We’ve drifted way off topic. I don’t think the Brexit thread is the the place to discuss the tragic murder that happened recently in Northern Ireland. In fact I’m not sure a Fellrunning forum is really the place to discuss it at all
Printable View
We’ve drifted way off topic. I don’t think the Brexit thread is the the place to discuss the tragic murder that happened recently in Northern Ireland. In fact I’m not sure a Fellrunning forum is really the place to discuss it at all
I agree the that Euro was the EU's decision. It would be weird otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
Some people have said currency unions fail without political union. Look at the pound: that's a currency union that has stood the test of time despite very different economic conditions existing (eg, in Scotland vs the city of London). I have previously made a similar case for the currency union of the United States, which is still going strong. Do you think that currency unions only work if there is an associated political union? I'm undecided on this, but am interested to hear your opinion.
Interestingly there are many anti-capitalists who make the same points as you to support that capitalism is at fault, not the EU. They point to massive unemployment in certain parts of some Southern European states and equate it to the situation in Argentina, which was nothing to do with the EU. I suspect there are Corbynistas saying that the situation is due to a failure of proper state economic planning. I suspect some of them even say they are talking exclusively in facts and get annoyed when other people question them on it. ;)
It's a good point regarding turning our backs on the EU, or them turning their backs on us (as you think). Again this comes down to a point of perspective. So let's deal in facts here. Cameron asked for some changes to the way the EU works. They said "no". We said we're going to leave.
I agree remain and reform is a unicorn. Cameron tried it and failed.
Non-democratic superstate. That sounds like a point worth discussing. Why do you think that?
You've asked Oracle but I thought I'd put my two-penneth. It has been discussed before.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The biggest problem with the euro is that quite different countries with wildly diverse economies and cultures share the same currency. So it means that the southern European members are trading at an adverse exchange rate while for the northern ones like Germany it is favourable. Ah you might say, well how is it that currency unions in countries like the UK and USA manage despite having very diverse economic regions in the former and states in the latter?
The reason is that political union also incorporates fiscal union. So that there is an element of common taxation and common expenditure. This results in fiscal transfers from richer regions to poorer ones to smooth out the imbalances. So for example we have the same level of unemployment benefit and state pension in Sunderland as we do in London whether Sunderland can afford it or not. This article from a few years ago explains it very well. Even in the USA 17% of taxation is collected and distributed at the federal level. The state of Mississippi receives a net fiscal transfer of $6,000 per capita per annum.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...l-integration/
In the UK the amount of common taxation and spending is much more than in the USA
Nothing like this exists within the eurozone. The EU budget is around 1% of the aggregate GDP of EU countries. Therefore there is very little to smooth out the imbalances caused by totally different economies using the same currency. It is a fundamental structural flaw of the euro that will not be overcome unless political and fiscal union happens.
Thank you Muddy. :) It's so nice to have a conversation when people are polite and make points clearly.
So we need an EU fiscal union then? (lights blue touch-paper) ;)
No we really don't Noel. Muddy was giving you a hint of why some of the symptoms of monetary union can be ameliorated in similar economies. Certainly not in the EU. If you have not guessed at the consequence of fiscal union, it is not just britain who will oppose exporting 11 downing street to the office next to Junckers, and installing an unelected ideological nitwit and despot like Juncker in it. Much as Juncker wishes it were soQuote:
Originally Posted by noel
Many countries will oppose it, probably most. All the payers basically. A lot of others have reached their intrusion limit by EU, some of the eastern countries too.
The germans have made it clear, they will say "Nein" ,to anything that stops the one way flow of money trains back to der fatherland. They will oppose monetary union with every fibre,( unless it is run from Berlin and not on equitbale terms). They have after all already said "Nein" to paying Greek pensions even at a level way below theirs. Part of fiscal union right! Greek pensioners can starve as far as Berlin is concerned. They say "Nein" to paying italian unmemployment benefit. Their bed they can lie in it, screams Berlin as it ships another billion euros home. Southern italy is a long way from them anyway, too far to hear the cries of despair.
For sure, the Greek and Italian problems were not made in Berlin, and Berlin has a point in saying they were feckless. The problems were made at home. But the euro makes it impossible for them to recover, and Berlin refuses any help of any meaningful kind. It wants the advantages of the club, not the problems. Berlin always did want its cake and to eat it.
Indeed they said "Nein "to even less significant forms of recirculation or risk sharing like Macrons Eurobonds because German taxpayers might end on the hook for it. The delicious irony is: when it all goes tits up, as it must, the german taxpayer will be the last to be told they are already on the hook for it anyway when italy defaults. That will be Karma. I for one will cheer.
The founding fathers of the EU, said fiscal union would need to precede monetary union at least two decades ago. The junckers of the time ignored them, deciding to delay the "hard" decisions, and pressed on anyway. Nothing it seems can stop a ruinous ideology. There are too many rosy eyed remainers all the way across europe.
But also it doesnt work! It only goes part way. The partial fiscal union is what we see in the USin very similar economies and it only takes the edge of a few of the more ruinous symptoms. And like the EU it is unstable. Take the rust belt, as tax take and old world employer numbers fall, the cost of the social state is still there, so local taxes rise to balance budgets and professionals leave to better places, setting the downwad spiral in place. The mass migration is the problem not the solution. It prevents recovery where they are. Then you get idiots like Corbyn saying austerity is a choice, who ramp up spending on everything on borrowed monwy and when it finally blows up when there is nothign left. Not even a proper police service. Ask downtown detroit.
So no we dont need a currency union or fiscal union. And we dont need to be part of any club that tries to defy economic gravity, by repeating the failed experiment again. I listed the repeated failed currency unions in europe stretching back over well over a century. DO I have to do it again before people realise it is 100 percent? The euro will fail.
Not "we" but perhaps that is what is missing in the Eurozone, and there lies the problem with the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Before the Euro, we had the beginnings of a single market and we also had the customs union.
Once we had the Euro and added all the new countries it all began to fall down.
Lack of fiscal transfer as discussed.
It is the start of a two-tier Europe and this is where the project will probably crumble.
Without that fiscal transfer, the Euro will fall, and it needs to be at least 10 fold what it currently is, which is something I doubt the wealthier Euro nations will stomach and the non-Euro nations won't want to pay for.
Those outside the Euro would just be more disadvantaged trading with the Eurozone and by being in the CU as the policy would have to be geared towards the Eurozone.
The "ideal model" would probably be for more integration in the Eurozone, but then a loser EFTA style arrangement for the non-Euro nations.
Can you really see the Germans signing up to their money being used to bail weaker economies as it will in a fiscal union? Every time the issue is raised in any guise the answer is always a resounding no. Merkel has said it repeatedly in several contexts. Germany leaving the euro might save it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
as I said, I doubt whether the wealthier EU nations would sign up to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
Certainly the eurozone needs a fiscal union. The problem is that there appears to be little enthusiasm for it among the member states. As Oracle and WP have said it is unlikely that Germany will wear it. Mrs Merkel has to answer to her electorate and while the West Germans could tolerate a mass transfer of wealth to their fellow Germans in the east to achieve unification they don’t feel the same way towards Greeks and Italians. By the same token the Southern Europeans don’t want their lives controlled by the northern states.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
And therein lies the nub of it. The idea of the nation state as opposed to a supranational organisation remains resilient and not just here in the UK. Fiscal transfers are accepted between richer and poorer regions with scarcely a grumble because rightly or wrongly there is a perceived shared identity. This doesn’t exist between the nation states of the European Union. I think the resistance to the idea of a political and fiscal union is why the EU didn’t set it up before they launched the euro in the first place.
You're right there is little enthusiasm for a fiscal union among the member states, and am I right in saying it would take a unanimous decision? So is it scaremongering to say that the EU is moving towards a superstate? Or are there other moves afoot to which you leavers are against?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
Are you suggesting that subsequent events (in Italy, Greece...)have turned what was a good idea at the time into a catastrophe rather than that the governments of countries outside the Paris/Berlin axis were at fault in not seeing ahead?
I dispute it was ever a good idea, come as it did after the failure of every currency union preceding it! for example the Latin, Austro Hungary, Scandinavian, Currency Snake, ERM. All the currency unions have one thing in common - they all failed for over a century! One of the closest analogies was the rouble zone, in the sense the clearing structures were similar to the Euro. That failed as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
The fundamental problems are there are few controls over an economy. Take Interest rates / money supply and the self adjusting relief valve of the exchange rate. Now imagine taking a dozen aeroplanes, and linking their throttles and elevators on a single remote controls despite massive differences in engine size and efficiency and dead weight pay load (in this case debt). In order to stop one going too high, or another stalling, a third will crash into the ground. Only if the aeroplanes are very similar will they even stay aloft for any significant time Even then they will crash in time. There is no relief valve. The analogy is very real. The interest rate that is killing Italy because of debt, is creating a property bubble in Germany. One size simply cannot fit all.
What is supposed to happen is exchange rates reset values, so the consequence of German export dominance is demand for Marks grows, so does the price, so the price of importing from Germany becomes prohibitive, meanwhile the exchange rate of the other country makes their goods seem far cheapr so manufacturing locally becomes cost effective and local industry and employment gets a boost.
It is relatively self regulating, so long as you dont invite a business and job destroyer like Corbyn into power. The alternative to exchange rate drift involves slashing local wages in real terms which is politically impossible (remember Greece?), and invites a mass exodus. So the combination of fixed exchange rate and free movement is completely unstable. A disaster inevitably happens. With free movement of capital it deserts the struggling economies too.
The problem of forcing countries to balance budgets has massive consequences too. Less productive countries are forced to put up taxes to balance their books, which is why the poor countries not only have low wages, but also tax the least well off, where we and Germany have substantial zero tax bands. That encourages two other things. First the destructive migration, but also the black economy. In places like portugal and italy "cash under the counter" is the normal way of doing business, which further erodes the economy, and in southern italy encourages organised crime to flourish. You cannot blame the countries. The wages are half ours before they are taxed! The poor countries are forced to tax the wealthy and business excessively, so they all leave too.
Germany is at least in part an architect of the problem. They allowed Greece to join with an economy that was simply not good enough. They then blame Greece for their own bad decision in allowing greece into the Euro in the first place. I still dont understand why Greece didnt bail. I suspect varoufakis would have done it if he could.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
I have never forgiven Greece its hubris (or rather hybris) in mounting the Olympics. I think only the Coca-Cola Games hasn't lost vast sums of money for the host nation.
Your replies do rather suggest that the other EU members are just vassal states of Germany; but then "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
And this is why I believe the EU regardless of Brexit stands at a cross roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
We often hear in the UK talk about what we signed up to in the 70s when we accepted membership of the Common Market.
How will the wealthier Euro nations react if they are now told that to maintain the Euro they will have to agree to fiscal transfers to the less well of regions and nations?
I suspect they will say "we didn't vote for this...."
On the unanimity, I'm not sure. I have read that the reason there hasn't been another treaty since Lisbon (they used to be every 4-5 years) is that Lisbon had the tools already within it for the EU to draw in competence in areas it didn't previously have and also for the ability of a nation to veto to be gradually eroded.
Now that might be untrue, or exaggeration, but I have seen it from some serious journalists, not just the regular space cadets you find on social media.
Certainly there are levers the EU can pull to put (say) a small nation like Ireland under pressure over it's Corporation Tax rates that might render the Tax Veto Ireland has useless.
I get all these arguments. its a shame the occasional robust nature of their presentation has caused the remain debaters to shy away...or perhaps its an uncomfortable truth that couldn't be tolerated. In hindsight, even for someone without a degree in economics, it was evident the wheels were coming off with Grexit (remember that??). The Greek economy could not stand the strain of being hitched to a high octane currency like the Euro.
So, after doubting my position as a leave voter (the remain arguments tugged at my conscience) this greater exposition of the money game explains of the sense of unease I was feeling about the whole thing and has settled my mind. It helps me to see the EU negotiating position for exactly what it is. They (Germany and France) will go to any lengths to keep us in otherwise they will lose a major contributor to picking up the tab for a failed Italy/Euro.
Now, can you financially aware commentators say succinctly why we kept the pound?
As Oracle said it was never a good idea. And yes they should have seen ahead. After all they were given plenty of warnings. Do you remember William Hague calling the euro a burning building with no exits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
This article replaying an interview with Nigel Lawson from 1998 is amazingly prophetic.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2011/0...n-on-the-euro/
Lawson states that the single currency has to be "buttressed by very substantial fiscal transfers, which happens automatically under a federal system."
‘People say that the shocks will force these countries to make the supply-side reforms that will be needed. That must be a gamble and a politically naive one at that. Moreover,it’s
putting the cart before the horse. All history shows that if you want to create a political union, you do that first and the single currency follows. America’s history shows that, and so does Germany’s
And how about this for a prediction:
‘It’s very difficult to say what an optimal currency area is, but the bigger you get – and this one’s set to be very big and intended to get bigger – a one-size-fits-all monetary policy becomes less and less probable. It produces problems, even in the United States. This danger will be particularly acute when the first recession comes along. It’s going to be very nasty indeed, I fear. The Germans are very concerned that the phase of budgetary discipline will break down.
I always remember at the time opponents of the euro in this country were dismissed as "little Englanders". But they were spot on weren't they.
Germany and France are the main power players within the eurozone and at the moment they disagree on the best way forward. Come the next recession (which may not be far away) the need for political/fiscal union will probably become more acute. Failing that I think there is a good chance that the eurozone will break up. One possible solution might be for a small group of northern states led by Germany to break away and form their own currency zone. The value of the rump euro would inevitably fall bringing instant relief. This is better than countries like Italy or Greece reverting to their own currencies since their debts would still be denominated in euros and therefore be much higher as their own currencies devalued.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I was surprised by your assertion that it might be scaremongering to say that the EU is moving towards a superstate. The Commission makes no secret of it, it has been the stated intention of ever closer union since the days of the EU's founding fathers. So bit by bit the EU is inching towards that goal. The latest example is the calls for a European army.
Noel and Graham, seem to quite enjoy working Oracle, etc. into a frenzy, I am bored by it. Is the EU a perfect organisation, not even close, is the Euro a perfect currency, not even close. So with the problems with each it is so easy to concentrate on all of the bad aspects to reinforce your opinions. Even experts disagree on the merits of these endeavors, so what chance do a few anonymous cowards on social media have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
All I can say is I listen to/read Irish media a lot and I never hear anything there about how the Euro and EU have been a absolute disaster for the country.
My posts are informative. Not emotive. Unless you had not noticed we are not actually in the euro!!! Which could be why it hasnt caused us problems, despite the same project fear before that decision. Ireland is about to get a dose of reality when EU tears up its tax rates and deals with such as apple. Then let us see how it gets on.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
And the growth of the EU and eurozone economies has not kept pace with the other advanced economies. It is a protection zone. So the evidence is there in growth it does not help: all you have to do is look.
I notice you quoting remainer media. So now you try and list benefits instead.
Cameron and Osbourne lamentably failed. How do you get on with it?
You cannot use...
-Euro. Currency unions always have been a disaster.
-Trade. We can trade anyway. EU cannot keep china out or us. We could do a free trade deal. EU wont negotiate it. Dead loss they are.
-Holidays Abroad. They still want our money spent in their countries and if they get arsy we go elsewhere..
-Agriculture. The EU policy is a well known disaster that props up french inefficiency. And funds such as Heseltine to own land.
-Academic or institution cooperation, we do international cooperation and projects anyway. Dont need EU, just goodwill.
-Academic excellence. The EU is certainly not.
-Transparency. EU is not.
-Value for money. EU wastes it hand over fist. Remember strasbourg?
-Democracy. It is not a democracy. Laws do not start with elected persona and the parliament is essentially impotent. A joke. Even Juncker said so.
-Decision making. Far too many cooks and you dont have any broth. It doesnt take 7 years to negotiate trade deals. EU takes it because it is far too labyrinthine and slow with too many opposing voices. that is why it takes seven years.
- Deals. So many involved they become the lowest common denominator, not the highest.
- Laws. One size does not fit all.
So what BENEFITS are there? The "good aspects" you claim, I am waiting. You never have contested a single point I made successfully. I am genuinely interested in what you think the benefits are of being in the EU?
I am breaking my rule here but only once. I either ignore or just skim your comments and have a policy of not replying to them, because it is pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
The is a certain masochistic fascination in reading them
There's a lot of "mischief" going on around Brexit and the EU more widely Pat.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Here in the UK for example we have lifelong anti-EU politicians seemingly wanting to anchor the good ship UK as close to the EU harbour as they can. Corbyn and McDonnell's position can only be for purely political gain.
I don't follow Irish politics, but it seems to me we have similar goings on in Ireland.
“The economic and fiscal policies of the European Union have had catastrophic effects on the lives of many of its citizens. At the core of these policies are the Fiscal Compact, the economic governance, the Banking Union and the European Semester.
“The gap between the rich and poor in the EU is constantly increasing, social rights are being dismantled, unemployment (especially youth unemployment) remains at high levels and the people of the member states are being subordinated to poverty and stagnation.
“Democracy must be strengthened through an increased role for the national parliaments and the European Parliament, also through greater accountability, transparency and supervision of European policies.”
Sinn Féin MEP Liadh Ní Riada
You can find plenty of anti-EU stuff from prominent Irish politicians up until the UK voted to leave the EU and then all of a sudden they seem to have withered away, whether that's because Republicans see a chance to stick the boot in to the UK, or that Irish politicians know they'll need some EU support and goodwill to deal with the effects of Brexit.
You are doing more harm to your argument than good with that quote. You would not even need a fag packet to write out Sinn Féin's knowledge of economics, a match box would be big enough. They are a marxist organisation with only one policy "tax the rich".Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
You need to try much harder than that.
Are you referring to people on this forum with that comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Some people find your posts offensive, but I understand that all those thousands of words are just the groundwork to then deliver punchlines like this. Keep up the good work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle
"All I can say is I listen to/read Irish media a lot and I never hear anything there about how the Euro and EU have been a absolute disaster for the country."Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
That was you Pat.
I gave you an Irish politicians quote. I don't know whether they are competent or not although I suspect you are correct, but that misses my point.
My point was that previously Eurosceptic politicians are all of a sudden bigging-up the benefits of the EU and/or winding back from their previous pre UK Referendum positions.
The only real clarity and consistency (in UK politics) is coming from die hard leavers and die hard remainers.
I'm not anonymous. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Yes I am. I have no idea who any of you are, but at least with the likes of you and a few others who are long term users of the forum, I guess some of the other long term users know who you are. But the likes of Oracle, a long term user who needs to create a new identity in order to spew out his hatred. That I cannot understand. Why is he afraid that we might know who he really is? Does not say much for his conviction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
He's worried that his membership of the labour party might be revoked.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
And you are a bad man.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I don't see why you need to know the identity of people. Surely that's their business. If they make it a forum rule then fair enough. Personally I think the only relevant matter is the arguments people make and you can either agree or disagree with them. I don't know why you have to resort to abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Oh let's see - all these threats to rape and murder "remoaner" MPs on social media. Anonymity is a great thing. Would these people say the same stuff if people knew who they were?
Using my real name on here very much controls what I can say, because I could say a lot more. Other people do not have to have the same level of self-censorship
Brilliant, Noel. Absolutely brilliant :DQuote:
Originally Posted by noel
But who is saying that on here?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
I've not read all of Oracle's posts but of those I have, I've never read anything that comes remotely close to what you're suggesting. It strikes me that you just don't like people having a different opinion to you. I disagree with a lot of your comments but you have an absolute right to make them. It's called freedom of speech.
Talking social media in general, not specifically here.
Which demonstrates what I have said. You seem unable to challenge the brexit arguments, so prefer to attack the poster, which in critical thinking is a straw man. It does not matter who I am, as to the validity of my argument. As of now, I have yet to see you give any cogent argument on why to remain: you seemingly prefer to attack brexiteers rather than brexit arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
The field is yours Patrick. What are the three most important arguments for remain? (I mean real arguments not platitudes or straw men?) It is the lack of cohesive arguments that did for remain prior to the referendum.
If nothing else comment on this:
The EU has consistently refused to abide by article 50 : which demands it negotiates a future arrangement so reference can be made to it in the withdrawal agreement and so irish border management can be defined. Payments are nowhere to be seen in that article.
It has also deliberately alienated unionists and the only alternative it suggests will alienate rebublicans so endangering peace either way. They also refuse to negotiate a withdrawal agrement other than demanding money with menaces, which both the EU and the house of lords legal investigations have confirmed is unmandated and unenforceable.
In summary: Why do you want to belong to a club that treats a potential major trading partner so? and prefers lose lose to win win, ignoring its own rules in the process?
But you previously said that you were referring to people on this forum. So if they are just making arguments that you disagree with as opposed to the abusive and threatening posts that you have noticed in some social media circles, why are they cowards?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
The Irish issue is a dangerous red herring which the EU are happy to stir up for their own agenda and the Irish PM is more than happy to tag along with. I'm so sad to see all the good work that went into the good friday agreement become threatened by people who should supposedly know better. They are playing with peoples lives. But Brussels is a long way from Londonderry.
I have shown in hard EU collected statistics how money floods into Germany, which is dramatically more than other states even combined. It is actually worse than I stated: Much of what is shown going to others is proportionate QE not capital flow, making the German figures even more stark. Also that it flows out of Italy to the point of destroying the foundation of already rocky banks, made worse by EU banking collateral rules, How Germany has consistently said no to allowing the Greek government to assist the most desparate Greek pensioners, and refuses for example an Italian budget to help the unemployed.
So Convenient it may be to call such "spewing" or "hatred" it is cold hard EU fact. So please refrain from characterising it so. Why do you never answer facts, preferring to attack the posters?
For the record I have never threatened anyone mp or otherwise.
An idiot saying 1+1=2 is still correct, a professor denying it is still wrong. Who I am has no connection with veracity. Basic critical thinking Patrick.
I'm still interested. What are your top 3 defensible reasons to be in the EU?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
no it's not. It's ad hominem. Ask alwaysinjured.Quote:
You seem unable to challenge the brexit arguments, so prefer to attack the poster, which in critical thinking is a straw man
https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/E...ns_jJnxF0M.pngQuote:
in hard EU collected statistics how money floods into Germany
Germany pays the largest contribution to the EU budget and is a "net contributor".