Euro Area

[Papewaio]

Germany post WW I, South America twenty years ago, Zimbabwee now.

If you don't have something to back up the printed money i.e. loans or taxpayer money you will have to devalue the EU... and the confidence hit in the markets tends to be far worse if they don't think you can repay it. No such thing as a free lunch, and printing off more money for some without taking it out in other places will lead to devaluing the EU, rapidly.

Investors will flee in general, contrarians will find bargins here and there but even they may be scared off by the potential economic landslide and wait until they think it bottoms out.

End of the day the EU as a whole has to pull its finger out and be more productive be it smarter, longer hours or over a longer life time with more of the people contributing to allow for welfare states (people and corporate welfare). Something has to give, not all can take.

[phonicsmonkey]

Germany post WW I, South America twenty years ago, Zimbabwee now.

If you don't have something to back up the printed money i.e. loans or taxpayer money you will have to devalue the EU... and the confidence hit in the markets tends to be far worse if they don't think you can repay it. No such thing as a free lunch, and printing off more money for some without taking it out in other places will lead to devaluing the EU, rapidly.

Investors will flee in general, contrarians will find bargins here and there but even they may be scared off by the potential economic landslide and wait until they think it bottoms out.

End of the day the EU as a whole has to pull its finger out and be more productive be it smarter, longer hours or over a longer life time with more of the people contributing to allow for welfare states (people and corporate welfare). Something has to give, not all can take.

Where is the hyperinflation in the US? It's not a short term risk there or in Europe.

And I totally agree with everything you say about reform and restructuring but that can only be achieved once a degree of stability can be found.

There is genuinely no reason why there should be a risk of Italy defaulting. It has a positive primary surplus, plenty of assets it can sell to raise funds like it did in the early 90s and it's debt load is not even that historically high. It's only the absurd handcuffs placed on the ECB that is causing this market turbulence and vicious circle of higher financing costs.

If the ECB committed to stand behind euro zone debt these problems would immediately cease and we could get on with paying down debt, growing the economies and restructuring the euro zone so this never happens again.

And by the way I actually think devaluing the Euro would be a good thing for Europe - exporters would benefit greatly and increased tax receipts would help the fiscal position.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why not? That is one of the primary purposes of a central bank after all.

Indeed it is and it is one of the drivers of the instability.

However being lender of last resort without a fully fledged transfer union will merely result in it being slightly easier for the banks to accquire funding but the sovereigns will still be banjaxed.

If the ECB says it will stand behind all euro-zone issued debt it will not have to outright buy many bonds anyway, at least nothing like the amount on issue. Confidence will be restored and the markets will normalize with the backstop of the strong central bank. All bondholders want to know is that they will get their money back as planned. Italy is solvent, it's just illiquid in the near term. The ECB can provide the support it needs to carry it through until it is liquid once more.

What the ECB would most likely end up doing is buying on the secondary market especially for countries like Ireland, Greece and Portugal because there not in the bond market at the minute. This would as I said only send a signal to sellers to get out now with full pay and then they would then scatter to the four winds.

Countries that are clearly insolvent should be allowed to default in a controlled manner - Greece, Portugal.

sorry gaelic, I'm not clear on the position of Ireland in this analysis but it would probably now fall into the first group wouldn't it?

Unfortunately this will not be allowed as the ECB owns all the paper and it appears to want every penny back.

For example Anglo Irish Bank no longer exists as a proper bank and has no deposits, it exists only to resolve it's debts now. Usually this would involve debtor and creditor sitting down and hammering out a plan of payment or default say paying 30cent in the Euro, however the ECB demands that all it's promissary notes be paid in full even the unsuborinated unsecured debt.

Paying unsubordinated debt is quite frankly almost an immorral action on the part of the ECB and they will fall due next March again as they will every year.

This forces our sovereign to hammer the public with austerity to pay something that does not benefit the public and requires more cutting every year which drives up the debt to GDP ratio which means we need more bailout money meaning more austerity.

[Papewaio]

Where is the hyperinflation in the US? It's not a short term risk there or in Europe.

How is unemployment going? Something gives out. Be if inflation, stagnation, high unemployment or lower quality of living.

Market wise you see fleeing from unsafe havens, credit freezing up and banks having to find funds from savers if possible or worse a Reserve Bank.

And I totally agree with everything you say about reform and restructuring but that can only be achieved once a degree of stability can be found.

Wrong way round. You have to do the hard work to get the stability... no washboard stomach without doing the core workout... no stability in the economy without the reforms. Anything else is delaying tactics and throwing more money at the problem. Money needs to be thrown at solutions not problems. Reform first and the market confidence will rise.

There is genuinely no reason why there should be a risk of Italy defaulting. It has a positive primary surplus, plenty of assets it can sell to raise funds like it did in the early 90s and it's debt load is not even that historically high. It's only the absurd handcuffs placed on the ECB that is causing this market turbulence and vicious circle of higher financing costs.

Selling off assests is a short term breather if no long term changes are enacted.

If the ECB committed to stand behind euro zone debt these problems would immediately cease and we could get on with paying down debt, growing the economies and restructuring the euro zone so this never happens again.

And by the way I actually think devaluing the Euro would be a good thing for Europe - exporters would benefit greatly and increased tax receipts would help the fiscal position.

Again throwing money without structural reforms isn't great. Also a devalued Euro will make it hard to buy things like food (coffee), electronics etc

[gaelic cowboy]

Wrong way round. You have to do the hard work to get the stability... no washboard stomach without doing the core workout... no stability in the economy without the reforms. Anything else is delaying tactics and throwing more money at the problem. Money needs to be thrown at solutions not problems. Reform first and the market confidence will rise.

Except the market expects two things that the ECB will be a lender of last resort and they expect haircuts on unsustainable bond prices for Ireland Greece and Portugal.

In effect this "Market Confidence" is supposed to be engendered in countries where there debt to GDP ratio will incresase during said reform period that is pretty much a non starter.

Basically how can we keep increasing debt to GDP because of the reform process and still expect people to change there mind about possible haircuts tomorrow.

Effectively the ECB wants everyone to get up earlier in the morning and pretend it's the same time we always got up when they could just write down unsustainable loans.

The loans will have to be wrote down or else they can extend the maturity, naturally the countries involved would be bared from the market due to default but then were bared anyway due to bailouts so what does it matter.

The reform process would still go on anyway in order to get the government deficits down it's just the unsustainable bank debt will be lifted from the sovereign.

Whats the point in saving a zombie bank when it only deflates your economy causing the banks to require more money meaning more deflation

[Kralizec]

Germany post WW I, South America twenty years ago, Zimbabwee now.

Inflation is caused by to much liquidity; i.e. too much money is being spent in too short a time. It's highly unlikely that pumping out money by the ECB at this point would result in inflation. It may cause more inflation in the long run, when the economy starts lifting up again, but that could be rectified by government asuterity to reduce the amount of "liquid" money in circulation; and there would be more breathing room to do so at that point.

Or at least, that's the general idea - I'm not sure wether I agree with it.

[Papewaio]

Inflation would be more likely if there was no one buying European goods and services. The shorter term reaction is likely to devalue the EU. Good for exports, bad for imports.

But markets are emotional and tend to over react. So they will need to see improvements or the money will flow East.

[Papewaio]

Inflation double post.

[Cecil XIX]

The goal we should aim for in the next half a century is to run a civilised, technocratic government machine, only tempered by occasional general elections. Brussels is for the next few decades a supra-national organism. Therefore, it must seek to gradually exclude the voter from government, up to the point where it picks every few years whichever pack of incompetents will volunteer to interfere with European policy and send them to Brussels, where we will let them panic over this and that and the other. Politicians love to panic, they need activity, it’s their substitute for achievement.

My god, I've gone through a time warp! Quick, is this 1917, 1922 or 1933?

[phonicsmonkey]

Inflation double post.

Hyper-post-inflation! Quick, turn off the printing presses!

[gaelic cowboy]

Hyper-post-inflation! Quick, turn off the printing presses!

Hmm we may have to bail your post count out for the foreseeable future as you reduce your internet usage

[Nowake]

Not catching up on .Org threads because my forum time is spent on reading your Quicksilver. Damn you GC /shakes fist in anger

Well, if I ever needed proof Nowarke was an elitist with no connection to the general population, I have it now in sapdes. I know you're ignoring me Nowarke, but you might like to consider how close your rhetoric is to classical political facism, particularly the bit about the ignorant plebs.

Oh dear, I’m not ignoring you Philipvs, not as a person, I simply do not care to devolve into your type of arguments, where the main focus is, in my opinion of course, not clarifying viewpoints, but rather the raising of easily disproved yet very, very obsessive objections in desperate bids to avoid making any concession to the logic or facts.

As to your allegations, it speaks to the state of the general political debate today that your average public has such a limited horizon of interpretation that it can only place a benign assertion as being pro or against fascism.

On that note, I keep saying that we really, really have to create an 26ptBoldIronicFont, else wit is totally wasted on you lot.

I posted the remarks to which you so object in the hope that someone in this thread crawling with Brits will recognize the paraphrasing and cheer up on being reminded of the amazingly good, most widely known British television political satire of all time and Thatcher’s declared favourite, Yes Minister, the two paragraphs being some of the program’s most infamous quips.
Hell, I even placed a wink before the first one by writing: /theatrically pretends to faint
Just to make sure no freak could miss the irony, I placed before the second the caveat: hidden reference.

And here are the actual quotes – providing larger quotes from the original, since they are so hilarious.

Yes Minister
*The discussion takes place between two Civil Servants*
Bernard Woolley: I don't know if I want power.
Sir Humphrey: If the right people don't have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it! Politicians, councillors, ordinary voters!
Bernard Woolley: But aren't they supposed to in a democracy?
Sir Humphrey: This is a British democracy, Bernard!
Bernard Woolley: How do you mean?
Sir Humphrey: British democracy recognises that you need a system to protect the important things of life and keep them out of the hands of the barbarians! Things like the Opera, Radio 3, the countryside, the law, the universities... BOTH of them. And we are that system!
Bernard Woolley: Gosh!
Sir Humphrey: We run a civilised, aristocratic government machine tempered by occasional general elections. Since 1832, we have been gradually excluding the voter from government. Now we've got them to a point where they just vote once every five years for which buffoons will try to interfere with OUR policies and you are happy to see all that thrown away?
Bernard Woolley: Well, no, no, I didn't mean...
Sir Humphrey: Bernard, do you want the Lake District turned into a gigantic caravan site? The Royal Opera House into a bingo hall? The National Theatre into a carpet sale warehouse? Do you want Radio 3 to broadcast pop music 24 hours a day? How would you feel if they took all the culture programmes off television?
Bernard Woolley: I never watch them.
Sir Humphrey: Well, neither do I, but it's vital to know that they're there!
My paraphrase
hidden reference The goal we should aim for in the next half a century is to run a civilised, technocratic government machine, only tempered by occasional general elections. Brussels is for the next few decades a supra-national organism. Therefore, it must seek to gradually exclude the voter from government, up to the point where it picks every few years whichever pack of incompetents will volunteer to interfere with European policy and send them to Brussels.

Yes Minister
Jim Hacker: It’s the public will. This is a democracy. And the people don’t like it.
Sir Humphrey: The people are ignorant and misguided.
Jim Hacker: Humphrey, it was the people who elected me.
*Sir Humphrey smiles suggestively*
My paraphrase
/theatrically pretends to faint My dear chap, where do you get these ideas?!
Europe is not ready for direct democracy. Petty nationalism would run rampant.
The people are ignorant and misguided. Case in point: it is the people who elect the politicians you so despise in the first place.



Of course, I had to run into the one Brit whose beliefs and sense of humour are, I suppose, the exceptions which prove the positive stereotype regarding British wit.
No worries, I know your Christian humility does not allow you to apologize.
By the by, for one turning so red-faced in a previous debate that he couldn’t help himself from correcting me:

It's Wyclif with one "F", not two. If you want to be anachronistic you could go with Wycliffe.

Your posts are generally perplexing – the latest:

Well, if I ever needed proof NowaRke was an elitist with no connection to the general population, I have it now in sapdes. I know you're ignoring me NowaRke, but you might like to consider how close your rhetoric is to classical political facism, particularly the bit about the ignorant plebs.

Not to put too fine a point on it, yet while I am not sure my English is good enough for me to pass for a Brit, yours would easily allow you to pass for a Romanian



Through this response I hope to reply to Apache and Cecil as well.
The second part of my post simply addressed the lack of information many of the ones frothing at the mouth against the German golden rule seem to suffer from. And I re-quote, as it remains salient and your misinterpretations buried it with no cause:

You should have been cheering Germany’s initiatives.
Angela Merkel has not tired of repeating that member states’ budgetary policies should be placed under the authority of judges in Luxembourg with the power to sanction “fiscal sinners” - the compromise established on 5 December between Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy has sidelined this solution.
This is a policy that is based on one of the most well-established schools of liberal thought, “ordoliberalism”, which emerged between the wars in Germany and was popularised in the postwar period as “the social market economy” by the influential Christian-Democrat Ludwig Erhard.
Michel Foucault identified the originality of this school of liberalism, which makes constitutional regulation and judges the levers and principle guarantors of the construction of a political order founded on a strict respect for economic freedom and free competition.
In the context of ‘a politics’ that is deemed incapable of creating a stable and predictable environment for economic operators, constitutional regulation (the much vaunted ‘golden rule’) is the sole instrument to combat the “temporal incoherences” of democratic governments. And it is in this context that the German proposal to place in the hands of judges budgetary power, which is a core competency of parliament, should be evaluated.

This school of thought is not new in Brussels. In the wake of several decades dominated by the ‘Monnet method’ which advocated entrusting the economic and political modernisation of the continent to an enlightened technocracy - that is not to say said technocracy cannot exist in the presence of ordoliberalism - it is easily forgotten that the European project also has roots in a judicial and economic ordoliberal credo that is still very much alive in Germany.
It is impossible to understand one of the pillars of European construction, which is the policy of free competition, without taking into account the close links maintained over many years with the milieu of German ordoliberalism. It should be said that these ideas provide the basis for a “strong Europe” and the reinforcement of supranational institutions: butonly on the express condition that such institutions maintain an apolitical independence, along the lines the European Central Bank or the European Court of Justice.

In short, the German proposal is much more than an ephemeral solution to an emergency situation. It is based on an authentic European federalist doctrine that aims to call a halt to the slow deployment of a democratic logic in the heart of supranational institutions, whose initial goal was economic modernisation.
As such, it would definitively put an end to repeated attempts to create a European political constitution, and pave the way for construction of an economic constitution in its stead.

[Furunculus]

This is a policy that is based on one of the most well-established schools of liberal thought, “ordoliberalism”, which emerged between the wars in Germany and was popularised in the postwar period as “the social market economy” by the influential Christian-Democrat Ludwig Erhard.
Michel Foucault identified the originality of this school of liberalism, which makes constitutional regulation and judges the levers and principle guarantors of the construction of a political order founded on a strict respect for economic freedom and free competition.
In the context of ‘a politics’ that is deemed incapable of creating a stable and predictable environment for economic operators, constitutional regulation (the much vaunted ‘golden rule’) is the sole instrument to combat the “temporal incoherences” of democratic governments. And it is in this context that the German proposal to place in the hands of judges budgetary power, which is a core competency of parliament, should be evaluated.

This school of thought is not new in Brussels. In the wake of several decades dominated by the ‘Monnet method’ which advocated entrusting the economic and political modernisation of the continent to an enlightened technocracy - that is not to say said technocracy cannot exist in the presence of ordoliberalism - it is easily forgotten that the European project also has roots in a judicial and economic ordoliberal credo that is still very much alive in Germany.
It is impossible to understand one of the pillars of European construction, which is the policy of free competition, without taking into account the close links maintained over many years with the milieu of German ordoliberalism. It should be said that these ideas provide the basis for a “strong Europe” and the reinforcement of supranational institutions: butonly on the express condition that such institutions maintain an apolitical independence, along the lines the European Central Bank or the European Court of Justice.

Interesting post Nowake,

Your description of Ordoliberalism is almost exactly what Merkel means when she says Fiskal Union, which of course isn't a Fiscal Union by any stretch of the imagination, but it also makes it possible to understand exactly how serious the Germans are about not allowing the ECB to let-rip with stimulus as you have at that point created a political tool which will forever afterwards be subject to a ratchet-like desire to tinker at the behest of political masters.

I have never had much sympathy with creeds of the likes of Ordoliberalism, because I am fully okay with the idea letting a polity sink or swim by the quality of its decision making, on the principle that if you give people no responsibility they have no inclination to act responsibly.
It is why I was a little bit sad when Broon made the BoE independent, for it was a very clever move for a social democrat to make, on the presumption that the temptation to spend would always cause them to screw things up and thus ensure long-periods of Tory governance.

Sure, its an unstable way to exist, but it is also why i don't support proportional and consensual government, i believe it is a battle for ideas that should encourage new ideas and but viscously punish poor ones. Creative destruction writ-large.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh dear, I’m not ignoring you Philipvs, not as a person, I simply do not care to devolve into your type of arguments, where the main focus is, in my opinion of course, not clarifying viewpoints, but rather the raising of easily disproved yet very, very obsessive objections in desperate bids to avoid making any concession to the logic or facts.

You seem to read in short sentences, and never pay much attention to the nuance in another's argument. Your first interpretation of someone's post is the one you cleave to even if they develop their position. Beginning your address with "Oh dear" just comes accross as more condensension and is likely to raise the blood pressure of your interlocutor further.

As to your allegations, it speaks to the state of the general political debate today that your average public has such a limited horizon of interpretation that it can only place a benign assertion as being pro or against fascism.

Not really, one of the hallmarks of Facism is oppressing the people for their own good, and that is essentially what is being imposed however benign the rhetoric.

On that note, I keep saying that we really, really have to create an 26ptBoldIronicFont, else wit is totally wasted on you lot.

I posted the remarks to which you so object in the hope that someone in this thread crawling with Brits will recognize the paraphrasing and cheer up on being reminded of the amazingly good, most widely known British television political satire of all time and Thatcher’s declared favourite, Yes Minister, the two paragraphs being some of the program’s most infamous quips.
Hell, I even placed a wink before the first one by writing: /theatrically pretends to faint
Just to make sure no freak could miss the irony, I placed before the second the caveat: hidden reference.

And here are the actual quotes – providing larger quotes from the original, since they are so hilarious.

Yes Minister
*The discussion takes place between two Civil Servants*
Bernard Woolley: I don't know if I want power.
Sir Humphrey: If the right people don't have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it! Politicians, councillors, ordinary voters!
Bernard Woolley: But aren't they supposed to in a democracy?
Sir Humphrey: This is a British democracy, Bernard!
Bernard Woolley: How do you mean?
Sir Humphrey: British democracy recognises that you need a system to protect the important things of life and keep them out of the hands of the barbarians! Things like the Opera, Radio 3, the countryside, the law, the universities... BOTH of them. And we are that system!
Bernard Woolley: Gosh!
Sir Humphrey: We run a civilised, aristocratic government machine tempered by occasional general elections. Since 1832, we have been gradually excluding the voter from government. Now we've got them to a point where they just vote once every five years for which buffoons will try to interfere with OUR policies and you are happy to see all that thrown away?
Bernard Woolley: Well, no, no, I didn't mean...
Sir Humphrey: Bernard, do you want the Lake District turned into a gigantic caravan site? The Royal Opera House into a bingo hall? The National Theatre into a carpet sale warehouse? Do you want Radio 3 to broadcast pop music 24 hours a day? How would you feel if they took all the culture programmes off television?
Bernard Woolley: I never watch them.
Sir Humphrey: Well, neither do I, but it's vital to know that they're there!
My paraphrase
hidden reference The goal we should aim for in the next half a century is to run a civilised, technocratic government machine, only tempered by occasional general elections. Brussels is for the next few decades a supra-national organism. Therefore, it must seek to gradually exclude the voter from government, up to the point where it picks every few years whichever pack of incompetents will volunteer to interfere with European policy and send them to Brussels.

Yes Minister
Jim Hacker: It’s the public will. This is a democracy. And the people don’t like it.
Sir Humphrey: The people are ignorant and misguided.
Jim Hacker: Humphrey, it was the people who elected me.
*Sir Humphrey smiles suggestively*
My paraphrase
/theatrically pretends to faint My dear chap, where do you get these ideas?!
Europe is not ready for direct democracy. Petty nationalism would run rampant.
The people are ignorant and misguided. Case in point: it is the people who elect the politicians you so despise in the first place.

Congratulations, you're so far from the original quote that no one who saw the sketch recognised it. I suppose that makes your allusion clever, but it's not really witty if no one got it, and no one did. Things have also moved on from the time of Yes, Minister, and parody has become tragedy.

Of course, I had to run into the one Brit whose beliefs and sense of humour are, I suppose, the exceptions which prove the positive stereotype regarding British wit.

Plus all the other Englishmen who didn't get it. Beskar might class himself as a "Brit" but there aren't any othere here.

No worries, I know your Christian humility does not allow you to apologize.

Don't blame my religion for the faults of me Ego, it's offensive to all the humble christians out there.

By the by, for one turning so red-faced in a previous debate that he couldn’t help himself from correcting me:

Your posts are generally perplexing – the latest:

I'm sorry, I'm dislexic and I adopt spelling that make sense with the phonetic pronunciantion I have of your name in my head. I'm been reading a lot of medieval English, and there long "A" goes ar, hence the confusion in my spelling of your name.

Through this response I hope to reply to Apache and Cecil as well.
The second part of my post simply addressed the lack of information many of the ones frothing at the mouth against the German golden rule seem to suffer from. And I re-quote, as it remains salient and your misinterpretations buried it with no cause:

It's all we're talking about, and the consensus is that it is not acceptable to vest bugitary power in unelected technocrats, which includes judges.

[Furunculus]

Plus all the other Englishmen who didn't get it. Beskar might class himself as a "Brit" but there aren't any othere here.

Hey! :x

[gaelic cowboy]

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big

Great show in it's day

[phonicsmonkey]

God I love that show.

While we're doing it, and with a sly aside to Furunculus' post above about the Times poll, here's Yes Prime Minister on the subject of single issue polling:

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

Sorry, I don't think it's on you tube.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hey! :x

Clearly, you must live over “the wrong hill”.

[Furunculus]

the wrong hill? :(

[Tellos Athenaios]

the wrong hill? :(

Something to do with a penchant for good natured rivalry between communities... often involving sports (teams), accents and occasionally smashing up property in inner cities... typically demarcated by geographical barriers such as river or a hill.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

the wrong hill? :(

No, you're just misguided in your support for the Celts and Gaels.

Hah, was that a real interview? I liked that.

Sorry, it's satire, the Hon. Jim Hacker M.P.

[Nowake]

Hah, was that a real interview? I liked that.

No, the quality of the sitcom is simply as nothing you’ve seen since.
I especially love the cases of articulated sesquipedalian loquaciousness such as the following:

[Beskar]

I got the box set, it is a great series.

Also:

Plus all the other Englishmen who didn't get it. Beskar might class himself as a "Brit" but there aren't any othere here.

I was thinking that when you said about how people will complain about losing their national identities (Britain) then you cited Scotland and Wales as examples (which would be enchanted under my system). I was amused.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was thinking that when you said about how people will complain about losing their national identities (Britain) then you cited Scotland and Wales as examples (which would be enchanted under my system). I was amused.

I don't quite get it, or maybe you don't. I'm not sure.

Part of Welsh national identity is being oppressed by the English (not the British) and surviving, it is what has allowed such a small country to stay so, well, Welsh.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Part of Welsh national identity is being oppressed by the English (not the British) and surviving, it is what has allowed such a small country to stay so, well, Welsh.

I thought it was leek, complaining and the weather. Mostly the weather. Or as a Welsh comedian once said IIRC: “And God made it rain for forty days and forty nights... that's still the best summer we ever had!”.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I thought it was leek, complaining and the weather. Mostly the weather. Or as a Welsh comedian once said IIRC: “And God made it rain for forty days and forty nights... that's still the best summer we ever had!”.

It's all about complaining about the whether, which is the fault of the English, because the Welsh would be living in England otherwise - and leeks are the only things that grow in the sodden clay.

Welsh national anthem, no seriously: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Functions/anthem.html

See, even the Welsh think hating the English makes you Welsh.

[Vladimir]

BBCA has pretty much decided that Europe is falling back into another recession and that America is experiencing an economic resurgence. Has anyone seen anything on the national level to confirm this?

[gaelic cowboy]

The eurostat figures for Irelands export trade into the continent are going down which suggests falling demand in Europe.

If the figures come back soon for increased US/UK/BRIC trade then we can guess your previous assertion is correct.

[Vladimir]

Interesting.

I don't remember what sources the cheerful and enthusiastic business correspondent used but he delivered the bad news in an optimistic tone. He always seems happy and it lessens the impact of the bad news he delivers.

[gaelic cowboy]

One major canary in the coal mine is the continual parking of funds with the ECB overnight by banks, in effect the interbank lending market in the Eurozone has stopped.

Last time we had something like that we got a new breakfast cereal called credit crunch and it killed Lehmans

Banks' deposits at ECB hit another record high