Why are the British so anti Europe?

porsche959

Scofflaw wrote: »

And this, I'm afraid, is simply a myth. There was never very much eurozone money in our banks - most of the foreign money there was US/UK, which should hardly be a surprise given that those are where our banks traditionally operate.

Ahem. Cough.


http://order-order.com/2010/10/15/anglo-irish-bondholders-should-take-the-lossesis-the-ecb-forcing-ireland-to-protect-german-investments/

Godge

porsche959 wrote: »

Ahem. Cough.


http://order-order.com/2010/10/15/anglo-irish-bondholders-should-take-the-lossesis-the-ecb-forcing-ireland-to-protect-german-investments/

That list was debunked years ago and had no basis in fact.

One of the crazy things about the internet is that outlandish conspiracy theories never die no matter how many times they are shown to be false.

Jim2007

Godge wrote: »

That list was debunked years ago and had no basis in fact.

One of the crazy things about the internet is that outlandish conspiracy theories never die no matter how many times they are shown to be false.

Not to mention that if you start to go down the list you'll realise that most of them are asset managers, which means that the bonds are held within funds and other financial products, which in turn are most likely held ordinary people saving for retirement, putting their children through college etc....

Scofflaw

Even Guido Fawkes admitted as much - that it was a heavily edited version of a full list of bondholders, which he edited to tell a particular story. A quick reprise of the status of the list: it's actually a mixture of junior and senior bondholders, and includes both bonds that were protected in the Anglo bailout and bonds that were heavily burnt. More importantly, perhaps, it contains the names of institutions that held only bonds that were also held by Irish credit unions - Dexia held the same junior Anglo bonds as Wexford Credit Union, and on which the bondholders got 20c in the euro, or 1c in the euro - but Dexia appears on the list, while Wexford CC doesn't, because the list is edited to highlight "European" bondholders. The amount of money involved is also not shown - again, deliberately, because some of those bondholders only held trivial amounts.

People should spot at least some of that for themselves, but the "it was the Germans and French" narrative is sufficiently strong to allow them to "fill in" the rather important missing features and assume it's senior bondholders and accounts for a lot of money. porsche959 has used it here, for example, to oppose the statement that there was little eurozone money in the Irish banks, even though the list very clearly doesn't show any amounts, and therefore can't possibly refute such a statement.

If people (including porsche959) want to know how much eurozone money was in the Irish banks, it's a matter of record, and can be looked up on the Central Bank of Ireland website.

cordially,
Scofflaw

porsche959

I put up the link to the Fawkes in response this post from Scofflaw, in which he alleged, citing no evidence whatever:

Scofflaw wrote:

And this, I'm afraid, is simply a myth. There was never very much eurozone money in our banks - most of the foreign money there was US/UK, which should hardly be a surprise given that those are where our banks traditionally operate.

Presumably those attacking the credibility of the Fawkes list can furnish the correct list.

So, let's see it.

Scofflaw

porsche959 wrote: »

I put up the link to the Fawkes in response this post from Scofflaw, in which he alleged, citing no evidence whatever:



Presumably those attacking the credibility of the Fawkes list can furnish the correct list.

So, let's see it.

There isn't a "correct list", and the Fawkes' list can be shown to be dodgy without any such thing. You've ignored the point that the list doesn't make any mention of the amounts, and that by itself discredits the list, because it means you have no idea whether the bonds held by those creditors appearing on the list amount to anything much, let alone cover the full amount involved.

As to the point about Irish creditors being redacted, and some of the bondholders appearing holding only junior bonds, I'll repost my original research on the subject:

z0oT wrote: »

If most of the bondholders are indeed Irish and not French or German, where does that leave the following touted and apparently leaked Anglo bondholder list?
http://order-order.com/2010/10/15/anglo-irish-bondholders-should-take-the-lossesis-the-ecb-forcing-ireland-to-protect-german-investments/

Of course the authenticity of such a list is undoubtedly questionable, nonetheless the first few entries on the list do if I recall correctly co-incide with the few names David Norris read out in the Seanad late last year. Regardless that's just Anglo, and not the others.

I've covered this before on another thread - it leaves the list as a red herring very conveniently leaked just as Fianna Fáil were denying that they needed a bailout. And leaked to a eurosceptic British blogger who could be guaranteed to give the right spin.

The really interesting thing about that list is this:

Deka Investment GmbH says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:37 pm

We’re on the list?

News to us.

*
12
Guido Fawkes says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:49 pm

You hold USD EQUIV 1.756 Million of the EURO MEDIUM-TERM NOTES 2004-25.6.14 FLOATER COUPON 1.689 TERM 06/25/2014

Do you want to know what day you bought it?
o
17
Deka Investment GmbH says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:55 pm

That’s a pretty **** coupon for junior debt.
+
26
Guido Fawkes says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:02 pm

You bought it.

Junior debt? But the list is supposed to be Anglo's senior bondholders - the people who couldn't be burned. To quote another comment:

Without knowing whether or not the firms listed are sub or senior debt holders, this entire thread is bull****.

Junior debt holders were burned - if Deka was holding junior Anglo debt, then they got 20 cents in the euro, that being the offer on 2014 junior debt: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/anglo-offer-on-subordinated-debt-tantamount-to-default-2394045.html

And no Irish institutions at all? The other one has bells on. We know there were Irish bondholders: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1209/1224285100497.html:

WEXFORD CREDIT Union is unable to pay a dividend to its members this year because it has been forced to write down a €3 million investment in Anglo Irish Bank.

Manager Ultan Ryan said the credit union owned subordinated Anglo bonds worth €2.99 million, an investment which has now been written down by 80 per cent.

That's the same writedown as Deka suffered, and Deka are on the list (because they're German), with a bond coupon from the same issue as Wexford's, while the Wexford Credit Union isn't. The list, therefore, has been carefully filleted of any Irish names.

So we know that the list is a mix of different types of debt, some of whom were burned, and that the list is deliberately void of Irish names. It was leaked in the run-up to the bailout, and it was leaked to someone who could be counted on to take the right angle - that a European bailout was being forced on Ireland for the benefit of European banks.

Goodness, I wonder who might benefit from that? They'd need to be the kind of people who weren't afraid of a little media manipulation. I'm sure the name will come to me in a minute...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hope that helps, although I suspect you won't be happy to give up this convenient and alluring fake no matter what.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

porsche959 wrote: »

Presumably those attacking the credibility of the Fawkes list can furnish the correct list.

The onus lies with someone claiming something to be true to prove their claim, not on others to disprove it.

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

People should spot at least some of that for themselves, but the "it was the Germans and French" narrative is sufficiently strong to allow them to "fill in" the rather important missing features and assume it's senior bondholders and accounts for a lot of money. porsche959 has used it here, for example, to oppose the statement that there was little eurozone money in the Irish banks, even though the list very clearly doesn't show any amounts, and therefore can't possibly refute such a statement.

If people (including porsche959) want to know how much eurozone money was in the Irish banks, it's a matter of record, and can be looked up on the Central Bank of Ireland website.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hope that helps, although I suspect you won't be happy to give up this convenient and alluring fake no matter what.

I'm amused by the exchanges where one set of data indicating much Eurozone money in Irish banks is attacked as incomplete and misleading. Yet another set of incomplete and misleading data is hailed as demonstrating relatively little Eurozone money was in Irish banks.

I think both sides find it difficult to give up their convenient and alluring fakes and acknowledge the reality that exposure is *intensely* difficult to track back more than one layer.

View

Sand wrote: »

I'm amused by the exchanges where one set of data indicating much Eurozone money in Irish banks is attacked as incomplete and misleading. Yet another set of incomplete and misleading data is hailed as demonstrating relatively little Eurozone money was in Irish banks.

I think both sides find it difficult to give up their convenient and alluring fakes and acknowledge the reality that exposure is *intensely* difficult to track back more than one layer.

So, in other words, the allegation can't be proven, so it is just random speculatuon at best?

And the official data that the Central Bank has published should be just ignored lest it contradict the speculation?

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

So, in other words, the allegation can't be proven, so it is just random speculatuon at best?

And the official data that the Central Bank has published should be just ignored lest it contradict the speculation?

It appears that Sand subscribes to the view that the CBI data could be inaccurate because it might be the case that what appears to be non-eurozone money could be eurozone money coming via non-eurozone or Irish banks.

I highlight the various "coulds" and "mights" because this has been claimed elsewhere, but never demonstrated at all at any point.

The problem is that despite the persistence of the myth, there remains no evidence at all that demonstrates a large amount of eurozone money entering the Irish banks. There never has been such evidence, or at least nobody has presented it - supporters of the "eurozone money flood" have presented data like the BIS data which provably can't support what they claim, or the "Anglo list" which proves nothing at all, and reject data from the CBI by claiming it could have flaws, which they are regrettably unable to demonstrate.

I don't regard the issue as definitively settled, but all the usable data does point one way. Which means that the whole "eurozone money flood" narrative exists entirely separate from any facts - which in turn means its proponents are unlikely to be dissuaded by facts.

All that, and then the fact that banks don't actually borrow to lend anyway, which makes the whole thing rather moot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

View wrote: »

So, in other words, the allegation can't be proven, so it is just random speculatuon at best?

And the official data that the Central Bank has published should be just ignored lest it contradict the speculation?

I think it should be taken for what its worth - not much when a UK branch of an Irish bank is considered to be a UK bank in that official data. In same way, a UK branch of a German bank is considered to be a UK bank.

Hence my amusement at people denouncing one conclusion based on incomplete data, whilst making an opposing conclusion based on incomplete data. Everyone is very attached to their own narrative. The reality is it is *extremely* difficult to say where the financial exposure to "Irish" banks ultimately lay. What the list does demonstrate though is that Ireland was not some unknown market to German investors or German financial institutions.

ChicagoJoe

Scofflaw wrote: »

It appears that Sand subscribes to the view that the CBI data could be inaccurate because it might be the case that what appears to be non-eurozone money could be eurozone money coming via non-eurozone or Irish banks.

Tellingly though the same Sand tells us that any random opinion poll by British/unionist media such as the BBC or Belfast Telegraph that finds in favor of partition remaining, is in his opinion unquestionably accurate !!!! And all this despite proof that the ever closing gap between unionist and nationalist votes in actual elections for decades is heading to an inevitable united Ireland

And also he alleges he's not a unionist either :P

ChicagoJoe

View wrote: »

So, in other words, the allegation can't be proven, so it is just random speculatuon at best?

And the official data that the Central Bank has published should be just ignored lest it contradict the speculation?

Sand only believes little opinion polls by the BBC and Belfast Telegraph when there findings run contrary to actual election results for decades !!!

Sand

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Tellingly though the same Sand tells us that any random opinion poll by British/unionist media such as the BBC or Belfast Telegraph that finds in favor of partition remaining, is in his opinion unquestionably accurate !!!! And all this despite proof that the ever closing gap between unionist and nationalist votes in actual elections for decades is heading to an inevitable united Ireland

And also he alleges he's not a unionist either :P

And that's a swing and a miss...

Honestly, a thread asking about the British attitude to Europe already on a tangent about the amount of Eurozone exposure to Irish banks. I'm not going to follow you off down a tangent about Northern Ireland and the quality of polling data.

porsche959

Scofflaw wrote: »

It appears that Sand subscribes to the view that the CBI data could be inaccurate because it might be the case that what appears to be non-eurozone money could be eurozone money coming via non-eurozone or Irish banks.

I highlight the various "coulds" and "mights" because this has been claimed elsewhere, but never demonstrated at all at any point.

The problem is that despite the persistence of the myth, there remains no evidence at all that demonstrates a large amount of eurozone money entering the Irish banks. There never has been such evidence, or at least nobody has presented it - supporters of the "eurozone money flood" have presented data like the BIS data which provably can't support what they claim, or the "Anglo list" which proves nothing at all, and reject data from the CBI by claiming it could have flaws, which they are regrettably unable to demonstrate.

I don't regard the issue as definitively settled, but all the usable data does point one way. Which means that the whole "eurozone money flood" narrative exists entirely separate from any facts - which in turn means its proponents are unlikely to be dissuaded by facts.

Second request.

Can you provide a link to the exact report from the Central Bank which validates your claim that the funding of Irish banks by European banks was very low. No need for amateur dramatics and histrionics, just a link to the actual report, if you please.

Scofflaw wrote: »

All that, and then the fact that banks don't actually borrow to lend anyway, which makes the whole thing rather moot.

Bit inconsistent, no?

porsche959

If Merkel wants to keep UK in the EU, the spectacle of Greece getting screwed over in the next couple of months might not be ideal!

Jim2007

porsche959 wrote: »

If Merkel wants to keep UK in the EU, the spectacle of Greece getting screwed over in the next couple of months might not be ideal!

I don't know if it reached the English press, but Die Frau has already said she has given up on them!

porsche959

Jim2007 wrote: »

I don't know if it reached the English press, but Die Frau has already said she has given up on them!

Oops! Looks like they're biting again

FreudianSlippers

porsche959 wrote: »

If Merkel wants to keep UK in the EU, the spectacle of Greece getting screwed over in the next couple of months might not be ideal!

Can you explain this one to me? There is a jump in logic between the UK in the EU and Greece's problem in the Eurozone that I just can't put together.

porsche959

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you explain this one to me? There is a jump in logic between the UK in the EU and Greece's problem in the Eurozone that I just can't put together.

Something to help you out in your researches....

https://books.google.ie/books?id=o-WVGrsfeI4C&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=alan+walters+economist+eurosceptic&source=bl&ots=xoIgWr6KyM&sig=feCuLOgkp-AE8cF8NZWI_vJG8eU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zPrTVKv0G6nd7AbRpYC4DA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=alan%20walters%20economist%20eurosceptic&f=false

McDave

porsche959 wrote: »

If Merkel wants to keep UK in the EU, the spectacle of Greece getting screwed over in the next couple of months might not be ideal!

I think the average UK punter can work out that Greece has being screwing *itself* over. People aren't that thick

IrishTrajan

Maura74 wrote: »

Rule Britannia brigade is doing well now.... Brits still thinks that they are still an Empire has sad....:o

I do not think the Liberal party that are in the coalition are not too happy about it.

Heard on the radio that they do not want to pay for counties like Greece that can still retire at the age of 50 whereas in other courtiers workers have to works another 15 years before they can retire.:(

Britain isn't an empire, but it is a major world power. They have the 6th largest economy in the world, with the fifth largest military (granted, the disparity between them and China is quite vast). Their blue water capabilities are also going to grow with the construction of their stealth submarines (Astute-class) and the QE-class carriers (2). I would expect them to overtake France in military position by 2025, economically by 2020 bar any catastrophic economic meltdown.

The fact they still lead the Commonwealth, and have close ties with Australia (who are expanding their power) and Canada (rather decaying, I should hope that they increase their spending) who are both large economies and members of G7+1 should not be ignored.

That said:

Britain is increasingly euro-skeptic, because it doesn't really see any benefit to their membership aside from market access (which can be acquired without full membership: Norway, Switzerland). They're not part of the Schengen, so I don't know what their stance is on immigration.

I think, for Ireland, it is better for us if the British leave the E.U.. Before you scream at me, allow me to explain: Ireland can still instate free-trade ties with Britain outside of the E.U. if we really desire to do so. We may also attract British-based companies to setting up in Ireland for access to E.U. markets (which will be more important than ever, now that U.K. is giving Stormont power to change Corporation Tax levels to be more competitive with the Republic).

I similarly think that if Britain leaves, Ireland could benefit politically. Anglo-Irish cooperation would increase, as Britain and the Republic could strike a deal. We look out for British interests in Europe, if they look out for us on the world stage by launching more joint-trade missions to Asia, and provide us with some of the military assets they intend to decommission (not for free, of course, but discounted).

Jim2007

[QUOTE=IrishTrajan;94229761
Britain is increasingly euro-skeptic, because it doesn't really see any benefit to their membership aside from market access (which can be acquired without full membership: Norway, Switzerland).[/QUOTE]

While it is true that we (Switzerland) have access to the EU market, we have it on terms that would be unacceptable to the UK! We have to fully comply with all the market rules, we have to contribute billions to the stability fund and we have to accept the free movement of people. And all of this without any seat at the decision table.

IrishTrajan

Jim2007 wrote: »

While it is true that we (Switzerland) have access to the EU market, we have it on terms that would be unacceptable to the UK! We have to fully comply with all the market rules, we have to contribute billions to the stability fund and we have to accept the free movement of people. And all of this without any seat at the decision table.

The free movement of people is part of the market. Factors of production: Land, Capital, Enterprise, and labour.

All member states have to allow for free movement, it's just that Britain and Ireland still require migrants to hold passports, e.g. we are not a part of Schengen. I don't know if Switzerland or Norway are part of it.

All members also had to pay into the Stability Fund, I think. Switzerland not having a seat at the table is the drawback of not being a full member, I'm afraid.

Jim2007

IrishTrajan wrote: »

All members also had to pay into the Stability Fund, I think. Switzerland not having a seat at the table is the drawback of not being a full member, I'm afraid.

But that is the point, the UK would have to accept all the same stuff as now but without an input the decision process and that is not the kind of access the are seeking.

The Corinthian

Jim2007 wrote: »

But that is the point, the UK would have to accept all the same stuff as now but without an input the decision process and that is not the kind of access the are seeking.

Fax Democracy - as coined by the Norwegians - so named because they spend their time waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from Brussels, for implementation.

gallag

I would think the U.K will have a better hand to play at the negotiating table than a lot of the smaller countries. To assume they will get the same deal is a bit deluded. I think due to having a trade deficit with the EU a simple free trade agreement would be better for all, I can't imagine the Germans being extatic about losing their fourth largest buyer of cars etc.

Really, why is the thought of a country being independent with good simple trade deals so abhorrent to some? Why the need for bloated multilayered governance?

Thomas_.

porsche959 wrote: »

If Merkel wants to keep UK in the EU, the spectacle of Greece getting screwed over in the next couple of months might not be ideal!

So "it´s all Merkel´s fault" and the Greeks themselves have no responsibility for what went on in their own country before and during the bail out period. The Greeks and especially their new government will face the difficulties to bring their rich oligarchy to pay their taxes to contribute to their country and society as in every other decent country.

As for the UK remaining in the EU, the UKippers will see to that Cameron will be put under pressure and the up coming general election there in May this year will be a test on how strong the UKIP will get in taking seats at their own national parliament. Up to know, they and in particular Mr Farage have been nothing but a nuisance in the EP. There will be a referendum in the UK upon their membership in the EU, there´s no way taking that away for the people has been promised that and actually wants that.

Given what is written on various internet forums, some people make Frau Merkel even more important and powerful as she actually is in Europe.

To get back to the problem of the new Greek govt., they toured many EU member countries in seek for support of their new policy regarding the austerity, but they couldn´t find any allies. So the alternative to that is, according to recent news reports, that if the EU won´t help them, they´ll seek to get help either from the USA, Russia or China. I think that it´s a bit illusionary to think that they might get better conditions from them than from the EU.

Ping Chow Chi

As a 'UK'er' I actually would look more favourably towards the EU if they are firm with Greece. Who wants to be held to ransom every time a country doesn't want to get its own house in order?

If Greece cannot survive in the EU without going through round after round after round of bailouts, renegotiating debt etc. then maybe some hard choices should be made.

Thomas_.

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

As a 'UK'er' I actually would look more favourably towards the EU if they are firm with Greece. Who wants to be held to ransom every time a country doesn't want to get its own house in order?

If Greece cannot survive in the EU without going through round after round after round of bailouts, renegotiating debt etc. then maybe some hard choices should be made.

I´m with you there.

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

Really, why is the thought of a country being independent with good simple trade deals so abhorrent to some? Why the need for bloated multilayered governance?

Very simple - it would be unfair! UK companies would be able to gouge large profits out of the community without providing any opportunity for people in the EU to benefit from it. This is something the UK does not get - for most Europeans the EU is more about community than economics. If you look at companies in France, Germany, Austria, and even Switzerland, there is an expectation that companies contribute to the well being of the community in which they operate, so the idea of allowing UK companies access to the market without some pay off, is going to be a hard sell back home for EU politicians.

gallag

Jim2007 wrote: »

Very simple - it would be unfair! UK companies would be able to gouge large profits out of the community without providing any opportunity for people in the EU to benefit from it. This is something the UK does not get - for most Europeans the EU is more about community than economics. If you look at companies in France, Germany, Austria, and even Switzerland, there is an expectation that companies contribute to the well being of the community in which they operate, so the idea of allowing UK companies access to the market without some pay off, is going to be a hard sell back home for EU politicians.

That doesn't make sense, a free trade deal is two ways! If for example we negotiate a free trade deal with France the payoff to the French is equal terms of access to the UK market! What's wrong with that?

View

gallag wrote: »

That doesn't make sense, a free trade deal is two ways! If for example we negotiate a free trade deal with France the payoff to the French is equal terms of access to the UK market! What's wrong with that?

Well, you'd probably find that the French wouldn't regard the payoff as being equal were they supposed to give the UK Financial Services sector free access to their market.

Also, the French might well decide that - on principle - they'll opt to source their imports/send their exports tariff-free from/to Germany, Italy etc and leave the UK exporters struggling to contend with ttariffs. France, after all, is just as entitled to "exercise its sovereignty" as the UK is.

Jim2007

gallag wrote: »

That doesn't make sense, a free trade deal is two ways! If for example we negotiate a free trade deal with France the payoff to the French is equal terms of access to the UK market! What's wrong with that?

Simple, UK firms would be in a position to compete in the EU market place without having to meet the same social obligations as the competition - remember all that stuff that social stuff that the UK like to avoid....

I've no doubt that if they leave the EU, the UK will eventually get an agreement, but it will take a few years and will require the UK to accept the free movement of people and major contributions to the structural fund.