Nigel Farage MEP

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

But however we judge any politician, what seems true in the UK is that Farage personally, and UKIP, have a level of popularity. Where that may lead nobody knows, but it makes for a more entertaining political discourse.

Entertainment? Well, I suppose there is the adage about politics being showbiz for ugly people. Personally I'd be hoping for more. But not necessarily from Farage.

As far as democracy goes, IMO he's welcome to pander to whom he likes in the UK. But for me he becomes fair game for ridicule when he behaves like a child in the EP, or pops over to Dublin to canvass against EU referenda.

georgesstreet

McDave wrote: »

Well, thanks for that. But I think we can all agree that Farage doesn't resonate in the UK. 'UK'IP is an English phenomenon, with *no* support whatsoever in Scotland. I'd suspect this lack of support is down to the view that UKIP plays to a narrower ethnic base than it claims.

I suppose that depends on the definition of resonate. Certainly they are not a mainstream party, although Opinium’s fortnightly poll in the Observer has topline figures of CON 28%(nc), LAB 35%(-2), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 19%(+3). Meanwhile the weekly YouGov poll in the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 30%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 15%. (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/)

There is no chance they will have the numbers to form a government, but there is a chance they might hold some sort of balance of power. Certainly, the Tories are concerned that they are eating into their base, and at this stage in the electoral cycle, they seem to be gaining some sort of momentum. 15%-19% seems to demonstrate they have a resonance in the UK, and UKIP’s policy of trying to unseat “Europhile” Tories at the next election may have some surprising outcomes.

McDave wrote: »

I'd suspect it's more than my judgement that many people in England are deep-seated chauvinists who simply can't get over WW2. It permeates so much of Britain's print and broadcast media. But maybe that's understandable. Like Ireland, Britain is quite an insular place, and it's easy enough to get by without being challenged by neighbours. But if you don't think so, then perhaps that's down to your individual judgement.

It may well be that the UK is insular and many can’t get over WW2, but the UK is as the UK is. I distrust my individual judgement as we all have our own bias. It may well be UKIP support declines as the focus of a general election gets closer, we’ll have to wait and see. But it is an interesting time in UK politics, and UKIP’s popularity adds to the overall scene to make it more interesting.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

Well, you're quick in there to lightly dismiss the Euro as a fiasco.

Nothing light about the fiasco, and nothing quick in making the assessment.

McDave wrote: »

Indeed, I'd argue to the contrary that the Euro has shown very early promise and resilience in the face of the challenges of the international financial crisis.

It's more that its a very difficult knot to unpick.

McDave wrote: »

In fact, bang in the middle of the crisis the Irish electorate gave a resounding endorsement to steps to strengthen the EU.

But, sure, we want to be told what to do. In particular, we want them to repay all the debt we've accumulated. Bear in mind, it hasn't really sunk in that all the funds we got off the Troika need to be repaid, including the funds to redeem the Anglo promissory notes.

In the circumstances, talk of a 'resounding endorsement' has shades of Comical Ali.

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

I suppose that depends on the definition of resonate. Certainly they are not a mainstream party, although Opinium’s fortnightly poll in the Observer has topline figures of CON 28%(nc), LAB 35%(-2), LDEM 8%(-1), UKIP 19%(+3). Meanwhile the weekly YouGov poll in the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 30%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 15%. (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/)

There is no chance they will have the numbers to form a government, but there is a chance they might hold some sort of balance of power. Certainly, the Tories are concerned that they are eating into their base, and at this stage in the electoral cycle, they seem to be gaining some sort of momentum. 15%-19% seems to demonstrate they have a resonance in the UK, and UKIP’s policy of trying to unseat “Europhile” Tories at the next election may have some surprising outcomes.

What I said was UKIP doesn't resonate in the *UK*. By not having any support in Scotland, UKIP is a misnomer. It's really an English phenomenon. And I would certainly agree the party resonates much more there.

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

It may well be that the UK is insular and many can’t get over WW2, but the UK is as the UK is. I distrust my individual judgement as we all have our own bias. It may well be UKIP support declines as the focus of a general election gets closer, we’ll have to wait and see. But it is an interesting time in UK politics, and UKIP’s popularity adds to the overall scene to make it more interesting.

For me UKIP is interesting in the sense Screaming Lord Sutch was. Of course UKIP is far more organised, but my net point is UKIP isn't *IMO* bringing anything particularly constructive to the table.

My general view of Britain is largely positive, in most aspects of human endeavour. It's my view though that the UK has let itself down politically since WW2, by effectively contracting out its leadership role, however diminished, to the US. By passing on continental Europe, it's my view that the UK has missed a very significant opportunity which it could have been instrumental in. And which could have helped it retrieve much of its lost international momentum.

IMO it has foregone this option because it never expected the EU to take off, and it has inherent misgivings about/fears of France and particularly Germany. It's my view that the EU will go from strength to strength, and the UK's role will continue to diminish. Naturally I can't prove that. But by staying on the margins, the UK is taking unnecessary risks, when it might be better off keeping its hand in.

I suppose that's the main reason why I have no respect for UKIP. IMO British Euroscepticism is adequately served by the Tories and much of Britain's press. UKIP is an unnecessary step too far in that direction, and to me is more like evidence of a political pathology, than an interesting development.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, we want to be told what to do. In particular, we want them to repay all the debt we've accumulated. Bear in mind, it hasn't really sunk in that all the funds we got off the Troika need to be repaid, including the funds to redeem the Anglo promissory notes.

'We', 'They'?

Can you be a bit more specific please?

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In the circumstances, talk of a 'resounding endorsement' has shades of Comical Ali.

A 2 to 1 vote on a high turnout on the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, and a 60% Yes to the Fiscal Compact Treaty in 2012 were resoundingdemocratic endorsements on EU integration and the EZ by the Irish electorate *after* the 2008 fiasco had occurred.

Now, if *you* equate these striking democratic consents with Saddam's regime, perhaps it's you who's not taking matters seriously, in particular the expressed wishes of the Irish people.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

'We', 'They'?

Can you be a bit more specific please?

No, because the meaning is plain. If I feel like making things unnecessarily difficult, I'll paint my hallway through the letterbox.

McDave wrote: »

A 2 to 1 vote on a high turnout on the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, and a 60% Yes to the Fiscal Compact Treaty in 2012 <...> by the Irish electorate *after* the 2008 fiasco had occurred.

I'm not disputing these facts. I'm simply seeing your interpretation of them as naive.

In particular, the issue of the debt burden accumulated by the Irish State since 2008 needs to feature somewhere in your thinking. I can't help thinking that, if the Troika are willing to lend us billions of euro, they must feel that billions of euro won't be worth very much in a few years time.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can't help thinking that, if the Troika are willing to lend us billions of euro, they must feel that billions of euro won't be worth very much in a few years time.

...or that we'll repay our debts, like we've been repaying our debts since we first started borrowing money to run the country.

georgesstreet

McDave wrote: »

For me UKIP is interesting in the sense Screaming Lord Sutch was. Of course UKIP is far more organised, but my net point is UKIP isn't *IMO* bringing anything particularly constructive to the table.

While the Monster Raving Looney Party was fun, to liken UKIP, a party with national support and with 15%-19% in the polls nationally, to the Monster Raving Looney Party, does seem to expose your own bias.

McDave wrote: »

I suppose that's the main reason why I have no respect for UKIP. IMO British Euroscepticism is adequately served by the Tories and much of Britain's press. UKIP is an unnecessary step too far in that direction, and to me is more like evidence of a political pathology, than an interesting development.

Again, your judgment that there is no need for UKIP seems not to be shared with the 15%-19% who the polls tell us support UKIP.

It’s curious you say it’s not interesting, yet here you are discussing it

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

...or that we'll repay our debts, like we've been repaying our debts since we first started borrowing money to run the country.

You're sort of missing the implication of us being part of a single currency area. In fairness to you, it's not as if there was much discussion of those implications before we joined.

And, of course, it's similarly explicable that you're ignoring the real world context - that we ended up in a programme precisely because of profound doubts about the capacity to repay debt.

gallag

UKIP is already making a massive difference in UK politics, nearly every decision made by the PM is influenced by the rise of UKIP popularity.

Lemming

gallag wrote: »

UKIP is already making a massive difference in UK politics, nearly every decision made by the PM is influenced by the rise of UKIP popularity.

No, it's just Cameron's inability to control his own party that has him looking over his shoulder constantly. That's why he's trying to pander to UKIP-lite types. UKIP are, despite their apparent gains, a narrow-focus-narrow-appeal party (as much as it may be ignored, they pander strongly to supporters of the various 'nationalist' parties), with little in the way of any real credible policy beyond making soundbites about the EU and immigrants being the devil in disguise.

georgesstreet

Lemming wrote: »

No, it's just Cameron's inability to control his own party that has him looking over his shoulder constantly.

Surely it should be "yes" and not "no" as you seem to be agreeing with the other poster that UKIP has made Cameron look over his shoulder. The two of you seem to be in agreement.

Lemming

georgesstreet wrote: »

Surely it should be "yes" and not "no" as you seem to be agreeing with the other poster that UKIP has made Cameron look over his shoulder. The two of you seem to be in agreement.

No (and to clarify, that'd be "no"); I meant what I wrote.

Have a think about what I wrote some more.

georgesstreet

Lemming wrote: »

No (and to clarify, that'd be "no"); I meant what I wrote.

Have a think about what I wrote some more.

I don't need to "have a think" as you patronisingly suggest. I can read what you wrote. I know you said "no" but what you wrote agrees with the other poster, that UKIP has influenced how Cameron thinks and acts.

oscarBravo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You're sort of missing the implication of us being part of a single currency area.

I don't know what this means.

And, of course, it's similarly explicable that you're ignoring the real world context - that we ended up in a programme precisely because of profound doubts about the capacity to repay debt.

...and we're exiting the program because those doubts have been alleviated.

georgesstreet

I don't know what the Irish national Debt has to do with Nigel Farage ( the subject of this thread), but the facts are;

Irish National Debt stands at €174 Bn and is increasing.

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

The Interest in that at a notional 5% per annum would be €8.7 Bn per annum.

The Irish National Debt is not being paid off, and increased by another whopping €18½ Bn in 2012.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/national-debt-rises-by-18-5bn-in-2012-1.1468277

Anyone who does not have "doubts" about Irelands ability to even keep up the interest payments must be applauded, but to think Ireland can ever stop increasing the debts, and actually start to pay them off, you'd have to be raving mad.

oscarBravo

georgesstreet wrote: »

Anyone who does not have "doubts" about Irelands ability to even keep up the interest payments must be applauded, but to think Ireland can ever stop increasing the debts, and actually start to pay them off, you'd have to be raving mad.

Are you under the impression that Ireland is somehow unusual in increasing its national debt?

georgesstreet

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you under the impression that Ireland is somehow unusual in increasing its national debt?

Two things:

1. I don't understand why this is in a thread about Nigel Farage

2. It's not really going to be much consolation to irish Taxpayers to know that some other countries also increase their national debts. The sheer enormity of the Irish National debt is such that anyone who thinks, because the troika have left, that Ireland is even approaching financial stability must be mad.

Total tax receipts have fallen from in excess of €47 billion in 2007 to €32.5 billion in 2009, and nearly €10 billion is needed just to pay the interest on the debts.

Seeing you are obviously a fan of the rhetorical question, here's one for you: Do you think its usual that nearly 30% of the total tax raised by a government is used just to pay the interest on the outstanding debts?

oscarBravo

georgesstreet wrote: »

Seeing you are obviously a fan of the rhetorical question, here's one for you: Do you think its usual that nearly 30% of the total tax raised by a government is used just to pay the interest on the outstanding debts?

Who claimed we were in a "usual" situation? We're on the cusp of exiting a bailout program. What's "usual" about that?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know what this means.

Just briefly, when we had our own currency, the value of that currency would depend on the domestic economy. Hence, if the country was pole-axed, you'd expect the value of the currency to plummet and, with it, the value of any debts denominated in that currency. However, the real value of our euro-denominated debts has very little to do with the state of the country. Monetary policy is set centrally by the ECB. Again briefly, the significance of this is that Government borrowing now (and since we adopted the euro) is quite a different kettle of fish to Government borrowing in the past.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and we're exiting the program because those doubts have been alleviated.

I'd say that's a very optimistic way of putting it.

georgesstreet wrote: »

I don't understand why this is in a thread about Nigel Farage

I think partly my fault. My intention was simply to illustrate that scepticism about the EU is perfectly rational. Indeed, all I wanted to demonstrate that someone holding such views wasn't automatically bonkers - I wasn't particularly arguing that such views are correct, just that they are well within the boundaries of sane belief.

georgesstreet wrote: »

The sheer enormity of the Irish National debt is such that anyone who thinks, because the troika have left, that Ireland is even approaching financial stability must be mad.

I have to agree. I'm quite stunned at the head-in-sand views being expressed on the thread. I'd have to say, it's quite an eye-opener for me.

Which, being positive about it, means I've learned something from contributing to this thread. It's astounding.

View

georgesstreet wrote: »

Anyone who does not have "doubts" about Irelands ability to even keep up the interest payments must be applauded, but to think Ireland can ever stop increasing the debts, and actually start to pay them off, you'd have to be raving mad.

We had a higher debt position at the end of the 80's when interest rates were much higher also. If we could get the debt:GDP ratio down then we can do it now.

View

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just briefly, when we had our own currency, the value of that currency would depend on the domestic economy.

Our past experience contradicts that view.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Hence, if the country was pole-axed, you'd expect the value of the currency to plummet and, with it, the value of any debts denominated in that currency.

Previously, most of our debt was issued in D-Marks, Sterling or Dollars. No one had to buy Irish debt and adding a different currency (the Irish pound) increased the reluctance of people to do so (if it was Irish pound debt).

People buying bonds aren't stupid - they want their money & interest back in THEIR currency terms not in terms of a currency which you devalue to cheat them of the value of their money (in their terms).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

View wrote: »

Our past experience contradicts that view.

I take it you're referring to the peg with Sterling. As I said, I was explaining briefly the point at issue. I take it you're not suggesting that an insolvent economy would typically be associated with a strong domestic currency.

View wrote: »

People buying bonds aren't stupid - they want their money & interest back in THEIR currency terms not in terms of a currency which you devalue to cheat them of the value of their money (in their terms).

Again, given where most people are in comprehending these issues, can I suggest we don't overcomplicate things. Indeed, the fact that the Irish Government took on foreign-denominated debt after it had exhausted the capacity to borrow in Irish pounds raised a similar set of issues to what we now face.

But, you'll appreciate, the fact that we're in a single currency means we've no national control over monetary policy at all now. The position of the Irish State with respect to the euro is similar to the position of Leitrim County Council with respect to the Irish pound.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

View wrote: »

We had a higher debt position at the end of the 80's when interest rates were much higher also. If we could get the debt:GDP ratio down then we can do it now.

I'm not sure you are right, and I'm not sure you are taking into account the portion of Government debt that was denominated in Irish pounds.

If the debt position is lighter now, can you account for why we accepted a programme?

georgesstreet

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think partly my fault. My intention was simply to illustrate that scepticism about the EU is perfectly rational. Indeed, all I wanted to demonstrate that someone holding such views wasn't automatically bonkers - I wasn't particularly arguing that such views are correct, just that they are well within the boundaries of sane belief.I have to agree. I'm quite stunned at the head-in-sand views being expressed on the thread. I'd have to say, it's quite an eye-opener for me.

Which, being positive about it, means I've learned something from contributing to this thread. It's astounding.

It is another cultural difference and was most famously espoused by the then taoiseach who told anyone who tried to point out the damage that his governments policies were going to do, that they should stop whinging and commit suicide. His policies subsequently bankrupted Ireland.

One poster here, in response to the fact that €8 billion out of a budget of €35 billion is now being used to service the interest on the (increasing) debt ignores the facts and says that things were bad before and, sure, we managed all right then. It seems denial is part of the make up of many, even to the point that a former taoiseach told those warning that they should kill themselves so he could continue his denial.

And that's probably why some here seem to have such vitriol for Nigel Farage, for example claiming that a political party with 15%-19% is irrelevant and has no resonance and so on. They don't like him, therefore even at nearly 20% in the polls ( ie nearly 1 in every 5 voters in the UK supporting UKIP) , they have to deny he has any relevance or resonance.

I think UKIP makes a dull political scene more interesting.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, because the meaning is plain. If I feel like making things unnecessarily difficult, I'll paint my hallway through the letterbox.

There wasn't any clarity or precision in what you were saying at all.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not disputing these facts. I'm simply seeing your interpretation of them as naive.

You claimed Ireland would never have joined if we'd known how things would turn out. I provided you with direct evidence to the contrary. In the full knowledge of the financial crisis and in particular Cowen/Lenihan's policy response, the Irish electorate clearly endorsed two referenda one on on closer EU integration and the other directly relation to the EZ.

Whatever about naïveté, you're wilfully ignoring obvious endorsements of the single currency by an electorate which, when push comes to shove, is reasonably comfortable with ever closer union.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In particular, the issue of the debt burden accumulated by the Irish State since 2008 needs to feature somewhere in your thinking. I can't help thinking that, if the Troika are willing to lend us billions of euro, they must feel that billions of euro won't be worth very much in a few years time.

For your part, you need to distinguish between three distinct strands of debt:

1. Our national debt. This debt comes from spending commitments made by our government (primarily Ahern regimes). This debt was mostly accumulated *before* 2008 and subsequent to 2008 as a direct consequence of embedded spending;

2. The debts incurred bailing out systemic banks. These problems largely arose from lack of regulation and oversight, for which the government is significantly responsible, and, once again, accumulated mainly *before* 2008; and

3. The 'prom note' debts. These were incurred *before* 2008. Of the three main debt classes, this is the one that's hardest to reconcile with state responsibility, but in not ensuring oversight, neither the government nor it's regulators was in a position to provide guidance to the entities which relied considerably on the 'prom note' institutions, including pension funds and insurance companies.

All these debts were accumulated in real time in the real world, *before* 2008. The Irish government is clearly responsible for the national debt and the debt incurred in supporting systemic banks. It's less clear on the 'prom note' debt, but legally it's our baby as it happened in our jurisdiction, and could indeed have been a lot, lot worse but for Depfa falling back under German jurisdiction.

So the conversion of our *pre-existing* debts (nobody else created them, or had responsibility for them) into debts supported by the ECB, is a mechanism to help us refinance those debts as they need to be rolled over, in face of the unwillingness of private markets to do so.

Whether there are other solutions to our accumulated debt is another question, as is the degree of support we can get in the longer term in writing down parts of that overall debt.

IMO, *all* of the above needs to feature more in *your* thinking. I trust it already features in the thinking of the current Irish administration and it's European partners.

K-9

georgesstreet wrote: »

One poster here, in response to the fact that €8 billion our of a budget of €35 is now being used to service the (increasing) debt ignores the facts and says that things were bad before and, sure, we managed all right then. It seems denial is part of the make up of many, even to the point that a former taoiseach told those warning that they should kil themselves so he could continue his denial.

It was up near 30% of taxes going on interest in the late 80's with top tax rates of 60%. Debt levels maybe unsustainable, they may not, it is far from clear cut as you are making out.

georgesstreet

K-9 wrote: »

It was up near 30% of taxes going on interest in the late 80's with top tax rates of 60%. Debt levels maybe unsustainable, they may not, it is far from clear cut as you are making out.

I am not sure what it is you claim I am making out? All I have claimed is

1. that Ireland has no hope of paying back the capital on its debts
2. Ireland will struggle to keep up the interest payments
3. The cost of +-€8 billion out of €35 billion is enormous
4. The debts are increasing every day

What is it you think I am "making out" as ir's not clear what you mean by that?

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

While the Monster Raving Looney Party was fun, to liken UKIP, a party with national support and with 15%-19% in the polls nationally, to the Monster Raving Looney Party, does seem to expose your own bias.

Please, let's abandon straight way the pretence that either of us is unbiased in this regard.

As to the merits, of course Lord Sutch was a throwaway, and UKIP a much more organised set-up. There's no comparison there. My comparison was more on the basis of what's appropriate for assessing a party. For you it seems enough that a party is 'interesting' (your term). By that yardstick, the MRLP was interesting. But that's not really saying much about serious politics. To my mind anyway.

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

Again, your judgment that there is no need for UKIP seems not to be shared with the 15%-19% who the polls tell us support UKIP.

One of the things I'm saying is that 'UKIP' is a misnomer. With no support in Scotland, it should be called EIP. That UKIP has over 15% support (in the UK overall?), probably translates into an even higher figure for England, where the support is most concentrated.

As for there being a 'need', that's obviously for voters to decide. My point on 'need' was that I don't think Britain needs an even more strident Eurosceptic party as the Tories and much of the media play that role already. But it's clear that many voters don't see it that way. If UKIP are able to transform UK voters generally to their way of thinking in a sustained fashion, well the UK is probably headed for EU exit.

My guess is it won't come to that. My guess is that given a referendum choice the electorate will pull back from the precipice, and at that point UKIP will pass its high water mark. In such a scenario, UKIP will not have demonstrated a need for its policies, and it will rapidly dwindle after that. Of course were the voters to endorse an exit, we're in uncharted waters. But I don't think it will come to that.

McDave

georgesstreet wrote: »

It’s curious you say it’s not interesting, yet here you are discussing it

Please quote where I said that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

You claimed Ireland would never have joined if we'd known how things would turn out. I provided you with direct evidence to the contrary. In the full knowledge of the financial crisis and in particular Cowen/Lenihan's policy response, the Irish electorate clearly endorsed two referenda one on on closer EU integration and the other directly relation to the EZ.

Ah, come on, there's a complete difference between the proposition of leaving the euro now, and deciding not to join in the first place. My statement (which you've incorrectly summarised as " Ireland would never have joined " ) still stands;

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

<..> The euro currency project is a bit of a fiasco at this stage; if we knew this is where we'd end up, we hardly would have joined it with so little thought and analysis<...>

Where we are is predictable, and partly the result of general incomprehension of what we were committing to.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

For your part, you need to distinguish between three distinct strands of debt:<...>
IMO, *all* of the above needs to feature more in *your* thinking. I trust it already features in the thinking of the current Irish administration and it's European partners.

There's no factual content in your post that I haven't taking into account. However, you seem somewhat confused. None of the debts of the banking system were part of our national debt before 2008. Part (and only part, but a significant part) of the reason that our banks were able to raise so much money, and lend it for hopelessly unproductive purpose was precisely because membership of the Eurozone meant that money was too cheap and too available.

This means:
1. the euro has actually had the opposite effect to what, theoretically, people might expect. Instead of Eurozone savings concentrating in the areas with the greatest potential to generate a return, they've flooded into places with no practical prospect of repaying debt.
2. people who worried that EU member state economies had not converged sufficiently to adopt the single currency project have been shown to be correct.

Now, what we do next isn't an easy call. But I don't see the need to pretend that what happened didn't happen.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, come on, there's a complete difference between the proposition of leaving the euro now, and deciding not to join in the first place. My statement (which you've incorrectly summarised as " Ireland would never have joined " ) still stands; Where we are is predictable, and partly the result of general incomprehension of what we were committing to.

Given the opportunity, the Irish electorate has endorsed each successive step taken by the its fellow member states on new treaties. That's the real world. Those are hard facts. Regardless of how you interpret them.

As to the timing of the Euro treaty, it was set when it was set, pretty much forced by historical events. The proposers of the currency union would hardly have been likely to have waited until a future point when circumstances were temporarily less propitious. As they have been throughout the financial crisis.

You on the other hand are pretending to prove the unprovable. Putting your contrived, artificial scenario to the voter. Ultimately a pointless exercise. Now is not the time to judge the success or failure of the Euro. Cool heads have been prevailing for five years now. In another five years I'd hazard the Euro will be on safer territory, and that member country citizens will broadly accept its relative success. Nothing which has transpired in the last five years suggests a more pessimistic outcome.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Where we are is predictable, and partly the result of general incomprehension of what we were committing to.

Again, you're mistakenly assuming that the current crisis is the culmination of the process, rather than a step along the way.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's no factual content in your post that I haven't taking into account. However, you seem somewhat confused. None of the debts of the banking system were part of our national debt before 2008. Part (and only part, but a significant part) of the reason that our banks were able to raise so much money, and lend it for hopelessly unproductive purpose was precisely because membership of the Eurozone meant that money was too cheap and too available.

This means:
1. the euro has actually had the opposite effect to what, theoretically, people might expect. Instead of Eurozone savings concentrating in the areas with the greatest potential to generate a return, they've flooded into places with no practical prospect of repaying debt.
2. people who worried that EU member state economies had not converged sufficiently to adopt the single currency project have been shown to be correct.

Now, what we do next isn't an easy call. But I don't see the need to pretend that what happened didn't happen.

Hmmm. I think it might be your good self who's confused. At least as to the facts.

First of all, you are wrong in the facts about cheap money and the Eurozone. Irish banks got their money primarily from the UK and the US, not from within the EZ. Second, there are countries within the EZ which did not get into severe debt like we did, and there are countries outside the EZ which did.

You're welcome to assume the liabilities accruing during the bubble years would never crystallise into debt. But once the credit couch occurred, banks could no longer roll their affairs over. I don't accept that the state could simply have allowed these systemic banks to fail, particularly when they had not regulated retail banking adequately. Once the Irish banking system threatened to collapse, the Irish government had to intervene with state support (although possibly not loans). Otherwise savings would have been wiped out. Once that fateful decision was taken, losses were effectively crystallised and had to be booked somewhere. The ECB backstopped us. But it effectively became national debt. The price of not regulating our financial sector, which was the net issue for this part of our debt.

Similar arguments apply to the 'prom note' debts, although flaws in the detail of the Euro will probably result in the ultimate federalisation of at least a substantial portion of that debt.

If you cannot grasp the above factors, you're not really in a particularly strong position to make judgement calls on where the Euro is going. What's even worse is that following your flawed assumptions and conclusions, you're clearly conceptually capable of making the same basic kinds of mistakes this state made under Ahern & Co. all over again.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

Given the opportunity, the Irish electorate has endorsed each successive step taken by the its fellow member states on new treaties. That's the real world. Those are hard facts. Regardless of how you interpret them.

Indeed, those are the facts. The issue is around what constitutes a credible interpretation.

McDave wrote: »

First of all, you are wrong in the facts about cheap money and the Eurozone. Irish banks got their money primarily from the UK and the US, not from within the EZ. Second, there are countries within the EZ which did not get into severe debt like we did, and there are countries outside the EZ which did.

It's true that, globally, there was a lot of money floating around, to the extent that banks didn't expect that raising short-term money would ever be a problem. However, you are wrong to discount the fact that the creation of the euro - and of a single wholesale banking market - facilitated the situation that we now see. Incidently, in the early 2000s the European Commission was trumpeting the convergence in the wholesale banking market as evidence that the euro was working. Instead, as we now know, what was happening was that banks in countries like ourselves and Greece were finding that money was cheaper than it should have been.

McDave wrote: »

But it effectively became national debt. The price of not regulating our financial sector, which was the net issue for this part of our debt.

There's a lot wrong with your view - but, in fairness, you are mostly repeating what gets advanced as the official line. However, thankfully, unlike in Orwell's 1984 we still have the benefit of the historical record to point out what actually happened.

All banks across the EU (in fact, across the EEA) are subject to the same financial services framework. The Irish regulator applied the same rules as any financial services regulator would in any EEA country. That framework - where national regulators applied the same set of EU determined rules - has proven to be inadequate. But thems is the rules. This is fact, and very rarely (in ever) mentioned. The article below, from 1989, sets out the pertinent facts

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/19/business/single-europe-banking-license-set-for-93.html

The European Community today approved the last step for creating a single banking license that would allow a bank licensed in one community nation to open as many branches as it would like anywhere in the community.

The community's finance ministers adopted a plan defining minimal capital ratios that all banks established in the community would have to maintain. <...>

Banks from the United States and other non-community countries would also enjoy the benefits of a single banking license, community officials said, so long as the community did not conclude that their home nations treated European banks worse than they did their domestic banks.

The new banking directive goes into effect on Jan. 1, 1993, and the European Commission, the community's executive arm, is to deliver a report by July 1, 1992, on which nations deny European banks the same treatment as their domestic banks.

In many ways, Europe's new banking rules will be more liberal than rules in the United States, where restrictions on interstate banking often make it hard for banks to open branches in different states.<...>

The directive states that the European country where a bank first registered will be the principal regulator of that bank.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's true that, globally, there was a lot of money floating around, to the extent that banks didn't expect that raising short-term money would ever be a problem. However, you are wrong to discount the fact that the creation of the euro - and of a single wholesale banking market - facilitated the situation that we now see.

We got our almost all our cheap money from the US and the UK. If anyone was responsible for 'cheap money', it was Alan Greenspan and his over-commitment to low interest rates post 9-11. He's subsequently admitted to this error himself.

And regardless of the easier availability of credit, many Eurozone countries didn't have recourse to it to any systemically problematic extent. You're discounting the role of responsible national policy in this regard.

I'm afraid if anyone is wrong here, it's you.

McDave

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All banks across the EU (in fact, across the EEA) are subject to the same financial services framework. The Irish regulator applied the same rules as any financial services regulator would in any EEA country. That framework - where national regulators applied the same set of EU determined rules - has proven to be inadequate. But thems is the rules. This is fact, and very rarely (in ever) mentioned. The article below, from 1989, sets out the pertinent facts

Seriously, you're joking, right?

Patrick Neary? :rolleyes:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

McDave wrote: »

Break a leg.

Why would I repeat statements that have not been refuted?

McDave wrote: »

We got our almost all our cheap money from the US and the UK. If anyone was responsible for 'cheap money', it was Alan Greenspan and his over-commitment to low interest rates post 9-11. He's subsequently admitted to this error himself.

No-one is suggesting that other players made no mistakes. However, it is rather too much to deny the role of euro in directing resources into places that could make no productive use of them by cloaking the price of money in peripheral economies.

McDave wrote: »

And regardless of the easier availability of credit, many Eurozone countries didn't have recourse to it to any systemically problematic extent. You're discounting the role of responsible national policy in this regard.

No. no. You're missing the point. The point is that monetary conditions were not necessarily inappropriate for some Member States, but inappropriate for others. There's a whole topic around convergence of member state economies that, I'm afraid, you seem utterly unaware of.

Now, that's not to deny that Irish tax policy was framed to direct any cheap money that banks could get their hands on into property. It's simply to give due attention to the role of the euro.

McDave wrote: »

Seriously, you're joking, right?

Patrick Neary? :rolleyes:

I'm not sure of your point. It's simply a fact that the minimum capital requirements of banks in the EU were established by the Second Banking Directive, which applied from the start of 1993. Other Directives defined the rest of the common EU framework for banking and financial sector regulation.

It wasn't an adequate system, particularly given the demands of a single currency. But it was the framework established by EU Directives.

What are you particularly questioning about this?

micosoft

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why would I repeat statements that have not been refuted?No-one is suggesting that other players made no mistakes. However, it is rather too much to deny the role of euro in directing resources into places that could make no productive use of them by cloaking the price of money in peripheral economies.No. no. You're missing the point. The point is that monetary conditions were not necessarily inappropriate for some Member States, but inappropriate for others. There's a whole topic around convergence of member state economies that, I'm afraid, you seem utterly unaware of.

We all accept that monetary conditions were not necessarily appropriate for some member states vs others much like many US states would theoretically be better off outside the dollar or that UK monetary policy does not suit the north of England. It's a statement of fact about any Monetary Union, particularly one as large as the Euro. This was known before the start of the Euro - the benefit of currency union outweighs the potential drawbacks. It's a straw-man argument designed to imply the problem is with the mere concept of the Euro rather then addressing the many other controls and levers that other monetary unions use and the Euro could use in the future.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now, that's not to deny that Irish tax policy was framed to direct any cheap money that banks could get their hands on into property. It's simply to give due attention to the role of the euro. I'm not sure of your point. It's simply a fact that the minimum capital requirements of banks in the EU were established by the Second Banking Directive, which applied from the start of 1993. Other Directives defined the rest of the common EU framework for banking and financial sector regulation.

What has tax policy to do with it? Why give undue attention to the Euro over larger sources of our debt money?. Do you not think it was impossible for Ireland during this period to have indebted itself to this extent while using the Punt? If not why not?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It wasn't an adequate system, particularly given the demands of a single currency. But it was the framework established by EU Directives.

What are you particularly questioning about this?

I'd suggest he is not questioning "this" because "this" was not your thesis - rather your thesis is that the Euro project is intrinsically a failure. You've now just stated that there was regulatory failure on the part of some of the Euro Member states which nobody disagrees with.

Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote:

All banks across the EU (in fact, across the EEA) are subject to the same financial services framework. The Irish regulator applied the same rules as any financial services regulator would in any EEA country. That framework - where national regulators applied the same set of EU determined rules - has proven to be inadequate. But thems is the rules. This is fact, and very rarely (in ever) mentioned. The article below, from 1989, sets out the pertinent facts

It's rarely mentioned because it's very much not the case. Indeed, Ireland's IFSC strategy relies on it not being the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour

micosoft wrote: »

We all accept that monetary conditions were not necessarily appropriate for some member states vs others

I'm not sure we all do - McDave's comment would contradict such a view.

micosoft wrote: »

This was known before the start of the Euro - the benefit of currency union outweighs the potential drawbacks.

I'm not sure people did really know the risks. And I'd suggest the statement 'the benefit of currency union outweighs the potential drawbacks' asserts too much. Incidently, all I'm contending on this thread is that the benefits don't automatically outweigh the risks. I'm only pointing out that someone could rationally say that the kind of problems we've experienced as a result of the euro outweigh the potential gains.

micosoft wrote: »

What has tax policy to do with it?

What I said; it gave people an unnecessary incentive to lump whatever money they could raise into property.

micosoft wrote: »

Do you not think it was impossible for Ireland during this period to have indebted itself to this extent while using the Punt? If not why not?

It was considerably easier for us to accumulate the debts, as the euro drove down the cost of raising money in all European countries. I've made this point already.

micosoft wrote: »

You've now just stated that there was regulatory failure on the part of some of the Euro Member states which nobody disagrees with.

No, I haven't said that. I'm not sure you're actually reading the posts I've made. Read it again, and come back to me if you still think that's what it says.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's rarely mentioned because it's very much not the case. Indeed, Ireland's IFSC strategy relies on it not being the case.

Hang on, it is simply a fact that there is an EU legislative framework that governs financial regulation across the EEA. In fact, this is one of the pillars that supports the IFSC. The main attraction that Ireland has is a tax advantage. One of the things that eases the road for people is you can set up your subsidiary in Ireland, and get an Irish licence that does you for the whole of the EEA.

Take a step back, because I suspect you're about to brandish some IDA brochure puffing about "responsive regulation". The simple fact is that all EU Member States have had to stitch the same minimum standards into their legislation. How else do you think they could sign up for a system where any bank licenced in any Member State could open a branch in your country? Think about it.

This is how a bank in Iceland gets to accumulate a few billion in UK bank deposits - because the same regulatory requirments apply not merely in the Eurozone, but across the EU and the EEA.

micosoft

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

minimum standards

The clue is in your own words. Minimum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This is how a bank in Iceland gets to accumulate a few billion in UK bank deposits - because the same regulatory requirements apply not merely in the Eurozone, but across the EU and the EEA.

Interesting that you say here that the issue is EU EEA regulations (which is seriously challengeable) when in another thread you are quite convinced the problem is the Euro. Which is it?

Scofflaw

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Hang on, it is simply a fact that there is an EU legislative framework that governs financial regulation across the EEA. In fact, this is one of the pillars that supports the IFSC. The main attraction that Ireland has is a tax advantage. One of the things that eases the road for people is you can set up your subsidiary in Ireland, and get an Irish licence that does you for the whole of the EEA.

Take a step back, because I suspect you're about to brandish some IDA brochure puffing about "responsive regulation". The simple fact is that all EU Member States have had to stitch the same minimum standards into their legislation. How else do you think they could sign up for a system where any bank licenced in any Member State could open a branch in your country? Think about it.

This is how a bank in Iceland gets to accumulate a few billion in UK bank deposits - because the same regulatory requirments apply not merely in the Eurozone, but across the EU and the EEA.

That confuses certain minimum standards with the full scope of regulation. That Irish regulation was specifically and nationally inadequate has been the subject of several detailed reports into the crisis. I would suggest Honohan at a minimum, but Regling-Watson as well - both reports are available here: http://www.socialjustice.ie/content/honohan-report-irelands-banking-crisis

It is not possible to seriously claim that EU/EEA banking regulation was any kind of single regulatory regime before the crisis - aside from anything else, what, then, would be the point of the current proposals for moves towards a single regulatory regime?

There was no single EU/EEA bank regulation regime, and currently still isn't. Certain minimum standards, yes, and I would agree that they were clearly inadequate - but that's like claiming that all sausages are the same because they fit the same basic description. I'm afraid you're either uninformed, or playing somewhat fast and loose with reality to match your narrative.

cordially,
Scofflaw