fail to manage your economy. I'm not sure that would have been a happy, let alone a sustainable option. It would have led straight back to populism, cronyism and political and administrative incompetence.0 -
the International Energy Agency said Europe will lose a third of its global market share of energy-intensive exports over the next two decades because energy prices will stay stubbornly higher than those in the US.And the British are anti-Europe because of this?
It would seem unlikely the British are anti-Europe solely because of this. It should be a concern to everyone in the EU that the IEA projects the effect of higher energy prices in the EU will have on exports in the EU will be to lose 33% due to the policy of higher energy costs in the EU vs the USA.
I assume many in the UK are also concerned at this development, and further imagine it will be fuel UKIP and their followers
All of which makes this look like something picked off the eurosceptic argument shelf with no real relation to where it's being put.
You seem to imply that to be a eurosceptic is a term of abuse. Others consider, as I do, to be both Europhile and Eurosceptic to be valid, honourable and legitimate positions.
On other matters, I see reports today of a study which concludes the Netherlands would benefit considerably by leaving the EU, possibly up to as much as €9 800 per household, per year. UKIP is already using this report to counter the arguments which foretell doom and destruction should the UK decide to leave the EU.
Another report points out that the Euro zone is inching closer and closer to a Japanese style deflationary cycle, with business investment in the Eurozone dropping to a low of 18.9%. (It points out that even at the nadir of the dot.com bust it was 21%).
Italy lost 450 000 additional jobs in the last year. Private sector loans fell by €155bn in the last quarter alone, across the Eurozone.
None of these few illustrations is likely to be the reason some in the UK consider they would be better off outside the EU, and no doubt many in the EU are grateful they did not fall for the same arguments previously made to join the Euro which are now being made to stay in the EU. But their prominence in the UK media is likely to add fuel to the fire in the UK to the substantial numbers who are likely to vote to leave the EU in 2017.0 -
Because energy prices in the UK will fall if the UK leaves the EU?It should be a concern to everyone in the EU that the IEA projects the effect of higher energy prices in the EU will have on exports in the EU will be to lose 33% due to the policy of higher energy costs in the EU vs the USA.
I assume many in the UK are also concerned at this development, and further imagine it will be fuel UKIP and their followers0 -
Advertisement
-
Because energy prices in the UK will fall if the UK leaves the EU?
The claim of high EU energy prices stifling competitiveness is, apparently, somewhat dubious:Claims that high energy prices are making European industry less competitive are overblown according to new research showing a relatively small number of companies are affected and most get special protection.
“European economic competitiveness is not determined by energy prices,” says a study by a group of EU research bodies, the latest volley in a growing debate over whether climate and energy policies are sapping the bloc’s ability to compete.
Data from the EU’s leading industrial power, Germany, shows 92 per cent of manufacturers have energy bills that are on average less than 1.6 per cent of their revenue, said the new report, commissioned by the Climate Strategies group of academics and technical experts.
“For the majority of companies, energy prices have very little impact on locational choices or global competitiveness,” it said, adding about 8 per cent of manufacturers spend more than 6 per cent of revenue on energy.
Companies in the cement, paper, chemicals and glass sectors spend more than 10 per cent of revenue, meaning high electricity costs could affect their decisions on investment and where to be based.
But most countries offer exemptions and other special measures to help them stay competitive, the study says.
The researchers say the gap between EU and US energy prices boosted by the US shale boom could shrink towards the end of the decade when the US builds gas export terminals.
“Nevertheless, differences in resource endowments between Europe and North America, as well as inevitable transport costs, mean that gas price differences are likely to persist,” it says.
Even if Europe manages to exploit its own shale resources, they will not be as large as the US’s and the EU will remain dependent on gas imports. That makes it futile to base an industrial strategy on competing with countries endowed with more resources, it says.
That's from the FT, which might perhaps concern some people: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/59e564a2-8f13-11e3-be85-00144feab7de.html#axzz2sXz3wJLw
When you think about it, most companies really aren't very energy dependent, certainly not the services sector. And, yes, also when you think about it, the idea that you can simply decide to have lower energy prices when those energy prices are mostly fossil fuel prices, and dependent on unevenly distributed natural resources, makes very little sense.
Ireland, for example, has almost no known fossil fuel reserves (except in people's imaginations), so we can't just decide that we're going to have lower energy prices. In fact, the energy resource we do have and can simply decide to exploit is renewables.Proustian wrote:You seem to imply that to be a eurosceptic is a term of abuse. Others consider, as I do, to be both Europhile and Eurosceptic to be valid, honourable and legitimate positions.
There are certainly honourable eurosceptics, and the statement I made has no implications one way or the other for euroscepticism itself. What I'm condemning is the practice of picking barely-relevant pre-packaged talking points off the shelf and throwing them into any discussion.
As you say yourself, the various talking points you've brought up are unlikely to be the reasons UK citizens will vote for a Brixit - they are, instead, factoids intended to bolster existing emotional positions.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The claim of high EU energy prices stifling competitiveness is, apparently, somewhat dubious:
That's from the FT, which might perhaps concern some people: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/59e564a2-8f13-11e3-be85-00144feab7de.html#axzz2sXz3wJLw
From reading your posts here, it seems you are not to be convinced by any arguments, whoever makes them, that high energy prices in the EU compared to the USA is damaging EU Industry, EU jobs, EU competitiveness, and the GDP of the EU. I know I am fighting a losing battle trying to convince you personally, but just in case anyone else is uncertain, in addition to the professional opinion of the International Energy Agency, here are a few newspaper articles;
Europe’s fears over US energy gap
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c7ff93d0-28ef-11e2-b92c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2sYTzHBGJ
US's cheap energy pricing out UK industry
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/12/us-energy-shale-gas-uk-industry
High Energy Costs Plaguing Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/business/energy-environment/27iht-green27.html?_r=0
High energy costs hamper EU industry - Commission
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/eu-industry-idUSL5N0HJ3MW20130925
How Europe's Economy Is Being Devastated By Global Warming Orthodoxy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/09/19/how-europes-economy-is-being-devastated-by-global-warming-orthodoxy/
Europe 'falling behind US and blighted by energy costs'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9982885/Europe-falling-behind-US-and-blighted-by-energy-costs.htmlWhen you think about it, most companies really aren't very energy dependent, certainly not the services sector. And, yes, also when you think about it, the idea that you can simply decide to have lower energy prices when those energy prices are mostly fossil fuel prices, and dependent on unevenly distributed natural resources, makes very little sense.
Ireland, for example, has almost no known fossil fuel reserves (except in people's imaginations), so we can't just decide that we're going to have lower energy prices. In fact, the energy resource we do have and can simply decide to exploit is renewables.
I have not only thought about it but have read what industry leaders, and even the EU commission says in the above articles. Are you also suggesting the EU Commission, Industry leaders and the International Energy Agency have not thought about it?
“EU nations will be left far behind the United States unless they address high energy costs that are worsening the continent's industrial decline, the European Commission said”
“Harald Schwager, the member of BASF’s executive board responsible for Europe, told the Financial Times: “We Europeans are currently paying up to four or five times more for natural gas than the Americans ... Of course that means increased competition for all the European manufacturing sites.”
BASF, the German chemicals company, recently converted its steam-cracker in Texas to run on shale gas and says its production complex in Louisiana – where it is building a formic acid plant – is very competitive.
Marijn Dekkers, the chief executive of Bayer, the German drugs and plastics maker, also told the Financial Times: “Energy costs in Europe and Germany in particular will continue to rise. That will have an effect on the competitiveness of several sectors.”
Voestalpine, an Austrian maker of high-quality steel for the auto industry, announced that it would build a plant in North America that would employ natural gas to reduce iron ore to a kind of raw iron that would then be used in the company's European blast furnaces.
Asked whether he had considered building the plant in Europe, Voestalpine’s chief executive, Wolfgang Eder, said that that “calculation does not make sense from the very beginning.” Gas in Europe is much more expensive, he said.
And you are free to condemn whatever you wish to condemn, no one denies you that choice. Just as you can’t tell someone in the UK what they must use to make their decision, and what they are not allowed to use to make up their minds. Even if they make up their minds on issues which you condemn, that seems to go under the category of coulda shoulda woulda. Not every voter has your intellect, and many voters vote for a range of reasons of which you may not approve, including emotive reasons. To condemn them seems a waste of time.
There are certainly honourable eurosceptics, and the statement I made has no implications one way or the other for euroscepticism itself. What I'm condemning is the practice of picking barely-relevant pre-packaged talking points off the shelf and throwing them into any discussion.
I think the polls tell us which way the majority are likely to vote in the UK, and as the study which concludes the Netherlands would benefit considerably by leaving the EU shows, to simply threaten the people of the UK with Hell Fire and Brimstone if they dare to even think of leaving the many tentacled embrace of the EU seems to be a threat which is losing potency and credibility.As you say yourself, the various talking points you've brought up are unlikely to be the reasons UK citizens will vote for a Brixit - they are, instead, factoids intended to bolster existing emotional positions.0 -
Which has what to do with the UK's position in the EU?From reading your posts here, it seems you are not to be convinced by any arguments, whoever makes them, that high energy prices in the EU compared to the USA is damaging EU Industry, EU jobs, EU competitiveness, and the GDP of the EU.0 -
From reading your posts here, it seems you are not to be convinced by any arguments, whoever makes them, that high energy prices in the EU compared to the USA is damaging EU Industry, EU jobs, EU competitiveness, and the GDP of the EU. I know I am fighting a losing battle trying to convince you personally, but just in case anyone else is uncertain, in addition to the professional opinion of the International Energy Agency, here are a few newspaper articles;
Europe’s fears over US energy gap
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c7ff93d0-28ef-11e2-b92c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2sYTzHBGJ
US's cheap energy pricing out UK industry
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/12/us-energy-shale-gas-uk-industry
High Energy Costs Plaguing Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/business/energy-environment/27iht-green27.html?_r=0
High energy costs hamper EU industry - Commission
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/eu-industry-idUSL5N0HJ3MW20130925
How Europe's Economy Is Being Devastated By Global Warming Orthodoxy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2013/09/19/how-europes-economy-is-being-devastated-by-global-warming-orthodoxy/
Europe 'falling behind US and blighted by energy costs'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9982885/Europe-falling-behind-US-and-blighted-by-energy-costs.html
I'm open to persuasion by evidence, always, despite having definite preferences politically. I don't think I have any particular preferences in the question of whether EU industry is hampered by high energy costs - I'm pro-nuclear, ex-oil industry, and dislike the visual impact of distributed energy generation, so I don't think I have any particular bias as regards energy mix. However, I do find that a lot of these scare stories turn out to be, on closer examination, special pleading by particular interests, like the famous STEM drought, and I think this is one of them.
I do, however, have a very definite position on climate change, built up over a couple of decades of reading the science, and any position which requires denial of that particular scientific reality will get short shrift from me, I'm afraid. I'm not sure why there's a climate denialist-eurosceptic nexus, but observationally, that's very much the case. Is it true of you, out of interest?
If you want to convince me, you need to make a good case. Unfortunately, most people do not make good cases for their position, but instead rely on what you've done here, which is to throw a load of newspaper articles at me. I think very little indeed of journalism, I'm afraid, particularly on complex topics.I have not only thought about it but have read what industry leaders, and even the EU commission says in the above articles. Are you also suggesting the EU Commission, Industry leaders and the International Energy Agency have not thought about it?
“EU nations will be left far behind the United States unless they address high energy costs that are worsening the continent's industrial decline, the European Commission said”
“Harald Schwager, the member of BASF’s executive board responsible for Europe, told the Financial Times: “We Europeans are currently paying up to four or five times more for natural gas than the Americans ... Of course that means increased competition for all the European manufacturing sites.”
BASF, the German chemicals company, recently converted its steam-cracker in Texas to run on shale gas and says its production complex in Louisiana – where it is building a formic acid plant – is very competitive.
Marijn Dekkers, the chief executive of Bayer, the German drugs and plastics maker, also told the Financial Times: “Energy costs in Europe and Germany in particular will continue to rise. That will have an effect on the competitiveness of several sectors.”
Voestalpine, an Austrian maker of high-quality steel for the auto industry, announced that it would build a plant in North America that would employ natural gas to reduce iron ore to a kind of raw iron that would then be used in the company's European blast furnaces.
Asked whether he had considered building the plant in Europe, Voestalpine’s chief executive, Wolfgang Eder, said that that “calculation does not make sense from the very beginning.” Gas in Europe is much more expensive, he said.
But, again, all of this fits perfectly well with special pleading by a small number of energy-intensive industries, who would, I'm sure, like policy-makers to be convinced that energy costs are the Achilles' heel of EU competitiveness, because that way lie either lower energy prices, higher subsidies, or lighter regulation, all of which they'd be very happy to see.
Does that show there to be a general problem, let alone that energy costs are the major problem with European competitiveness? No, it's anecdotal evidence from people with particular interests - and it's worth noting that despite their pleas that energy costs are crippling them, they're people who can afford rather a lot of lobbyists.And you are free to condemn whatever you wish to condemn, no one denies you that choice. Just as you can’t tell someone in the UK what they must use to make their decision, and what they are not allowed to use to make up their minds. Even if they make up their minds on issues which you condemn, that seems to go under the category of coulda shoulda woulda. Not every voter has your intellect, and many voters vote for a range of reasons of which you may not approve, including emotive reasons. To condemn them seems a waste of time.
I'm not condemning it as part of the political process in the UK, or indeed anywhere. I may (and do) deplore it, but I cannot condemn it, because people are free to make their minds up on whatever basis they like, a position I have defended repeatedly.
I am condemning it as a tactic in discussions in this forum, because I do have the intellect I have, and I am here to discuss, and I'm not interested in someone throwing talking points at me. If you're going to use other people's talking points here, you must be able to defend them here, and a recitation of newspaper articles is not a defence.
This is not the UK referendum, this is a discussion forum.I think the polls tell us which way the majority are likely to vote in the UK, and as the study which concludes the Netherlands would benefit considerably by leaving the EU shows, to simply threaten the people of the UK with Hell Fire and Brimstone if they dare to even think of leaving the many tentacled embrace of the EU seems to be a threat which is losing potency and credibility.
Heh. On the other hand, the constant claim that the only defence of EU membership consists of "threatening Hell Fire and Brimstone" is, again, a purely political piece of spoofery. Either deal with the reality that there are likely to be real costs associated with either a Brixit or a Nexit, or admit that your political stance requires that you pretend those don't exist. Geert Wilders' commissioned "independent" study is a good model for the latter.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I'm open to persuasion by evidence, always, despite having definite preferences politically. I don't think I have any particular preferences in the question of whether EU industry is hampered by high energy costs - I'm pro-nuclear, ex-oil industry, and dislike the visual impact of distributed energy generation, so I don't think I have any particular bias as regards energy mix. However, I do find that a lot of these scare stories turn out to be, on closer examination, special pleading by particular interests, like the famous STEM drought, and I think this is one of them.
So even when the IEA, The EU and Industry leaders put their money where the cheaper energy is (in the USA, rather then the EU), you believe they are all lying. I am sure we are all clear on your position, and my last post was not so much for you, but for others who might have been unclear,
If you want to convince me, you need to make a good case. Unfortunately, most people do not make good cases for their position, but instead rely on what you've done here, which is to throw a load of newspaper articles at me. I think very little indeed of journalism, I'm afraid, particularly on complex topics.
I don’t want to convince you for the reasons stated.
But, again, all of this fits perfectly well with special pleading by a small number of energy-intensive industries, who would, I'm sure, like policy-makers to be convinced that energy costs are the Achilles' heel of EU competitiveness, because that way lie either lower energy prices, higher subsidies, or lighter regulation, all of which they'd be very happy to see.
Does that show there to be a general problem, let alone that energy costs are the major problem with European competitiveness? No, it's anecdotal evidence from people with particular interests - and it's worth noting that despite their pleas that energy costs are crippling them, they're people who can afford rather a lot of lobbyists.
If it were only a small group of businesses making noises then many of us could agree that it’s all just lobbying and part of a game. But the IEA and the EU are hardly part of this “small group”.
It’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves if this is a “small group” who have not been merely threatening, but have not been investing in the EU for some time, investing instead in the US, and will account for a loss to the EU of 33% of exports, according the IEA, an independent body.
I am condemning it as a tactic in discussions in this forum, because I do have the intellect I have, and I am here to discuss, and I'm not interested in someone throwing talking points at me. If you're going to use other people's talking points here, you must be able to defend them here, and a recitation of newspaper articles is not a defence.
I am not interested in many things on boards. How I deal with that is that I don’t go to the forums, and I don’t intend to reply to something which does not interest me. You say you are not interested, and yet you reply to points you say don’t interest you. I’d say that makes you almost unique here.
I don’t have to defend anyone or anything. To quote what others have said is not to “use other peoples talking point”, and no one has to defend, or can defend, what others say. None of us can possibly defend the EU when it is quoted as saying, for example, “EU nations will be left far behind the United States unless they address high energy costs that are worsening the continent's industrial decline”.Heh. On the other hand, the constant claim that the only defence of EU membership consists of "threatening Hell Fire and Brimstone" is, again, a purely political piece of spoofery. Either deal with the reality that there are likely to be real costs associated with either a Brixit or a Nexit, or admit that your political stance requires that you pretend those don't exist. Geert Wilders' commissioned "independent" study is a good model for the latter.
To say it is likely there will be real costs for the UK or the Netherlands is part of the Hell, Fire and Brimstone discussed earlier, a vague & serious sounding threat often used and with no real evidence to support it.
Oh the other hand, it may well be the real costs for a Nexit or Brexit may be costs to the EU, with cost benefits to the Netherlands or to the UK. It may well be others consider Capital Economics, (https://www.capitaleconomics.com/about-us.html) who undertook the study, to be a reputable and respected organisation across the world.0 -
Another article, this time from the FT, saying Tata haa already moved some steel production from the EU, this time from the UK to Thailand, due to energy costs. Between now and 2030 green tariffs will add another 70% to the cost of energy, over and above costs for inflation and any other costs.
More jobs lost to the EU, and it seems countries in the EU are intent on driving all energy intensive industries out of the EU. Little wonder the US calls the EU the green basket case of the world, driving industry out of the EU. When will this madness stop?
Energy Costs May Force UK Steel Plants To Shut Down, Tata Warns- Date: 17/02/14
- Andrew Bounds, Financial Times
Manufacturers have invested heavily in energy efficiency measures but the future of the heaviest users is still threatened by high prices and supply issues, according to EEF, which represents the industry.
A joint survey by EEF and Npower, the energy supplier, found that about half of companies had changed their lighting and manufacturing processes to reduce energy use.
But Tata Steel, a big Npower customer, said its efficiency savings had been wiped out by price rises. Mark Broxholme, head of its specialist steels division, which supplies the aerospace and automotive sectors, told a business audience at the Cutlers Hall in Sheffield: “In the last three years, I have invested £7m and reduced the bill by £3m. I have just been told the bill is going up by £2.5m next year. I have spent £7m to stand still.”
The division’s total bill was £75m last year, with energy some 42 per cent of its cost base, five times the cost of workers, despite the group halving demand in the last decade.
He said a small facility in the Midlands might have to close because of high energy costs. UK prices were at least 20 per cent above those in Germany and France because of green tariffs he said. As generating capacity dwindles with the mothballing of coal-fired plants and nuclear power stations, tight supply means paying even more at peak times.
Since the division melts scrap metal to produce its high quality steel, it is greener than those producing from scratch, Mr Broxholme said.
Mr Broxholme said some orders had been moved to Thailand because it was cheaper, while Tata’s board could shut its UK plants in Stocksbridge and Rotherham, South Yorkshire….
Since 2002, the industrial price of gas has increased by 122 per cent, while industrial electricity prices have increased by 94 per cent
Green tariffs alone will add another 70 per cent by 2030.0 -
What madness is that? Thailand's electricity generation is almost entirely derived from coal and gas - you're suggesting the EU should follow suit?Another article, this time from the FT, saying Tata haa already moved some steel production from the EU, this time from the UK to Thailand, due to energy costs. Between now and 2030 green tariffs will add another 70% to the cost of energy, over and above costs for inflation and any other costs.
More jobs lost to the EU, and it seems countries in the EU are intent on driving all energy intensive industries out of the EU. Little wonder the US calls the EU the green basket case of the world, driving industry out of the EU. When will this madness stop?0 -
Oh the other hand, it may well be the real costs for a Nexit or Brexit may be costs to the EU, with cost benefits to the Netherlands or to the UK. It may well be others consider Capital Economics, (https://www.capitaleconomics.com/about-us.html) who undertook the study, to be a reputable and respected organisation across the world.
A company who produced a study for a eurosceptic politician saying how the politician's country would be better off outside the EU, and who previously won a eurosceptic prize for writing the most eurosceptic account of how the eurozone could be safely dismantled...and whose CEO also writes for the Daily Telegraph.
Hmm.
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
The argument in the UK is not a financially based argument, although the financial costs to the UK remaining in the EU are substantial. The regulatory costs imposed by the EU are seen by many in the UK, who will be voting in the referendum, as intolerable, and the loss of, for example, fisheries have been devastating. Then there is the UK contribution to the EU, which costs the UK +-€20 billion per annum.
But the costs are not the main issue for many in the UK. For them the issue is that the UK has lost power to the EU, and that every day it loses more and more power to the EU.
They fear the EU is encroaching on many areas of life, for example the criminal justice system, wearing away British Common Law, and intruding into every facet of life in the UK on a ratchet which only works one way which is always in favour of the EU at the expense of the citizens of the UK.
In the 1970’s the UK was known as the sick man of Europe, and there is a growing realisation, in the UK and across Europe, that the EU is becoming the sick man of the world, part of which can be seen almost every day now with news reports of major companies no longer being able to afford to manufacture in the EU and moving their jobs and factories outside Europe. In the UK they have long memories and recognise where this is likely to lead. (In the USA, Europe is called the modern equivalent of the “sick man”, and is already called a “basket case” for its energy policy which is driving many industries out of Europe and into the USA and elsewhere)
The reasons why many in the UK, and across Europe, are becoming increasingly unhappy with the EU are many. Just one more example, the European arrest warrant, has led to human rights campaigners saying that the European arrest warrants place British citizens at the mercy of some European legal systems, where standards and safeguards are lower. Catherine Heard, the policy officer at Fair Trials International, said: “The over-rigid nature of the system and the absence of basic, EU-wide defence rights have seen people being extradited to serve sentences after grossly unfair trials, or spending months in pre-trial detention waiting to prove their innocence.”
Many in the UK and across Europe see the EU not as a force for promoting freedom of the individual, but in practice promotes the power of the state over the citizen.
The, of course, there is what is referred to in the UK as the democratic deficit.
These, and other issues, are recognised more and more across the EU as fundamental problems with the EU, and it seems from the polls more and more people across the EU are in agreement that the EU in either unable or unwilling to address these fundamental issues. Previously the arguments have been that the EU is bringing all the citizens of the EU more prosperity than any individual country could achieve on it’s own, and on balance its “worth” putting up with some of the issues above (say the losing of the UK fishing rights) for the overall good and prosperity brought by the EU.
In recent years many in the EU, and UK, have seen that promised prosperity is largely illusory, and that many countries would be likely to be considerably richer today had they remained outside the EU, and the Euro. The view is that all the losses handed over for the overall good have been given for no gain, and the economic future of Europe, where jobs are being lost to the USA and elsewhere, seems bleaker that it should be, as a result.
Those companies in Europe who have to compete on a world stage not only tell us that high labour costs and high energy costs make them uncompetitive, but many have been forced to reduce investment in European plants and, instead, invest outside Europe. These are not empty threats, this is what they have been doing for some time now, and there is no sign that this trend will decrease, as the problems forcing their manufacturing out of Europe, remain and even look to get worse into the future.
The arguments across Europe are not purely financial, but as Europeans see unemployment across Europe, and the Eurozone, rise, the polls across Europe show us what the people of the UK, and across Europe, think.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Another reason why many in the UK are looking askance at the EU is that they see it as an institution run along mid 20th century principles where it was considered that, to be successful, you had to be part of a larger block. The 21st century has turned that idea on its head, and many companies now can trade as easily with Canterbury in New Zealand as they can with someone in Kent.
About a year ago the French magazine Observatoire Economique was ridiculed for suggesting that France was heading into deflation as a price for sticking to the contraction policies of the EU. The policies of fiscal austerity, monetary tightening and bank deleveraging.
French prices contracted by 0.6% in January, manufactured goods prices fell by 3%, and the cost of clothing fell by 15.4%. The CPI index is still just positive by 0.1% on a year to year basis.
The IMF has said that Europe, and the whole of the Eurozone, is one shock away from a lurch into outright deflation. This is what happened Japan about 25 years ago, and the effects of deflation, on an economy or economies, are as well documented as they are catastrophic.
There is a solution called QE, but the German constitutional court has made QE very difficult. There are no treaty issues against QE, and the problems preventing its implementation are political and ideological. Politics and ideology are strangling the Eurozone economies.
Perhaps as the UK looks on, (and Norway, Switzerland, Sweden etc) they thank god they avoided joining the Eurozone. It seems to many outside the Eurozone that there is less and less reason to be part of such a block, and the EU itself is a concept, whose time is rooted in the past and has little to offer in the present.
We can all put our heads in the sand and hope, like Mr Micawber, that something will turn up.0 -
The UK press is dominated by one man Rupert Murdoch and the EU and it's states have thwarted he attempts to take control of mainland European newspapers the way he did in the UK, so naturally enough his papers will not publish any thing positive about the EU. I've heard from a reporter colleague who works the EU scene who tells me that at a press conference the first thing a UK journalist will try to do is figure out a negative angle, if none is offering then they turn off, not necessarily because they themselves are negative, but because they know their editors will not publish it...
Then there is the way the go about implementing EU directives - Whitehall almost always goes beyond the requirements of the directive and them implements in it the most complicated way possible, all the time blaming it on the EU. If you compare the laws introduced in the UK and Ireland to implement the EU data protection directive, you'd have a hard time believing that they were drafted as a result of the same directive!
And not to forget that the UK is one of the most undemocratic countries in the EU - it has not written constitution, no guarantee of citizen's right and a government to the with unrestricted power. A government who has railroaded them into a European Union with consulting the citizenry.
If you spent a lifetime in such an environment it is hard to imagine you would be anything else but negative about Europe.0 -
Proustian wrote:The argument in the UK is not a financially based argument, although the financial costs to the UK remaining in the EU are substantial. The regulatory costs imposed by the EU are seen by many in the UK, who will be voting in the referendum, as intolerable, and the loss of, for example, fisheries have been devastating. Then there is the UK contribution to the EU, which costs the UK +-€20 billion per annum.
Actually, the gross contribution is around €14-15bn, of which €7bn or so comes back into the UK as EU spending. The net contribution is therefore around €8bn. See, for example, http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259692/EU_Finances_2013.pdf
Just to put that in context, it's a bit over half of what England spends on its teachers' pensions bill. Or approximately a quarter of what the UK spends on debt interest. Meanwhile, access to the single market is worth about £12bn a month.
The regulatory costs argument usually made similarly only counts the regulatory costs of EU regulation against a no-regulation base rather than the rather more realistic position of comparison against a purely UK regulation base plus the cost of compliance with EU regulations separately for trade. As such, while an interesting estimation of the costs of regulation as such, it's an almost useless comparison in the usual context it gets trotted out.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The regulatory costs argument usually made similarly only counts the regulatory costs of EU regulation against a no-regulation base rather than the rather more realistic position of comparison against a purely UK regulation base plus the cost of compliance with EU regulations separately for trade. As such, while an interesting estimation of the costs of regulation as such, it's an almost useless comparison in the usual context it gets trotted out.
This may very well become the reality for Swiss companies such as Nestle and Novartis, if our bilateral agreements are terminated. They will have to revert to the old system of having their products meet the regulatory requirements in both the EU and Switzerland as separate exercises. The other question is what will third countries do, will they too require separate certification or will they accept a product already certified by the EU.0 -
-
It’s interesting to contemplate the different worlds in which the UK signed the treaty of Rome, and today. Is it possible what was right in the world of 1972 is no longer right for 2014?
In 1972, Europe had had 20 years of impressive growth and Europe, and the USA, dominated the world economy. China was impoverished and a remote agricultural country, and India, Brazil and the Far East in similar impoverished shape.
Today the Far East, India, China (and even South America) are where the action is. The USA has proved to be far more dynamic than Europe in recovering from the shocks, and the dominance of China and increasingly India seems to ensure that Europe will find id difficult, if not impossible, to avoid continued and comparative decline.
Europe has gone in 40 years from its post war dynamic powerhouse of the world status, to a sclerotic region which is falling further behind the USA, India China etc.
An interesting observation is that all these rising powers are independent countries, and not part of sprawling “unions”. It is, perhaps, the bureaucracy of the EU and Europe which is part of it’s Achilles heel, and it is many times more extensive, intrusive and paralysing than the level of bureaucracy in China, Brazil, India or the USA. The really depressing thing for many in Europe is lack of realisation that this has to change 180°, before Europe can even hope to turn its sclerotic performance around. Europe seems destined to continue its comparative decline, unless or until it can reverse the bureaucracy which plagues it.
The arguments for staying in the EU are all based on fear and threats. Britain will be “isolated” if it leaves the EU, banished from “the largest economy in the world” “lose jobs” “be denied a seat at the top table” and so and so on. Threats and fears are not reasons, and should be seen for what they are. As Switzerland and Norway show, it’s possible to thrive in both the EU and outside the EU.0 -
Well as a Swiss citizen, let me point out a few things you over looked, first of all we have to pay billions into the EU funds in order to gain access to the market, we don't have a seat at the top table and as a result have to accept EU rules that at time to time we'd rather not.
Next up is the fact that we need to peg the Franc to the Euro and have had to conduct market operations on a regular basis to do so. This has resulted in us sucking up up Euro bonds to the point where we now finance the deficit of the seven biggest economies in Euroland. We can do this because we have massive gold reserves and a national debt of only about 47% of GDP.
Then there is the fact we are a net exporter of high value added goods, produced mainly SMEs and family run businesses that are rooted in the local communities and as a result unemployment has remained very low (about 3%) throughout the recession.
Comparing the UK to Switzerland and expecting the same outcome is unrealistic.0 -
Europe is behind India?Europe has gone in 40 years from its post war dynamic powerhouse of the world status, to a sclerotic region which is falling further behind the USA, India China etc.
They're all part of several unions and trade blocs. For example, there are several agreements and organisations in existence designed to foster political and economic cooperation among Asian nations: the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the South Asia Free Trade Agreement, etc.An interesting observation is that all these rising powers are independent countries, and not part of sprawling “unions”.
I'm guessing you've not been to India?It is, perhaps, the bureaucracy of the EU and Europe which is part of it’s Achilles heel, and it is many times more extensive, intrusive and paralysing than the level of bureaucracy in China, Brazil, India or the USA.
And if it's pointless bureaucracy you're after, look no further than Old Blighty.0 -
Europe has gone in 40 years from its post war dynamic powerhouse of the world status, to a sclerotic region which is falling further behind the USA, India China etc.
Behind the US? The USA is a country that is unable to provide standard healthcare for all it's citizens and the quality of healthcare it does provide for the most part is second world. The majority of the jobs it creates are low value added jobs, meaning the both parents must work to meet the basic needs of the family. The average college graduate needs anything up to about 10 years to pay off college debt. The average company pension is 100% underfunded, because unlike Europe there is no requirement to make accounting provisions and the average American on reaching retirement age has a net worth of about 20k. They are a net importer, with massive national debts financed by China. And the list goes on....
Seems like you have a funny measure of advancement!0 -
Advertisement
-
Behind the US? The USA is a country that is unable to provide standard healthcare for all it's citizens and the quality of healthcare it does provide for the most part is second world. The majority of the jobs it creates are low value added jobs, meaning the both parents must work to meet the basic needs of the family. The average college graduate needs anything up to about 10 years to pay off college debt. The average company pension is 100% underfunded, because unlike Europe there is no requirement to make accounting provisions and the average American on reaching retirement age has a net worth of about 20k. They are a net importer, with massive national debts financed by China. And the list goes on....
Seems like you have a funny measure of advancement!
It's a standard trope, usually based solely on GDP and GDP growth rates, and their projection into the future without change. Minor issues like human welfare, happiness, freedom etc don't really feature.
Europe could probably have the same raw numbers as the US if it dropped human welfare standards to US levels, but why would we want that Europe?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It's a standard trope, usually based solely on GDP and GDP growth rates, and their projection into the future without change. Minor issues like human welfare, happiness, freedom etc don't really feature.
Europe could probably have the same raw numbers as the US if it dropped human welfare standards to US levels, but why would we want that Europe?
cordially,
Scofflaw
The one thing we have learned in Europe in recent years is that everything has to be paid for, and there is a cost for everything. For example, if we choose to have higher benefits, they have to be paid for out of either increased taxation or increased borrowing. Higher taxation generally leads to a disincentive to economic growth. You pays your money and you take you choice.
Ireland, for example, spent in 2010 almost €21 Billion on social welfare, out of a total tax revenue of +- €35 Billion.
Ireland spent just shy of €16 billion on public health expenditure in 2010.
So between social welfare and public health expenditure, Ireland spent €37 billion in 2010, and took in €35 billion in taxes. Whether we judge that to be too much, too little, or about right is an individual view.
As ever, we have to try to take a balanced view and it may well be that some Irish view those numbers as perfectly fine.
Other countries take a different view, countries like Germany for example.
The European model differs from the USA model, and the consequences for that seem to be that the USA is growing their economy by leaps and bounds faster than Europe. The UK model is more akin to the USA model than the European model, and it's hardly surprising that some in the UK question.
Increasingly, many in Ireland question too, and many in France and Italy and Germany and elsewhere are questioning, which is a good thing. Unquestioning allegiance, without rigorous questioning and without a democratic will, seems destined to fail.
The hubris of some in Europe is reminiscent of any great movement, who believe the size and longevity of the movement itself can defy the laws of gravity, economics and physics.
If Europe (and Ireland) want to recover economically, and not lose jobs and whole industries abroad, we have to realise we are competing for those jobs and industries with other countries like the USA, China, Brazil, India and so on. If others can pay less for labour, energy and all the other input costs, and Europe remains complacent and holds it's nose aloft, then there will be a price to pay. There already is.0 -
QuentinL wrote:If Europe (and Ireland) want to recover economically, and not lose jobs and whole industries abroad, we have to realise we are competing for those jobs and industries with other countries like the USA, China, Brazil, India and so on. If others can pay less for labour, energy and all the other input costs, and Europe remains complacent and holds it's nose aloft, then there will be a price to pay. There already is.
Sure, and if we choose to compete with them on their terms, there is also a price to pay, and already has been. Also, the extrapolation into the future of current trends is generally a mistake, exemplified by the 1970s-1980s belief that Japan would dominate the world as an inevitable result of their then greater productivity and lower costs.
I agree that the degree of tradeoff is a policy choice, and therefore a political decision. But the UK public is not actually as right wing as the US public.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Sure, and if we choose to compete with them on their terms, there is also a price to pay, and already has been. Also, the extrapolation into the future of current trends is generally a mistake, exemplified by the 1970s-1980s belief that Japan would dominate the world as an inevitable result of their then greater productivity and lower costs.
I agree that the degree of tradeoff is a policy choice, and therefore a political decision. But the UK public is not actually as right wing as the US public.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Of course there is a price to pay for everything, but the price for not competing with the new economic superpowers is that Europe slides deeper and deeper behind. It’s happening already.
If we continue to hold our noses aloft, and not compete with the USA, China, Brazil, India and other emerging economic powers, and continue with the policies of high taxes, high labour costs and high energy costs, the price Europe will pay is higher levels of unemployment (Europe already has very high levels of unemployment), and continually increasing Welfare spending.
Unfortunately the commercial world knows no allegiances, and if they can produce it better and cheaper elsewhere, then that’s where they are going to go. Many have gone already, and this is not some theoretical argument. Less jobs for Europe, higher unemployment, even higher taxes to pay for the unemployment…
Barring a miracle, the only hope Europe has is to stop making excuses and change. To not do so it to condemn Europe to a possible, if not probable, Japanese style period of stagnation and deflation. Ireland is one of the few countries which has managed to get some control over its labour costs, but those savings have been gobbled up by crushing extra taxation to pay for its previous and continuing profligacy.
Europe needs to make the changes to create the conditions for economic prosperity, or more importantly the individual countries of Europe have to make the changes. Waiting around for someone else to do it, or simply clinging together, closing our eyes, and hoping for the best isn’t an economic policy which is likely to be successful. It’s not going to be easy, but the alternative is we slide further and further into poverty, into a Japanese style period of deflation and watch the unemployment statistics rise.0 -
-
Of course there is a price to pay for everything, but the price for not competing with the new economic superpowers is that Europe slides deeper and deeper behind. It’s happening already.
It's a little hard to make long term predictions at the moment - conditions aren't quite normal.If we continue to hold our noses aloft, and not compete with the USA, China, Brazil, India and other emerging economic powers, and continue with the policies of high taxes, high labour costs and high energy costs, the price Europe will pay is higher levels of unemployment (Europe already has very high levels of unemployment), and continually increasing Welfare spending.
That assumes that lower levels of unemployment are something worth paying for with lower levels of welfare and tax, and that's a particular policy preference.
As to energy costs, funnily enough it's the UK that has Europe's highest.Unfortunately the commercial world knows no allegiances, and if they can produce it better and cheaper elsewhere, then that’s where they are going to go. Many have gone already, and this is not some theoretical argument. Less jobs for Europe, higher unemployment, even higher taxes to pay for the unemployment…
And yet during the period of rising labour costs and increasing welfare, we had no lack of jobs. Possibly the current dearth of jobs is in some way related to the recession.Barring a miracle, the only hope Europe has is to stop making excuses and change. To not do so it to condemn Europe to a possible, if not probable, Japanese style period of stagnation and deflation. Ireland is one of the few countries which has managed to get some control over its labour costs, but those savings have been gobbled up by crushing extra taxation to pay for its previous and continuing profligacy.
Europe needs to make the changes to create the conditions for economic prosperity, or more importantly the individual countries of Europe have to make the changes. Waiting around for someone else to do it, or simply clinging together, closing our eyes, and hoping for the best isn’t an economic policy which is likely to be successful. It’s not going to be easy, but the alternative is we slide further and further into poverty, into a Japanese style period of deflation and watch the unemployment statistics rise.
There's no sign that Europe, or the EU, does close its eyes, either collectively or individually. But when it comes to implementation of policies, certain "European" preferences, particularly that of social solidarity, tend to creep into the mix, even in the UK's national policies.
As for Japanese style deflation, given their unemployment rate is steadily lower than the US or Europe, it seems that perhaps that's not something to be quite so terrified of.
Meanwhile, Europe is prosperous - yes, it's not growing as fast as China or India, but neither will they when they get to be as prosperous as us. The US is ahead, certainly, but at a price in terms of inequality that Europeans seem unwilling to pay. It's relevant that Europe's currently resurgent further-left and further-right populist parties by and large don't offer policies that go too far from what's on offer from the mainstream consensus - their main policy plank is just restriction of the goodies to the right kind of people, often liberally seasoned with state control of industry "for the good of the people". They don't advocate taking pensions or welfare away from everybody, they advocate taking it away from the undeserving, generally characterised as immigrants.
As far as I can see, most Europeans aren't interested in aping the US, and show little sign of being interested in the policies espoused by the US Republican mainstream, never mind the Tea Party. Maybe it's just because we live on a more crowded continent, maybe it's the longer history of less than benevolent revolutions, but that seems to be the way it is, and I would say that China and India will tend to similar outcomes in the longer term, perhaps leaving the US the one shining example of a country willing to keep its competitiveness honed sharp for the sake of its rich.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe in your head it is. But, out here in the real world, your so-called "new economic superpowers" are still having having a hard time addressing serious problems such as poverty, corruption, pollution and lax health and safety regulations. For example, are you aware that eight people have died during the construction of football stadiums in Brazil for this summer's World Cup? Is that the kind of example we should be following in Europe?Of course there is a price to pay for everything, but the price for not competing with the new economic superpowers is that Europe slides deeper and deeper behind. It’s happening already.
Europe also has very high levels of adult literacy and life expectancy and very low levels of infant mortality.If we continue to hold our noses aloft, and not compete with the USA, China, Brazil, India and other emerging economic powers, and continue with the policies of high taxes, high labour costs and high energy costs, the price Europe will pay is higher levels of unemployment (Europe already has very high levels of unemployment), and continually increasing Welfare spending.
And many have returned. For example:Unfortunately the commercial world knows no allegiances, and if they can produce it better and cheaper elsewhere, then that’s where they are going to go. Many have gone already…
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/manufacturing/us-multinational-to-create-500-jobs-in-cork-1.1669531
In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, the number of people in employment in Ireland has been increasing steadily since the end of 2012. Employment is also on the up here in the UK.
And of course, as we all know, Japanese people endure a considerably lower standard of living than their Brazilian, Indian and Chinese counterparts.Europe needs to make the changes to create the conditions for economic prosperity, or more importantly the individual countries of Europe have to make the changes. Waiting around for someone else to do it, or simply clinging together, closing our eyes, and hoping for the best isn’t an economic policy which is likely to be successful. It’s not going to be easy, but the alternative is we slide further and further into poverty, into a Japanese style period of deflation and watch the unemployment statistics rise.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I'm not sure why I'm bothering to ask, since none of your previous incarnations showed any interest in answering questions, but: what specific policies do you feel the EU should implement?
I am not sure it's up to the EU specifically. One of the issues highlighted in recent years is that the EU takes a very long time to make decisions compared to its competitors. Its very bureaucratic nature makes it cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy. Decision by committee really is not beneficial at times.
Perhaps it's better if individual countries took action themselves, as they can act swiftly when necessary.
Obviously the policies should be to reduce labour costs, reduce energy costs and reduce taxes. Policies of high labour costs, high energy costs and high taxes don't work, (as France so aptly demonstrates).0 -
And yet, according to World Bank data, EU states rank among the best in the world for government effectiveness:One of the issues highlighted in recent years is that the EU takes a very long time to make decisions compared to its competitors. Its very bureaucratic nature makes it cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy. Decision by committee really is not beneficial at times.
0 -
Maybe in your head it is. But, out here in the real world, your so-called "new economic superpowers" are still having having a hard time addressing serious problems such as poverty, corruption, pollution and lax health and safety regulations. For example, are you aware that eight people have died during the construction of football stadiums in Brazil for this summer's World Cup? Is that the kind of example we should be following in Europe?
Ireland has a hard time addressing poverty, corruption, pollution and lots of other issues. Many countries do. I think exactely the issue Ireland should be addressing is trying to attract events like World Cup, of course, and attract and encourage innovation and entrepreneurs.Europe also has very high levels of adult literacy and life expectancy and very low levels of infant mortality.
And many have returned. For example:
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/manufacturing/us-multinational-to-create-500-jobs-in-cork-1.1669531
In fact, as I'm sure you're aware, the number of people in employment in Ireland has been increasing steadily since the end of 2012. Employment is also on the up here in the UK.
If it's your view that everything is rosy in the Irish/European garden, then we disagree. Its great news that Irish employment is increasing, but that has to be put into context of mass emigration. EU unemployment is 10.8% and USA unemployment is 6.6%. Irish unemployment is hovering around 12% after an estimated 400 000 emigrated from Ireland because they could not find work.
The UK is a different case as they have followed different economic policies to Ireland, which appear successful to a degree and means, even after they absorb some of the 400000 imigrants from Ireland, employment is still growing.
So many French have left France that the French consulate estimates that London is not the 6th largest "french" city, with up to 400000 French also now living just in London.And of course, as we all know, Japanese people endure a considerably lower standard of living than their Brazilian, Indian and Chinese counterparts.
And yet 25 years ago japan was one of the richest nations in the world, and China one of the poorest. China turned its fortunes around by the policies it deliberately pursued, and Japan ignored the signs and its fortunes crumbled and economy tanked. You seem to imply you think Europe is immune to following the example of Japan, anthought many economists now consider that one more shock to the EU is all it wil take to turn the Euro into a deflationary spiral similar to that experienced in Japan. Let's hope you are right and they are wrong.0 -
And yet, according to World Bank data, EU states rank among the best in the world for government effectiveness:
Is the World bank, in the example you give, talking about the EU government, or individual governments within the EU?
Individual EU states are pretty good, I'd agree. It is governance at the EU level, which is cumbersome, slow, and almost paralysed by bureaucracy.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement