I had to teach Mike recently what the EU is and got bashed by Owly for that. Suddenly I found myself defending the EU which is not an ordinary experience for me. Last time I got bashed on a EU topic (not here though) it was for the statement “our mutual fight against nuclear power plants has done more for German-French friendship than all the years of the EU.”
The EU is used to shift power from people and parliaments to governments and Lisbon Treaty is going to make this even worse. It’s not new, though: everything that’s unpopular or outrageous is introduced via the Council of Ministers (that is, by all our national governments), and then presented to us as “the EU has decided, and we have no alternative than to make this national law”. Nonsense. Of course there is an alternative: to have democratic decisions, and I don’t see why this should be more difficult or easier to achieve by dealing with each national government singly. European institutions aren’t undemocratic because they are European, they are that because all our governments want it.
The idea of Europe deserves some rescue work, I think, and it’s worth it. It’s not only borders without passport controls (or passport controls that aren’t taken seriously like when I was a child), or ,as BC put it, having lost the "being abroad" sense when in other countries. European integration is securing peace in Europe, and there is no reason anyway to think in small units like states nowadays.
The fact that many examples eurosceptics give of the 'undemocratic EU' are actually the result of the Council of Ministers does slightly weaken their point doesn't it? At least when most decisions in the Council required unananimity, these were the actions of nations' democratically elected governments, rather like their signing a treaty would be. As such democratic accountability for them ought to come in the same way as it does for other decisions of these governments. When sceptics claim that this is lacking - and they have a point - they're really indicting the democratic accountability of certain sorts of decisions taken by our governments more broadly.
I agree with you on the reasons for the lack of democracy Momo but my ambivalence goes a little deeper than that.
The original six (it would have been seven if a certain Northern European nation hadn't gone into an egocentric sulk) were an ideal match. They had roughly equal standards of living and were at similar stages of development. Even when it had expanded to fifteen there was some consistency. Portugal and Greece, and to a lesser extent, Spain and Ireland needed a little carrying but there was enough overall mass to do this.
At this point, a democratic union was still possible. It would have been unwieldy but some sort of federation or confederation was possible as, despite the reactionary ranting of the Little England movement in the UK Tory Party and it's continental equivalents, there were more similarities than differences.
But I think the accession of the ex-communist countries ended the whole idea. There's no way that anyone can argue that there was enough common ground, politically, economically or culturally for a meaningful partnership. The reasons for welcoming these countries was completely predatory. They represented cheap but high quality labour which could weaken western unions and masses of cheap real estate and moribund enterprises to asset strip. Furthermore, the post communist governments were often so reactionary that they thought the anaemic left of the West represented a drift back into communism and they were quite happy to act more in the interests of the US than Europe: (Rumsfeld's "New Europe").
I think the peoples of these countries now realise that they were taken for a ride: "We always knew that the Communists lied about Communism but we now understand that they told us the truth about Capitalism" as an Eastern European colleague of mine often opines. But it's too late. They've signed on the dotted line and lost the farm - well most of the farms anyway.
I agree with you about the idea of Europe Momo. But I think this particular attempt at it has gone astray. And I'm not sure how it can be brought back or whether it can be brought back at all.
I’ve been thinking in the same way for some years too, BigC, but now the differences between EU-15 and the newcomers are becoming blurred. I’d call it a success of the neo-liberals: our (old EU) advantage is lost. The new countries are still far more polarised (in economic and political terms), but we are joining them soon. The GDP per capita in all large EU-15 countries is falling, we will soon all be where they are.
The only countries that are really hopeless are Romania and Bulgaria. I won’t protest if someone wants to annex them to the US or Russia or Zimbabwe—hey, does anyone here want a mafia with territory and inhabitants?. (I should edit that sentence out, someone will accuse of being provocative again.)
We have had a very weak left for the last 20 years, but now the right is weakening too. With the failure of neo-liberalism they don’t have a clear concept of what they can achieve either. Possibly I’m too optimistic, but their only way to rescue themselves is a return to the old concept of a balance between social market economy and social-democracy. More polarisation than now would bring us either a police-state or riots that nobody can gain by, especially not the middle classes. A policy that is harming at least 90% of all people can’t be continued so easily.
Rumsfeld’s New Europe has never been anything else than power-play against the Soviet Union and then against Russia, and it’s become superfluous now. There was some whining about that a few months ago (on this site and elsewhere). Nobody cared, and that’s that.
The EU has become too big to fail, I think. It will bring us a lot of undesirable things in the next few years, but in the long run it could be a chance. As you said, the peoples in the new countries have noticed it too. Why should it be easier to turn policies in single countries than in the EU? I suggest we use the same tactics as our governments and reverse them. The Stockholm programme for instance means to introduce the British attitude toward video surveillance plus the German idea of freedom of the press all over Europe. I suggest a fight to have it the other way round.
An interesting perspective. You're saying that our standard of living will be reduced to theirs rather than the other way around. It's possible I suppose. And I can see how that just might be a good thing in the long run but it would be in the very long run with a lot of misery in between.
I think it's far more likely that their standards will decline too but more rapidly. Watch Latvia for the next 12 months. That will be the indicator.
I’ve been watching Latvia for some months now. People there have started to wonder how many different uses for lampposts there are. I can’t imagine that anyone dares to let Latvia’s standards go down much farther. I expect that the more intelligent part of the ruling classes will see that it’s not in their own interest to overdo it.
I think if brits go on about an undemocratic EU the rest of Europe must be splitting their sides, we do not know what democracy is. We are ruled by an elite who have devised a system by which they can convince their followers that they are deciding, in the General Elections, who governs the country. The 2 parties cooperating in this myth are run by different sides of the public school/Oxbridge debating societies. They fill all the major government institutions plus the BBC.
They like the idea of the EU as a means of increasing their market possibilities but they want to limit its influence in their little pool.
We are as has been shown recently governed by people who are at best stupid and at worst corrupt and it will be interesting to what percentage of the population bother to take part in the charade this years Election.
There is much truth in what you say disenchanted. I especially agree your point about those who want a single market but do not want the dilution of their class priveliges.
But while I agree that to some extent bourgoise democracy is a charade, it is the best democracy we have for the time being and we have to participate. What's the alternative? Smash the windows of RBS? Mob McDonalds for an hour or so? That'll get them quaking in their boots!
disenchanted,
In point of fact, neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor are Oxbridge men. Given that standards of competence and honesty are not always high among plumbers, school teachers, police officers or in any other trade or profession, I think you're mistaken to focus on politicians. As for them being an élite, they are, after all, elected and this implies a degree of public responsibility. Spineless cynicism among voters is a far worse plague than the failings of politicians.
Spineless cynicism is an entitlement for voters Eric. It is for politicians to dispel this. You are of course correct though, in pointing out that they are as human as the rest of us - though I've always found plumbers, schoolteachers and police officers to be both competent and honest (with a few exceptions on both counts). A better comparison for politicians would have been accountants, bankers or lawyers.
No, Disenchanted, we are not splitting our sides, we have got “elites” that are pretty much the same. A government that alters a decision of parliament, and doesn’t understand why we find that outrageous, for instance. We have even stopped to make jokes about British Rail since our railways have been privatised too.
Eric, you don’t deny that an incompetent and dishonest politician can do a lot more damage than an incompetent and dishonest plumber, do you? Besides, there are more differences among plumbers than among politicians, and more competition.
I blame both sides for low voter turnouts: there is a lack of integrity in most politicians that makes elections almost meaningless, but I also blame those voters who don’t even use the small choice we still have, and don’t bother to take our politicians to task. It’s the same as letting them have all the institutions that should be democratic (to some extent are) without putting up a fight.
European institutions are less transparent than national ones, and elections of the EP belong to the most boring things in the world. By design, I’d say. It’s not exactly a punishment for our “elites”, if we just let them, Disenchanted.
Momo, how would you make EP elections less boring (or increase turnout, to choose a more objective and consequential measure)? If their boringness is by design, presumably there's an alternative design that would solve the problem?
Thomas,
By giving them some real power and making things transparent, of course. The EP has almost nothing to decide now. Don’t believe that Lisbon Treaty changes that: in most cases they must be heard, meaning even if the EP says “hell, no” to a proposal, the Commission or Council can just go ahead. Incredible, isn’t it?
Do you know if any European institution is allowed to collect data about your political opinions or if you are a trade unionist, and whether it’s legal to let authorities of other (non-EU) countries have these data? Even if you know (that the correct answer is yes), do you think many people know it, let alone see any possibility to take any influence by democratic means? The EU is a black hole of intransparency, otherwise there would be a lot more protest.
bigC,
The onus is not on politicians to galvanize the citizens of a democratic country; You're talking about demagogues there. Every citizen has a duty to act for the good of society. On the political side, this may include minor efforts, such as contributing to this forum. Bitching about politicians while accepting no responsibility to be even coherent or informed is sheer self-indulgence, showing the ordinary citizen in an even worse light than the majority of politicians being criticized.
I wouldn't say that plumbers, schoolteachers and police officers are notably better people, or more competent, than accountants, bankers or lawyers. Bankers are in the line of fire at the moment but the financial catastrophe they led us into was not the result of incompetence or dishonesty, on the whole, but hubris which went unchecked by governments and investors, including ordinary citizens.
Momo,
Plumbers, double-glazing salesmen, roofers, schoolteachers, as individuals, may do less widespread harm than someone at the apex of power. Their impact on individual customers may, however, be considerable and the whole collectivity of tradesmen, professionals and public servants is of far greater import than most of the ruling party, who are mere foot soldiers with little control over the actions of the cabinet clique.
The European institutions are opaque because they are judged less important than national politics and the media don't spend time on throwing light on the doings of foreigners in distant cities, like Brussels and Strasbourg of which the much of the British public, among others, prefers to know as little as possible in case the facts interfere with their prejudices.
Okay, let’s get the differences clear between plumbers, double-glazing salesmen, roofers, schoolteachers on the one side and bankers on the other side. If someone of the first group does harm, they are usually punished, because what they have done is illegal. I don’t remember any successful campaign of lobbyists of the first group to alter legislation in their favour, to increase their incomes at the cost of economic stability. In the contrary, their incomes are decreasing. Now bankers: yes I remember a very successful campaign to de-regulate the rules of banking business, and it’s landed our economies in the mess.
Now, what are politicians doing? Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown said identical things in speeches a few months ago: they complained that the methods bankers had used were immoral. They were right of course. There are more things that are immoral though (ordinary theft for instance), but these are illegal as well, because no politician has thought of making them legal. It’s amazing, they tell us that bankers can legally do things that our governments (now) consider immoral, and get away with it. It wasn’t the bankers who altered the laws!
I see a lot of incompetence and dishonesty at the root of the present crisis, possibly hubris as well. And I blame politicians and the profiteers of these policies. Unfortunately most ordinary citizens don’t, because they don’t know exactly who is responsible (it must be “the doings of foreigners in distant cities, like Brussels and Strasbourg”). If more of us insisted on information, our media would deliver it, but our politicians wouldn’t like it at all.
Momo,
Contrast the voter turnout in Belgium (90%°) with the UK (34%) in 2009.For a start, voting is compulsory in Belgium but, I'm sure, that' s not the complete explanation. The way in which Europe is perceived in the two countries is quite different. In Belgium, the Parliament, Council and Commission are right in the heart of the capital of the country. Many Belgians work for the EU institutions and many more also benefit financially from their presence. 'Europe' is highly visible and an important part of the Belgian economy. London is dominated by Westminster and the City. No amount of helpful information about 'Europe' will produce the kind of favourable view that tangible evidence of the practical benefits can provide.
It's not by intelligent and informed discussion that electorates are swayed for the most part. The political debate is seen in terms of a struggle for power between the main parties. It's seen in emotional and personal terms as pink-cheeked, commanding and confident public schoolboy,David Cameron, getting the better of the worn out, one-eyed, glowering Scotsman, Gordon Brown. There is no such gladiatorial contest for power in Europe to capture the attention.
'Europe' is seen as a bureaucracy which imposes diktats on Britain which are either pointless or for the benefit of foreigners, subsidies for French farmers, opening 'British' fishing grounds to Spanish trawlers. This is the way the popular media portray it and they do it because it chimes in with the prejudices of consumers of 'news'.
So, we have to depend on politicians and other members of the élite who have an interest and understanding of 'Europe' to maintain Britain's participation in the European Union.
Eric,
In all EU countries the voter turnout is lower for European elections than national ones (except Belgium perhaps), and this isn’t surprising: the EP has nothing to decide. Living on an island means of course that you feel less advantages of European integration—if I move a bit north everything becomes gradually more Danish, until I am really in Denmark. It seems only natural not to emphasise the border in between.
Don’t misunderstand me: I don’t want to invent a strategy to increase the turnout, I take the low turnout as a sign that most voters find the EP unimportant—which is true.
Of course I am aware that there is more euro-scepticism in Britain than elsewhere, but here the attitude is not completely unknown either. What is worse, this attitude is deliberately exploited by our governments to shift responsibility for everything unpopular to the incarnation of everything evil in Brussels. “Europe” is run by governments, not parliaments or people. I hope we all develop the impulse to ask our respective governments what they have done, when they utter “the EU has decided …” the next time. And loudly!
I want to shift as much power as possible back to people and parliaments, and that on both the national and the European level. There is an interaction, or vicious circle, between politicians secretly cheating and a public that’s not really interested. It must be tackled at both ends.
Are there really still Spanish trawlers in British fishing grounds? I thought all of them are emptying the Somali fishing grounds now, and thus driving Somali fishermen to piracy. ;-)
"The onus is not on politicians to galvanize the citizens of a democratic country; You're talking about demagogues there."
Not necesarrily Eric. I have no objection to a bit of tub thumping but really I'm talking about ideas and personal integrity. If you look at those in the public eye thirty or forty years ago you would be seeing both nasty and nice, and varying levels of competence and savvy. But right across the spectrum you saw mostly remarkable people who would be doing much better for themselves if they did something else: There's no modern equivalent to Enoch Powell, Harold MacMillan or Barbara Castle. Almost without exception modern politicians are doing a job they could have discussed with their school careers officers. They've learned their trade as does an accountant or public relations expert and are not there because they have passionate beliefs and ideas. Just listen to Brown and Cameron bouncing from one position to another as their focus group results vary. Inspiring people is part of the politician's job description and I think it perfectly apposite to point out that this quality is wanting.
This is not "Bitching about politicians while accepting no responsibility to be even coherent or informed". I consider it be part of my "minor effort" and I quite agree with you about citizen's duties.
"I wouldn't say that plumbers, schoolteachers and police officers are notably better people, or more competent, than accountants, bankers or lawyers. "
If plumbers were as incompetent as those who run our banks then we would really be in the S!@t! Probably about waist deep. I quite agree that bankers shouldn't be scapegoated for that particular sub-crisis but that doesn't stop me from holding them in general contempt.
Momo,
Perhaps I'm out-of-date about the whereabouts of Spanish trawlers. Anyway, the principle is that foreigners are seen as trespassing on 'our' fishing grounds with the permission of the devil's agent, the European Commission.
I don't think the British public will be really interested in the European Parliament while it is relatively powerless. Personalities and power are what 'Europe' needs, given what impacts on the psyche of the voters. Exhortations and information are of little effect when the practical realities are not in place.
bigC,
Enoch Powell (and Barbara Castle) were politicians of principle. The same cannot be said of Harold MacMillan, who was outstandingly cynical and insincere. Enoch Powell was a sincere, erudite and élitist fascist. Principled socialists are not absent from the British Parliament. I would nominate George Galloway as the shining light in this respect.
Eric,
Unfortunately, EU directives are seen as something foreign everywhere in the EU, not only in Britain. In a few weeks we all will be informed that the devil’s agent imposes the Stockholm programme (which is another big step towards a surveillance state) on us and that there is nothing we can do against it. No-one will tell us that our own governments and the Council of Ministers have negotiated this for a year, we are meant to believe that some foreigners in Brussels invented this.
See what I mean? So far this tactic has always worked. I am not only talking about the powerlessness of the EP, this weakens the national parliaments too. It doesn’t matter if we are interested in the EP, the bottom line is that there is some parliamentary control.
Momo,
Co-operation is just harder to understand than conflict. The media reflect the primitive psychology of the majority of voters by portraying the situation as a them and us conflict, with us being proud Brits and them being sinister foreigners. There is no way that you can argue people out of this position.
Eric,
Do you believe in the stupidity of the voter? I don’t. Only if voters can’t change things, they will be un-interested. In a system that gives everyone the right of participation (aka democracy) the interest will grow automatically, and the media would notice that quickly.
And, to anticipate BigC's criticism: no, I don't have illusions about democracy in a bourgois state, but institutions can be moved towards democracy, they needn't stay as un-democratic as they are now.
No the voters are not as stupid as many politicians think they are. The voters have already sussed that quite a lot of new laws are just imposed on them from the EU, and no matter how they vote makes not a jot of difference, so they don't bother.
What the EU is doing is draining the life blood from National Parliaments and so from the democratic process itself. The EU Parliament is basically a joke, and a sick one at that. If it weren't so it would have taken very strong action against the commission as their accounts remain unsigned for the past 10 years as they are so riddled with fraud.
Many of us are not surprised by all this. The EU has always been a project of the elites. It is a top down exercise and always was. It is built on sand and will eventually collapse as all 'Empires' eventually do.
Universally, voters are not stupid, but they sure can be incredibly gullible and ill-informed. President Obama's poll numbers are certainly evidence of "buyer's remorse". But I suggest it is probably true (an sad) that the majority of voters spend more time planning their next vacation than studying the issues before an election. Their focus is more narrow--making a living, taking care of families, living individual lives. Political awareness is a very low in priority for most people until they are personally touched by the issues.
As the EU flounders, I wonder how long it will last once the majority wakes to the personal cost of submission to the EU elites.
Owly,
The fraud in the EU is committed by nationals of the member states and the failure to prevent it is the responsibility of national governments who allocate EU funds.
You are factually in error when you claim that EU accounts have not been 'signed off'. You are a prime example of voter ignorance and susceptibility to media manipulation.
Really ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7092102.stm
Yes, Owly. Member states have a responsibility to monitor EU expenditure disbursed by them. The Court of Auditors draws attention to irregularities and the approval of the accounts depends on the European Parliament.
You are a prime example of the ignorance of the European voter, nurtured by the media which thrives on the credulous and lazy-minded.
Momo,
I don't think it's stupid to vote according to what you think is in your interest or to be emotionally involved in a struggle for power between highly visible personalities. National politics provides this appeal to self-interest and the excitement of a slightly cerebral boxing match.
European politics lacks this kind of appeal.
Eric,
Well, I think it’s in all our interest to look very closely at how our governments grab powers of the legislative via the EU. More thrilling than every election campaign of highly visible, but almost interchangeable personalities, I should think. I hope for a lot more awareness of how this works. This could be done when the Council starts to take advantage of Lisbon Treaty in earnest. If we don't watch out all institutional politics will lack any kind of appeal pretty soon.
I don’t see any signs of the EU floundering, Mike. Don’t take Owly’s predictions more seriously than Solve’s: they are based on wishful thinking, not analysis. Though I must say analysis of where the EU is going is extremely difficult just now, there are too many parameters changing now, not only Lisbon, but also the economic situation. Possibly we are going to have many different “speeds” within the EU and the Euro-zone, which would mean less cohesion, but not floundering.
There should be enough issues voters feel personally touched by in the near future. Mike, where is the difference in personal cost whether the elites who want submission are national ones or European?
There will be two significant events this year. The first will be the stresses and strains within the Eurozone. I draw your attention to the situation in Greece, but there is a problem with all the 'Pigis'. The second major event could be the election of a Conservative Government in the UK. Such a government will be backed by a profoundly Eurosceptic parliamentary party. The issue of the non-referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will rear its head yet again. In 2013 there needs to be a new EU budget. That could be a very handy bargaining chip for the UK.
I think that's a legitimate question. Probably the answer is more culturally dependant. I see a hint in the Swiss minaret decision in which national decisions are preferred over extra-national ones. It's just less palatable to have an external body impose policy on a sovereign nation. Like the old adage, "Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't"
You on the other hand probably have no problem with the EU dictating policy to Germany. Not to be rude, but having outsiders dictate policy to your country has been a familiar paradigm since the end of WWII. But not everyone may be so accomodating.
Mike,
The EU does not dictate policy to the member states. The Council has the last word and it's made up of the governments of the member states.
Switzerland is not actually a member of the EU.
The Conservative Party will most likely form the next British government. It's not particularly Eurosceptic in British terms. The true Eurosceptics are fringe loonies like UKIP.
UKIP beat the Labour Party and LibDem Party in the recent EU elections with 16.5% of the vote. They seem to be far more mainstream and representative than you. What a surprise.
Owly,
UKIP are fringe loonies. That's why they stir up passionate support from unthinking nitwits.
Ah so anyone who votes Labour or LibDem is an 'unthinking nitwit'. Explains so much.
Mike,
These decisions aren’t extra-national, they are supra-national. I don’t think public opinion in Germany is much different from the rest of continental Europe on this: most of us see EU decisions as mutual or at least reciprocal, but not the “EU dictating policies”. Even the Spanish fishing quota has been paid for with restraint on other issues. On the continent most resentment is aroused on the question whether large countries crush the small ones or small countries have a weight that’s out of proportion (and both sides have a point there—inevitably).
Owly’s attitudes don’t thrive on the continent, and are controversial even in Britain.
I think you have a completely wrong impression of the Swiss attitude on the European Human Rights Court. The only “EU dictate” they feel uneasy with is immigration from EU countries. Especially Germans, but also some French and Italians. Their economy is one of the strongest just now, there is no language problem, and Switzerland has signed Schengen Treaty (no dictate either, of their own free will), which means they can’t keep us out. And Switzerland isn’t represented in the Council of Ministers, because they are not a EU member. They are sitting on the fence, and they don’t like it there.
Owly,
Greece’s small economy isn’t the problem, but Italy and Spain might be. In the short run this makes the Euro weaker, which isn’t bad. In the long run I wouldn’t risk a prediction about any currency just now.
Do you hope for a renewal of the policies that on the continent were unanimously called the “British blackmail”? Well, we will see if the Tories try that again.
Greece could well become a far bigger problem than you realise. You ought to look at the Bond Market and the price of Greek debt relative to German debt. There is also major civil unrest in Greece which will probably get a lot worse when Papandreou has to implement swinging cuts in the bloated public sector.
As to what you call 'British blackmail' you will find that the Tories are far more difficult to deal with than your mates New/Old Labour. The tone of the Tory Parliamentary Party will be very Eurosceptic and I can see them demanding the return of some areas to National control. The whole EU Project has been built on lies and slicing away at the rights of the Nation States. It can work the other way around too as I hope you will soon discover.
Owly,
The Tories are no more Eurosceptic than Labour. The real nutters have been funneled off to single-issue UKIP.
Owly,
I appreciate your concern about the Euro of course. And I can perfectly understand that you don’t want to think about the British Pound. All currencies will be under pressure.
Greece would be easy to bail out, but if we do, Italy and Spain can demand the same. That’s why we won’t, at least not directly: Greece will have to solve its own problems. Fortunately for them there is major civil unrest in Greece. It can be hoped that the Greek economy won’t be throttled by a austerity policy, even if their government wanted this (which is not too likely anyway).
It’s quite possible that the weaker economies will want to leave the Euro in the next time: they could let their own currencies float, which would be an enormous advantage. Technically this would be difficult, but not impossible. Another solution would be a Euro-bond (the indirect bailout). Dangerous, but just possible. There are a lot more possibilities, but one of these two is most likely. As I said: less cohesion, but not floundering.
Meaning what exactly? A whole nation-project has been built on lies and slicing away at the rights of the EU? Aren’t you exaggerating British euro-scepticism (even in the Tory version) just a tiny bit?
The Greek economy is in a mess for two reasons: a bloated public sector, largely created by the Papandreau's which has a nice twist as George is holding the baby now, and secondly for ever having joined the accursed Euro in the first place. They, along with Spain, Italy etc were not eligible to join. The EU political elite chose to bend the rules, ignoring their own treaty. It would have taken 15-20 years for Greece to have been in a state to consider joining, but EU politics got in the way. What may happen is that the Bond Markets will 'pick' off the weaker members one by one, but at what cost ?
As to the EU project it has been built on lies and slicing away at the rights of the Nation States, which is why there is such apathy to politics across the EU. The process can work in reverse and why shouldn't powers be returned to the Nation States ? I hope the next Tory Government is very Eurosceptic, but for preference I would prefer to see a referendum here on the Lisbon Treaty. What Parliament ratifies, Parliament may unratify. That could be fun.
Owly,
I wish you luck with Lisbon Treaty, but I think your Tories will say it’s too late, meaning they don’t want to be blamed, but they don’t want to undo the thing either. I wonder of course what powers you want back for your nation state seeing that you don’t take part in the Euro or Schengen anyway. Everything, meaning leave the EU altogether? Are you sure that a majority of Brits thinks like you? I doubt it.
The Greek economy isn’t in a mess. They are weak in producing things for export as they have always been, but that’s their main economic problem.
It’s the political and administrative side that’s a mess. Corruption is everywhere. And do you know how taxation works? The Greek state hasn’t developed any efficient means to check the incomes taxpayers declare to have, with the predictable result that all their citizens are too poor to pay tax. If a declaration isn’t plausible at all, it costs a bribe to have it accepted. A tax-payers’ paradise.
The bond markets will not have the option to pick anything in Greece: the state has no money to back anything, least of all foreign currency. The creditors can only hope that Greece sticks to the Euro! We can call it the Iceland league, and the bond markets will have to lump it. That could be fun.
You obviously didn't quite read, much less understand, what I wrote. The Lisbon Treaty is hated in the Tory Party and while it is probably correct to say the Tories wont hold a referendum post ratification, I can see trouble ahead. As I pointed out Greece, Italy, Spain etc were not eligible to join the Euro in the first place. So if the EU elite can bend the rules when it suits them then Britain can insist on similar treatment.
As to Greece I do know the country very well indeed and its economy is in a mess for the reasons I gave. It had a huge spike in inflation when the Euro (notes and coins) were introduced, but this spike in inflation was never reflected in any official statistics. What will probably happen is the German taxpayer will end up picking up the bill because they will have to back Greek debt. There isn't an alternative because you are all in it together. Its tax base is far better now than 20 years ago, but if the Greek state reformed its tax system they could increase the tax take, but this wouldn't go anywhere near to close the deficit.
There is an alternative—I even mentioned it—but of course it’s possible that our tiger-duck-government in their right-wing stupidity doesn’t see it (or, more likely doesn’t want it) and makes another big mistake for which the German taxpayer will be presented with the bill. I stick to my opinion on the Greek economy which obviously you didn't quite read, much less understand.
Owly, are you seriously telling me that at the time you joined nobody in Britain knew that Italy already was a member? Well, possibly Mike will believe you that. Or that the “EU elite could bend the rules” in order to let Greece, Spain and Portugal join and the British government was prevented to have their say? Come off it, everyone remembers that shrill voice.
I am afraid, your story of poor little Britain being oppressed by “EU elites” and badly in need of some revenge doesn’t sound very convincing. What’s more, your euro-scepticism is really rabid compared to the average euro-scepticism.
are you seriously telling me that at the time you joined nobody in Britain knew that Italy already was a member?
I said the EURO. All the countries I mentioned were not eligible to join the Euro at the time of its creation. None of them met the conditions laid out in the treaties. Why do you think they are all in such a state now ?? As ever this wretched project was politically driven rather than economically driven. It is basically 'half baked'. At the creation of the Euro the British stood aside as you surely remember. We were wise to do so, and we would be unwise to join now or in the immediate future because Sterling is a huge currency and it would be 'like an elephant in a rowing boat' to use a quote from the late Lord George.
As to Greece have you ever been to Greece ? And when did you last travel there ? I have seen the effect of the Euro there at close quarters. Not good.
Owly,
Britain didn't 'stand aside' from the euro, it just didn't qualify to join because of the incompetent fiscal management of the Tory government under John Major and Chancellor Lamont.
Wrong. Britain met all the terms save one: not being a member of the ERM.
Under the Maastricht Criteria the provision for total Government debt, which had to be below 60%, the following did not qualify: Belgium 122.2%; Denmark 65.1% (opt out); Germany 61.3%; Greece 108.7%; Spain 68.8%; Ireland 66.3%; Italy 121.6%; Netherlands 72.1%; Austria 66.1%; Portugal 62%; Sweden 76.6%. The UKs ratio was 53.4%.
Considering that Labour Party supported ERM membership, as did the LibDems, they all got it wrong. Also considering the 'incompetent fiscal management' we have witnessed over the last 12 years from this idiotic and moronic government, whatever Major and Lamonts failings may have been they were as nothing to 'Gordon the Moron'.
Don't you notice, Owly, that you are self-contradictory in saying that Britain met the terms but didn't meet the terms. It's equally nonsensical to say that various countries which adopted the euro 'didn't qualify' since they obviously did. Bringing Gordon Brown, retrospectively, into the question is sheer crackpottery.
Right, you said the Euro. I overlooked it, because it followed “Lisbon Treaty” a bit too closely.
Why is the Euro your problem then? Can’t you just lean back and be happy about the strength your Sterling? What do you think why I spent my holidays in London last autumn, by the way? The sudden attractiveness of the British Pound played a role.
I don’t know how often I have been in Greece, and I know people who live there. Now scroll up and look what I said about the Greek economy. The disparity of their imports and exports: Greece’s main economic problem. And of course the euro adds to this problem.
Come to edinburgh next time. Europeans are much more welcome here.
Post new comment