World Politics - Euro Area [Archive] - Page 8

SoFarSoGood

08-06-2012, 07:29

That's why it isn't a country, and it has never made any claims of being a country. It is an International Organization, like the WTO and IMF, and once you sign in, not only are you forced to follow its rules, but you're also forced to dish out payments to them. It is a regional bloc, started and built on the cooperation between European political leaders. In fact, the EU, when compared with any other international organization or regional bloc, it is far more democratic.

Do you not understand that fiscal union, which is now the only 'solution' to this planned 'crisis', means that your vote matters not a fig? It means the end of national or any democracy in Europe... You will have 3 options to complain:

A. Petition you masters (cos you don't appoint them and can't 'un-elect' them) and hope they listen kindly...

B. Stop working... which is why a good pool of unemployed is useful.

C. Take up arms.

I repeat Gladstones comment made in 1891: "The Finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the Country...if the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the grants of public money, depend upon it your liberty will be worth very little…”

'Fiscal union' is precisely losing control of your nations finances. Why do you think the EU has a flag, an anthem, a seat at the UN, foreign affairs minister (who has never been elected by anyone once in her life) and plans to have it's own army? Please read the Lisbon Treaty and do some research... you will be shocked.

SoFarSoGood

08-06-2012, 07:35

Such delightfully predictable bigotry. But so this commentary doesn't pass on outright, I'll refer you one major thing: Schengen Agreement (And by inherence, if you like, the European Internal Market, which is far larger and more valuable than anything the Commonwealth could ever hope to offer the UK in the next 50 or more years). And I could pull dozens more examples of positive measures from the EU.

Sorry but wrong... Commonwealth GDP and share of world growth is increasing. The EUs has declined and is predicted to continue doing so. Why? Because it's a political idealism trying to work in a real world. Realities and ideals don't fit; you can force your ideals only so long.

Fragony

08-06-2012, 07:39

Unless you're implying that the only ideology that has ever existed is National Socialism, I fail to see the point of the post.

But you just admitted you would repeat the holocaust, not in so many words but still

SoFarSoGood

08-06-2012, 08:12

Well they have to pay out for Greece before 20th of August or it can't pay the interest on existing bonds which will mean default #2 in Greece and make them totaly unsustainable. Nobody will touch them with a medical bargepole so they will have to do the impossible... leave the euro - and recover their democracy!

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 08:19

I would love to have something positive to say about the EU, but I honestly can't think of a single thing.

No, you don't. Your opinions are firmly anti-EU. Which is fine, but don't try to paint yourself as some neutral spectator to present your biases as impartial findings.

Not required. It's kinda funny you say I sound like Breivik, that's the sort of thing the international socialism would do. The garlic slackers for example accuse us we are being hold hostage by Wilders because they don't get any free money the second they furiously demand it, we are supposedly not looking for solutions but only out for trouble by not giving them money. Germany always gets it worse if they don't give away free money these garlic slackers oh so love their Godwins.

Garlic-slackers...I thought you said you were against those stereotypes, or at least as far as the Greeks were concerned.

There's no such thing as the "international socialism" you refer to. It's just one massive strawman that exists solely in your head and that of like minded people. EU politicians are from a wide variety of political backgrounds. Suggesting that all your political opponents are essentially the same, that they all adhere to some made-up ideology is one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the book.

Yes, you do sound like Breivik. You both parrot Wilders and a variety of other eurosceptic and anti-jihadist talking heads. As I recall you even admitted on this board that while you don't approve of his methods, you share many of Breivik's political opinions.

Fragony

08-06-2012, 08:37

you share many of Breivik's political opinions.

So, just about anybody who's against the multicultural policy and internationalist agenda does. Europhiles like to pretend it's all about the economy but it doesn't take a genius to see that economy is second to ideoligy.

SoFarSoGood

08-06-2012, 08:48

Yes, you do sound like Breivik. You both parrot Wilders and a variety of other eurosceptic and anti-jihadist talking heads. As I recall you even admitted on this board that while you don't approve of his methods, you share many of Breivik's political opinions.

There is a vast difference between education and enforcement. You may share Breiviks worries but abhor his method. Doesn't make you a 'Nazi' just makes you worried and wish to share your worries. Stop throwing insults without reason.

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 09:05

There is a vast difference between education and enforcement. You may share Breiviks worries but abhor his method. Doesn't make you a 'Nazi' just makes you worried and wish to share your worries. Stop throwing insults without reason.

There is a vast difference between:
A) being against EU membership, wanting a more restrictive immigration policy and whatnot, i.e. political views and a normal grasp of reality
B) believing in a monolithic cabal composed of liberals, conservatives, social-democrats, christian-democrats and greens who collectively scheme for the overthrow of democracy, the destruction of western culture and implementation of "international socialism".

Furunculus would be a good example of A.

Breivik is an example of B, and so is Fragony by his own admission. Even if you dissaprove of Breivik's violent methods you're delusional if you share his worldview.

Fragony

08-06-2012, 09:27

oh lollipop Krazzie, must be scary that there are over 1.2 million Breivik's here. But then again, there aren't. There are 1.2 million though who don't absolutely adore giving away our say on our own policies to a Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just dropped from his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman.

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 09:57

I imagine that not every PVV voter believes in all the nonsense Martin Bosma excretes from his mouth. Some of them have a specific issue that they care about deeply, such as the EU, and therefore vote PVV despite knowing that it's a party with loony ideas. And criminal records. And undisclosed foreign sponsors.

Here's a challenge for you: list some ideological differences between Breivik and Wilders. There are bound to be some, but not particulary significant ones. After Breivik's massacre Wilders repeatedly said the following: we're different from Breivik, we never called for violence. I've never seen Wilders or any other PVV person distance himself from Breivik's ideas, however.

Fragony

08-06-2012, 10:07

I've never seen Wilders or any other PVV person distance himself from Breivik's ideas, however.

Of course not, as they roughly agree. If I have to change my views because some asshole went on a killing spree you are out of luck.

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 10:17

Fragony

08-06-2012, 10:27

Then why doesn't he say so?

Why can't he just say "I share Breivik's ideas, but he used violence and that is wrong"? The Animal Party wouldn't deny, if asked, that they share goals with the Animal Liberation Front or whatever.

Bet they would if an Animal Front Liberation guy went on a killing spree like Breivik did. Some things you just shouldn't have to feel responsible for. Breivik is (hopefully) a lone idiot. You want the populist right to take responsibility for something they didn't do, would you do that?

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 11:00

Fragony

08-06-2012, 11:26

I think there's another reason: a lot of the PVV voters, maybe a majority, still do not realize that Breiviks and Wilders' views are pretty much identical.

And yes, that's perfectly plausible. Two years ago a survey showed that a large percentage of PVV voters believed that Wilders actually was a minister, which gives us a pretty good idea how well informed they are.

Wilders' ideas, when collected and spelt out like they were in Breivik's manifesto, are simply not plausible or attractive to the vast majority of people. Which is why he denies there was any resemblance and maintains that Breivik was insane.

They don't have to appeal to the majority of the people that's democracy. Wilders is only mentioned in the manifesto by the way that's all, when Breivik started writing it Wilders was still a member of your own liberal party, nobody had ever heard of him. Feel free to punch anyone in the face who comletely distantiates himselve because the Utoya shooting showed that there is actually rightwing-terrorism, but I don't like how eager his oppononents are see SEE? SEEEEEE?-technically. Breivik is a right-wing terrorist, no debating that, of what use would it be it's pretty obvious he is. But he is exactly that first of all. Mr Wilders is a little bit sharper then the rest and little bit better at putting on the hurt when others would rather go home for dinner. Status quo doesn't like it if you do that, it upsets their comfortable bliss.

rory_20_uk

08-06-2012, 11:59

To say that those in the EU are disperate is disingenuous. Yes, they might have very different views, but they nevertheless all enjoy the gravy train that the EU is.

That the EU has been extended repeatedly with little more than a cursory glance at the countries' finances against shows this is mainly ideological, as is the scrapping of control over movement of peoples which has again had ramifications that those who instigated either did not think of or just don't care about.

There are good aspects of the EU. Sadly, these do not require the EU:

Free trade? A multilateral treaty.
Military alliance? NATO.
Agricultural subsidies? Either nationally, or scrapped as a market-distorting bad idea.
Money for depressed regions? International aid. As that's what it is.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

08-06-2012, 12:18

There are good aspects of the EU. Sadly, these do not require the EU:

Free trade? A multilateral treaty.
Military alliance? NATO.
Agricultural subsidies? Either nationally, or scrapped as a market-distorting bad idea.
Money for depressed regions? International aid. As that's what it is.

exactly, federal union is neither necessary, nor apparently even desirable.

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 12:42

Free trade? A multilateral treaty.
Military alliance? NATO.
Agricultural subsidies? Either nationally, or scrapped as a market-distorting bad idea.
Money for depressed regions? International aid. As that's what it is.

~:smoking:

The EU isn't just a free trade bloc. Some people have argued that the EU trade policies should free up money rather than cost any because all it would take would be scrapping border controls and tarrifs; but that's a red herring since the EU aims at a common market, which is a step beyond that. Generally speaking; the aim is to eliminate all barriers in trade, both legal and practical. If you've got the right papers in country A you should also be able to use them to do business in country B. All of this requires common legislation and a degree of coordinated policy.

Agricultural subsidies: they used to be national and were a market distortion as such, because countries would spend different amounts of money on their farmers. I think that the current CAP needs to be seriously downgraded, ideally to the point of scrapping subsidies alltogether, but that there needs to be a common policy to ensure a level playing field (in the EU, at least) is self evident. An alternative would be to keep the subsidies but make the recipient responsible for the costs so that it doesn't affect the contribution for other EU costs.
Speaking of which, any free trade between countries isn't workable unless you also got agreements to ensure fair competition. Given the size and scope of the market(s) involved you also need an independant body to garantuee every state adheres to the rules, i.e. a Commissionar in this case.

That said, it's naturally a matter of opinion wether the benefits outweigh the costs. Cameron is opposed because he doesn't want the UK to be in the same situation as Norway; having the free trade on the condition of implementing an important part of the EU's rules without being consulted at the drawing table. The people of the UK can, of course, leave at anytime they want by voting for a party that will take them out.

rory_20_uk

08-06-2012, 13:11

The EU isn't just a free trade bloc. Some people have argued that the EU trade policies should free up money rather than cost any because all it would take would be scrapping border controls and tarrifs; but that's a red herring since the EU aims at a common market, which is a step beyond that. Generally speaking; the aim is to eliminate all barriers in trade, both legal and practical. If you've got the right papers in country A you should also be able to use them to do business in country B. All of this requires common legislation and a degree of coordinated policy.

Agricultural subsidies: they used to be national and were a market distortion as such, because countries would spend different amounts of money on their farmers. I think that the current CAP needs to be seriously downgraded, ideally to the point of scrapping subsidies alltogether, but that there needs to be a common policy to ensure a level playing field (in the EU, at least) is self evident. An alternative would be to keep the subsidies but make the recipient responsible for the costs so that it doesn't affect the contribution for other EU costs.
Speaking of which, any free trade between countries isn't workable unless you also got agreements to ensure fair competition. Given the size and scope of the market(s) involved you also need an independant body to garantuee every state adheres to the rules, i.e. a Commissionar in this case.

That said, it's naturally a matter of opinion wether the benefits outweigh the costs. Cameron is opposed because he doesn't want the UK to be in the same situation as Norway; having the free trade on the condition of implementing an important part of the EU's rules without being consulted at the drawing table. The people of the UK can, of course, leave at anytime they want by voting for a party that will take them out.

There is nothing in free trade that can't be covered by a treaty. This is evidenced that Switzerland / Norway manage just fine in this respect. It also means one can opt-out of bits one doesn't like - rather than ignoring them like is the case with many countries (budget deficits, anyone?)
There is already a Worldwide body to arbitrate trade disputes. The EU is trying to justify duplication. Generally countries abide by rules. We manufacture items in China based on UK safety rules without the EU.
By making agricultural subsidies a national issue (which it is) the EU again is merely a layer trying to justify itself over the top.

Treaties are signed by the parties involved. Stating one has to be in the EU to have a say on what should be a treaty is again missing the point, and trying to justify the EU as a "take it or leave it and there are no other workable models" approach.

~:smoking:

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 14:33

There is nothing in free trade that can't be covered by a treaty. This is evidenced that Switzerland / Norway manage just fine in this respect. It also means one can opt-out of bits one doesn't like - rather than ignoring them like is the case with many countries (budget deficits, anyone?)
There is already a Worldwide body to arbitrate trade disputes. The EU is trying to justify duplication. Generally countries abide by rules. We manufacture items in China based on UK safety rules without the EU.
By making agricultural subsidies a national issue (which it is) the EU again is merely a layer trying to justify itself over the top.

Treaties are signed by the parties involved. Stating one has to be in the EU to have a say on what should be a treaty is again missing the point, and trying to justify the EU as a "take it or leave it and there are no other workable models" approach.

~:smoking:

Uhm, the EC/EU predates the WTO's authority to settle disputes. Or are you referring to something else?

"Generally countries abide by rules". I love it when you contradict yourself ~;) EU court covers a wider range of economic topics than other organisations and is actually in a position to enforce them, most of the time (there are exceptions, obviously).

Obviously the Chinese can manufacture toys that satisfiy UK regulation. The more interesting question is if China can manufacture a product that satisfies the rules of country A, B, C and D at the same time. Yes it can, with EU harmonisation.

There are varying degrees to which a non-EU country can bind itself to EU rules, a bare free trade agreement being the least burdening but it also offers the least in terms of direct acces for companies to the common market. I fail to see how this is unreasonable.

Fragony

08-06-2012, 14:44

Uhm, the EC/EU predates the WTO's authority to settle disputes. Or are you referring to something else?

"Generally countries abide by rules". I love it when you contradict yourself ~;) EU court covers a wider range of economic topics than other organisations and is actually in a position to enforce them, most of the time (there are exceptions, obviously).

Obviously the Chinese can manufacture toys that satisfiy UK regulation. The more interesting question is if China can manufacture a product that satisfies the rules of country A, B, C and D at the same time. Yes it can, with EU harmonisation.

There are varying degrees to which a non-EU country can bind itself to EU rules, a bare free trade agreement being the least burdening but it also offers the least in terms of direct acces for companies to the common market. I fail to see how this is unreasonable.

Voila, the economic argument nobody is arguing about, free trade zone, it's aweome. You can trade and all that. But the ambition kinda goes a little further than that. And you know that fully well. Or maybe you really don't

rory_20_uk

08-06-2012, 15:02

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 15:28

Uhm... so the EC had a point and now things have changed. Move with the times etc.

If you love it when I contradict myself you clearly love it more when you do.

Using harmonisation as evidence for the need for the EU is more "the EU is the only way that works". A... treaty maybe? They also manage to produce goods to other places without the EU! Possibly the EU isn't the only thing holding the world together.

I am sure you see why it is unreasonable, as you clearly see the EU is the best solution to any given issue regarding Europe. "Most favoured nation status" would offer very similar levels of access to the market.

~:smoking:

WTO is not a comparable institution, not in its scope or its ability to enforce.

Can you name a group of countries that:
- has the same number of standardized regulations
- allowing goods and services to be sold and traded legally across the entire group, on largely the same conditions
- that is based entirely on multi-lateral treaties, and needs no instutions (no bureaucracy!) to enforce said rules?

EU rules are negotiated between members under the general premise that as the rules will apply to all, compromises must be found and sometimes a country doesn't manage to force a compromise against others that satisfies himself 100%. That's no different from other arenas of diplomacy, but when it's done under EU auspices it's suddenly a great evil and a step towards international socialism...or whatever. A country that isn't an actual member by definition doesn't adhere to 100% of these compromises and is, at any rate, not entitled to full access.
The UK gets a better deal than most as it has managed to obtain innumerable exemptions. In one case I know (Rome I regulation) they even managed an exemption, sat on the negotiation table anyway as an equal and had the right (but not the duty) to opt-in if they liked the end result enough. In the end they did use the opt-in because British businesses urged the government to do so.

But if you're unhappy, you can leave. The possibility has been explicitly on the books ever since the Lisbon treaty, but the truth is that the UK could have easily negotiated their departure at any time, but never decided to do so.

rory_20_uk

08-06-2012, 16:00

Kralizec

08-06-2012, 17:55

Something similar to NAFTA would be nice. Unless they have a budget running into billions, are constantly trying to extend their power and have members who are big on supranational powers. Perhaps they do and I don't know about it.

The EU can't enforce. It can try. Budget deficits are set, and then ignored.

The EU is year on year getting bigger both in number of states and also its budget. 8% this year, wasn't it?

Of course countries can say no. Just look at Ireland. They asked the question, the answer was "no"... so they asked again until the correct answer was gained. Oddly enough they didn't ask again. Oddly again so few countries have refferendums. Of course we can leave... ask the question? Oh no, not to the people. Perhaps ask the cabinet (and please forget how many national Politicians move onwards to the EU beaurocracy - that has no effect on their thinking). But that is because the documents are crafted to ensure that there is no legal need to ask. Everyone would want to be part, if only they understood. In the meantime the EU looks after our interests until such time we can clearly see that our interest is the EU looks after them.

~:smoking:

Let's keep things in perspective here. Even with all the unnecessary expenses like the Brussels-Strassbourgh caroussel and the CAP the EU's budget is still less than 1%. And they were aiming for an increase slightly less than 7%, and got 2.8%. And before you start whining about your net contribution, compared to other western member states it really isn't that impressive.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the stability pact should have had a credible, working punishment scheme in the first place. Alas, eurosceptics first made the pact unenforcable and started complaining afterwards that it's not enforced.

You're dodging the elephant in the room here. You want out, vote for a party that gets you out. The rest of Europe won't stop you, or could if they wanted to. That the Brits won't do it or that their 2.5 party system makes this extremely hard hasn't anything to do with the EU. Britains democratic deficit is not my problem. :coffeenews:

rory_20_uk

08-06-2012, 19:42

So... you asked for an example. Now we are "putting things in perspective". Making large numbers seem small - look, the EU is only a small parasite... Could things we done better? Best not address that question, as the money spent is only a low percentage of total GDP. All countries cutting back on funding? The poor EU is struggling by with a 2.8% increase...

Of course the weak rules are the fault of Euroskeptics. It can't be the fault of those trying to make the EU / Euro bigger - nor can we think that if the rules had been weakened they should have stopped with the process and not ploughed on.

I agree that the UK populace should have had a referendum. So should all countries which would probably have killed off the EU creep a long time ago. Of course, we only seem to have referendum as long as 2 rules are followed: only for increase of EU powers, not reduction. If the vote is "no", then the vote needs to be redone.

~:smoking:

Fragony

08-07-2012, 06:11

For the Dutchies, if even De Volkskrant places this something is going on, nice opinion-piece on the international-socialism http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/3184/opinie/article/detail/3297321/2012/08/07/Elite-zwendelt-ons-federaal-Europa-in.dhtml

SoFarSoGood

08-07-2012, 06:52

Britains democratic deficit is not my problem.

The European democratic deficit is ALL our problem.

Fragony

08-07-2012, 07:29

The European democratic deficit is ALL our problem.

Yep. People who think the current economic crisis is an accident just don't get it. This is deliberate policy of a Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell from it's tree, his Portugese waitor, and a German booksalesmen to further establish the abolishment of national parlements. It's a slow but sure coup d'état by Brussels. Which will fail by the way, people are so sick of it over here by now and The Netherlands calling it a quits is a very real scenario. Germany is just pretending, they will follow because they have no other choice if we leave they need us a lot more then europhiles furiously scream, no supplies no industry, no food means empty shelves, Finland and Austria will take any excuse to leave, the cautious Scandinavian countries will probably join a Northern Union. If we have that figured out we can start rebuilding our southern neighbours. But first, north out or south out.

Edit, oh and get in your bed and make your wive pregnant, there is plenty of work for your youth here our university's are being swarmed. It has costed you a lot to get them this far and we are taking the price because they won't come back. A little (well a lot) of money isn't going to save you.

Kralizec

08-07-2012, 11:00

Actual news:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443517104577573302911904824.html

The International Monetary Fund, facing discontent among its members about the huge sums it has lent to the euro zone, is pushing the currency bloc's governments to take steps to lighten the burden of the bailout loans they made to Athens, officials familiar with continuing discussions said.

IMF officials maintain Greece's debt must be reduced to "sustainable" levels before the fund releases billions more euros to keep Athens from running out of cash, some officials said. The most effective way to do this would be for Greece's bailout lenders to forgive some of the debts Greece owes them.

....
The IMF has put forward several options for filling the hole that will also push Greece's debt closer to 100% of GDP, the officials familiar with the discussions said, but these ideas are meeting staunch resistance from the euro zone. The mildest would be another cut on the interest rate Greece must pay on the bailout loans from euro-zone governments. Greece is set to pay over €39 billion in interest payments from 2012 through 2014.

The more politically controversial options include having the European Central Bank and the euro zone's national central banks accept a 30% reduction in their Greek bonds, which have a face value of about €50 billion, said one official familiar with the discussions. Another plan calls for euro-zone governments to accept haircuts on the bilateral loans they have made to Greece. The IMF is Greece's most senior creditor and lends under the assumption that it won't accept write-downs on loans it has extended.

Under one measure that would dramatically lighten Athens's debt burden, the European Stability Mechanism, the euro zone's bailout fund, would take on the nearly €50 billion in debt that the Greek government is borrowing to recapitalize its banks. Euro-zone leaders in June agreed to allow the ESM to directly recapitalize euro-zone banks, and they said the ESM, once given that power, could use it retroactively for as much as €100 billion lent to Spain for bank recapitalization.

Doing the same thing for Greece would reduce the government's debt by 15% to 20% of GDP, said one euro-zone official.

...

Euro-zone officials want to wait for a ruling from a German court in September on whether the ESM is constitutional, before they consider the controversial step of allowing the fund to take on even part of the cost of Greece's bank recapitalization, said one official.

Fragony

08-07-2012, 11:28

Can somebody pleasy pick up my jaw, it's on the floor somewhere. So it won't come back, and especially not with interest, who would have thought. File me under absolutely amazed.

There is no need for a German court by the way, it's already in tne lissabon treaty. But the international-socialism changes the rules whenever it suits them anyway. In the meantime we are to obey.

Slipping

Hard

Furunculus

08-07-2012, 16:22

There is a vast difference between:
A) being against EU membership, wanting a more restrictive immigration policy and whatnot, i.e. political views and a normal grasp of reality

Furunculus would be a good example of A.

[snip]
why thank you.

but, please let me clarify my position on immigration:

i have nothing against it in principle.
i personally appreciate the benefits it brings [me].

however:
1. i do not feel the need to impose [my] preferences on others (i.e. the patronising view that immigration is good for people who don't know better).
2. i recognise that those who depend on social cohesion the most in society are the same people swamped by unrestricted mass immigration (i.e. poor people).
3. i believe government's job is to maximise [both] the welfare [and] the wellbeing of all of its citizens, and thus a compromise is necessary (i.e. economic growth vs social fragmentation).
4. i demand that the welfare and wellbeing of british citizens comes first, so by all means discriminate in favour of the most compatible immigrants (i.e. self sufficient and able/willing to integrate).

thus, after ten years of labours unresticted mass immigration i support reduced and selective immigration.

and oddly enough, if you are typically left-wing and thus personally invested in the social-welfare model then you should know that this is most successful when rooted in a culturally homogenous population, and you should support that position too.

so, by all means import some foreign types who do funny things (tm), just not so many as you scare the natives!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-08-2012, 00:35

No, you don't. Your opinions are firmly anti-EU. Which is fine, but don't try to paint yourself as some neutral spectator to present your biases as impartial findings.

Wrong

I have no problem with the EU as a concept, I object to the fact that it is manifestly corrupt - which is why I oppose it.

It is not an ideological point for me, if the EU Constitution had been passed by referendum in all 27 states I would have no problem with it.

But it was voted down, then repackaged as the Lisbon treaty and waved through.

Nation Building's Cardinal Law is that you must either take the people with you, or it will not work.

The Euro crisis is the result of the tension between popular will and the will of the political class, otherwise it would have been resolved by now.

Furunculus

08-08-2012, 08:27

the EU is an ideological point for me; i do not believe that the people[s] of europe will credit it as a form of governance that is [both] accountable [and] representative, and thus they will hold it to be illegitimate. your point about carrying the people with you is well made.

however, what i am not is doctrinaire; like you i would have thrown my hands up in the air and said; "it's a fair cop guv, i was wrong", for the people[e] of europe would have patently accepted the consequence of a common constitution - accepting a common governance.

there is nothing wrong with being ideological (not that you said there was directly).

InsaneApache

08-08-2012, 12:01

I disagree. It's ideology that led to the Eurozone debacle.

gaelic cowboy

08-08-2012, 12:48

The Euro crisis is the result of the tension between popular will and the will of the political class, otherwise it would have been resolved by now.

The Euro crisis is a symptom of the fact that the currency was set up to further an ideological goal they must have watched "Field of Dreams" and thought we will try the same with a currency.

If they save the Euro I can pretty much guarantee we will have another debt crisis a decade or two down in all the demographically aging countries.

However I think we may be now somewhere around 60/40 in favour of breakup and it's not a majority wants it but the political class simply refuse/cannot to solve it.

Furunculus

08-08-2012, 13:53

I disagree. It's ideology that led to the Eurozone debacle.

well sure, ideas can be right or wrong, but there is nothing wrong with the notion of having and holding ideas.

ideology (OED) - a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy
doctrinaire (OED) - seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations

Fragony

08-08-2012, 15:39

well sure, ideas can be right or wrong, but there is nothing wrong with the notion of having and holding ideas.

ideology (OED) - a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy
doctrinaire (OED) - seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations

I don't have to think very long on where I must file the EU under

Furunculus

08-08-2012, 16:11

I don't have to think very long on where I must file the EU under

lol, nor I.

Sarmatian

08-08-2012, 16:22

If they save the Euro I can pretty much guarantee we will have another debt crisis a decade or two down in all the demographically aging countries.

That's a risk, euro or no euro.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-08-2012, 16:30

the EU is an ideological point for me; i do not believe that the people[s] of europe will credit it as a form of governance that is [both] accountable [and] representative, and thus they will hold it to be illegitimate. your point about carrying the people with you is well made.

This is the fundamental difference between us - for me it is not a question of belief, it is that as I have grown up I have seen the system not work, and that it is corrupt.

Spanish fisheries and the French adherence to the CAP are the two famous examples, as well as the EU's own accountants refusing to sign off on the budget.

Furunculus

08-08-2012, 17:06

This is the fundamental difference between us - for me it is not a question of belief, it is that as I have grown up I have seen the system not work, and that it is corrupt.

Spanish fisheries and the French adherence to the CAP are the two famous examples, as well as the EU's own accountants refusing to sign off on the budget.

i would say that you are merely witnessing symptoms of the disease; that governance lacking in accountability or representation will inevitably fail to govern with integrity, and this lack of integrity will be considered visible evidence of its illegitimatacy.

my idea is that the EU is an illegitimate form of governance.
the consequnce is that people will shout about EU corruption.

it's not a perfect world, for people should be shouting about the cause of the problem, not its effects, but there we are.

gaelic cowboy

08-08-2012, 17:38

That's a risk, euro or no euro.

By then having policies needed to conserve savings of the older nations will be unsuitable for the rest of the Euro.

At the minute the policy of recouping bad investments by deflation is unsuitable so basically if they havent learned by now they wont have learned then either.

Beskar

08-08-2012, 17:39

i would say that you are merely witnessing symptoms of the disease; that governance lacking in accountability or representation will inevitably fail to govern with integrity, and this lack of integrity will be considered visible evidence of its illegitimatacy.

my idea is that the EU is an illegitimate form of governance.
the consequnce is that people will shout about EU corruption.

it's not a perfect world, for people should be shouting about the cause of the problem, not its effects, but there we are.

Which is why there should be efforts to make it "[both] accountable [and] representative", which has always been my argument. The ideological concept of a single currency is good. The ideological concept of replacing national governments with a European one is good. However, the EU is not implemented in this fashion mostly due to national self-interest preventing power from going to the European people away from the national political elite (with the backing of Euroscepticism) resulting in the corrupt mess politically and economically that is the current EU.

Kralizec

08-08-2012, 17:44

I don't have to think very long on where I must file the EU under

Rofl, pot calling the kettle black :laugh:

Fragony

08-08-2012, 18:29

Rofl, pot calling the kettle black :laugh:

Is that a smile on your face at least it's something I guess

gaelic cowboy

08-08-2012, 18:44

Which is why there should be efforts to make it "[both] accountable [and] representative", which has always been my argument. The ideological concept of a single currency is good. The ideological concept of replacing national governments with a European one is good. However, the EU is not implemented in this fashion mostly due to national self-interest preventing power from going to the European people away from the national political elite (with the backing of Euroscepticism) resulting in the corrupt mess politically and economically that is the current EU.

Well the EU can shove all that ideological nonsence where the sun tends not to shine because it's an absolutely horrible idea, make it as accountable as you like if the politicians running things are not Irish citizens then I dont wanna know about it.

Do you really think it's a clever move to try to politically erase the Irish state, no I doubt them EUcrats have the stomach for the consequences.

Basically ye will never get a yes vote on that so all I can say is thank you Mr Raymond Crotty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Crotty)

The Crotty judgement will in the end prevent the dearest wish of all Eucrats Crotty v An Taoiseach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v._An_Taoiseach)

Furunculus

08-09-2012, 00:00

HopAlongBunny

08-14-2012, 09:27

Prelude to a showdown? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/us-germany-greece-idUSBRE87C09H20120813

What would occur if Greece opted for full default, but did not opt to leave the Eurozone?

gaelic cowboy

08-14-2012, 14:03

Prelude to a showdown? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/13/us-germany-greece-idUSBRE87C09H20120813

What would occur if Greece opted for full default, but did not opt to leave the Eurozone?

The other governments will force Greece's central bank ie the ECB to turn it's back on it which is an unheard of situation in banking never mind politics.

They cant force Greece out and they cant stop them printing Euro if they really wanted to do it, in fact any attempt to force Greece out is illegal and would probably require the dissolution of the Euro and EU.

So they wont be doing that at all at all, tis bluff and bluster to frighten the peasants.

The solution has been the same one since the start you either share the debt or you cancel it.

SoFarSoGood

08-14-2012, 14:58

Well Greece borrowed 4bn euros today (on the open market) for 3 months at 4.43pc. Means they can pay wages etc until the 'troika' decide if they enough people living in poverty to warrant the next installment of the EU loans.

It is kind of ironic that they said the euro was going to make everyone better off and now defend their failures and lies by telling us how much worse everyone would be without it. The incessant "it's not working so we need more of it!" argument is wearing thin.

The Germans don't seem too keen on keeping Greece going... "You can quote me: even if the glass is half-full, that is not enough for a new aid package" says Michael Fuchs.

Kralizec

08-15-2012, 07:46

It is kind of ironic that they said the euro was going to make everyone better off and now defend their failures and lies by telling us how much worse everyone would be without it. The incessant "it's not working so we need more of it!" argument is wearing thin.

Who are "they" and when did they say this?

Fragony

08-15-2012, 07:58

Who are "they" and when did they say this?

kidding me

Kralizec

08-15-2012, 08:31

No, I'm not.

Sure, politicians heaped all sorts of praise on the euro - some were justified, some were teneous, some were bogus. What I'm sceptical of is the implied claim here that there ever was some sort of clearly uttered assurance that the euro was some sort of magical garantue against all woes, and that we have a financial crisis right now is proof that they lied.

Being in a shared currency does cause complications for the PIIGS countries right now because they're not able to unilateraly print their way out of their trouble. By "their trouble" I mean trouble caused by their own poor financial decisions. Blaming all of this on the euro is disingeneous.

rory_20_uk

08-15-2012, 08:48

SoFarSoGood

08-15-2012, 10:21

Who are "they" and when did they say this?

Well let me take the UK for example... They said in 1975 that we would be entering a 'free trade' region, that this would benefit British business etc... Nobody mentioned that we'd have to pay £500m per day for the benefit of having Brussels impose rules working hours and letting other people fish our waters etc etc etc...

When they launched they again trotted out this line (if they had said you're going to be bankrupt in 12 years who would have joined?). You say that "justified, some (of these claims) were teneous, some were bogus" but whether they lied or were just deluded matters not. Simple fact is that what they said would make better off has done the opposite; they were wrong. Now they propose that the answer is more...

Kralizec

08-15-2012, 11:40

Well let me take the UK for example... They said in 1975 that we would be entering a 'free trade' region, that this would benefit British business etc... Nobody mentioned that we'd have to pay £500m per day for the benefit of having Brussels impose rules working hours and letting other people fish our waters etc etc etc...

When they launched they again trotted out this line (if they had said you're going to be bankrupt in 12 years who would have joined?). You say that "justified, some (of these claims) were teneous, some were bogus" but whether they lied or were just deluded matters not. Simple fact is that what they said would make better off has done the opposite; they were wrong. Now they propose that the answer is more...

That's not an answer to my question.

None of those points have anything to do with the EMU currency. You're evidently just throwing random EU decisions into the discussion without arguing why they're detrimental to the UK, or why the UK would have been better off without it. But to humour you:

The EU fishery policies are reciprocal: EU fisherboats can fish across all European waters, meaning British fishermen can also fish outside British waters. The only "real" controversies are that A) ships from country 1 can register their boats in country 2, which distorts the quota distribution B) fishermen complain about EU interference while receiving subsidies and ignoring the rules they're whining about. It's flabbergasting that fisheries have such a large influence on public opinion in some countries while they make up a tiny part of GDP and are engaged in unsustainable practices that have doomed several species of marine life to practical extinction.

As for the working hours, you'll have to be more specific. You want your employer to give you less than 4 weeks of vacation per year? You want your boss to be able to force you to work 48+ hours, on average, per week? ("force", because UK workers have the right to voluntarily do more overtime. Other countries have been more strict in its implementation)

SoFarSoGood

08-15-2012, 11:50

Ok so did those people who wanted an EU and a euro (for the euro is just another step toward 'ever greater union') say "look we've got this currency idea but if we go ahead half of you are going to be bankrupt within 15 years"?

No they argued that the euro would make everyone better off. They were wrong.

The UK only ever voted for a free trade agreement... but that is separate to main point.

The point is when will eurocrat ever acknowledge that it is not working? To quote Roger Bootle (who won the Wolfsson Prize):

"My challenge is this: what conditions could convince you that the euro was a failure? If you can imagine such conditions then what stops you from concluding that they exist now? The evidence is staring you in the face.

If, by contrast, there are no conditions that could conceivably persuade you of this, then for you the euro is not a practical project but rather a religion. For the sake of all those citizens who do not share your beliefs, isn't it about time that you came clean?"

Furunculus

08-15-2012, 14:20

proposal from the economist:

http://www.economist.com/node/21560252

SoFarSoGood

08-15-2012, 15:14

For a 'Grexit' the most pressing problem Greece would face short term is paying for energy needs. Good article though. Thanks.

Sarmatian

08-15-2012, 15:30

Ok so did those people who wanted an EU and a euro (for the euro is just another step toward 'ever greater union') say "look we've got this currency idea but if we go ahead half of you are going to be bankrupt within 15 years"?

The crisis has nothing to do with the euro.

No serious economist said the dropping the euro would solve the problems.

You have to understand that two things can happen at the roughly same time but they don't have to be connected to each other.

No they argued that the euro would make everyone better off. They were wrong.

The UK only ever voted for a free trade agreement... but that is separate to main point.

That's UK's problem. If UK wants to leave, the mechanism is clear, you just need a politician with cojones to put it on the table.

The point is when will eurocrat ever acknowledge that it is not working? To quote Roger Bootle (who won the Wolfsson Prize):

[I]"My challenge is this: what conditions could convince you that the euro was a failure? If you can imagine such conditions then what stops you from concluding that they exist now? The evidence is staring you in the face.

If, by contrast, there are no conditions that could conceivably persuade you of this, then for you the euro is not a practical project but rather a religion. For the sake of all those citizens who do not share your beliefs, isn't it about time that you came clean?"

No, there definitely are conditions to convince people Euro is a bad idea, but so far you have offered none.

Your first point -> Euro is responsible for the crisis is false
Your second point -> dropping the Euro would solve the crisis - no it wouldn't.

Furunculus

08-15-2012, 16:16

The crisis has nothing to do with the euro.

No serious economist said the dropping the euro would solve the problems.

truly?

i ask because these chaps:

Roger Bootle is Managing Director of the independent consultancy, Capital Economics,
which he founded in 1999. Employing 90 people in London, Toronto and Singapore, it
has about 1,400 institutional clients worldwide.
Appointments include: Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee,
Economic Adviser to Deloitte, member of the Chancellor’s panel of Independent Economic
Advisers, Visiting Professor at Manchester Business School, Group Chief Economist at HSBC
and Lecturer in Economics at St Anne’s College, Oxford. Roger studied at Oxford University,
gaining a B.A. in PPE and a B. Phil in Economics. He has written many articles and five
books. His latest book The Trouble with Markets contains a new chapter based on the
prize-winning entry and is available from July 5th as a new ebook.

Julian Jessop is the Chief Global Economist and Director. He was previously Senior
International Economist at Standard Chartered Bank, held senior economist positions
at HSBC and the Japanese bank Nikko, and worked as an Economic Adviser at the UK
Treasury. He has two degrees in Economics from Cambridge University.

Andrew Kenningham is Senior Global Economist. He was previously Deputy Chief
Economist in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and before that covered Emerging
Europe, Middle East and Africa for Merrill Lynch’s fixed income business. He has
degrees in Economics and Economic History from Manchester University and the LSE.

Jonathan Loynes is the Chief European Economist and Director, and has responsibility
for the euro-zone and the rest of Western Europe. He joined Capital Economics in
2000 from HSBC, where he was Chief UK Economist. Jonathan studied Economics and
Finance at Bath and Southampton universities.

Ben May is European Economist with focus on Italy, Spain, Ireland, Greece and
Scandinavia. Ben previously worked in the Monetary Analysis area of the Bank of
England, where amongst other things he worked on the euro-zone. He has degrees in
Economics from the University of Bristol and University College London.

Jennifer McKeown is Senior European Economist with a particular focus on the ECB
and the German, French and Swiss economies. She previously worked at the Bank of
England where she was a Euro-zone Economist. Jennifer has degrees in Economics from
University College London and the University of East Anglia.

Mark Pragnell is Head of Commissioned Projects with responsibility for bespoke
economic research for clients. He was previously in local government and, before that,
managing director of economics consultancy, CEBR. He has also held senior strategy
roles at Consumers’ Association and Railtrack plc. Mark read PPE at Oxford University.

would beg to differ:

The predicament of the euro-zone is both financial and economic.

The financial element centres on debt. Several countries have public debt burdens which
are unsustainable. In some cases, private debt is also overwhelming. Meanwhile, excessive
debt in the public and/or private sectors threatens the stability of the banking system.

The economic problem is that whereas monetary union was supposed to
bring convergence, in several members costs and prices continued to rise rapidly
relative to other members of the union, and indeed the outside world, thereby
causing a loss of competitiveness. This resulted in large current account deficits
and the build-up of substantial net international indebtedness. Often it is the same
countries that suffer acutely from both the financial and economic problems.

As a result of poor competitiveness and/or the burden of excessive debt,
several members of the euro-zone suffer from a chronic shortage of aggregate
demand, which results in high levels of unemployment. This worsens the debt
position of both the private and public sectors, thereby weakening the position
of the banks. Meanwhile, other countries enjoy current account surpluses, often
accompanied by more favourable debt positions in both the public and private
sectors. Moreover, the favourable position of the surplus countries is partly the
direct result of the weaker members’ loss of competitiveness.

Clearly, the financial and economic aspects of the crisis are closely inter-twined.

Full adjustment for the euro-zone and the establishment of stability for both the
member countries and the rest of the world requires that both these problems
be addressed.

Our analysis concludes that the economically optimal reconfiguration of the
euro-zone would be the retention of a core northern euro-zone incorporating
Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Finland and Belgium. These countries have
converged and they have compatible economic structures. They come close to
being an ‘optimal currency area’. France’s economic credentials for membership
of this group are less clear but, in reality, it appears likely that political
considerations would dictate that it was also a member.

SoFarSoGood

08-15-2012, 16:22

The crisis has nothing to do with the euro.

Ok what is the cause?

Furunculus

08-15-2012, 16:33

Ok what is the cause?

i'm gonna take a shot at the evils of free-wheeling anglo-saxon capitalism. ;)

SoFarSoGood

08-15-2012, 17:44

Lol... yea was thinking the US sub prime maybe but 'free-wheeling anglo-saxon capitalism' is a much more 'generous' description.

Sarmatian

08-15-2012, 18:21

i'm gonna take a shot at the evils of free-wheeling anglo-saxon capitalism. ;)

Yes, but that's not the whole story.

It's the squirrels behind the free-wheelin' anglo-saxon capitalism, bent on creating a new world order and eventual destruction of life as we know it.

SoFarSoGood

08-15-2012, 19:28

Are you serious? To be honest the only hidden agenda here (perhaps what you call part of a 'new world order') is the EU itself who for some time have been talking about a 'beneficial crisis'. By this they mean a crisis that allows them to push their unification agenda further without having to bother about democracy and public opinion. Well what do you think a 'fiscal union' means?

The markets (and not just the anglo saxon ones but the Chinese also) do not think the euro system is workable. The EU, ECB and IMF have added to this distrust by forcing private investors to take losses and refusing to take losses themselves. Just imagine if you had held Greek bonds and were forced to write off 75% of your investment (while the ECB etc kept all it's investment)... would you invest in Spanish bonds?

Get real.

Kralizec

08-15-2012, 20:40

Prior to the introduction of the Euro some of those countries (Italy and Greece in any case) were paying extremely high interest rates on their bonds as well. The low interest rates they paid during the good years were because A- investers assumed that those economies would always maintain decent growth so that they'd always be able to refinance their debt (good thing we have rating agencies!) and B-the ECB would always keep inflation low, so the risk of debt devaluation is minimal.
Under the same circumstances but with national currencies those countries would probably have resorted to devaluation, which would also have caused the rates on their bonds to spike.

Or put in other words: even without the euro those same countries would still be in deep ****. That investers buy few Spanish or Italian bonds is an indictment against those country's financial practices and not some mark of (dis)approval of the eurozone as such.

The IMF, and in this case the ECB, lend money when a country is already experiencing solvency issues and nobody on the market will lend money to refinance existing debt. A preferential position is perfectly justified in a scenario like that. Aid packages like that increase the chance of the investors getting any returns at all.

drone

08-15-2012, 20:52

Prior to the introduction of the Euro some of those countries (Italy and Greece in any case) were paying extremely high interest rates on their bonds as well. The low interest rates they paid during the good years were because A- investers assumed that those economies would always maintain decent growth so that they'd always be able to refinance their debt (good thing we have rating agencies!) and B-the ECB would always keep inflation low, so the risk of debt devaluation is minimal.
Under the same circumstances but with national currencies those countries would probably have resorted to devaluation, which would also have caused the rates on their bonds to spike.

Or put in other words: even without the euro those same countries would still be in deep ****. That investers buy few Spanish or Italian bonds is an indictment against those country's financial practices and not some mark of (dis)approval of the eurozone as such.
Without the euro, those countries would not have borrowed as heavily since they would be stuck with the higher interest rates. I imagine they would have just stagnated rather than go through the bubble/collapse cycle. The problem with the Euro was the same as the problem in the US - banks lent people/governments cheap money they couldn't realistically be expected to pay back (rating agencies ftw!). The Euro prevents localized corrective action by the federal bank.

SoFarSoGood

08-15-2012, 22:46

Under the same circumstances but with national currencies those countries would probably have resorted to devaluation, which would also have caused the rates on their bonds to spike.

That is what they need to do but the euro prevents.

gaelic cowboy

08-15-2012, 23:01

Yes, but that's not the whole story.

It's the squirrels behind the free-wheelin' anglo-saxon capitalism, bent on creating a new world order and eventual destruction of life as we know it.

Just because the initial cause of the Euro crisis may or may have not been caused by the Euro is neither here nor there Sarmatian.

The reality is were in a lifeboat that's sinking and one of the passengers refuses to allow anyone to swim for it while they sit on the lifejackets.

basically if they dont make there mind up soon the boat will sink regardless.

Beskar

08-15-2012, 23:25

That is what they need to do but the euro prevents.

Printing more money is the solution to everything. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation)

Kralizec

08-15-2012, 23:33

Without the euro, those countries would not have borrowed as heavily since they would be stuck with the higher interest rates. I imagine they would have just stagnated rather than go through the bubble/collapse cycle. The problem with the Euro was the same as the problem in the US - banks lent people/governments cheap money they couldn't realistically be expected to pay back (rating agencies ftw!). The Euro prevents localized corrective action by the federal bank.

Yes, I agree with this.

Which is why I've always said that the stability pact (i.e. limits on deficit spending) should have been actively enforced on day 1. I don't think anybody disagrees with that now.

We have to get through this crisis one way or the other, and after that ensure sustainable financial practices by the member states. Putting a cap on deficits is not enough; countries should work to decrease their debt levels when times are good.

If you'd ask Dutch citizens, most would answer that they'd approve of strict measures and penalties against PIIGS countries for their deficits and debt levels. At the same time, our government's policy of austerity to reach the 3% deficit target is pretty unpopular - while our austerity measures are a walk in the park compared to what the PIIGS countries are going through. Some people here complain all the time that the government is acting against the will of the people. Personally I would not like the economy and politics in general to be run as if it were American Idol or Britain's got talent.

SoFarSoGood

08-15-2012, 23:34

Devaluation, as you must be aware, does not necessarily lead to hyperinflation. Stop creating monsters where there all that is required is good management.

Kralizec

08-15-2012, 23:36

Printing more money is the solution to everything. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation)

To be fair; a case could be made that the ECB should pursue a moderate amount of inflation for a while. The northern economies which are doing well right now would match this development with wage increases, while the southern wages stay the same. This would take care of the trade balance issues.

Beskar

08-15-2012, 23:59

Devaluation, as you must be aware, does not necessarily lead to hyperinflation. Stop creating monsters where there all that is required is good management.

When/If Greece leaves, the situation there will get worse, probably look at revolution levels (it is bad enough as it is). It will end up an international pariah in the political and economical circles. If we are going to look at the facts, Greece leaving the Eurozone will benefit the Eurozone members more than Greece remaining a member, a fact Greece is willing to exploit politically.

So it is a choice being propping up Greece or letting it fall. Structured Devaluation of the Euro would help aid the situation for Greece though and most of the other southern states at the expense of Germany, Netherlands and other states. It is these states which do not want that.

This is why the whole thing is a political quagmire. national self-interest is being put before the collective good of the whole. This is why the expression "In order to fix it, more EU is required" which you scoff at. But in order to fix the situation as in, to make it economically and politically stable for all current members, there needs to be more collective will than divided self-interest. No one is disagreeing with the notion that more EU will place more burden upon the stronger economies, this is exactly what it does as that is a solution to the problem.

But "Anti-EU" banter aside, I would like you to do me a favour which in turn will help the both of us communicate so we progress. Could you define where the "Problem" is in your mind and your proposed solutions to it.

So for example with devaluation, the Euro devaluing would aid Greece, but on the flipslide, it would be a "con" to Germany. Do you believe Germany should take the hit for the devaluation to aid Greece? Should Greece be forced out of the Euro and be allowed to descend anarchy as it prints money which will have no effect upon Euro-rate Loans so would be forced simply not pay anything at all, causing European economies, including Britain to take a "hit" and decimating the Greek political and economical reputation for the next 20 years minimum. Should all the sovereign debt be bought up by the ECB then repayment split between all the Eurozone members?

The Feel free to contribute your own speculations or solutions, I am interested to hear them!

Papewaio

08-16-2012, 02:41

If Mohammed won't go to the mountain...

So if Greece being part of the Euro is an issue and they won't leave it.

Why not other EU nations form another currency ie New Euro, former currencies or the UK pound.

It would be funny to see all the Northern EU on UK currency.

SoFarSoGood

08-16-2012, 11:51

When/If Greece leaves, the situation there will get worse, probably look at revolution levels (it is bad enough as it is). It will end up an international pariah in the political and economical circles. If we are going to look at the facts, Greece leaving the Eurozone will benefit the Eurozone members more than Greece remaining a member, a fact Greece is willing to exploit politically.

So it is a choice being propping up Greece or letting it fall. Structured Devaluation of the Euro would help aid the situation for Greece though and most of the other southern states at the expense of Germany, Netherlands and other states. It is these states which do not want that.

This is why the whole thing is a political quagmire. national self-interest is being put before the collective good of the whole. This is why the expression "In order to fix it, more EU is required" which you scoff at. But in order to fix the situation as in, to make it economically and politically stable for all current members, there needs to be more collective will than divided self-interest. No one is disagreeing with the notion that more EU will place more burden upon the stronger economies, this is exactly what it does as that is a solution to the problem.

But "Anti-EU" banter aside, I would like you to do me a favour which in turn will help the both of us communicate so we progress. Could you define where the "Problem" is in your mind and your proposed solutions to it.

So for example with devaluation, the Euro devaluing would aid Greece, but on the flipslide, it would be a "con" to Germany. Do you believe Germany should take the hit for the devaluation to aid Greece? Should Greece be forced out of the Euro and be allowed to descend anarchy as it prints money which will have no effect upon Euro-rate Loans so would be forced simply not pay anything at all, causing European economies, including Britain to take a "hit" and decimating the Greek political and economical reputation for the next 20 years minimum. Should all the sovereign debt be bought up by the ECB then repayment split between all the Eurozone members?

The Feel free to contribute your own speculations or solutions, I am interested to hear them!

Argentina 1999-2005. They left the US $ peg in 2002 and inflation hit about 10% highest for one month. By 2005 they were fine.

gaelic cowboy

08-16-2012, 15:34

Printing more money is the solution to everything. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation)

Everyone keeps waving that around like a voodoo doll and yet it hasn't happend despite printing billions in LTRO and emergency banking liquidity by the ECB.

Clearly people are forgeting the lesson of the hyperinflation episode because the payment of the debts were to be in gold form or foreign currency. Hmm a currency that cannot devalue and has very little domestic/international faith in it's value while it's debts MUST be paid back. (does that sound familiar at all)

After the Germans defaulted on some of there debts the newer currency actually became more stable, seeing as both currencies tracked gold it would seem that having a currency that couldnt devalue was not a total loss. (as long as people were sensible and forced losses on creditors)

So far no creditors like major banks or by extension the governments or ECB have lost out so were stuck with a sinking boat.

SoFarSoGood

08-16-2012, 17:50

LTRO actually created landed Spanish banks in worse problems.

gaelic cowboy

08-16-2012, 21:25

LTRO actually created landed Spanish banks in worse problems.

No that's not correct the reason Spains banks are in bad shape is because they were bust.

Basically injections of liquidity wont solve a credit crisis at a bank if the real problem is insolvency to begin with.

SoFarSoGood

08-16-2012, 21:34

Made it worse because the money the Spanish banks borrowed they invested in Spanish Government bonds, which they now face losses on.

gaelic cowboy

08-16-2012, 21:39

Made it worse because the money the Spanish banks borrowed they invested in Spanish Government bonds, which they now face losses on.

It wont matter the capital injections from the ESM are meant to cover all sorts of losses, remember that the LTRO was basically stealth QE by the ECB. The ECB intended to flood the interbank system with liquidity to enable weaker banks and governments to get some capital injections on the QT from the ECB.

Once they get that ESM cash they can mark down the government bonds or sell em on the secondary market.

SoFarSoGood

08-16-2012, 22:09

Well aware of the intention of the LTRO 1 and 2. It worked for a bit. Fact is that the banks that took LTRO money still owe it back to the ECB (was one year loans). If the Spanish banks sell their Government bonds who pays back the ECB? Will the ECB take a 'haircut'? Not bloody likely.

Furunculus

08-17-2012, 10:22

the growing distrust between france and germany:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/french-intellectuals-put-the-franco-german-axis-on-the-couch-a-850197.html

"Why, he asks, don't the Germans see the writing on the wall, and why do they use the "fictitious threat" of inflation and an imaginary wealth destruction machine as an argument?"

Is it not obvious?

Germany cannot articulate the fact that it does not recognise a common Demos that is capable of accepting a common fate, so it is inventing reasons to artificially separate what would otherwise be a common finance.

[edit]

and this image articulates the problem:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bild-845088-377687.html

this is what is required for the euro to work, but imagine replacing bavaria and berlin with germany and greece.

show. me. your. demos.

gaelic cowboy

08-17-2012, 11:34

and this image articulates the problem:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bild-845088-377687.html

this is what is required for the euro to work, but imagine replacing bavaria and berlin with germany and greece.

show. me. your. demos.

Well that's an interesting picture after all the rubbish talk about protestant work ethic.

Kralizec

08-17-2012, 11:43

Northrhine-Westphalia is a recipient? WTF?

Fragony

08-17-2012, 14:31

Northrhine-Westphalia is a recipient? WTF?

Needs more EU-flags

HopAlongBunny

08-17-2012, 14:45

So we come full circle.

Its like watching 27 people in a lifeboat that's sinking; all 27 ppl in the boat know what needs to be done, but they would rather discuss the obvious than actually do anything...lifeboat going down!

Beskar

08-17-2012, 15:08

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/bild-845088-377687.html
this is what is required for the euro to work, but imagine replacing bavaria and berlin with germany and greece.

Yes it does and it requires "More EU" to make Germany do it.

Even then, that would be mostly short-term, as in the longterm after the harmonalisation of various economical policies such as all the members having the same retirement age will lessen the differences.

But I agree, there needs to be political reform of the European Union, politics and economics go together, they are not separate. Wealth is Power and Power is Wealth.

Tellos Athenaios

08-17-2012, 23:44

Northrhine-Westphalia is a recipient? WTF?

Largely agrarian but with some old industry and most importantly lots of run down/in need of update inner cities thrown in for good measure. A bit like Limburg, really.

So we come full circle.

Its like watching 27 people in a lifeboat that's sinking; all 27 ppl in the boat know what needs to be done, but they would rather discuss the obvious than actually do anything...lifeboat going down!

No that's precisely the point: it isn't. From the Germanic perspective there is not one lifeboat in danger of sinking. There are 27 boats and in some boats there are grossly irresponsible captains at the helm (like a certain cruise ship...) and then there are more reasonable captains with competent crews who are willing to do the work to navigate the waters properly and watch out for rocks.

The key is that German (and Dutch, and perhaps Nordic) economic success (and standard of living) is bought and paid for by a cautious, conservative economic policy which aims to mediate between what business want (very high productivity at decent wage equals cheap costs of manufacture equals competitiveness) and what workers want (purchasing power). The balance struck is one of low inflation as it means you can keep both parties reasonably happy with modest wages .

This is also why any and all talk of austerity or haircuts on the part of the paymasters is not received very well: margins are, by definition kept "thin". Germans for example have settled for virtually no real term increase in purchasing power since the early 2000's. They do not feel very convinced that they should settle for even less purchasing power in order to be able to wipe out some debt on the parts of others that did enjoy booming wages.

SoFarSoGood

08-18-2012, 00:24

Does anyone realise this was Hitlers plan?

Beskar

08-18-2012, 00:26

Does anyone realise this was Hitlers plan?

Thank you for randomly implementing Godwin in the EU thread.

HopAlongBunny

08-18-2012, 09:37

Oh my, irresponsible captains.

Let's not forget, the ppl in the engine room could have said: "She can't handle anymore capt! She's breaking up!" But they continued to pour on the coal.

Now we have the loan-sharks coming back to say: "Ok, we made a bad bet; not only are you going to make good on that bet, but you're going to cough up our "winnings" if it kills you!"

I fail to see the "nobility" of either position.

Sarmatian

08-18-2012, 12:35

Does anyone realise this was Hitlers plan?

Quick, somebody call Soviets and Americans!

Tellos Athenaios

08-18-2012, 15:36

Oh my, irresponsible captains.

Let's not forget, the ppl in the engine room could have said: "She can't handle anymore capt! She's breaking up!" But they continued to pour on the coal.
Yes someone in the PIIGS could have seen their bubble swelling to dangerous proportions. They did, and they ignored it anyway for some reasons. That is pretty much what we learned from the whole Greek saga: even the Greek accountants in chief did not have a clue as to how large their debts were, as to how large their deficit was...

Now we have the loan-sharks coming back to say: "Ok, we made a bad bet; not only are you going to make good on that bet, but you're going to cough up our "winnings" if it kills you!" Loan sharks? By now pretty much all outstanding debt the Greeks have to make good on is all ECB debt. It's the sweetest deal they ever got, considering their position; and make no mistake they didn't get it from private investors but German (and other) taxpayers. The EU and each of its treaties is driven by mutual self interest, not altruism. So really what would you expect Germany to do? Ignore its own (citizens) interests and simply write out a blank cheque? That would not go down well in Germany, so it is not going to happen.

In essence it is what is being asked from the Germans since the PIIGS have yet to demonstrate a credible way forward. Assuming the debts were wiped off the balance sheets overnight, how would this fix things? How would this fix the structural issue feeding such debts? The only solution proposed thus far is for the Germans to pay for the bill and then subsequently pay some more and more and more by relinquishing their economic strength so PIIGS might be able to siphon off some of that. I.e. the Germans are not expected to simply pay out trebles all around, but they are also expected to give up jobs, standard of living and economic security all in one go. On top of that, there is not an actual guarantee for this to work because it assumes the lost economic strength goes to the PIIGS rather than, say, Poland, Czech Republic or the Baltic countries or even India, China etc. Countries which are tied very strongly to Germany already and which do have a track record of stepping in to replace or provide an alternative to German industries (cars, bio/med, software, agriculture).

I do not see why Germany should voluntarily cave into such demands, and I find the German insistence that this is not going to happen until hell freezes over entirely reasonable.

I fail to see the "nobility" of either position.

It's nothing to do with being noble. The EU never was, is not, and never will be.

Fragony

08-19-2012, 09:15

Mention the war a few times and Germany will cough it up, always worked so far

HopAlongBunny

08-19-2012, 09:43

gaelic cowboy

08-19-2012, 12:14

Ah! Thank you for that info; I thought this was still all about the banks covering their butts with taxpayer money.

I still fail to see how enforced economic contraction will lead Greece out of the hole. The rent-seekers will line up for privatized goodies; money now and higher costs down the line. While this will shrink gov't economic share, how will it spur demand/growth/revenue?

Exactly

More and more taxpayers money gets diverted to pay creditors and all the while people are distracted by governments waving voodoo dolls of inflation or WW3.

SoFarSoGood

08-19-2012, 13:20

Seems like the Finns might have enough.

“There are no rules on how to leave the euro but it is only a matter of time. Either the south or the north will break away because this currency straitjacket is causing misery for millions and destroying Europe’s future. It is a total catastrophe. We are going to run out of money the way we are going. But nobody in Europe wants to be first to get out of the euro and take all the blame.” Timo Soini

Fragony

08-19-2012, 13:37

Don't get your hopes up, he said it as a member of the somewhat shady 'true fins' a bit like our Wilders, he isn't speaking on behalf of the government. He is right of course, it's inevitable that the euro-zone will become a northern and southern union. Everybody can see that comming except europhiles.

Sarmatian

08-19-2012, 21:55

Hah!

May be, indeed. Eisen und Blut, and all that...

SoFarSoGood

08-19-2012, 22:15

"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" springs to mind.

Kralizec

08-19-2012, 22:18

Hah!

May be, indeed. Eisen und Blut, and all that...

That's Bismarck :whip:

Sarmatian

08-19-2012, 22:37

That's Bismarck :whip:

Well, I hardly thought it was Robert E. Lee.

Kralizec

08-19-2012, 23:08

"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" springs to mind.

Hah. How clever.

Didn't you say you have a history degree?

SoFarSoGood

08-20-2012, 00:25

Classics and Philosophy. Phd in Philosophy (of Science).

HopAlongBunny

08-21-2012, 22:29

In other news LIBOR continues at a snail's pace

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19303968

SoFarSoGood

08-22-2012, 18:17

So Jean Claude Juncker (the EU finance chairman) is in Athens at the moment discussing the Greek problems. The Greek Prime Minister, Samaras, is due to meet Merkel this week too. Any decisions likely? Not bloody likely.... Junker says "We’re waiting for the troika report. As soon as we have that we can make a decision. In any case there won’t be a decision on Greece before October." What the hell is the point of the meetings this week then? They might need a new can to kick down the road soon.

SoFarSoGood

08-23-2012, 18:19

Breaking News! Mars' financial sector headed for collapse!
Unnoticed by the human race, the men and women of Mars had developed a huge economy over the last decades. They were working, working and working; producing, producing and producing; and exporting, exporting and exporting. Exporting to Greece & Co.

As payment for their exports, they accepted sovereign bonds denominated in Euros. Since they had no use for those Euros on Mars, they lent them to Greece & Co. The men and women of Mars had become savers and they also thought that they had become rich.

One day, the Martian banking system started fearing that all those sovereign bonds might default. The Martian government sent an urgent message to the EU Commission telling them to urgently bail out Greece & Co. so that a collapse of the Martian banking system could be avoided. The EU Commission replied post haste:

“That seems to be your problem and not ours”.

The Martians threatened to drive Greece & Co. into default; expel them from all international financial transactions and, essentially, run their economies into the ground. The EU Commission replied, more slowly this time:

“Do what you think is right and what you can be responsible for. Don’t worry about the economies of Greece & Co. We will keep them alive by financing their ongoing needs as a preferred creditor”.

At this point, the Martians realized that they had to act like beggars. They politely requested the EU Commission to bail out the Martian banking sector. The EU Commission replied, again with some delay:

“Ok; we’ll do that. Here are the terms: 99% ownership of the banks and total control over management and business policies. The right to sell off the banks after they have been restructured to anyone of our choosing”.

The first thing the new owners of the Martian banking sector did was to forgive Greece & Co. all their sovereign debt. And the next thing was to work out economic restructuring plans for Greece & Co. as the condition to finance those countries’ ongoing financing needs.

All shareholders of all Martian banks were wiped out. Even all of their bondholders were wiped out. This on the grounds that they were considered as “professional market participants” and should have known what risks they were taking. Luckily for regular Martian savers, a solution was found where regular savers did not lose any money.

From http://klauskastner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/breaking-news-mars-financial-sector.html Not me but he commented on the blog of a Greek pal of mine.

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 19:50

Does anyone realise this was Hitlers plan?

Patethic.

SoFarSoGood

08-23-2012, 19:53

Spelling lesson *pathetic*

Sarmatian

08-23-2012, 21:36

Spelling lesson *pathetic*

Oh, that's different. Now that I know you can point out a typing mistake, I'm gonna take your arguments seriously.

SoFarSoGood

08-23-2012, 22:05

Point is that the EU is no more 'democratic' than it was when Hitler planned the same thing.

Kadagar_AV

08-23-2012, 22:23

Oh, that's different. Now that I know you can point out a typing mistake, I'm gonna take your arguments seriously.

Thanks... Was looking for something like that, but I just didn't have the ooompfh in me ;)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

08-23-2012, 22:25

Point is that the EU is no more 'democratic' than it was when Hitler planned the same thing.

Not actually true.

But never mind.

SoFarSoGood

08-23-2012, 22:36

Show me the democracy of the troika.

Kadagar_AV

09-06-2012, 16:39

Greece play's the Godwin...

Obviously, they are now trying to determine if Germany really doesn't owe them a pile of money for having been evil Nazis...

Questionable timing, one might think... And I'm not at all sure that is the right card to play to a Germany with a wallet already open... Stupid stupid stupid. Only have swedish sources, will investigate later for english ones.

Greyblades

09-06-2012, 16:42

drone

09-06-2012, 16:46

ECB agrees to unlimited government bond purchases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ecb-loads-the-big-bazooka/2012/09/06/a4ff5a2a-f814-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_story.html?hpid=z4)

The European Central Bank on Thursday moved forcefully to ensure the survival of the euro, agreeing to unlimited purchases of government bonds and a series of other steps meant to restore the world’s confidence in the struggling currency union.

With fresh evidence that a regional recession was undermining even Germany’s industrial might, ECB President Mario Draghi said government bond and other markets had become so dysfunctional that the central bank had to create “a fully effective backstop” for its 17 members.

The broad aims of the new bond-buying program were couched carefully in the language of the bank’s legal mandate to control inflation and not directly finance the region’s governments. But the aim was clear: After nearly three years of a crisis in which the threat of a euro breakup fueled a self-fulfilling slide, Draghi said the bank needed to break the region’s corrosive cycle.

“We want this to be perceived as a fully effective backstop,” Draghi said. “We are in a situation where a large part of the euro area is in a bad equilibrium, where you have self-fulfilling expectations that feed upon themselves and generate very adverse scenarios. There is a case for intervening to break these expectations.”

The new program answers what has been a long-standing call by many from within and outside the euro zone — including the Obama administration and the International Monetary Fund — for the ECB to be more aggressive in trying to resolve the euro zone’s crisis. The ability of the currency union’s governments to act has often been constrained by national politics, the difficulties of coaxing agreement from 17 sets of leaders and their parliaments, and the reluctance of wealthier countries to use their tax dollars to help support others.

Let the raiding of the taxpayers commence!

gaelic cowboy

09-06-2012, 16:51

ECB agrees to unlimited government bond purchases (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ecb-loads-the-big-bazooka/2012/09/06/a4ff5a2a-f814-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_story.html?hpid=z4)

Let the raiding of the taxpayers commence!

Actually it's the other way round this eases taxpayers in countries where bond yields have risen very high.

SoFarSoGood

09-06-2012, 16:52

gaelic cowboy

09-06-2012, 16:59

Buy gold or Swiss fancs. Euro devaluation on it's way and probably Germany and Finland out.

I laughed when he said “Action in the primary market would be a violation, not secondary market”... Lisbon Treaty in flames.

to be honest Gold is that last thing you want to buy now, the stuff is clearly in a bubble.

A currency devaluation pretty unlikely in a monetary system as big as the Euro, far more likely it floats up or down depending on who is buying or selling.

Also the Lisbon Treaty doesn't really have much to do with ECB governance.

SoFarSoGood

09-06-2012, 17:04

When paper decreases in value gold goes up - look at the prices relative US QE 1 and 2...of course US QE 3 is just around the corner too.

gaelic cowboy

09-06-2012, 17:09

When paper decreases in value gold goes up - look at the prices relative US QE 1 and 2...of course US QE 3 is just around the corner too.

Seeing as the S & P 500 is having is having it's best day in about 5yr I would say were ok.

US QE increased gold buying because a few idiots still think were all in the gold standard or something, if you ask me it's the worst play on the stockmarket.

drone

09-06-2012, 17:20

Actually it's the other way round this eases taxpayers in countries where bond yields have risen very high.
Those taxpayers don't have much left to give. The ones in Germany, Holland, etc. are now up for their fleecing.

gaelic cowboy

09-06-2012, 17:23

Those taxpayers don't have much left to give. The ones in Germany, Holland, etc. are now up for their fleecing.

This would be a central bank scheme as a result the can create the money they need.

people in wherever will merely see on some tv business channel that German and Italy rates are converging in about a week.

SoFarSoGood

09-07-2012, 20:05

"Markets Cheer Death of the Bundesbank" - Die Welt

Vladimir

09-07-2012, 20:45

"Markets Cheer Death of the Bundesbank" - Die Welt

So what Germany failed to achieve by force of arms they have achieved through banking?

SoFarSoGood

09-07-2012, 21:15

Such divisive language and thoughts should be banned! ~:grouphug:

gaelic cowboy

09-07-2012, 21:35

So what Germany failed to achieve by force of arms they have achieved through banking?

Not really they were outvoted on the bond scheme as I said they could be a good few pages back.

HopAlongBunny

09-09-2012, 00:52

Germany as the reluctant sacrifice?

"Oh, please don't devalue the euro and make our goods even cheaper to export!!!"

Makes me think of Snidely Whiplash and Nel.

HopAlongBunny

09-10-2012, 03:26

RBS looks to be next up to take hit in LIBOR:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/08/us-rbs-libor-idUSBRE88708P20120908

and

http://youtu.be/nRwz_te2S-U

Fragony

09-10-2012, 05:54

That plumb eastblock workhorse and ex-stasi Merkel wants to keep the Greeks in the euro no matter what. Great.

HopAlongBunny

09-11-2012, 09:44

More Soros: Interview with a Witch

http://youtu.be/LxpHLDsCk7U

SoFarSoGood

09-11-2012, 09:54

We'll restore democracy and freedom in the end... it's just a choice of ballot or bullet.

SoFarSoGood

09-11-2012, 17:05

Portugal has been given more time to hit its deficit goals by troika inspectors. It was previously under orders to reduce the deficit to 4.5pc this year and 3pc next year, but now has the freedom to post a deficit of 5pc this year, 4.5pc next year and 2.5pc in 2014, says finance minister Vitor Gaspar.

So much for the 'fiscal compact'. I simply lose track of the times 'rules', 'compacts' and 'Treaties' have to get torn up to keep this endless quest for a political 'utopia', that no ordinary people want, going.

Furunculus

09-12-2012, 10:11

remember, this a treaty based organisation so britain can't just go around doing as it please with nary a thought for the consequences.

there are rules, god damn it, and everyone elses follows them to the letter.

why is it always britain is that is so bloody obstreperous!

:D

Greyblades

09-12-2012, 10:47

In the last 100 years we've gone from the workshop of the world to the bank of the world thanks to some stupidity in the commons, and seeing what the banks have been doing recently it's hardly surprising our government is currently acting horrendously arrogant and stupid in turn.

Kralizec

09-12-2012, 11:05

Newsflash: Bundesverfassungsgericht rules ESM constitutional, in line with everyone's expectations except those of eurosceptics.

Beskar

09-13-2012, 01:41

Dutch have voted: Pro-Europe (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56241184-fd0f-11e1-a4f2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26J1LjvAg)

Wilders got decimated.

Furunculus

09-13-2012, 11:46

Newsflash: Bundesverfassungsgericht rules ESM constitutional, in line with everyone's expectations except those of eurosceptics.

not by a long shot!

they ruled to limit Germany's exposure to E190b, or 27% of the total.

what happens when Spain needs its bailout, and ceases to be a contributor?

in the past germany's exposure has automatically been ratcheted up every time a country drops out, not this time.

so, merkel will have to go to the bundestag in the year before an election to set aside the judgment of the karlsruhr, in order to pay johnny foriegner some more cash, in a country that pretty much defines the term "constitutional patriotism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_patriotism

that's gonna be fun!

it also said "nein" to providing the ECB a banking license, so the ECB cannot create more cash to make up for the (future) deficit in state contributions.

SoFarSoGood

09-13-2012, 12:02

Have to agree with Furunculus on the German court ruling. It essentially leaves the ESM underfunded. If someone (Spain for example) stops becoming a contributor then the German percentage would rise but as this is not legal the German contribution would have to fall below 190bn euros to stay within the 27% total.

Tellos Athenaios

09-13-2012, 14:37

Dutch have voted: Pro-Europe (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56241184-fd0f-11e1-a4f2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26J1LjvAg)

Wilders got decimated.

I would not consider this a pro-EU vote...

Fragony

09-13-2012, 15:10

I would not consider this a pro-EU vote...

Indeed, the winner isn't anti-euro but is certainly no pushover.

Foreigners really overestimate Wilder's power by the way

Beskar

09-13-2012, 15:19

I would not consider this a pro-EU vote...

Both major parties are pro-Europe, according to a dutch friend of mine. Though they were very upset that it is turning into American style "2-party" system since they both got 40% shares of the vote.

Fragony

09-13-2012, 15:25

Both major parties are pro-Europe, according to a dutch friend of mine. Though they were very upset that it is turning into American style "2-party" system since they both got 40% shares of the vote.

Wilders is also pro-europe, but anti EU. Rutte is considered a tough cookie in the EU, don't expect free passes for he south

They didn't get 40% by the way they both gotten +/- 40 seats in parlement. There are 150, I don't think your friend fully understands how the system works

Tellos Athenaios

09-13-2012, 16:20

Both major parties are pro-Europe, according to a dutch friend of mine. Though they were very upset that it is turning into American style "2-party" system since they both got 40% shares of the vote.

Not really why people voted for them, though. I figure a fair share of PVV and SP voters were never very much a fan of either, just disappointed with the status quo. Anti-EU is all well and good, but at the end of the day a party has to offer more than talking points at which point voters realised that neither party was a serious proposition for government. So they dropped their support, and reverted to more solid parties instead.

Fragony

09-17-2012, 13:26

Oh that plumb eastblock workhorse wants more Europe, did you fine gents know she was actually born in the west and moved to the east where she became a stasi.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-17-2012, 14:06

Both major parties are pro-Europe, according to a dutch friend of mine. Though they were very upset that it is turning into American style "2-party" system since they both got 40% shares of the vote.

Generally speaking voters' opinions of the EU are not reflected in the way they cast their ballots at national elections. This is because domestic issues decide elections, and the EU is considered a foreign policy issue.

For example, many working-class tradesmen are against the EU's directives which allow Eastern Europeans to easily enter the UK and undercut them, but they still vote Labour - the party that backed the policy.

Fragony

09-17-2012, 14:39

Generally speaking voters' opinions of the EU are not reflected in the way they cast their ballots at national elections.

That is certainly the case here, mayby TA can explain it better but this was no pro-EU vote, that idea exists only in their head.

Kralizec

09-17-2012, 15:07

Generally speaking voters' opinions of the EU are not reflected in the way they cast their ballots at national elections. This is because domestic issues decide elections, and the EU is considered a foreign policy issue.

For example, many working-class tradesmen are against the EU's directives which allow Eastern Europeans to easily enter the UK and undercut them, but they still vote Labour - the party that backed the policy.

Maybe true for your country, but not for mine. "Foreign policy", EU excluded, is almost a non-issue in most elections. Conversely, everybody has an opinion about the EU and it was discussed very often in the election debates. A big topic was if, and how, we should make budget cuts to adhere to the 3% norm - which is where it crosses over into domestic issues.
The Socialist Party and Wilders basically said we shouldn't try too hard, and if it so happens that we cross the 3% norm we should give the finger to Brussels and refuse to pay the fine. They, and some smaller fringe parties, are considered the Eurosceptic part of our political spectrum.

You're conflating opposition against a measure with opposition against the institution that issued it. Someone is not anti-EU because he opposes specific directives or regulations. As far as I know there's never been a poll in the Netherlands that showed a majority wanted out of the EU, period. Wilders wants out, basicly conducted a single-issue campaign on wanting out, and lost almost half of his seats. The Socialist Party is sometimes called anti-EU because while they're claim they're not opposed to membership, they would break any EU rule or agreement if they think it suits them. And their election results were dissapointing as well.

SoFarSoGood

09-22-2012, 11:02

I am not sure this is believable but according to The Telegraph a decision in Greece may be delayed until after the US election; "The Obama administration doesn’t want anything on a macroeconomic scale that is going to rock the global economy before November 6,” a European Union official said. “As far as European leaders are concerned, they don’t want [Republican candidate Mitt] Romney, so they’re probably willing to do anything to help Obama’s chances."

So Greece, as if it's not suffering enough already, now has to suffer more for Obama? That's what happens when you are run by the unelected.

Fragony

09-22-2012, 11:20

Maybe true for your country, but not for mine. "Foreign policy", EU excluded, is almost a non-issue in most elections. Conversely, everybody has an opinion about the EU and it was discussed very often in the election debates. A big topic was if, and how, we should make budget cuts to adhere to the 3% norm - which is where it crosses over into domestic issues.
The Socialist Party and Wilders basically said we shouldn't try too hard, and if it so happens that we cross the 3% norm we should give the finger to Brussels and refuse to pay the fine. They, and some smaller fringe parties, are considered the Eurosceptic part of our political spectrum.

You're conflating opposition against a measure with opposition against the institution that issued it. Someone is not anti-EU because he opposes specific directives or regulations. As far as I know there's never been a poll in the Netherlands that showed a majority wanted out of the EU, period. Wilders wants out, basicly conducted a single-issue campaign on wanting out, and lost almost half of his seats. The Socialist Party is sometimes called anti-EU because while they're claim they're not opposed to membership, they would break any EU rule or agreement if they think it suits them. And their election results were dissapointing as well.

Liittle correction the PVV wants to go back to the EEG, I agree by the way

That is not to say that the hallelujah from eurocrats is all that deserved, almost nobody voted in favor of the EU

SoFarSoGood

09-22-2012, 11:46

As far as I know there's never been a poll in the Netherlands that showed a majority wanted out of the EU, period.

Been lots of polls that show that in Britain but it doesn't seem to matter.

Fragony

09-22-2012, 13:33

Been lots of polls that show that in Britain but it doesn't seem to matter.

We never wanted in, there was a referendum and Idunno 70% or so voted against absolute power for the EUSSR, but it was just ignored and we got sneaked into it.

SoFarSoGood

09-22-2012, 14:06

Fragony

09-22-2012, 14:23

We has a vote here... in 1975 for the 'Common Matket'. In other words anyone who wasn't 18 or older in 1975 (55 or more now) has never had a vote.

I think the Dutch vote was on the 'Constitution' no?

Yeah, they changed the anthem I believe and the vote just didn't count anymore, Jan-peter Balkenenede who was prez at the time was in the run for the unelected position of EU president so he signed.

SoFarSoGood

09-22-2012, 15:39

So you never had a vote on 'do we want to be a part of this?'. Just a vote on 'do we want more of this?'.

Fragony

09-22-2012, 15:48

So you never had a vote on 'do we want to be a part of this?'. Just a vote on 'do we want more of this?'.

Not any at all we were sneaked in. We voted against it but it was simply ignored.

Conradus

09-22-2012, 19:02

The Netherlands are a founding member of the EU, you weren't sneaked in. The Constitution was abandonded after the no-votes of France and the Dutch. Lisbon replaced it and was ratified like every treaty.

Fragony

09-22-2012, 19:08

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-23-2012, 01:38

Fragony

09-23-2012, 08:00

The Lisbon Treaty is the same document with the word "Constitution" removed.

Yep. They did a paintjob and we got sneaked in anyway by Jan-Peter Balkenende who thought it would make him EU president. He never expected there are even bigger liars then him, he got nothing out of it.

Conradus

09-23-2012, 10:27

The Lisbon Treaty is the same document with the word "Constitution" removed.

Parts of it were taken from the failed constitution but to say they're exactly the same is to give Lisbon no credit at all.

Fragony

09-23-2012, 10:50

Parts of it were taken from the failed constitution but to say they're exactly the same is to give Lisbon no credit at all.

Well I don't, I was asked and I said no to the international-socialism. The EEG was far enough for non-europhiles

SoFarSoGood

09-23-2012, 20:34

Parts of it were taken from the failed constitution but to say they're exactly the same is to give Lisbon no credit at all.

The point is surely that proposals which were rejected democraticly was then passed anyway. Ironic that a country must be 'democratic' before it can join the EU yet the Italian cabinet does not have one elected Minister...

Kralizec

09-23-2012, 21:51

The Lisbon Treaty is the same document with the word "Constitution" removed.

Admittedly, the differences are small.

That said; other than the symbolic stuff (it being a "constitution", officially enshrining the flag and anthem) which were removed from the Lisbon treaty, I really don't see it's ratification as a suitable subject for a referendum. The biggest change, and probably the biggest among the legitimate concerns, was the expansion of qualified majority voting as opposed to unanimity. I thought, and still think so, that this was an overwhelmingly good thing. Many of the common people however would read some headline in The Sun or Le monde along the lines of "this is going to give the unelected eurocrats the power to force stuff like, whatever on our country!111!!!"

And they'd buy into the headline completely, despite the fact that none of them would be able to name any specific area of policy where qualified majority voting would be applicable to which they'd object. Hell, polls showed that one of the reasons many Dutch people voted against the EU constitution was because they felt that Turkey should not be allowed to join the EU, something of zero relevance to the question at hand.

And then there's of course the fact that even those people who voted against the constitution would, for the most part, still vote for parties in national elections that ratified the Lisbon treaty. Don't give me that bullcrap about the EU not being an issue in national elections, or that there are no alternatives to established parties. In most countries there are parties who advocate leaving the EU and they're composed of one-trick-ponies accompanied by full blown idiots. Representative democracy FTW - the failure of the eurosceptics to get their act together and organise themselves into an electable party is not my problem. Of course, people could still vote Tory in the national elections and vote UKIP in European elections to spite the so-called europhiles, but most of them don't.

Don't like being in the EU? Does the majority of your nation dislike being in it? Then the fault is with your politicians, and your political system.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-23-2012, 23:39

Parts of it were taken from the failed constitution but to say they're exactly the same is to give Lisbon no credit at all.

I don't - zero credit.

The point is surely that proposals which were rejected democraticly was then passed anyway. Ironic that a country must be 'democratic' before it can join the EU yet the Italian cabinet does not have one elected Minister...

Right.

Admittedly, the differences are small.

...

Don't like being in the EU? Does the majority of your nation dislike being in it? Then the fault is with your politicians, and your political system.

It's a simple point - a transfer of sovereignty from a National Government to a third party should be ratified by the electorate. We keep electing Politicians who say "no more Europe" but it seems once in office any politician is faced with an edifice so constructed that you cannot extricate yourself from it.

I recall a German Europhile once telling me that were Britain to leave the EU we would be punished, that economic sanctions would be inflicted.

The increase in majority voting may well have been a good thing but the point is, nobody asked, the Irish were asked, and they said no. So they were asked again, at a time when they needed EU money to stop their country going belly up.

Tellos Athenaios

09-24-2012, 01:49

it seems once in office any politician is faced with an edifice so constructed that you cannot extricate yourself from it.

I recall a German Europhile once telling me that were Britain to leave the EU we would be punished, that economic sanctions would be inflicted.

No, they like getting elected so they talk the talk but once in office they appraise the consequences in a different way and they refuse to walk the walk. Probably because once they are elected they have to face reality which is that it is in British economic interest to remain part of the EU warts and all. A lot of British business would be more difficult, read more costly, were Britain to extract itself from the EU, and I imagine British business is willing to invite the politician to lunch if that is what it takes to secure their bottom line.

Greyblades

09-24-2012, 02:07

Then amplify it by 10 due to the recession making that bottom line hard to secure in ideal conditions.

Kralizec

09-24-2012, 09:20

The point is surely that proposals which were rejected democraticly was then passed anyway. Ironic that a country must be 'democratic' before it can join the EU yet the Italian cabinet does not have one elected Minister...

In Westminster parliamentary systems, ministers must be a member of parliament. They can be from the upper house as well, and so are not necessarily elected in any sense of the word.

In many other countries however that's illegal - being an MP and a minister are incompatible mandates. The Netherlands is one such country; ministers are often drawn from the ranks of parliament (they'll have to waiver their seats in order to take office) but it's not uncommon for a political outsider to be awarded a post. It's accurate to say that we don't elect our executive branch, we merely influence what it will look like by the composition of parliament.

I don't know Italy's constitutional structe in any detail, but presumably they don't require their ministers to be members of parliament. Monti's technocratic government is endorsed by the majority in parliament, and will stay put only until the next elections or until they're sacked by a vote of non-confidence. Therefore, no problems as far as democracy is concerned.

This concludes today's lesson in constitutional theory.

Fragony

09-24-2012, 10:44

Susprise surprise Greece has been lying again about a billion or 10

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-24-2012, 13:26

No, they like getting elected so they talk the talk but once in office they appraise the consequences in a different way and they refuse to walk the walk. Probably because once they are elected they have to face reality which is that it is in British economic interest to remain part of the EU warts and all. A lot of British business would be more difficult, read more costly, were Britain to extract itself from the EU, and I imagine British business is willing to invite the politician to lunch if that is what it takes to secure their bottom line.

Perhaps - but then Norway manages better than we do, so EU membership can't be the be-all and end-all.

Something doesn't add up.

In any case, the current ongoing crisis is the fault of the EU machinery just as much as the one in the 1930's was the fault of the Gold Standard.

Beskar

09-24-2012, 14:43

Perhaps - but then Norway manages better than we do, so EU membership can't be the be-all and end-all.

You have to remember Norway is within the European zone (EEA & EFTA & Others), just not as a member with voting rights, but has to abide to all the rules without a say. So in a way, it is more a European Union satellite state.

Being a member is far better than that. If Britain had what Norway has, there would be zero "exemptions" in legislation which is currently has and would simply nod to Brussels over new changes and have to accept them if they want to keep having the benefits.

Tellos Athenaios

09-24-2012, 15:48

Perhaps - but then Norway manages better than we do, so EU membership can't be the be-all and end-all.

Something doesn't add up.

That would be because of:

Norway's assets have real tangible value (oil, fish) as opposed to essentially value-less numbers. (Britain)
Norway has not yet made a habit of pissing away assets in investment banker ponzi schemes (CDS) and similar fraud. (Britain)
Norway's economy is driven by export of real product (see #1), as opposed to moving numbers around (Britain).

You can see that when confidence is low or the economy elsewhere is doing not so great there still remains a solid demand for real product (people still need oil and fish), whereas the appetite for value-less numbers is reduced (trillions worth of CDS do not buy anyone except the bankers lunch, and the bankers will find a way to make you pay for that lunch afterwards). So that is why Norway does better than Britain at present.

Kralizec

09-24-2012, 16:00

It's a pretty meaningless comparison. Norway is like Saudi Arabia in that they're sparsely populated and sit on a ton of natural recources; except Norway is colder and a bit less conservative. Luxembourg is an EMU member and does better than anyone, but is likewise poor comparison material for obvious reasons. France and Germany, which are more comparable, also outperform the UK in terms of economic output.

It's a simple point - a transfer of sovereignty from a National Government to a third party should be ratified by the electorate. We keep electing Politicians who say "no more Europe" but it seems once in office any politician is faced with an edifice so constructed that you cannot extricate yourself from it.

I recall a German Europhile once telling me that were Britain to leave the EU we would be punished, that economic sanctions would be inflicted.

I disagree. But let me preface that with stating that I think "transferring sovereignty" is a bit of a misnomer. Sovereignty is universally understood to hold supreme power, on paper and actual, over your territory. Compartamentalizing sovereignty and transferring bits of it is a logical impossibility. What's happened is that the member states have delegated bits of decision making to the EU, and under EU law they're no longer competent to make act in those areas themselves.
The crucial point is that member states are in the EU voluntarily, and could leave if they want. The possibility is explicitly mentioned in the Lisbon treaty, but hypothetically if anyone wanted to leave they could have done so at any time. In contrast, regions like Wales or Catalonia are not sovereign entities and if they unilaterally declared themselves independant there'd be significant rucus (and the UK and Spain have the means to deal with it, unlike the EU even if it was interested in forcefully keeping members in the fold)

Ireland's voters approved the Lisbon treaties partially because of their economic situation, but also because they got a buttload of garantues that any EU decisions on X or Y would not apply to them. That might sound appealing, but if every member state acted like tha the EU would become a quagmire of directives that never apply to more than the 2-3 random countries who didn't press for opt-outs in that particular case. As I've said before I don't approve of everything the EU does and not every decision they make is the optimal choice for my country. But I recognise there are 26 other member states who also have their own interests, and that the EU in its entirety is still beneficial to my country.

If a member state insists that all EU decisions should be in their particular national interest, 100% of the time, and continuously blocks the transfer of new powers that are in the interest of the vast majority of member states, I'd rather have that they leave. I doubt that the EU would penalize the UK if it left. A minority of spiteful MEPs might call for sanctions, but that's it. Of course; every time the EU drafts new legislation and policies it won't take British interests into account - imagine that - and some Brits will interpret this as unfair punishment, no doubt.

SoFarSoGood

09-24-2012, 16:22

Don't like being in the EU? Does the majority of your nation dislike being in it? Then the fault is with your politicians, and your political system.

If I don't like what my Government is doing I have an option; not vote for them. If I do not like what Europe is doing (remeber the Comission is the only body that can propose legislation) what am I to do? The Comission are not elected and so cannot be 'voted out'. In the case of the 'constitution' the Comission implemented proposals in Lisbon which had been democraticly rejected in France and Holland. But still no popular vote by any number of people can remove such people from office. Where the very liberties that millions have died to defend in two World Wars are stolen in the name of preventing another war it the sham becomes clear "sic semper tyrannis" becomes a legitimate reaction since there is no other option.

As for the Italian cabinet Mr Monti was made a member of the upper House in Italy the day before he became PM...

InsaneApache

09-24-2012, 16:36

I read something the other day that made me sit up.

Is Mrs. Lizzy Windsor a citizen of the EU?

If she is, then she has violated her sacred oath and is, in fact, a traitor.

Interesting question.

SoFarSoGood

09-24-2012, 17:00

Her Ministers have, in my opinion, violated their oath of alliegance to the Crown.

Papewaio

09-25-2012, 08:06

I read something the other day that made me sit up.

Is Mrs. Lizzy Windsor a citizen of the EU?

If she is, then she has violated her sacred oath and is, in fact, a traitor.

Interesting question.

Citizens are subjects of the Queen. So technically the Queen could be of British Nationality but not a British citizen I suppose.

Sarmatian

09-25-2012, 08:50

If I don't like what my Government is doing I have an option; not vote for them.

Do you really?

I've heard how polls suggest that a vast majority of Brits wants out of EU, and yet you can't vote in a government that will actually do that...

Furunculus

09-25-2012, 09:25

Do you really?

I've heard how polls suggest that a vast majority of Brits wants out of EU, and yet you can't vote in a government that will actually do that...

lol, wait and see what happens to national politics in 2015 when UKIP comes within a hair of being the largest British party in european politics in 2014!

SoFarSoGood

09-25-2012, 09:33

She is 'subject' to no authority but God - in theory.

In other news a nasty Bundesbank report on the IMF today... I quote; "The IMF is evolving from a liquidity mechanism into a bank. This is neither in keeping with the legal and institutional role of the IMF or with its ability to handle risks". How long is the IMF viable financialy?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-25-2012, 13:15

It's a pretty meaningless comparison. Norway is like Saudi Arabia in that they're sparsely populated and sit on a ton of natural recources; except Norway is colder and a bit less conservative. Luxembourg is an EMU member and does better than anyone, but is likewise poor comparison material for obvious reasons. France and Germany, which are more comparable, also outperform the UK in terms of economic output.

I disagree. But let me preface that with stating that I think "transferring sovereignty" is a bit of a misnomer. Sovereignty is universally understood to hold supreme power, on paper and actual, over your territory. Compartamentalizing sovereignty and transferring bits of it is a logical impossibility. What's happened is that the member states have delegated bits of decision making to the EU, and under EU law they're no longer competent to make act in those areas themselves.
The crucial point is that member states are in the EU voluntarily, and could leave if they want. The possibility is explicitly mentioned in the Lisbon treaty, but hypothetically if anyone wanted to leave they could have done so at any time. In contrast, regions like Wales or Catalonia are not sovereign entities and if they unilaterally declared themselves independant there'd be significant rucus (and the UK and Spain have the means to deal with it, unlike the EU even if it was interested in forcefully keeping members in the fold)

Ireland's voters approved the Lisbon treaties partially because of their economic situation, but also because they got a buttload of garantues that any EU decisions on X or Y would not apply to them. That might sound appealing, but if every member state acted like tha the EU would become a quagmire of directives that never apply to more than the 2-3 random countries who didn't press for opt-outs in that particular case. As I've said before I don't approve of everything the EU does and not every decision they make is the optimal choice for my country. But I recognise there are 26 other member states who also have their own interests, and that the EU in its entirety is still beneficial to my country.

If a member state insists that all EU decisions should be in their particular national interest, 100% of the time, and continuously blocks the transfer of new powers that are in the interest of the vast majority of member states, I'd rather have that they leave. I doubt that the EU would penalize the UK if it left. A minority of spiteful MEPs might call for sanctions, but that's it. Of course; every time the EU drafts new legislation and policies it won't take British interests into account - imagine that - and some Brits will interpret this as unfair punishment, no doubt.

Britain has a lot of oil too - and we used to have large fish stocks, now we don't.

We can't control fish stocks because of the common fisheries policy, and our farmers suffer under the CAP - not issues Norway has to my knowledge. They are also able to control net immigration effectively, I believe.

Kralizec

09-25-2012, 13:53

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-25-2012, 14:03

You have lots of oil, but you don't have a low population density like Norway. The Netherlands has lots of natural gas, but again, a sizable population.

What the EU fishery policy needs more than anything else is a drastic reduction in quotas and fishing boats, but since the fishery lobby seems pretty strong in all countries across the EU, this has little chance of ever happening. The EU fishery policy is a major dissapointment but to think that any of the countries involved would have followed a responsible policy if they were on their own seems pretty naive, though I'd be interested in hearing why you think otherwise.

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

The fisheries policy is completely wrong.

Quotas are useless - you need to restrict fishing waters, we have plans to do this in the UK but we need agreement from the rest of the EU or we can't effectively implement it. You also need to make it a criminal offence not to land what you catch, one which carries punitive penalties.

The suggestion that all countries are equally culpable is naive, and easily disproved when you look at countries, like Norway, which are outside the EU fisheries policy.

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

gaelic cowboy

09-25-2012, 14:41

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

Also there is a massive problem with bycatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bycatch) usually it's not such a major problem except under when under a quota regime.

I go fishing for herring but catch mackerel well over the side it goes, probably cos I have used my quota of mackerel or worse I didn't have any to begin with.

Fragony

09-25-2012, 18:05

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

Yeah we are really in need of another one

SoFarSoGood

09-25-2012, 18:53

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-25-2012, 19:06

Also there is a massive problem with bycatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bycatch) usually it's not such a major problem except under when under a quota regime.

I go fishing for herring but catch mackerel well over the side it goes, probably cos I have used my quota of mackerel or worse I didn't have any to begin with.

Right - that's the problem with quotas

Fishermen are allowed to throwback, and because they have quotas they'll throwback three times the weight in mackerel that they're trying to find in herring.

This is a bloody mess all over, not only are the fishermen wasting catch that could be sold and is already dead, they're also wasting time out on the water when they could be in port selling a fresher catch.

Every British fisherman knows this and, again, they don't have the problem in Norway.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-25-2012, 19:11

EDIT: how does the CAP hurt British farmers?

British farmers don't qualify like French farmers, or Italian farmers.

You might ask why that is - it's known that on Sicily there are twice as many cows on paper as on the ground. Britain makes a net loss on the cap, on fishing, and a net loss on EU spending overall.

France makes a net gain.

The point to understand is that we'd rather spend the CAP money in Wales or the North than France.

Edit: The immigration problem is due to the 1997 treaty and then the admission of former Warsaw Pact countries. We quite like the Poles coming over here, always have, but we can't provide jobs for all of them and our own unemployed.

SoFarSoGood

09-25-2012, 19:13

"Independence for Catalonia? Over my dead body. Spain is not Yugoslavia or Belgium. Even if the lion is sleeping, don’t provoke the lion, because he will show the ferocity proven over centuries." Colonel Francisco Alaman yesterday...

Kralizec

09-25-2012, 19:23

The fisheries policy is completely wrong.

Quotas are useless - you need to restrict fishing waters, we have plans to do this in the UK but we need agreement from the rest of the EU or we can't effectively implement it. You also need to make it a criminal offence not to land what you catch, one which carries punitive penalties.

The suggestion that all countries are equally culpable is naive, and easily disproved when you look at countries, like Norway, which are outside the EU fisheries policy.

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

The quotas are already divided geographicly across the seas, and based (in a flawed manner) on the current stock of fish there. I haven't heard about that British idea, what's it about? Creating no-fishing zones near Britains shore, while British fisherboats can still fish in Spanish and Dutch waters?

Britain also has quota rights in the waters of other countries, something which eurosceptic pundits ignore all the time. The annual quota for each country was based on the historic size of their fishing fleet (a simple, and probably stupid idea), and reductions over the years have been applied across the board. The only "real" controversy is the practice of quota hopping: English fishermen sold their boats, and the associated fishing permits, to those bloody foreigners. Your country then tried to ban this practice by a shoddy piece of legislation that was outright discriminatory, and therefore struck down by the EU court.

Not that I care to defend Spanish or Italian fisherman. I agree that they are the biggest offenders. If I had my way, I'd forcibly decimate the fishing industry with catch quotas that are scientifically sound, scrap their subsidies and put huge tariffs on fish exports to Japan (who buy three quarters of the tuna caught in the mediteranean, for example) That'll teach them.

SoFarSoGood

09-25-2012, 19:32

Large areas of the North Sea should, in my opinion, be ruled "no fishing zones" for 10 - 20 years and be policed to enforce it. It's a matter of whether our children can eat fish and chips.

Kralizec

09-25-2012, 19:41

British farmers don't qualify like French farmers, or Italian farmers.

You might ask why that is - it's known that on Sicily there are twice as many cows on paper as on the ground. Britain makes a net loss on the cap, on fishing, and a net loss on EU spending overall.

France makes a net gain.

The point to understand is that we'd rather spend the CAP money in Wales or the North than France.

Edit: The immigration problem is due to the 1997 treaty and then the admission of former Warsaw Pact countries. We quite like the Poles coming over here, always have, but we can't provide jobs for all of them and our own unemployed.

I don't know the specific criteria, but they're not discriminatory as you're implying. France has more fertile land than any other European country and therefore disproportionally benefits from the CAP. Even so they're still a net contibutor, albeit not by a large margin.

I agree the situation is unfair, but I doubt you'll find a farmer in England that will agree the CAP subsidies need to be abolished. And allthough I would like the subsidies to dissapear entirely, that's a pipe dream. A fair solution would be to decentralise the CAP scheme, so that the French (and others) get to pay for their farmers directly without consequenses for their pay tab on other issues, pushing their net contribution up.

Freedom of movement is restricted - countries can kick other EU nationals out if they're not financially self-sufficient or able to prove that they'll have employment within a few months. To suggest that your unemployment will vanish if you refuse Polish workers at the border is blisteringly naive.

gaelic cowboy

09-25-2012, 20:12

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

and of course the attempt at a solution through transferable quota merely cause a new problem

SoFarSoGood

09-25-2012, 20:23

To suggest that your unemployment will vanish if you refuse Polish workers at the border is blisteringly naive.

Supply and demand...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-25-2012, 20:55

The quotas are already divided geographicly across the seas, and based (in a flawed manner) on the current stock of fish there. I haven't heard about that British idea, what's it about? Creating no-fishing zones near Britains shore, while British fisherboats can still fish in Spanish and Dutch waters?

Britain also has quota rights in the waters of other countries, something which eurosceptic pundits ignore all the time. The annual quota for each country was based on the historic size of their fishing fleet (a simple, and probably stupid idea), and reductions over the years have been applied across the board. The only "real" controversy is the practice of quota hopping: English fishermen sold their boats, and the associated fishing permits, to those bloody foreigners. Your country then tried to ban this practice by a shoddy piece of legislation that was outright discriminatory, and therefore struck down by the EU court.

Not that I care to defend Spanish or Italian fisherman. I agree that they are the biggest offenders. If I had my way, I'd forcibly decimate the fishing industry with catch quotas that are scientifically sound, scrap their subsidies and put huge tariffs on fish exports to Japan (who buy three quarters of the tuna caught in the mediteranean, for example) That'll teach them.

Why would we need quota rights in waters with no fish?

The concept is simple, it's this:

Large areas of the North Sea should, in my opinion, be ruled "no fishing zones" for 10 - 20 years and be policed to enforce it. It's a matter of whether our children can eat fish and chips.

You codon of 30-50% of the North sea and refuse ALL fishing rights, with unrestricted fishing in the rest. There have been pilot schemes (EU approved I believe) but it has been impossible to enforce in practice because the British Government does not have sovereignty over British waters.

We didn't used to have a problem, then we joined the EU and other fisherman from other countries got unrestricted access to our waters.

I'm sorry Kralizec - quotas don't work because you can't control what you catch.

Freedom of movement is restricted - countries can kick other EU nationals out if they're not financially self-sufficient or able to prove that they'll have employment within a few months. To suggest that your unemployment will vanish if you refuse Polish workers at the border is blisteringly naive.

Is it?

News to me.

SoFarSoGood

09-25-2012, 21:03

The future of fish should NOT be a political 'football'. It just needs doing.

Papewaio

09-25-2012, 21:35

If you lost the ability to set quotas on fish why isn't offshore oil in a similar situation? I assume UK still has sovereignty over its oil, so why can't it quota it's fish?

If you can't quota then you can't conserve and you also appear to lack sovereignty over a key aspect of a nation and that is its waters. I'm sure there is no unrestricted access to farmland too.

Kralizec

09-25-2012, 21:52

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/ips/passports-policy-publications/treaty-rights?view=Binary

Nationals of these countries, like their EU counterparts, have the right to live
and work in any Member State of the Union. EEA nationals who are either
working (employed or in self-employment) or who are non-economically active
but able to support themselves without recourse to public funds, including
students, have the same right as EU nationals to reside in the United
Kingdom under European Law.

...

A job seeker is a person in search of work for the first time or those between
jobs or in training. An EEA national must be able to provide evidence that
he/she is seeking employment. A job seeker is expected to be able to get
employment within 6 months of the beginning of a search and is not entitled to
benefits. The evidence required for those seeking employment will also
depend on the date of the birth of the child.

EDIT: more to the point:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF

1. All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for
a period of longer than three months if they:
(a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or
(b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on
the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and
have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or
[snip]

Papewaio

09-25-2012, 22:33

EU has a capital liquidity problem at the moment.

It doesn't take a genius to point out that capital liquidity isn't going to be resolved by making labour static.

Vladimir

09-26-2012, 12:58

You people are making me sad. I love tasty fish and it's a shame to read that so much is wasted. I can only imagine how bad the situation is in Japan.

gaelic cowboy

09-26-2012, 20:24

gaelic cowboy

09-26-2012, 20:25

EU has a capital liquidity problem at the moment.

It doesn't take a genius to point out that capital liquidity isn't going to be resolved by making labour static.

The rules in the EU are making capital static there will still be a problem even with 100% movement of population.

SoFarSoGood

09-26-2012, 20:51

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOONG_9mUoE

SoFarSoGood

09-26-2012, 22:25

http://www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/komunikaty/20120918RAPORT/report.pdf

Report of the Future of Europe Group... army and all! No votes ein volk etc...

Papewaio

09-26-2012, 23:49

The oil stays in one place and so does the platform hence it is controllable

So it seems special interest groups are filling up the troughs of the indirectly elected EU politicians.

The rulesets look like they haven't been thought out holistically. Most of the time you see the EU ahead/over reacting to conservation claims. But just like the Mediterranean it seems the North Sea is going to soon be overfished.

If you have an EU quota one would expect an EU coast guard/navy to enforce the rules kind of like an Interpol of the seas.

If you cannot enforce rules within your sovereignty it is a failure of the state.

Look at what happened to Somalia when Europeans pillaged their fisheries.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-27-2012, 01:35

So it seems special interest groups are filling up the troughs of the indirectly elected EU politicians.

The rulesets look like they haven't been thought out holistically. Most of the time you see the EU ahead/over reacting to conservation claims. But just like the Mediterranean it seems the North Sea is going to soon be overfished.

If you have an EU quota one would expect an EU coast guard/navy to enforce the rules kind of like an Interpol of the seas.

If you cannot enforce rules within your sovereignty it is a failure of the state.

Look at what happened to Somalia when Europeans pillaged their fisheries.

The only way for Britain to enforce sanity is unilaterally, and we would be vengefully punished.

I happen to think that this is important enough that we should do it anyway - but that's not the point. The point is you can't get 27 separate countries to agree a sane fisheries policy, especially when Spain can buy off countries like Poland with votes at a later date.

Stop the EU - we want to get off.

SoFarSoGood

09-27-2012, 11:18

So I read this Future of Europe Group (Foreign Ministers of 11 countries) paper and some of it not actualy BAD bad... They propose an elected 'President' and that the European Parliament will be able to start legislation (whereas at present only the Commission can do this and the Parliament just says yes or no). Yes it does mention a common defence policy etc... basicly the blueprint for a pseudo democratic new country called Europe. The is a new 'Treaty' in the making... definately what they see as the future. We all know how they have a habit getting their Treaties passed...

They might need this new army sooner then they think... Catalonia is going to the polls on November 25 and if the seperatists win they have promised a referemdum of independance; "The time has come to exercise the right to self-determination" says Catalonia's President Artur Mas. Such a vote is unconstitutional in Spanish law... Given Colonel Francisco Alaman reaction to such an idea ("...over my dead body") and the fact that 25% of young Spanish are unemployed and a lot trouble could be brewing.

Fragony

09-27-2012, 11:38

http://www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/komunikaty/20120918RAPORT/report.pdf

Report of the Future of Europe Group... army and all! No votes ein volk etc...

Meet my greatest fear. I want to live in a non-totalitarian place so not in the EU, actually making plans to get the :daisy: out of here. Zimbabwe looks pretty nice, less corruption and safer

HopAlongBunny

09-27-2012, 12:34

Puts on pro_EU hat: adjusts it to rakish angle

Face it, the era of the nation-state is over. In a global economy/community that which is "national" is just too small to influence and compete in a global trade regimen.

Prosperity and security can only be secured through trans-national agreements with trans-national flows of capital, labour and indeed even property. To remain primarily national in outlook is to be consigned to the dust-bin of history.

Embrace globalization! It is good for you! It will make you healthy, wealthy and wise :)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-27-2012, 12:40

SoFarSoGood

09-27-2012, 12:59

It's ironic that the thing designed to prevent another War in Europe is the thing wracking up tension.

The euro was going to make everyone better off remember?

InsaneApache

09-27-2012, 13:45

I watched a program on the telly about Greece last night. The doctor being interviewed said that he'd not seen malnourished children and babies before in Europe. He likened it to an African hellhole.

Politicians. Lamp posts. Piano wire.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-27-2012, 14:30

I just went back and read some of the first page - but if I wanted to feel really smug I'd go back to the original topic where we debated the Greek crisis and I said they should be thrown out of the Euro and then bailed out.

How many years ago did I say that?

SoFarSoGood

09-27-2012, 14:52

gaelic cowboy

09-27-2012, 15:19

The Germans (with the Dutch and Finns) have apparently backed down on the deal for the ESM to refinance Spanish banks. This means Spain has to find another 60 - 100 bn euros itself. Spanish 10 year bonds at 6.01100.

These nonsensical comments by the finance ministers put all the potential good work from the lowering of of bond prices since June at extreme risk.

I have no proof but the only reason anyone would do this is essentially I believe to frighten Italy, they must believe they can just about bail Spain out.

There comments reveal a paradoxical problem for lowering bond prices, the market lowered prices due to the expected gain from the ESM bailing banks separate from sovereigns. The germans then point at the lower prices and proclaim the austerity confidence fairy in working, so the row back on capital injections and therefore endanger the Euro itself.

Ireland if it does not get the legacy issue sorted with bank debt through the ESm like Spain will require a second bailout, the germans will proclaim we slacked off when in fact we have met every condition they put us and still the shamrock wont grow.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-27-2012, 15:38

German finance ministers have a history of stupid comments like this though - I am beginning to suspect it's merely a question of hubris and a sense of invulnerability.

gaelic cowboy

09-27-2012, 15:44

German finance ministers have a history of stupid comments like this though - I am beginning to suspect it's merely a question of hubris and a sense of invulnerability.

Ther bricking it because by not grasping the nettle 4 year ago they have brought recession to germany, but there gonna keep the myth going till after the german election

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-27-2012, 16:03

Ther bricking it because by not grasping the nettle 4 year ago they have brought recession to germany, but there gonna keep the myth going till after the german election

The problem is - German politics mitigates against strong leaders. That's mostly fine, Germany is so big and powerful that mostly a weak leader can steer the ship; but now Germany needs a strong leader who can galvanise the population and convince them that if they don't support Europe nobody else can.

SoFarSoGood

09-27-2012, 19:44

These nonsensical comments by the finance ministers put all the potential good work from the lowering of of bond prices since June at extreme risk.

I have no proof but the only reason anyone would do this is essentially I believe to frighten Italy, they must believe they can just about bail Spain out.

There comments reveal a paradoxical problem for lowering bond prices, the market lowered prices due to the expected gain from the ESM bailing banks separate from sovereigns. The germans then point at the lower prices and proclaim the austerity confidence fairy in working, so the row back on capital injections and therefore endanger the Euro itself.

Ireland if it does not get the legacy issue sorted with bank debt through the ESm like Spain will require a second bailout, the germans will proclaim we slacked off when in fact we have met every condition they put us and still the shamrock wont grow.

The thing is that because Spain has to ask for help before ECB help can be given it has to literaly get worse before it can get better... They have created a shorting dream. Within days everyone will be short selling Spanish bonds.

Of course if they (Spain) formaly apply for help they get 'troika'd' and this includes control of the regions. So the 'Catalonia problem' gets worse. Rajoy's answer seems to be 40bn euros of cuts in this afternoons 'emergency budget' (new tax on the national lottery an 8.9pc cut in the budget for government ministries etc). They are now in the same cut and die vicious circle as Greece but at heightened risk to 'Catalan problem'.

Greyblades

09-27-2012, 19:49

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-27-2012, 20:03

Both excellent posts - and with Britain broke and disarmed, and the US in political deadlock the big question is who is going to beat down the Dictator when he arrives?

I've already been hearing from Greek friends that the "anarchists" in Greece are Police plants used to get protesters arrested. If Spain deteriorates as well then we have the beginnings or real trouble.

Greyblades

09-27-2012, 20:09

Both excellent posts - and with Britain broke and disarmed, and the US in political deadlock the big question is who is going to beat down the Dictator when he arrives?
On the other hand, the last great depression was ended with war, it may be that such dictator is going to be what ends this crop of money woes. Back on the first hand though, War in europe, again. Get your gas masks and air raid helmets while they're still there, kiddies.

SoFarSoGood

09-27-2012, 20:21

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-27-2012, 21:20

Sadly the lunatics with their vision of One European Nation are prepared to go to nearly any lengths for this utopia; "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The truth is that the guilty are all over the continent; from Cameron and his "cast iron guarantee" on a lisbon vote, to the ECB, which when Germany went through a slump pumped money into the system and created de facto negative interest rates in the Mediteranean countries. The trouble is that if it does fall apart now they probably will (and should) be prosecuted.

"How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."

In that case - my conscience is clear, because I having been banging on about it since 2005 to anyone you would listen.

Back then - few did.

Cameron's "Cast Iron Guarantee" was worthless as soon as the Irish voted the second time - like the Lib-Dems and Tuition Fees it was a promise he couldn't keep. Having said that, he did move the Conservatives into a Eurosceptic grouping in the EP, to much ridicule and accusations of siding with Neo Nazi's

Fragony

09-28-2012, 19:10

I am now starting to feel really sorry for the Spaniards even if that might seem a bit odd, did you guys just get bought

SoFarSoGood

09-28-2012, 19:41

Cameron has today said; "I don't think it is in Britain's interests to leave the EU but I do think what it is increasingly becoming the time for is a new settlement between Britain and Europe, and I think that new settlement will require fresh consent. In the next parliament, I think there will be opportunities for a fresh settlement and for new consent to that settlement. There is a reason why. The euro is a currency with 17 different countries. I think, increasingly, one currency will mean one economic policy. They are going to change and that will give us opportunities for changing our relationship with Europe. I argue for Britain's membership because I think it is in our interests. If I didn't think it was in our interests, I wouldn't argue for British membership."

You don't have to be a genius to see the manoevring going on here. He has read the report of the self appointed 'Future of Europe Group' and seen the 'Banking Union' details (which in theory would itself legaly trigger a referendum in Britain) and everyone now realises that you can't have a financial union without also having a political union... So the continent is heading for a new Treaty which will create the utopian single state. Britain will get a referendum on this new treaty; "join the European State or remain as we are?" We will not get an in/out vote.

Hopefuly then some Tory MPs will join UKIP.

InsaneApache

09-28-2012, 19:49

We'll just keep getting referenda until we vote the 'right' way.

Greyblades

09-28-2012, 20:08

"I don't think it is in Britain's interests to leave the EU but I do think what it is increasingly becoming the time for is a new settlement between Britain and Europe, and I think that new settlement will require fresh consent. In the next parliament, I think there will be opportunities for a fresh settlement and for new consent to that settlement. There is a reason why. The euro is a currency with 17 different countries. I think, increasingly, one currency will mean one economic policy. They are going to change and that will give us opportunities for changing our relationship with Europe. I argue for Britain's membership because I think it is in our interests. If I didn't think it was in our interests, I wouldn't argue for British membership."
Well that's a long way of saying jack squat. What is this new settlement? What changes do you refer to? Why is it in our interests?

SoFarSoGood

09-28-2012, 20:28

Well that's a long way of saying jack squat. What is this new settlement? What changes do you refer to? Why is it in our interests?

He will claim it's a "new relationship"; get an opt out on the banking union and maybe allow British law to overule European law on extradition etc but that's about all he wants.

gaelic cowboy

09-28-2012, 20:39

He will claim it's a "new relationship"; get an opt out on the banking union and maybe allow British law to overule European law on extradition etc but that's about all he wants.

British law already outranks european law on extradition, only if someones human rights were at risk would european law interfere.

So basically he will be codding ye with something ye already have.

Kralizec

09-29-2012, 00:48

I'll preface this comment by saying that I don't claim to know everything. However, since there are so many eurosceptics here who combine the capacities of armchair economist, legal expert and political scientist, I don't think I should hold back.

We don't know, and probably will never know for sure, wether Cameron promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty in bad faith or wether he changed his position under pressure from other member states. And before you shoot your mouth of, it would be perfectly within their rights to press Cameron to ratify the Lisbon treaty. The other European countries have an interest in making the EU succeed. It's understandable that they'd be annoyed when measures that they view as being beneficial to the whole are rejected because a single government cowers in the face of its voters. It's perfectly understandable that they don't want these measures to depend on the outcome of a British referendum, whose voters who are stupid enough to put Diana Spencer ahead of Shakespeare and Darwin in a survey to establish who were the 100 greatest British people.

And if any of you intends to respond to this along the lines of: "politicians thinking of the general good, instead of being self-interested and stupid? Don't make me laugh" - please don't post.

Cameron is right, EU regulations will affect Britain even if they're not in the EU and so their interests are better served by remaining a member. Of course Cameron's vision of EU membership will consist of even more opt-outs. It's blindly obvious that it would be in the best interest of the UK to be able to vote on every single EU issue while still being able to pick and chose which parts will be binding to them. What's remarkable is that while you talk a lot wether the British should leave the EU unilaterally and wether EU membership serves British interest, we never see the opposite angle of that discussion. Nobody ever wonders wether it's in the interest of the Dutch, the French, and so on wether the UK is a member state.

- the British don't want the EU to succeed. A large part of the population would, at least on a subconscious level, be happy if the entire continent burned to the ground so they could say "I told you so".
- British people elect delegates that routinely insult other nationalities. Germans want to reinstate the fourth reich. Belgium is a non-country which shouldn't even exist. They sometimes feign compassion with other countries, but only to further their criticism of the rest of the EU and its member states - in that regard, it's worth pointing out that some British politicians opposed an increase of funds of the IMF because it could be used to bail out Greece.
- perhaps most important point: the British are only out for themselves. They don't care about the interests of other countries if it gets in the way of doing whatever the hell they please, 100% of the time. This is true for a substantial part of most countries in the EU, but other countries are governed by governments who recognise that the welfare of their countries are intertwined, and that they have an interest in keeping their neighbours from collapsing in financial ruin.

By all means, leave the EU. I don't think it will benefit you, but it will sure as hell be a benefit to the rest.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-29-2012, 01:01

It's understandable that they'd be annoyed when measures that they view as being beneficial to the whole are rejected because a single government cowers in the face of its voters.

Is it really understandable?

Aren't all Democratic Governments ultimately responsible to their voters. If a country is principally run by one of two political parties and both parties acknowledge that the majority of the electorate do not want deeper European integration for their country, then whatever party is in power should respect that wish.

This is not a question of "vote for a Eurosceptic party", because all the parties know the will of the people is Eurosceptic and it is incumbent on them to govern accordingly - especially when they all said they would.

As to why Cameron didn't offer a vote on Lisbon - he admitted as soon as the Irish ratified the treaty with a gun to their heads that he wouldn't be able to hold a referendum until after the treaty came into force, making the exercise legally pointless.

The second part of your post - about what nasty bastards we are - doesn't even bear responding to.

Frankly, if the rest of Europe's Governments are so afraid of the popular will they won't test it then please kick us out, I mean it. We would be so much happier, and all your EU money would still be laundered through London.

SoFarSoGood

09-29-2012, 01:20

The other European countries have an interest in making the EU succeed. It's understandable that they'd be annoyed when measures that they view as being beneficial to the whole are rejected because a single government cowers in the face of its voters.

It is doubtfull that the majority of European voters agree with your view that they have an interest in making the EU succeed. As for this "cowers in the face of its voters"... Governments should cower in the face of people; the Government serves the people and not vice versa. The Common Law of England binds the Queen, not the other way around.

Kralizec

09-29-2012, 01:56

Is it really understandable?

Aren't all Democratic Governments ultimately responsible to their voters. If a country is principally run by one of two political parties and both parties acknowledge that the majority of the electorate do not want deeper European integration for their country, then whatever party is in power should respect that wish.

This is not a question of "vote for a Eurosceptic party", because all the parties know the will of the people is Eurosceptic and it is incumbent on them to govern accordingly - especially when they all said they would.

Democratic governments as we know them are electable olichargies. That's not a nice description, but essentially true. Its rulers are accountable to their voters because if they're ill perceived, they're expendable and can be replaced. If "deeper European integration" is such a hot issue for the majority of voters, they should vote for the UKIP or the BNP. That way, you're out of the EU. Your society and economy will be in ruins of course, because you just elected idiots. The idea that whatever party holds power at the moment needs to consult the opinion polls before making a decision would make representative democracy pointless and impotent.

I've seen many British people, on this forum and elsewhere, who try to paint their political system as some sort of "special" system which serves the nation's wellbeing more than any other system. Especially those continentals, with their proportional representation and civil law - gross! As soon as their politicians agree to sanction the EU, however, it's a gross abuse of representative democracy. Go figure.

Most people in the Netherlands would agree that leaving the EU would be a bad idea. We don't have an entrenched two party system like you doj, and we do have various eurosceptic parties - composed of idiots and loons, like yours. In the last two elections I supported a pro-european party, and as I've said before the eurosceptics' failure to organise themselves into an electable party with competent politicians is not my problem.

As to why Cameron didn't offer a vote on Lisbon - he admitted as soon as the Irish ratified the treaty with a gun to their heads

That is a rather disingenious way to explain why the Irish voted for the Lisbon treaty.

And for Cameron - it's phrased like a sorry excuse, which coincidentally ties in with my argument about not resisting something the rest has already agreed upon.

Deny, if you will, that you won't get a feeling of satisfaction if the monetary union implodes. I won't be happy because I'll probably be unemployed and poor. Likewise, I challenge you to state that you'll be glad you were wrong if the eurozone pulls through this. Because I've never seen anything in your posts that suggests this.

It is doubtfull that the majority of European voters agree with your view that they have an interest in making the EU succeed. As for this "cowers in the face of its voters"... Governments should cower in the face of people; the Government serves the people and not vice versa. The Common Law of England binds the Queen, not the other way around.

This statement makes me doubt wether you understand at all how Common Law came about, how it developed or what it is.

Any country whose population wants the EU to fail should, quite frankly, GTFO. Failing that, its governments should still act to make it work because they have that duty towards the other members.

Democracticly elected governments should not cower in the face of the people. Anyone who argues that is an anarchist, completely clueless or simply lives in a country whose government can't be described as "democraticly elected".

An elected politician should do what he thinks is right for the country, act accordingly and then explain to his voters why he did what he did. It remains to be seen wether Cameron's party will be punished for his "we should stay in the EU because it's in our interest". If he were an honest guy instead of a spineless wimp he would have made that clear before the last election instead of pandering to the tabloid reading crowd with his eurosceptic pandering.

SoFarSoGood

09-29-2012, 07:22

I understand Common Law perfectly well thank you. It is what bound King John to the Magna Carta and ended up costing Charles l his head after he tried to impose a ship tax outside the port towns: It was illegal but he proclaimed 'Divine Right', God didn't save him from the headsmans axe though. Where I live in 'perfidious Albion' there are common law rights that date back before the Norman invasion. In theory anything that can be proved to be customary since 1189 (I think) is held to a part of custom and therefore protected by 'common law'. On the continent they use 'Roman Law' which is top down as opposed to English law, the basis of which is bottom up. Do some reading...

Don't you understand that the people are the only the court though? You sound like apologist for dictators... God forbid you ever have power.

Fragony

09-29-2012, 07:28

'Most people in the Netherlands would agree that leaving the EU would be a bad idea.'

We are in too deep already, but ask the same question about returning to the EEG aka just trade without becomming part of the international-socialist superstate.

A haunting look into the mind of an international-socialist's logic http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/09/guy_verhofstadt_is_een_totale_lul.html#comments

Link is Dutch but vid is English.

He lies btw, the Dutch didn't vote yes, 70% voted no to the international-socialism but that was the wrong button

That guy is not Dutch by the way he is from Belgium

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-29-2012, 17:25

Kralizec - Maybe, you know, the British system is better.

I mean, Ireland excluded, we've been more politically stable and democratic than most place in Europe for the last four centuries. We shouldn't need to elect UKIP in order to be consulted on a transfer of Power from Westminster to anywhere else.

We elect our politicians to govern not to outsource their responsibilities - if they wish to do so without a popular mandate (and there is no part which has campaigned on anything other than maintaining Status Quo in Europe) then they need to ask.

As to our economy being in "ruins" if we leave - your beloved Europe is driving the entire bloody continent into bloody ruin without any regard to the human cost of "the Project". The Euro was never necessary, nor was the Constitution, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the current deadlock results from the democratic deficit - politicians in Europe have created a situation without any popular backing, and now they cannot move forwards or backwards without ensuring their own political Oblivion.

When the Constitution fell at two votes the move towards further integration should have been abandoned and serious consideration should have been given to alternatives, such as closer Union for those countries that wanted it or could manage it, and a looser relationship for the rest.

The bloody experiment in imposing political change top to bottom has failed - anti-foreign sentiment has been rising in various countries for the last decade and is now reaching a head. Greece is actually ungovernable now, the Executive can't do anything, Spain is facing a very serious prospect of fragmentation, Belgium continues to stagger on without a proper mandate at the Federal Level, France has elected a man who thinks the rich will pay 75% tax.

Don't get me started on what's happening in Germany.

Fragony

09-30-2012, 08:13

'As to our economy being in "ruins" if we leave - your beloved Europe is driving the entire bloody continent into bloody ruin without any regard to the human cost of "the Project". The Euro was never necessary, nor was the Constitution, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the current deadlock results from the democratic deficit - politicians in Europe have created a situation without any popular backing, and now they cannot move forwards or backwards without ensuring their own political Oblivion.'

Indeed, there was never any need for any of that, but they just don't know when to back off. The international-socialism is a project of politicians who failed nationally, it's the pit of incompetence. But they just can't go back anymore without admitting their faillure so es muss sein

Fragony

09-30-2012, 16:46

Much to anyone's susprise the international-socialism gives the Greeks another 31.000.0000.0000. Es muss sein.

Furunculus

10-01-2012, 09:23

Vot is wrong with zee germans:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/9577209/Sensible-for-Germany-to-leave-euro-but-theyre-not-ready.html

Fragony

10-01-2012, 10:01

Vot is wrong with zee germans:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/rogerbootle/9577209/Sensible-for-Germany-to-leave-euro-but-theyre-not-ready.html

#1 rule for staying alive, never ever assume that leftist intellectuals actually want debate, they will furiously claw out your eyes if you try anything other than being in absolute agreement. Nod, and hope they remain docile, they can smell disagreement.

SoFarSoGood

10-01-2012, 12:12

Roger Bootle, while having an excellent arguement in alot of ways, is biased. He won the Wolfson Prize (£100,000 to my recollection) for 'How best to decouple the single currency' and his advice was (as many had said before him) for Germany to leave; he merely proved this was the cheapest option - it probably is - but nobody will know for sure until the break up starts. I personaly agree with Bootle but am not an expert at economic predictions by any means. The fact is though that he naturaly favours his prize winning idea and that they will not allow it to happen. It's a 'good idea on a drawing board' but the truth is that NOBODY can predict the costs of a break - up; inflationary devaluation is his idea until a re-aligment is reached within the 'southern bloc' that stick with the euro. This would need careful management but is in theory 'doable'.

As for "several people confidently told me that they knew that new deutschemark notes were already being printed “just in case”"... I have seen myself new drachma notes. The German Goverment however always has kept a backstop of DMs since the Cold War when it was feared that a currency devaluation attempt would be tried by their socialist 'brothers in bondage'. Hardly suprising they are preparing again.