World Politics - Euro Area [Archive]

gaelic cowboy

11-25-2010, 16:07

Basically if one scans the news media in a broad sense you can see a trend here that Portugal is next and therefore Spain.

If this all comes to pass the EFSF fund will run out and the Euro has a major problem lots of debt and no money left to bail out Spain.

The debt will be devalued and banks will be wound up the Euro will be severely weakened and what little gra anyone has for the Euro will go with them.

It seemed such a good idea at the time save the Euro by preventing a default of the PIIGS debt but I don't think it is going to work.

On Morning Ireland a few hours ago, Amadeu Altfaj Tardio, Spokesman for the European Commissioner Olli Rehn, was asked by RTE’s Rachael English (about 5.08 minutes in) whether the EU would countenance senior bond holders sharing the burden as part of the Irish bailout.

Possibly Amadeu didn’t quite understand the question (though he was asked it twice in pretty clear terms.) Anyway, my understanding of his response was that he could countenance this type of burden sharing. He said the issue “was under discussion” though it seems as though he meant this in the sense of a general Euro-area policy in this area was being discussed, rather than that he knew that this issue was being discussed in the current Irish bailout negotiations.

Further clarifications on this issue should probably be sought.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/

Some more economists on our debt if your bored enough

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/Let's do some arithmetic again:
Leni's Proposition 2: Through 2011 IRL Gov will need
€18bn in deficit financing +
€30-40bn in deposits shoring +
€15bn in banks capital (note - some this can be spread over couple of years)+
Banks losses cover of, say, another €10bn =
Grand Total of 73-83bn.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-pouring-more-cash-down-banking-black-hole-is-theft-2432959.htmlSo the Government finally gave up the charade last weekend and asked for help from the IMF and EU. Following a week when everyone, save certain government ministers, seemed to know what was coming, it came as a great relief to the markets when Finance Minister Brian Lenihan made his announcement.

When markets opened on Monday, the crisis was over. Bank shares were up, our bond spreads moved to levels only slightly above German bunds and investors were tripping over themselves to throw money into the Irish economy.

Hang on, that's not right, is it?

If anything, things in the market have gotten worse. If we ignore the political implosion here and look to the wider European situation for a moment, we can see how little all the 'will we, won't we' agonising that happened here last week actually mattered.

The markets know Ireland's economy is not going to recover any time soon, and that rolling over our debt is going to do nothing to solve our problems. Furthermore, whatever chance Ireland has of recovery will be extinguished by a four-year austerity plan.

Having made that assessment of our prospects, the market has moved on. Ireland to them is yesterday's news. Today's news is Portugal, which announced a worsening deficit yesterday -- despite months of austerity measures. (Sound familiar?) Tomorrow's news will be Spain, the '800-pound gorilla' of the peripheral EU states -- so-called because of its huge €1.1 trillion economy. Spain had an auction of short-term debt yesterday that failed to sell the expected amount even at higher yields, an exact mirror of Ireland's experiences in the bond market in September.

But why do market reactions to developments in the Iberian Peninsula matter to us?

First, the problem with Spain is that it is probably too big to save. Neither the EU nor the IMF has the money to bail them out, and it is unlikely Germany would be willing to foot another reunification-sized bill to save their Spanish cousins. As Olli Rehn put it on Monday: "It is essential to stop the financial bushfire concerning Ireland before it becomes a European-wide forest fire."

For Mr Rehn, it seems it might be too late. In fact, if there was ever a 'sell' signal to the markets, it was Olli's comments.

Secondly, the EU-wide crisis is an opportunity for Ireland.

In 'Follow the Money' I explained the domino theory of international relations that led the US into Vietnam. The idea was to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam before the whole region became lost to US influence. That same theory is being applied to the EU's actions in the peripheral states. They are fighting in Ireland to prevent a national bankruptcy in order for the whole euro project to avoid a similar fate.

How is this an opportunity for us? Let's look at the numbers. Taking account of sovereign bond redemptions and deficits, Ireland needs about €74bn over the next four years. The banks are getting €90bn of funding from the ECB and another €35bn from the Irish Central Bank. So, to get everyone off the hook, €199bn is needed. We can add that number to the national debt (net of redemptions by 2014 and cash balances) of €76bn and come up with a total of €275bn. Or just over 200pc of GNP.

There is no hope of Ireland ever being able to repay this amount. Nominally, if there is a large growth of inflation in the European and Irish economy, it might be possible, but with tight monetary control from Frankfurt, that is not going to happen.

So we need burden sharing with bank bondholders to reduce the liability the State has encumbered itself with through the mishandling of the bank guarantee. The alternative being presented by the run on Spain is that sovereign default is not only more likely, but should be viewed as being in Ireland's best interest. Loading up on IMF and EU debt right now -- in order to bail out the banks -- only makes sense for us if we have no intention of paying the money back.

The European-wide 'forest fire' referred to by Olli Rehn will burn through all sovereign debt as weakness in the unbailout-able Spain causes an existential crisis for the euro. We would default because we would have to. It would be chaotic, and it would probably spell the end of the euro.

It could easily be seen as dishonest for Ireland to take on this debt while aware of what is probably coming down the tracks, but considering how distracted our leaders are at the moment about saving their own skins in the upcoming election, there is a good chance they do not know how bad the situation is in southern Europe.

There is also a chance they have not yet figured out the gravity of the threat the Spanish situation poses to the euro project. But the 'nobody saw this coming' argument is tired by now, and cannot be allowed as an excuse any more. It is dishonest to fill our boots with IMF and EU money, but the IMF/EU are being equally dishonest about the situation by giving the money to us.

The honest thing to do is to realise what the problem is (the banks) and admit that pouring further cash into those black holes is theft -- from either the Irish taxpayer if we pay the loans back or from the IMF/EU if we default on their loans. The honest thing to do is pass a bank resolution which swaps the debt for shares -- a debt-equity swap in the banks -- and get that €120bn liability off the national and international balance sheet.

Then we can start to sort out the real problems in the Irish economy, and show the IMF the madness that is contained in their latest spin on 'expansionary fiscal contraction' which they published on Monday.

- David McWilliams

I get the feeling this will not turn out the way everyone wants it too.

Louis VI the Fat

11-26-2010, 02:11

I get the feeling this will not turn out the way everyone wants it too.Here's my thoughts about Europe's financial stability and the future of the Euro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drkh0YLF8rI

gaelic cowboy

11-26-2010, 02:25

IMF your our only Hope

Furunculus

11-27-2010, 16:47

stories in papers today about spain denying its needs a bailout as bond spreads creep up, i think we have seeen this trend before, no?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-28-2010, 21:01

So William Hague was right in 1998 when he said Britain shouldn't join the Euro?

Wow, and everybody was Soooooo mean!

[Childishness - off]

If Britain had joined the Euro we would probably be Spain, and Spain would be Ireland, and Ireland would be a minor irritant by comparison.

The problem is structural to the EU project, and it's the forseeable result of arse-backwards attempts at political union under the theory that monetary union will lead to the ultimate goal of - The Project.

Beskar

11-29-2010, 10:41

The Euro isn't faulty. It was the economical ministers of various countries who didn't use the opportunity of the Euro to reform and invest, opposed to blowing it all on partying.

Husar

11-29-2010, 12:02

rory_20_uk

11-29-2010, 12:08

It might be greedy people at fault, but the Euro has aided them.

Ideally I'd not lock my front door, nor have passwords on my online banking, as only thieves are going to try to steal things. Well, seeing as how I live in the real world I have to factor in things to prevent events occurring.

Although the whole world living under one set of rules and one currency might be the utopia that some want, that does not mean it'd work. Saying the Euro would work if it were not for Europeans isn't much use.

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

11-29-2010, 12:23

José Christos O'Donnel: Wow, what nice Mercedes you've got
Heinz: Yes, it was a lot of hard work, years of saving
MCoD: Want
Heinz: Sure. You can have it. You need savings. A solid job. A strong, stable currency.
MCoD: Want
Heinz: Sure, you can share my currency. But with it comes responsibility. You shall have to save, maintain the value of it, be disciplined.
MCoD: Yes, yes. I shall be disciplined.
Heinz: Okay, have my currency. Your purchasing power will increase. But with a strong currency comes tremendous responsibility. So you shall have to be careful, disciplined. You shall have to save, keep an eye on your spending.
MCoD: I will! I will! I'll be disciplined, I swear!
Heinz: Oookaay...here you go. Here's your currency, your economy is now tied to mine.
MCoD: Woot woot! I'm rich! I'm going to buy a mercedes right away! And a second home too! There's more money were that came from! I'm the king of the world! And look mama: no taxes!

....and crash.

Louis VI the Fat

11-29-2010, 12:24

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-29-2010, 12:36

If the Euro is faulty, then how come Germany, France etc. are doing just fine and can afford to bail all the others out?
People are blaming the Euro for all sorts of things but the truth is that the change towards the Euro was used by greedy people to fool a lot of other people into very unfortunate positions, and it worked splendidly, because most people blame the Euro instead of the greedy people, yeah, we should really lock that Euro up and then the world will be Utopia again as it was before...

The idea is not bad per se, but the implementation is at fault. As you say, Germany's economy was used by Ireland etc. to buy cheap dept, and this was encouraged (lets not pretend otherwise) as a way of increasing the size of these economies and levelly living standards.

the problem is that the dept was not cleared before the crash, or was too large to clear.

The problem is structural to the project.

Beskar

11-29-2010, 12:57

Although the whole world living under one set of rules and one currency might be the utopia that some want, that does not mean it'd work. Saying the Euro would work if it were not for Europeans isn't much use.

That isn't correct. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a shared law and currency. If anything, the benefits of such a set-up would greatly outweigh those of having separate currencies and rules, especially on the practical scale.

The problem is those who sought to exploit others, and found out that they can't simply run away from the problem. Having your own currency means you can decide to become the next inter-war Germany and Zimbabwe to 'pay' off your debts. The benefits of having a single currency, is that those bad partners cannot run away and be held accountable for their actions. Even though this is deemed a 'crisis', what will eventually happen, is that those held accountable will be held accountable, the social arena of those within Europe will change. People will now save, people will now honestly earn money. In short, people are getting fixed.

Louis VI the Fat

11-29-2010, 13:04

The idea is not bad per se, but the implementation is at fault. As you say, Germany's economy was used by Ireland etc. to buy cheap dept, and this was encouraged (lets not pretend otherwise) as a way of increasing the size of these economies and levelly living standards.

the problem is that the dept was not cleared before the crash, or was too large to clear.

The problem is structural to the project.The problems are tied to the project indeed. But then, it is a 'project', work in progress. The idea is to work towards economical unity through a common currency.

One can however question the wisdom of having a common currency before a common economical policy. Human nature and the short-sighted nature of contemporary politics being what they are, no adjustments will be made unless forced too. Now Europe's periphery shall have to reform in a crisis atmosphere, with painful austerity measures that punish the ones least responsible for any of this mess.

The stronger economies should not be too smug. Like the periphery, when push came to shove, they chose their own interests over those of others. Germany has done what is good for Germany, with disregard for the smaller economies tied to its currency and economic policy.

Even in the bailouts, first on the mind of Europe's core has been its own interest.

There must be an ultimate test for all policy: it must serve a concrete good for concrete people over an abstract principle. This is one of the key aspects of a democracy. One forfeits a lot of strategical planning, but it puts the human first, which is the ultimate goal of democracy. I question whether the interest of the Irish pensioner, the unemployed Greek, have been foremost in the mind of Brussels.

Furunculus

11-29-2010, 13:05

The Euro isn't faulty. It was the economical ministers of various countries who didn't use the opportunity of the Euro to reform and invest, opposed to blowing it all on partying.

Rory has already beaten me to the punch: "Saying the Euro would work if it were not for Europeans isn't much use."

The euro, as presently constructed is at fault, having a monetary union without a fiscal union is quite frankly retarded.

Having a fiscal union only works if your collective peopleS will accept a transfer union, to prevent imbalances tearing your 'single' economy apart.

Anyone fancy asking a hard working german how keen they will be to bail out portugal before christmas, having already bailed out ireland and greece?

rory_20_uk

11-29-2010, 13:09

A unified currency does prevent inflation, but doesn't prevent the movement of individuals. What is happening is that emigration is again starting in Ireland as many are not prepared to wait the economy rebalancing and putting up with years of austerity. These are not the dockworkers, but graduates who are leaving for stabler climes. And with them goes the money that they could earn the economy.

Who can blame them?

Ireland is then left with the debt with a population which has been skimmed of the most able people. I don't see how a single currency is helping fix this problem. Theoretically it should prevent it happening, and it definitely didn't help do that.

~:smoking:

Ronin

11-29-2010, 14:48

Anyone fancy asking a hard working german how keen they will be to bail out portugal before christmas, having already bailed out ireland and greece?

while you are at it you can ask the German how he will handle not having the customers in those countries to buy those cars he makes.
an interesting follow up question is to ask why on the last month the German government seems intent on dumping gasoline on the fire...it seems every time Merkel or any other German government figure says something it's always the last thing that should be said at that moment.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-29-2010, 15:49

In short, people are getting fixed.

Heaven save us all from being "fixed".

Stalin believed he could "fix" people Beskar, such a belief stems from the conviction one is not oneself broken and therefore knows better than those needing to be "fixed."

In any case, those suffering most are those most likely to be fiscally responsible (because they are poor) while those suffering least are the ones who created the mess. This is not an acceptable price to pay for creating your own particular type of European Uberman.

Beskar

11-29-2010, 15:55

Heaven save us all from being "fixed".

Stalin believed he could "fix" people Beskar, such a belief stems from the conviction one is not oneself broken and therefore knows better than those needing to be "fixed."

Jesus believe he could "fix" people, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla.

Though you are incorrect about your assumption, I know I am imperfect myself, and I attempt to make myself better. I am not that egotistic to assume I am perfect.

In any case, those suffering most are those most likely to be fiscally responsible (because they are poor) while those suffering least are the ones who created the mess. This is not an acceptable price to pay for creating your own particular type of European Uberman.

Actually, you are incorrect there. You know me well enough to know that wouldn't be the case, if I was in control of things.

Furunculus

11-29-2010, 16:03

independent reckons there needs to be a european act of union to save the eurozone:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/stephen-king/stephen-king-eurozone-states-will-need-an-act-of-union-to-save-the-single-currency-2146371.html

rory_20_uk

11-29-2010, 16:13

Yes, it's currently a bodge-job. Neither one nor the other, and by and large forced on the persons under it (who were admittedly in the main fine with it when everything appeared to be going well...)

The UK works as it has been there for so long. If the English for example were aware of how much it costs to hang on to Wales they might be far more peeved at sharing the union with them (let alone Northern Ireland). But it has been thus for so long that it is not thought of in purely fiscal terms any more.

For political Union, awkward questions have to be addressed: does Germany really want to be paying vast sums of money annually to the PIGS? How the hell will retirement ages / pension annuities / wages be set? Colonies? All lumped in together or all let go? Languages? All speak the one language whose country isn't involved? One capital? Sorting out all the technicalities - it might be cheaper and easier to have a European war over it (at least there are far fewer countries with a decent army than there are with a strident view over their "rights").

Easier to lurch along. After all, the EU technocrats have index-linked pensions, so no need to worry, eh?

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-29-2010, 16:20

Jesus believe he could "fix" people, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla.

Yes, but - crucially he claimed to be God himself and the originator of our reality; and infallable.

Though you are incorrect about your assumption, I know I am imperfect myself, and I attempt to make myself better. I am not that egotistic to assume I am perfect.

You carry the Communist impluses without the philosophical backing, it has always appeared to me.

Actually, you are incorrect there. You know me well enough to know that wouldn't be the case, if I was in control of things.

You plan to forcibly confiscate the wealth of the bankers, then?

Otherwise the rich will escape, as usual.

gaelic cowboy

11-29-2010, 17:01

while you are at it you can ask the German how he will handle not having the customers in those countries to buy those cars he makes.
an interesting follow up question is to ask why on the last month the German government seems intent on dumping gasoline on the fire...it seems every time Merkel or any other German government figure says something it's always the last thing that should be said at that moment.

The reason Merkel is to use your own words "dumping gasoline on the fire" is she has probably copped too late that the nuclear scenario is now inevitable. We know from leaks in our own Department of Finance that "The ECB :daisy: us" is the refrain repeated by the civil servants inside it, the ECB had hoped to ease Ireland into the bailout with out spooking investors in Spanish and Portuguese debt. It failed because she was saying the right thing for the long term health of the Euro but not the right thing for a short term view from Brussels with regard to Ireland or more corrrectly our Banks.

If we examine some of the statements from Euro finance ministers lately we can see a picture of a Europe that has copped that we have a spoofer in charge of monetary policy in the Euro Area. How do I know he is a spoofer pretty simple the ECB stressed tested out banks only a short while back and gave them a thumbs up, that has top be the biggest laugh ever I expect Germany will demand a head from the ECB soon.

Fragony

11-29-2010, 18:12

gaelic cowboy

11-29-2010, 18:21

I really have no idea what's going on how, where and why. Glad I can read up here. For you who are better informed, what would be the consequence if we returned to the guilder. We are an export/trading nation is what they scream, but Europe is not the same thing as EU, wouldn't we benefit from fluxuations of the euro as long as our export stays intact, and it will, no country can compete with our capacity to produce and move stuff

It really is not possible for Netherlands to return to the Guilder as the fact is the smaller and some larger countries too will owe massive sums in Euro while using a different currency to pay back, basically it would be a disaster really as the debts would be worth more than the local currency.

However if Germany were to leave the Euro and create a strong D-mark upon leaving it then the poorer/smaller/whoever countries would now have a currency more suited to there needs. The key to leaving is the Euro is market confidence that the currency will be strong this would clearly be the case for Germany and that would practically end the Euro.

Over a period of some years one could imagine a process where certain countries opted out one after the other as they migrated into a new stronger currency of there own, eventually the club is small enough to either stick with the euro or finally break it completely.

This may sound apocalyptic but I see no way around this problem unless we fully integrate politically and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Fragony

11-29-2010, 18:32

gaelic cowboy

11-29-2010, 18:43

But we aren't dependent, we have a stable economy, just about everything that goes to Europe goes through our hands first, I don't see how we can't return to it, people are also likely to invest in it for assurance, small but still too big to fall.

Well it all depends on how strong the currency will be after leaving as I said earlier if it goes below the Euro it will destroy your economy as you will owe more than you can pay back. You would have to default the debt basically if it weakened and that might cause problems when returning to the bondmarkets, for a few years the Netherlands could be practically barred from market funding if you defaulted.

Fragony

11-29-2010, 18:54

Well it all depends on how strong the currency will be after leaving as I said earlier if it goes below the Euro it will destroy your economy as you will owe more than you can pay back. You would have to default the debt basically if it weakened and that might cause problems when returning to the bondmarkets, for a few years the Netherlands could be practically barred from market funding if you defaulted.

No that won't happen, there is only one harbour in Europe that can empty these ships, we can give the sanctions. The guilder could be a temple of security.

(edit disclaimer I know absolutely nothing about economy)

Tellos Athenaios

11-29-2010, 19:17

Dutch debt isn't our biggest problem right now. Reason being: we *did* clear out our old debts before this new madness started, and unlike Ireland we still got a proper economy (as long as Germany, the UK, and France [in order of importance] have one so do we). In fact, you might remember that way back the finance ministries of the Netherlands, Sweden, etc. were kinda annoyed with “Heinz” and his French cousin for not being fiscally responsible according to the Maastricht treaty: they felt it set a bad example PIIGS would copy and fail to keep up with.

gaelic cowboy

11-29-2010, 19:30

Fragony

11-29-2010, 19:50

Thought experiments are cool. We really don't need the EU, so why wouldn't we say kthxbye. German and French industry needs what is shipped here. Good luck building that

Tellos Athenaios

11-29-2010, 20:37

Well then you have to think who buys Dutch goods is it Germany, France etc or is it someone else. If it is Germany and you pull out but they don't you would have to weaken the currency and this would severely affect your banking sector as it likely owed lots by the PIIGS.

Which would severely piss off direct Dutch competitors, for much the same reason an artificially cheap Yuan annoys the USA (despite the fact that an artificially cheap Yuan means a lower cost of living in the USA as well) so much. As for our banking sector, the real problem for the ING group was the USA/UK (which is part of what they focus on being insurance/securities kinda company), for the Rabobank no problems (being based on domestic accounts & housing finance mainly in the Netherlands itself), the ABN/Amro/Fortis got taken over by the state and the DSB group went bust.

If Germany pulled out and you did too you would have to try to ensure the currency was always below Germany but above the Euro. Thats if the euro existed anymore of course, which it would in some kind of form in order to service the debt. That is basically what the case was before the Euro, with a brief spell of guilder > mark during the mid 90's when the Netherlands actually ran a budget surplus owing to a boom. Essentially the Netherlands is every bit as solvent as Germany is (possibly more so) but the Netherlands does not have the sheer economic muscle of 80 odd million Germans with a devoted Turkey & Balkan fanbase to cheer them on.

If Netherlands is not exposed to a large amount of PIIGS debt and Germany pulled out then you could pull out take a small hit on debt and then follow the new D-Mark. Well a large amount obviously. Would not be surprised if it was mainly Irish debt through ties with the UK, and Spanish debt as well. But it is mostly the French and German banks which bought the PIGS (minus Ireland), and a lot of PIGS amongst each other for instance. (Spain owning Ireland owning Greece that kind of thing.)

edit disclaimer obviously if Germany was not your main trading partner none of the previous thought experiment can happen.

The real reason why the Netherlands cannot pull out has to do with the fact that the Netherlands heavily depends on those free flows of goods, capital and people -- transportation being what the Netherlands has been built around for hundreds of years and what determines the difference between a boom or a slow year, between a slow year or a recession. While in theory the Netherlands can do without the EU, the difference between having an EU and not having an EU (or at least having those treaties which ensure our economy can take full advantage of reduced overhead in dealing with different countries) ends up much, much more severe.

Tellos Athenaios

11-29-2010, 20:50

The UK works as it has been there for so long. If the English for example were aware of how much it costs to hang on to Wales they might be far more peeved at sharing the union with them (let alone Northern Ireland). But it has been thus for so long that it is not thought of in purely fiscal terms any more.

Well the Germans have shown they can execute on those stunts much more effectively than the English where unity ends where the next accent begins unless the Germans are proving again how much better they are at football. :shrug:

Take East Germany. Only 20 years into the game and already there is much the same feeling of why do we pay for them Easterners anyway, and what have those Westerners ever done for us (except paying for everything we now rely on, as we are out of job). But the suggestion that West & East should split again is less likely than the EU disbanding willingly.

Fragony

11-30-2010, 10:57

Wouldn't you agree that the Netherlands is too succesful to fail, we can nurish a hard coin. Why shouldn't we use the current crisis as an opertunity, buy cheap screw Europe, let's buy up Ireland just to laugh at them. Time for some good old fashioned hardcore capitalism.

gaelic cowboy

11-30-2010, 14:01

Wouldn't you agree that the Netherlands is too succesful to fail

No I would not agree Netherlands is too successful to fail.

Fragony

11-30-2010, 14:28

No I would not agree Netherlands is too successful to fail.

Why? Don't see how. We will always have a real economy no matter what happens, we are the gate of the mainland, euro can fall not our problem, if we have our own currency it's a feast really.

gaelic cowboy

11-30-2010, 14:36

Why? Don't see how. We will always have a real economy no matter what happens, we are the gate of the mainland, euro can fall not our problem, if we have our own currency it's a feast really.

two reasons really

Your banking system is quite large now and probably depends to a large degree on the Euro stability.

And lastly your gateway to Europe analogy is a bit overdone you cant charge too much or people just go somewere else.

The key is how you leave not just wanting to leave.

Fragony

11-30-2010, 14:42

two reasons really

Your banking system is quite large now and probably depends to a large degree on the Euro stability.

And lastly your gateway to Europe analogy is a bit overdone you cant charge too much or people just go somewere else.

And where would they go? There is no alternative to Rotterdam for the bigger ships, unless you want to spend 20 years building it

gaelic cowboy

11-30-2010, 14:47

And where would they go? There is no alternative to Rotterdam for the bigger ships, unless you want to spend 20 years building it

They wouldnt come at all Fragony we have a saying here "Ten hungry men nine dinners" other countries will buy the imports and the exports would collapse.

Basically there are other places to go nowadays for a market.

Fragony

11-30-2010, 15:10

We also got a saying here but it really means nothing

Market de Frag, African and Oceanic art and ceremonial weapons.

gaelic cowboy

11-30-2010, 15:20

We also got a saying here but it really means nothing

Market de Frag, African and Oceanic art and ceremonial weapons.

Ten hungry men nine dinners

It means that someone will always be willing to pay extra to ensure that they do not go hungry. However in the case were talking about it is the reverse as someone would be willing to pay less to take the goods passing through the Netherlands for importation to Europe to circumvent the Netherlands.

Just because the Netherlands is at a natural choke point of trade routes does not mean it is gifted with eternal dominance have you been to Venice lately.

Anyway were getting side tracked the key point to remember is it will not be painless to leave the Euro unless there is an agreed mechanism.

Furunculus

11-30-2010, 15:28

Anyway were getting side tracked the key point to remember is it will not be painless to leave the Euro unless there is an agreed mechanism.

which there isn't.

http://www.eurointelligence.com/uploads/media/Euro_Area_Meltdown_Web_Edition.pdf

except for one country............... Germany.

“Another possibility is an amicable agreement for that country to leave the euro area, but to remain inside the EU. That country would then be left in a state of non-compliance with the EMU convergence criteria. The country would be back in the ante-chamber of EMU, and thus not be considered in breach of the EU entry obligations. While this is possible in theory, we cannot see why other member states should accept such an agreement, since they will not benefit from having to put up with a country that will seek a competitive advantage by devaluing, and then re-entering at the next opportune moment. Furthermore, if such a procedure were applied once, it could be used as a precedent for others, or even for the same country, in the future. This would seriously undermine the long-term viability of monetary union.”

To answer the objections above point by point:

Q. Why would other nations allow a fellow Eurozone nation to do this?

A. Because it’s Germany and the reintroduced Deutschmark would appreciate, which would allow the other Eurozone nations to devalue, and thus become more competitive with non-Euro nations.

Q. Would that nation not seek to re-join at a better rate in a few years?

A. No, because it’s Germany, their new currency would appreciate and not depreciate, and the Germany people would not agree to abandon the Deutschmark a second time round.

Q. Would it create a precedent?

A. Yes, it would create the precedent of a currency leaving the Euro on condition than any re-entry would be at a higher rate, an eventuality unlikely to be appealing to other Eurozone members.

Q. Why would Germany choose to leave the Euro?

A. It would have no choice, German Basic law contains an eternity clause declaring the executive and judiciary to be bound by the law, and if the GCC declares the bail-out incompatible with German Basic law………..

Q. Why would Germany choose to make themselves less competitive on the world market?

A. Other than the above, it would also see a return to sound money and the end of bail-outs for countries that are monetarily incompatible with Germany, and it would return the majority share of its export markets to a growth zone rather than have to rely on un-free markets in the east.

Fragony

11-30-2010, 15:43

The point is that we simply don't have to

Nothing natural about it by the way it's manmade

Vladimir

11-30-2010, 18:13

Wouldn't you agree that the Netherlands is too succesful to fail,

Break it up. :laugh4:

Tellos Athenaios

11-30-2010, 18:33

gaelic cowboy

11-30-2010, 19:08

I don't think the Netherlands is too successful to fail. Leaving EU is not a sound option at this point, really, leaving euro is looking for problems rather than solving them (Dutch bonds are largely unaffected by Ireland as of now, but a new Dutch currency will need some time to find its balance). That might change once, say, Germany leaves, as we can peg our currency to a Dmark or possibly do a monetary union with Germans (if Germany leaves it might be part of broader exit party). However that is highly speculative if.

Exactly in a sense we are waiting on Germany because it is they who will decide the fate of the Euro. I believe there is a 50% chance that Germany leaves the Euro and then certain countries could leave too and peg to the D-Mark which will be stronger than a rump euro. The key is being stronger than the debt your leaving behind but even then it will still depend on how much confidence there is for your future economy.

Basically we wait till we know where were all going.

Husar

12-01-2010, 00:48

Louis VI the Fat

12-01-2010, 01:28

Huh? What? Now we are going to leave the Euro? 50% chance? Where? What? Huh?

It's all you small problem countries who want out while we're trying to keep you all on your feet to keep the Eurozone alive and now you make up rumours about us leaving? Why did we bail everyone out if we want to lave you all to rot anyway?
I'm sure we could establish a new union though, everything would be centered around Germany, Berlin would be renamed into Germania and.... ~;)Last time I looked, Greece and Ireland together are 15 million people. Francogermania 150 million people. We're not sweating. Why should we do away with our currency? Because some smaller countries lacked discipline? Pft.

We're cleaning house. While the Germans beat some Teutonic discipline into Europe by the sheer power of Merkel's words, France imposes a social Europe, by fighting bondholders, financial de-regulation, and tax havens. Although sadly, the Germans seem to have more succes with their part of the cleaning up than France.

gaelic cowboy

12-01-2010, 01:44

Huh? What? Now we are going to leave the Euro? 50% chance? Where? What? Huh?

It's all you small problem countries who want out while we're trying to keep you all on your feet to keep the Eurozone alive and now you make up rumours about us leaving? Why did we bail everyone out if we want to lave you all to rot anyway?
I'm sure we could establish a new union though, everything would be centered around Germany, Berlin would be renamed into Germania and.... ~;)

I aint making rumours up just to fulfill a secret dream or something I am merely stating it is the logical conclusion of present policy of kicking the debt down the road and hoping it will go away. The ECB is basically telling France and Germany to bail us out and hope this solves the problem, it wont cos the market types don't believe us anymore and they don't believe Germany has the cash to bail out Spain.

All that means is that there is a 50% chance you will leave or we will integrate politically and have transfers like they do in USA. Simply put does Germany want to pay for it cos it is a question of cash, I seriously doubt that is high on any German agenda. Why do I say that well Germany is mad enough about bailing two countries out so how does four or five strike the average German, I expect they will be even more furious than now.

Take all that into account and the move out by Germany looks likely to me.

gaelic cowboy

12-01-2010, 01:53

Last time I looked, Greece and Ireland together are 15 million people. Francogermania 150 million people. We're not sweating. Why should we do away with our currency? Because some smaller countries lacked discipline? Pft.

We're cleaning house. While the Germans beat some Teutonic discipline into Europe by the sheer power of Merkel's words, France imposes a social Europe, by fighting bondholders, financial de-regulation, and tax havens. Although sadly, the Germans seem to have more succes with their part of the cleaning up than France.

If these Bondholder barbarian types take down Spain or Italy all bets are off Louis it really is as simple as that.

The population of the PIIGS is what 120mill can FrancoGermania bail that out, throw in a bit of Belgium seasoning and were talking around 130 mill once were in this terroritory were talking a veritable economic manhattan project.

Husar

12-01-2010, 09:44

Furunculus

12-01-2010, 10:04

the thing that makes Spain and Portugal most likely to default (whatever exactly that means in financial terms) is people talking about them defaulting soon, which scares all the bondfondlers and sharecrows.

yes, but that is because people have begun to realise that it's a stupid, dumb, ridiculous political project sparked by ideological idiocy, that should never have been borne into this world.

Beskar

12-01-2010, 10:24

yes, but that is because people have begun to realise that it's a stupid, dumb, ridiculous political project sparked by ideological idiocy, that should never have been borne into this world.

Not true.

Furunculus

12-01-2010, 10:41

really?

that's not what europe's leaders now believe according to Mervyn King..........?

Germany's rules based system now being implemented would work without the PIIGS, but as constituted with all 17 (18?) members it can only EVER work with political union to justify that transfer union and regulatory harmony required of a monetary union.

until you have a mandate for that political union, or the periphery leaves it's a stupid, dumb, ridiculous political project sparked by ideological idiocy, that should never have been borne into this world!

gaelic cowboy

12-02-2010, 00:23

Actually you're right to an extent, but the thing that makes Spain and Portugal most likely to default (whatever exactly that means in financial terms) is people talking about them defaulting soon, which scares all the bondfondlers and sharecrows.

Talking about them defaulting does not cause a default that sounds a bit like when someone tells you to "Stop talking the Economy Down" people used to say that here round 2006 when our bubble stumbled a bit.(it was rubbish then and it's rubbish now)

Sure you can bailout Ireland and Greece but can we pay you back that is the question and no one really seems to have asked it much at all in the rush to lend to us to save someone else. A lot of the contagion lately is because people are not convinced we can pay this one off and grow our GDP again. If a resolution of Irish bank debt happens(and there will come a scalping)then it will have an effect on European banking as the Irish banks are actually larger than our entire economy.

This bank resolution is what is driving the fear in the markets and the longer we all wait the bigger the risk for the Eurozone as a whole.

Louis VI the Fat

12-02-2010, 01:34

Sure you can bailout Ireland and Greece but can we pay you back that is the question and no one really seems to have asked it much at all in the rush to lend to us to save someone else.Nobody asked if Ireland could pay it back? I'd say we did. I say this entire thread is about us daring to ask that question. About 'who the hell do you people think you are daring to ask questions, who the hell do you EUSSR think you are daring to ask for even the minutest conditions (when you part with tens of billions of your taxpayers money - LVI)'.

Commies if we ask questions, nazis if we don't.

On the stability of the Euro depends our very pensions. Nor did the problems originate in Europe's core. But by jove, we're a bunch of commiefascists if we try so much as to save our financial stability by sending tens of billions abroad.

Louis VI the Fat

12-02-2010, 01:39

World stock markets and the euro have surged amid reports that Washington may join Europe in further support for heavily indebted countries.
The US Treasury has sent an envoy to Europe to discuss the continuing financial crisis.

It follows comments from European Central Bank chief Jean-Claude Trichet that people should not "underestimate" the eurozone's "determination" to act.
Meanwhile, Portugal's PM has insisted that Lisbon does not need a bail-out.

Germany's Dax stock index led European markets higher, rising 2.6%, with the FTSE 100 up 2%, ending days of losses. Wall Street opened more than 2% up.
In mid-day trading in New York, the euro jumped to $1.3140, up from $1.3011 on Tuesday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11884132

The cavalry has arrived!

That bastion of global capitlaism, the USA, is sending in the troops to bring about the EUSSR and enslave Europe with a Euro. Or, for those with less fantastical world views, to support indebted countries, prevent contagion and further unrest in the financial markets.

I am already looking forward to reading in this thread that Obama is a socialist co-operating with the EUSSR. While I simultaneously read in the Wikileaks thread that Obama is the head of a global fascist superpower. :thumbsup:

Don Corleone

12-02-2010, 01:51

Louis VI the Fat

12-02-2010, 02:51

Aaah, but Louis, you forget.... we ourselves our indentured servants to Beijing. So in accepting our financial bailout package, you join our yoke of slavery to the new Han dynasty. Join us in bondage, oh wise ones of Europe. ;-)Well Beijng is no doubt having a ball, that much seems true. We self-destruct while they buy up the world and take over.

The problem with Europe is that there are too many parvenus. Their house increased in value, their stocks skyrocketed. They make money so easily that they think those without it must be stupid. They thus think it is owing to a moral quality of theirs. They think themselves invincible, untouchable. They invest more and more. Borrow to invest. Are so blinded by greed and a sense of untouchability that they engage in what has descended into a pyramid scheme.

Then their high risk investments collapse. The pyramid collapses. All assets are in the pyramid, or in two four-wheel gas-guzzling SUVs and other blingbling. Panic!

Still, they deem themselves morally superior. The government is there to protect them from scum, leeches, immigrants. Indeed, governments itself, the public sector, has adopted their values: it is all about immediate, private gain. The government secures their assets, their bad debts. Secures it with the money taken from the poor, with austerity measures that hit the poor.

Meanwhile, more established families have their money in low yield, safe, unglamorous investments. These still exists, even if a dying breed. They must suffer that the loudmouth parvenus, all their money in bling and too large cars, had their cake and got to eat it too. High risk investestments, with huge private profits, and when they collapsed, the risks were socialised and the bill passed on.

The loudmouth, crass, populist-voting Eurotrash parvenu rules Europe. They complain about the EU, about politicians, about immigrants, about everybody. Except about Europe's biggest problem: they themselves.

edyzmedieval

12-02-2010, 03:49

I skipped through most of the thread but I want to ask this - if the EU crashes down, what would it mean in terms of economic growth and PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) in the next five years?

Furunculus

12-02-2010, 10:43

wrecked.

Sarmatian

12-02-2010, 11:37

Louis VI the Fat

12-02-2010, 12:42

I skipped through most of the thread but I want to ask this - if the EU crashes down, what would it mean in terms of economic growth and PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) in the next five years?It will be almost as expensive as it will be if an army of naked ginger Irish confusingly led by a blue-painted Mel Gibson were to overthrow Merkel and install Bono as kaiser Wilhelm III.

:yes:

And only slightly more likely...

Fragony

12-02-2010, 13:54

I don't think the Netherlands is too successful to fail. Leaving EU is not a sound option at this point, really, leaving euro is looking for problems rather than solving them (Dutch bonds are largely unaffected by Ireland as of now, but a new Dutch currency will need some time to find its balance). That might change once, say, Germany leaves, as we can peg our currency to a Dmark or possibly do a monetary union with Germans (if Germany leaves it might be part of broader exit party). However that is highly speculative if.

But possible in theory, we have the means to stand on our own, the fluxuations of the euro are only of concern for the stock-markets not to the real economy. The EU is a political project to whipe out the nation-state, the EEG was sound cooperation. Other countries simply can't compete if we decide to be competitivily inward and just drop the EU. For security we have the Nato, we have nothing to lose. We lose a lot more if we stay, eurabia

Hosakawa Tito

12-04-2010, 14:45

Interesting article: Where are the Business Europhiles Now? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575652602965773126.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion#articleTabs%3Darticl e)

Seems Henkel miscalculated.The fiscal incompetence and outright lying,cheating, tax evasion, etc... has the more fiscal responsible member countries thinking of splitting the euro zone. Can't say I blame them.

Furunculus

12-04-2010, 15:35

nope, indeed not.

it is only to be hoped that if germany does exit the rest can be persuaded to stay in, because an outright collapse would be disastrous for Britain.

Germany leaving would give the rest a more competitive currency valuation and a more appropriate interest rate, and germany is the only country that can leave without having to enforce money controls as capital would flee any other country trying to exit the Euro, and that would knacker the single market.

gaelic cowboy

12-04-2010, 15:41

The ECB and EU are likely to start musing aloud about a single Eurobond the idea being it prevents Italy, Spain and the rest of the "South" from borrowing too much.
While everyone has been watching Spanish and Portuguese sovereign debt auctions lately everyone has missed that Germany sovereign debt auctions even before the bailouts were sometimes undersubscribed or even failed.

Basically the return is too low for investors and Merkel's comments about scalping bondholders have probably ruined the image of Germany as a safe haven for cash, add in the potential for more bailouts and we start to see the logic. Interestingly having spending nations attached to saving ones would increase the average rate for the bond itself leading more people helping Germany to fund itself.

I cannot see this Eurobond idea actually flying in Germany politically though, in practice it mean's that even responsible Germany would be subject to someone else and not just Ireland and Greece. At the minute Germany is doing fine but a collapse in export trade would mean germany could not run a deficit to bridge a short term funding gap a Eurobond stops that ability. In case your wondering Ireland's problems are not sovereign but banking related so Eurobonds don't really solve the problem which is a lack of confidence that our banks have adequate capital to cover losses.

A two tier or even three tier euro is not really likely in my view the elite has invested too much in it.

gaelic cowboy

12-04-2010, 15:48

Germany leaving would give the rest a more competitive currency valuation and a more appropriate interest rate, and germany is the only country that can leave without having to enforce money controls as capital would flee any other country trying to exit the Euro, and that would knacker the single market.

It probably would not be neccessary to devalue IF Germany left as the new German Mark would likely appreciate on world markets, that might not be such a good thing for German exporters to have a strong Mark.

Germany if it continues to save can use the PIIGS as effectively a dumping ground for excess capital keeping it's competitiveness with other exporters by preventing consumption growth in the economy.

The reality is of course German tax payers are not likely to want to continue to want to save just to fund the dole in Ireland to help Mercedes sell cars in China.

Furunculus

12-04-2010, 17:57

It probably would not be neccessary to devalue IF Germany left as the new German Mark would likely appreciate on world markets, that might not be such a good thing for German exporters to have a strong Mark.

Germany if it continues to save can use the PIIGS as effectively a dumping ground for excess capital keeping it's competitiveness with other exporters by preventing consumption growth in the economy.

The reality is of course German tax payers are not likely to want to continue to want to save just to fund the dole in Ireland to help Mercedes sell cars in China.

the point of germany leaving is that it is germany propping up the value of the euro, if they leave then the euro devalues by default.

gaelic cowboy

12-04-2010, 18:17

the point of germany leaving is that it is germany propping up the value of the euro, if they leave then the euro devalues by default.

Agreed but my point still stands that German exporters would be against leaving it while the German electorate would be for the leaving it.

Fragony

12-05-2010, 11:32

How likely is Germany dropping the coin? There has to be a treshold they aren't going to act like the buffer forever. Germany is a producer, they'll live

Banquo's Ghost

12-05-2010, 14:31

How likely is Germany dropping the coin? There has to be a treshold they aren't going to act like the buffer forever. Germany is a producer, they'll live

Very unlikely, despite Chancellor Merkel's rather odd thinking-out-loud. The costs of replacing a currency are huge and need a long preparation time (the euro took over three years). The new D-mark would immediately appreciate which would make German exports far more expensive. Germany is already the euro's biggest creditor, so all her euro holdings would depreciate significantly as the euro crashed.

That's not to say it won't happen - as you say, there is a breaking point. But it won't be by German choice as leaving will be hugely expensive and would damage their economy for years to come.

gaelic cowboy

12-05-2010, 14:47

Very unlikely, despite Chancellor Merkel's rather odd thinking-out-loud. The costs of replacing a currency are huge and need a long preparation time (the euro took over three years). The new D-mark would immediately appreciate which would make German exports far more expensive. Germany is already the euro's biggest creditor, so all her euro holdings would depreciate significantly as the euro crashed.

That's not to say it won't happen - as you say, there is a breaking point. But it won't be by German choice as leaving will be hugely expensive and would damage their economy for years to come.

It may be forced on Germany the 2013 date for scalping bondholders has basically sent them currying from Irish, Greek and Portuguese bonds.

What annoys me is why the ECB just didn't take the bailout money and ringfence any banks with EFSF money who had potential bad loans from Irish banks. It's a stitch up pure and simple the ECB and the elite is incapable of admitting that putting more debt on the Irish people will not save there own banks.

Furunculus

12-05-2010, 16:15

It may be forced on Germany the 2013 date for scalping bondholders has basically sent them currying from Irish, Greek and Portuguese bonds.

What annoys me is why the ECB just didn't take the bailout money and ringfence any banks with EFSF money who had potential bad loans from Irish banks. It's a stitch up pure and simple the ECB and the elite is incapable of admitting that putting more debt on the Irish people will not save there own banks.

because it would be more blatently a bail-out in contravention of mastrict, and thus liable to cause the Karlsruhr to rule against its legality, which given the eternity clause in german basic law would necessitate germany's exit of the Euro (and possibly the EU) as the only way to return to compliance with German basic law............. perhaps?

gaelic cowboy

12-05-2010, 16:37

because it would be more blatently a bail-out in contravention of mastrict, and thus liable to cause the Karlsruhr to rule against its legality, which given the eternity clause in german basic law would necessitate germany's exit of the Euro (and possibly the EU) as the only way to return to compliance with German basic law............. perhaps?

Well they better have there fun deflating our economy now cos when Lisbon 3 arrives on our shores it is doomed pure and simple. Ireland has been basically made eurosceptic for a decade or more depending on how long this bailout craic lasts.

Everyone knows the bailouts of Ireland, Greece are not working and that eventually when the strain becomes too much and Ireland, Greece will have to either tap for more funds again or extend the terms.

The debt will either have to be inflated away or cancelled it really is that simple.

Furunculus

12-05-2010, 16:48

Ireland has been basically made eurosceptic for a decade or more depending on how long this bailout craic lasts.

every cloud has a silver lining. :(

gaelic cowboy

12-05-2010, 17:05

every cloud has a silver lining. :(

It really is not much comfort to be honest but it is still the truth unlike the bailout

Louis VI the Fat

12-05-2010, 17:25

...or alternatively Ireland and Greece can stop whining and clean ship instead, so they don't end up in a position like this in the fist place

rory_20_uk

12-05-2010, 17:45

It's easier not to eat chocolate when there's none in the house. It's a lot easier to be fiscally prudent when people aren't throwing blank cheques at you (although I realise Greece has no concept of paying taxes).

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

12-05-2010, 18:00

I realise Greece has no concept of paying taxesI resent the difference in treatment of Greece and Ireland.

The Irish have the good fortune of being English speaking, and of being fairer skinned than the Greeks. Hence, in the English speaking press (by extention, global press), the Greeks are portrayed as corrupt, lazy, swarthy mediterranean who evade taxes for sports. The Irish, by contrast, are portrayed as creating a thriving business environment.

One country's tax exemption for the rich and befriended companies is corruption, the other stimulating business. Greek politicians are actually wary of being photgraphed with local tycoons. They would be embarassed to publicly announce that they have granted an aligned shipping tycoon billions worth of tax exemption in return for some jobs in their district. Irish politicians are proud of it, proudly announce they received a telephone call from their liason at Google, Microsoft, Intel. Proudly announce they agreed to tax exemption for them in exchange for some jobs.

Greek politicians can only dream of the personal haul of Irish politicians.

The free world's best paid political position is that of Irish Taoiseach. Bertie Ahern raised his own salary so much that the leader of 4,5m Irish now earns more than the German chancellor, UK PM or US president. And that's just the official wage. The final haul of the current crop has yet to be established, but Ahern's predecessor and mentor, Haughey, left politics a man of considerable fortune, some fifty million Euros.

Fragony

12-05-2010, 18:04

Why is Greece so important, it's a holiday resort nothing more. Why not just kick them out, getting the feeling that not doing so is 99% ideology.

gaelic cowboy

12-05-2010, 18:06

...or alternatively Ireland and Greece can stop whining and clean ship instead, so they don't end up in a position like this in the fist place

Clean ship with what my good man how do we clean ship when were now stuck with even more DEBT you just helped our stupid goverment make a banking insolvency crisis into a sovereign insolvency crisis. Fianna Fail may have been completely reckless in giving the banks a blank cheque but what the hell is the EU actually doing honouring the bloody thing for now.

explanation in writing please to the dept of finance

Department of Finance,
Government Buildings,
Upper Merrion Street,
Dublin 2,
Republic of Ireland

gaelic cowboy

12-05-2010, 18:08

I resent the difference in treatment of Greece and Ireland.

The Irish have the good fortune of being English speaking, and of being fairer skinned than the Greeks. Hence, in the English speaking press (by extention, global press), the Greeks are portrayed as corrupt, lazy, swarthy mediterranean who evade taxes for sports. The Irish, by contrast, are portrayed as creating a thriving business environment.

One country's tax exemption for the rich and befriended companies is corruption, the other stimulating business. Greek politicians are actually wary of being photgraphed with local tycoons. They would be embarassed to publicly announce that they have granted an aligned shipping tycoon billions worth of tax exemption in return for some jobs in their district. Irish politicians are proud of it, proudly announce they received a telephone call from their liason at Google, Microsoft, Intel. Proudly announce they agreed to tax exemption for them in exchange for some jobs.

Greek politicians can only dream of the personal haul of Irish politicians.

The free world's best paid political position is that of Irish Taoiseach. Bertie Ahern raised his own salary so much that the leader of 4,5m Irish now earns more than the German chancellor, UK PM or US president. And that's just the official wage. The final haul of the current crop has yet to be established, but Ahern's predecessor and mentor, Haughey, left politics a man of considerable fortune, some fifty million Euros.

How in the hell does any of that solve the fact that once our government takes that first IMF tranche the insolvency of the banks is now wholly transferred to the people.

You continue to ignore that fact Ireland will not be able to pay this back and that the debt will have to be sorted properly. Bailing out the country merely transferred the debt it did not remove the problem.

Ireland is the only eurozone country in deflation at the minute our labour costs are reducing and industrial production is up the highest in the eurozone.

Those are the good things about the Irish economy but the bad things are that the debt still needs to be faced and as long as it's not it will be like a nuke ready to go off at any minute.

I love the way this whole lark is being presented as a way to FIX Ireland when it's really about saving banks both Irish and European, we keep telling you the truth and we kept getting continually told were being whiney ungrateful spud eating peasants.

Just cos a broke Irish electorate is annoying does not mean they are incorrect about defaulting on the banks.

Louis VI the Fat

12-05-2010, 23:45

Clean ship with what my good man how do we clean ship when were now stuck with even more DEBT you just helped our stupid goverment make a banking insolvency crisis into a sovereign insolvency crisis. Fianna Fail may have been completely reckless in giving the banks a blank cheque but what the hell is the EU actually doing honouring the bloody thing for now.

explanation in writing please to the dept of finance

Department of Finance,
Government Buildings,
Upper Merrion Street,
Dublin 2,
Republic of Ireland In effect, what you are saying is that Europe should've disagreed with Irish policy. Europe should not have supported Ireland when it turned out Ireland did not have the funds to persevere in its policy. This no doubt would've resulted in Ireland being 'Eurosceptic for a decade'.

Now that we do agree, and have send tens of billions of European taxpayer money to guarantee Irish debts, Ireland will be 'Eurosceptic for a decade' too.

Or perhaps we should've let it linger on, as apparantly Dublin wanted too, with utter disregard for the financial stability of the entire continent. 'We've got enough money to last 'till spring, so until then we can hope for some fairy Godmother / the X-men / Elvis Presley to show up with a solution. While we wait for that, we shall endanger the currency and livelihood of the whole of Europe, which is none of concern'.
Well I question why Europe should be the one without a seat when the music stops. Europe is not a martyr for failed Irish policy. Europe can not change Irish policy at the last minute. It was too late for that.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. The easy way out: it is all Europe's fault. Nobody has to take responsibility.
As for the Europscepticism: can we count on Ireland the next decade being Britannosceptic, IMF-o-sceptic, Denmarkosceptic? They paid for the bailout too, only a minority of the funds are from the Eurozone.

If the EU had not honoured the Irish policy, then it would've gone from a banking insolvency crisis to a sovereign crisis to a European crisis. What we should've done, is hang some bankers and bondholders. Not all of them, just as much as it takes to have the surviving ones go from door to door across the whole of Ireland and beg the locals for forgiveness as offer their bonusses of the past decade in compensation. This policy is sadly not feasible in the current climate of 'I love being sucked dry for all I'm worth'.

Failing that, I wonder if it shouldn't have been possbile and doable to simply tell the bondholders they'll receiveve 75 cents on the euro, take it or leave it.

Failing that too, a bailpout is the next best solution. Although as far as I'm concerned, it is daylight robbery unless it is followed up upon with an overhaul of the financial system, which, however as we all know is not going to happen.

The cleaning up is not a short term solution, or a solution of any kind, never mind an easy way out. It's of a more general nature. The cleaning starts wih the very realisation there is no easy way put, no quick and painless solution. The cleaning up must be of the culture at large that plagues the entire West: the refusal to accept any personal responsibility anymore. This to me is the ulterior cause of our current woes.

In this case:
Don't like sovereignity to be eroded? Then don't squander it with a 32% budget deficit, do not to manoeuver yourself into a position of helplessness.
Don't like foreigners lending you money? Then levy taxes.
Don't like conditions on a foreign loan? Then don't complain about what is self-explanatory - all risky loans have conditions - but make sure you do not become dependent on a foreign loan.
Don't like poor Irish to have to pay? Then don't complain about a foreigner who by necessity has to deal with an Irish government. Instead force your governemtn to go get your money back from the rich Irish culprits who walk away scott free.
Etc.
And lastly: don't like Greece, Ireland, and etc etc endangering your currency? Then speak up before it is too late. After the fact, if you let something happen for eight years, you have become just as much responsible as any of them.

Louis VI the Fat

12-05-2010, 23:47

How in the hell does any of that solve the fact that once our government takes that first IMF tranche the insolvency of the banks is now wholly transferred to the people.

You continue to ignore that fact Ireland will not be able to pay this back and that the debt will have to be sorted properly. Bailing out the country merely transferred the debt it did not remove the problem.

I love the way this whole lark is being presented as a way to FIX Ireland when it's really about saving banks both Irish and European, we keep telling you the truth and we kept getting continually told were being whiney ungrateful spud eating peasants.

Just cos a broke Irish electorate is annoying does not mean they are incorrect about defaulting on the banks.That bit was about the difference in the way the anglophone press wrote about Greece or Portugal and Ireland. One is a pig, too lazy to work, thieving off EU funds. The other a county in distress.

Remember those Greeks earlier this year? Going on strikes, attacking banks? Like the Irish, they resented being the ones presented with the bill. What was written about them in the Anglophone press? Lazy, socialists, silly swarties who even when they are bankrupt protest austerity measures. The Irish, who speak English, have another face. The face of the austerity measures, this time, is an Irish pensioner, who's hurting.
Likewise, the Greek failure to levy sustainable taxes is a sign they are morally lacking. Whereas the Irish failure to levy sustainable taxes is a sign of their anglo competitiveness.

gaelic cowboy

12-06-2010, 00:39

In effect, what you are saying is that Europe should've disagreed with Irish policy. Europe should not have supported Ireland when it turned out Ireland did not have the funds to persevere in its policy. This no doubt would've resulted in Ireland being 'Eurosceptic for a decade'.

Now that we do agree, and have send tens of billions of European taxpayer money to guarantee Irish debts, Ireland will be 'Eurosceptic for a decade' too.

The public is mad as hell that our government is not closing down these banks it is seen as an attack on the people.

Or perhaps we should've let it linger on, as apparantly Dublin wanted too, with utter disregard for the financial stability of the entire continent. 'We've got enough money to last 'till spring, so until then we can hope for some fairy Godmother / the X-men / Elvis Presley to show up with a solution. While we wait for that, we shall endanger the currency and livelihood of the whole of Europe, which is none of concern'.
Well I question why Europe should be the one without a seat when the music stops. Europe is not a martyr for failed Irish policy. Europe can not change Irish policy at the last minute. It was too late for that.

As I have said before the banks lied about the fact they were insolvent and that it was not a liquidity crisis therefore they should close. If the banks are insolvent then there really is no point in trying to revive a zombie bank now is there.

Oh and the bank guarantee was extended again by EU finance ministers again during the last few weeks it could easy have been let lapse before you bailed us out.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. The easy way out: it is all Europe's fault. Nobody has to take responsibility.
As for the Europscepticism: can we count on Ireland the next decade being Britannosceptic, IMF-o-sceptic, Denmarkosceptic? They paid for the bailout too, only a minority of the funds are from the Eurozone.

People are basically enraged that the EU is backing the elite instead of the Irish people the IMF/EU deal has put to the sword the good impression of Europe we used to have.

If the EU had not honoured the Irish policy, then it would've gone from a banking insolvency crisis to a sovereign crisis to a European crisis. What we should've done, is hang some bankers and bondholders. Not all of them, just as much as it takes to have the surviving ones go from door to door across the whole of Ireland and beg the locals for forgiveness as offer their bonusses of the past decade in compensation. This policy is sadly not feasible in the current climate of 'I love being sucked dry for all I'm worth'.

It already is a sovereign crisis Louis that is the problem what the hell is the point in pretending that the Masters of the Universe will lend to you if they believe there is more rot in the system.

Failing that, I wonder if it shouldn't have been possbile and doable to simply tell the bondholders they'll receiveve 75 cents on the euro, take it or leave it.

Yes now were getting to something we can agree on, they already believe there gonna be scalped anyways.

Failing that too, a bailpout is the next best solution. Although as far as I'm concerned, it is daylight robbery unless it is followed up upon with an overhaul of the financial system, which, however as we all know is not going to happen.

A bailout would work only if Ireland were only trying to get public finances back on track.

The cleaning up is not a short term solution, or a solution of any kind, never mind an easy way out. It's of a more general nature. The cleaning starts wih the very realisation there is no easy way put, no quick and painless solution. The cleaning up must be of the culture at large that plagues the entire West: the refusal to accept any personal responsibility anymore. This to me is the ulterior cause of our current woes.

People know fine well they are responsible for borrowing to buy property etc but there not responsible for trying to save zombie banks.

In this case:
Don't like sovereignity to be eroded? Then don't squander it with a 32% budget deficit, do not to manoeuver yourself into a position of helplessness.
Don't like foreigners lending you money? Then levy taxes.
Don't like conditions on a foreign loan? Then don't complain about what is self-explanatory - all risky loans have conditions - but make sure you do not become dependent on a foreign loan.
Don't like poor Irish to have to pay? Then don't complain about a foreigner who by necessity has to deal with an Irish government. Instead force your governemtn to go get your money back from the rich Irish culprits who walk away scott free.
Etc.
And lastly: don't like Greece, Ireland, and etc etc endangering your currency? Then speak up before it is too late. After the fact, if you let something happen for eight years, you have become just as much responsible as any of them.

There are two many problems and the solutions are not solutions at all they are instead sticking plasters.

The 32% budget deficit would be far far smaller if FF were not for trying to maintain an untenable position.

I am against a bailout of my country that merely bails out our banks pure and simple.

gaelic cowboy

12-06-2010, 00:56

Remember those Greeks earlier this year? Going on strikes, attacking banks? Like the Irish, they resented being the ones presented with the bill. What was written about them in the Anglophone press? Lazy, socialists, silly swarties who even when they are bankrupt protest austerity measures. The Irish, who speak English, have another face. The face of the austerity measures, this time, is an Irish pensioner, who's hurting.
Likewise, the Greek failure to levy sustainable taxes is a sign they are morally lacking. Whereas the Irish failure to levy sustainable taxes is a sign of their anglo competitiveness.

We have not escaped the tut tut of the Anglophone press you just missed it thats all, sometimes the UK telly has been very hard to watch indeed.

gaelic cowboy

12-06-2010, 01:17

I feel I need to get my view down again cos the thread has drifted a bit.

The point I was trying to make is that bailouts will not cure the insolvency of the banks/countries the debt will have to be restructured eventually to a more manageable level.

This does not have to mean an end to the Euro but it is a likely outcome if we have more bailouts or even the threat of the more in the future.

Furunculus

12-06-2010, 17:37

gaelic cowboy

12-06-2010, 19:33

the difference between ireland and greece in its response to the euro crisis:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8184495/Youths-hurl-rocks-and-petrol-bombs-at-police-in-Athens-Greece.html?image=1

For me the difference is the fact in Ireland people still feel they have a stake in things however small or fictional it may be in reality, plus the election in the new year has taken a bit of heat out of the anger too. There is a sense here that we can take hardship and we can fix things but don't take it for granted and because there has to be a pain then we all of us have to share in it.

Plus how do you riot against a bondholder anyway.

A few Sinn Fein an extreme left types have threw a few shapes lately but Irish people are not a natural constituency of either Leftism or Anarchy.(were basically rural conservatives who live in towns)

Brenus

12-07-2010, 08:22

“We have not escaped the tut tut of the Anglophone press you just missed it thats all, sometimes the UK telly has been very hard to watch indeed.”
Yeah, but all talk show in Radio Station like LBC were why do we have to help the lazy corrupted (Mediterranean) Greeks who got more sun than here and enjoy life then it was why we have to help our hardworking Irish neighbours…
And the government (the same that didn’t want to give one kopek to the Greek and death to the Euro Zone) explaining if we don’t we will face a wave of immigration for this island…

rory_20_uk

12-07-2010, 10:26

We also do a massive amount of trade with Ireland, and so don't want to loose the market. Greece is far more peripheral.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

12-07-2010, 11:14

they are family, and their prosperity has a direct impact on ours.

greece.......... its a sunny place where people under 30 go to pick up std's from other young people.

Louis VI the Fat

12-07-2010, 12:16

Greece and Ireland are very different situations. And for the UK, Ireland will quite naturally be treated differently to perhaps all other European countries. Still I question why the unemployed Greek shouting at a bank should have been portrayed as a lazy, frustrated socialist who ought to get a job, whereas the unemployed Irishman, angry and frustrated at his banks, should be portrayed as a victim of circumstance, the subject of sympathy.

I have a lot of sympathy for both. I do wish the Irish would be a bit more fiery in their protests. Banks are said to be too big too fall. 'We can not risk a banking collapse, so instead let's, erm, let's have a social collapse'.
Apparantly social collapse is not a problem. The Irish are so small that their fall is not a problem. So make it a problem. When Dublin is burned and the palaces destroyed, then the next time, it will be said that 'we can not risk social collapse, so instead of only the ordinary citizens, let X and Y carry some of the burden too'.

Banquo's Ghost

12-07-2010, 12:50

I have a lot of sympathy for both. I do wish the Irish would be a bit more fiery in their protests. Banks are said to be too big too fall. 'We can not risk a banking collapse, so instead let's, erm, let's have a social collapse'.
Apparantly social collapse is not a problem. The Irish are so small that their fall is not a problem. So make it a problem. When Dublin is burned and the palaces destroyed, then the next time, it will be said that 'we can not risk social collapse, so instead of only the ordinary citizens, let X and Y carry some of the burden too'.

I fear you may get your wish, though not quite in the manner anticipated.

There is some intelligence circulating that the dissident republican groups are planning an attack on the British mainland. These groups are very tiny, with almost no support and even less access to weaponry of note - but they have a tendency to attract young men of poor intelligence and poorer prospects. It is highly likely that the economic disaster in the Republic will boost the recruitment to these groups.

Louis VI the Fat

12-07-2010, 13:05

Meanwhile, Cowen has announced a cut in his salary, that of Taoiseach. Well, a cut in his cuccessor's salary to be precise. As a sign of solidarity with the hard hit electorate. A cut of €14.000 a year. This will diminish the position of Irish leader from that of highest paid political position in the west, to that of highest paid political position in the west, minus €14.000.

Some Irish v UK Salaries

UK: Prime minister David Cameron - £142,500.
Ireland: Taoiseach Brian Cowen - €228,446 (£193,250.01)
Who's on top? Ireland

UK: NHS chief executive David Nicolson - £255,000
Ireland: HSE chief executive Cathal Magee – salary of €322,000 (£272,390.43)
Who's on top? Ireland

Department of finance
UK: Treasury permanent secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson £175,000
Ireland: Department of finance's secretary general, Kevin Cardiff €228,446 (£193,250.01)
Who's on top? Ireland

An Post
UK: Royal Mail managing director Mark Middleton £154,999
Ireland: An Post chief executive Donal Connell €500,000 (£423,097.31)
Who's on top? Ireland

gaelic cowboy

12-07-2010, 22:06

gaelic cowboy

12-07-2010, 22:17

I fear you may get your wish, though not quite in the manner anticipated.

There is some intelligence circulating that the dissident republican groups are planning an attack on the British mainland. These groups are very tiny, with almost no support and even less access to weaponry of note - but they have a tendency to attract young men of poor intelligence and poorer prospects. It is highly likely that the economic disaster in the Republic will boost the recruitment to these groups.

One car bomb in the City of London financial district could really :daisy: things up. Irish banks in the UK following another blast in London could topple Ireland back into the stone age. If things get worse and trust me they can get worse the UK will be seriously as affected every man women and child in Ireland buys about 3 grands worth of UK stuff basically were more important to the UK that the BRIC.

gaelic cowboy

12-07-2010, 22:28

gaelic cowboy

12-07-2010, 22:41

Yeah, but all talk show in Radio Station like LBC were why do we have to help the lazy corrupted (Mediterranean) Greeks who got more sun than here and enjoy life then it was why we have to help our hardworking Irish neighbours…
And the government (the same that didn’t want to give one kopek to the Greek and death to the Euro Zone) explaining if we don’t we will face a wave of immigration for this island…

Think London is prob thinking in national security terms if the South was economically dynamited then the North would effectively be nuked and we would end up with 30yrs of violence again and thousands more dead.

Irish migration to the UK basically has on the whole been positive (at least from southern Ireland)and I don't really expect that to stop anytime soon.

Furunculus

12-11-2010, 13:57

an excellent article on the euro-area default that will arrive imminently:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/eichengreen25/English

gaelic cowboy

12-11-2010, 20:05

an excellent article on the euro-area default that will arrive imminently:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/eichengreen25/English

The more they try to assure the market that they will defend the Euro (and bondholders) the more likely it is they will end up breaking it.

Louis VI the Fat

01-01-2011, 18:23

Estonia has become the 17th member of the eurozone - the first ex-Soviet state to adopt the EU single currency.

The changeover from the kroon to the euro started at midnight (2200 GMT) in the small Baltic nation of 1.3m people. Despite market pressure on the eurozone and the Greek and Irish bail-outs this year, polls suggested most Estonians wanted the euro.
Prime Minister Andrus Ansip marked the event by withdrawing euros from a cashpoint.
"It is a small step for the eurozone and a big step for Estonia," he said, holding the euro notes.
For many Estonians, 20 years after breaking away from the Soviet Union, the euro is proof that they have fully arrived in the West, the BBC's Baltic region correspondent, Damien McGuinness, reports.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12098513
Yay! Welcome to the club! http://www.interinvest.lv/design/eu_flag.gif

...now underdeveloped Estonia can join in paying compensation to filthy rich Irish and corrupt Greeks...

Furunculus

01-02-2011, 12:38

it will be interesting to see how much strong-arming it takes to stop poland from displaying any public worry about its own imminent membership of the eurozone.....

gaelic cowboy

01-10-2011, 13:23

Interesting piece on Estonia by Krugman

What If They Had A Depression And Nobody Noticed? (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/what-if-they-had-a-depression-and-nobody-noticed/)

rory_20_uk

01-10-2011, 13:35

The more they try to assure the market that they will defend the Euro (and bondholders) the more likely it is they will end up breaking it.

It seems like the UK Automotive Industry in the 1970's but on a massive scale - if something is known to be government backed then others will take bigger and bigger liberties as there will always be more money.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

01-11-2011, 18:13

Ronin

01-12-2011, 14:09

portugal heads down the toilet:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100009218/the-dam-breaks-in-portugal/

hooray for unworkable political constructs masquerading as viable economic unions!

Portugal placed all of it's debt auction in the market today and the rate actually went down from the last time.

It has become clear to me that there is a lot of people writing for reputable newspapers that are frankly only doing guess work...with the problem being that what these morons say actually has affect on the markets.

there is a lot of people making a lot of money out of making other people scared....

and if the euro is the problem why is the UK's budget situation a mess also?

Furunculus

01-12-2011, 14:32

It has become clear to me that there is a lot of people writing for reputable newspapers that are frankly only doing guess work...with the problem being that what these morons say actually has affect on the markets.

and if the euro is the problem why is the UK's budget situation a mess also?

hmmm, not including various german and french officials who are trying to push portugal into accepting a bailout...........?

because the previous gov't spent ten years heamoragging taxpayers money out of its ideologically ruptured fiscal rectum.

rory_20_uk

01-12-2011, 15:14

Probably a bit of both. (http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/01/11/453936/economic-forecasting-delusions/)

~:smoking:

Beskar

01-12-2011, 16:15

Problem is not the Euro, it is the USA in causing this crisis in the first place.

Vladimir

01-12-2011, 16:31

Problem is not the Euro, it is the USA in causing this crisis in the first place.

Just admit it: We control the world. Everything good or bad that happens to Europe is because of us. We are your masters. :evil:

rory_20_uk

01-12-2011, 16:31

Then why is it the Euro in trouble, and not a host of other countries?

The events have stressed the system and the weak ones are failing. The good times merely hid the problems.

~:smoking:

Beskar

01-12-2011, 16:36

Then why is it the Euro in trouble, and not a host of other countries?

The events have stressed the system and the weak ones are failing. The good times merely hid the problems.

~:smoking:

It is other countries in Trouble, America, US and other countries.

Even China took a hit to their profit margins due to the decrease in demand.

Main problem was a couple of European countries which abused their budgets. There are other nations such as Germany who are having no where near the issues of the UK, so it isn't a 'Euro' problem.

Furunculus

01-12-2011, 16:36

Problem is not the Euro, it is the USA in causing this crisis in the first place.
are you saying that if it wasn't for the fact that complex systems (such as the global economy) tend to throw out black-swan events (such as the great depression) it would be fine to deliberately implement fundamentally flawed economic regimes (such as the eurozone)?

there is no other way to say this: monetary union without a political union to legitimise the necessary fiscal union does not work, because you need to transfer wealth from rich areas to poor areas to prevent market fracturing, and that tends to lead to seccession or civil-war unless the parties involved have given their prior consent.

there. is. lots. wrong. with. the. eurozone.

right. now.

Main problem was a couple of European countries which abused their budgets. There are other nations such as Germany who are having no where near the issues of the UK, so it isn't a 'Euro' problem.

and unless a black swan event comes around we could continue to pretend that it didn't matter that the eurozone economies were diverging further and further away from being an optimal currency unit, but sadly real life happens, and will happen again and again and again.

Beskar

01-12-2011, 16:41

Furunculus

01-12-2011, 17:09

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept of a single currency.

As for the "need to transfer wealth from rich areas to poor", isn't that happening anyway? As our western money flows in the piggy bank of nations such as India, Brazil and China, the market does this in itself.
no indeed not, provided there is a fiscal union to go along with currency union.
http://www.euro-know.org/europages/articles/rmu.html

it is one thing is lack of competitiveness pushes foriegn direct investment away from your nation, it is quite another if your elected representative decides to subsidise the easy living within another country!
http://israelfinancialexpert.blogspot.com/2010/05/political-backlash-from-greek-bailout.html

gaelic cowboy

01-12-2011, 21:32

It is quite clear to me now that most people here are missing the point of this thread completely.

A Eurozone debt default does not destroy the Euro, nor does debt restructuring end in countries having to leave the Euro.

Trying to maintain the value of the bad euro loans will break the euro if we try to pretend they wont be restructured later.

Sounds funny cos its the same result but you have strangled domestic demand and encouraged capital flight to non euro countries which is a killer for a currency.

Furunculus

01-18-2011, 14:53

are you saying that if it wasn't for the fact that complex systems (such as the global economy) tend to throw out black-swan events (such as the great depression) it would be fine to deliberately implement fundamentally flawed economic regimes (such as the eurozone)?

there is no other way to say this: monetary union without a political union to legitimise the necessary fiscal union does not work, because you need to transfer wealth from rich areas to poor areas to prevent market fracturing, and that tends to lead to seccession or civil-war unless the parties involved have given their prior consent.

there. is. lots. wrong. with. the. eurozone.

right. now.

and unless a black swan event comes around we could continue to pretend that it didn't matter that the eurozone economies were diverging further and further away from being an optimal currency unit, but sadly real life happens, and will happen again and again and again.

haha, it seems i have pre-dated an economist article saying mcuh the same thing:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/01/labours_blame_game

Ed Miliband says sorry for everything apart from spending too much

................ After the longest economic expansion in British history, the government should not have still been borrowing to spend. Instead of going into the recession with a warchest, it went in with a deficit. Recognise this error, say sorry, take the hit, and move on, would seem to be the intellectually honest and politically canny thing to do.

Instead, Ed Miliband has manouvered his party into a bizarre and extremely unpromising position. In recent op-eds, yesterday's speech to the Fabian Society conference, and today's appearance on the BBC, he has rejected the notion that Labour overspent. The 2.4% deficit the government was running would have been fine, he says, were it not for the banking crisis, which caused tax revenues to evaporate while requiring massive amounts to be spent on bailouts and fiscal stimuli.

In other words, if only economic growth were endless, if only recessions did not happen, if only this pesky "economic cycle" thing would go away, governments could spend freely and perpetually. As many commentators have noted, this is grimly redolent of Gordon Brown's insistence that "boom and bust" is something that can be transcended, rather than a cold reality that governments must make preparations and provisions for...........

Furunculus

01-31-2011, 12:04

interesting article on how the ECB is exacerbating the problem of a sub-optimal currency zone:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/monetary_policy_1

Furunculus

02-14-2011, 18:43

Louis VI the Fat

02-14-2011, 18:57

oops, it would appear that not everyone is delighted with the Sarkozy/Merkel template Pour Das European Economy:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,745383,00.html

hilarious that people might have believed otherwise..........Meh. Merkel and Sarkozy needs to grow some and send the German tanks across the European plains, backed by French nukes and aircraft carriers.

Europe needs Teutonic discipline, not Greek thievery, Italian bookkeeping, Irish 'look mama no taxes' capitalism, East European mobsters/ultra-conservatists.

I don't care how much the little piggies mewl, the days of their socialist paradises and 'private profits, socialised risks'-capitalism must be over. Merkel must do to Europe what Thatcher did to Britain and impose some old-fashioned discipline.

Tellos Athenaios

02-14-2011, 19:24

Hmm, what is “Teutonic discipline” worth in the boom years? Nothing more than the “Gaulish” version, which as you might remember means breaching such pacts. :juggle:

gaelic cowboy

02-14-2011, 19:42

I don't care how much the little piggies mewl, the days of their socialist paradises and 'private profits, socialised risks'-capitalism must be over. Merkel must do to Europe what Thatcher did to Britain and impose some old-fashioned discipline.

The socialised risk is there because of the EU, there up to there necks in Eurozone IOU papers.

No bailout no socialised risk scalp the bonds now

Furunculus

02-14-2011, 23:29

Europe needs Teutonic discipline, not Greek thievery, Italian bookkeeping, Irish 'look mama no taxes' capitalism, East European mobsters/ultra-conservatists.

so the 'cause' of europe needs everybodys ideas on representative and democratic governance........................ as long as they are franco-german ideas?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2011, 00:41

Meh. Merkel and Sarkozy needs to grow some and send the German tanks across the European plains, backed by French nukes and aircraft carriers.

Europe needs Teutonic discipline, not Greek thievery, Italian bookkeeping, Irish 'look mama no taxes' capitalism, East European mobsters/ultra-conservatists.

I don't care how much the little piggies mewl, the days of their socialist paradises and 'private profits, socialised risks'-capitalism must be over. Merkel must do to Europe what Thatcher did to Britain and impose some old-fashioned discipline.

So that would actually British dicipline, then? Why not couple that to British notions of honestly, fair play and public service? No?

Nothing we do here is ever popular on the mainland, unless they can claim they did it independantly, and it is somehow innate to a European people on a genetic level.

And yet we continue to be insulted by being labled "Europeans".

Louis VI the Fat

02-15-2011, 13:02

If I were EU president, then tomorrow morning at 09:00 I'd send dispatches to all European capitals stating that there must be fiscal restraint, debt curtailing, adjusted retirement ages, harmonised tax rates. I'd simultaneously order the bombers to take off. Then everybody has got until 9:05 to send a return dispatch of compliance.

Bow Europe must and bow Europe will before stern German financial discipline. Like Thatcher restored fiscal sense on Britain, so too the Franco-German alliance shall impose the same on the eurozone. :stare:

Like the miners unions in Thatcher's Britain, the Eurozone periphery has found means to live off the subsidies of the centre. They all want the hard German currency. But when one reminds them just why Germany's currency is so hard, they squeek louder than my two pot bellied piglets.

So that would actually British dicipline, then? Why not couple that to British notions of honestly, fair play and public service? No?

Nothing we do here is ever popular on the mainland, unless they can claim they did it independantly, and it is somehow innate to a European people on a genetic level. Britain is not part of the eurozone, so hence escapes the need for discipline yes.

However, Britain's financial discipline record is comparable to that of Ireland or Spain. One of the highest budget deficits. Also, Britain is the world champion sheltering dubious firms and in providing shady, semi or pseudo legal financial services. The City in London is the pirate's lair and playhouse in one for the world's billionaire crooks and mobsters. A Somalia and Dubai combined.

And yet we continue to be insulted by being labled "Europeans"No, that is you insulting Europeans. Of which you are one yourself. :tongue:

You are European as much as a rabbit is a mammal. You can not escape simple definition.

Furunculus

02-15-2011, 13:08

Like the miners unions in Thatcher's Britain, the Eurozone periphery has found means to live off the subsidies of the centre. They all want the hard German currency. But when one reminds them just why Germany's currency is so hard, they squeek louder than my two pot bellied piglets.

Also, Britain is the world champion sheltering dubious firms and in providing shady, semi or pseudo legal financial services. The City in London is the pirate's lair and playhouse in one for the world's billionaire crooks and mobsters. A Somalia and Dubai combined.

sure, just so long as we accept that the 'answer' is an unrepresentative and authoriatian quangocracy............?

it's the way we roll, don't like it, kick us out.

---------------------------------------------

hehe, sounds just like you louis!

http://www.economist.com/node/18114465

Already, some euro members hint that Britain, Poland and Sweden had an unfair advantage in 2009-10 because they could regain competitiveness by allowing their currencies to fall. It is easy to imagine such complaints leading to changes in the rules over state aid or to attacks on the four freedoms of movement—of goods, services, capital and labour—that underpin the single market.

Louis VI the Fat

02-15-2011, 17:52

hehe, sounds just like you louis!

http://www.economist.com/node/18114465Yes, it does sound like me. European countries ought not to compete with one another with monetary policies.

When I say that, I am a EUSSR commie. When I say that China ought not to artificially keep its currency low, that is, compete with monetary policies, I am applauded as a free market champion.

:shrug:

Furunculus

02-15-2011, 18:04

When I say that, I am a EUSSR commie. When I say that China ought not to artificially keep its currency low, that is, compete with monetary policies, I am applauded as a free market champion.

sure, but the difference is between the fact that one is arguing inside its own polity and its own currency, whereas the other is argueing to entirely different polity with its own priorities, which it should pay for via a floating currency - want to run a trade surplus then watch your currency appreciate.

the problem is, that no-one has asked the peoples of europe whether they are ready to become a single polity, with a single economic regime designed to pay for a unified welfare provision...............

Louis VI the Fat

02-15-2011, 18:13

the problem is, that no-one has asked the peoples of europe whether they are ready to become a single polity, with a single economic regime designed to pay for a unified welfare provision...............Nobody was asked whether railroads and plumbing ought to have been build. Nobody was ever asked whether their countries should've joined NATO, the UN or the WTO. The peoples of Europe do not get directly asked a great many things.

They were all, however, without exception, democracies when they joined. Representative democracies are commonly accepted to represent the will of the people. All member states are representative democracies who joined of their own free will, and who remain a member as a free, democratic and independent state.

:shrug:

Furunculus

02-15-2011, 19:40

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2011, 20:33

If I were EU president, then tomorrow morning at 09:00 I'd send dispatches to all European capitals stating that there must be fiscal restraint, debt curtailing, adjusted retirement ages, harmonised tax rates. I'd simultaneously order the bombers to take off. Then everybody has got until 9:05 to send a return dispatch of compliance.

Bow Europe must and bow Europe will before stern German financial discipline. Like Thatcher restored fiscal sense on Britain, so too the Franco-German alliance shall impose the same on the eurozone. :stare:

Whose bombers would that be? French ones, or German ones carrying American nukes? Under what authority will you begin military action? If Europe is one polity that would be akin to Saddam gassing the Kurds, wouldn't it?

Like the miners unions in Thatcher's Britain, the Eurozone periphery has found means to live off the subsidies of the centre. They all want the hard German currency. But when one reminds them just why Germany's currency is so hard, they squeek louder than my two pot bellied piglets.

Despite the fact that Germany and France led the way in treaty-violating deficits?

Britain is not part of the eurozone, so hence escapes the need for discipline yes.

However, Britain's financial discipline record is comparable to that of Ireland or Spain. One of the highest budget deficits. Also, Britain is the world champion sheltering dubious firms and in providing shady, semi or pseudo legal financial services. The City in London is the pirate's lair and playhouse in one for the world's billionaire crooks and mobsters. A Somalia and Dubai combined.

....and now the most rigorous dicipline that the Union hacks are out on their arses and some of them have been convicted of Fraud.

No, that is you insulting Europeans. Of which you are one yourself. :tongue:

You are European as much as a rabbit is a mammal. You can not escape simple definition.

Europeans live on the European mainland, calling Britain part of Europe is like calling Wales part of England, and will result in a similarly violent reaction. Still, the French in particular have a centuries-old habit of rubbishing British culture and being litterally lynched as a result. So feel free to continue.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-15-2011, 20:42

Nobody was asked whether railroads and plumbing ought to have been build. Nobody was ever asked whether their countries should've joined NATO, the UN or the WTO. The peoples of Europe do not get directly asked a great many things.

They were all, however, without exception, democracies when they joined. Representative democracies are commonly accepted to represent the will of the people. All member states are representative democracies who joined of their own free will, and who remain a member as a free, democratic and independent state.

:shrug:

When they joined the people were not told their government would begin handing over soverign powers.

Witness the ECHR trying to tell Britain how to order its democracy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428488

They have been roundly told to sod off.

At this rate it may well be the ECHR which forces Britain to withdraw from European co-operation in general.

Louis VI the Fat

02-16-2011, 00:17

Europeans live on the European mainland, calling Britain part of Europe is like calling Wales part of England, and will result in a similarly violent reaction. Still, the French in particular have a centuries-old habit of rubbishing British culture and being litterally lynched as a result. So feel free to continue.Well obviously the correct analogy here would be to state that a person from Belfast is British, despite there being a bit of water in between the isles of Britain and Ireland.

Some Europeans live on the continent. Some on peninsulas. And some Europeans live on one of several thousands of European islands, from Cyprus in the southeast Mediterranean to Iceland in the northern Atlantic.

Just because a Dane or a Sicilian lives on an island does not mean he is not European. No more than Northern Ireland should somehow not be British. :shrug:

When they joined the people were not told their government would begin handing over soverign powers.

Witness the ECHR trying to tell Britain how to order its democracy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428488

They have been roundly told to sod off.

At this rate it may well be the ECHR which forces Britain to withdraw from European co-operation in general.Well be my guest and keep telling the ECHR to sod off, because it is not part of the EU. No more than the World Wildlife Foundation is. :shrug:

The European Court for Human Rights was established in the wake of WWII, to protect the basic human rights of all Europeans. The main instigator was none other than Winston Churchill. Hence Britain was a founding member, and as a signatory, British subjects have been granted the right of appeal at this court in case of breach of their rights by their government. Until, that is, now. Now, nationalist hysteria means Britons are screaming at the thought of the rights of their government being limited by treaty. Apparantly, to the jingoists the word of the British government should not be worth the paper it is written on.

It will be a sad precedent if Britain, sixty years after Churchill, on the wave of nationalist hysteria over 'infringements of sovereignity' will suddenly declare its government above human rights and above treaties it has signed. The autocracies of Europe, existing and sleeping, will be cheering on this bitter step. To think it is only twenty five years ago under Thatcher when Britain used the ECHR to castigate Eastern Euope, to demand their governments guarantee the human rights of their citizens like they had promised.

Nowadays, the British explode in a rage at the mere thought of an international court protecting the rights of individual Britons against the British government. Sad. Basically, British MP's have requested their government must suspend the rights that were granted by the British government to individual Britons.

What happened to the British instinct to curb the powers of their government?

Both Churchill and Thatcher knew better. One founded, and one staunchly supported, the ECHR. Sad to see their proud legacy flushed down the toilet. :shame:

Furunculus

02-16-2011, 00:52

Some Europeans live on the continent. Some on peninsulas. And some Europeans live on one of several thousands of European islands, from Cyprus in the southeast Mediterranean to Iceland in the northern Atlantic.

Well be my guest and keep telling the ECHR to sod off, because it is not part of the EU. No more than the World Wildlife Foundation is.

It will be a sad precedent if Britain, sixty years after Churchill, on the wave of nationalist hysteria over 'infringements of sovereignity' will suddenly declare its government above human rights and above treaties it has signed.
fine if you want to define european in a geographical sense, less fine if in a political sense.

but of course the EU is applying to join the ECHR as a political entity in and of itself..........

no, britain would be saying that justice is a matter for the british people to determine, that is good or bad depending on the quality of british justice. put it this way; it isn't giving me a nightmares.

Greyblades

02-16-2011, 00:53

Louis VI the Fat

02-16-2011, 03:38

Methinks most brits see it more of a foriegn organisation trying to tell us what to do, which in and of itself is probably the only thing we hate more than our own government trying to tell us what to do.As for me, the one thing I hate more than an international court protecting my rights against my government, it is no protection against my government.

Here's an idea: let the UK government uphold the rights of Britons, then it does not face international meddling. :idea:

If the government infringes upon your rights, you have one instance of appeal. At the ECHR. Me I'd let my government strip me of this right over my dead body. Just why others would not only not do that, but actively urge their government to strip them of their right of appeal is beyond me. Churchill must turning in his grave, what with the current UK parliament voting to strip Britons of the right of appeal he ensured for them. To think Churchill and his generation fought so hard for it. :embarassed:

Greyblades

02-16-2011, 04:37

You seem to be under the impression that I agree with the sentiment.

It's less that they dont want a power protecting thier rights, they dont want that power to be European or any power for that matter that isn't british based. And yes as you said churchill helped found ECHR but do you realy expect most people to know that?

There is an undercurrent of resentment in the UK over the European union being able to interfere(and does to an extent; the EU courts outrank the House of lords in the court heirarchy) with internal matters and for most one look at the E in ECHR and they dont wan't it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-16-2011, 11:42

Well obviously the correct analogy here would be to state that a person from Belfast is British, despite there being a bit of water in between the isles of Britain and Ireland.

Some Europeans live on the continent. Some on peninsulas. And some Europeans live on one of several thousands of European islands, from Cyprus in the southeast Mediterranean to Iceland in the northern Atlantic.

Just because a Dane or a Sicilian lives on an island does not mean he is not European. No more than Northern Ireland should somehow not be British. :shrug:

Well be my guest and keep telling the ECHR to sod off, because it is not part of the EU. No more than the World Wildlife Foundation is. :shrug:

The European Court for Human Rights was established in the wake of WWII, to protect the basic human rights of all Europeans. The main instigator was none other than Winston Churchill. Hence Britain was a founding member, and as a signatory, British subjects have been granted the right of appeal at this court in case of breach of their rights by their government. Until, that is, now. Now, nationalist hysteria means Britons are screaming at the thought of the rights of their government being limited by treaty. Apparantly, to the jingoists the word of the British government should not be worth the paper it is written on.

It will be a sad precedent if Britain, sixty years after Churchill, on the wave of nationalist hysteria over 'infringements of sovereignity' will suddenly declare its government above human rights and above treaties it has signed. The autocracies of Europe, existing and sleeping, will be cheering on this bitter step. To think it is only twenty five years ago under Thatcher when Britain used the ECHR to castigate Eastern Euope, to demand their governments guarantee the human rights of their citizens like they had promised.

Nowadays, the British explode in a rage at the mere thought of an international court protecting the rights of individual Britons against the British government. Sad. Basically, British MP's have requested their government must suspend the rights that were granted by the British government to individual Britons.

What happened to the British instinct to curb the powers of their government?

Both Churchill and Thatcher knew better. One founded, and one staunchly supported, the ECHR. Sad to see their proud legacy flushed down the toilet. :shame:

Winston Churchill was great warrior and a considerable statesman, he is not a secular messiah. His decisions are not sacrosanct.

In any case, what happens when the ECHR becomes unjust itself?

I believe it no longer protects the rights of British citizens, it pushes a political agenda now - to try to change British culture and British democracy. We have a principle in Britain, that those who break the laws enacted by our democratically elected parliament may not determine the makeup of said parliament.

This decision would allow those MP's currently serving time for Fraud to vote again.

Would you prefer we return to rotten buroughs and MP's retaining their seats whilst in gaol?

Oh, and the fact that you didn't understand my point about England and Wales shows you don't understand the British peoples.

Furunculus

02-16-2011, 13:03

As for me, the one thing I hate more than an international court protecting my rights against my government, it is no protection against my government.

Here's an idea: let the UK government uphold the rights of Britons, then it does not face international meddling. :idea:

If the government infringes upon your rights, you have one instance of appeal. At the ECHR. Me I'd let my government strip me of this right over my dead body. Just why others would not only not do that, but actively urge their government to strip them of their right of appeal is beyond me. Churchill must turning in his grave, what with the current UK parliament voting to strip Britons of the right of appeal he ensured for them. To think Churchill and his generation fought so hard for it. :embarassed:

Or, alternatively, we can sort it out ourselves through the complex and sophisticated political institutions that we have evolved over nearly 1500 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot
Witenagemot > Curia Regis > Parliament of England > Parliament of GB > Parliament of the UK of GB and Ireland
c. 627-1066 > 1066-c. 1215 > c. 1215-1707 > 1707-1800 > 1801-1927

using a system of common law that has evolved to meet the expectations of the people over nearly 1000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#History
"The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,[28] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. "

InsaneApache

02-16-2011, 14:01

However, Britain's financial discipline record is comparable to that of Ireland or Spain. One of the highest budget deficits.

:stop: Hang on a minute. When I and others here on these boards pointed out that McRuin had mortgaged our grandkids future and borrowed and spent beyond reason, you were the one that said it wasn't so.

You can't have it both ways. :kiss2:

Louis VI the Fat

02-16-2011, 14:48

:stop: Hang on a minute. When I and others here on these boards pointed out that McRuin had mortgaged our grandkids future and borrowed and spent beyond reason, you were the one that said it wasn't so.

You can't have it both ways. :kiss2:Get out of this thread I nearly managed to get away with it. :laugh4:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-16-2011, 19:14

Or, alternatively, we can sort it out ourselves through the complex and sophisticated political institutions that we have evolved over nearly 1500 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot
Witenagemot > Curia Regis > Parliament of England > Parliament of GB > Parliament of the UK of GB and Ireland
c. 627-1066 > 1066-c. 1215 > c. 1215-1707 > 1707-1800 > 1801-1927

using a system of common law that has evolved to meet the expectations of the people over nearly 1000 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#History
"The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,[28] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. "

I'm not sure that I would link the Witan with the current political settlement, but even if you date our parliamentary process back to the assension of William and Mary and the establishment of Parliament as "Soverign" you are looking at a pedigree of 300 years when none of the other regional powers in Europe can even count the age of their democracies in triple figures.

Louis VI the Fat

02-16-2011, 19:31

I'm not sure that I would link the Witan with the current political settlement, but even if you date our parliamentary process back to the assension of William and Mary and the establishment of Parliament as "Soverign" you are looking at a pedigree of 300 years when none of the other regional powers in Europe can even count the age of their democracies in triple figures.What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.

gaelic cowboy

02-16-2011, 19:48

Greyblades

02-16-2011, 20:14

Aye we have our royals but they haven't been able to do a thing on thier own since the 1600's, the power's all in the house of commons which is close enough.

Furunculus

02-16-2011, 20:35

What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.
none of which does to answer why we should not repose trust in our democratically accountable and representatively legitimate political institutions to answer these conundrums of governance for us.....?

Aye we have our royals but they haven't been able to do a thing on thier own since the 1600's, the power's all in the house of commons which is close enough.

i think he knows this very well, and is engaging in what is colloquially known as a cheeky jibe.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-17-2011, 01:02

What you do above, is to define 'democracy' in tems of the exact British parliamentary representative democracy, and then proudly thumb your chest that you are by far the world's oldest democracy. Which is a bit pointless. If one accepts the Swiss definition - oldest representative democracy of an independent state - they win, it is 750 years old. By the Icelandic definition - oldest parliament still in function,- Iceland wins, it is 1000 years old. Etc.

Actually, I believe the Isle of Man has the title of "oldest Democracy" at over one thousand years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynwald

In any case, I said "regional powers in Europe" which does not actually include Iceland or Switzerland, or Mann.

Based on these crude notions, they all claim to be 'unique'. To be separate from 'Europe'. What's more, their nationalisms are all too autistic to understand that the rest of Europe also thinks, just like they do, that they are the ones who are unique. They all claim the same.

It is true they are unique. That much is true. Britain is special. Completely unique, with a long and fantastic tradition all of its own,. The thing is, the exact same holds true for all those other traditions elsewhere. There is nothing unique about Britain being unique in Europe. In fact, it is the very norm.[/QUOTE]

Oh well done, the British people are collectively learning impaired.

Loius, "European" is an identity, it is for the in-group to restrict access to others it considers "in" and reject the out-group but you cannot demand that another group be included in your collective identity against their will. If the British people collectively do not believe themselves to be European then they are not, and you cannot force it upon them - that would be a form of cultural genicide.

Furunculus

02-17-2011, 09:44

Loius, "European" is an identity, it is for the in-group to restrict access to others it considers "in" and reject the out-group but you cannot demand that another group be included in your collective identity against their will. If the British people collectively do not believe themselves to be European then they are not, and you cannot force it upon them - that would be a form of cultural genicide.

quite, but he rather ignored that point when i made it, so i don't expect anything other than silence this time either.

"fine if you want to define european in a geographical sense, less fine if in a political sense."

Louis VI the Fat

02-18-2011, 02:13

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2011, 03:43

Louis VI the Fat

02-18-2011, 04:19

So you just impose your cultural norms on us?

Isn't that genocide?Mate I want some of what you are smoking.

Stating that Britain is a European country amounts to genocide now? I'm sorry, but this is bizarre.

Greyblades

02-18-2011, 10:28

So you just impose your cultural norms on us?

Isn't that genocide?

I realy hate it when people say this and I wouldn't normally say this but this justifiies it: No just... no. Mass murder is not cultural repression.

Idaho

02-18-2011, 12:22

Mate I want some of what you are smoking.

Stating that Britain is a European country amounts to genocide now? I'm sorry, but this is bizarre.

Welcome to the sad and confused mental world of the English Tory :laugh4:

Furunculus

02-18-2011, 14:05

Ignore it? :huh:

Everything I have written I've done so under the assumption that we are all talking about Europe in a cultural-political sense. :shrug:

Europe as a geographical concept is meaningless to me, and I fully discard it.

in that case you are wrong, as made clear by PVC:

Loius, "European" is an identity, it is for the in-group to restrict access to others it considers "in" and reject the out-group but you cannot demand that another group be included in your collective identity against their will. If the British people collectively do not believe themselves to be European then they are not, and you cannot force it upon them - that would be a form of cultural genicide.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2011, 14:25

Ignore it? :huh:

Everything I have written I've done so under the assumption that we are all talking about Europe in a cultural-political sense. :shrug:

Europe as a geographical concept is meaningless to me, and I fully discard it.

The difference is between the promolugation of a "European identity" and acceptence that the various peoples of Europe share a history, they are not the same thing.

I realy hate it when people say this and I wouldn't normally say this but this justifiies it: No just... no. Mass murder is not cultural repression.

"Genocide" is not mass murder, it is the destruction of a culture, genocide against the Native American involved destroying the way of life, not the people.

Furunculus

02-18-2011, 14:31

The difference is between the promolugation of a "European identity" and acceptence that the various peoples of Europe share a history, they are not the same thing.

correct, that latter falls quite ordinarily within the realm of geographical european'ess.

a european socio/cultural identity is something you as an individual accept and adopt, and is something that can be said to exist at a national level if a significant proportion of the populace likewise accepts and adopts.

the Belgians are european in the manner Louis describes, the British are not.

i would like to see Idaho explain how this view is the confused mental world of an English* Tory........................?

* read: British

Greyblades

02-18-2011, 14:52

"Genocide" is not mass murder, it is the destruction of a culture, genocide against the Native American involved destroying the way of life, not the people.
Hah! If only it was that clean.

gen·o·cide
[jen-uh-sahyd]

–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1940–45; < Greek géno ( s ) race + -cide

—Related forms
gen·o·cid·al, adjective
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2011, 17:20

Hah! If only it was that clean.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide)

It wasn't clean but "genocide" against Native Americans, the Welsh, the Irish, the Bretons, and even the deaf (yeas, the deaf) primarily took the form of re-education in order to destroy the identity root and branch, not the physical extermination of the people.

Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

A deliberate attempt by a collective of mainland European nations to impose a particular idenity upon the British peoples to which their own idenity is then subordinated can be considered an act of cultural genocide. Such an act is, at the very least, sinister, politically motivated and a form of "assult" in the same way as any unwanted intrusion is.

Louis VI the Fat

02-18-2011, 18:01

I must admit I had to get used to the idea a bit. Not anymore. Now I think it's cool to be genocidal. Move over Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin. I have surpassed you.

Henceforward I demand to be referred to as 'Louis VI the Terrible, Slayer of Englishmen, Assassin of Albion, Bane of Britain' :jumping:

Let there not be a child in Britain left which does not cower with fear at the mention of my name! :knight:

Louis VI the Fat

02-18-2011, 18:04

Welcome to the sad and confused mental world of the English Tory :laugh4:An endless source of wonder.

If there is one upshot about the current wave of nationalist hysteria sweeping over Europe, it is that the quality of the internets goes up. No need to go through all the hassle of finding nationallistically inclined Poles or Balkanians. Western Europe will suffice. :beam:

Furunculus

02-18-2011, 18:18

An endless source of wonder.

If there is one upshot about the current wave of nationalist hysteria sweeping over Europe, it is that the quality of the internets goes up. No need to go through all the hassle of finding nationallistically inclined Poles or Balkanians. Western Europe will suffice. :beam:

as i said to PVC:

The difference is between the promolugation of a "European identity" and acceptence that the various peoples of Europe share a history, they are not the same thing.

correct, that latter falls quite ordinarily within the realm of geographical european'ess.

a european socio/cultural identity is something you as an individual accept and adopt, and is something that can be said to exist at a national level if a significant proportion of the populace likewise accepts and adopts.

the Belgians are european in the manner Louis describes, the British are not.

i would like to see Idaho explain how this view is the confused mental world of an English* Tory........................?

* read: British

you're the second person to express that sentiment, and seeing as Idaho hasn't replied yet perhaps you would do us the honour of explaining the nature of the confusion of the British Tory...........?

Greyblades

02-18-2011, 18:52

It wasn't clean but "genocide" against Native Americans, the Welsh, the Irish, the Bretons, and even the deaf (yeas, the deaf) primarily took the form of re-education in order to destroy the identity root and branch, not the physical extermination of the people.

Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

A deliberate attempt by a collective of mainland European nations to impose a particular idenity upon the British peoples to which their own idenity is then subordinated can be considered an act of cultural genocide. Such an act is, at the very least, sinister, politically motivated and a form of "assult" in the same way as any unwanted intrusion is.

But you didnt say "cultural genocide" you just said "genocide" and the physical extermination of people is the defenition of genocide. It does not mean re-education to make people stop considering themselves a specific culure.

Tellos Athenaios

02-18-2011, 20:05

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2011, 20:26

Hmm, let me try. You are born, are raised and spend your life in Europe. That pretty much makes you an European. Doesn't mean you have to feel a burning passion for Europe or even a vague sense of 'connectedness' with some arrogant French. Welsh and Scots and Irish are routinely labeled “British” even though they might privately think the UK is something that ought to be dissolved now. Doesn't change the fact they're actually every bit as British as the English Tory to the person sitting in Paris complaining about insolent rosbeefs spoiling his nice France each summer.

No, sorry Tellos, it is for the British people to self-identify as European, not for the French to label us so. With the exception of a very specific sub-section of the educated Liberal elite people in Britain do not claim to be "Europeans", the identity is simply not something we engage with. If you speak to the welsh or Scots you will find that, excepting the nationalists, they are willing to be labled "British" because they recognise there isn't a lot of mileage in being "just Welsh".

even so, there are some, among the 600,000 Welsh in Wales in particular, who refuse to recognise the English as "British" and regularly and vocally demand a complete political seperation. They get the short end of the stick though because there are 50 million people in England who claim they are British and around 2 million in Wales who agree with them.

Tellos Athenaios

02-18-2011, 20:34

No, sorry Tellos, it is for the British people to self-identify as European, not for the French to label us so. With the exception of a very specific sub-section of the educated Liberal elite people in Britain do not claim to be "Europeans", the identity is simply not something we engage with. If you speak to the welsh or Scots you will find that, excepting the nationalists, they are willing to be labled "British" because they recognise there isn't a lot of mileage in being "just Welsh".

even so, there are some, among the 600,000 Welsh in Wales in particular, who refuse to recognise the English as "British" and regularly and vocally demand a complete political seperation. They get the short end of the stick though because there are 50 million people in England who claim they are British and around 2 million in Wales who agree with them.

I'll try the simpler terms then. European is not just an identity. It is a convenient label to address the inhabitants of this fictitious place called Europe. What you or we feel about that has zero to do with how the term is used by others who want a quick way of addressing the whole of Europe. If in doubt about that, Megas or Vuk will be kind to spoon feed you another classification as “euro”.

It works both ways. The Egyptian protester has no particular feeling of sympathy with some Kenyan cousin, even if both will be indiscriminately referred to as African.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-18-2011, 21:26

I'll try the simpler terms then. European is not just an identity. It is a convenient label to address the inhabitants of this fictitious place called Europe. What you or we feel about that has zero to do with how the term is used by others who want a quick way of addressing the whole of Europe. If in doubt about that, Megas or Vuk will be kind to spoon feed you another classification as “euro”.

It works both ways. The Egyptian protester has no particular feeling of sympathy with some Kenyan cousin, even if both will be indiscriminately referred to as African.

Egypt isn't part of Africa though, remember? It's in a no-place between Africa and Asia!

Seriously though, that isn't a brilliant example.

Back to Europe:

You've used it in two seperate senses above, as a marker for someone who lives in a particular locale and as an identity. Loius is trying to impose the identity-based interpreation, and he has explicitely rejected the geographical one.

Geographically speaking the British Isles are on the periphary of Europe, and our history and culture reflect this. Britain has always looked into Euorpe, like the neighbour looking through your window via a telescope, we never look over our borders. Our closest neighbour is France, but we are seperate by a wide expanse of water, there is no borderland as there is between Germany and France, no meshing of cultures where our two peoples blend together. This is true even on the Channel Islands to a large extent.

This has led to a different way of looking at Europe, which is why British policy has, generally, been to support the losing side in a European war in order to maintain balance on the "mainland". Our direct involvement in European wars has also had a unique character to it.

It's interesting you bring up Megas - he refers to all white people as "Euro's" last I checked, regardless of where they live. Should Canada, Australia and the USA be part of "Europe" as well?

Louis VI the Fat

02-18-2011, 21:58

https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4831/buckinghampalace468x376.jpg

http://smileys.emoticonsonly.com/emoticons/l/lots_of_mooning-2185.gif

http://matousmileys.free.fr/frech.gif

Idaho

02-19-2011, 01:27

[CENTER]https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4831/buckinghampalace468x376.jpg

I'd love to see that, just to see the gin-swigging, net-curtain-twitching Tories of Merrie Englande fizz at the bunghole.

I'd like a few royals swinging by their necks from the balcony to really top it off though.

Brenus

02-19-2011, 08:28

“Geographically speaking the British Isles are on the periphary of Europe, and our history and culture reflect this. Britain has always looked into Euorpe, like the neighbour looking through your window via a telescope, we never look over our borders. Our closest neighbour is France, but we are seperated by a wide expanse of water, there is no borderland as there is between Germany and France, no meshing of cultures where our two peoples blend together. This is true even on the Channel Islands to a large extent.”

What a lot of err, mistakes…
The entire actual British new conservative mythological History in few sentences…
First, the seas (Baltic, North Sea, The Channel, Atlantic Ocean etc) around Europe were never fences but ways of trading and communication from the Greeks, Phoenicians, Viking, the Hanse and others traders and invaders.
You had more contact between Northern France and England (Holland, Denmark, Norway etc) during the Middle Ages than with Paris or Lyon thanks to the seas.
That is for the Geography.

As for history I suggest you to open books and to read them, especially the ones about Romans, Saxons, and Normans. Then you can carry on with the 100 Years war. The English were so far from Europe than their King felt he could claim the Throne of France (with some right if you believe the blood gave you right), claim abandoned only in 1802 (Treaty of Amiens)…
Then if England is sooooo far from Europe, why keeping Gibraltar?

As Culture, just check how much French words are in the English vocabulary?

And can you define “European Culture” for me please?
It would be useful what Culture in thrown upon you…

Sarmatian

02-19-2011, 11:27

Tellos Athenaios

02-19-2011, 12:27

they don't compete in European Football Championship.

This much is true: they've been no contender for a while now.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-19-2011, 14:54

What a lot of err, mistakes…
The entire actual British new conservative mythological History in few sentences…
First, the seas (Baltic, North Sea, The Channel, Atlantic Ocean etc) around Europe were never fences but ways of trading and communication from the Greeks, Phoenicians, Viking, the Hanse and others traders and invaders.
You had more contact between Northern France and England (Holland, Denmark, Norway etc) during the Middle Ages than with Paris or Lyon thanks to the seas.
That is for the Geography.

The Sea may be a way of trading and communicating, but it is also a brarrier to the movement of people. The point is that the border between England and France is profoundly different from the border between France and Germany, and the key difference is the lack of "borderland".

As for history I suggest you to open books and to read them, especially the ones about Romans, Saxons, and Normans. Then you can carry on with the 100 Years war. The English were so far from Europe than their King felt he could claim the Throne of France (with some right if you believe the blood gave you right), claim abandoned only in 1802 (Treaty of Amiens)…

Well, the Romans left much less of a mark on Britain than anywhere else in the Western Empire, within a generation or two Latin culture had collapsed and the peasants still spoke the same language they had when the Romans first arrived. Compare this with their Gallic cousins, who all spoke vulgar Latin or a bastard form there of.The Saxons and the Normans are a different issue, but in the latter case English society became an aparteid, with an English Commons and a French ruling elite.

Why don't you try actually reading what I wrote, instead of insulting my education? I have not tried to claim that England or the UK is some for of cultural isolate, nor would I, but whatever this "European" thing is we do not wish to be included and you cannot force it upon us.

Then if England is sooooo far from Europe, why keeping Gibraltar?

Gibraltar is a Soverign State.

As Culture, just check how much French words are in the English vocabulary?

Check how many Latin words in French - oh wait, it's all Latin. See the difference?

And can you define “European Culture” for me please?
It would be useful what Culture in thrown upon you…

Actually I can't, which is another reason to object, ask Loius.

Greyblades

02-19-2011, 15:19

Gibraltar is a Soverign State.
Its also one heck of a strategic position, its the only entrance to the mediteranian for ships, save the suez canal, and a rather efficient choke point, he who owns gibraltar could filter almost all the shipping going in and out of the mediteranian.

Kagemusha

02-19-2011, 16:28

So let me get this straight.We have moved over from inevitable destruction of Euro as currency to debate whether British are Europeans?

gaelic cowboy

02-19-2011, 16:32

Its also one heck of a strategic position, its the only entrance to the mediteranian for ships, save the suez canal, and a rather efficient choke point, he who owns gibraltar could filter almost all the shipping going in and out of the mediteranian.

But only as long as he who holds Spain lets you keep Gibraltar, luckily for England the political situation has been calm enough to do so for a long while now.

gaelic cowboy

02-19-2011, 16:39

So let me get this straight.We have moved over from inevitable destruction of Euro as currency to debate whether British are Europeans?

Yeah I said this several times lately that this thread had moved away from its initial premise.

Default is coming unless some of the debt is restructured and the interest rates are pegged at much lower level. A sovereign default would be very bad for the Euro and the more this bailout continues in the form it has the more likely Ireland will default.

To the horror of european politicians our politicians are actually talking about redoing the deal top to bottom, of course they privately acknowledged that it must be changed, but apparently the currency is too weak to say so.

I expect some restructured debt before the year is out and a lower rate of interest on the loans, this will of course be a general restructure with greece, Ireland and by then the ECB will have kyboshed Portugal too in order to divest themselves of the Potugeese paper.

You do some or all of this and default can be made far less likely.

Furunculus

02-19-2011, 16:53

Hmm, let me try. You are born, are raised and spend your life in Europe. That pretty much makes you an European. Doesn't mean you have to feel a burning passion for Europe or even a vague sense of 'connectedness' with some arrogant French. Welsh and Scots and Irish are routinely labeled “British” even though they might privately think the UK is something that ought to be dissolved now. Doesn't change the fact they're actually every bit as British as the English Tory to the person sitting in Paris complaining about insolent rosbeefs spoiling his nice France each summer.

utterly and totally wrong in so far as you conflate a geographical identity with a political identity.

sure, i exist on the continent of europe there fore i am european.

but in no way do i accept that i am part of a european polity, if you wish to create a european polity then fill your boots, but outside of a few urban lib-dems the vast majority of britons will not be joining you, and a majority of them would actively reject the offer.

it is really that simple.

Sarmatian

02-19-2011, 17:16

utterly and totally wrong in so far as you conflate a geographical identity with a political identity.

sure, i exist on the continent of europe there fore i am european.

but in no way do i accept that i am part of a european polity, if you wish to create a european polity then fill your boots, but outside of a few urban lib-dems the vast majority of britons will not be joining you, and a majority of them would actively reject the offer.

it is really that simple.

So you are saying that you are European but not EUropean and you don't want to be EUropean. That's perfectly fine. The problem is that you and a few others maintain that you don't want to be EUropean because you aren't European. That's where the confusion comes from...

Greyblades

02-19-2011, 18:00

But only as long as he who holds Spain lets you keep Gibraltar, luckily for England the political situation has been calm enough to do so for a long while now.

True, but if the country being blockaded holds spain perventing naval access to and from the mediteranian becomes pointless.
Anyway we've gone off topic. The Euro is going down the tubes; discuss.

gaelic cowboy

02-19-2011, 19:01

The Euro is going down the tubes; discuss.

The problem is the inability to admit the debt must be reneged on, it really is as simple as that.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-19-2011, 22:02

The problem is the inability to admit the debt must be reneged on, it really is as simple as that.

That is because of the gulf between the political aspiration of "Europe" and the political reality. The EU government and the ECB want to act like they are the US Federal Government and Federal Reserve, but they can't so they are doing a sort of twister-limbo-jenga to try and prevent default.

What is really being decided is whether or nor Ireland shall be sacrificed for political expediency.

gaelic cowboy

02-20-2011, 00:12

That is because of the gulf between the political aspiration of "Europe" and the political reality. The EU government and the ECB want to act like they are the US Federal Government and Federal Reserve, but they can't so they are doing a sort of twister-limbo-jenga to try and prevent default.

What is really being decided is whether or nor Ireland shall be sacrificed for political expediency.

Except the problem is sacrifice does not stop the Debt Monster and they know it.

Greyblades

02-20-2011, 00:31

Oh I dont know, sacrificing apendages is a rather... effective way of paying debts. But then again I've been watching alot of gangster movies.

Brenus

02-20-2011, 10:31

“Except the problem is sacrifice does not stop the Debt Monster and they know it.”

No.
There are others solutions.

Let say the Governments wouldn’t back up the banks with taxes-payers money, take the political action to cancelled the obligation to Countries to borrow money to the private Sector (because without our money the banksters wouldn’t be able to lend it any way) and allow Countries to borrow money at the same rate than the banks to the European Central Bank (near 0%) instead to go under the yoke of the so-called independent judgment of the same banksters who ruined all economies…

I still don’t get why the banks borrow money at 0 % and lend it at a minimum of 14.5% to customers…

The banks collapsed, the money saved in not helping them could have be used as safety net for the usual customers, or/and in order to preserve the economies, could have been use in exempting the workers for paying taxes for one year.
Workers would have either pay their debts (reinforcing the surviving banks) or use it for their need, keeping the market alive and paying indirect taxes…
Then of course, the people who lost money would suit the banksters as they lied to them, claiming huge bonuses under at least false pretences but I would say frauds.
Banksters should have been trial, put in jail, and as you can’t keep the money illegally earned, the bonuses would returned to the banks to help them to pay back their debts.

To deny a debt is possible. That was done before. After the Revolution, the Soviets decided that the money borrowed by the Tsar was not USSR debts as it was a different country…
Well, harsh, but it worked. No more debts…

The problem of course is that would ruin some of the governments’ friends, families and relatives…

In term of Euro, I don’t think it will collapse. The alternative is o put back the national currencies? It took 6 years of preparation to put the Euro (printing, rating etc) on track. So, to go back is not the solution… And I do like the idea that SWIFT doesn’t take money for transfer in doing absolutely nothing….

Furunculus

02-20-2011, 13:03

So you are saying that you are European but not EUropean and you don't want to be EUropean. That's perfectly fine. The problem is that you and a few others maintain that you don't want to be EUropean because you aren't European. That's where the confusion comes from...

my political identity is british, nothing else.

i consider myself part of the british polity, and consent to be governed by those elected from among my British peers because of knowledge that this governance will be conducted in a manner that is both predictable and acceptable to myself, as a result of a shared social and cultural history.

this would very much be a majority view in Britain, therefore it can be stated with some confidence that 'we' are not EUropean in the political sense, whilst respecting that we exist in geographic mass of europe, and thus have a history of constant interaction with our neighbours. the key point here is that they are "neighbours", and friendly ones at that, but not "family".

the belgians have a very poorly developed sense of nationhood arising from their history, and even in their desire for partition look to the EU to make up any deficit in security or governance. they therefore can be said to be EUropean in the political sense, in that they hold themselves to be part of a european polity.

it really is that simple. what is not to understand?

Furunculus

02-22-2011, 15:31

apparently for every $10 over $100 the price of oil climbs it will reduce economic growth, post recession, by 0.5% of GDP.

how is the ME crisis going to affect the vulnerable euro nations like greece?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,746957,00.html

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2011, 02:02

Torygraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/8349497/Irelands-new-government-on-a-collision-course-with-EU.html

Lovely quote:

A European diplomat, from a large eurozone country, told The Sunday Telegraph that "the more the Irish make a big deal about renegotiation in public, the more attitudes will harden".
"It is not even take it or leave it. It's done. Ireland's only role in this now is to implement the programme agreed with the EU, IMF and European Central Bank. Irish voters are not a party in this process, whatever they have been told," said the diplomat.

I'll say it again, if the EU does not enfranchise the peoples of member states and stop acting like the Roman Empire it will fracture, and the harder it tries to hold it all together the more likely the end will be bloody.

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2011, 03:11

That article is from another fantasy world, where nothing is what it seems. I don't even know where to begin with pointing out all the fundamentally erroneous assumptions in there.

Let me suffice to say that I violently disagree with the Telegraph. It is not up to Europe to decide the political procedure in Ireland. Ireland must do this itself. Therefore the EU does not decide that any Irish government may or may represent the will of the Irish people, depending on the EU's mood. Rather, the Irish government is always assumed to act as an independent representive of the will of the Irish people. With this assumption agreements are made with Ireland.

This, and not a fantasy EUSSR/Mordor/Roman Empire/Whore of Babylon, is the reason why European governments can reach agreements with Irish governments and expect Ireland to be true to its word. It is what democracies do. Like responsible citizens, they can be relied upon that their word is worth more than the paper it is written on.

Which is not to say that I am convinced the Irish people have received a fair deal. But don't blame us. Europe merely lends Ireland money. The bank bailout was the work of the corrupt Irish politicians. The culmination of a near decade of mismanagement. They loved it when the value of their second homes kept going up and taxes were abolished for the rich and the foreign. Then the pyramid collapsed. Sadly, it is the poor who have to foot the bill, while those who profited get off scott free.

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2011, 03:13

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 1, 2005

Dublin

There is a huge debate roiling in Europe today over which economic model to follow: the Franco-German shorter-workweek-six-weeks'-vacation-never-fire-anyone-but-high-unemployment social model or the less protected but more innovative, high-employment Anglo-Saxon model preferred by Britain, Ireland and Eastern Europe. It is obvious to me that the Irish-British model is the way of the future, and the only question is when Germany and France will face reality: either they become Ireland or they become museums. That is their real choice over the next few years - it's either the leprechaun way or the Louvre.

Germany and France are trying to protect their welfare capitalism with defense. Ireland is generating its own sustainable model of social capitalism by playing offense. I'll bet on the offense. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/opinion/01friedman.html?_r=1 :laugh4:

InsaneApache

02-28-2011, 11:34

I'll give the Euro six months. Tops.

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2011, 12:16

I'll give the Euro six months. Tops.It's monday already your weekend's recreational drugs should've worn off by now. :smash:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2011, 12:45

InsaneApache

02-28-2011, 12:51

It's monday already your weekend's recreational drugs should've worn off by now. :smash:

No, not yet. Been a long weekend. :freak:

ATHENS, Greece -- They blockade highway toll booths to give drivers free passage. They cover subway ticket machines with plastic bags so commuters can't pay. Even doctors are joining in, preventing patients from paying fees at state hospitals

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/02/22/general-eu-greece-i-won-apos-t-pay_8319311.html

Ronin

02-28-2011, 13:07

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/02/22/general-eu-greece-i-won-apos-t-pay_8319311.html

how did that quote go about keep doing the same thing and expecting different results???

:juggle2:

Beskar

02-28-2011, 14:08

my political identity is british, nothing else.

i consider myself part of the british polity, and consent to be governed by those elected from among my British peers because of knowledge that this governance will be conducted in a manner that is both predictable and acceptable to myself, as a result of a shared social and cultural history.

this would very much be a majority view in Britain, therefore it can be stated with some confidence that 'we' are not EUropean in the political sense, whilst respecting that we exist in geographic mass of europe, and thus have a history of constant interaction with our neighbours. the key point here is that they are "neighbours", and friendly ones at that, but not "family".

the belgians have a very poorly developed sense of nationhood arising from their history, and even in their desire for partition look to the EU to make up any deficit in security or governance. they therefore can be said to be EUropean in the political sense, in that they hold themselves to be part of a european polity.

it really is that simple. what is not to understand?

My political identity is a free citizen of Earth known as human. For taxation and birth purposes, I am classified as British.

I consider myself unrepresented, as the government does not reflect my needs or views, except on rare occasions where I praise them for doing so. The government is a compromise brought about people who hold the 'party' above shared values, and a party who own interests and the interests of their supporters are undertaken, at the cost of a greater shared interest.

I see a democratic European con/federation as being a stepping stone to a United Federation of Nations, which is a democracy global sovereignty spanning all continents to the four corners of the globe.

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2011, 14:17

Take another look at what I quoted Loius. If a diplomat went on record with that it probably means he doesn't think it's very explosive, or important, but the tone is one of dismissal of the "Irish People". There are far more diplomatic ways of saying the deal is final, but he didn't bother.Well...

Firstly, does the 'anonymous diplomat' really exist? My money's on this, as per usual, not even being the case.
Secondly, if he exists at all, is he paraphrased? A diplomat is not in the business of feeding the British yellow press quotes to get outraged about. That is the business of reporters and editors. It is not all that difficult to quote somebody (somewhat) correctly while changing the tone and actual message on its head.

Why is the diplomat not named? Why is not even his country named? The 'diplomat from a large eurozone country' is merely stating obvious EU/British/IMF policy, so why the need of anonimity?

I don't think this diplomat even exists. Not that it matter much. The quote, if presented normally, is not harsh at all. The 'diplomat' merely states the obvious: democracies are true to their word. One government upholds the obligations of the previous ones. Whether dealing with corporations, natural persons, or governments, the principle is that agreements are upheld. This is the heart of high trust societies, of international cooperation, of internal rule of law. :shrug:

One question in return: the UK is one of the largest foreign lenders of the Irish bailout. Does this mean that Britain is imposing a dictatorial rule on Ireland? Is the UK acting like the Roman Empire? Will there be blood?

gaelic cowboy

02-28-2011, 14:42

One government upholds the obligations of the previous ones. Whether dealing with corporations, natural persons, or governments, the principle is that agreements are upheld. This is the heart of high trust societies, of international cooperation, of internal rule of law. :shrug:

We dont consider Fianna Fail to have being a government worthy of the name they should have called the election two yrs ago when the whole thing went bang they had no legitimacy to land us in the bailout.

Fine Gael will be rengoitaiting the Knockout I wont deign to call it a bailout, specifically the interest rate will have to come down.

InsaneApache

02-28-2011, 15:11

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
One government upholds the obligations of the previous ones. Whether dealing with corporations, natural persons, or governments, the principle is that agreements are upheld. This is the heart of high trust societies, of international cooperation, of internal rule of law.

So you don't subscribe to the theory that a lawfully elected parliament cannot be bound by it's predecessors?

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2011, 15:48

So you don't subscribe to the theory that a lawfully elected parliament cannot be bound by it's predecessors?It can not be bound unconditionally anymore than a person can sell himself into slavery.

For all practical purposes, however, a state is bound by its own treaties, laws, obligations, regardless of whether the current or previous paliament entered them.

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2011, 15:49

We dont consider Fianna Fail to have being a government worthy of the name they should have called the election two yrs ago when the whole thing went bang they had no legitimacy to land us in the bailout.

Fine Gael will be rengoitaiting the Knockout I wont deign to call it a bailout, specifically the interest rate will have to come down.It's not that the deal couldn't or shouldn't be renegotiated.

The working Irish got the *underground vertical passageway*. However, what ought to be renegotiated then is the Irish banking bailout itself, not the foreign loan to pay for this banking bailout. Sadly, this is an internal Irish affair.

If the banking bailout remains, but the EU-IMF bailout were to be renegotiated with more favourable conditions, then it is the European poor who have to pay for Ireland's rich, instead of the Irish poor. This should be out of the question. Europe has suffered enough financial damage from the irresponsible, corrupt Irish croonies. It is up to Ireland to clean ship internally, not up to Europe to keep footing the bill.

Ireland knows just how to get very favourable conditions instantly: sinmply end the scandalous Irish 'beggar thy neighbour' tax policy.

Google made twelve billion euro in Europe last year. If located in Germany or France, Google would have had to pay four billion in corporate taxes. However, Google is located in Ireland, where it pays only 28 million a year, on their entire European business.
That's four billion a year in tax handouts by the Irish government. There are more companies like this. It all puts the 86 billion in EU-IMF balout in perspective. Pocket change.

Ireland voluntarily chooses to have the Irish poor foot the bill for rich foreigners, rather than let rich foreigners pay for rich foreigners. The EU dearly wants to see that reversed, to have the culprits pay for their own mess, instead of passing on the buck to the Irish poor. What Europe will not do, is to bend over and take it up the rear just like what Dublin has done to poor Irishmen.

This is not about Irleand vs the EU. This is about who foots the bill for the bailout - the Irish taxpayer, or the European taxpayer, or those who received the profits. As we all know, it will frustratingly not be the third option - Ireland won't have it. It will not be the second option either - Europe won't have that. So the Irish poor it is and the Irish poor it will remain.

gaelic cowboy

02-28-2011, 16:42

The working Irish got the *underground vertical passageway*. However, what ought to be renegotiated then is the Irish banking bailout itself, not the foreign loan to pay for this banking bailout. Sadly, this is an internal Irish affair.

If the banking bailout remains, but the EU-IMF bailout were to be renegotiated with more favourable conditions, then it is the European poor who have to pay for Ireland's rich, instead of the Irish poor. This should be out of the question. Europe has suffered enough financial damage from the irresponsible, corrupt Irish croonies. It is up to Ireland to clean ship internally, not up to Europe to keep footing the bill.

The banking bailout is direct from the ECB I explained that ages ago, Trichet specifically ordered no banking failure in Ireland.

Basically in an effort to prevent contagion at the time of the deal Ireland was specifically leaked against by ECB officials, intense pressure was put on the government to take the deal interestingly the blanket garauntee was supported by the EU when it came time for renewal so that the banks could be bailed out.

Furunculus

02-28-2011, 18:03

Trichet specifically ordered no banking failure in Ireland.

Basically in an effort to prevent contagion at the time of the deal Ireland was specifically leaked against by ECB officials, intense pressure was put on the government to take the deal
absolutely right.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-01-2011, 08:10

One question in return: the UK is one of the largest foreign lenders of the Irish bailout. Does this mean that Britain is imposing a dictatorial rule on Ireland? Is the UK acting like the Roman Empire? Will there be blood?

Isn't Britain lending a large portion of that independantly at a lower rate, and isn't the rest money pledged by Alistair Darling after our own election?

Hmmmm, I think it is.

gaelic cowboy

03-01-2011, 17:15

Plus the largest foreign lender is actually Japan.

Louis VI the Fat

03-02-2011, 04:03

Furunculus

03-02-2011, 11:11

But if Japan and the UK are such large lenders, then how is this the work of the evil Eurozone Roman Empire?

And does this mean that the 'blood in the coming uprising against the Roman Empire' means the Irish will fight Japan?

I'm not being obtuse, I'm just trying to understand the great political theories of anti-Europeanism.
GC has already told you, german speculation from within the ECB speculated publicly on the future viability of ireland, thus undermining market confidence in ireland at a critical point in euro-wobbliness. thereby forcing a crippling bail-out package on a nation that didn't need it in order to halt speculation on other weak eurozone nations.

Louis VI the Fat

03-02-2011, 11:51

GC has already told you, german speculation from within the ECB speculated publicly on the future viability of ireland, thus undermining market confidence in ireland at a critical point in euro-wobbliness. thereby forcing a crippling bail-out package on a nation that didn't need it in order to halt speculation on other weak eurozone nations.You mean a few sentences by some Germans decide Irish policy?

Nah.

What happened, is that Ireland became the playground for international ultra-capitalism. Ultra-capitalism, that is 21st century capitalism where the market has been abolished in favour of the state as the subject and instrument of corporate power. Way back in mid-2008, before any German could point out Ireland on a map, Dublin decided to give a blanket guarantee. This Dublin did because of, firstly, the narrowness of the Irish elite - the captains of industry, of finance, are the same as the people in the government. Secondly, because ultra-capitalism had come to be identified with the Irish economic succes and this had led to the idea that what is good for corporations, is the common good of Ireland. And thirdly, rank stupidity, shortsightendness, and the idea that the Irish pyramid schemes would go on forever.

Bailout fever: Ireland guarantees all bank deposits, debts (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/09/after-congress.html)

September 30, 2008

After Congress voted down the administration's financial-system rescue plan Monday, European governments today were busy committing more public funds to save their own banks.

The biggest surprise: The Irish government guaranteed all deposits and debts of the country's major banks, one day after the Irish stock market plummeted 13%, nearly twice the decline of the Dow Jones industrials.

"We have to create confidence," Finance Minister Brian Lenihan said on RTE Radio, according to Bloomberg News. "We can't bail out a particular bank. That wouldn't be right. What we have decided to do is give a general guarantee that the banks can lend in security and safety."

Banks worldwide have cut off lending to one another as the credit crisis has deepened. Ireland’s guarantee (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aGywJhwA3qfE) may give its banks a better chance of getting funding in money markets.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/09/after-congress.htmlThis is where it all went wrong. Way back in 2008. Way back when Ireland was the first to give a blanket guarantee, long before any other country had even considered using public funds to guarantee private speculation.

The bail-out package isn't crippling. It is pocket change, fifty percent of Irish GDP. Crippling is the banking guarantee, which is 300% of GDP. The latter is of Irish own making. The former is meant to aid Ireland and to prevent Irish greed and policy failures from undermining well-governed countries. It is not Europe which stole the money from the Irish poor to hand it over to the ultra-wealthy. Europe will, however, give Ireland a very lenient rescue package. On one condition. This is, that Ireland stops being an extraordinarly poor partner and ends its 'beggar thy neigbour' tax haven policy. As long as Dublin refuses to levy a corporate tax, Europe's working classes should not have to compensate for this. Europe's poor are not going to stand for being mistreated in the same manner as Dublin mistreats its own poor.

Furunculus

03-02-2011, 12:37

i watched those glib comments made at the time, and at the time i knew they were stupid and foolish, and at the time i knew why german officials made them.

nothing you have said changes those facts as i understand them.

gaelic cowboy

03-02-2011, 14:45

You mean a few sentences by some Germans decide Irish policy?

Nah.

What happened, is that Ireland became the playground for international ultra-capitalism. Ultra-capitalism, that is 21st century capitalism where the market has been abolished in favour of the state as the subject and instrument of corporate power. Way back in mid-2008, before any German could point out Ireland on a map, Dublin decided to give a blanket guarantee. This Dublin did because of, firstly, the narrowness of the Irish elite - the captains of industry, of finance, are the same as the people in the government. Secondly, because ultra-capitalism had come to be identified with the Irish economic succes and this had led to the idea that what is good for corporations, is the common good of Ireland. And thirdly, rank stupidity, shortsightendness, and the idea that the Irish pyramid schemes would go on forever.

This is where it all went wrong. Way back in 2008. Way back when Ireland was the first to give a blanket guarantee, long before any other country had even considered using public funds to guarantee private speculation.

The bail-out package isn't crippling. It is pocket change, fifty percent of Irish GDP. Crippling is the banking guarantee, which is 300% of GDP. The latter is of Irish own making. The former is meant to aid Ireland and to prevent Irish greed and policy failures from undermining well-governed countries. It is not Europe which stole the money from the Irish poor to hand it over to the ultra-wealthy. Europe will, however, give Ireland a very lenient rescue package. On one condition. This is, that Ireland stops being an extraordinarly poor partner and ends its 'beggar thy neigbour' tax haven policy. As long as Dublin refuses to levy a corporate tax, Europe's working classes should not have to compensate for this. Europe's poor are not going to stand for being mistreated in the same manner as Dublin mistreats its own poor.

Entire diatribe is contructed nicely but incorrect in general.

I have lost count of the times I have mentioned this blanket guarantee was cooked up by the Government and the ECB as a method to prevent another Lehmans. The hit to interbank lending would have been bad across the eurozone, hence we now see the reason for Merkels comments on unsecured debt haircuts.

The problem is it was the right comment at the wrong time, allied with extra losses in the banks here the market people drove the bank bonds above 7% ending pretty much all market funding. This meant of course that the private losses would soon have to be transferred to the sovereign in order to actually bail the banks out.

It's not working so it has to change and soon prob before end of the month I would say, the unsecured debt will have to be cut or the holders of the paper will possibly be forced to take equity shares in the banks in question, also the interest rate will have to come down or the Eurozone WILL have a debt default and nobody knows where that might end hence the massive fear of it.

This bailout is not about saving Ireland it is about saving greedy banks both Irish and European from collapsing and thus hurting the EU dream of a common currency, the problem is there all living in a echo chamber where the idea seems to be to transfer private losses to the taxpayer of Ireland and German so they can all pretend they are fixing the problem.

Louis VI the Fat

03-05-2011, 14:02

Quietly sneaking this in here:

as noted before, we english (read: British) are an arrogant bunchNo, the English/British are not at all an arrogant bunch. I think that's just you passing off private hypernationalism as a national character trait of a monolithic English/British identity.

The English are on the whole perfectly relaxed about their identity, and quite open. Inquisitive and embracing of the outsider and the foreign. There are few practical reasons for an Englishman to learn foreign languages, this is often, in Britain and elsewhere, mistaken for the British being oblivious of the world, of being culturally inward looking. Quod non!

Beskar

03-05-2011, 15:30

Quietly sneaking this in here:

No, the English/British are not at all an arrogant bunch. I think that's just you passing off private hypernationalism as a national character trait of a monolithic English/British identity.

The English are on the whole perfectly relaxed about their identity, and quite open. Inquisitive and embracing of the outsider and the foreign. There are few practical reasons for an Englishman to learn foreign languages, this is often, in Britain and elsewhere, mistaken for the British being oblivious of the world, of being culturally inward looking. Quod non!

Britain has always been a melting pot of sorts since the days of the Empire where intellectual elites from around the world mingled in the streets of London. There are many great names which visited, should as Gandhi in his younger days, who took these ideas back with them when they returned home.

Tellos Athenaios

03-05-2011, 15:33

They most definitely didn't mingle in the streets of London, though.

Furunculus

03-07-2011, 17:36

No, the English/British are not at all an arrogant bunch. I think that's just you passing off private hypernationalism as a national character trait of a monolithic English/British identity.

The English are on the whole perfectly relaxed about their identity, and quite open. Inquisitive and embracing of the outsider and the foreign.

lol, you think i suffer from hyper-nationalism, little old moderate me! there is a shock waiting for you if you ever explore the british political scene beyond the moist confines of libdemmery.

quite, how does this conflict with our oft-noted tendency for casual disregard for the opinions of johnny foriegner?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-14-2011, 12:27

Furunculus

03-14-2011, 13:11

yeah, i read that this morning.

but it's not as if the irish didn't know this, how they must be chuckling!

especially as there is apparently not much difference between French and irish corporation tax rates once you factor in various disbursements, and subsidies.

Louis VI the Fat

03-14-2011, 13:16

More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8379163/Total-German-triumph-as-EU-minnows-subjugated.html

My favourite part? Ireland and Spain never breached the debt ceiling, France and Germany did. So much for the EU protecting smaller countries.My favourite part is the article catering to my dear wish to finally come up with something other than the tired 'communist EUSSR' or 'Superstate Europe'.

And boy did they deliver! :jumping:

'It is as if Merkel has somehow been crowned Magna Mater Europae by the Consilium'.
So glorious. So beautiful. So utterly...so...so beyond anything. :laugh4: :laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

03-14-2011, 13:17

Meanwhile outside of the hysteria of the tabloid universe...

The deal as described by the reality-based press. In this case, by that bastion of traditional British values such as liberty and capitalism and quiet self-assuredness, the Financial Times:

Eurozone leaders reach deal on key reforms

For weeks, European officials had promised that a “grand bargain” of reforms to shore up eurozone finances would be agreed at the end of March.
The 17 eurozone heads of government surprised many, however, including some within their own ranks, by cutting a deal on almost all the important elements in the early hours of Saturday during an emergency summit in Brussels.

Leaders committed to increasing the lending capacity of the current rescue fund – the European financial stability facility – from about €250bn to its full, headline level of €440bn ($610bn), making it able to bail out several more eurozone countries should the debt crisis continue to spread.
A permanent, post-2013 fund – the European Stability Mechanism – will be able to lend up to €500bn, likely to be achieved through stepped-up guarantees from triple-A states and paid-in capital from those with weaker balance sheets.

The details are likely to be thrashed out by finance ministers at two days of meetings that start today, but they are expected to include a doubling of loan guarantees from triple-A rated states such as Germany and France.

The deal falls short of expectations, however, in the new tools available to the funds.

EU officials, including European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet, had long argued that they should be able to do more than just bail out troubled economies. But in the face of German and Dutch resistance, the 17 leaders chose a more limited route. The funds will be able to buy bonds, but only directly from a struggling government – not on the open market – and only after that government agrees to austerity measures similar to those im-posed on bail-out nations.

The new powers may help struggling countries return to the debt markets more quickly, but because they can only be used in a narrow set of circumstances they are unlikely to have any impact on the current borrowing costs of countries such as Portugal.

Greece and Ireland

The two countries currently in bail-outs were offered an easing in their rescue terms in exchange for further austerity measures. Greece took the deal. Athens agreed to sell off €50bn in government assets, for which it will see the interest rate on the EU’s portion of its €110bn bail-out lowered by a full percentage point, to just over 4 per cent.
It also will now be able to pay its bail-out loans back over 7.5 years instead of the original 4.5 years.
Given the size of its debt, however, the change is likely to have only a marginal effect on whether Athens will eventually default.

Ireland rejected the deal. In exchange for a full percentage point decrease of its 6 per cent bail-out loan, the new Dublin government was asked to give up its ultra-low 12.5 per cent corporate tax rate. For Enda Kenny, the new Irish prime minister, the cost was too high.

‘Pact for the euro’
Leaders also agreed to a four-page pact that commits them to closer economic co-ordination and a series of new austerity measures, including caps on government spending, close monitoring of pension schemes, and limits on public sector wage increases.
As it stands, however, the pact remains an agreement on principles without enforcement. An original German-backed version included the possibility of sanctions for violators. If it were given teeth, the pact could have an impact on national finances, particularly its requirement for “debt brake” laws that automatically prevent governments from breaching EU borrowing limits.

Budget rules
The deal also includes subtle but important commitments on the only remaining issue: legislative measures to strengthen EU budget rules.
Leaders on Friday committed to force countries to close the gap between their current debt levels and the EU’s legal debt limit – 60 per cent of gross domestic product – by 5 per cent each year, a measure opposed by high debtors such as Italy. They also made it harder for politicians to veto fines imposed on recalcitrant debtors.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c58ec20-4d9c-11e0-85e4-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GZfn1NZY

Furunculus

03-24-2011, 16:09

oops, portugal decided it doesn't need stable and effective government at a time when markets have already pushed up interest rates past 7%.

i foresee a Portuguese bailout in short order.

gaelic cowboy

03-24-2011, 17:34

oops, portugal decided it doesn't need stable and effective government at a time when markets have already pushed up interest rates past 7%.

i foresee a Portuguese bailout in short order.

Well to be fair a minority style government does not have the kind of mandate required to fix the finances, having said that it does look like bailout time again.

Jolt

03-29-2011, 01:16

Well, we'll pay, but with even harsher conditions, Spain and Portugal will cede their independence and become German states, then we can tax everybody in Germany with another solidarity tax to build up these two.We can deal with the speculators and bondholders once we have conquered the world, they will cause their own downfall...

Actually you're right to an extent, but the thing that makes Spain and Portugal most likely to default (whatever exactly that means in financial terms) is people talking about them defaulting soon, which scares all the bondfondlers and sharecrows.

Deutsch Portugal und unseren GroB Deutschland über alles!

Curiously, I'm still yet to figure out the primary reason for our State interest rate going through the roof. Our government was actually controlling and lowering the deficit, the first two austerity packages to lower the deficit after it shot up when the State served as social net for a bank bailout and the crisis impact on families and companies (Shot to almost 10% deficit then went down to 6-7% in only a few months), and only then putting up austerity packages after austerity package to cope with the increasing interest spread, yet it just still kept rising. It doesn't help that my university (Who is right-leaning to begin with) goes to explanations ranging from vague "We are not competitive enough" (Which is odd, because we were not competitive before and nothing even close to this happened.) to "It's the outside crisis" (Which would actually make sense except if we check the financial data before the interest rates went through the roof, we had several budget areas under much better control than other countries like France or the UK, even when we were uncompetitive and already in this crisis) to "It's just pure financial speculation without any real reason for the increase in interest spreads, beyond making money toppling Portugal and getting to Spain, which is the big prize" (And I was surprised to hear that from the mouth of a PSD-militant professor who is very clearly liberal leaning.)

There is still something unanswered. What is the fundamental endogenous cause which changed for Portugal so all of a sudden it couldn't pay it's 3-4% interest rate commitments like it had been doing since the 2000's?
Greece is understandable as the government concealed deficits and embarked on shady deals, which showed that Greece's finances were in fact extraordinarily much worse than it had shown to be.
Ireland happened because it had to prevent its financial infrastructure from evaporating, and blew its finances to prevent it.
Portugal...?

gaelic cowboy

03-29-2011, 01:54

The problem is an inability on the part of the commission to face the reality that most of the various problems are not budgetary. The various bailout/knockout packages are designed for budgetary problems purely because that is all the EU could stomach at the time of the Greek implosion. Ireland had no such problem til the banks blew up and instead of properly sorting the banks by forcing losses on creditors as should have happened they put money into them using a bailout, this made Ireland's problem a sovereign one, but it did not solve the underlying problem the banks inability to obtain market funding.

Now this fear/speculation basically meant that the market decided Ireland/Greece were rightly factored in as not being able to pay back the bailout terms. This meant that the threat of default rises so all weaker country bonds go UP in price and hurt the sovereign, Portugal of course does not have a major budgetary problem, it is a competitiveness problem the faster you run the more you will spend, hence these market types feel you wont actually earn enough to pay them back cos it will cost too much for Portugal to earn it.

Also Portugal is likely going to be badly effected by any problem in Spain even a sniff of a problem there sends Portugal's bonds UP due to the interconnected economies.

My bet is that the ECB has finally copped that the Irish banks need one of two things either creditors be forced to take losses or the short term liquidity mechanism will be magically transformed into a medium term liquidity mechanism. This last one is the more likely and gives the banks some breathing room to stop having to hoard capital because of all the withdrawn deposits since the bailout and before. The Irish banks are still weak but not bleeding and the government here can concentrate on fixing the economy.

Happily if that senario happens then Spain also might avail of it and ease the tension in there own banking system, the theory would be the spotlight would be off Portugal as a result. The only problem is if other larger countries set there face against it then Ireland will default and toxifiy there banking system and those market people know it, they have already factored in a creditor loss due to default so in a nice way extending our bank liquidity repayment timelimit to the ECB makes them lose money the bailout can be adhered too and everyone should get there money back bar Anglo Irish Bank who have/are been wound down.

Now it's time for bed but I post a bit more on this tomorrow

Furunculus

03-29-2011, 13:54

Furunculus

03-30-2011, 13:51

Louis will love this!

Der Speigel article discussing why the latest rescue plan won't work:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,753509-2,00.html

Former European Commission Presidents Jacques Delors and Romano Prodi, as well as ex-Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, call the plans for a competition pact "ineffective" and say that they will "not produce any results. The European Commission needs to finally get "access to economic policy", the authors write, to enable it to force Europe onto "the path of convergence".

This sounds like a clear concept, but it is also reminiscent of Gosplan, the central state planning committee of the former Soviet Union. The European Commission has already introduced a strict regimen of quotas for products like light bulbs and biofuel, angering many consumers. Under the concepts devised by Delors, Prodi and Verhofstadt, the principle would be applied to virtually the entire economy.
and

It is an affliction of European policy that its protagonists in the national governments are generally split personalities. They call for a unified economic policy, and yet they refuse to cede any power to Brussels. They demand penalties for debt sinners, and yet they prevent sanctions from being imposed.

And they invoke the European spirit while stubbornly pursuing national interests. Udo Di Fabio, a judge on Germany's Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, speaks of "conceptual limits that can in fact only be exceeded by taking a spirited step in the direction of the federal state."

rock on.

gaelic cowboy

03-30-2011, 13:58

inteersting description of portugals problems:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/03/29/529956/the-political-problem-with-portugals-bailout/

it was the EU wot dunnit:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100009917/europe-opens-the-floodgates-to-debt-restructuring/

The debt restructuring article there has been what I have been calling for since I dunno prob 2008 or summit, the reality is that unless the debt burden is either cancelled or reduced merely shoveling bailout money to any sovereign no matter who they are will end in restructuring.

The stress tests are out today for the Irish banks, if they show anything less than 40-50bn capital requirement for the banks then you can mark it down that there is a stitch up in the off, my feeling is that they will come in under 35bn purely because thats what was provided for in the bailout agreed.

Ronin

04-06-2011, 21:33

....and the Portuguese government throws in the towel.

Louis VI the Fat

04-06-2011, 21:53

....and the Portuguese government throws in the towel.You people still have got towels left? :huh:

That's not right. I thought the subjugation of Portugal was at least as far advanced as that of Ireland.

The periphery is proving more sturdy than we thought...

gaelic cowboy

04-06-2011, 22:31

Well the stress tests for Ireland's banks came back at under 35bn so that's basically a lie again and the medium term liquidity facility was not agreed so in the end prob sometime around 2012-2013 we will have some sort of default oh sorry I meant "Burden Sharing".

On Portugal it looks like various large banks pretty much told the Portugese caretaker government to bailin 1-0 to the Banksters

Ronin

04-07-2011, 00:30

On Portugal it looks like various large banks pretty much told the Portugese caretaker government to bailin 1-0 to the Banksters

The Portuguese banks basically told the government they would buy no more government debt bonds....claiming lack of liquidity and excessive exposure to government debt.

gaelic cowboy

04-07-2011, 14:22

The Portuguese banks basically told the government they would buy no more government debt bonds....claiming lack of liquidity and excessive exposure to government debt.

And said banks shares went up on the announcement that the government now has bailin money to pay for the bonds.

Ronin

04-07-2011, 15:02

And said banks shares went up on the announcement that the government now has bailin money to pay for the bonds.

well..those shares have been taking a pounding over the last few weeks....of course the news of economic bailout is gonna cause the bank's value to recover somewhat.

gaelic cowboy

04-07-2011, 16:21

well..those shares have been taking a pounding over the last few weeks....of course the news of economic bailout is gonna cause the bank's value to recover somewhat.

Thats because outside the bailout mechanism the banks might lose money in potential haircuts etc, now taking money from EU/IMF haircuts will be off the table at the insistence of the ECB and EU.

Jolt

04-09-2011, 02:05

Bleh. Next stop: Spain.

rory_20_uk

04-10-2011, 16:54

Italy is managing to be in a right mess too. Might the north wish to cede from the South?

Good thing there's a strong leader with a hand on the rudder... oh, more like a letcherous old man doing the job part time whilst he shuttle runs back to and from court.

~:smoking:

Strike For The South

04-10-2011, 18:53

I'm still waiting for Germany to start gobbiling up property, in 5 years they will control they entierity of the continent save Russia and the UK

Now that would be epic lulz

InsaneApache

04-10-2011, 22:41

That was the whole reason for the EU.

gaelic cowboy

05-07-2011, 17:02

Ireland's future depends on breaking free from bailout (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html?via=mr)

Opinion piece from Morgan Kelly in todays Irish Times he is professor of economics at University College Dublin

: Ireland is heading for bankruptcy, which would be catastrophic for a country that trades on its reputation as a safe place to do business, writes MORGAN KELLY

WITH THE Irish Government on track to owe a quarter of a trillion euro by 2014, a prolonged and chaotic national bankruptcy is becoming inevitable. By the time the dust settles, Ireland’s last remaining asset, its reputation as a safe place from which to conduct business, will have been destroyed.

Ireland is facing economic ruin.

While most people would trace our ruin to to the bank guarantee of September 2008, the real error was in sticking with the guarantee long after it had become clear that the bank losses were insupportable. Brian Lenihan’s original decision to guarantee most of the bonds of Irish banks was a mistake, but a mistake so obvious and so ridiculous that it could easily have been reversed. The ideal time to have reversed the bank guarantee was a few months later when Patrick Honohan was appointed governor of the Central Bank and assumed de facto control of Irish economic policy.

As a respected academic expert on banking crises, Honohan commanded the international authority to have announced that the guarantee had been made in haste and with poor information, and would be replaced by a restructuring where bonds in the banks would be swapped for shares.

Instead, Honohan seemed unperturbed by the possible scale of bank losses, repeatedly insisting that they were “manageable”. Like most Irish economists of his generation, he appeared to believe that Ireland was still the export-driven powerhouse of the 1990s, rather than the credit-fuelled Ponzi scheme it had become since 2000; and the banking crisis no worse than the, largely manufactured, government budget crisis of the late 1980s.

Rising dismay at Honohan’s judgment crystallised into outright scepticism after an extraordinary interview with Bloomberg business news on May 28th last year. Having overseen the Central Bank’s “quite aggressive” stress tests of the Irish banks, he assured them that he would have “the two big banks, fixed by the end of the year. I think it’s quite good news The banks are floating away from dependence on the State and will be free standing”.

Honohan’s miscalculation of the bank losses has turned out to be the costliest mistake ever made by an Irish person. Armed with Honohan’s assurances that the bank losses were manageable, the Irish government confidently rode into the Little Bighorn and repaid the bank bondholders, even those who had not been guaranteed under the original scheme. This suicidal policy culminated in the repayment of most of the outstanding bonds last September.

Disaster followed within weeks. Nobody would lend to Irish banks, so that the maturing bonds were repaid largely by emergency borrowing from the European Central Bank: by November the Irish banks already owed more than €60 billion. Despite aggressive cuts in government spending, the certainty that bank losses would far exceed Honohan’s estimates led financial markets to stop lending to Ireland.

On November 16th, European finance ministers urged Lenihan to accept a bailout to stop the panic spreading to Spain and Portugal, but he refused, arguing that the Irish government was funded until the following summer. Although attacked by the Irish media for this seemingly delusional behaviour, Lenihan, for once, was doing precisely the right thing. Behind Lenihan’s refusal lay the thinly veiled threat that, unless given suitably generous terms, Ireland could hold happily its breath for long enough that Spain and Portugal, who needed to borrow every month, would drown.

At this stage, with Lenihan looking set to exploit his strong negotiating position to seek a bailout of the banks only, Honohan intervened. As well as being Ireland’s chief economic adviser, he also plays for the opposing team as a member of the council of the European Central Bank, whose decisions he is bound to carry out. In Frankfurt for the monthly meeting of the ECB on November 18th, Honohan announced on RTÉ Radio 1’s Morning Ireland that Ireland would need a bailout of “tens of billions”.

Rarely has a finance minister been so deftly sliced off at the ankles by his central bank governor. And so the Honohan Doctrine that bank losses could and should be repaid by Irish taxpayers ran its predictable course with the financial collapse and international bailout of the Irish State.

Ireland’s Last Stand began less shambolically than you might expect. The IMF, which believes that lenders should pay for their stupidity before it has to reach into its pocket, presented the Irish with a plan to haircut €30 billion of unguaranteed bonds by two-thirds on average. Lenihan was overjoyed, according to a source who was there, telling the IMF team: “You are Ireland’s salvation.”

The deal was torpedoed from an unexpected direction. At a conference call with the G7 finance ministers, the haircut was vetoed by US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner who, as his payment of $13 billion from government-owned AIG to Goldman Sachs showed, believes that bankers take priority over taxpayers. The only one to speak up for the Irish was UK chancellor George Osborne, but Geithner, as always, got his way. An instructive, if painful, lesson in the extent of US soft power, and in who our friends really are.

The negotiations went downhill from there. On one side was the European Central Bank, unabashedly representing Ireland’s creditors and insisting on full repayment of bank bonds. On the other was the IMF, arguing that Irish taxpayers would be doing well to balance their government’s books, let alone repay the losses of private banks. And the Irish? On the side of the ECB, naturally.

In the circumstances, the ECB walked away with everything it wanted. The IMF were scathing of the Irish performance, with one staffer describing the eagerness of some Irish negotiators to side with the ECB as displaying strong elements of Stockholm Syndrome.

The bailout represents almost as much of a scandal for the IMF as it does for Ireland. The IMF found itself outmanoeuvred by ECB negotiators, their low opinion of whom they are not at pains to conceal. More importantly, the IMF was forced by the obduracy of Geithner and the spinelessness, or worse, of the Irish to lend their imprimatur, and €30 billion of their capital, to a deal that its negotiators privately admit will end in Irish bankruptcy. Lending to an insolvent state, which has no hope of reducing its debt enough to borrow in markets again, breaches the most fundamental rule of the IMF, and a heated debate continues there over the legality of the Irish deal.

Six months on, and with Irish government debt rated one notch above junk and the run on Irish banks starting to spread to household deposits, it might appear that the Irish bailout of last November has already ended in abject failure. On the contrary, as far as its ECB architects are concerned, the bailout has turned out to be an unqualified success.

The one thing you need to understand about the Irish bailout is that it had nothing to do with repairing Ireland’s finances enough to allow the Irish Government to start borrowing again in the bond markets at reasonable rates: what people ordinarily think of a bailout as doing.

The finances of the Irish Government are like a bucket with a large hole in the form of the banking system. While any half-serious rescue would have focused on plugging this hole, the agreed bailout ostentatiously ignored the banks, except for reiterating the ECB-Honohan view that their losses would be borne by Irish taxpayers. Try to imagine the Bank of England’s insisting that Northern Rock be rescued by Newcastle City Council and you have some idea of how seriously the ECB expects the Irish bailout to work.

Instead, the sole purpose of the Irish bailout was to frighten the Spanish into line with a vivid demonstration that EU rescues are not for the faint-hearted. And the ECB plan, so far anyway, has worked. Given a choice between being strung up like Ireland – an object of international ridicule, paying exorbitant rates on bailout funds, its government ministers answerable to a Hungarian university lecturer – or mending their ways, the Spanish have understandably chosen the latter.

But why was it necessary, or at least expedient, for the EU to force an economic collapse on Ireland to frighten Spain? The answer goes back to a fundamental, and potentially fatal, flaw in the design of the euro zone: the lack of any means of dealing with large, insolvent banks.

Back when the euro was being planned in the mid-1990s, it never occurred to anyone that cautious, stodgy banks like AIB and Bank of Ireland, run by faintly dim former rugby players, could ever borrow tens of billions overseas, and lose it all on dodgy property loans. Had the collapse been limited to Irish banks, some sort of rescue deal might have been cobbled together; but a suspicion lingers that many Spanish banks – which inflated a property bubble almost as exuberant as Ireland’s, but in the world’s ninth largest economy – are hiding losses as large as those that sank their Irish counterparts.

Uniquely in the world, the European Central Bank has no central government standing behind it that can levy taxes. To rescue a banking system as large as Spain’s would require a massive commitment of resources by European countries to a European Monetary Fund: something so politically complex and financially costly that it will only be considered in extremis, to avert the collapse of the euro zone. It is easiest for now for the ECB to keep its fingers crossed that Spain pulls through by itself, encouraged by the example made of the Irish.

Irish insolvency is now less a matter of economics than of arithmetic. If everything goes according to plan, as it always does, Ireland’s government debt will top €190 billion by 2014, with another €45 billion in Nama and €35 billion in bank recapitalisation, for a total of €270 billion, plus whatever losses the Irish Central Bank has made on its emergency lending. Subtracting off the likely value of the banks and Nama assets, Namawinelake (by far the best source on the Irish economy) reckons our final debt will be about €220 billion, and I think it will be closer to €250 billion, but these differences are immaterial: either way we are talking of a Government debt that is more than €120,000 per worker, or 60 per cent larger than GNP.

Economists have a rule of thumb that once its national debt exceeds its national income, a small economy is in danger of default (large economies, like Japan, can go considerably higher). Ireland is so far into the red zone that marginal changes in the bailout terms can make no difference: we are going to be in the Hudson.

The ECB applauded and lent Ireland the money to ensure that the banks that lent to Anglo and Nationwide be repaid, and now finds itself in the situation where, as a consequence, the banks that lent to the Irish Government are at risk of losing most of what they lent. In other words, the Irish banking crisis has become part of the larger European sovereign debt crisis.

Given the political paralysis in the EU, and a European Central Bank that sees its main task as placating the editors of German tabloids, the most likely outcome of the European debt crisis is that, after two years or so to allow French and German banks to build up loss reserves, the insolvent economies will be forced into some sort of bankruptcy.

Make no mistake: while government defaults are almost the normal state of affairs in places like Greece and Argentina, for a country like Ireland that trades on its reputation as a safe place to do business, a bankruptcy would be catastrophic. Sovereign bankruptcies drag on for years as creditors hold out for better terms, or sell to so-called vulture funds that engage in endless litigation overseas to have national assets such as aircraft impounded in the hope that they can make a sufficient nuisance of themselves to be bought off.

Worse still, a bankruptcy can do nothing to repair Ireland’s finances. Given the other commitments of the Irish State (to the banks, Nama, EU, ECB and IMF), for a bankruptcy to return government debt to a sustainable level, the holders of regular government bonds will have to be more or less wiped out. Unfortunately, most Irish government bonds are held by Irish banks and insurance companies.

In other words, we have embarked on a futile game of passing the parcel of insolvency: first from the banks to the Irish State, and next from the State back to the banks and insurance companies. The eventual outcome will likely see Ireland as some sort of EU protectorate, Europe’s answer to Puerto Rico.

Suppose that we did not want to follow our current path towards an ECB-directed bankruptcy and spiralling national ruin, is there anything we could do? While Prof Honohan sportingly threw away our best cards last September, there still is a way out that, while not painless, is considerably less painful than what Europe has in mind for us.

National survival requires that Ireland walk away from the bailout. This in turn requires the Government to do two things: disengage from the banks, and bring its budget into balance immediately.

First the banks. While the ECB does not want to rescue the Irish banks, it cannot let them collapse either and start a wave of panic that sweeps across Europe. So, every time one of you expresses your approval of the Irish banks by moving your savings to a foreign-owned bank, the Irish bank goes and replaces your money with emergency borrowing from the ECB or the Irish Central Bank. Their current borrowings are €160 billion.

The original bailout plan was that the loan portfolios of Irish banks would be sold off to repay these borrowings. However, foreign banks know that many of these loans, mortgages especially, will eventually default, and were not interested. As a result, the ECB finds itself with the Irish banks wedged uncomfortably far up its fundament, and no way of dislodging them.

This allows Ireland to walk away from the banking system by returning the Nama assets to the banks, and withdrawing its promissory notes in the banks. The ECB can then learn the basic economic truth that if you lend €160 billion to insolvent banks backed by an insolvent state, you are no longer a creditor: you are the owner. At some stage the ECB can take out an eraser and, where “Emergency Loan” is written in the accounts of Irish banks, write “Capital” instead. When it chooses to do so is its problem, not ours.

At a stroke, the Irish Government can halve its debt to a survivable €110 billion. The ECB can do nothing to the Irish banks in retaliation without triggering a catastrophic panic in Spain and across the rest of Europe. The only way Europe can respond is by cutting off funding to the Irish Government.

So the second strand of national survival is to bring the Government budget immediately into balance. The reason for governments to run deficits in recessions is to smooth out temporary dips in economic activity. However, our current slump is not temporary: Ireland bet everything that house prices would rise forever, and lost. To borrow so that senior civil servants like me can continue to enjoy salaries twice as much as our European counterparts makes no sense, macroeconomic or otherwise.

Cutting Government borrowing to zero immediately is not painless but it is the only way of disentangling ourselves from the loan sharks who are intent on making an example of us. In contrast, the new Government’s current policy of lying on the ground with a begging bowl and hoping that someone takes pity on us does not make for a particularly strong negotiating position. By bringing our budget immediately into balance, we focus attention on the fact that Ireland’s problems stem almost entirely from the activities of six privately owned banks, while freeing ourselves to walk away from these poisonous institutions. Just as importantly, it sends a signal to the rest of the world that Ireland – which 20 years ago showed how a small country could drag itself out of poverty through the energy and hard work of its inhabitants, but has since fallen among thieves and their political fixers – is back and means business.

Of course, we all know that this will never happen. Irish politicians are too used to being rewarded by Brussels to start fighting against it, even if it is a matter of national survival. It is easier to be led along blindfold until the noose is slipped around our necks and we are kicked through the trapdoor into bankruptcy.

The destruction wrought by the bankruptcy will not just be economic but political. Just as the Lenihan bailout destroyed Fianna Fáil, so the Noonan bankruptcy will destroy Fine Gael and Labour, leaving them as reviled and mistrusted as their predecessors. And that will leave Ireland in the interesting situation where the economic crisis has chewed up and spat out all of the State’s constitutional parties. The last election was reassuringly dull and predictable but the next, after the trauma and chaos of the bankruptcy, will be anything but.