Why are the British so anti Europe?

paddyandy

The British don't see the rest of Europe as disciplined enough for their company .

The Corinthian

BettyM wrote: »

Ah, that old irregular verb. I explain, You hedge, He backtracks.

No, you're just backtracking and attempting to change your original claim now that it has been debunked.

There is no implication at all, and it is my contention that the hardship being caused around the Eurozone is caused directly by membership of the Euro. You may well differ which is, as I said earlier, is fine by me as I am here trying to convince anyone of anything.

Nice try but you're backtracking again. You specifically cited Ireland and not the Eurozone as a whole (which is another discussion) - I even quoted where you made your claim.

Why are you so transparently attempting to change your story now?

I look forward to you debating how, for example, quantative easing right now would make no difference to the Greeks.

I shall once you address the earlier rebuttal without attempting to redefine your claims. Otherwise, any tangent is frankly an attempt to deflect and obfuscate on your part.

I’m glad eventually we agree that the Euro does have at least a bearing on Ireland’s current predicament, although I suspect we differ still on the magnitude of that effect.

Of course it has a bearing, I'm not so blinkered that I would claim otherwise - as you have, because from what I can see, you have rejected any hint that it has had a positive bearing.

Having worked for a number of multinationals, I am not aware of single one made a decision to go to Ireland for that reason, and no business of any size would be influenced by such an obscure and minor feature.

Unless you work at close to CFO level, which given your understanding of economics is unlikely, I would doubt you would have much awareness of why such decisions are made.

The main reasons why they go to Ireland are for other substantial and major reasons, such as corporation tax rates, availability of suitable labour, access to markets, transport and communications networks and so on, and not because their accounts departments find it difficult to deal with different currencies.

And what do you think 'access to markets' means? It's not simply a question of being in a common market, but also that this access is simplified through a common currency.

Indeed, that we are a member of the Eurozone has been cited time and time again as one of the various reasons why multinationals base themselves in Ireland.

The predictions made by the economists as to what would happen to the smaller countries in the Euro have, unfortunately, come true, and it seems impossible from here to imagine that the currency can continue for much longer.

Source?

Better still, stop backtracking on your earlier claim and address my rebuttal.

old hippy

paddyandy wrote: »

The British don't see the rest of Europe as disciplined enough for their company .

Indeed. That's what I thought when this happened last year

Ping Chow Chi

I dont consider myself anti-european. It does look a bit of a mess at the moment though.

old hippy

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I dont consider myself anti-european. It does look a bit of a mess at the moment though.

No more of a mess than the UK, tbf

The Corinthian

old hippy wrote: »

No more of a mess than the UK, tbf

It's difficult to say, but in fairness the Eurozone, as a whole, is a bit of a mess at the moment. Then again so is the UK. And most other places.

Which is worse off, is arguable. The UK is certainly better off than Greece, Spain or Ireland, but at the same time it's worse off than Germany, Austria or the Netherlands, who are all in the Eurozone. Call a spade a spade, but there's not many places in the World that are unaffected by the last five years of economic turmoil, and those that did escape... well, I wouldn't exactly envy those living in some of them.

All of which really is irrelevant, because as has been repeatedly been pointed out British Eurosceptism pre-dates the Euro crisis and that's the topic here. The Eurozone crisis may have added to this Eurosceptism, but it's not the reason it exists in the first place.

Ping Chow Chi

old hippy wrote: »

No more of a mess than the UK, tbf

Indeed, but I cant see how a mess joining a mess will solve anyones problems. Maybe when the dust is settled and the euro is stable again...

*edit* and the british econemy has picked up again

Stillorganboy

Rupert Murdock is anti Europe and he has been and still using his media to undermine the EU.

golden lane

timbyr wrote: »

Um.... I've no idea how you have managed to link these.
Arguably the stability afforded by the Euro and low interest rates kept stable by the ECB has had a pretty large benefit for such a small peripheral country like ours.
Especially in regards to our exports. Which have now shifted from majority UK to majority Euro zone and have been growing even during the recession.

The building bust would have a lot more to do with poor domestic financial regulation, and planning regulation and lots of other things that could/should have been looked at on a domestic level.
So if you really want to look at why parts of Irelands economy went tits up you really don't have to look beyond our shores.

when the economy was faltering...it was the irish government that kept the building boom going.....guarenteeing the banks to dob so...economics of the madmen...imo..

old hippy

Stillorganboy wrote: »

Rupert Murdock is anti Europe and he has been and still using his media to undermine the EU.

I'd say Murdoch's days are numbered, in terms of influence at any rate.

View

BettyM wrote: »

Is your argument that the UK is in as bad a position as Greece, and the UK government can’t pay its debts just like the Greek government?

I didn't refer to either the Greek or the UK's debt at all. The figures are for the government's deficit - the "hole" in a government' budget between what they are spending and what they are collecting in taxes.

Obviously, the larger the hole in your public finances, the larger the financial adjustment you have to do to fix it sooner or later. Equally obviously, if you find yourself facing one of the larger such adjustments in the EU, you can't legitimately claim to be one of the better states at managing your government finances (or indeed anything other than that you are one of the poorer such managers).

Were having our own currency the be all and end all of economic management, the we should expect the UK to be the envy of all the EU, yet instead we have UK politicians doing an "Ah but we are better than Greece" line on it.

UK politicians if you note are increasingly blaming the Eurozone for all negative UK economic news. All of which shows the UK is in effect as "independent" of the Euro as a passenger in a motorbike sidecar is of its motorbike. The UK sidecar passenger has neither control of where the Eurozone motorbike is going nor can it avoid the unpleasant aftermath should the motorbike crash.

paddyandy

Old institutions with old lessons well learned .

The Corinthian

I was reading up on Britain's relationship with Europe and was surprised to find that Churchill originally argued - shortly after World War II - for a United States of Europe:

We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.

Of course, while he favoured this idea, he didn't favour Britain's participation:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

This probably explains Britain's attitude twoards the EU in many respects. They are not against a united Europe, but do not want to be part of it themselves - as evidenced by their refusal to sign the treaty of Rome.

Problem is though, that the EEC/EC/EU also represents a common market that Britain also realized it needed to be in, which is why it chose to set up EFTA in competition. When EFTA turned out not to work out as well as they'd hoped, they eventually joined the EEC, and then pursued a policy to obstruct the unification project, if favour of keeping it all as little more than a common market - in other words have tried to make the EEC/EC/EU into what they wanted EFTA to be.

This attitude of being "with Europe, but not of it" is almost certainly a throwback of pre-WW2 grandeur - of Britain as a superpower, which in practical terms was debunked largely by the failure of EFTA and the Suez fiasco. Yet, despite the new reality of the post-war World, Britain has maintained this policy, preferring instead to forge closer ties to its Commonwealth and Anglophone 'cousins'.

Yet at the same time it is bound by the EU also and perhaps it is this 'wanting your cake and eat it' approach to the EU is much of the reason for British Eurosceptism, not to mention some of the Anglophobia on the part of the other European nations.

TheLastLazyGun

OS119 wrote: »

they don't, the vast majority of Brits are aware of how important the EU is for UK trade, and not many believe that we can unilaterally change our relationship to a 'free-trade only' basis with the other EU states meekly accepting that.

The EU isn't as important for UK trade as the lying Europhile loons would have us believe.

For a start, when it comes to trade the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

southsiderosie

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

The EU isn't as important for UK trade as the lying Europhile loons would have us believe.

For a start, when it comes to trade the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

MOD NOTE:

If your only contributions to this forum are going to be snarky rants against the EU without any actual analysis or facts to back up your point, you will not be posting here much longer. Per the charter:

This is a Politics forum, not Liveline.

Certain standards of debate are expected, and will be enforced. Your posts must contribute to debate, not derail it or drag it into mob chanting. There's been a serious decrease in the signal to noise ratio in the forum recently, and that trend requires reversal.

If your posts consists of little more than a statement that some group of people or other are bad people and/or deserve prison/execution as traitors, think long and hard before pressing "submit", because we'll be treating that as trolling from here on in.

Please be mindful of this when posting.

The Corinthian

Satire often hits the nail on the head, and with regards to British policy to the rest of Europe, Yes Minister probably best summed it up almost thirty-three years ago:

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?"

Jim Hacker: "That's all ancient history, surely."

Sir Humphrey: "Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times."

It's hardly a secret that the British are considered a largely negative influence within Europe, which was why their membership was originally vetoed by de Gaulle, and that Britain leaving is not only be painful and inevitable in the long run, but ultimately preferable.

LincolnsBeard

The EU needs Britain

The Corinthian

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

The EU needs Britain

To a degree - just as the UK 'needs' the EU.

There is no doubt that Britain's membership of the EU, given its political and economic status, adds to the EU's influence and were she to leave this would be an enormous blow to the bloc. Politically it is also preferable to have the UK in the tent, as it were, pissing out than outside, pissing in.

Given this, one must also balance this against Britain's negative influence on the bloc - particularly it's repeated attempts to stifle any progress in making the EU anything more than a trading group - a geopolitical need that is becoming increasingly important given the rise of large developing nations that are increasingly dwarfing the 'old' West. In this regard, while the EU may need the UK, it may also, on balance, decide in the future that it's better off without it.

getz

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

whatstherush

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

It surprises me that some people equate democratic decisions taken by a populace to join and integrate into a political union as similar to being colonized by a belligerent neighbor.

getz

whatstherush wrote: »

It surprises me that some people equate democratic decisions taken by a populace to join and integrate into a political union as similar to being colonized by a belligerent neighbor.

what is democratic about people running the EU that have never been elected ,or EU ruling you have to except that the people do not want,

whatstherush

getz wrote: »

what is democratic about people running the EU that have never been elected ,or EU ruling you have to except that the people do not want,

The commissioners are appointed by the democratically elected governments of the member states. What is undemocratic in that?

Have you someone else in mind that is 'running the EU'?

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule

Still a lot better than London rule, TBH.

getz wrote: »

what is democratic about people running the EU that have never been elected ,or EU ruling you have to except that the people do not want,

Ultimately the people running the EU are the national governments, which are elected. The commission, in turn, is appointed by those governments (just like the British House of Lords) and thus accountable to those governments.

Or would you prefer that we transfer power to the elected European parliament, taking it away from the national governments and their appointed representatives in Brussels? I suspect your support for direct democracy will begin to falter at that thought...

Scofflaw

whatstherush wrote: »

The commissioners are appointed by the democratically elected governments of the member states. What is undemocratic in that?

Have you someone else in mind that is 'running the EU'?

The Council is closer to a government for the EU than are the Commission. The Commission proposes, but the Council and Parliament dispose - and the Commission can only propose within the limits set, again, by the Member States.

cordially,
Scofflaw

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

Still a lot better than London rule, TBH.

Ultimately the people running the EU are the national governments, which are elected. The commission, in turn, is appointed by those governments (just like the British House of Lords) and thus accountable to those governments.

Or would you prefer that we transfer power to the elected European parliament, taking it away from the national governments and their appointed representatives in Brussels? I suspect your support for direct democracy will begin to falter at that thought...

its called europes democratic deficit,two countries that have fell foul,and just look what has happend to them,the greeks have been given a brutal lesson,and the italians a firm warning, who is next ?portugese,ireland/cyprus,the will of the people has been stamped on by the germans and french. its a you vill do what your told,and not what the people want.

Scofflaw

getz wrote: »

its called europes democratic deficit,two countries that have fell foul,and just look what has happend to them,the greeks have been given a brutal lesson,and the italians a firm warning, who is next ?portugese,ireland/cyprus,the will of the people has been stamped on by the germans and french. its a you vill do what your told,and not what the people want.

The Greeks are asking the other countries (and the IMF) for money, and are in the usual position of a grossly insolvent debtor country vis a vis its creditors and lenders of last resort. It's nothing to do with the institutional EU, though, or the way the EU generally runs. On the contrary, it's what happens in a Europe of nation states - which is what eurosceptics want.

I appreciate no eurosceptic can admit that to themselves (and certainly not to others), but it's the truth - the unpleasant inter-national horse-trading and the larger nations throwing their weight around is what a non-EU Europe would look like all the time, over everything.

amused,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

its called europes democratic deficit,two countries that have fell foul,and just look what has happend to them,the greeks have been given a brutal lesson,and the italians a firm warning, who is next ?portugese,ireland/cyprus,the will of the people has been stamped on by the germans and french. its a you vill do what your told,and not what the people want.

What has that got to do with what I posted, and you quoted?

As to your non sequitur, I do find it rather amusing given that you failed to mention Iceland, a non-EU member, who got its assets frozen.

old hippy

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

No, we won't & no they aren't.

McDave

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

Your terminology is all wrong and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the EU.

- 'Brussels rule': there is neither a monarchy nor autocratic government in Brussels;

- 'franco/german government': there isn't even an EU government, let alone a Franco-German one. The EU is still a legal order based on treaties entered into by democratic governments - 27 of them as it happens, with more in the pipeline. German and French influence is very strong in this arrangement. They're more responsible for the concept than most, but most other European countries have signed up to the vision. Influence and vision, however, doesn't constitute rule.

Pray tell how countries are being 'destroyed'.

McDave

getz wrote: »

what is democratic about people running the EU that have never been elected ,or EU ruling you have to except that the people do not want,

What are you looking for? A fully federalised or even centralised EU? With a European Parliament with full legislative powers? With a European government with full executive powers? With its own intrinsic sovereignty?

At that point you can talk about EU 'democracy' with real meaning analogous to what we understand in national states. [Add to it a European king, and you can truly talk of EU 'rule'.]

In the meantime we'll all have to settle for an EU in which executive power resides mainly in the individual member states acting through the Council.

getz

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Greeks are asking the other countries (and the IMF) for money, and are in the usual position of a grossly insolvent debtor country vis a vis its creditors and lenders of last resort. It's nothing to do with the institutional EU, though, or the way the EU generally runs. On the contrary, it's what happens in a Europe of nation states - which is what eurosceptics want.

I appreciate no eurosceptic can admit that to themselves (and certainly not to others), but it's the truth - the unpleasant inter-national horse-trading and the larger nations throwing their weight around is what a non-EU Europe would look like all the time, over everything.

amused,
Scofflaw

glad that you are amused, but i very much doubt irish people who wake up this morning and find the austerity measures they face,more tax rises,property tax,cuts to health and social welfare,and and jobs,will think the same as you,

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

glad that you are amused, but i very much doubt irish people who wake up this morning and find the austerity measures they face,more tax rises,property tax,cuts to health and social welfare,and and jobs,will think the same as you,

What I find amusing is how you and other Eurosceptics repeatedly make sweeping and outlandish claims, have those claims debunked when the actual facts are presented then casually ignore the rebuttal and move onto the next sweeping and outlandish claim - until enough time has passed (or a new thread is started) where you can repeat the same sweeping and outlandish claim that you already know is false.

For example, you imply that the the austerity measures presently facing Ireland are somehow the fault, principally, of the EU and/or Euro. Yet this is something that has repeatedly been pointed out as false; at worst the lower interest rates that came with the Euro may have added to the lemming-like property bubble that caused the bank debts that were then bailed out by the government, yet were we not in the Euro, we still would have had the same bubble, the same failing banks, the same bailout and the same austerity needed to pay for the bailout.

It also presumes that the government would have even done anything to cool down the bubble in the first place, using monetary tools, which given we had fiscal tools to do so and didn't use them, seems very unlikely.

And we could now devalue our currency were we not in the Eurozone, so as to make Irish goods and services competitive. Yet, that would also deepen our debt, requiring further austerity - unless you want to argue that defaulting would solve this - which is another can of worms.

All of which is Euro related criticism and nothing to do with actual EU membership, which has repeatedly been shown to have improved the lives of people in Ireland.

Care to address all that, or would you prefer to come out with more snappy non sequiturs?

KyussBishop

While I agree with the general point, that we would have ended up in this mess euro or not, one point that the EU is totally failing on, and making the problem worse with, is lack of any adequate growth policies.

There are a whole range of policies that would help alleviate the crisis much faster (that you can even use alongside austerity if you like) and possibly keep the EU together in the long run, that are locked out due to political problems/inertia within the EU.

getz

The Corinthian wrote: »

What I find amusing is how you and other Eurosceptics repeatedly make sweeping and outlandish claims, have those claims debunked when the actual facts are presented then casually ignore the rebuttal and move onto the next sweeping and outlandish claim - until enough time has passed (or a new thread is started) where you can repeat the same sweeping and outlandish claim that you already know is false.

For example, you imply that the the austerity measures presently facing Ireland are somehow the fault, principally, of the EU and/or Euro. Yet this is something that has repeatedly been pointed out as false; at worst the lower interest rates that came with the Euro may have added to the lemming-like property bubble that caused the bank debts that were then bailed out by the government, yet were we not in the Euro, we still would have had the same bubble, the same failing banks, the same bailout and the same austerity needed to pay for the bailout.

It also presumes that the government would have even done anything to cool down the bubble in the first place, using monetary tools, which given we had fiscal tools to do so and didn't use them, seems very unlikely.

And we could now devalue our currency were we not in the Eurozone, so as to make Irish goods and services competitive. Yet, that would also deepen our debt, requiring further austerity - unless you want to argue that defaulting would solve this - which is another can of worms.

All of which is Euro related criticism and nothing to do with actual EU membership, which has repeatedly been shown to have improved the lives of people in Ireland.

Care to address all that, or would you prefer to come out with more snappy non sequiturs?

as far as the euro,if you put a kid in a sweet shop without supervision,you then cannot blame the kid for eating too many sweets.

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

as far as the euro,if you put a kid in a sweet shop without supervision,you then cannot blame the kid for eating too many sweets.

Ahh... the old, "we are not in any way responsible for our actions" defence. I thought the bankers were to blame though? Or the government? Is it all the EU's fault now? God forbid that our own collective hubris had anything to do with it.

Which of course ignores what I already posted above; that the bubble would still have occurred had we not been in the Euro, that we ignored the fiscal tools we had at our disposal to defuse it and, despite you ranting about the EU, the best any of this even applies to is the Eurozone.

Are you going to concede the point that factually your claim is nonsense, or can you rationally defend it in light of the facts?

getz

who is to blame ?well a quick google tells me,that europe blames the UK for the euro debt crisis, and then again EU chief barroso blames US banks for the eurozone crisis, but again the IMF blames the people and not goverments,ha now i see it now a number of euro countries are now blaming germany . no its greece, some time soon they will get round to blame ireland.

old hippy

getz wrote: »

as far as the euro,if you put a kid in a sweet shop without supervision,you then cannot blame the kid for eating too many sweets.

Yes but too many cooks spoil the broth

The Corinthian

getz wrote: »

who is to blame ?well a quick google tells me,that europe blames the UK for the euro debt crisis, and then again EU chief barroso blames US banks for the eurozone crisis, but again the IMF blames the people and not goverments,ha now i see it now a number of euro countries are now blaming germany . no its greece, some time soon they will get round to blame ireland.

Irrelevant sidestepping and again you ignore what I already posted; that the bubble would still have occurred had we not been in the Euro, that we ignored the fiscal tools we had at our disposal to defuse it and, despite you ranting about the EU, the best any of this even applies to is the Eurozone.

Is there any particular reason you're avoiding the fact that your earlier claim has been demonstrably rubbished?

View

getz wrote: »

glad that you are amused, but i very much doubt irish people who wake up this morning and find the austerity measures they face,more tax rises,property tax,cuts to health and social welfare,and and jobs,will think the same as you,

You are aware that the UK is facing another 5 years of austerity?

And that, according to their own submission to the Commission, the last member states in the EU to reduce their government deficits to the -3% of GDP target are going to be Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK?

It must have the UK's adoption of the Euro that caused the UK to fall so low, right?

The Corinthian

View wrote: »

It must have the UK's adoption of the Euro that caused the UK to fall so low, right?

Actually he goes much further; it's apparently membership of the EU that is the cause of all this austerity, that he has only drawn arguments with regards to the Euro is probably what's confusing you

It's all validatory, self-justifying nonsense, TBH. There's certainly plenty of scope for criticism for the EU and the Euro, not least of all the continuing failure of the bloc to adopt a policy that will actually tackle the economic crisis, however euroscepticism as a position is ideological in nature rather than economic - it's just that the ideological arguments (typically nationalist and generally xenophobic) are not going to find widespread support in most European nations. Hence this desperate attempt to use economic argument to win over people.

gallag

After today it looks like the deficit and borrowing are going the right way in the uk, not joining the euro seems to have been the correct choice, I hope we remain sceptical of the euro.

gallag

Because of the faith the world has in the uk and the pound they can now borrow money cheaper than ever, the chanceler today reported that that is saving the uk 43billion (same as the entire military budget) on estimated payments. Fantastic news.

The Corinthian

gallag wrote: »

After today it looks like the deficit and borrowing are going the right way in the uk

You can say the same about Ireland's deficit and borrowing too.

europa11

gallag wrote: »

Because of the faith the world has in the uk and the pound they can now borrow money cheaper than ever, the chanceler today reported that that is saving the uk 43billion (same as the entire military budget) on estimated payments. Fantastic news.

cheaper!!! So how has the rate on their 10yr. sovereign gone up from 1.70 to 1.82 then? Admittedly still low but not the lowest rate in for an EU state by any means.

Source:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-bond-10y


and these guys (BBC) don't seem to share your optimistic outlook, but what do they know!

"Chancellor George Osborne has scrapped a planned 3p rise in fuel duty, but benefits face a further squeeze as he admitted the UK economy was struggling"

source:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20600442

old hippy

gallag wrote: »

After today it looks like the deficit and borrowing are going the right way in the uk, not joining the euro seems to have been the correct choice, I hope we remain sceptical of the euro.

I hope "we" don't. I don't see this faith in your country that you claim people have? In fact, I don't see it amongst British folk on a daily basis.

walrusgumble

getz wrote: »

i am surprised ireland and the irish still wish to be a part of a political organization,that intends to subject its people to brussels rule, you fought for 800 years for independance,and you could end up with a franco/german goverment,countries are already being destroyed from their EURO idea.its a we own you now do as your told time,i only hope the UK has a chance to vote us out of it.

In the good times, it allowed Ireland to move away from the dependence of the UK.It is a major reason why we joined . It has, in the past helped us and probably now, fecked us up, but that is mainly our fault. You think America would look at Ireland were it not for EU membership?

We were wrong however to join the currency, Britain were laughed at. SOme of the documentaries highlighting what really went on and why Britain said feck this, are scary. They were right not to adopt the currency. And there was stupid Paddy Irish man (not all) laughing about how they simply wanted to keep their queen on their coins.

getz

old hippy wrote: »

I hope "we" don't. I don't see this faith in your country that you claim people have? In fact, I don't see it amongst British folk on a daily basis.

do you actually meet any british folk,living in london ?

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh... the old, "we are not in any way responsible for our actions" defence. I thought the bankers were to blame though? Or the government? Is it all the EU's fault now? God forbid that our own collective hubris had anything to do with it.

Which of course ignores what I already posted above; that the bubble would still have occurred had we not been in the Euro, that we ignored the fiscal tools we had at our disposal to defuse it and, despite you ranting about the EU, the best any of this even applies to is the Eurozone.

Are you going to concede the point that factually your claim is nonsense, or can you rationally defend it in light of the facts?

To be fair, we didn't exactly ignore the fiscal tools we had at our disposal - all the available ones were used to pump the bubble harder.

cordially,
Scofflaw

old hippy

getz wrote: »

do you actually meet any british folk,living in london ?

Do you?

We must be moving in different circles.

getz

old hippy wrote: »

Do you?

We must be moving in different circles.

not now, all the ones i knew died,and most of the londoners i now meet live in the blackpool area,